On Monday 18 Aug 2008 5:39:30 pm Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 16:19 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > > Yes, but that's begging the question I raised, which is, for reference, > > "Do we actually *want* Kashmir?" > > and if the question can even be posed in these terms - india as a > separate entity, "holding on to what she wants", kashmir, then it is > recognition of the separateness of kashmir and doesn't seem terribly > different from occupation, as pointed out by both the writers.
Eminently arguable IMO. The choice is between a weak state (India) and an ungovernable state. A landlocked "free" state linking up with Pakistan and contiguous with the ungoverned NWFP of Pakistan and the now almost completely seceded FATA of Pakistan is a strategic blunder of gargantuan proportions. Especially when good land links exist between India and that "free Kashmir" India is a weak state in which the people and polity are averse to making hard decisions about longterm strategy and give equally weak excuses like "tolerance", "secularism" and the like as long as the excuse frees them from waging war when needed.. Let alone Islamic terror groups, even Islamic states cannot govern themselves are are in a worse shape than a weak India that is muddling through Indians love to forget that India was split on the excuse that some Muslims would be unable to live with the other people in India. now some more want to split away for similar reasons and and take some land with them. The likes of Vir Singhvi may want to cave in at the first sign of trouble - but this is a time to be tough. Not weak kneed. Just my views. shiv
