India should assess the Kashmir situation both economically and strategically. So far, it has viewed Kashmir only strategically. Following the below steps would be helpful.

Separate Kashmir from Jammu and Ladakh and make the other two Union Territories.

Offer to remove troops from Kashmir and ask UN to send a force to Kashmir. This will eliminate the economic cost of over 300,000 troops and also reduce the reasons for Kashmiris to hate India. This would also reduce cross-border infiltration since Pakistan can't claim "no infiltration" with UN troops.

Make the UN do the same in POK (called Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas)

Tell the Kashmiris that they can decide after 3-5 years about their future - All three areas (Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas) can decide whether to go with India, go with Pakistan or go independent.

Spend the next 3-5 years focusing on economic development. (India will most probably mess this up but still we can try).

After 3-5 years, let the Kashmiris decide their future and accept it.

Separating Kashmir from Jammu and Ladakh will lead to more problems. First it will alienate Kashmir more and give it a separate identity, which is not good. I think Article 370 of the Indian constitution should be amended and let people from other parts of the country be allowed in Kashmir.


Kashmiris don't hate India. It is the separatist hardliners only. Involving UN in Kashmir affairs is very dumb. It is India's internal matter so only India should be dealing with it.


Do you really think Pakistan would want to involve UN in POK?


For your information India has already pumped vast sums of money into Kashmir, and the flip side to it is that Kashmiris need not pay taxes in return. So in short Indian taxpayers pay for those people, and gets nothing in return. Kashmir was among the poorest states during British colonial rule, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. Thanks to the Indian government.

Kashmir problem is all religious. What about Hindu Kashmiris who were driven out of Kashmir by the Muslim separatists? I think the Kashmir issue need to be dealt with an iron fist. Separating Kashmir would be a big blow to India's strategic interests. We don't need another Pakistan and more headaches. One is enough.

Why not compromise and let Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh have separate elections? Ladakh culturally has more in common w/ Tibet and Nepal than India and probably would become an independent country. Jammu would probably opt to go with India and Kashmir would probably choose to be independent rather than be w/ either India or Pak. This way the people could decide their own destiny.

The real problem is, pak and indian politicians have so much of their careers tied up in the kashmir situation that to stay in power they have to keep this conflict going rather than resolving it. Whoever loses Kashmir basically commits political suicide. So now we have a never ending civil war and Indian tax payers have to fund it.

If Nehru had just used his brain and not called in the UN to mediate, this conflict could have been resolved sooner.

The map of Pakistan proposed by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali



Pretty soon this country will break off in to small diffrent countries and all you have to do is sit and watch since HINDU Voice dont have much value in this country anymore

If we only had ppl like Subhas Chandra Bose...

Double Post

What's wrong with India breaking up into many pieces? A lot of the indian states have almost nothing in common with each other and moving around from state to state can be a nightmare. Try being Punjabi and traveling to interior areas of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Or a Tamil traveling to Punjab and Assam. It's like being in a different country.

The only reason these states are together is because it's beneficial to them to stay together for the sake of economical and political reasons. They also are less likely to fall under a sphere of influence from larger neighbors like China if they remain united.

Indians don't really have a shared history, we all kind of co-existed under many different empires...India was never united under one empire until the British came.

Your average tamil could care less about Kashmir and vice versa.

WTF i cant believe you said that thats fu-king pathatic lmao all these states make up to what INDIA is today that would be same as saying how tamils should move to sri lanka coz they been ruled over by Andhra and Kannada Empires after chola empire and not "Native" enougf to the land India was under ONE RULE during ashoka empire..ur knowledge about india is crap <_<

Kashmir can't survive as a free country same thing goes to Ladakh

Jammu is Majority Hindu state

Kashmir wont get freedome again same things gonna happen what happned in 1980s

Indian govt is willing to fight for it if it can pretty sure they wont let kashmir go anywhere

Are you a 15 year old girl? I'm just curious....If my knowledge of India is crap, yours must be even worse. Asoka never ruled south india. That means India was never under united rule under any period of time until the British annexed the entire subcontinent. Southern India has almost always been separate from Northern India historically.

Sri Lanka is not the native homeland of Tamils, Tamil Nadu is. Andhra was carved out of Tamil Nadu. I don't really understand your example, it makes no sense. Andhras, Mallus, and Kannadigas have shared history with Tamils. South Indians have almost nothing in common with Punjabis and Kashmiris. The whole idea to integrate India into one united country is a failure because every state has it's own language and it's own culture. Unity in diversity is a myth.

Kashmir can survive on it's own as long as it has protection from India and the UN. Jammu is a majority hindu state, no $hit, that's why if they were given a plebiscite they probably would join India.

The Indian government is pouring so much money into kashmir and other loser states like bihar, madhya pradesh,etc by leeching off the resource rich states like Punjab, karnataka, andhra,etc. It's a hopeless cause, nothing good will come out of this. Let the Kashmiris decide their own fate. How many more people have to die before they do what's right?

Ashoka ruled ALMOST ALL parts of India. Both Andhra Desa and Karnataka were thoroughly under Mauryan Empire, as were some portions of Tamil Nadu.

Andhras Fought to be separated from Tamils, we didn't want to be any part of Tamil or Dravida Movement. Hence, the state of Andhra Pradesh was born. Also, South Indians have as much as in common with each other as they do with N. Indians, which is nothing besides religion. Telugu, Kannada, and Tamil are all mutually unintelligible. And the hostility 3 states have with each other is quite well known. If we were 3 separate states, we would have already been through a dozen wars already, bleeding each other, and the economic prosperity that we are seeing now would have been non existent.

Although I have some issues with N. Indians, I thoroughly support India as a Union. And progressive states should be a role model for poorer Indian states so that they can get their act together. Andhra Pradesh 15 years ago was dirt poor, even worse off than Bihar and Chattisgarh. Right economic policies along with right leadership can do miracles.

Fair enough, Asoka ruled a large portion of Ancient India but that was a very long time ago. The history of north and south have been divergent for atleast 1200 years.

I disagree that Tamils and Telugus are extremely different. My mom is telugu and my dad is tamil and to be honest I see very little differences culturally between both their families....the language is a barrier as is religion sometimes ( a lot of telugus are vaishnavites and most tamils are shaivites) but these are small differences compared to the gulf between north and south. Even my parents were against the stupid dravida movement, not all tamils supported that. I have no doubt that had andhra and tamil nadu been separate countries, they would have fought bitterly. That's just the nature of politics but it's undeniable that we have a shared heritage just like punjabis and haryanvis.

I support India as a union also but I just think the idea that you can draw up arbitrary borders and claim that all of these very different people should unite under one banner is a bit naive. There is a strong sense of communalism in India and I don't think that's going go away regardless of how many fascist/nationalist movements the government tries to implement.

Even though I don't share your optimism that the northern states like Bihar can be anything other than a constant drain on resources, I hope you're right. In any case coming back to the point, I think regarding Kashmir India ought to bite the bullet and just hold general elections. There is no resolution in sight and countless people are either dying or getting displaced. I don't see any other options short of just annexing the whole damn territory which could have been possible had India not involved the UN.

Telugu ppl have as much difference or similarity with tamil as they have with a marathi or gujarati folks. My dad is telugu, while mum is a native hindi speaker, and I don't see any differences between her family and ours besides the the language difference. Religion wise, they are Shaivists while we are Vaishnavists, but that is absolutely irrelevant and no one in either family cares or gives a damn about. Infact I have never met a hindu who cares what sect you are.

Regarding undeniable "shared heritage" part. It doesn't really mean anything, as most telugu people give don't put any stock to it, especially given the fact that the youth of andhra see more of a similarity or shared heritage as part of modern india rather than any historical connection between andhra desa and tamil nadu. I think the same can be said about Kannadigas.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree mate. My experiences are pretty different. In fact this is the first time someone has told me that telugus are as different from tamils as they are from marathis. In fact the problem for me as a kid was my family was extremely different from the vast number of northern indians in our neighborhood. Our food was very different, they ate generally a lot of wheat, we ate rice. Our way of worship was different (we worshipped south indian gods and south indian philosophers), native dressing was different. South Indian women preferred saris while north indian women preferred salwar (although i guess by now things have changed). It was all night and day and so the desis would break up into south and north at most gatherings. I think these differences are bigger w/ diaspora indians because a lot of them have been frozen in time so to speak. They come from a very conservative time (60's-70's) and thus were not that exposed to other cultures. I can't tell you the amount of racist bull$hit my parents put up with at the hands of north indian people.

The shaivite/vaishnavite thing is a huge deal on my telugu side who are caste obsessed people. People in fact take it very seriously in Tamil Nadu where shaivites consider themselves superior to vaishnavites and vice versa. There is frequent intermarriage with telugus in my family though. Tons of my cousins on my tamil side are partly telugu. A lot of northern Tamil Nadu, particularly madras is heavily telugu influenced. Chennai (madras) is derived from the name of a telugu Vijayanagar King.

Anyway if I'm not mistaken Telugus are frequently considered madrasis in northern india. My mom was called that when she studied in delhi in the 70's.
I realize Andhra has had a trend of trying to northernize and same goes for Karnataka while Tamil Nadu and Kerala have mostly resisted that but it really doesn't change the fact that the reason south indians seem to have a common kinship is because there is shared history from being ruled by various empires like Vijayanagar that united the southern states.

This is the same reason a lot of Punjabis feel kinship with people from Kashmir, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Pakistan over any south indian state. Shared history. Overcoming those communal feelings and trying to unite as "Indians" will always be secondary. Just visit India. Go to delhi and see first hand how south indian people are treated there and tell me if India has done a great job of uniting.

LOL. Just because N. Indians wear Salwar Kameez, and S. Indians Sari doesn't mean much. Same goes for rice and wheat. These differences are TRIVIAL. I am hearing for the first time "South Indian Gods and Philosophies" - I thought this was mostly a dravidian movement thing. The most prevalent deities of worship in Andhra are Ganapathi (Ganesh Chaturthi in Andhra is HUGE), Vishnu (Venkateshwar or Balaji, this is famous among Tamils as well), Sai Baba (a maharashtrian saint, worshiped universally in Andhra), and Shiva. I think Murugan is a popular deity of worship in TN, but not in Andhra. Regarding N. Indian and S. Indian breaking up into groups, I would say they break up further into Punjabis with Punjabis, or Tamils with Tamils. Quite frankly, I don't really know the N. Indian and S. Indian situation in US, as I didn't grow up here, so can't really say much. Although Telugu ppl have migrated to US recently, compared to Gujjus, Punjabis, Tamilians.

I never heard of Shavist and Vaishnavist bull$hit before. It is amusing to even hear that this crap still goes on. As you said it maybe because ur parents are from 60s and 70s, but that crap has no meaning in Andhra now for sure, and I am not talking from an idealistic point, no one puts any stock in those differences right now. I don't know what's the current situation is in TN, but i never heard of a telugu guy concerning themselves with shavists n vaishnavist stuff, they wouldn't even know wtf that means. Although caste is a very big thing among telugu ppl(telugu ppl are very casteist), but if you are middle class or moderately well off, ppl would be very much open to have an inter caste marriages in andhra. In fact, all my friends had inter caste marriages. Are you a brahmin or something? Maybe that's the reason?

I was born in India and lived both in N. India and S. India. And yes, I do know that N. Indians call all S. Indians madrasis. There is some discrimination against S. Indians, But the discrimination goes both ways. I have been to Delhi as well, I didn't see that much of a discrimination, that maybe because I knew hindi and that eased things a bit. Although, I can't speak for your mother or your experiences with N. Indians. I would say I was discriminated big time in Chennai though, when we had to go to U.S. Consulate. No one would even help us because we didn't know tamil. We tried to get information regarding some places, and ppl would just walk away and very annoyed. In fact one time, we had to walk over an hour to find someone to help us, and guess what it was a fellow telugu guy that helped us out in Chennai. To me Chennai was far more unwelcoming than Delhi. Thank god we are getting our own consulate in Hyderabad so we don't have to go Chennai anymore.

Regarding kinship part, Besides other telugu ppl, I don't really feel any particular kinship with tamillians or for the matter kannadigas, the same applies for N. Indians too. Maybe u feeling kinship has to do with your mother being telugu, as telugu culture is so familiar to you that you don't differentiate with that of tamil. Or your mom became tamilized or something. I think you feeling a strong sense of "shared history" has to do with your mom, but if you ask any proper telugu guy, they real wouldn't think so.

I would agree that Andhra ppl are not opposed to learning hindi, in fact a good chunk of telugu movies have hindi creeping in one way or another. Although, hindi usage is not prevalent at all outside of Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. Chudidar has thoroughly replaced langa oni (A telugu dress for younger women) in Andhra among the current generation.

Vijayanagara empire is not Telegu its Kannada anyway Kannada ppl are minority in there own state we only make up to 36% of population and central govt dont take us seriously unless its for MONEY and we get lots of crap from tamils over river kaveri kannadas are highly influced by marathis most north kannadgias would rather move to mumbai than bangalore

Vijayanagara Empire was a mix of Telugu and Kannada people(Both the administration and subjects). It wasn't an exclusive empire of Kannada ppl.

Only a dumb person who is not aware of the idea called India can come up with such a crap statement. First of all you should be aware of the fact that all the states in India are administrative divisions based on the languages spoken in that particular area by majority of people inhabiting that region. All big countries are like that so your statements make no sense at all.


The reason these states are together because it is India.


The dumbest statement of all. Kindly explain how come Indians don't have a shared history?


Most people concentrate on local issues. People in Jammu care about what happens in Kashmir, people in Punjab and Haryana do care about Jammu, people in Rajasthan, Haryana do care about Punjab, People in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh do care about Rajasthan, people in Maharastra do care about Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, people in Karnataka do care about happenings in Maharastra, people in Tamilnadu do care about happennings in Karnataka. So directly or indirectly Tamils do care about Kashmir.

Hi Vaman, you don't need to insult me to make your point bud.

All I'm saying is that India is comprised of very different ethnic groups whose only commonality seems to be a shared religion (hinduism). The whole idea of these very different people uniting is a new concept that was only put in place some 60 odd years ago with the formation of India.

By shared history I meant that events in areas like punjab in the past had almost no importance or relevance to events happening in southern india. Alexander the great, Tamerlane, Mohammed Ghori,etc significantly affected the course of Northern Indian history but they had almost no real impact in the south. If anything the only relevance you could point was that it allowed the moghuls to annex Indian territory all the way up to maharashtra hundreds of years later which then allowed them entry into southern india. For the most part the south was shielded from invaders. Shared history means being united as one unit under a similar culture, empire/kingdom, language,etc. For example Iran was ruled completely by Cryus the Great...the whole territory was under his control.

This was never the case in India. Can you name a king who ruled all of India from north to south? Was there ever a time when we all spoke the same language? India is a subcontinent, a huge territory. Even a small country like the UK was wracked with problems between northern and southern ireland, the scots and the british,etc. They all speak english, they're all christian, they're all the same race, and yet small differences basically became a major source of contention between them. Little differences cannot be discounted. Look at the turmoil of ethnic groups in Iran and Iraq. Look at the problems in any country in Africa who had the borders drawn arbitrarily by the british. India has been able to avoid a lot of these problems but its not even close to an ideal situation. That's what I was pointing out. People here are acting like we're all the same people who have been united since the dawn of time. That's a fallacy, we've only been united for about 61 yrs.

Even the hindu religion is very syncretic to each state. The hinduism practiced in tamil nadu is slightly different from the hinduism practiced in punjab and vice versa. To think that we can all move on from all these differences and be completely united is naive. It will take time before such communalism can be overcome.

Anyway it seems the NRI POV is quite different from the POV of Indians living in India. Most punjabis I know can't even differentiate between a Telugu and a Tamil. We're all south indians to them. Same goes for southies who consider everyone from gujjus, bengalis, to punjabis as northern indians.

Anyway we have gone way off topic...my apologies for deviating the conversation.

My examples are mainly about the older generation who I grew up around like my grandparents and my aunts/uncles, so I wouldn't doubt things have changed with the younger generation. My mother seems to take the shaivite/vaishnavite thing very seriously believe it or not.

That's a shame about your bad experience in TN, I would have to agree with you that it can be a hostile place towards non-tamils. A lot of that has to do with the politics of that state.

The south indian gods I was talking about were indeed gods like Murugan who seem to be completely unknown to northerners. I had no idea he isn't worshipped in Andhra though....that's interesting....

Anyway to get back to the original conversation, what are your thoughts on Kashmir? Do you agree with me that right now a plebiscite is the only real way to resolve this situation? How long can there be a stalemate? Every 2-3 yrs you'll get insurgents creeping across the border funded by the ISI and then the Indian army will retaliate. Kashmiris will suffer massive collateral damage and nobody wins. The vicious cycle will continue.

Dude if you think that I have insulted you then I am sorry. But your comments were worth insulting.


All countries comprise of different ethnic groups. It doesn't mean that countries need to be divided. India has a very definite geographical area, from Himalayas in the North to the Indian Ocean in South. Very few countries are blessed with this type of definite geographical area.


One word which binds all the Indians is Hindu. Actually Hindu is a Persian word which literally means Indian. But later the word Hindu got associated with religion. So technically all Indians irrespective of their religious beliefs are Hindus.

Considering the size of India it doesn't matter if historical events in one part should effect other parts of the country. God forbids if Alexander or Tamarlane could roam around all of India. We don't need invaders to define India for us, British were more than enough. Alexander couldn't even get past Punjab, Alexander's army was fearful of Nanda empire so they went back home. Tamur's main target was Delhi. Mohammad Ghori? Do you know how much destruction Muslim invaders caused in North India? Because of the invasions there is no ancient temple in Northern plains, but ancient temples remain intact in the Himalayas and in Southern India. India was able to save it's character right from ancient times to this day only because all of India didn't fell to one invader.

Just like India Iran also comprise of many ethnic groups.


King George VI


All the languages of India have the same roots.


Yes India is huge that is why it has so much diversity. But underlying that diversity there is a common thread which binds all of us. Do you know that Ireland, England and Scotland were different kingdoms before. They all don't speak English. They speak English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish etc etc.


All countries have their own problems so what are you trying to prove? Do you think that disintegrating the country will solve all the problems? You got so very wrong here. Disintegration will add more problems just like creation of Pakistan. You think like stupid Khalistanis. Dude seriously you have no idea what India is all about. You need to learn Indian history before making stupid posts like these. I can't teach Indian history to a layman like you through posts.


Now you have problems with expression of religion. Even in the same house individual family members are free to interpret their religious beliefs according to their own conscience. You said slightly different but not entirely different. So many south Indians go to holy places in north India and vice versa.


So?

Lord Murugan is well known in North as Lord Kartikay.


Indian leaders need to do away with vote-bank and appeasement politics and be tough on separatists in Kashmir. The problem of Kashmir is the direct offshoot of creation of Pakistan, when British agreed upon giving a separate homeland to the muslims of the Indian subcontinent. So if any muslim wants to get separate then he/she is free to go to Pakistan. You please don't think like a coward, look at the Americans. They came so far from USA to kick Taliban's @$$. Have some killer instinct.

1. Abolish article 370.
2. Kick out all separatists from Kashmir.
3. Bring back Kashmiri Hindus to Kashmir.

Kashmir problem solved.

I don't know very much about the Indian people or their history. But I know something about the UN. Imo involving the UN in Kashmir will result in the loss of that region by India. Additionally, an Indian withdrawal from Kashmir will result in Pakistan obtaining a measure of the strategic depth it sought in Afghanistan. If India withdraws from Kashmir what will be the lesson drawn by other separatists in India? Imo, a departure from Kashmir will result in the Hindus of Kashmir being ethnically/religiously cleansed. Withdrawal would be foolhardy.

I agree...India has really painted itself into a corner. Had they not involved the UN, they could have just annexed all of Kashmir in one decisive battle and claimed it was a question of maintaining the integrity of their country. The chinese did it in the sino-indian war. Now ofcourse India would get slammed with trade sanctions if they even attempted anything like that.

So what's the other option? Endless money poured into policing Kashmir and fending off guerilla warfare tactics which will drain the country's resources in the end. Remember what happened with the soviets in afghan territory? Similar story where these troops are not well liked as the insurgents by the native kashmiris. How else can you successfully wage a proxy war against a huge army unless you have the support of the people?

Kick out all separatists. Yeah that's real easy there. Especially since the separatists are SUPPORTED by Kashmiris who house them. If the separatists weren't supported, they couldn't wage a war. That is the very basic rule of guerilla warfare, it wont work unless the general population helps the rebels.

Why would kashmiri hindus ever come back? They LEFT because the Indian government couldn't protect the pandits from being killed off in a mass genocide. Besides they are too small a minority anyway, even before partition they were only 5 % of the total population in Kashmir. Their neighbors fellow kashmiri muslims also forced them out of kashmir. You think they would welcome these pandits back with open arms?

Kashmiris I've talked to neither want to belong to India nor Pakistan, they want their own country.

Open up Kashmir to immigration from Punjab......that will solve half the problem there.

what is the reason they haven't done that yet? I've always wondered why they just didn't try to influence the demographics by transplanting hindu migrants.

Message from the 1980s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK_TnmNJqao

Yes you're somewhat right here. Before India became independent, more than half of the Hindu Kashmiri population used to live outside Kashmir because there were not enough job opportunities in Kashmir valley. Jawaharlal Nehru's family was one of them. During 1990s the rest of the half a million Hindus were driven out of Kashmir.

If you ask Hindu Kashmiris they would always side with India. Apart from that muslim Kashmiris are divided in this issue some of them want to be with Pakistan, some also want to remain part of India, many wants to be with neither.


Because of the Article 370 of the constitution of India, which guarantees special status to Kashmir and prohibits anyone else from India to setup a permanent residence in Kashmir. Only Kashmiris are allowed to have ownership of property in Kashmir.

KASHMIR PROBLEM SOLVED? Do you really believe that, just by a single stroke of your pen it can be solved? You are living in your make-believe world. Your recipe will bring about more destruction and bloodshed only.

Dividing India will simply not solve anything would the red tape, infighting stop and corruption at state level stop? Many great deeds can be done by sticking together. I've seen some facts thrown up here some of which are not true such as India not being united. Well India has seen five influental dynasties if not more during its time most notably in order the Maghadas, Mauryas, Kushans, Cholas1, Guptas, Cholas2, Mughals, Maratha. Most of whom notably the Maghadas, Mauryas, Kushans, Guptas and Mughals ruled the breadth and height of the country