kashmir

[Mani]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Is it entirely impossible for Muslims to be impartial? I certainly hope not. I really don't think CNN would be putting out information partial to either side, especially as similar as the content is to the BBC site (who is known world wide for their quality of journalism).

Originally posted by: Lucky
Thats ridiculous. Unless you have some evidence of bias in that article (or past articles), I dont even see why you would bring that up. Besides that, if you are to claim that I'd like to see what specifically you dispute with his writings, or how the CNN version compares to the BBC version (are they biased as well?)

Of course it's possible for a Muslim or a Hindu to be impartial - however I do not believe that this FAQ is. There are a number of reasons for this, one being that it completely ignores India's primary claim why they feel Kashmir should stay a part of India. It's not because "India has always held that Kashmir is "an integral part of India" or its secularity claim - it's because relinquishing it would set a dangerous precedent, and that losing a state threatens India as a nation much as the south's secession would have America. It also brings to light human rights violations of the Indian army yet fails to bring up the atrocities committed against the people of Kashmir by the insurgent militants. The list goes on.

I also brought it up was because CNN's impartiality was being questioned. It would not have been hard to find a Sikh, Jain, Buddhist or a member from the multitude of other religions residing in India to write this FAQ. You will find on polling Hindus and Muslims you will find almost categorially favoritism towards India or Pakistan respectively.

 

[Lucky]

I still dont agree with your views regarding the writer, and Im dissapointed that you still wont back up your claims that the FAQ isnt impartial.

it's because relinquishing it would set a dangerous precedent, and that losing a state threatens India as a nation much as the south's secession would have America

Not really. From both the CNN link and the BBC link, its stated that when the area was split into the 2 seperate countries ~60 years ago, kashmir was left to decide its own fate. The ensuing decision was contested nearly immediately, and has been contested ever since.

Thats much different that the South when they tried to seceed from the US. They were a voluntary part of the Union ever since each state's admittance, there was no contestance of that. Only later did they decide they wanted to break apart, and it was over a radically different reason, over states rights vs. the federal govt's rights.

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Kashmir? One of my favorite Led Zepplin songs!

I always thought the Kashmir conflict was whether or not the song was ruined by Puff Daddy or not.

hey puffy's version was aiiight! awright..... now get off puffy!

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ramsnake

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Kashmir? One of my favorite Led Zepplin songs!

I always thought the Kashmir conflict was whether or not the song was ruined by Puff Daddy or not.

hey puffy's version was aiiight! awright..... now get off puffy!

<off topic>

All he did was insert the phrase "come on, yeah" liberally throughout the Zepplin masterpiece...what a great talent. And I have to apologize. He wants to be called P Diddy now.

</off topic>

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Lucky
I still dont agree with your views regarding the writer, and Im dissapointed that you still wont back up your claims that the FAQ isnt impartial.

it's because relinquishing it would set a dangerous precedent, and that losing a state threatens India as a nation much as the south's secession would have America

Not really. From both the CNN link and the BBC link, its stated that when the area was split into the 2 seperate countries ~60 years ago, kashmir was left to decide its own fate. The ensuing decision was contested nearly immediately, and has been contested ever since.

Thats much different that the South when they tried to seceed from the US. They were a voluntary part of the Union ever since each state's admittance, there was no contestance of that. Only later did they decide they wanted to break apart, and it was over a radically different reason, over states rights vs. the federal govt's rights.

The decision had been contested by Pakistan but officially it was recognized worldwide that Kashmir was a part of India - and let's not forget that the entire subcontinent was India beforehand. But even that aside, India knows that dealing with continual insurgency by giving in to the militants in the area sets a dangerous precedent. They are determined not to make the same mistakes they did before when giving in to the militants fueled this conflict up until now.

Also, as I said, it is very odd to out of nowhere bring up Indian human rights violations with no mention of those committed by the militants. The line about it is inserted akwardly, and wasn't even relevant to the question.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

why is it that a lot of major conflicts today involve Muslim countries?

 

[kulki]

well there is a book out I will soon post its title and author which talks about how since the very beginning of Islam whenever Islam came in contact with any other religion it has always led to war. I believe the reason why we are seeing more problems
a) Because of rapidly growing population especially amongst the islamic countries cos of their religions beliefs against birth control there are now more and more muslims in areas which were dominated before by people of other religions. Therefore there have been mpre conflicts lately.
b) None of he major middle eastern countries have a democratic regime. 'cos of the money that has poured into the gulf due to oil, the govt instead of using it for developmental purposes has used it to fund terrorism. I think its the same old adage "idle mind is devils workshop"

 

[DigDug]

When you look at the fundamental hope of all muslims is an eventual muslim world, is it so hard to think that "fanatics" (as opposed to moderate muslims of who I have yet to meet) would rise and exert this belief?

Alot of American doubt about the situation there, has much to do with America's ignorance regarding Islam - its only been a litte time since the ugly specter of Islamic aggression has set foot upon American shores - India has faced this for many, many years, and has yet to learn what the Israelis have realized: Islam does not want to, and therefore can-not co-exist with ANYONE.

Look at Pakistan - its raison d'etre is a counterpoint to India, instigating and prodding all the way. What has Pakistan done for itself in the last 50 some-od years besides perpetually fomenting anti-indian sentiment among its people? Its economy is in shambles, it is INCREDIBLY corrupt (ranked a few years ago as the third most corrupt in the world), and continues to provide a haven for terrorists. Elections aren't even held, thanks to the closing of the houses by Musharraf, who enjoys an effective dictatorship.
But they are our "Ally". Ha...

Tell me, why does Musharraf make two versions of his speeches - a moderate one in english, and a rabidly heated, militant one in urdu?

 

[athithi]

BDawg, when you question everything without analyzing, only questions will remain. If you are interested in this subject, do your own research (and trust me, both Indian and Pakistani newspapers report the Kashmir issue MUCH better than CNN or BBC). If you still conclude that Pakistan is in the right, that's your opinion and I respect your entitlement to it. I am just proud to be the citizen of a country that follows the principles of Democracy and for the large part, tries to do good by its people. I would only be happy for any Pakistani that is able to feel similarly about his own country.

Lucky, sometimes misrepresenting both sides of an issue is seen as impartiality. In a crude way, I suppose that is true

 

[ConantheBarbarian]

I thought india wanted to purge itself of ALL Muslims. Read some of the sick stories here where hindu terrorists Rape Young Girls, sick bastards. Check out some of the links and you will be horrified as what the Hindu mobs do to the Muslims their so called neighbors. Why doesn't the news media put this on headlines?

Human Rights Watch Link To Massacres

 

[athithi]

Every second a fool is born....

It's impossible to educate everyone of everything. ConanTheBarbarian, have you even read what the Indian papers had to write about this? What makes you think these weren't headlines back in India?

Prescription: Less porn, more Current Affairs :disgust:

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: athithi
Every second a fool is born....

It's impossible to educate everyone of everything. ConanTheBarbarian, have you even read what the Indian papers had to write about this? What makes you think these weren't headlines back in India?

Prescription: Less porn, more Current Affairs :disgust:

relax dude dont waste yourself over that guy, i would like to call him a moron but i dont wanna hurt such an immature soul, obviously he doesnt know the difference between terrorism which is something that is organized and maintained whereas mob culture which can happen at the spur of the moment is not terrorism.

 

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
At first glance it seems the answer is simple: come to the table and agree on a firm border, once and for all. Hell, give me a marker and a map and I'll do it for them. If they feel I'm not qualified perhaps the U.N. has a marker or two.

Why didn't the British and other parties involved decide on Kashmir back in the 40s?

Bah, forget that. I say we just drop, oh, 300 billion metric tons of bouncey balls into Kashmir. Then send in our midget on kangaroos with giant spoons for weapons army in to crush the survivors.

 

[Lucky]

Lucky, sometimes misrepresenting both sides of an issue is seen as impartiality. In a crude way, I suppose that is true

I admit I'm not fully educated on this issue, but I try. Yet no one who has bashed what CNN and BBC has stated has said WHY they are innacurate or biased (except for one comment on india's human rights record (?) ). Its helpful to us all if those who knock what is presented explain WHY they are knocking said articles.

 

[tk149]

1. IIRC (which is a tentative conclusion at best), the prevailing winds in the India-Pakistan region blow from east to west, so any nuclear fallout over India would blow over Pakistan. So why is Pakistan flexing it's nuclear missile capabilities.

2. Does anyone know China's stance on this conflict? Take a look at the map (970Kb). If a major war did erupt in Kashmir, do you think China might take that as an excuse to invade? They've gotta be nervous about having two butthead nuclear neighbors next door. And the thought of thousands of refugees fleeing a war zone can't be a happy thought either. Does Kashmir have any valuable natural resources?

 

Originally posted by: tk149
1. IIRC (which is a tentative conclusion at best), the prevailing winds in the India-Pakistan region blow from east to west, so any nuclear fallout over India would blow over Pakistan. So why is Pakistan flexing it's nuclear missile capabilities.

2. Does anyone know China's stance on this conflict? Take a look at the map (970Kb). If a major war did erupt in Kashmir, do you think China might take that as an excuse to invade? They've gotta be nervous about having two butthead nuclear neighbors next door. And the thought of thousands of refugees fleeing a war zone can't be a happy thought either. Does Kashmir have any valuable natural resources?

I believe china helped Pakistan with their nuclear weapons program, so more than likely they would jump in against india.

 

[Mani]

Most likely unless they are threatened in some way, China will stay out of it. They used to take Pakistan's side since India and China were not on good terms (wars over border disputes, etc) but since then relations have improved considerably.

Edit: This is all of course assuming there will be a war, which I don't think is going to happen.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: athithi
BDawg, when you question everything without analyzing, only questions will remain. If you are interested in this subject, do your own research (and trust me, both Indian and Pakistani newspapers report the Kashmir issue MUCH better than CNN or BBC). If you still conclude that Pakistan is in the right, that's your opinion and I respect your entitlement to it. I am just proud to be the citizen of a country that follows the principles of Democracy and for the large part, tries to do good by its people. I would only be happy for any Pakistani that is able to feel similarly about his own country.

I don't think I said that Pakistan was in the right. My gut feeling is neither one is right and Kashmir should be an autonomous country. I also think a lot of the information coming from here is tripe spouted off by people with an abvious Indian bias. This is because there are so many immigrants and families of Indian immigrants in the US (which makes you wonder if India is so right about everything, why do so many people leave)? I have no problems with Indian immigrants. I currently have friends for India...I just might not agree with them on everything.

Personally, both countries have behaved childishly. I would have liked to bitch slap India back to the stone age when they "tested" nuclear bombs to flex their muscle five years ago. That's exactly what this conflict needed.

I'm no friend of Fundamentalist Muslim regimes. Don't kid yourself though, there are plenty of crazed right-wing fanatics who are Indian Hindus too. India has it's share of anti-Christian and anti-Muslim violence.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
why is it that a lot of major conflicts today involve Muslim countries?

I believe that's an unfair generalization. At the same time, there's only one predominantly Hindu country in the world, and they seem to always be at a state of war too.

And to answer another question -

IIRC (which is a tentative conclusion at best), the prevailing winds in the India-Pakistan region blow from east to west, so any nuclear fallout over India would blow over Pakistan. So why is Pakistan flexing it's nuclear missile capabilities.

Because in reality, the only way Pakistan can even partially win a war against India (who has over 1 billion people) is to not fight a conventional war. Pakistan isn't exactly a sparsly populated country, but they have nowhere near 1 billion people.

 

[athithi]

BDawg, Pakistan forever erased the possibility of Kashmir remaining an independent country when it attacked Kashmir in 1947. This is not Indian propaganda, but history.

(which makes you wonder if India is so right about everything, why do so many people leave)?

I cannot go around explaining in every thread....but take a look around you and see the difference between the Indian immigrants and their Pakistani counterparts. Indians are not leaving India by abandoning it. Indians are coming to the US where the grass is currently greener. If anything, so many Indians are able to come to the US as educated, qualified people with good jobs because of everything that is right with India. For example, I was educated in the Sciences, Math, Literature and Engineering - not at a Madrassa, specializing in Islamic Fundamentalism and Suicide techniques- I believe you would brush away this argument as some more Indian propaganda

It would be quite a task to bitch-slap a humongous country like India. I resonate with the frustration that a lot of people see with everything that is wrong with the world today. If we went around bitch-slapping we wouldn't be helping fix those problems. We would only be deluding ourselves about our own righteousness.

Islam entered the Indian subcontinent as a invading force quite like the Christian Inquisition. Again, this is history, not Indian propaganda. Hinduism on the other hand has never been an organized religion of quite the same hue as Islam or Christianity. What you see from right-wing Hindu fanatics is not endorsed by any existing Hindu cultural, religious or social establishment. It is the work of unproductive anti-social elements. Why do I even bother?! When an Islamic nation other than Turkey starts practising democracy we can start talking about Islam and peaceful co-existence.

India in its 5000+ year history has NEVER attacked another nation - yet it is surrounded by 1 Islamic Fundamentalist Military Dictatorship, one Hindu Fundamentalist country, 1 fragile Impoverished Democracy, 1 Nuclear-armed Communist power and 1 civil-war torn Buddhist Fundamentalist country. What the heck do you even know about this region that you think you can comment on it? I'd be surprised if you could even name the countries that I have hinted at above :disgust: Of all its neighbours India is the only one with a glimmer of hope in its future.

Islamic Fundamentalism is a growing problem all over the world today - it is not an unfair generalization that Islamic Jihadists are today the largest group of warring people.

 

[BDawg]

India in its 5000+ year history has NEVER attacked another nation - yet it is surrounded by 1 Islamic Fundamentalist Military Dictatorship, one Hindu Fundamentalist country, 1 fragile Impoverished Democracy, 1 Nuclear-armed Communist power and 1 civil-war torn Buddhist Fundamentalist country. What the heck do you even know about this region that you think you can comment on it? I'd be surprised if you could even name the countries that I have hinted at above :disgust: Of all its neighbours India is the only one with a glimmer of hope in its future.

I know quite a bit more about the region than you would ever give me credit for.

I know that the countries you're talking about ... I think ... Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, China, and Myanmar (Burma). Unless you're considering Chinese controlled Tibet to be the Buddhist fundamentalist and India to be the impoverished democracy...I'm not sure where Bangladesh fits into your list, there weren't enough descriptions.

Sure, India has a decent chance of being an important country someday. Right now, there are too many Priests burning and nuns being raped for me to consider them secular. Also, they need to do something about population control and infrasturcture improvements in order to be a major player in the world.

As far as I can tell, India promised Kashmir voting on their own future in '47, and most Kashmari people want it. But they seem to be too scared of the outcome to actually let it happen.

If Kashmir gets their independance and Pakistan invades then the world's problem is not with India. All of the negative pressure (and international troops) would be on Pakistan. India shouldn't have anything to worry about.

You know currently, it's the Indian government refusing to meet with the Pakistanis at the pan-Asian conference.

You know, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make him an ignorant American.

Edit: Don't try to post while watching the end of football matches and then sportscenter.

 

[athithi]

BDawg, yes, you do seem to know quite a bit more than the average Westerner - atleast geographically, if not quite geopolitically However, the information that you have is not exactly the most unbiased version either. While it is true that India is supposed to hold a referendum to allow the Kashmiri people to determine their fate, it is not compelled to do so until Pakistan withdraws its force from Kashmir. This is a pre-condition to the resolution of the United Nations Security Council that asks India to hold this referendum. Do people even understand that the first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a Kashmiri? India has more ties to Kashmir than is apparent. The atmosphere in Kashmir is not conducive to holding a referendum because of Pakistan's terrorist influence on the state. A fair referendum can only be held when both countries stop occupying Kashmir.

BTW, Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world and the refugee problem that India has with them is far worse than the illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States. It is today a democracy. Burma, on the other hand, is another Military Dictatorship.

When Kashmir WAS invaded by Pakistan, the world stood by and watched. Today the equation is a little different. But the U.S has too much vested interest in Pakistan for India to expect them to deal with Kashmir's status fairly. That is why India is still blocking the U.S from intervening. With improving relations between the U.S and India, perhaps this will change with time too.

The U.S has a declared policy of not negotiating with terrorists and the regimes that support them. Why would they expect that India talk with Pakistan? After all, Pakistan is trying to coerce us by perpetrating terrorist acts against us.

The priests being burned and nuns being raped are criminal activities that are in no way related to the governance or political directives of India. There are bad apples everywhere and that generalization of Hindus is what is unfair.

And, I give credit where credit is due. I am happy that you are able to take interest in the politics and events in a part of the world far removed from your own.

 

[Red Dawn]

With both India and Pakistan sharing a border with China what do you think the odds are the Chinese would get involved militarily if the other two started lagging Nukes at each other? Who's side do you think China would be on if this were to happen? Also, do you think the US and Russia would intervene if China were to side with India?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
With both India and Pakistan sharing a border with China what do you think the odds are the Chinese would get involved militarily if the other two started lagging Nukes at each other? Who's side do you think China would be on if this were to happen? Also, do you think the US and Russia would intervene if China were to side with India?

I don't think China would take sides at all. IMHO, they'd be more content letting the countries blow each others apart. Then, when the governments are sufficiently weakend, sew the seeds of Communism in the people.

After a few years of war, a billion starving Indians might welcome the promises of food that China could make (not that China's doing an adequate job of feeding their people currenlty).

Besides, the eyes of the world are constantly on China. I don't think they'd do anything overt. If they had to take sides, I think they would pick the Pakistanis. Even though India's military is nowhere near what Chinas' is, they could still provide a great deal of resistance matching soldier for soldier. Besides, the Chinese don't have the same hangups with Asian Muslims like the Russians did.

 

[Red Dawn]

Chinese don't have the same hangups with Asian Muslims like the Russians did

I have heard that China actually does have some problems with Muslim extremists in North Western China.