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: Nandu who wrote (12272)	6/18/2002 12:42:40 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12475

Nandu, I am an Indian also. And like the democracy that we are, we are encouraged to think freely which may result in differing opinions. On this issue where I understand you to say, "…we are Indians and we will not allow the breakup…" is something I have to take issue with. Allow me to take you back to the history of the breakup of West Pakistan and East Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh. India did support the Bangladeshis and they may have all the reasons for the support. My reason that India did the right thing there is that they determined that it was a movement by the people of erstwhile East Pakistan to move away from West Pakistan. This movement also resulted from Mujibur Rahman, who was democratically elected by the entire Pakistan people, being denied the Prime Ministership by the West Pakistani dominated Pakistani military and the West Pakistan Punjabi lobby. Now, the Indian army moved in, fought alongside the rag tag Bangladeshi freedom fighters and moved out of Bangladesh after the objectives were achieved. So India did take part in the breakup of a country. To me it made sense to do that. Let us see if that applies to Kashmir. In my opinion Kashmir got invaded similar to Iraq/Kuwait as mentioned by Bill Hickman. In the case of Kuwait, the US army did not stay on in Kuwait since the Kuwaitis did not want that. They wanted the US to leave. In the case of Kashmir, according to the rules of accession agreed to by the leaders of India, Pakistan and Britain, the king acceded to India. Hence that accession is played by the rules. So technically India has a claim over the Pakistani side of Kashmir. But Nehru's vision called for the building of India economically and hence he did not want to waste India's resources in a war. So he ordered his troops to halt at the line which came to be called the LoC. And besides I think that what he did was a sensible compromise since Pakistan controlled that section of Kashmir which is predominantly Muslim and India controlled the predominantly Hindu side. So my opposition id not on the basis of "..not allowing the breakup because we do not want India to breakup..>>. Rather what is the logic behind Pakistan's demand. If we have to follow a logic then should it not be that India gets all of Kashmir primarily because the rule was, the price/kings of the princely states decide and not the people in those states. Now Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, India and Sind in Pakistan is also some story and a long one. But that has been settled and I don't think it would serve any purpose to raise that issue here just as we are not raising the issue of Bangladesh at this time.