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: JPR who wrote (12322)	6/25/2002 11:48:36 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 12475

JPR: Much to think about in your message here. I see what you are trying to say about Alaska and California, but the analogy does not hold. They were for the most part EMPTY geographic regions not full of a functioning culture and government that had ALREADY ESTABLISHED itself. Furthermore, the US PAID both Russia (7 million in 1867) and Mexico (15 million in 1850--which is what we offered them before the war) to take title to the area. WE came to an accomdoation with both Russia nd Mexico and that is why they are not asking for the land back. That is very DIFFERENT than the circumstances under which India took over Kashmir. India has never come to an accomodation with Pakistan on this and that is the ROOT of the current problem. You, and the rest of the commentors who are Indian on this thread, keep wanting to justify Indians actions in 1947 and 48, but until INida talks to Pakstan and works it out with them peace will be elusive--regardless of all the logical and legal points you try to make to justify the status quo. If you can't accept that--then be prepared for another 50 years or longer of what happened in the past 50 years. I am not asking for any kind of binding plebescite with regard to Kashmir. i just think it would be helpful for India and Pakistan to somehow consult with the Kashmirians, as presently composed, as to how they feel about things. Again, though nothing will happen to the Kashmirians until India and Pakistan agree (to include the terrorist/guerillla element). Islam is very very different in its societal culture than that of the West---which had a slow evolution over a 1000 years into demcrocacys. IMHO, it is wrong to try and graft a democarcy onto a state that has no historical experience with it--a la Pakistan. We don't need it to be a democracy--just a stable state that can provide for the basic needs of its people. This needs to be done in a way that is non-threatening to Islam--which feels like it is under attack by Western Culture--whose societal values sharply contrast with that of Islamic cultures. The reason Islamic fundamentalists feel that they havae to attack the West and the great Satan is that American Culture is slowly threatening their way of life. In many cases we support middle eastern regimes that do business with us that do not not allow political expression in their countries. Terroism is the result. In India's case, you had the British example to work for you and in an excellent case of emulation, turned into a weapon for your argument for Independence. Still, IMHO, it is in a very fragile stage right now in India, and the politicians probably use the Pakistani issue to detract peeople from the government's short comings. In short, there is no one right party in this Indian/Pakistani dispute. If there are greivances for displaced Kashmirian Indigenous peoples they need to be addressed, but in a negotiated settlement between both India & Pakistan. Please forgive the multiple spelling errors. I am pressed for time and do not have time to edit them out. Bill