Here is Ottomaton's source: <A HREF="http://www.britains-smallwars.com/India/Independence.html">Sunset on the Raj</A> Mango
That is called "war". What Pakistan has been doing in Kashmir is reffered to as "terrorism". I am guessing that India did not exactly support car bombs that killed about 40 innocent people. Something that the terrorist in Kashmir just committed last week.
No... practice your reading skills. This was before the war. The Indians were providing the East Pakistani rebals with sanctuaries, training, and weaponry. Because of this support of terrorism, Pakistan declared war on India. Just because the end result was a war, doesn't mean the sponsoring of terrorism is an act of war.
Border's were drawn between India & pakistan several times. But they were never respected by pakistan. The fight was never within India. Pakistan fought 3 wars over Kashmir and lost. Now they are trying this proxy war. India is a secular country. Muslims being treated badly is a very ignorant statement. Muslims always have been a part of Indian government ever since Independence. Indian Hindus were never treating Indian Muslims baadly. THe only HIndu- Muslim conflicts I heard are from those happened during partition. I lived with many Muslims in my neighbourhood and we never had any problems. Till the recent government which used the Hindu card to get into power, Hindu-Muslim difference was never felt in the Country. Hindu-Muslim conflict was never felt until that unfortunate (Ram Janma Bhoomi) incident happened. And even after that things are very Normal Now. Whats happening over last few years in Kashmir is not a freedon struggle. Its more of a propaganda war. It is a sponsored terorrism. Its some militants setting up terror campaigns. In the last few years, there are so many ISI(pakistan Intelligence) agents caught in India, but nothing viceversa. I tried hard to think Pakistan's motivation behind this, but can come up with very little. Ofcourse I am from India and I can be questioned for my Bias. There is an old saying, you can't clap without two hands. India has not done every thing right from the begining. There are some mistakes in this camp also but times and times again it has been Pakistan that's causing problems. ANd one thing I agree.. this all happened due to British Government. Why did they even partition. We could have coexisted and Kashmir would have been Paradise.
I am not reading anything you are coming up with. I lived in the ****ing country! I think I know how I or my family were treated! East Pakistanis wanted freedom so India probably helped em. Kashmiris were happy up until about a decade ago. They did not want freedom from India. Its the Pakistani terrorists in Indian held Kashmir demanding freedom for cryin out loud.
Here's another quote, which I had no idea would be pertinant until I read this last statement. expanding: there's also: and All of this in an incresingly irrational and aggressive attempt to deny that the India and Pakistan were both guilty of severe infractions against each other at one time or another. I'm not saying one side is more or less culpable than another, but until you make sure your side is not crystal clean, you're going to keep fighting. Just realise that the cost of blind self-righteous jingoism will be war. Perhaps it will smoulder on and off until long after everyone you or I know is dead, or perhaps one side or the other will pull out the nukes and vaporize the other. I'm begining to get the opinion, from listening to the intractability that I here from people like you, that I will live to see a nuclear war, either India-Pakistan, or Israel-Arab States or someone else. That's really depressing.
My understanding is this: The Muslems believe, on the basis their reading of the Partitioning agreement, that Kashmir should have been awarded to them. They base this on the dominance of the Muslem population in the area. I also think that they seem to conviently ignore some of the border issues, which would add creedence to the Indian claim, but I believe that they feel the issue was never resolved, whereas the Indian government was. This 'long memory' seems to parallell with the British agreements in Palastine, where the borders were set, intermediary wars caused changes in those borders, and the Muslems seem to retain some sense of 'ownership'. I believe that the partitioning could, in fact, have worked if the British had stayed around until the borders were perhaps more defined, but at that point they only wanted to leave as fast as possible. They had withdrawn before Kashmir was even 'with' one country or the other. Unfortunately, the other confilct that this would seem to mirror is the Balkan wars, where various ethnic/religious groups were 'melted' together by an invading imperial army. There the Soviets, here the British. It seems that once the outside force is removed, the groups seem to want to do anything possible to unmix. If I were Pakistani (I'm not, and I'm not particularly on their side, It only seems that way cause no one's here attacking India) I would also have a long memory of Bangladesh, formerly part of Pakistan with a 90% Muslem population, which was overthrown by a group of Sekhs with overt assistance from India, as documented above. As is the US, but religion still plays a role in people being treated badly, as does race. Hence the existance of the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League. An example of the religious nature of the Indian people spilling over onto the affairs of the secular Indian state can be seen in the plight of the dalits. Clearly you can see that there is conflict with tradition and law from stories here, here, and here. I certianly find your position to be much more contemplative and reflective, AB, despite your intrinsic involvement. Thank You.
Ottomaton, Caste system is not a Religious structure. Caste is a Social structure that was rampant in India Centuries ago. As a result of great work done by many Social Reformers, the traces are going away. Dalits(minority social class ) are given many privileges in India so that social gap once existed will be narrowed and there are positive results. Lots of the times it is political. I looked at couple of those links and it is not very close to current reality. But I confess stray, caste based incidents do happen in India. About the East Pakistan: The way I see it, there is little/no parallel to what happened in East Pakistan and what's happening in Kashmir. Its is the pepole of East Pakistan that wanted freedom. Same Claim is being made Pakistan on Kashmir. But, you know lots of these freedom fighters are Pakistani Nationals. All most all the Militant leaders captured has ties with some organization in Pakistan or ISI. In East pakistan, India did not start it. India went in there when situation is out of control. Only when problem started creeping into its boundary. In Kashmir , Pakistan is starting it over and over again. Pakistan is taking situation out of control some times Kargil is a clear example for one such incident in recent times. http://www.kargilonline.com About Sikhs murdering Muslims during Partition: Its very hard to assign responsibility to one group when mass hysteria takes over. I grew up studying in history that a very provacative incident by Muslims triggered the whole incident. But I always questioned those claims with the same argument I presented above. According to what I studied, One train full of Sikhs travelling to punjab from Pakistan were killed and the train reached India with full of massacred dead bodies. This is what triggered a heavy bloodshed that followed. Two prominent British(Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, I think they are british) authors gave very detailed sketch of this incident in their book "Freedom at Midnight".
As an outside observer, caste would seem to be intrinsicly related to the Hindu faith. My impression is that those who oppress and commit violence around caste are very rairly of a faith other than Hindu. Also, most of the accounts I read state that the conflict in Bangladesh was centered around the roughly 10% of the population that was not Muslem. The difference between 'freedom fighter' and terrorist is in the eye of the beholder. Had the British defeted the US colonies, the Boston Tea Party would be known as a terrorist act. In any case, I would imagine that the cases are quite different, but I would suggest that the Indian government was, nontheless, wrong in providing support for a force attempting to disrupt the internal affairs of their sovreign neighbor, Pakistan, with whom they had already had such a poor relationship. I agree that Pakistan most likely should give it up with regards to Kashmir, but the Indian government definate has less than purely altruistic motives (not that that there's anything wrong with that).
Ottomaton and Rocekts03, Both of you are out of control and just yelling at each other. Additionally you keep bringing Islam into this. Leave it out of this and talk about the politics of your country if you wish, but do not try to drag religion into this....hmmm someone else in Afghanistan seems to be doing the same thing. Rocekts03, if you claim to be calling yourself a Muslim, what kind of impression of Muslims do you think you are making on this board to all of us out here by cursing every other word in your posts. Use some wisdom and learn to articulate your statements instead of posting out of anger and defense.
If I remotely cared what people thought of me on this board I would refrain from cursing, but since I dont...You want a Muslim who is articulate read AzimdaDreams posts. Ottoman refuses to comprehend that I wholeheartedly agree India is to be blame for some things in the past. But that is the PAST! Today we are talking about Kashmir, not Bangladesh. And of course India is going to get involved if there is tension brewing in a country next door. The people of East Pakistan wanted freedom and were abouit to converge in civil war. I highly doubt US would idly stand by if Mexico was about to submerge in a civil war. Countries want stability, not mass hysteria in their neighbors. What was India suppose to do during those times? Keep on accepting the million of refugees that would be crossing borders over into India? So India decided to help them get freedom, CAUSE THAT IS WHAT EAST PAKISTANIS WANTED! Kashmiris dont want independence, or atleast a majority of them dont. Plus there is a difference between a state wanting freedom (Kashmir) and a whole freakin country (East Pakistan was basically a separte entity I think) wanting freedom. If EP was not a separte country then disregard this portion of my argument. Anyways like I keep on stating over and over again. Ottoman READ THIS DAMN PART: India deserves some blame too for the stony relationship between India and Pakistan. But that was in the past! Regarding Kashmir, it is Pakistans fault. In the past both have been at fault. Apologize and forget about it. Is Pakistan going to keep on bringing up the issues of the past for future revenge? An eye for an eye makes the...
I appreciate that Islam as a whole is not involved in this issue. However, The conflict, since the end of British colonialism, has been between the Hindu, Muslim, and Shekh population of the former 'Indian Teratories'. I certainly to not intend to imply that it is any kind of 'United Holy War', or anything. If I implied that, I aplologise. As for yelling, I think with the exception of 1.5 posts by myself, and 1 other post most of the posts have at least been the productive presentation of facts in the defense of positions. I consider this to be productive debate (less the useless stuff). First: I totaly agree with this. Let me state this for the record. On this you and I agree. Pakistan should not be in any way excersizing any sort of influence in Kashmir. Pakistan, in fact, is a dictatorship, the legaly elected president was overthrown, which should make them an outlaw state. Secondly:For the record, people tend to misquote my name as 'Ottoman', which would imply some sort of Turkish connection, thereby implying some sort of Arab viewpoint. Not the case. The name is a play on the given name Otto, and the word automaton - a Victorianeque name for a robot. Just for the record. Consider, perhaps, my rant to be my own private form of practical politics, gleamed from reviewing the long history of Balkan war. Every group can somehow manage to come up with some historical grudge which everyone else has forgiven and left behind, that somehow still means something to them. Get a Serb and a Croatian in the same room, ask who started it first, and both groups will begin to play a game of 'blame pong' with the historical record going back 2000 years as to who is the bad guy. What actualy happened in the past doesn't matter. Who really to blame isn't relavant. Assigning 'fault' only clouds the situation in these longstanding conflicts. History is filtered through the biases of the beholder. This is why I say that both sides are at fault. Both sides are, in my practicality, because there are significant groups of people who feel that one side or the other is at fault. There is a sense of having a grievance against India in the national conciousness of Pakistan. It exists. If you choose to act as though it doesn't exist because you don't agree, or it's ancient history, or everyone agrees that they were at fault, or whatever, you are ignoring the practical realities of the situation, from my perspective.
First of all, I hate to intrude on your debate, but I have some points to make. I am only 16, and an Indian and Hindu, but I try to stay as neutral as possible with issues on the subcontinent. I consider myself well-informed about events and history there, and I correspond with my family there regularly. I was also in India when they and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons. I am a huge critic of the Indian government because I think many of the highest politicians are corrupt, and I would like to say that I think Gen. Musharaff has made many right moves recently. But I digress... Answering the title of the thread: Yes, Pakistan does support terrorists fighting for bin Laden albeit indirectly. If you don't believe me just look at a map of where the Afghan terrorist camps are. The vast majority are on the Pakistani border next to cities like Peshawar. It is no secret that they support terrorists, that much is indisputable. The issue about Bangladesh (East Pakistan): To the best of my understanding, the dispute stemmed from East Pakistan feeling that it was being overshadowed by West Pakistan in World issues. This, coupled with the poverty and flooding during the time period, led to the seperation. I do not dispute that India aided Bangladesh in gaining independence, but in this matter I have to agree with R0ckets03 in that it was something the people of East Pakistan wanted. (On a totally seperate note, if India could help Bangladesh with their problems, could there be hope that one day the countries will look beyond religion and try to work together for mutual benefit?) To this day, relations between India and Bangladesh are much better than between India and Pakistan. On the caste system: Eliminating the caste system has been a major goal of the Indian government, mainly because a lot of the government is made up of members of the lower castes. Remember, there are many more people in the lower castes than higher castes. Sure, discrimination still exists, but it is mainly in the form of some people unable to get higher educations and more wealth, not in the form of hatred. People accept their poverty as a part of their lives. The US showing favor to Pakistan frightens many Indians. After Pakistan's independence, the US became its ally. India, feeling threatened, became a soviet ally, more for defense purposes than anything else. Recently, as America shows more and more understanding towards Pakistan, the Indian government feels it is getting slighted. Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh said it best: "You cannot say that terrorism when it occurs in New York is bad and when it occurs elsewhere is good terrorism". Now, as I said, I am not a supporter of the Indian government, but I have to commend this statement, as I was surprised by India's relative silence during these recent proceedings. Gen. Musharaff in Pakistan, though he is a military dictator, may be what they needed. The old democratic government was corrupt and ineffective. When Musharaff took over, I feared for India's security, but he has actually impressed me. He seems to support a more secular governmental view, and is desperately trying to stop the fundamentalist opposition. You may not realize how big a risk he took in deciding to support the US. Now the only question is if he is secretly supporting the rebels in Kashmir. India meanwhile, is disunited and plagued by weak and corrupt officials. The coalition government becomes disfunctional every few years, as evidenced by the number of prime ministers India has had since 1995 (About 5, maybe 6). They are desperate for a leader, and until one comes, these problems will probably continue. (A thought: India's constitution does not state that the prime minister has to be born in India. QWERTY FORE PRIME MINSTER IN 2025! ) Pakistan's fundamentalist faction started in the 70s. and the children who grew up as part of it are adults now. These are the people who are fighting for Kashmir now. In the 70s, another military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq needed support to destroy his opposition. His support came from fundamentalists. He set up fundamentalist schools throughout Pakistan. Those students are now the freedom-fighters in Kashmir. This also makes R0ckets03's point that everything was peaceful until 1989 seem true, because that would be around the time that those Pakistanis came of age. In that regard, the results of today's events may not be seen for over 30 years. Kashmir was indeed the "Switzerland of the East" because of its mountains and peace. It is valuable as a tourist destination (though not as much now) and as a strategic outpost from where you can keep an eye on Afghanista, Russia, China, etc. Though it is mostly muslim, the people who want to break away from India are actually a very small minority. The muslims are actually better treated in India than they would in Pakistan, where Indian-born muslims have fewer rights than thoses from Pakistan. India refuses to give Kashmir up to Pakistan and is afraid that letting it become independent would allow Pakistan to send troops there and take over, if not right away then after Kashmir's likely struggles as an independent nation. I have more to say. but can't remember. More later, maybe. BTW: Why does China claim a part of Kashmir? What claim do they have? Do any of you know? Maybe they have a reason I am not aware of.
Ottomaton, Although you appear very adverse to admitting an error, in the face of overwhelming contradictions from locals, I think that you would want to retract this statement.
point A-- I have nothing whatsoever to do with this situation. I don't have any opinions, and I've been reading this thread purely for its educational value. it's been a success on that front, and I thank all of the participants for their input. point B-- qwerty, did I understand you correctly to be 16 years old? very impressive. though I'm not that old at 27, I teach in a high school, and it is very encouraging to me to see someone your age write so thoughtfully, eloquently and informatively about world affairs. point C-- I hadn't thought about this idea before reading this thread, but it occurs to me that any and all wars fought from here on out may end up being shockingly different as the result of the internet. the real possibility exists that citizens with internet access in two warring countries will be able to exchange their thoughts and views on any and all of the disputed issues. people will not be entirely at the mercy of the discussions held by and exclusive to world leaders then filtered back to us through the media. I won't be so pollyanna as to suggest that this will make the world a better place, and I'm going to buy you all a Coke, but. . . it could get very interesting being able to talk to Saudis or Iraqis or Indians or Pakistanis about their "side" and specifically to compare and contrast the respective propaganda movements in each country. . . . assuming that Big Brother doesn't commandeer our Webs and allow us only to read that which He wants us to read.
chievous minniefield, Your 'point C' is the most exciting thing about the Net. I guess that I am pollyanna about its potential, I just hope it works its majic in time.
Please note the quote two down from the original, where I retracted it at midnight last nite. My sources all refered to massacres by Sikhs and in a rush I passed it by and typed Hindu. This was clearly a misstatement which I thought I had retracted. If I didn't, I apologise.
A legacy of unresolved borders from the British era. More info: <A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/23spec.htm">India - China War 1962</A> <A HREF="http://www.boundaries.com/India.htm">Kashmir Boundary Issue</A> Mango
let em vote. i don't think they should join pakistan let em be an independent country like the switzerland of asia with high mountains and chocolate and watches.
