What's new

Pakistan, India to hold talks in Dhaka

sigatoka said:
Yeah, your right. But my point on water being a cheap commodity stands. (desalination and recycling poo water is only viable if there are no other sources for drinking. They have desal. plants in kuwait, saudi and they want to build one in aust.)

And what is the difference between Kuwait, Saudi, Aust & Pak?:angel:
 
kashmirik said:
Although Water is a cheap resource , its processing is not cheap ! have u visited any gulf country ?

There was a time when Saudi exported wheat (one of the inputs is water).

Gulf countries are bit unique in that rain unfortuantely seems to avoid them.
 
Arrow said:
If that was the case, why is your Govt making such a hue and cry over the dam issue?

Why shouldnt it? Dams allow exports to increase (increase in agriculture) and usually produce electricity which can reduce Oil and gas imports. It also generates employment.
 
kashmirik said:
sigatokabut the crux of the matter is WATER MANAGEMENT !

Practically pakistan's 90% water comes from kashmir
so its indirect value is much higher.

That is useless to point out since India gets much of its water from Himalayas and rivers originating from Chinese regions. Lower riparian states have this disadvantage and thats why there are treaties regulating the use of water from the rivers in question. 90% or whatever amount of Pakistani water coming from Kashmir, doesn't make Kashmir special.

Indus Water Treaty is something that India cannot even think of wrecking even in the event of war as it will only criminalize India, ruin its international standing and above all, subject it to face endless lawsuits in ICJ over the biggest crime against humanity.

kashmirik said:
Raptor. u wrote "If hindoostan claims to be a "dimocracy" then it shouldnt have a problem letting the Kashmiri people have a voice in deciding their own destiny."

I think kashmiris have only following options
1. pro-pakistani kashmiris can migrate to pakistan using the
present bus-train services(only after negotiating with
indian authorities)
2. pro-independence kashmiris can demand autonomy
with some demilitarization
3. pro-indian kashmiris will prefer to carve out a separate
state of jammu/union territory out of kashmir but remain in
india

See, atleast raise points that are convinving enough and don't show that you're just a really ticked off Indian pretending to be a Kashmiri or atleast that is what you lead people to believe with your baseless remarks.

You advocate that Kashmiris wanting to side with Pakistan should migrate to Pakistan but at the same time say that pro-Indian Kashmiris should carve out a portion of Kashmir's land and unite it with India for good. Hmm, is it only me who sees some bias here? You even say that all pro-Independence Kashmiris can really demand is autonomy and demilitarization. Really?

Why don't pro-Indian Kashmiris also climb aboard a train or a bus and migrate to India so that pro-Independence Kashmiris can have a sovereign country of their own? Why do pro-Independence Kashmiris have to make-do with autonomy and demilitarization? In simplistic terms, you are advocating that Jammu & Kashmir just stay like it is now since the proposals you put forth are outright ludicrious in terms of practicality.
 
I thought id add that hindoostan gets most of its water from the rivers that originate in Tibet...and Tibet is an integral part of the great nation of CHINA ...(Pakistan's all weather ally) :D
 
RAPTOR said:
I thought id add that hindoostan gets most of its water from the rivers that originate in Tibet...and Tibet is an integral part of the great nation of CHINA ...(Pakistan's all weather ally) :D

Tibet is on the norther part of himalayas, and the only river that flows to India from China is Brahmaputra and that too, it comes thru the NE belt and thru westbengal to bay of bengal.

All others originate from the southern side of Himalays.

And alsop there are rivers which orginates and flows thru India only.
 
TexasJohn said:
Haven't you guys ( India and Pakistan) tried this several times already? Why not both countries get their armies out of Kashmir? am I being naive?
this is one of the possible solution but this is also not that easy. in case of indian kashmir, only kashmiri origin people are living there while in case of pakistani kashmir more than half of the population came from other states of pakistan. this way pakistan not only have to get their armies out from Pakistani kashmir but also they have to take those people out from pakistani kashmir which migrated there from other parts of pakistan. and also we cant just say if someone is muslim he has right to live in kashmir and someone is not he cant, so kashmiri hindu and sikhs will also demand some saparate space there. again indian kashmir is more developed than pakistani kashmir, so indian kashmiri may demand something from pakistani kashmiris accordingly. now if we have a look on kashmir, there is no real industry accept tourism and indian government heavily fund indian kashmir. and after formation of single nation kashmir, india may demand pakistan to share atleast 50-50 for funding them for next 10-12 years and which may not be accepted by small pakistani economy.

again there will be a question of security of kashmir. history says pakistan tried to capture it and india came there on the invitation of that time Kashmiri government. and after freedom, presence of military of other nations will not be accepted by india. and in case both indian and pakistani military will be present there, both will kill each other. there was a time when indian majors used to encourage indian military against pakistani army during the war but till now indian army has seen so many causalities that now most of the leaders in indian army just say pakistani military is like brothers. because the seen is something like first healthy and physically fit people are trained in indian army and then they are given high class weapons and then they have seen deaths of their friends. and same thing happens with pakistani army also. if both the armies will be present on one place, they will finish each other.

the time Mr Mush proposed independence of 9 indian and 4 pakistani kashmiri states. initial response of top leaders of india was little bit in favor of that proposal. but politicians of indian kashmir were against it. they blamed indian government for doing Quabani of kashmiris for the good of rest of india. they think pakistani government can finish future of indian kashmiri which is far more developed than politically disturbed pakistan and pakistani kashmir. this is to note that these leaders of indian kashmir get 60-65% votes during elections in the presence of 1000s of journalists from whole world. india can't just scarifies future kashmiris for making pakistan happy.

this will a very good case for india if india could get a chance to change her neighbor india don’t want (pakistan) and get better one like kashmir. but this is not as easy as it look like.
 
PM Shaukat says India not passionate about peace Islamabad: India is not passionate about making peace with Pakistan, prime minister was reported as saying on Friday, days before officials of the two countries are due to hold peace talks.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's comments were made in an interview to an Indian weekly magazine.

"I believe you must have a passion for peace," a statement from the magazine quoted Aziz as saying in the interview.

"We in Pakistan, President (Pervez) Musharraf and I, have a passion for peace. I have yet to see this passion on the part of India," Aziz said.

Aziz dismissed Indian charges against Lashkar-e-Taiba to be behind the train bombings in the financial hub of Mumbai.

"We don't see any evidence of their activity that's prejudicial," the magazine statement quoted him as saying. "We have done a lot to transform some of these people," he said.
 
Indeed, passion is a powerful sentiment.

Of course, this sentiment must be used in the correct manner!

LeT is also very passionate.

Isn't it banned in Pakistan?
 
Back
Top Bottom