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.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (12245)	6/15/2002 12:45:27 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12475

William Hickman, I will proceed to express my opinion to some of the points you make by quoting from your post first and follow up with mine. <<....I am not sure if you are advocating that Kashmir cannot become independent because other states (areas?, provinces?)in India desire the same thing, but IF you are I for one do not accept that argument....>> I do not accept that argument either <<....the circumstances under which Kashmir became part of India are entirely different ..>> I agree on that also. <<....People have argued on this forum that the withdrawal of Kashmir from India is the end of secular India...>> I do not agree with that. If Kashmir separates from India, India will still continue to be a secular country. The next Indian president is likely to be a Muslim, India's secularism is enshrined in its constitution. It would need more that 2/3 votes to change that. <<...To my mind the concept of an Indian nation is a very fragile one...>> What would you call Pakistan, a fragile concept also? Let us compare the two for a while. India has had democratic elections consistently. The elected govts. no matter from which political parties, have had control of the borders, its internal security, a good economy with a significant level of trade with Western countries. If this performance does not serve as a indication that the existence of India makes sense, then we need to determine if Pakistan has had the same level of performance on the secular issue, the economic front etc. In Pakistan even the Muslims are second class citizens (the Ahmadiya sect) <<...If the idea of Indian nationhood is so weak it can't survive Kashmiran Independence then maybe India deserves to fail as a nation...>> I agree. But to me the question is not whether Kashmir needs to be independent of not. As I understand, Pakistan is pushing for the entire state of J&K to become part of Pakistan. And the Indians are saying no in support of the independent minded Kashmiris, the few that are still there in that region in spite of threats to their lives and property by Pakistani insurgents. The PoK has been rid of independent minded Kashmiris by the Muslim fundamentalists. Would involving the present implanted residents of PoK in a plebiscite be relevant now? My opinion, freeze the international borders at the LoC and move on. Get the Al Qaeda since they are deflecting the focus from themselves to this issue by raising this issue now.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (12245)	6/15/2002 12:47:01 PM
From: Nandu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12475

Hickman, The Republic of India has endured for fifty years, and will not break up in the concievable future, despite your fantasies. The Kashmir problem didn't start when Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession. It started when Pakistan invaded independent Kashmir, in violation of the standstill agreement they had both signed. This historical fact is proof that an independent Kashmir is simply not viable. Enjoy your fantasies. Bye.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (12245)	6/16/2002 12:34:06 AM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

William, You make several important points. The attitude of India and most Indians seems to be "to hell with the Kashmiris or their welfare, we want to keep this land because it is ours!". Well, that is not going to work. You cannot hold things together by force. It has to be only by consent.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (12245)	6/17/2002 9:35:45 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

And just why should India let Kashmir secede?? And end up with a bigger border with Pakistan (which is not going to put up with any shit from Kashmirans and whcih will definitely take over Kashmir to the detriment of the Kasmirians just as they screwed the East Bengalians and just as they are screwing the Sindhis). That brings up another intersting point. Why not let Sindh secede from Pakistan? They are being kept literally as slaves with no voice in the Govt. Their taxes are being diverted to Punjab and so is their water supply. Basically, I think everyone who has something to lose by staying in an association or gain by getting out of an association would want to do so. Nehru and Jinha split the country for their own selfish reasons and the Britishers were only too happy to oblige. here we are trying to secede from Los Angeles county and have 2 chances. SLIM and NO WAY IN HELL. reason for splitting - we pay heavy taxes and get very little in return. We could use all that money to better our lives. If we cant secede from LA County, I dont see why India should let Kashmir secede from it. Kashmir cant fight and win a civil war. If they join Pakistan on their own or by force, the peiople of Kashmir will be worse off. Their bets bet is to join India. let any Indian then own property and businesses in kashmir. And you will see the prosperit that this act can bring to kashmir and its people. i dont think you can argue with that.