Its a flawed concept to have the "princely" states choose their fate. The fact is that under the two nation theory the muslim majority provinces should have made up Pakistan and the non muslim states should have belonged to India.
Under your logic, Junagedh whose muslim leader acceded to Pakistan should be a rightful part of Pakistan, but India illegally occupied it. I am looking at things from a logical viewpoint. I am not saying Junagedh should join Pak even they rightfully acceded to Pakistan. I am saying that the logical thing of having muslim areas join the muslim nation created by the two nation theory. It makes sense.
Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. At the end of the day, In Hyderabad, the Nizam wanted to join Pakistan, and the public wanted to remain with India while in Kashmir, the people wanted to join Pakistan and the King wanted to join India. India invaded Hyderabad and took it, while Pakistan tried the same thing, sending their own troops dressed as locals to revolt, while the king hastily signed the IOA with India. That meant that Pakistan was officially invading India and IA started its offensive. Then a ceasefire was brokered and the occupied parts by both sides remain what they are today, Indian Kashmir and Azad Kashmir, with the Indian side being 2/3rds of Kashmir.
That was history 101 for you. Might is right, i guess you may have gotten the essence of the lecture, whether or not it makes sense, is irrelevant.
I understand that Indians view Kashmir with hubris. They have a lot of arrogance that Kashmir belongs to them and its a part of Indian national pride. That is fine. Indians can believe that. But, this kind of thinking is self destructive to all people. The average poor person in India who cannot get adequate food or the average poor widow in India couldn't care less about occupying Kashmir. They want food on their table. Spending $$$$ on getting Su30MKI's looks good to people who can afford it (rich Indians), but the average Indian is not like that.
Ahem, rich Indians dont get Su-30MKI's no matter
how rich they are !
And yes, there is what you may call arrogance associated with Kashmir, for it is for this peice of land that Pakistan has instigated wars constantly with India, and has never managed to capture one cm of that. Whether self destructive or not, the land remains with India, unless won in a war otherwise.
Oh and mind you, when you are talking about the Su-30's and whatnot, and the poor people in India not bothering about them, the same goes for people in Pakistan, when Pakistan buys its own weapons, which i might add are used more on their own people than the enemy. So please cut the whole "poor people dont want" thing there.
The fact is that India ranked in the high 90's out of 118 nations in an annual survey of hunger. I will post the link later on when I can (right now, I don't have five posts yet so I can't post links).
India also has one of the highest investment rates, one of the fastest growing economies, etc, etc, etc. Honestly, take a look at the economic section of this forum, you might get surprised.
I love Pakistan greatly, but I am a humanitarian first. I want to help the poor and destitute of all nation's. I have nothing against Indians and wished they saw logic and solved Kashmir or at least adopted the Chenab formula, which I give Musharraf credit for espousing.
Good for you.
I know that many Indians will not give an inch and would rather lose it the territory in a war than give it up on humanitarian and human rights grounds. That is fine, too.
It makes no sense to give up Kashmir on humanitarian grounds when Pakistan has launched invasions and wars on India to gain that land. Now that they have failed, you expect India to 'give up' Kasmir? Talk sense man!
Pakistan is right now not capable of fighting India for Kashmir, but in the future, who knows? Pakistan very well might gain the conventional military advantage over India and Kashmir could be freed god-willing.
Now thats a ludicrous statement. The "Inshallah" we will beat India thing going on again!!
Common man, can you not see, India has always and will always have more military resources at her disposal. There can never be a day when Pakistan might gain a conventional military advantage over India.
Now you said you were a humanitarian, think for a second, if one day Pakistan does gain a conventional military advantage over India, it would come at a price. Pakistan would have had to buy a LOT of military equipment ruthlessly for a long time to match India, spend a LOT of money. Dont you think that it would increase the % to GDP ratio of Pakistan by a huge amount(not that its small right now!), while for India, it would still be very less. SO at the end, its the people in Pakistan who would get lesser money in education, or subsidies or whatever. It will be the people of Pakistan who will suffer more.
It seems you want to be a humanitarian only when the case study is India and not Pakistan.
This time , though, India should be wary that China may want to settle scores over Arunachal Pradesh and the other seven sister states may want Independence (Assam, Nagaland). So Indian hubris over Kashmir could ultimately relate to them losing more territory.
Please, not the China thing ! We have had enough debates over here regarding that.
QUOTE]In my opinion, the breakup of current day India is inevitable. India is only facilitating this by their stance in Kashmir and their aggressive stance with their neighbors.
Ask yourself this. How come India has border disputes with EVERY nation that it surrounds. Pakistan on the other hand only has a dispute with India. China only has a dispute with India. [/QUOTE]
I am sorry, India does not have a border dispute with Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka.
WHILE, Pakistan also has a border dispute with Afghanistan, and Iran(?).
China OTOH, HAD a border dispute with Russia, while they have signed a treaty with them relatively recently, it goes to show that border disputes are common and can be resolved.
And FYI, there are still some disputed territories between Russia and China. There still is a dispute on some areas.
Incidentally, i hope you know that China has already recognized Sikkim as being an Indian state now. They have dropped their claim.
Pakistan and China had an undemarcated border back in 1963, and they signed an agreement to solve the dispute.
ROFL, that was a sell out to China from Pakistan. After all the $hit about Kashmiri freedom, etc, etc, Pakistan just gave up land to China. I am sorry my friend, you will not find us so desperate nor weak.
That is a sign of two rational countries which understand diplomacy. On the other hand, India has refused to do that. They insist on the military option, and military intervention in the long run doesn't work.
The fact is that you can't suppress the wishes of the Kashmiris forever and 700,000 troops can't stay in Srinagar forever.
May you and other Indians see the light of peace and come in good faith to solve kashmir. Its the humanistic thing to do .
Heh, humanistic thing to do. I wonder why Pakistan does not set Baluchistan free, its also a more humanistic thing to do, since they are also up in arms against Pakistani "oppression". Oh and whats the guarentee that Pakistan wont again sell off the land of Kashmir to China !
