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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (116209)	10/5/2003 1:58:32 AM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

Add an ounce to your credibility of "stating facts" on India/Pakistan/Kashmir, and I will be willing to lay down more than a pound of my credibility.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (116209)	10/5/2003 3:31:10 PM
From: arun gera	Respond to of 281500

>I define Kashmir as Muslim, because 80% of the population is Muslim.> Yes. Keep dividing a country into small geographical areas and you can prove anything. The kingdom was and the state is JAMMU AND KASHMIR. The 80 percent Muslim areas are only around the Srinagar valley. When I lived in Jammu and Kashmir, I noticed was a bigger cultural difference between Hindus living in Srinagar and Hindus living in Jammu, than was the difference between Hindus and Muslims in Srinagar. There was no Hindu Muslim divide in Srinagar. -Arun

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (116209)	10/5/2003 3:42:06 PM
From: arun gera	Respond to of 281500

>The fact that the person who controlled Kashmir in 1948 was of a different religion than 80% of the population, and the fact that religion was the crucial dividing line when British India was partitioned, this is what has caused 50 years of trouble (so far).> The Muslim League wanted India divided based on religion - the so called two-nation theory. That is the prime reason for the discord. Jacob, I have posted several links before about Hari Singh's thinking around the time of acceding to India. It was not a straightforward decision for him to accede to India. He preferred to have a separate state till his kingdom was attacked by Pakistan. -Arun

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (116209)	10/5/2003 9:23:02 PM
From: EJhonsa	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

The fact that the person who controlled Kashmir in 1948 was of a different religion than 80% of the population, and the fact that religion was the crucial dividing line when British India was partitioned, this is what has caused 50 years of trouble (so far). The breakdown for the state is more like 70/30 than 80/20, with only the Kashmir Valley being predominantly Muslim. One other part of the state (Jammu) is predominantly Hindu, and another (Ladakh) is predominantly Buddhist. Also, while I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, I'm certain that the Muslim/Hindu split for Jammu and Kashmir was closer to 50/50 than 70/30 for the Indian-held parts after the 1948 war. The demographic breakdown shifted in favor of Muslims in the following years due to a combination of higher birth rates and a quota system for university positions and government jobs that compelled many Hindus to leave the state. More recently, there have also been direct and indirect attempts by Muslim fundamentalists at ethnically cleansing Hindus living in the Kashmir Valley, also known as Pandits. Lastly, as may have been pointed out to you before, the guerrilla war in Kashmir only began in earnest around 1989, a full four decades after parition. It's no coincidence that this was the same time period during which the Soviets were pulling out of Afghanistan, leaving a number of rent-a-jihad types in need of new employment. Needless to say, their old friend, the Pakistani government, proved quite helpful in directing them towards a new line of work. Eric