| 
Lets Make Peace In The World
Welcome to the #Indopak on DALnet homepage! This channel lets the people of India and Pakistan come together and chat. The purpose of this channel is to get the relations shaped up.
If somehow, you've stumbled on to this page and don't know anything abt IRC (Internet Relay Chat), then download mIRC and connect to a DALnet server (type /server irc.dal.net). After connecting, type /join #Indopak and enjoy..!
In the meantime, surf throught our site, check out the ops section and remember to sign our guestbook and remember to check us out on #Indopak on DALnet.
Click here to view/sign our guestbook
Click here to read the rules
Please get fimiliar with the rules so that you dont get kicked/banned next time.
The issue of territory is one factor that has lead to conflict between India and Pakistan. The region of Kashmir has brought heated tension to both nations that has resulted in war. In Dr. S.P. Shulka's book, India and Pakistan: The Origins of Armed Conflict, it cites Michael Breecher's book The Struggle for Kashmir, that "between 1947 and 1955, there were several ups and downs marked by many events. The problem of Kashmir arose because Maharaja Hari Singh was unable to make up his mind to which Dominion the State of Kashmir should accede to or whether to accede at all". [9] "If Partition itself has been the subject of much anguished and rhetorical writings, so too has been the drama of the Kashmiri Maharaja's indecision about whether to join the Dominion of India, become an independent Kashmiri state, or become part of Muslim Pakistan". [10] The indecision by the Maharaja furthered the interest of territorial gains by both nations. To establish control over the Kashmir would bring territorial power to either state in the region. The religious demography also had an influence to the natural alliance of one of the states. "At the time of partition the State of Jammu and Kashmir, popularly called simply Kashmir, had an overall Muslim majority of 78 percent. In the most desirable part, the Vale of Kashmir, the Muslims numbered 93 per cent". [11]Yet the exclusive majority of Muslims did not change the outcome of events in Kashmir. "Having a Hindu leader over a Muslim majority state, Pakistan's claim to the kingdom seemed to be justified on the basis of the two-nation theory. Moreover Kashmir's proximity to Pakistan also favored the Ratcliffe principle of grouping together contiguous Muslim majority areas. Following implicit Pakistani support for the tribal invasion into the valley to help their fellow Muslims, the Maharaja signed up tojoin India and received immediate military help. This led to outrage in Karachi and an immediate conflict between the two dominions".N.C. Chatterjee, a Hindu member of the Indian Parliament, pointed out in Muhammad Abdullah's article "Kashmir, India and Pakistan" in Foreign Affairs, that: The [geography] of the State was such that it would be bounded on all sides by the new Dominion of Pakistan. Its only access to the outside world by road lay through the Jhelum Valley road which ran through Pakistan, via, Rawalpindi. The only rail line connecting the State with the outside world lay through Sialkot in Pakistan. Its postal and telegraphic services operated through areas that were certain to belong to the Dominion of Pakistan. The State was dependent for all its imported supplies like salt, sugar, petrol and other neccesities of life on their safe and continued transit through areas that would form part of Pakistan.The tourist transit traffic which was a major source of income and revenue could only come via Rawalpindi. The only route available for the export of its valuable fruit was the Jhelum River which ran into Pakistan. With a Muslim religious majority and the geography of the Kashmir close to Pakistan, the natural assumption would be close ties Kashmir would have to Pakistan. But, the Indian position was quite different, "Indian spokesman single out two events as the "basic facts" in the Kashmir dispute and wish the rest of the world to infer from them that Pakistan has been the "aggressor" in Kashmir. The first is the tribal invasion of Kashmir, which began on 22 October 1947, and the second is the intervention of the Pakistani army inside Kashmir in the week of May 1948". [14] This correlation does not take into account that, "they completely ignore India's provocations that led to these developments and also that, first, the United Nations never pronounced Pakistan the aggressor and, second, these occurrences notwithstanding, India agreed in the United Nations that the people of Kashmir should decide their own future by plebiscite, thus making the holding of a plebiscite the central issue in the dispute". [15] With such a plebiscite the Kashmiri would decide their political fate. Ultimately, both states, India and Pakistan desired the Kashmir is to improve their geographic and political standing. The settlement of the dispute was best left to the parties in the conflict. "The handling of the Kashmir issue by the international community goes a long way to explaining India's antipathy to the role of "external" mediation in regional affairs. Following the United Nations fiasco, India was determined to solve the Kashmir crisis on the basis of bilateral relations with Pakistan". [16] Kashmir is still the most puzzling subject, if only because the Indian polity shows no desire to devise any policy addressing the clear message from the Kashmir valley and from its four million
Muslim Kashmiri inhabitants, a message of near total isolation from India. "Over the years Kashmir has become for all sections of national opinion in India, a test of Delhi's resolve to preserve India intact. After the 1947 Partition, Delhi hoped that the Muslim majority in Jammu and Kashmir would give the lie to Pakistan's religious foundation for nationhood. Kashmir would become living proof that secularism "worked." The disputed territory, which has caused two wars between India and Pakistan since 1947, entered a new phase after December 1989 with a situation of civil disobedience and wide popular support for various separatist groups". [17] Religious and political sensibilities in the Kashmir lent to uncertainty as to the political extension, ie. territory, of India or Pakistan. Both states vied for the position of influence to the Kashmiri issue. In a pattern of asserting political interest, India and Pakistan judged the territory issue as the geopolitical relationship in the South Asian region. Whether it be hostile or peaceful intentions, the issue of Kashmir's self determination is of interest to India and Pakistan that may result in the escalation of tensions or compromise.
The Hindu view of the world as other worldly and "the religious teachings of Hinduism and its belief system deeply influence the social behavior and political attitudes of its followers". [18] "Hindus have often been described as other-worldly and fatalistic because Hinduism teaches that an individual is bound in the cycle of birth and death. It is the karma (the action in one's life) that determines the nature of one's following life.". [19] The dominance of religion in politics has generally been negative. The association of theocratic states such as Iran, perpetuates an uncertainty to political decisions based on religious dogma. This is not to say that India and Pakistan are theocratic in governing, but the distinction of religious demography plays an important role.
|
