drogon Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 And a dumbass yesterday telling me that Thailand was the most unstable country in Asia and describing how India is a great country where to live and work. Sad mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 I'm asking out of a lack of knowledge about the whole situation. Question. Kashmir is mostly moslem, right? About 3/4 from what I've always heard. It almost got ceded to Pakistan in the late 1940s but the raja went with India for some reason. Anyway, is it just a matter of pride that India won't let them have autonomy or is it because of strategic reasons militarily and/or economically? If the region did get independencece would this solve the majority of the India-Pakistan conflict? Or would the terrorism still go on, on both sides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 I would say terrorism would still go on but with a lower intensity just simply because it has gone too far. Kashmir is almsot entirely Muslim but this is also a strategically important area. -> India and Pakistan had 3 wars plus numerous border clashes mainly over this area with a part of it also revendicated by China which lead to a war between India and China. Let's call this zone a hotly contested part of hell... Sad for the people trying to survive there. I am not an expert of any kind, I just happen to love military history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorwolf Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 kashmir was supposed to hold a referendum before the partition re what they wanted: be part of india, or of pakistan, or be independent. this ref never took place... doubtful if a solution to the "kashmir question" would end terror attcks in india...given the makeup of india... over 120 dead by now, well over 300 wounded, two hotels still not fully secured...this day keeps getting better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 Okay, I have heard there are minorities like the Sikh that have their own militant wings and would cause problems but why would an end of Indian rule in Kashmir not stop any domestic terrorism by moslems (Indian moslems or non Indian moslems)? What else would they have to beef about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Why isn't this in the news thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Horrendous, absolutely terrible. Those poor people. Over 100 dead. Yes ..now 125 dead .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 130 and still counting and fighting...or at least firing. CS: The Sikhs already tried a small insurrection (he golden temple battle). If Kashmir went back to Pakistant -> China would probably not accept it, in addition I don't see India having fought 3 wars with Pakistan give them Kashmir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 If Kashmir went back to Pakistant -> China would probably not accept it Why not? Also agree that India won't give up Kashmir. Its a matter of national pride probably. Something tells me they'd still find something to fight about even if Kashmir had gone Pakistan in '48. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 clive will be turning in his grave now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.