'87 per cent in Kashmir want Independence'

[Ram]

In that case' date=' none of the Maurya, Chola, Gupta etc. empires were 'indian', since our country is defined differently today. Indian history remarkably parallels political development in European history but with a far more peaceful tilt to it (except for the invasion angles, which again, we both share in common). As i said, India is a EU state- most Indians just don't realize it because of the paranoia.[/quote'] I actually dont entirely deny your comparison between the EU and India. But whats the point of this comparison ? Britain could care less If Romania's membership is delayed. But that couldnt be said the same way for say Rajasthan and Gujrat. We are talking of International boundaries changing here, something that is VERY dicey.

hence i said, play its card right from India's part. What is china gonna do if India urged Nepal for a referendum and Nepal complied ? invade ? sure, it can but then it will be WWIII and the west will firmly sit in India's corner if India can play the 'democracy' card right.

And that is reason why India wouldnt even risk taking Nepal into its fold even the people of Nepal wanted so. What would you choose ? The welfare of a few million nepalis or the well-being a billion Indians, which could be jeopardized in a war with China ?

Those are religious divisions' date=' not cultural divisions.[/quote'] Religion and culture go hand in hand. They are inseparable.

Indeed. But states making up a nation is much more a question of provincialism and that is not the history of India. India essentially created a 'EU' style govt. in 1947- there is no reason to consider Bengal or Maharasthra etc. different from France/Germany within the European Union fold. They've been independent nations, they've been parts of big empires, they have their own cultural and linguistic identities, etc etc. They are 'nations' in every sense of the word, not just 'states'. States would be 'alabama vs New york' where its entire/bulk of historic & cultural existence is part of one nation state with miniscule difference in culture substrata.

But you are missing one important point here. It was the people of Mahararshtra and Bengal who fought together against the British for Independence. Same couldnt be said for a France/Germany of Alabama/New York. I do accept , they are individual entities on their own , but there is a common bond , a thread which connects all of them

Not if political freedom weakens your own position and the position of the rest. As i said, it is a question of India playing its card rightly- Canada played its card brilliantly and the result is secessionism in quebec has died. And the reason for that is, Canada dared to risk splitting Canada up and as the saying goes, those who dare, win. Paranoid 'holding on' to territorry simply adds more fuel to the fire of secessionism because it is clearly based on premises outside of the desires of the local population of the said state/province.

Brute force is also an effective method to quell secessionism. Remember what happened to Khalistan ? Those separatists were brutally handled. Now , nobody talks of a Khalistan do they ?

Disagree. A very good precedent it would be. It'd show that India is not intent on holding on to land simply for the sake of nationhood but is far more 'people-oriented'. As i said, with proper PR and logistics, offering independence to an area or two that wants to leave sets a very strong example of freedom of choice- a quality if we embodify, then people don't HAVE a reason to leave in the first place. Nationalism is a pretty retarded concept to begin with when it is based solely on keeping a nation alive.

Yes , i agree with most of what you have to say. Those will work perfectly in an ideal world , but not in a real world of today

[CC1981]

But that couldnt be said the same way for say Rajasthan and Gujrat. We are talking of International boundaries changing here, something that is VERY dicey.

It is not the same level of response in Rajasthan-Gujrat case because as i said, we have a more developed and integrated EU model than EU does at this point. Its a pity that most indians don't see it.

And that is reason why India wouldnt even risk taking Nepal into its fold even the people of Nepal wanted so.

Well if you are a cissy and cannot play your cards right, you deserve to lose. Instead of being afraid of what might happen if we screw up, think of what we gain if we play our cards right and the muster the courage to attempt doing so. If we play our cards right, we score nepal, bhutan and bangladesh while we don't lose the north-east/kashmir. They are NOT going to muster a 3/4th majority for scession anyways. And if they did, then there is something fundamentally wrong with Indian union and it deserves to dissolve in the first place. Our nation is not more important the free will of its people.

. What would you choose ? The welfare of a few million nepalis or the well-being a billion Indians, which could be jeopardized in a war with China ?

I'd choose the democracy angle of a popular desire for union with India (from nepalese/bhutanese) IF they wanted it. Even if China threatened war/occupation because IF we drew attention to the democratic process (and at the same time, offered Independence to J&K if they wanted it, signalling that India is NOT a conquest-based nation but a popular consensous based one), the west will have NO CHOICE but to pick our side in the confrontation. Simply because they certainly won't sit still and watch two of the most populous nations blow each other up especially when the issue is a democratic one vs a non-democratic one. And with western support, China will back down because China is not exactly suicidally stupid. We can always bring up Tibet, Turkestan and Taiwan to further nail the chinese coffin shut in such a scenario. but for that, you need a clear action plan and some courage.

Religion and culture go hand in hand. They are inseparable.

Yes but religion is one attribute of a culture, culture is something far more profound and bigger in scale & scope.

It was the people of Mahararshtra and Bengal who fought together against the British for Independence. Same couldnt be said for a France/Germany of Alabama/New York.

False. Britain and France fought together against Germany in WWI and WWII. Germany, britain, italy fought together against Napoleonic france. As is the case with Indian nations, European nations too have fought side by side when presented with a common interest.

they are individual entities on their own , but there is a common bond , a thread which connects all of them

yes, hence they are nations within a nation, not states of a nation. Indian nationhood is a looser and more general concept than Maratha nation, just like its the case with French nation and the EU for eg.

Brute force is also an effective method to quell secessionism.

No, it isn't. It will silence people, but it will not stop them from wanting to break away from you or teach that to their kids. If brute force would've worked, then Tibetans wouldn't still be arriving in thousands every year in India.

Remember what happened to Khalistan ? Those separatists were brutally handled. Now , nobody talks of a Khalistan do they ?

This example doesn't hold because as i said, i am NOT supporting secessionist ideas from a few radicals but supporting secession if the MAJORITY of the PEOPLE wanted it from that region. Reason Khalistan failed is because most Punjabis didnt want a seperate nation. Thats the bottomline. And if most of punjab wanted a seperate nation, i don't think India could've kept Punjab, particularly with it having a common border with our arch-enemy.

Those will work perfectly in an ideal world , but not in a real world of today

It worked in the case of Canada just a few years ago. Not a utopian ideal world scenario but very much a 'today's world' scenario that HAS already happened. As i said, if the people within a particular nation (state) of India wanted independence, there is no democratic excuse for refusing it- the only excuse would be imperialistic and dictatorial in nature. NOT the kind of environment that leads to long term stability because it is essentially against the nature of free will. So if anything, having a concept of nationhood for the sake of a nation's well being leads to far more unstability in the long run than stability. And it never succeeds.

[Ram]

It is not the same level of response in Rajasthan-Gujrat case because as i said' date=' we have a [b'] more developed and integrated EU model than EU does at this point. Its a pity that most indians don't see it.

But again i ask you , what relevance has comparing EU to India got with the dealing with break-away tendencies ?

Well if you are a cissy and cannot play your cards right, you deserve to lose. Instead of being afraid of what might happen if we screw up, think of what we gain if we play our cards right and the muster the courage to attempt doing so. If we play our cards right, we score nepal, bhutan and bangladesh while we don't lose the north-east/kashmir. They are NOT going to muster a 3/4th majority for scession anyways. And if they did, then there is something fundamentally wrong with Indian union and it deserves to dissolve in the first place. Our nation is not more important the free will of its people.

If being cissy means not getting into a war-like situation with one of the world's foremost countries for the sake of some puny neighbors , i would rather be that itself. There is absolutely no point in antagonizing China for the sake of Nepal and Bhutan.

I'd choose the democracy angle of a popular desire for union with India (from nepalese/bhutanese) IF they wanted it. Even if China threatened war/occupation because IF we drew attention to the democratic process (and at the same time, offered Independence to J&K if they wanted it, signalling that India is NOT a conquest-based nation but a popular consensous based one), the west will have NO CHOICE but to pick our side in the confrontation. Simply because they certainly won't sit still and watch two of the most populous nations blow each other up especially when the issue is a democratic one vs a non-democratic one. And with western support, China will back down because China is not exactly suicidally stupid. We can always bring up Tibet, Turkestan and Taiwan to further nail the chinese coffin shut in such a scenario. but for that, you need a clear action plan and some courage.

No Indian govt would trust the western nations to back India fully if such a scenario arises. What you are indulging is mere fancy speculation, something that will NEVER happen.

Yes but religion is one attribute of a culture, culture is something far more profound and bigger in scale & scope.

But i was wanting to highlight how , people with such profound differences have lived with each other in other countries too , not just India.

False. Britain and France fought together against Germany in WWI and WWII. Germany, britain, italy fought together against Napoleonic france. As is the case with Indian nations, European nations too have fought side by side when presented with a common interest.

But there is a fundemental difference there isnt it ? They were bought together in the first place by a common enemy werent they ? Unlike in India, where these states ALREADY had a common identity. India fought the war with Bangladesh for it independence , but that doesnt mean we can claim stake in its existance later.

yes, hence they are nations within a nation, not states of a nation. Indian nationhood is a looser and more general concept than Maratha nation, just like its the case with French nation and the EU for eg. No, it isn't. It will silence people, but it will not stop them from wanting to break away from you or teach that to their kids. If brute force would've worked, then Tibetans wouldn't still be arriving in thousands every year in India.

You dont use JUST brute force. It should be a combination of carrot and stick. Use the axe when needed , give the flowers when required.

[CC1981]

But again i ask you , what relevance has comparing EU to India got with the dealing with break-away tendencies ?

Because a nation of nations must have the breakaway and join clause in it if wants to be recognized as a democratic one and not a despotic one.

If being cissy means not getting into a war-like situation with one of the world's foremost countries for the sake of some puny neighbors , i would rather be that itself. There is absolutely no point in antagonizing China for the sake of Nepal and Bhutan.

My entire point is, if India played its card right, there shall be no war ! so stop being a cissy about war that can be EASILY averted if India played its cards right. As i said, if nepal wanted to join & china got pi$$ed off, there is not a DAMN THING China can do about it IF we drummed up the issue loud enough. As i said, the west would have no choice BUT to support INdia in such a scenario or face mass civil unrest of their own.

No Indian govt would trust the western nations to back India fully if such a scenario arises

And that is because our government is pretty retarded and our people pretty paranoid/uneducated.

What you are indulging is mere fancy speculation, something that will NEVER happen.

Not mere fancy- it is called picking a side in a conflict or throwing support behind a side to avert a conflict. the west will NOT stay neutral in this issue and all it takes is a bit of balls from India's part (in this scenario) to avert war with China AND keep nepal/bhutan. That is, if Nepal & Bhutan wanted to join us- i am not saying take them over and then deal with china- China itself will have a tough time justifying war if the Nepalese & bhutanese wanted to join india in the first place- most they can do is try and sabotage a referendum but we can prevent that if we, again, played our cards right and insisted on UN observence. And most important of all, not give the Chinese the 'hypocrite Indians' angle by refusing such democratic referendum amongst Kashmiris. Their importance to us is of geo-strategic value and our importance to them is the cultural and economic bond. There is a win-win scenario here which we should play up, not be pessimist losers in attitude. As the saying goes- he who dares, wins.

But i was wanting to highlight how , people with such profound differences have lived with each other in other countries too , not just India.

And when have i said that is not the case ? All i am saying is that if a certain group of people that are an ethnic/state community in majority want independence, we have NO REASON to say no on democratic grounds.

They were bought together in the first place by a common enemy werent they ? Unlike in India, where these states ALREADY had a common identity.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. The bottomline is, India, much like Europe, have had its nations unite against a common enemy before.

Use the axe when needed , give the flowers when required.

The axe is never 'needed' by a democracy nor can it be justified when we are talking about the MAJORITY of an ethnic group that populate a state/region wanting freedom. The axe is only needed when it is a minority of fundamentalists creating trouble for secessionism. NOT when majority of the people want secession ala Tibet or kashmir (if that is the case). It simply makes NO SENSE to beat the hell outta gujjus if gujjus wanted seperate nation. It makes a lot more sense to let them go or try to dissuade them in the way Canada did. Using the axe has not yeilded results in the long term as far as curbing popular secessionism goes. It just delays the inevitable because you have not addressed the CAUSE of the secession or taken away the CAUSE of it- simply killed people/jailed people who said they do not want to be part of your nation. That is not democracy, that is despotism. And despotism never wins in the long run- history shows us that. My perspective is simple- India is better off with its states remaining part of it and the states are better off being part of India. However, it is a democracy first and foremost and democracy also means the right to choose your nation's path. The bengalis, kannadiga,tamil,malayali, gujjus, etc. ALL have the right to choose if they want to remain part of iNdia or not because historically and culturally, they have been nations in their own right and even in midst of empires, they've been nations within a nation, not one monolith block.

[Gaurav]

CC if majority of Hindus decided to make India officially a Hindu nation and boot out muslims then would you agree as well? J&K as a complete state has ROP majority (60% roughly) so in a referendum the whole state would be gifted away! There is no way Ladakh or Jammu should be part of any nation other than India. As for Kashmir it's staying with India as well. Anyone who does not like it can pack their bags and move to Chinese occupied Kashmir :finger: I did not read the discussion between you and KR fully but I saw EU being mentioned. EU citizens don't give a f@k about EU. I know because I am one.

[Guest dada_rocks]

But which Indian would want to migrate into a place where he could be gunned down by militants the next day ? If we sort out the security problem in Kashmir , things will take care of itself.

I say just like british sent criminals to aussie land we should deport our hardened criminals to valley.. i am sure they can take care of themselves there in valley

[Guest dada_rocks]

In that case, none of the Maurya, Chola, Gupta etc. empires were 'indian', since our country is defined differently today. Indian history remarkably parallels political development in European history but with a far more peaceful tilt to it (except for the invasion angles, which again, we both share in common). As i said, India is a EU state- most Indians just don't realize it because of the paranoia. hence i said, play its card right from India's part. What is china gonna do if India urged Nepal for a referendum and Nepal complied ? invade ? sure, it can but then it will be WWIII and the west will firmly sit in India's corner if India can play the 'democracy' card right. Those are religious divisions, not cultural divisions. Indeed. But states making up a nation is much more a question of provincialism and that is not the history of India. India essentially created a 'EU' style govt. in 1947- there is no reason to consider Bengal or Maharasthra etc. different from France/Germany within the European Union fold. They've been independent nations, they've been parts of big empires, they have their own cultural and linguistic identities, etc etc. They are 'nations' in every sense of the word, not just 'states'. States would be 'alabama vs New york' where its entire/bulk of historic & cultural existence is part of one nation state with miniscule difference in culture substrata. From a historical perspective, there is no reason to assume that karnatak,sikkim,punjab etc. are states within a nation when their history shows them to be fulfilling the criteria of nationhood inside a greater nation-state union. Not if political freedom weakens your own position and the position of the rest. As i said, it is a question of India playing its card rightly- Canada played its card brilliantly and the result is secessionism in quebec has died. And the reason for that is, Canada dared to risk splitting Canada up and as the saying goes, those who dare, win. Canada simply played up the angle of how much both 'countries' ( new Quebec and rest of Canada) lose with independence and that campaign alone swung the vote in canada's favour. Ultimately, the argument for forming a nation simply for nationalistic pride reasons can be shot down through debate pretty easily by simply demonstrating the pros and cons of it (and the cons outweigh the pros significantly). But it is important to keep the 'choice' of independence on the table or else it is nothing more than despotism of the majority, not democracy. Paranoid 'holding on' to territorry simply adds more fuel to the fire of secessionism because it is clearly based on premises outside of the desires of the local population of the said state/province. Disagree. A very good precedent it would be. It'd show that India is not intent on holding on to land simply for the sake of nationhood but is far more 'people-oriented'. As i said, with proper PR and logistics, offering independence to an area or two that wants to leave sets a very strong example of freedom of choice- a quality if we embodify, then people don't HAVE a reason to leave in the first place. Nationalism is a pretty retarded concept to begin with when it is based solely on keeping a nation alive.

usual legless bs theory.. bwt quebeceers are more than happy to go for another round of plebiscite and going by numbers of the separatist party it;s anyone's guess what that means..... so much for offering plebiscite creates good precedence.. incidentaly if Sardar patel had followed this bs dictum India wud have been in million pieces today.. newsflash in form of poem: "O rahi dilli jaana to kahan apni sarkaar se Charkha chalti hai hathon se shashan chalti talwar se"

[sandtest]

There are many arguements related with Indian interests attributed to Kashmir are made mostly by Pakistan and it's ummah sympathizers in Organization of Islamic countries (OIC). Indian interests or Indian security at large has nothing to do with giving up Kashmir.....if anything Kashmir will strengthen or geo-strategic position and we should not give up our claim over Pukistan occupied Kashmir. Here is an excellent analysis by South Asian military and startegic research group (saag) about Indian security myths related to Kashmir. (I read the 11 myths including the myth that Pakistan will stop the acts of terrorism if Kashmir is resolved) http://www.saag.org/papers8/paper710.html

[Gaurav]

That link makes very valid points.

[Guest dada_rocks]

must read link for everyone whatever ur persuasion it's crisp to the point littered with pure facts and less pontification

[Lurker]

Let us begin by acknowledging something everyone knows but does not wish to talk about. People in Kashmir Valley want Azadi in the sense of becoming an independent country. As many as 87 per cent of the respondents in Kashmir chose this option over other options like maintaining status quo or merging both parts of Kashmir either with India or with Pakistan.

Like any other poll this has to be taken with a pinch of salt. That said if Kashmiris do not want to be a part of India I say let them get away. Whats the whole point of spending so much on a state, financially as well as in terms of Indian soldiers life, when there is little appreciation of that? Here take a look at the numbers from Planning Commission webiste: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/stateplan/sp_finper.xls In a nutshell: 1) J&K has more money outlayed for expenses than Haryana, even though latter has twice the population and contributes lot more to Indian exchequer. 2) The North Eastern states put together Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal, Sikkim, Nagaland(all except Assam) has less money outlayed to them than J&K alone. 3) Pound for pound J&K gets the most per capita money by India(I could be slightly wrong here although my amateurish attempt at stats shows me to be right). The fact remains that India spends a lot on J&K. I certainly dont want my tax money to go to a bunch of people who dont want allegiance to India. xxx

[THX_1138]

Kashmir is a part of India and let it be on record that I support mass immigration( I know it's not the right word) of other Indians to this valley. No special status as far as I am concerned.

and thus end up with the same problesm the israelis are having with west bank. instead of mass immigration to ofset the demographics, how about reigning in the oppressive police, establishing economy and awarding scholarships to students who might escape from a life of conflict and bewailment. Then once the economy has gone north of shyte, we can consider mass immigration.

[THX_1138]

usual legless bs theory.. bwt quebeceers are more than happy to go for another round of plebiscite and going by numbers of the separatist party it;s anyone's guess what that means..... so much for offering plebiscite creates good precedence.. incidentaly if Sardar patel had followed this bs dictum India wud have been in million pieces today.. newsflash in form of poem: "O rahi dilli jaana to kahan apni sarkaar se Charkha chalti hai hathon se shashan chalti talwar se"

usually i would question CC's logic, but this time Dada i have to fault you. He is a ruddy troll, ignore him rather than divert the thread on another tangent.

[Guest dada_rocks]

and thus end up with the same problesm the israelis are having with west bank. instead of mass immigration to ofset the demographics, how about reigning in the oppressive police, establishing economy and awarding scholarships to students who might escape from a life of conflict and bewailment. Then once the economy has gone north of shyte, we can consider mass immigration.

i suggest u do read that link posted by sand might give u an idea about what actually India is doing on those counts..U woudl be pleasantly surprised let me warn you..

[Guest dada_rocks]

Thanx do take a look in the link I mentioned over what actually india is doing.. I guess u are right about confronting CC..

[Gaurav]

The fact remains that India spends a lot on J&K. I certainly dont want my tax money to go to a bunch of people who dont want allegiance to India. xxx

I don't want my tax money going to send people for Haj but my money is going anyway...ain't it? :D 30-40% from state of J&K DO want allegiance to India. The way I look at it is simple. If my mum was ill and her treatment bled me dry then so be it. I won't throw her out just to cut my losses.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Like any other poll this has to be taken with a pinch of salt. That said if Kashmiris do not want to be a part of India I say let them get away. Whats the whole point of spending so much on a state, financially as well as in terms of Indian soldiers life, when there is little appreciation of that? Here take a look at the numbers from Planning Commission webiste: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/stateplan/sp_finper.xls In a nutshell: 1) J&K has more money outlayed for expenses than Haryana, even though latter has twice the population and contributes lot more to Indian exchequer. 2) The North Eastern states put together Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal, Sikkim, Nagaland(all except Assam) has less money outlayed to them than J&K alone. 3) Pound for pound J&K gets the most per capita money by India(I could be slightly wrong here although my amateurish attempt at stats shows me to be right). The fact remains that India spends a lot on J&K. I certainly dont want my tax money to go to a bunch of people who dont want allegiance to India. xxx

Only if it has been that simple kashmir let go and problem solved....Sadly it's not.. Do read this report in ur leaisure time] http://www.saag.org/papers8/paper710.html

[Lurker]

I don't want my tax money going to send people for Haj but my money is going anyway...ain't it? :D

Yeah lets take away all of that religious subsidy cr@p. Ban all the reservations too I say, religion or caste based.

30-40% from state of J&K DO want allegiance to India.

You are probably talking about Laddakh and Jammu. Yeah sure they would still be part of India.

The way I look at it is simple. If my mum was ill and her treatment bled me dry then so be it. I won't throw her out just to cut my losses.

It is not about cutting losses is it? Is it about your mom becoming a benign tumour on the rest of the family. Not appreciating what you do for her and in essence make life bloody hell for your kids. Make no mistakes a lot of problems in India, right from Parliament bombing to Mumbai train blast, finds resonance in Kashmir. Why should the rest of country pay for a bunch of thankless gits really?? And we have been paying for past 40 odd years if not more. I say invest that money in North East, which is slowly becoming worse than Kashmir. xxx

[Lurker]

Only if it has been that simple kashmir let go and problem solved....Sadly it's not.. Do read this report in ur leaisure time] http://www.saag.org/papers8/paper710.html

Tried but my company webisite policy bans the site. Koi jhol waala website tha kya? Ghar se check karoonga.

[sandtest]

The way I look at it is simple. If my mum was ill and her treatment bled me dry then so be it. I won't throw her out just to cut my losses.

Excellent example GKD....coming from a KP it feels more special...thumbs up and to my signature. :giggle: