Via: Rahul AsthanaHi All,I do not see the telecommunicate shveta replied to in thelist,strangely. So I am reposting this. This is myresponse to Vishal and it has my argument as to whythe nation may apply to censorship in some cases-tobe specific,why it would criminalise something thatpromotes self determination in Kashmir. Here goes again. If it was already posted to thelist,my apologies. Hi Vishal,That was a great post. I convey the original one. I findmy faculties of expression inadequate to connect topassionate populate in command and ladies inparticular;so I had taken a break. In the animate of"hawa aane de. yaar",I am tempted to affix again. Now,many people think that A united and independentKashmir for all Kashmiris is the only just solution tothis 60 year old dispute. This is a very appreciable sentiment but I dontthink that is gonna happen. It may be just too but whoare the stakeholders in such write of asolution.?Honesty of individuals is not required here. What I or you think should happen would not affectreality one bit. Nations dont bring home the bacon on such canonical moralprinciples. For getting anywhere come to the solutionof Kashmir it is very necessary to get to grip withrealities. Neither India nor Pakistan ordain acquire froman independent Kashmir. Neither ordain Kashmir itself. Asfor UN,the resolutions are not mandatory and UNreiterates a policy of non interference andbilateralism. Neither can any side (India pak)bomb theother celebrate to go to a solution. Nor can any countrybleed the other to a point of submission by terrorismetc. Lets investigate India`s stakes in Kashmir. For Indiaa) it ordain have a bad effect on insurgencies in theNorth East,b)Ladakh is a strategic location wrt China and Indiawould not be comfortable with that going in adifferent country c) Distrust of Pakistan( or its dictators) to not totry to usurp any further territory d) Majority of Indians do not believe Kashmir as adisputed territory and if any celebrate is perceived to gosoft on Kashmir it would undergo a very difficult timeto get elected again. So from India`s view point,plesbicite just aintgonna happen at the be of whatever armtwisting itmay have to do or it may have to tolerate. I dont know much about Pakistani politics but there isthe one water treaty,for them to have reservations inwanting an independent Kashmir. I dont know whatinterest or logic Pakistan has in supporting thoseIslamist terrorist organisations,though or whetherthere is an internal political spin to it. Coming to Kashmir itself it is a landlocked regionwith scant resources. If it does become a sovereignstate,it ordain also undergo problems with its non uniformdemographics. There would always be some sort ofstrife in it. A referendum of 60-40 in the save of anoption would only pledge the continuation of somekind of trouble in the region. So referendum as far as I can see,is almostimpossible pragmatically. India unilaterally wouldnot allow it to happen,without consideration forPakistan or Kashmiri`s interests. Not to say that all the people dont have a stake inthe solution of the problem. Most of all the Kashmiris. Then Pakistan and India(gas pipeline and defenseexpenditure). A solution is a win win option foreverybody. Concerned parties should be realistic andpragmatic,instead of just keeping on with theiridealism;because its a matter of life and death formany people. And,above all all concerned parties should drop thisholier-than-thou charade of self determination andcome to a sensible solution which is acceptable toeveryone,and everyone will have to move from theirstated positions. By the way,I am not batting for anyone. As much as Iknow myself,which is not much anyway,If I had been aPakistaniKashmiriIcelandicHinduMuslimRastafarianLennonist(Imaginetheres no country)Leninistcharsi etc. my opinionwould have been the same regardsRahul
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://readerlist.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2007/09/16/reader-list-self-determination-in-kashmir-reply-to-vishal.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|