PDA

View Full Version : 2 Million troops on the border



Pages : [1] 2 3

vasanth
05-22-2002, 06:17 AM
Just a quater million pakistan troops are facing two million indian solders on the Line of controll in Kashmir. The Indian prime minister has called on the troops to fight a decesive battle.. India for the first time in 50 years is now ready to cross the LOC(Line of controll) to capture pakistan held kashmir and eradicate all the militant groups.. Do you think there will be a war.. If so who will win..

RobS
05-22-2002, 06:24 AM
Since India is already shelling the area, and India seems up for a war I can see it being more likely than not.

If the war stays conventional, the people selling weapons will win, the innocent people living in the combat areas will lose.
However, given the context of the question, I think India would win, ie make territorial advances and acheive their aims, the rest of the worlds response and the aftermath would be interesting to say the least.

If NBC is used I should imagine everyone will lose.

vasanth
05-22-2002, 06:38 AM
Well i think India had enough.. Instead og bleeding slowly to death in the hands of the terrorist.. It is better for it to finish this affair once for all...

dayknight
05-22-2002, 06:56 AM
nah i think pakistan will win, since india has too many corrupted military officers.
remember kargil...

realisticly speaking: there will be no war, but only short battles.
(like usual)

Commander
05-22-2002, 06:58 AM
noone wins in these kinds of war except for the ppl who sells the wepons as rob mentioned b4. but the country that will "WIN" the war, would proly depend on the kind of alliance

Jet_Master
05-22-2002, 06:58 AM
that is true. india has been putting up with terrorism for a pretty long time. and it is about time to take back kashmir which was unjustly taken.

i think it is only fair, dont you think so?

vasanth
05-22-2002, 09:37 AM
Yes i think so...
And what corruption in Kargil.. India won the kargil. Some people here dont know what they are speaking about...

vasanth
05-22-2002, 09:45 AM
May I start by talking about Spiderman? [Yes, I know I should be writing about war, and terrorism, and how sad it is to live in a bad neighbourhood, but bear with me.] The Spiderman, by the way, is not the record-making movie released a couple of weeks ago, but the comic-book that began it all forty years ago.




The tale runs that young Peter Parker, a neurotic teenager, gained spider-powers after being bitten by a 'radio-active' spider. His first reaction was to use his powers only as much as it would benefit him. While leaving a television studio one day, he allowed a burglar to escape; asked why, he shrugged and told the guards that it was none of his business. Later that day, the same criminal killed Parker's beloved uncle, Ben. The story ended with the moral: 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

Think of this as an allegory for what is happening in South Asia. The "great power" is the United States. Ben Parker, the victim who was let down, however accidentally, is the Indian public. And the burglar? Well, I leave that to you!

After the attack on Parliament on December 13 last year, there was immense international pressure on India. The recurrent motif was that Delhi should not react in haste. The Americans, specifically, were insistent that India give General Musharraf more time to act against the militants running amok in his country. While the Government of India arranged for the Indian Army to be deployed in strength on the border, there was no crossing of the international border. [Nor, for that matter, of the Line of Control.] But what was the result?

The training camps, as many as one hundred of them, are back in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir [call it what you will]. India believes that up to three thousand 'volunteers' are being instructed in the finer details of their chosen craft in these outposts.

Next, there have been reports coming out of Pakistan that General Musharraf struck a devil's bargain with some militant outfits before that farcical referendum. [These allegations have been made by Pakistanis and independent Western journalists, not Indians.] It seems that three of every four militants who were imprisoned following American pressure have been released.

So much for the fruits of India's restraint! Small wonder then if the leadership in Delhi has little faith in the soothing words coming out of Washington. If there is a measure of anger against Pakistan, there is also disgust at what India perceives as the United States' double-dealing vis-a-vis South Asia.

From Delhi's perspective, the United States has done precisely nothing to put pressure on General Musharraf, which is precisely what it had promised back in December. Instead, in the name of strengthening its ally in the 'war against terrorism' the United States has given General Musharraf a blank cheque in South Asia. I am not saying this is necessarily correct, but it is an accurate report of how Delhi feels.

General Musharraf is in a much better position to ward off Indian retaliation in some ways than he was in December. He has had time to mend fences with some of the militant groups, if not all of them. He has had time to ensure that his troops have taken their base positions. He has given the militants enough breathing space until the snow melted in the Himalayan passes.

What has India gained? Nothing much. A soldier's comment sums up the mood rather well. "Previously, they [the terrorists] used to attack us directly. Now that we are posted at the border in full strength, they are making a target of our wives and children instead."

Obviously, the atmosphere, both in the armed services and among civilians, is one that is sullen.

I believe that there is little room any longer for a third party to intervene as the United States did five months ago. When the Union home minister announced in Parliament that India must look to its own defences, he spoke as much to Washington as to Islamabad.

But what exactly are India's options? Speaking of putting diplomatic pressure, as the Left continues to do, is silly. The only nation capable of doing so is the United States -- and it shall not do anything of the kind until the campaign ends in Afghanistan. Business links between India and Pakistan were minuscule at the best of times, so snapping them is little more than a gesture. Stopping cricket matches isn't a gesture that will shake militant groups. What does that leave but armed retaliation in some measure?

There is little talk any longer in New Delhi of "calibrated responses" as there used to be immediately after the December 13 attack. I am afraid any minister who speaks in such a manner would invite derision at best. The Congress (I) spokesman got it right when he said that asking the high commissioner of Pakistan to leave Delhi was something that should have been done a long time ago. And Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa has already asked for a declaration of war. The interesting point about this last fact is that even in the deep South there is a genuine dislike for Pakistan. Obviously, pressure is mounting across India for Delhi to take some tangible action.

And the mood in Delhi too has shifted. It is no longer a question of 'whether' but of 'when' as one man put it to me.

Can we trust the Americans when they say that General Musharraf can deliver the goods, and any replacement would be worse? We have heard that story before -- only to see the wolf descend upon innocent women and children in Kashmir.

But remember the moral of Spiderman, you Americans! Ignore the growing intolerance and fundamentalism in Pakistan at your own peril; exercise your power now, or weep later over slain innocents of your own!

Unregistered
05-22-2002, 12:02 PM
is kashmir/terrorist attacks worth a nuclear war over ???? no, what is ????

conventional war ??? not for outsiders to say really is it ???

i personally feel the USA has little understanding about other nations, to India fighting Pakistan is similar to the US 'war on terrorism', the USA has understandably gone bananas over Bin Laden, but basically speaking didn't give a damn about the IRA blowing up London.....

nothing is ever black and white, but India has generally speaking not been the aggressor in any of its wars.
simplistically speaking (its more complicated) they were not the aggressor in 1947, 1965 and 1971 with Pakistan nor in 1962 by communist china. and there are other incursions/skirmishes where generally speaking they were not the aggressor...

the wars with pakistan were always fought with one eye on the threat from China which limited India's effectiveness, and i don't recall India being beaten except by China (which still occupies Indian land).

India is a western style democracy, Pakistan a military dictatorship with links to Islamic fundamentalists whatever they say.....they only 'pretend' to arrest them....
China is also a dictatorship, and used to be very aggressive too...Tibet, attacking India etc.....

but all this being said, i think Indians ought to realise, that within Pakistan and many islamic countries, a fine line is being tread, the Pakistani leaders have to be very careful in treatment of the fundamentalists because of public opinion, and lest they take over the country....better the devil you know.....i'm sure you'd prefer Pakistan as it is rather than a strict Islamic state.

and i wish both sides would shut up about nuclear war...good grief.....millions and millions could die, its not worth it !!!

stevey
05-22-2002, 12:05 PM
good grief, logged out again !!!!

ygfperson
05-22-2002, 01:21 PM
the indian-pakistani conflict is nothing like the american war on terror. our attack was unprecidented. india has been in conflict for a long time, especially between hindu and muslim portions of the country. but i'm not going to pretend i know more than an actual resident of the country...

a better question to ask is: why is there a conflict? then act upon the answer to that question. a decisive victory will not make matters better. it will show india as an aggressor, and pakistan as a weak and defenseless nation. (they are outnumbered 8 to 1).

this tough talk will accomplish nothing. even if there is a war, i doubt anyone will care. (except for you, vasanth, as a resident of india). no matter what reasons either country has for declaring war, it will end again in a stalemate, with more people dead, border lines inched in a direction, and a un-brokered peace agreement.

lostminds
05-22-2002, 02:11 PM
Don't blame the problems on the americans. I will be the first to admit that America is not perfect. With great power comes great responsibility, yes that is true but with it comes many hard choices. America is usually the first to come to the aid of countries in trouble, but what response do we get? We get the spite of the countries we help, we get outcries from every other country that we did stuff wrong. We are the so called "great western evil" When things start going wrong we either get yelled at to help or yelled at when we help. Yes I do feel bad for what is happening in other countries especially india. Don't take all that wrong but I'm tired of seeing people blame america for all their problems. Netherlands blaming the U.S. for their increase in crime, Germany screaming in outrage that a US base is cutting down some trees while everyday you see hundreds of trees being cut down my germans without a tear shed. Sorry if I have offended anyone but that was just my 2 cents... (on a side note CNN is so biased it ain't funny)

stevey
05-22-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by lostminds
Don't blame the problems on the americans. I will be the first to admit that America is not perfect. With great power comes great responsibility, yes that is true but with it comes many hard choices. America is usually the first to come to the aid of countries in trouble, but what response do we get? We get the spite of the countries we help, we get outcries from every other country that we did stuff wrong. We are the so called "great western evil" When things start going wrong we either get yelled at to help or yelled at when we help. Yes I do feel bad for what is happening in other countries especially india. Don't take all that wrong but I'm tired of seeing people blame america for all their problems. Netherlands blaming the U.S. for their increase in crime, Germany screaming in outrage that a US base is cutting down some trees while everyday you see hundreds of trees being cut down my germans without a tear shed. Sorry if I have offended anyone but that was just my 2 cents... (on a side note CNN is so biased it ain't funny)

i agree
and the Uk is generally the US's most loyal ally, so most people in the UK agree too.
nobody's blaming anything on the US apart from the Indian gentlemen thinks you interfere generally on the side of Pakistan, which is probably largely true from his point of view, but if so its possibly a responce to the great help Pakistan has been in the 'war on terror'.....my own gripe is that the UK also had its own mini war on terror, and most Americans ive spoke to were not sympathetic especially with the result that some would say we lost it.......

i could be wrong but it seems to me the USA has relatively little understanding of everyone elses wars on terror...

India/pakistan war is between them, its nobody elses fault....but altho india will be the agressor this time, they will be doing it cos they are sick of terror attacks.....
i would expect india to win a major victory if they attack, but i'm not sure where it will get them, possibly may result in a phyrric victory giving more voice to extremism in Pakistan...

and if anyone throws nukes around, we could all suffer from the fallout..... that would be insane.....

Jet_Master
05-22-2002, 07:04 PM
i would expect india to win a major victory if they attack, but i'm not sure where it will get them

i know where it will get them. it will be a repetition of what happened when india got independence from the british in 1947. there were communal right everywhere: hindus vs. muslims.

those were bloody acts and meaning-less violence. everyone was demanding that the country of india be partitioned into two different countries - india, a hindu state and pakistan, a muslim state. gandhi tried his best to keep the nation together, but the problems got worse, and they finally had to give in.

i dunno why hindus and muslims cannot live in peace. it is the fault of both parties - i am not taking sides. if they could understand each other, none of this would be happening right now. for many of public of india and pakistan, it is more of a hindu-muslim war than an india-pakistan war!

even if india wins the war, it will just result in intra-national terrorism and riots like the ones going on in gujarat right now. i am disgusted of these riots. (one of the reasons i left gujarat and india - i got desperate) to tell the truth i was tired and kinda afraid too. anyway, war is not the solution.

but from the situation right now, PM Vajpayee has no option. The only option India has is to go to war. without help from USA or the UN, the war WILL happen. i hope someone will do something about it...

vasanth
05-22-2002, 07:34 PM
I do agree that there is a fight between Hindu's and Muslims but i feel that it is only a segment of the society. Both sides do have their part of extremist. But if you see there execpt Gujarath in other places they are living with harmony.. But one thing i am not able comprahend is why is that where ever there is a muslim country ... Why are they not able to live in peace with a neighbouring country...

And i do blame the Americans for playing a double eged sword game. For them it looks like one part of terrorism is not the same as terrorism in the other part. All these days the world used to shout at India saying that it gave no rights to the people of kashmir.

Now India is prepariong for an ELection in kashmir where any one from the Huriyat can also participate.. And now we see steped up violence.. From last 4 months itself India has killed more than 600 cross border terrorists. And here comes a bomb to India.. The senior huriyat leader Lone who was ready for elections and also oposed the foreign militants in Kashmir Gets killed...


How the hell can it be freedom strugle if the terrorists Massacring childrens and women in kashmir.. Are they killing their own people for freedom..

And when some one said that no country will care if there is a war.. America will. Because it has its troops in Pakistan and a war between the countries will affect it's war in afganistan.

Lets wait and see what happens time will speak for itself..

Jet_Master
05-22-2002, 07:56 PM
And i do blame the Americans for playing a double eged sword game. For them it looks like one part of terrorism is not the same as terrorism in the other part.

i find that quite agreeable. if i remember correctly, until about 2 years ago, US was supporting Pakistan. then changed when they saw that Pakistan was not being reasonable and that is around when musharaff came into power. now we dont know where america stands. with the 'war on terrorism' going on, one might think they are for india, because india is not directing its attack on pakistan, but on terrorists that pakistan is allegedly supporting and hiding on their land. so why is US waiting so long for. if it is war on true "terrorism"USA would care about this. but all they are concerned is about gaining attention by going on a "bin-ladin hunt".

Commander
05-22-2002, 09:06 PM
us also has to look out for it's own interests. If india an pakistan do go to war, as in my opinion, us will have to help one of them, but which one? will it be india, or will it be pakistan who is us getting help from in it's wot. either way, there will be some loss for the us. i don't think that us wants to loose the cooperation from pakistan or the realationship with india, so us will have to hold the war till us's own war finishes. but i must warn you, in case of war, it will be really hard stopping the countries from using nukes.

one more thought, i heard that kashmir is one of the most beautiful places on earth!!!!! y would you wan't to screw it up????? do you want to c the whole place blown up???....good, cause neither do i...:mad:... damnit!! who the **** give a damn about who has it....now I know what u r gonna bring it up.......but i don't care, a nuclear war, which will blow up kashmir into pieces, just to regain control of the place, is just not worth it:mad:

novacain
05-23-2002, 12:32 AM
India has come a long way from the colonial times. I think it has turned a full circle.

I wish Ghandi's non violent resistance was adopted universially. He certainly had an impression on me.

India seemed to worship his memory and ideals, when I visited in the '80's. Had such a strong independence, everything had to be made in India, no imports. A country with endless history and tradition (compared to mine). (I toured playing hockey, had a lot of fun with the guys from the colleges in New Delhi.)

There is no easy answer to the situation in Kashmir but there is a choice to be made by India. (I don't think Pakistan has the will or opportunity)

That choice is to go to war (easy but wrong) or to passively and patiently resist. (very hard but right)

nvoigt
05-23-2002, 01:07 AM
>Germany screaming in outrage that a US base is cutting down some trees

Cutting down some trees ? You want to turn a green, sprouting wood into a barren wasteland to practice tank maneuvering. Please note that just because it isn't marketed, you can't buy stickers and lolipops, something might still be a national park. You wanted to use squaremiles of German protected soil to play wargames and when you are done, you leave it that way for us to rebuild. I could understand that in the time when your positions here were in danger of immediate attack by the Warsaw Pact. What are you afraid of now ? Denmark ? The evil Swiss ? If you need to eradicate a healthy piece of nature, could you be so kind and do that in your own country ? I heard Redwood has some nice trees. I guess we send some Panzers over there, we need practice.

If you cut down our trees, it's our problem, but I fail to see why we shouldn't blame you for it.

Oh, and by the way, does the name Kyoto ring a bell ?

vasanth
05-23-2002, 02:36 AM
Well if pakistan bombs India it wont nuke kashmir.. But it will nuke Delhi tha capital of India and Bombay the economic capital of india and may be Bangalore the IT capital of India.... But take my word.. Pakistan will never use the nuke even if it means it is going to loose the war because it knows that in the next 6 minutes of launching it's misile .. India will make sure that there is no place on earth called pakistan... And the US trrops in their country will also make it difficult for them to use a nuek.. And on Gandian principles.. We still do follow them.. But there is a limit to our patience


I see many country asking us to practise restrain.. But how can they preach to us when they jumped to a war in afganistan... India is no small country that can be bullied by big brothers... Many countries see India as a huge market for their goods so they will not risk the relation.. Many US multinational companys such as pepsi, coke etc sell more products here than they do else where...

ANd i dont think US will support pakistan this time.. This is evident from the fact that it has decided not to get involved in the kashmir issue.. Secretly saying India can have it's way....

Well if terrorists attacked US every week will US ask the country harbouring them for peace talks for 50 years.. no it would jump to war the next day itself.. but India has waited for 0 years.. And it is time that we strike..

salvelinus
05-23-2002, 07:36 AM
From news reports I've read, India isn't blameless in the way it treats citizens, muslim citizens anyway, of Kashmir. They're sort of (sort of, not exactly) like Israelis and Palestinians. This doesn't excuse the terrorism of Pakistan based groups, but gives it some context.
What I want to know is, given that most Kashmiris are muslim and want to be part of Pakistan, why does the India want to keep it so desperately? This is a question, not an accusation.
These types of conflicts are almost always unwinnable for either side. Serbs and Croats are still ........ed about 1000 year old events, Israelis claim land promised them in the bible 3000 years ago, yada yada yada. My ancestors came from Scotland. I've got a beef with Cromwell back in the 1600's. Don't even mention those Norse Viking bastards. Death to anyone different from me!

Sounds pretty damn stupid, doesn't it. And btw, thinking Pakistan wouldn't dare to use nuclear weapons is pretty damn stupid. Not a case for "Duh! guess I was wrong..."

Jet_Master
05-23-2002, 07:47 AM
i heard that kashmir is one of the most beautiful places on earth!!!!! y would you wan't to screw it up????? do you want to c the whole place blown up???....good, cause neither do i...... damnit!! who the **** give a damn about who has it....

I agree that Kashmir is a beautiful place and a tourist station too. but i DO give a damn about it, and i am sure that every indian who knows even half of the truth cares and "gives a damn about it". If Kashmir remains in the control of Pakistan, it wont be a beautiful place for long. they are gonna transform it into a playground and a domain for the terrorist groups that dwell on (technically) Indian land like parasites. and what's worse is that pakistan supports them and fuels them. there are rumors that they pay the terrorists to continue their activities and occasionally terrorize india. they kill so many innocent civilians and women & children. that makes me sick!

so, if you want to see kashmir in its prime and beauty as it ever was, india has to regain control of that land. not only that, but Pakistan has to discontinue their terrorist activities near the border...

peace has no place now. maybe about 10 years before there might have been a chance, but now matters have gone too far.


most Kashmiris are muslim and want to be part of Pakistan, why does the India want to keep it so desperately?

i'l tell you what, kashmir had almost equal number of hindus and muslims. during the partition in 1947, many hindus and muslims splitted and moved away, but many still resided there. the terrorism in kashmir caused many of the hindus to move out because life became hell to them. they were the main targets of the terrorism. so, pakistan has no "legal right" on the land of kashmir. it politically and regionally belonged to india. during the partition pakistan agreed that the land it got was enough... but later, it attacks india saying that kashmir belongs to them! what kind of law is that?

Unregistered
05-23-2002, 08:03 AM
>>If so who will win..<<

There are no winners in a war.

seditee
05-23-2002, 09:23 AM
i hate to say it but the best thing that could happen to this world would be if pakistan was wiped off the face of the earth.

salvelinus
05-23-2002, 01:59 PM
Here's a question. When did India become a country? I know it achieved independence in the 1940's, but was it really a country before that, or before the British imposed a structure? The impression I get is that it was a mix of local kingdoms, various maharajahs ruling their own little areas, at least until the British came.
Admittedly, this view comes from Rudyard Kipling and the like. But was it a country, a nation, before the British?

salvelinus
05-23-2002, 02:03 PM
[i]Originally posted by nvoigt
What are you afraid of now ? Denmark ?
You bet! What's up with their furniture and architecture design? Don't even mention lutefisk. And didn't ABBA come from there? Reason enough to nuke 'em...

:eek:

Unregistered
05-23-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by salvelinus

You bet! What's up with their furniture and architecture design? Don't even mention lutefisk. And didn't ABBA come from there? Reason enough to nuke 'em...

:eek:

It is easy to tell your an american by how little you know about scandinavia.

lostminds
05-23-2002, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by nvoigt
Cutting down some trees ? You want to turn a green, sprouting wood into a barren wasteland to practice tank maneuvering. Please note that just because it isn't marketed, you can't buy stickers and lolipops, something might still be a national park. You wanted to use squaremiles of German protected soil to play wargames and when you are done, you leave it that way for us to rebuild. I could understand that in the time when your positions here were in danger of immediate attack by the Warsaw Pact. What are you afraid of now ? Denmark ? The evil Swiss ? If you need to eradicate a healthy piece of nature, could you be so kind and do that in your own country ? I heard Redwood has some nice trees. I guess we send some Panzers over there, we need practice.


I wasn't talking about the tank games or whatever it was in that instance yes it is wrong. I was talking about local german residence complaing about 10-15 trees being cut down to extend a road on the base. In that same week a few minutes from the town local german residence burnt down (the whole town took part in this) a house they suspected to be housed by druggies (which it wasn't because they picked the wrong house and burnt a house of someone who is on vacation) anyways they burnt down quite a bit of trees from that on top of that, they cut down 30 trees in a forest for what reason? to extend a parking lot. That is what I am talking about. And while I am at it since you seem to be getting so angry about stuff I might as well through this in since you seem to care for nature as you say. I have seen a whole flock of ducks eradicated by you germans who don't seem to know that when a 30k speed limit is put up that it means 30k not 100. It may not seem like much but the local pond is not the same without its 20 ducks floating around on the surface. I have seen them hit on purpose does your police care? no does it make the papers? no. Before you start spouting on how much destruction americans are causing why don't you stop and look on how much your own people are doing. We are visitors in your country we (should) ask before doing that stuff? if we are leaders aren't already. I love germany I have been here for so long already. I was there when the wall fell(yes at the wall), I celebrated as the two germanies united. Since that time germany has fallen I have seen it, you may not agree but it has. but i'm done with this post... Once again sorry if I offend but that is my feelings (and I could be wrong).

seditee
05-23-2002, 03:07 PM
there are champions in war. whether it is seen as a win, or not...is superficial.

salvelinus
05-23-2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered


It is easy to tell your an american by how little you know about scandinavia.
Well, I looked on a map and couldn't find scandinavia. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, etc, but no scandinavia. I was just having a little fun, don't get all worked up about it. Except the ABBA part, they're really a low point in any culture.

novacain
05-23-2002, 09:44 PM
>>But how can they preach to us when they jumped to a war in afganistan

We can't.

I just hope that you can show more restraint than the US (which I think was wrong). I don't have an answer for this. What the terrorists are doing to women and children is unforgivable and must be stopped.

I just wish war was not humans' major problem solving method.

Jet_Master
05-24-2002, 05:04 AM
Here's a question. When did India become a country? I know it achieved independence in the 1940's, but was it really a country before that, or before the British imposed a structure? The impression I get is that it was a mix of local kingdoms, various maharajahs ruling their own little areas, at least until the British came.


---------- Brief Medieval History of India ----------

India was a country since much before anyone now could recount! (ha ha ha). but, no, i am serious. India and the Hindu culture have actually existed much before most of the world religions emerged. india was not a political "country" in the technical terms as today. it was divided into many parts ruled by various maharajas as you pointed out. These maharajas were just kings of the land that they called their country - mind you, they did not see whole of india as their country. not until the 1600s did muslim rulers from afghanistan came to conquer india. these muslim rulers came from the arab settlements in afghanistan which was a close neighbor to india. these rulers were known as the "Mughal Rulers" and they ruled india (i mean almost all of india excpet some of the southern states) for until the 1800s or so. these were the most powerful rulers (Emperors) india had known and and they were responsible for conquering most of india and expanding their territories. these were some of india years of pride. later, by the time the british came, these rulers had fallen out of their prime. the weaker descendants slowly let the british take over. then they ruled over india until 1947 when india became an independent nation as we see it today.

Unregistered
05-24-2002, 09:29 AM
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/MAURYMAP.HTM
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MUGHAL/MUGHMAP.HTM
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTAMAP.HTM

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.html#Medieval India

if u look at that 1st link it shows a map where india(encompassing modern pakistan and banGLADESH) WAS FORMED into a single state (empire at least) in 250 AD.
the vast numbers of people, the sheer size and the fact that people were of widely disparate religions and cultures led to rise and fall of various ancient and mediaval empires..very complicated history as shown in the last link. but india was basically a single state ruled by the british since the 1800's, bearing in mind that germany and italy were also not single states until the 1800's either, altho they were at times in ancient and medieval history...
since the Indians wanted their own independant state it was going to happen and it was agreed b4 the 2nd world war which delayed matters, some indians even fought with japan against britain but the vast majority fought bravely for the british empire knowing independance was coming....
unfortunately (in my opinion) independance was rushed and the muslims and hindu's couldn't get along(with animonsities both recent and dating back 1000's of years), leading to partition of india into separate muslim and (mainly) hindu states (altho india contains many different religions inc more muslims than in pakistan and bangladesh). the basic aim was to give the muslim state land inhabited with majority muslims, india land with majority hindu). partitition led to immense slaughter and suffering, as animosity errupted and minority communities were left adrift in a sea of hostility.
kashmir was majority muslim but ruled fairly and popularly by a maharajah who was a HINDU. (nehru was aslo a hindu kaSHMIRI)
he thought his people were better off with india and opted for india. there was no referendum but he was broadly acting in the wishes of most of his people. pakistan said kashmir was mainly muslim and couldn't accept this so indian/paki troops fought over kashmir indecisely and it was partitioned, niether side accepting the decision...
1n 1964 and 1971 wars the situation was stalemate.
pakistan armed the afghan mujahdin against the soviets with US money and weapons (indeed it was the US's idea) and effectively created the taleban also. they then turned attention to kashmir creating and supporting terrorist groups to attack india. a lot of the money and weapons was that supplied by the US for the mujahadin but was 'redirected' against india.....this is what has led to the anti-american feeling in india.
most pakistani's hate india esp. over kashmir and broadly support the terrorists. stopping support to the taleban (due to US pressure) was difficult for the paki leaders, stopping support for the terrorists is possibly political suicide. pakistan has created radical islamic monsters and now is in a tricky position...
whether or not kashmir should have been pakistani in 1947 i don't know, but now the indians have to fight radical terrorists, to them it is similar to the US war on terrorism nomatter what most americans keep saying. you will not accept similarities with other peoples anti-terrorist fights and i don't know why.

broadly speaking i think this is the situation, IMO.......any comments/corrections from indians/paskistani's welcomed !!!!

stevey
05-24-2002, 09:33 AM
hey why do i 'pop out' if posting anything longer than a few lines ????

ihsir
05-24-2002, 10:32 AM
I think its time to put an end to all the nonsense created by the pakistanis and finish them once and for all. they are frankly terrorist supporters and who knows maybe even Osama is there.

Too bad this is a PG board otherwise there would have serious swearing in this post ;)

stevey:
you are correct but i'll add that the Britishers created more tension between the hindu/muslims relations while leaving India.

Clyde
05-24-2002, 10:49 AM
"he thought his people were better off with india and opted for india. there was no referendum but he was broadly acting in the wishes of most of his people"

Thats not what i've been told, I was under the impression that the vast majority of Kashmir wanted to be part of Pakistan (because they were muslim), so Kashmiri rebels fought to become part of Pakistan and so Pakistan sent in its army to help them.

ihsir
05-24-2002, 11:00 AM
It was not actually Nehru's wish about where Kashmir will belong.
It was the call of the king of Kashmir.

I'm not a history buff and dont particularly know in detail much about what happened in the past but what i know and care of is that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that is where it will stay.

It should be noted that Kashmir has [had] a considerable population comprising of non-muslims also there -> Kashmiri Pandits [Hindus], Sikhs, etc which along with a lot of muslims preffered to stay with India.

Jet_Master
05-24-2002, 05:34 PM
i'll add that the Britishers created more tension between the hindu/muslims relations while leaving India.

i agree totally. the hindus and muslims were in the fight for freedom against the british. the british used this technique (inspiring hate in both hindus and muslims against each other) to weaken the opposition and the rebellion. but this didnot work up to a very intense hate and anger until almost independence. The British kept brainwashing the indians (both hindus and muslims) to feight for their land and that india should be partitioned.

i hate them (the british people who did this - not all british people) for that among many other things.

Poor Gandhi suffered (not physically) so much because of the partition. it ripped his heart to hear that the country was being divided into 2 parts because of the religious discontent. He was in tears for a few days and for him, it completely killed the purpose of achieving independence.

if i could go back in time, i would beat up those british people who were in charge there.


**Note: No offense meant to anyone...**

stevey
05-24-2002, 06:59 PM
i thought the kashmiri's were ok about joining india, but i could be wrong i'd have to look further into it.

but this bollocks about blaming Britain for partition is totally wrong....
the British were intending to leave india as a modern democratic independant unified state. there was absolutely no intentition to partition india at all. the partition was due to religuous intolerance on both sides, the hindu's and moslems couldn't get along and were ripping the country apart....it was felt the only way round it was to partition the moslems and hindu's, and this was done as best as possible. before the British left, order was maintained, because of the mad rush for independance, understandable tho' it was, the religuous intolerance errupted violently and millions died. to blame this on the British is ridiculous, you (both sides) did it to yourselves....

religion, thats to blame....

Jet_Master
05-24-2002, 07:10 PM
but this bollocks about blaming Britain for partition is totally wrong....

sorry, stevey, but i have to disagree. if you studied indian history, you would have learnt that the british DID provoke the partition idea. they wanted to weaken the indian rebellion.


the British were intending to leave india as a modern democratic independant unified state.

i also disagree with that. ever since the independence talks became serious, they were using an excuse that india would not be able to govern itself. they kept saying that there would be no co-existance between the Hindus and Muslims and that there would never be peace. this went to the people's heads and they began wanting partition.

stevey
05-24-2002, 07:45 PM
well ive been reading a lot about india/pakistan lately and i have not got the impression that you are implying......ie british stoked all this hated up.
certainly it was touted that anarchy may previal if the British left, this was an excuse to stay sure, but also in some ways it was true....most british polititions knew independance was coming, from the 30's onwards, but a long slow independance was invisioned, not the mad rush it became....these things tend to snowball.

religous intolerance on both sides was to blame, not the british.
whether the british should have been there in the 1st place is a different argument, but to blame the british is ridiculous. partition was becos hindu's and moslems couldn't live in peace together.
Ghandi didn't blame the british. you think the british orchastrated the looting and murder and intolerance and religuous hated ???

""they kept saying that there would be no co-existance between the Hindus and Muslims and that there would never be peace""

yep, and we were right.

salvelinus
05-24-2002, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Jet_Master


sorry, stevey, but i have to disagree. if you studied indian history, you would have learnt that the british DID provoke the partition idea. they wanted to weaken the indian rebellion.



i also disagree with that. ever since the independence talks became serious, they were using an excuse that india would not be able to govern itself. they kept saying that there would be no co-existance between the Hindus and Muslims and that there would never be peace. this went to the people's heads and they began wanting partition.
Well, regardless of what the British did or did not want, the people on the ground are responsible for what they did, and do. Did the British encourage political turmoil between Hindus and Muslims? I don't see why they would, but even if they did, the British didn't fight and kill in the subsequent wars. The people who did that have to take responsibility for their actions.
I'm as leery as most in the US, anyway, about Islamic extremism and fundamentalism (not to mention Christian fundamentalism here, although it's not usually armed), but I don't see the point of fighting wars over issues decades or centuries old. Is Kashmir of some vital significance to India? Maybe so, but I haven't heard that, only that "it's ours!". Maybe there were lots of Hindus there decades ago; otoh, decades ago India wasn't an independent nation, either. Deal with the facts as they are today. Kashmir is a mostly Muslim area that wants to join Pakistan. Why not let it? Or set up some autonomous or confederation type system in between outright secession from India.
I could be wrong, but why does India want Kashmir so badly except for pride? If I was a Kashmiri and had a vote, I'd stay with India; for all it's problems, it is a democracy. But I'd be outvoted.
Is Kashmir worth all the trouble and suffering? If India keeps Kashmir, what does the future hold? Look at Israel and Palestine. Indian troops will be an occupying force in their own country, their very presence and rule just breeding more terrorism.
And yes, I think the US could learn this lesson in some areas as well. Repressing people does not make them amenable or receptive to you or your ideas, values, or presence.

Unregistered
05-24-2002, 08:07 PM
heres something written by a historian ->

""the breakdown of british rule saw the emergence of two great political movements, the indian congress party led by nehru and inspired by ghandi's ideals of an independant india containing the whole of the old british possessions in the region, and the 2nd movement was the muslim aspiration for a specifically muslim state carved out of the areas with a muslim majority. increasingly unable to control inter-communal tensions the post-war labour government rushed through a plan to divide the subcontinent as the quickest way to end the crisis building between hindu and moslem.
however partition became the biggest trauma in modern indian history, because no matter how carefully and impartially officials drew lines on the map to separate the hindu's and moslems, enclaves of the minority faith were stranded in a sea of hostility. this caused a refugee crisis and much slaughter and looting from both sides. the slaughter and bloodletting has left a legacy of hated, not easily quenched by time""

now this partition was rushed (because we were being kicked out basically), and mistakes made, but this partition was basically the moslem idea not a british idea, they wanted a muslem state, didn't want to be part of india in which moslems were a minority. moslems always want a separate moslem state.
the whole 'british out' movement was rushed, a long slow independance would have been better, but once the idea of independance started there was no stopping it, it accelerated.we did the best we could, mistakes were made, but the whole thing was due to religuous intolerance, to blame the british is just looking for someone to blame.......it was us who sluaghtered the minority moslems left stranded, and us who slaughtered minority hindu's left stranded ???
we caused hindu/moslem to fight and be intolerant of each other ???

unifying the country of india into one state was the british only mistake.....should have left it split up.

stevey
05-24-2002, 08:17 PM
that was me again.

vasanth
05-24-2002, 10:28 PM
Well who says majority of kashmiris want to join pakistan.. It is only a pakistani propaganda.. If those fellows were fighting for freedom would they kil their own childrens and wives... These fighters are actually terrorists from Pakistan or afganistan... And there is a real fight by a small group called th Huriyath. But most prefer a seperate country and they dont prefer joining Pakistan.. Who ever gave you this funny idea????

Well if you say it contains more muslims.. The entire India contains more musilm then Pakistan so you cannot expect the entire nation to be given to pakistan.. And you guys feel that Muslims in India hate muslim by the gujurath incident.. Well i agree that that incident was a shabby one by both communities.. But dont forget that important posts in india are occupied by muslims.. 30% of our army contains Muslims and The man behind india's Nuclear deterent is a Muslim.. And also dont forget that the kashmir chief minister.. Democraticaly elected is a Muslim.. And in another few months India in Kashmir is going for elections.. And the people can chhose any leader they want even the huriyat if they wish.. And now pakistan is trying to sabotage the election.... Well it is not because of pride we are fighting but becaue we respect every inch of our nation... Wel Pakistan always crossed the international border but India did not.. many parts of pakistan there is a political instability.. SO can India rush troops inside and claim that it belogs to us.. Well just because muslims are here id does not mean we have to give it to pakistan. india is a country formed by 100's of ethnic community.. India does not contain only Hindus and Muslims.. it contains more religion than any where else... SO India is a secular country.. And we will not bow down to a Isllamiic or fundamental country...


And you guys always shout of Gujurath.. We agree that it was a black mark on our nation.. But what did you Americans do after the sep 11th incident.. You started to harm any one wearing a turban.. Even hindus who wear turban.. Even destroyed their Business establishments.. And not to mention some groups in Britain which are real racist..




And about the britishers who invaded India.. I should thank them since they brought the entire country into one..

Clyde
05-25-2002, 05:02 AM
"Well who says majority of kashmiris want to join pakistan.. It is only a pakistani propaganda.. "

Heh and of course you are entirely un-biased on this issue.....

"Well if you say it contains more muslims.. The entire India contains more musilm then Pakistan so you cannot expect the entire nation to be given to pakistan"

Two entirely separate points, 1: Kasmir contains more muslims than hindus cannot be compared to 2: India contrains more muslims than Pakistan.

What you can compare is; 1: Kasmir contains more muslims than hindus, and 2: Pakistan contains more mulsims than hindus, and 3: India contains more Hindus than Muslims.

Why don't they just hold a referendum in Kashmir to decide whether Kashmir becomes part of India or Pakistan?

"India does not contain only Hindus and Muslims.. it contains more religion than any where else... SO India is a secular country"

Errr... secular != religion.

stevey
05-25-2002, 08:31 AM
"Well who says majority of kashmiris want to join pakistan.. It is only a pakistani propaganda.. "

theres been some long articles in the newspapers recently.
they are saying that (whatever the feelings in 1947) initially the 'guest fighters' that were attacking the indians in kashmir were broadly welcomed by most kashmiris. however they certainly are not now since these terrorists tried to impose their extremely strict Teleban-type interpretation of the Koran. they are very brutal, allowing no dissent and have been killing moderate kashmiri moslems as well as indians.

so its a confusing situation. i have also read that if there was a referendum, most kashmiri's would vote for independance. wouldn't that be a reasonable way out of the kashmir problem ???
or is kashmir not able to be totally independant ?? would it be economically viable ???

if it could stand alone as an independant state, i'm sure it would get attacked and abused by both sides seeking influence, esp. radical islamic terrorists, but it would seem a reasonable idea....better than constant pakistan/india wars and threats of nuclear wars...

Zewu
05-25-2002, 09:29 AM
The whole Kashmir should belong to Pakistan because of that the Indian part is the only Islam dominated part in the whole of India.

India was divided into three nations: Pakistan, India and eastern-Pakistan, which later became Bangladesh. There was an eastern-Pakistan just because of that that particular area (Bengali), is Islam-dominated.

Therefore, the whole Kashmir should also have been sectioned into Pakistan from the very beginning, because these three nations borders were drawn mainly after religion.

Btw, I wonder how Lamaism (Tibetan version of Buddhism), spread to Mongolia.

Jet_Master
05-25-2002, 04:11 PM
i wont post many more msgs in this thread. i dont why, but a lot of people seem to have a wrong impression of what actually happened in india during the british rule. people who are from india/pakistan have had parents/ancestors who lived during the period and know for fact what happened. many people here seem to think that they know everything, and that they are right and others are wrong about it.

salvelinus
05-25-2002, 04:48 PM
I know fairly little about India/Pakistan history, and don't pretend to know more. What I do see is at least some of the current situation, which reminds me of squabbling children.
Otoh, if you stop posting your views, don't be surprised if others don't see your side.