FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Should Kashmir be freed from Indian subjugation?





atul2242
For the last 2 decades the Indian government has been surpressing the Kashmiri's voice for independence from India.
It is a costly war in terms of lives lost and money spent.
Is it time for the Indians to separate Kashmir from India?
handfleisch
No, quit splitting up countries into smaller and smaller pieces.

Give peace a chance, not PIECE.
Skye001
atul2242 wrote:
For the last 2 decades the Indian government has been surpressing the Kashmiri's voice for independence from India.
It is a costly war in terms of lives lost and money spent.
Is it time for the Indians to separate Kashmir from India?


Thats an extremely biased approached... Things are relatively smooth... I agree with above give peace approach... Try getting along with your neighbour rather than fighting them... If everyone followed that approach I am sure we as a whole would be more united then individuals....
jmi256
This fragmentation has been going on for over 60 years now since WWII. Instead of trying to rally under one national identity, many regions are breaking up under the guise of "nationalism," but are really just concentrating more and more on what differentiates them from everyone else rather than once combines them as one nation. Soon we'll be back to city states.
hunnyhiteshseth
Thats totally bad idea both from India's & Kashmir's perspective.

First of all, the moment kashmir will be separated by India, Pakistan & China would try to capture that as then army of kashmir would be very weak.If that doesn't happen, the mujahideen's would surely takeover kashmir.
Thirdly, kashmir in itself is not economically sustainable. Its main revenue is in tourism but thats not enough to run a state. Kashmir draws a heavy money from India, without this money it will perish in poverty.

Lastly, why should kashmiri people not get benifit of a rising & shining India.
GLOBALSTRATEGY
atul2242 wrote:
For the last 2 decades the Indian government has been surpressing the Kashmiri's voice for independence from India.
It is a costly war in terms of lives lost and money spent.
Is it time for the Indians to separate Kashmir from India?


Probably not. Muslim and Hindu regions were already separated in the late forties (more or less in the same times when some Arab states launched the first post WWII war against the United Nations decision to partition the Palestine Mandate in regions for the Jews and regions for the Arabs) and many hundred of Hindus left their homes leaving for the Hindu regions and hundred of thousands of Muslims left for the islamic regions. But the Islamic civilization has persistently developed violence in their relations with non-Islamic groups, and war was staged in the Philippines and in Sudan, in the Balcans and in southern Thailand, against the Copts in Egypt and the Russians in Chechenya. not to speak about their refusal to recognize the right to political independence for the Jews, kurds, berbers, and other Middle Eastern minorities.
ganesh
I am not sure it makes sense for Kashmir to go out of India, which prides itself as an amalgamation of so many cultures / languages etc. coexisting as one nation. Look at the countries which have eyes on Kashmir: Pakistan and China -- Both of them are hell bent upon making their country completely of one type.. For more information, Google for spread of Chinese in Uyghur lands.. In India, all Kashmiris can follow whatever faith and culture they want.. The moment they go to some other country, they have to become hommogenised with that nation.. It is definitely not in their interest.
ThePolemistis
handfleisch wrote:
No, quit splitting up countries into smaller and smaller pieces.

Give peace a chance, not PIECE.


But nations perform much better when they are smaller.
Look at many European countries and far eastern countries such as Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea etc etc. Even UAE(Abu Dhubi), Israel and Kuwait.
hunnyhiteshseth
ThePolemistis wrote:

But nations perform much better when they are smaller.
Look at many European countries and far eastern countries such as Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea etc etc. Even UAE(Abu Dhubi), Israel and Kuwait.


Sorry, but i beg to differ. Its generally the reverse and bigger countries perform more optimally.

The irony is that you have taken example of European nations which themselves are moving towards integration in the form of European Union. Razz

For your every example i can give you 5 examples of nations which are small & have failed.
ThePolemistis
hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:

But nations perform much better when they are smaller.
Look at many European countries and far eastern countries such as Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea etc etc. Even UAE(Abu Dhubi), Israel and Kuwait.


Sorry, but i beg to differ. Its generally the reverse and bigger countries perform more optimally.

The irony is that you have taken example of European nations which themselves are moving towards integration in the form of European Union. Razz



European Union is not a country. It is a trading bloc.
And no. I used Switzerland and Ireland. Switzerland has not adopted the Euro and Ireland voted no in the last referendum.


hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
For your every example i can give you 5 examples of nations which are small & have failed.


Go on then. Perhaps the only successful large nations today are Japan and America.
Ill give you a start: here are just a handful of successful small nations:

South korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, luxembourg, UAE, Israel, Kuwait, Equitorial Guinea (I permit it is debatable of whether successful), Norway, Denmark, Holland,

Okay I have provided you 15 succesful small nations. Provide me with 75 (15 * 5) successful big nations Smile
hunnyhiteshseth
ThePolemistis wrote:

European Union is not a country. It is a trading bloc.
And no. I used Switzerland and Ireland. Switzerland has not adopted the Euro and Ireland voted no in the last referendum.

I know EU is only a trading bloc and not a country but i guess they are moving in that direction. They have largely integrated there economy, citizens can move freely within EU now. And you must know EU themself said they are looking for larger integration. If you remember sometime back there was also an attempt to make a common european flag instead of national flags. Although that attempt failed in referrendum but you can say that indicate EU's choice towards more integration.

You said "many European countries" and i had responded to that.

Quote:

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
For your every example i can give you 5 examples of nations which are small & have failed.


Go on then. Perhaps the only successful large nations today are Japan and America.
Ill give you a start: here are just a handful of successful small nations:

South korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, luxembourg, UAE, Israel, Kuwait, Equitorial Guinea (I permit it is debatable of whether successful), Norway, Denmark, Holland,

Okay I have provided you 15 succesful small nations. Provide me with 75 (15 * 5) successful big nations Smile


Man, reread my statement i said "For your every example i can give you 5 examples of nations which are small & have failed." and not which are successful and have succeeded.
And even you would agree within the pool of 204 nation, it wont be difficult for me to name 75 such nations.
ThePolemistis
hunnyhiteshseth wrote:

I know EU is only a trading bloc and not a country but i guess they are moving in that direction.


EU remains as a trading block.
They are moving towards an integrated Europe NOT a United States of Europe - the function of all trading blocs.

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:

They have largely integrated there economy, citizens can move freely within EU now.


"largely integrated there economy"? hmm... well they're next door. Don't canada have a inegrated economy with USA? Don't almost all nations sharing borders?
Citizens can't move freely in Britain (which is an EU member).

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:

And you must know EU themself said they are looking for larger integration. If you remember sometime back there was also an attempt to make a common european flag instead of national flags. Although that attempt failed in referrendum


I rememebr, but the latter of your statements answers the forer.
And as I rememeber, national flags were not to be replaced. Just that an EU flag should exist next to it.

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:

but you can say that indicate EU's choice towards more integration.


And so does NAFTA, NATO, UN, African Union, Arab League, ASEAN, OPEC members and whole lot more organisations.

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:

You said "many European countries" and i had responded to that.



But their economies are entirely different. Scandanavian nations have high taxes, some say 80% of your wealth. Britain has tax rate of jus over 40%. Britain is more flexible to hiring and firing than Germany and France. The only similarily among all member nations is that they are capitalist nations. But isn't that true for almost the entire world?
I don't see your logic.

Quote:

Man, reread my statement i said "For your every example i can give you 5 examples of nations which are small & have failed." and not which are successful and have succeeded.
And even you would agree within the pool of 204 nation, it wont be difficult for me to name 75 such nations.


Okay, I'm slightly tired, I misread your statement.
btw, i only want you to name as many successful large nations as I can name small nations. I have named 15 (without trying), you try and name more big natons.
atul2242
Our ideas are fine but do the Kashmiris agree with them?
Firstly for Kashmir to be an independent country then both Pakistan and China would have to give up portions of Kashmir which they are governing. I don't see India, Pakistan or China giving up control of territories controlled by them.
I also agree that if Kashmir would become independent then both Pakistan and China would move in.

But the Kashmiris have been fighting for a plebiscite for the last 2 decades. This has taken a godforsaken toll on the people, the MUjahideen and the Indian army. Thousands have had to flee their homes- both Hindus (Kashmiri Pundits) and secular Muslims.
So who should decide the Kashmiri's or the governments?
Voodoocat
One of the many problems with small countries is that they cannot protect themselves. Do you really think that an independant Kashmir could defend itself from a hostile country? Of course not! Several of the countries that ThePolemistis mentioned (Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) depend heavily on treaties with other countries.
ThePolemistis
Voodoocat wrote:
One of the many problems with small countries is that they cannot protect themselves. Do you really think that an independant Kashmir could defend itself from a hostile country? Of course not! Several of the countries that ThePolemistis mentioned (Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) depend heavily on treaties with other countries.


All countries (no matter how big) depend on treaties with other countries.
You think America couldn have gone into Iraq had it not been for their international allies. America could not have gone alone. And had they gone alone, they would have been back home right now.
You think the large Soviet Union did not need the help of the Allied nations in WW2 against Germany?
atul2242
What is Kashmir?
It consists of 3 distinct cultural and geographic entities - Jammu, Kashmir Valley & Ladhak.
Does all of Kashmir wants independence from India?
Will political independence give them economic sustainability?

I have yet to see a serious future plan from the separatists their only agenda is a cry for independence or a plebiscite.
atul2242
Kashmir can also make treaties and maybe survive.
But again does the whole of Kashmir want to break away from India????
atul2242
Are there no Kashmiris in this forum?
saadat
I am a Kashmiri and i want to remain with India. But India should remove 90% of its security forces from Kashmir. Also the remaining 10% should be kept at the LoC. Their special powers should be clipped so that they dare not kill any innocent Kashmiri.
umeshtangnu
saadat wrote:
I am a Kashmiri and i want to remain with India. But India should remove 90% of its security forces from Kashmir. Also the remaining 10% should be kept at the LoC. Their special powers should be clipped so that they dare not kill any innocent Kashmiri.

why not handover J&K to Islamic fundamental forces Evil or Very Mad
umeshtangnu
oops double post Embarassed
gandalfthegrey
I agree - let the people of Kashmir vote on it... though even though majority muslim, I seriously doubt they would want to become a part of Pakistan now considering the situation there.
Related topics
What are the taboos in your culture?
United Nations a failure?
India - USA Nuclear Deal
Most peaceful religion
beer this
A new Indian movie "Mangal Pandey "
INDIAN BEAUTY
Shalimar the Clown
Offer Your Condolences To All The Quake Victims
Facts about India : Proud to be an Indian
What's you favourite drink? recommend me of one...
Link Exchange With Indian Sites
War on Terror?
Indian scientists find answers that eluded Einstein
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.