By binging in nuclear war unilaternally into the discussion, you had actualy forefitted the right for a debate with me. ut since you bring some valid points I am going to reply.
Right to debate with you? Stop patronizing me.
My point is simple:
1. We treat Kashmir as an integral part of India. Have no doubt about that.
2. Keeping point 1 in mind, it behooves us to protect Kashmir with as much zeal and resources as we'd protect Chandigarh or New Delhi. Nuclear weapons are the pinnacle of that zeal. We will not let go of Kashmir. If the Pakistanis want Kashmir, they will have to fight another war with us just like in 1947 and 1965 and, mind you, this time a full blown war will most probably turn nuclear.
Well you thought I had treaded on personal attack, I apologige. I was actually genuinly asking about you age. I am not the kind to deal with personal attacks in a internet forum. I does not prove that my D**k is bigger then someone else. That I keep for when we meet physically.
Let's drink to that.
And how your proposed solution of making the LOC porous solve these doubts? It'll be still there.
Yes of course these doubts will still be there and that gives us an even stronger reason to approach any solution that compromises on our territorial integrity with added caution.
That means we have little to look forward to even after resolving Kashmir, as far as security matters are concerned. So why should we compromise?
Like Karthik said, it is more relevant to reduce the trust deficit then to wag nuclear tail.
Of course it is. Nobody's threatening Pakistan with nukes. Not unless they attack us wit the objective of capturing Kashmir. We have a defensive no-first use policy, remember?
If we can manage to reduce the trust deficit on both sides, these uncertainty will also reduce to a great extent.
Trust deficit built over decades cannot reduce overnight. It has to be done in a staggered fashion. Let's start with the smaller issue first like trade etc. Kashmir is a complex issue and hence that shouldn't be allowed to hold the whole gamut of bilateral ties hostage. Kashmir will take time to be solved.
And as far as solution of Kashmir is concerned, we will not compromise on our territorial integrity. Let's be realistic. Pakistan will not give us back or give independence to the territory it has neither will we. Then what's the solution left? Converting LoC into international border by which I mean a porous border allowing free movement of people from both sides i.e. making the border irrelevant without compromising on the territorial integrity.
Are you kidding me. While I do symphatize with your grand parent's ordeal, it is no reason that someone else should also go through the same ordeal. You with your background should realize it even more. Specially if there is other possible solution available, I believe Kashmiris should not be divided.
You misunderstood me. I did not mean to say, 'Kashmiris should be made to undergo the same suffering as my grandparents and as millions of other Indians in 1947.'. What I meant was, 'There's nothing special about Kashmir or Kashmiris and if a partition of India could happen in 1947, a partition of Kashmir could also happen once again along similar lines'.
Look my point is simple:
1. Convert LoC into international border and a porous one at that.
2. Allow people to move freely. Let there be more people to people contacts on both sides.
During India-Pakistan partition, the devide was because of religion. The people had to migrate because they belonged to different religion. (I hope you do appreciate that people from our side also had to migrate.) On what basis you want to divide the Kashmiri people?
On the basis of an existing LoC. BTW, you might be aware of the ethnic diversity of J&K and you might also be aware that not all of people/ethnicities in J&K want independence or accession to Pakistan.
That's for some other thread to discuss.
Sure.
Like I said, just because you grand parent suffered, you want others to suffer the same ordeal too?
Not because of that but because it is possible and the example (of 1947) is in front of us. But of course I do agree that it must be ensured to be minus the bloodshed.
Again this comes from the trust deficit and we are in such pathetic condition that we cannot even trust COMBINED peacekeepers.
Yes we cannot trust them. The example of Afghanistan (ISI and US co-operation) is in front of you. Any such 'combined peacekeepers' will not work. Besides, like I said, we treat Kashmir as an integral part of India and we will not allow Pakistani boots on our soil.
Well I may be wrong. But as per Pakistan's agreement with China, once Kashmir dispute is solved, China has to return Aksai Chin. Again, I may be wrong, but it can be brought to international tribunal once Kashmir dispute is put to rest.
I've been taught one thing and I'll share that with you.
Your company sells a product to person X on credit i.e. on deferred payment. Person X promises to pay you after six months. Fine so far, but you cannot show this transaction in your 'sales' unless the person X actually pays you.
Moral of the story?
Do not count on something you're not sure of.
Well, what can I say.. Do ride the high horse here.
Majority wins. It's called democracy.
No comments. Coz this line of debate will only deteriorate the level of discussion. So once again, apology if I had treaded on any personal attack line. It was not intended.
Let's drink to that.
