AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Now, as far as forced demographic change is concerned, they are merely shrieks, and have no basis in fact.
If the Government of India was less responsible, nothing would have stopped them from arming the agitating hindus with AK-47s and charging them into Kashmir, like Pakistan has repeatedly, ceaselessly done for the last 60 years.
But obviously, we are saner and cooler than that, which is why the international community supports whatever stand we take on Kashmir.
Perhaps you are correct, however we will have to wait and see, and the 'shrieks' do indicate that a certain intolerant and violent streak exists in India just as in other peoples.
Now, if only Pakistan could keep her army under some kind of control, not to mention her intelligence agency, things would be far better for all of us.
But it seems that Pakistan is unable to do so, therefore, we cannot risk giving up control over a piece of land that has tremendous strategic value for us, and hence, for the democratic and secular world.
Pakistan has kept her Army under control, Sharif signed off on Kargil as well, and Pakistan has stayed out of Kashmir actively for almost a decade now. And the recent events have nothing to do with Pakistan interfering - they are the spontaneous and vociferous expression of dislike for India because a pretext came up for them to do so.
And your last claim is silly, since the entire 'strategic' value of Kashmir for Pakistan, and for India vis a vis Pakistan, comes about because it is a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan.
In other words it is strategic solely because it is disputed, and the tensions between India and Pakistan exist primarily because of the dispute. Solve the dispute and the tensions and any need for 'strategic value' is gone. That argument of yours is just another canard like that of 'India breaking up'.
Last edited: