Search results

Thanks for taking the wind out of my sails. This was the argument I was planning to use to amplify the objections to a referendum taking place now.

I would like @Kaptaan to comment on this. For myself, it is a non-issue, a contrived grievance, as there has never been any problem with Pakistan getting their fair share of the waters. Without connecting the two matters, it is also worth pointing out that Pakistani water management in its...

But why? There has NEVER been any interference with their obtaining their full share of the waters, as decided by the Indus Waters Treaty.

Who? If you ask the political segment that I hate the most in Indian politics, the right-wing religious, they will point to the refugees in Jammu, refugees from the mass rape and slaughter in Rajouri, and in other western Jammu (=Poonch) locations [NB: Jammu is both a city and a region...

I don't have a clue. Nobody has a clue.

LOL. Abdullah had been leading the democratic movement from the 1930s; there was no one comparable. The breakaway Muslim Conference in Muzaffarabad had nothing democratic about it, and was a tribal group, that did not like the secularism of the Sheikh. He was not a puppet.

Here goes: Identical. States comparable to J&K were Mysore, Baroda and Hyderabad. Smaller states were just as powerful, internally; there was no constitutional difference. It was never the intention of India to remove any individual prince as ruler. However, each prince was brought into the...

I was pissed off by then by the 101 Dalmatians: the Pan-Islamic Pakistan, PakistanForever bunch.

LOL. I was saving this up for a detailed discussion! Damn!!

"As far as GHQ was concerned, it was aware that there was such a service (the Navy) and that it operated somewhere in the region of Karachi." Lt. Gen. Gul Hassan, Memoirs.

That is a different matter, and if you - or somebody else - were to open a separate thread, we could discuss this in detail.

Precisely. The point of decision was when India decided to take the 65,000 military personnel and 28,000 civilians into custody. That completely closed the possibility of trials for war crimes.

The answer is 'Yes', but there is no point in dragging that out and offending people, so let it stay as you have stated.

A six-month war would be sufficient. The fact is, there is no longer any real possibility of one side finding a military solution, or of the other seeking one. If war were to happen, there is not much that will go well for the first; every year distances the two sides even more. A referendum...

Sorry, but that was not very clear. At best, a non-sequitur. It was for the Bangladeshis to set up a tribunal, and it was for them to agree or to disagree with the provisions of the Simla Agreement, the terms of which were shared in scrupulous detail with them before the agreement was signed...

When I think of that situation, and of today's, in my own country, it is completely dominated by my belief in the rule of law; in other words, in constitutionalism. That holds true of other, parallel situations, also. I am more than willing to explain those, basing my arguments on the same tenets.

I am very happy to acknowledge your strikingly different point of view, and to accept that you are entitled to it, with no rancour whatsoever. But it is not my view.

Please check. Our demand, right to the end, was that Pakistan should take back the 10 million refugees that had taken refuge in India. It is not what you have stated above.

Nothing to say to all this. Only, when you gentlemen make references to these aspects of the situation, do bear in mind that I am a descendant of parents who were from Dhaka and Barishal respectively, that now lie in Bangladesh. If I have chosen to put those wounds behind me, and speak in...

I am merely narrating the case, not seeking to impose a solution.