Kashmir shouldn't be independent. Who is waiting for another land-locked country thriving on tourism and very good hashish? The only trouble is that the Muslim majority should get some breathingroom from the Hindu's. Every so often one sets fire to a temple or mosque, the other stops a train and kills everybody inside from the opposite group etc etc. Kinda hopeless...
Should Kashmir just be a seperate country?
Well as an Indian, i say india should give it to pakistan and let them take care of it. We are wasting billions of $'s every year mainting our army and everyday our soldiers are getting killed not only from cross-border terrorism but also by the sepratists in Kashmir who wants Kashmir as a free country. Anyways, Pakistan want Kashmir so let them have it. But again, i don't understand how would Pakistan be able to support Kashmir when there own country is almost bankrupt??
G
G Connor
Guest
Xion said:
Do you mean the way the US acquired everything between California and Texas in 1856?
I didn't mean anything like that. I just wanted to make you understand the feeling that Indians have. Replace 'Mexico' by any other country and 'New Mexico' and 'Texas' by any other province that the USA is comprised of.G Connor said:
Kashmir was a part of India and Pakistan attacked it suddenly without warning taking away half of it. India couldn't fight back as a ceasefire was forced upon her.
Last edited:
jackehammond
Active member
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Dear Member,
It is not resources that causes conflict between India and Pakistan. It is a little known fact: ie although it does have a flag, custom posts, etc Pakistan is not a country. It is a actually divided worst that Iraq in sectionalism. What keeps Pakistan together is the dream of the liberation of Kashmir. By taking Kashmir for Pakistan, for what ever reason the people of Pakistan (ie it is not a leaders leading them in this conflict but the other way around) believe they will suddenly have the respect and admiration of the world that they crave so much that they believe India has today.
To wit, in a nut shell it is another "Jenkins Ear" war that can not be explain rationally. Kashmir to Pakistan is what those two northern provinces of France that were lost to Germany in the 1870s. Or those small uninhabited islands of rock that Greece and Turkey are on a hair trigger over.
Finally, secretly India would love to be rid of Kashmir (ie the Islamic fighters have terrorized the Hindu population that they have almost all left). But if Kashmir goes to Pakistan their would be succession movements all over India and wars and rebellions at a far more huge cost in blood and treasure than what it costs to stay in Kashmir.
Jack E. Hammond
Kashmir was a free country(not in India or Pakistan) until Pakistani Army attacked Kashmir, and the King of kashmir signed a pact with India(By that time, Pakistan Army had already captured some of the Kashmir), that if Indian Soldiers help Kashmir to fight Pakistani Soldiers, Kashmir would be a state of India. We fought Pakistani soldiers, and regained some of the parts of Kashmir, but still Pakistanis control some of the Kashmir and China has some of it.Damien435 said:
fingolfin361
Active member
At the time of Indian independence, all territories administered by the British were to become either part of India or Pakistan. The 'independant' Princely states were given the additional option of remaining independent. The decisions in case of these states would solely be taken by the respective rulers, not the population.
The Raja of Kashmir opted to stay independent, having visions of creating a Switzerland in the sub-continent. When Pakistan invaded, he agreed to join India, in return for military aid.
A counter argument is that the Indian military took over some princely states that opted to remain free. This was because these states were all entirely within the borders of India, and having numerous 'holes' in the map was ludicrous. In addition, many of these rulers, being Muslim, had initially wanted to join Pakistan, and Jinnah had demanded that corridors be built, crisscrossing the map of India, to join these states to each other and to Pakistan.
The Raja of Kashmir opted to stay independent, having visions of creating a Switzerland in the sub-continent. When Pakistan invaded, he agreed to join India, in return for military aid.
A counter argument is that the Indian military took over some princely states that opted to remain free. This was because these states were all entirely within the borders of India, and having numerous 'holes' in the map was ludicrous. In addition, many of these rulers, being Muslim, had initially wanted to join Pakistan, and Jinnah had demanded that corridors be built, crisscrossing the map of India, to join these states to each other and to Pakistan.
Dean
Active member
Xion said:
This is not a good comparison. Let's change it a bit to parallel the situation in Kashmir. Imagine that the US and Mexico are both one country, but they decide to split with all of the Hispanic Catholics going to Mexico, while all of the English Protestants go to the US. Remember that these two groups really do not like each other. Now, Arizona and New Mexico are both full of Hispanic Catholics, but the Spanish speaking Protestant governor of the territory, who is partial to his Protestant brethren in the US, makes sure that they end up on the wrong side of the border. Wars start and end, and in the end the US and Mexico are in a stalemate, but both still want the territory. To whom should it go? The answer should be, let the Kashmiris decide. Unfortunately, when they tried that, India did not like the answer, and nobody has asked them since.
Dean.
Last edited:
fingolfin361
Active member
Dean said:
If i remember correctly, the plebiscite decided on by the UN in the late 1940's never actually took place...
fingolfin361
Active member
pappu said:
What he said! :wink:
ASTRALdragon
Active member
Heh this is why the "What if Mexico invaded Arizona and New Mexico" idea would not hold water. For one thing, Mexico would only have control of it for about 2 hours, then the wrath of the American military would decimate them. I don't think the heavily-armed and home of one of the biggest naval ports in the US state of California would sit idly by as its neighbors gets invaded. Second, the Kashmir region is a contested region, which spans back hundreds of years with a mix of politics, religion, and pride. I don't know why China has a hand in it but they should stay out of it. As for "freeing Kashmir," I say India and Pakistan should split it up. Everyone gets a fair share of the land and the people from the repsective areas can move over to the side of the region they want to. Sort of like how the Israelis are giving up parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to show a willingness to work towards peace.Damien435 said:
I didn't know tourism was big in Kashmir... When's the last time you heard, "Hey, let's go to that war-torn region Kashmir! I hear their curry is really good!" ?
Last edited:
zander_0633
Milforum Gnat
I think Kashmir is better off being an Independent Country with the help of both India And Pakistan. Think this will really help the people over there.
godofthunder9010
Active member
This would be the ideal solution. Kashmir was once an independent nation, if my memory isn't playing tricks on me again.WarMachine said:
Neither Pakistan nor India will allow for an independent Kashmir, end of story. But it would certainly be a good solution!