On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Giving up Kashmir would be dumb. > > Well, lets consider the positives: > > 1) Elimination of a major, perhaps the major, cause of conflict > between India and a neighboring state. > a) Lowered military spending. > b) (probably) lowered terrorism. > c) Lowered risk of conscripts and civilians dying. > d) Lowered risk of nuclear warfare. > e) The possibility of opening up valuable trade, and significant > resultant economic benefits.
Elimination of conflict is a pipe dream since so much of the Pakistani identity depends upon being Anti-Indian. What I fail to comprehend is the continual comparison of India to Pakistan by Indians - knowing that Pakistan is a vassal state of the US (just look at the aid being pumped into Pakistan) and a failed nation. Besides the Anti-Indian stance is one of the reasons what makes the Army generals powerful in Pakistan. > 2) Affirmation of the right to self determination (at least if a > plebiscite is held to determine the fate of the region), along with > the ability for India to push for that right in other places > without seeming hypocritical. The problem is having to define Kashmir and Kashmiris as Thaths pointed out. There has been large scale migration from the valley. Besides J&K consists of Ladakh and Jammu regions in addition to Kashmir itself. > 3) Less energy spent debating a question that has raged on for > decades. The benefits to the Silk list alone would be significant! Ok I shall now shut up :-) -- Vinayak
