Search results

A wiki link - I expected better. Anyway, 50% of Indian forces are in J&K - source? What's the spend as a percentage of GDP? What was in it in the '90s? 2 crore per day - that's 730 crore a year - around 150 million USD - that's a lot you say? Again, what diplomatic cost?

By paying a price, I mean we can't go butcher our own citizens as some other nations tend to do. We'll do it differently.

Do you have any actual figure on how much it is costing India? Things are nowhere as bad as the '90s when we were just coming out of our worst economic crisis. If we didn't break apart then, its ridiculous to even argue anything similar in the present context. Also, diplomatic cost? Do point...

I believe that figure also includes CRPF, BSF, local police and GOd knows what else. Still that number would be too high. As for letting loose, we can't and won't. We'll continue to show maximum restraint while ensuring things don't escalate beyond a point. It's the price you pay for being a...

I still feel this can go both ways. Modi hardly creates a problem for himself by going to Pak - the challenges it creates for Pak might be greater. Being insulted by an ungracious host is no embarrassment. Besides, its a good way to show that India is still interested in a constructive...

Repeat of what you have already argued without adressing the key point I made. I'll leave it here unless you can show if ever in the 40+ years since Simla, the UN demanding India agree to any third party negotiations.

You are wilfully ignoring the keyword mutually agreed. If India does not agree to something, its not obligated to anything, including the UN resolutions, unless of course you can quote the way out of this phrase for Pak. The Pak negotiators must have been delusional to agree to this text, or in...

There is no violation precisely because of the bilateral agreement. You guys signed away the right to demand India stick to anything else. As for a bilateral agreement not superceding the UN, I have heard that a million times but where is the justification for that? Any ruling you can cite? Any...

Read again - mutually agreed. If India objects to a third party, its not obligated to any third party arbitration. You guys essentially signed away the opportunity to force a third party, such a the UN into the dispute. A mistake of epic proportions from your point of view.

These people are perpetual whiners. :lol:

Pleasantly surprised by the CM's statement. Hope she continues in this vein, at least in this context. That's a common practice among these thugs. They do the same in Palestine; hide in schools, hospitals and then raise a storm when the Israelis bomb those targets - after several warnings.

We hardly need the likes of Morgan to realize the dismal reality of Indian sports sans a few exceptions. The problem is at all levels and aspects be it cultural, infrastructure, support structures etc. Things may improve, they may not. Hardly matters in reality. There are infinitely more...

Why do you feel the need to single out Indians when we as a nation have nothing to do with this matter? There must be many cases when Sikhs for instance have been forced to remove turbans, that too when its not against the law. So what? If what happened was wrong, let the autorities there deal...

In that case, my apologies if I misunderstood the context. There's fault all around. Events and behavior have consequences. The French are reacting to what they perceive to be an attack on their way of life, I can understand that. I hope you can too.

'Liberty, equality and freedom for all' are ideals, they are unlikely to be achieved or more importantly perceived to be have been achieved in different laws. Anyway, all rules / laws are discriminatory to some extent. Its simply a matter of whether you happen to agree with said discrimination...

Is there an official statement from your government to back that up or is merely your wishlist?

Tolerating the intolerant is not just stupid, it can be fatal. I guess the French have started realizing this simple fact of life. The problem however, is that in a democracy, majority rules, well in most cases anyway; so what happens when the religion of peace hits a sufficiently high enough...

As I said, in that case, makes little sense for you to quibble over me stating 'your officials'. Anyway, I am interested in the casualty figure from a neutral source. No one seems to be willing to provide that info. I believe we are talking slightly at cross purpose. I am interested in what...

She is free to speak what she wants and someone else is free to file a case. The court shall decide whether she broke any laws, which I am sure she didn't. If you wish to talk about true freedom of speech, I suggest Pak as a beacon of the same.

Is your contention that there is no voilence in Balochistan? If no, what are the casualties accordingly to a neutral source? Does that UN office provide any figures?