Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (42622)	5/20/2002 7:42:04 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 50167

>If 600,000 are not enough bring more that is how a true legitimate democracy should really operate and deny them right of self determination with force that should cripple them. I am least bothered but when you fail to control you abuse us that is my only problem.> Again you start this pretense of Kashmiri struggle and subjugation (I am not saying life is hunky dory in Srinagar). Pakistan has attacked India previously over Kashmir. Just that for the last two decades they have been doing it through a proxy war. It is more a military operation and less of a freedom struggle now. The original Kashmiri militants have turned a new leaf. But islamic miltants are continuosly being pumped into Indian kashmir with support from Pakistani military. As to the right of self determination, Kashmir has had several elections over last 50 years. Unfortunately, I hear that they are as fixed as the Pakistani ones. Maybe Kashmir will fit right into Paksitan after all. :-) Hopefully, the latest elections in Kashmir will be fair and have active participation from all stakeholders! Arun

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (42622)	5/20/2002 8:10:24 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

>The two countries ought not to be in this situation in the first place; and if at the time of partition in 1947 Jawaharlal Nehru had not regarded Kashmir as his original home, its ruler, Hari Singh, probably would not have been encouraged to take its Muslim majority into India. But we are where we are: the problem is how to move on from here> Thanks to the Pakistani attack on Kashmir, Hari Singh was forced to accede to India. Indian troops moved in after the proxy Pakistani army nearly reached Srinagar. Hari Singh did not accede to India immediately on partition. He and the Kashmiris wanted an independent nation. I repeat. Pakistan had no claims to Kashmir in 1947 at the time of Partition. India had no claims either. It was the decision of Hari Singh as it was a princely state. Pakistani proxy army attacked Kashmir and illegitimately occupied Kashmir. Only then Hari Singh accede to India. And that was done formally, before Indian soldiers moved in. As to the UN referendum, Nehru took the issue to the United Nation, not Pakistan. For at that time, the Kashmiris were not interested in joining with Pakistan. And Nehru was talking about the will of people in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of the Kashmiris, was at odds with the Muslim League and was Nehru's good friend. Sheikh Abdullah's son and grand-son are still dominant in Kashmir politics. Arun