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: ratan lal who wrote (2907)	9/28/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 12475

It was not a "mistake" to disallow the rest of Indians from purchasing land in Kashmir. It was more of a compromise to make Kashmir accede to the Indian union. At the time of independence, the ruler of Kashmir didn't want to be a part of either India or Pakistan, but instead wanted to go it alone. And with the Muslims numbering about 90% of the population, there was little chance of them agreeing to become a part of India either. So, a few carrots had to be dangled in front of the ruler to ensure that he will sign on the dotted line. While Nehru was so enamored of Kashmir that he didn't want to let it go at any cost, even if it meant leaving a lot of issues open-ended and fuzzy, the present government is hell-bent on retaining Kashmir regardless of the military, economic and social costs involved. And sooner or later, at least some of the Indian states are going to question why they should be involved (and be made to pay for) the goings-on in Kashmir. Dipy.