The fact is that at the time of splitting India into two countries, Kashmir was never part of Pakistan. Later, Kashmir chose to be merged with India and Pakistan grabbed a part of Kashmir and later shared a part of it with China as well. So, it is very clear that J&K was never part of Pakistan. I fail to understand what this Pakistan is up to.
Now let us have a peek at what might have happened on 15-Aug. I have seen many people blame our great Father of Nation, Nehruji and others for splitting India at the time of Independence. I do not agree with any of them. These leaders might have foreseen that keeping such a large muslim population in India might hamper its growth and they might have thought that it was for the good of the country to split it and give muslims a separate nation. And the history proved them right.
If we look at the story of muslim dominated states on the World Map today, except a few like Saudi Arabia and UAE, the rest of the muslim ruled states are troubled states with no future ahead for the people living there. Internal troubles force the UN forces to take control in such countries and that make life hell there. Wherever trouble exists in the world today, it is only in muslim dominated states. So, the intention of Pakistan is very clear from this fact as well
Re: Kashmir-I
by Samir Bhagwat on Sep 30, 2010 01:43 PM
it is always a mystry to me, how in spite of all the loss we incurred due to the rule of Nehru and his descendents we keep on electing this party ? No other nation would do this.
Re: Kashmir-I
by historyrepeats on Sep 30, 2010 12:41 PM
Guys , Think from your head and you will realise that it is only money in this business which has kept this Kashmir Issue alive. Do you know that majoirty of tax collection goes into defence budget and nobody knows about the accountability. If this issue is solved then Ministers will have nothing to amass but to carry on Infrastrurcture development which can be engine to our economic growth. Think rationally and logically, you will realise the factness of this issue. Ministers are harping on this issue by fooling public of both sides to believe that Kashmir is a burning issue. Actuall it has been kept alive by the union of both side ministers.
Re: Re: Kashmir-I
by tavor on Sep 30, 2010 01:36 PM
Defence also means defence from china. Pakistan is not a major threat. and kashmir is not as serious problem in terms of threat to the country. Anyhow, even if u give away kashmir, and there is a supposed peace between india and pakis(though it is impossible even after giving away kashmir to pakis),u need to have a strong military to counter china. So defence is important, where there is some problem in kashmir or not. And always remember, strength respects strength!!!! Friendship without strength will lead to a defeat like in 1962 India china war. I agree moeny needs to be spend on poor and hungery, but u can not overlook defence. It is important. And ur thoughts are easily countered by those who says that armed forces don't have enough arterlly or tanks or etc etc. gov knows what is right and is doing the needful.
insted of trying to keep the porkistan as one country the porkis are always poking in heighbours affairs and sending jihadists across the border.first keep pigistan from disentegrating ,which anyway is already a failed state ,than poking its cutlet in which it cannot do anything about,nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons.
You should read my message before writing wild comments. The economic growth is what I have been advocating and for this to happen we need to avoid an environment of hostility in our region and on borders. You are basing your argument on our bigger economy viz. 'India being a far bigger economy ...' Well this is the point. In this game economy matters. In a way you agree that I have said but you are trying to have a different position 'cos that probably gives you some satisfaction.
I'd appreciate if you refrain from making personal comments. I can make comments about your grands and that would not lead us anywhere. This only shows you do not a have a point.
Now coming to capturing of western Kashmir by tribals. You should know that we (India) could have acted only after Hari Singh had signed the accession papers. And that is what we did. However this was not early enough to stop Pak tribals from invading from the west. As a matter of fact Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession only after realising that Pakistan can capture Kashmir by tribal attacks.
1971 war was about east Pakistan and we were successful in dividing Pakistan in two pieces. We could not have asked for more. It is under Geneva convention that PoWs are returned to the surrendering party. They can not be bartered for other previledges. If you had waited for Pakistan to vacate occupied Kashmir for PoWs then I am sure you would have been still feeding those captives in your prisons even today.
In 1999 the Dalai Lama in hindsight admitted, ” When Tibet was free, we took our freedom for granted…In former times Tibetans were a war-like nation whose influence spread far and wide. With the advent of Buddhism our military prowess declined…” The Dalai Lama could easily have said the same for India.
Pacifist philosophies may be good for the individual’s soul but are suicidal for nation’s security.
