Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Possibility of war between India and Pakistan Options · View
lambdavi
Posted: Monday, January 21, 2013 6:03:29 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/20/2012
Posts: 39
Location: Italy
SITTING wrote:
I don't think it'll come to war. I think India and Pakistan need to really clear up all their old troubles, split Kashmir down the middle (i'm guessing it ain't that easy) and show a united front, or else they'll just be like this forever.


Solving Kashmir is just as easy as solving the issue of Northern Ireland, or giving Gibraltar back to Spain, or Puerto Rico and Guam their own independence.

The issue between India and Pakistan is NOT easy, but it does have a clear and precise origin; it was when the British Government decided "Hindustan" could not be granted independence as it was, because it would have proven to be too great a nation, both in terms of territorial extension and in terms of population. Religion has very little to do with it, other than being the official excuse.

The evidence of this is the fact that there are more muslims still living in India, than there are living in Pakistan.

I have worked with both Indian and Pakistani military, and can say, from my own personal experience and personal acquaintance with a few from both sides, that whereas India does have a proper "Officers' " caste and properly trained military, Pakistan at best can field a few hordes of houlihans and banshees. Be it from the point of view of available technology. or the capability of using it, not to mention military discipline and the art of warfare, the only reason why India could ever want to call it quits is to quell the bloodbath. Pakistanis as a culture would have no such feelings, they would simply go on and on and on until they're all dead.

From my own personal experience.
nazhinaz
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:48:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
lambdavi wrote:


Solving Kashmir is just as easy as solving the issue of Northern Ireland, or giving Gibraltar back to Spain, or Puerto Rico and Guam their own independence.

The issue between India and Pakistan is NOT easy, but it does have a clear and precise origin; it was when the British Government decided "Hindustan" could not be granted independence as it was, because it would have proven to be too great a nation, both in terms of territorial extension and in terms of population. Religion has very little to do with it, other than being the official excuse.

The evidence of this is the fact that there are more muslims still living in India, than there are living in Pakistan.

I have worked with both Indian and Pakistani military, and can say, from my own personal experience and personal acquaintance with a few from both sides, that whereas India does have a proper "Officers' " caste and properly trained military, Pakistan at best can field a few hordes of houlihans and banshees. Be it from the point of view of available technology. or the capability of using it, not to mention military discipline and the art of warfare, the only reason why India could ever want to call it quits is to quell the bloodbath. Pakistanis as a culture would have no such feelings, they would simply go on and on and on until they're all dead.

From my own personal experience.

Kashmir is not only an issue between India and Pakistan.
Kashmiri people are as well an important rather the most important partners in the dispute.
Kasmir should not be taken as a pawn over the chess board of power politics of India or Pakistan.
Assertation of the will of Kashmiri people should be done through interational participation.
And Pakistan and India should be asked to follow whatever the collectve wll of Kashmiri people may be.
angieseroticpen
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:14:51 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 599
Location: United Kingdom
As long as the West keeps it's nose out of it then who cares? We have sacrificed enough young men's blood and spent billions on poking our noses into other peoples affairs. If they want to go ahead and annihilate each other then let them get on with it.

“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:21:35 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,806
angieseroticpen wrote:
As long as the West keeps it's nose out of it then who cares? We have sacrificed enough young men's blood and spent billions on poking our noses into other peoples affairs. If they want to go ahead and annihilate then let them get on with it.



What are you smoking? What do you think will west do there? The UN too can't do anything there and you are talking about west! West is useless in this issue my dear friend. Let west poke its nose into "OTHER PEOPLE" affairs. Not between India and Pakistan.
angieseroticpen
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:18:41 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 599
Location: United Kingdom
awake_ wrote:



What are you smoking? What do you think will west do there? The UN too can't do anything there and you are talking about west! West is useless in this issue my dear friend. Let west poke its nose into "OTHER PEOPLE" affairs. Not between India and Pakistan.


Not sure where you have been but history is full of interference by the likes of USA and UK meddling in foreign affairs. That is how Empires are made. I agree that the UN is a complete waste of space in world affairs but the USA, UK and France etc are not. When they have an ulterior motive to take action they will and always do so. History is littered with their failed attempts to impose their cuctoms and cultures on other nations who have no dseire to set aside their own and tow the Western line.

Personally, I cannot see anything aignificant happening in that region anyway. Those two nations are just two sides of the same coin and in their cultutes arguments are a way of life. If you really want to put a spotlight on a future area of the next World War then look no further than Iran and Israel!

“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:03:56 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,806
angieseroticpen wrote:


Not sure where you have been but history is full of interference by the likes of USA and UK meddling in foreign affairs. That is how Empires are made. I agree that the UN is a complete waste of space in world affairs but the USA, UK and France etc are not. When they have an ulterior motive to take action they will and always do so. History is littered with their failed attempts to impose their cuctoms and cultures on other nations who have no dseire to set aside their own and tow the Western line.

Personally, I cannot see anything aignificant happening in that region anyway. Those two nations are just two sides of the same coin and in their cultutes arguments are a way of life. If you really want to put a spotlight on a future area of the next World War then look no further than Iran and Israel!


History is history. Time has changed. USA,UK and France are not goint open any front against any nation at all. Because they CAN'T. What do you think will such front do if it happens? Nothing. If you are talking about the world wars then I must say that you should come out of the story books. Now a days situation of the world in case of military power is pretty balanced due to nukes. No one wants to interfere between nuke possessing nations. That's why neither US, nor UK, nor France says anything about China when they often override human rights. But all these countries put pressure on Syria for the same reason. Why? Because China possess nukes,Syria doesn't. India and Pakistan both have nukes. So fronts, be calm.
nazhinaz
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:39:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
awake_ wrote:


History is history. Time has changed. USA,UK and France are not goint open any front against any nation at all. Because they CAN'T. What do you think will such front do if it happens? Nothing. If you are talking about the world wars then I must say that you should come out of the story books. Now a days situation of the world in case of military power is pretty balanced due to nukes. No one wants to interfere between nuke possessing nations. That's why neither US, nor UK, nor France says anything about China when they often override human rights. But all these countries put pressure on Syria for the same reason. Why? Because China possess nukes,Syria doesn't. India and Pakistan both have nukes. So fronts, be calm.


Nukes are merely deterants.
Only time nukes were used was in 1945 & that too mostly to test.
I fail to understand that we are considering as a hot spot between India and Pakstan; which it surely is.
But we fail to comprehend Kashmiris as a NATION? Kashmiris are as large a nation as Romanians in Europe, if not more.
LET KASHMIRIS HAVE THEIR SAY IN THEIR DESTINY.
Just coz India and Pakistan have nukes should not crush self determination right of a nation.
Soviet Unon and USA had 1000 times more nukes together.
But did it stop Uzbekistan and others to fnd their independent destiny?
Same principle should be applied for KASHMRIS.
lambdavi
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:52:13 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/20/2012
Posts: 39
Location: Italy
nazhinaz wrote:


Nukes are merely deterants.
Only time nukes were used was in 1945 & that too mostly to test.
I fail to understand that we are considering as a hot spot between India and Pakstan; which it surely is.
But we fail to comprehend Kashmiris as a NATION? Kashmiris are as large a nation as Romanians in Europe, if not more.
LET KASHMIRIS HAVE THEIR SAY IN THEIR DESTINY.
Just coz India and Pakistan have nukes should not crush self determination right of a nation.
Soviet Unon and USA had 1000 times more nukes together.
But did it stop Uzbekistan and others to fnd their independent destiny?
Same principle should be applied for KASHMRIS.


I agree. The same should apply to Kurdistan across the Anatolian Peninsula, Euskadi across the Pyrenees (Spain and France call them the Basque Countries) Northern Ireland, and the Sami in Scandinavia.
Unfortunately, wherever Europeans went in the world they made a mess of the nations they invaded and muddled with the existing borders.
Prime examples of this are the mess the British made in Hindustan, that the Russians and the Soviets made in Central Asia and Armenia, that the French did in Central Africa or that the Italians did in the Horn of Africa...
...not to mention Kuwait which was a Mesopotamian Province until somebody in London who had never been any farther south than Paris decided to grant the Kuwaiti Emir independence from Baghdad simply because they could lap up oil as it freely seeped through the sands...
Poland has modern (1946) borders which are hundreds of miles out west compared to its 1936 borders, and Germany lost a huge portion of its own sovereign territory - and it will never be given back, it's too late.
Time never fixes these issues because people live, marry, die and new bonds are formed. Life goes on, and the "nationalist patriots" who long for the "Mother Country" are first looked down on as potential terrorists, then as die-hard nostalgics, and eventually their children and grandchildren as neo-nazi hoodlums. I know, I come from one such family where a mere newsletter through the mail (and no political activity whatsoever) had us screened for many years.

So yes, let Kashmiris have their say... but I sincerely doubt neither India nor Pakistan will be willing to listen.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:08:51 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,806
nazhinaz wrote:


Nukes are merely deterants.
Only time nukes were used was in 1945 & that too mostly to test.
I fail to understand that we are considering as a hot spot between India and Pakstan; which it surely is.
But we fail to comprehend Kashmiris as a NATION? Kashmiris are as large a nation as Romanians in Europe, if not more.
LET KASHMIRIS HAVE THEIR SAY IN THEIR DESTINY.
Just coz India and Pakistan have nukes should not crush self determination right of a nation.
Soviet Unon and USA had 1000 times more nukes together.
But did it stop Uzbekistan and others to fnd their independent destiny?
Same principle should be applied for KASHMRIS.


We need to take the treaty between government of India and King Harising, king of Kashmir at the time of division, into account. Kashmir was merged into India according to that treaty.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:21:58 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,806
Who cares?
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:06:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
awake_ wrote:


We need to take the treaty between government of India and King Harising, king of Kashmir at the time of division, into account. Kashmir was merged into India according to that treaty.

Take the treaty of an alien ruler(Maharaja Gulab Sngh had purchased Kashmir from British for merely Rs. 7.5 millions) and forget over 7.5 million kashmiri people?
Would that be fair?
lambdavi
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:18:21 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/20/2012
Posts: 39
Location: Italy
sexalted wrote:
Who cares?


Please clarify.

If that treaty is authentic, then the ruler of the day decreed that his Kingdom would merge into a larger, more powerful political entity for reasons of political opportunity.
Read it
If Sexalted's "who cares?" should have any value in International Jurisprudence, then Mexico would have an awfully EASY time asking to have Texas back... and California... and all that lies inbetween.

The UK would have to immediately return the Province of Northern Ireland to Eire, Gibraltar back to Spain, and South Africa back to the Netherlands...

Do you see where I'm getting at ?
isjda
Regards, LV
Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:29:23 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,806
nazhinaz wrote:

Take the treaty of an alien ruler(Maharaja Gulab Sngh had purchased Kashmir from British for merely Rs. 7.5 millions) and forget over 7.5 million kashmiri people?
Would that be fair?


If we go for how much money rulers spent on their kingdoms then no state would have been included in any of the two countries. According to the Act of Independence of India 1947, "RULERS" were totally free to choose which country they want their kingdom to merge into, "NOT PEOPLE". Both the nations are created according to this act. If any of them refuses to follow it then its existence will be illegal and if they are following it then they should give attention to the above provision.Why are we only asking people of Kashmir? We should ask people of both the nations if they want to live in India or Pakistan if it comes to people's opinion.
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:37:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
awake_ wrote:


If we go for how much money rulers spent on their kingdoms then no state would have been included in any of the two countries. According to the Act of Independence of India 1947, "RULERS" were totally free to choose which country they want their kingdom to merge into, "NOT PEOPLE". Both the nations are created according to this act. If any of them refuses to follow it then its existence will be illegal and if they are following it then they should give attention to the above provision.Why are we only asking people of Kashmir? We should ask people of both the nations if they want to live in India or Pakistan if it comes to people's opinion.


If we follow those rules, what would you say about the decision of Nawab Usman Ali Khan of Hyderabad Deccan's decision to join Pakistan?
And same is true about Junagardh and Bhopal too. The rulers decided to join Pakistan at the time of Independence.
But those decisions were not valid as about 87% population of Hyderabad Deccan was non muslims.
Same is true about Junagardh and Bhopal.
Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal nehru was right in saying that the decision of the vast majority of population over rules the decision of a ruler.
And the great leader of India reiterated the principle of following the will of the people over ruling rulers, at the Unted Nations.
May I remind the speech of Menon, the then Foreign minister of India at the United Nations?
But lets try to understand.
Much water has flown down the Nile. Much has changed. Europe fought two World Wars and then united into a European Union.
The people of India, Pakistan and kashmir too should take a lead from that example.
SAARC was treatized but never implemented.
Let this sub continent come out of the fears of war and disunity.
Lets unite for a better future for over 1.5 billion people of the region.
Guest
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:53:52 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,806
nazhinaz wrote:


If we follow those rules, what would you say about the decision of Nawab Usman Ali Khan of Hyderabad Deccan's decision to join Pakistan?
And same is true about Junagardh and Bhopal too. The rulers decided to join Pakistan at the time of Independence.
But those decisions were not valid as about 87% population of Hyderabad Deccan was non muslims.
Same is true about Junagardh and Bhopal.
Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal nehru was right in saying that the decision of the vast majority of population over rules the decision of a ruler.
And the great leader of India reiterated the principle of following the will of the people over ruling rulers, at the Unted Nations.
May I remind the speech of Menon, the then Foreign minister of India at the United Nations?
But lets try to understand.
Much water has flown down the Nile. Much has changed. Europe fought two World Wars and then united into a European Union.
The people of India, Pakistan and kashmir too should take a lead from that example.
SAARC was treatized but never implemented.
Let this sub continent come out of the fears of war and disunity.
Lets unite for a better future for over 1.5 billion people of the region.


Europe formed a union but they couldn't form one nation though plenty of their aspects were same.
nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:40:49 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
awake_ wrote:


Europe formed a union but they couldn't form one nation though plenty of their aspects were same.


Who on earth wants one nation?
Even Indians are not one nation.
Punjabis and Tamils are different nations.
Kashmiris and Maharashrians to are different nations.
Let them stay as different nations in a sub continent of India.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.