Let's settle Kashmir with war, says Indian Deputy Prime Minister

Straits Times ^

[DeaconBenjamin]

Fourth conflict with Pakistan 'better than terror attacks'

NEW DELHI - Indian Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani has issued a direct challenge to nuclear-armed rival Pakistan to drop its alleged support for the Muslim insurgency in Kashmir or fight another war over the disputed Himalayan territory.

Mr Advani also insisted that Pakistan was fighting a 'proxy war' in Kashmir by arming and training Islamic rebels in the divided frontier territory.

'Let us fight it out face to face. We have fought thrice, let there be a fourth war,' he told an election campaign rally in the western district of Bhuj in the state of Gujarat.

The deputy premier, kicking off a campaign for Gujarat's state election on Dec 12, said that a fully-fledged war was preferable to the recurring terror attacks in India, which New Delhi blames on Islamabad.

'Killing of innocent civilians by attacking temples like Akshardham and Raghunath is unacceptable,' Mr Advani said of raids by Islamic gunmen in September and November which led to the death of nearly 50 Hindu devotees.

Yesterday, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee warned that his government had information that more Hindu temples were likely to be targeted by Muslim militants.

'More temples can be targeted. We have information in this regard,' the Press Trust of India quoted Mr Vajpayee as saying in the northern city of Solan.

In response, Islamabad yesterday warned New Delhi against war-mongering.

'No-one in India should live under the illusion that a self-respecting nation like Pakistan can be cowed down by any amount of intimidation,' Information Minister Sheikh Rasheed said.

'It is unfortunate that Advani has again started beating the war drums.

'He should be aware that although Pakistan does not want any conflict, it is fully prepared and has all the means and capabilities to give a crushing reply to any misadventure by India.'

India and Pakistan have fought over Kashmir in two of their three wars since the subcontinent's independence from British rule in 1947.

Mr Advani's dare came on the back of an Indian warning last month that it would not seek external help to combat terrorism.

'India can deal with terrorism on its own. We are not dependent on the international community for a solution... This is a fight India has to wage,' Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha told parliament on Nov 21. --AFP

[bobi]

"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a 44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clear off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"

[per loin]

India has been effectively cowed by Pak nukes. This is just election rhetoric.

[Dog Gone]

It's rather irresponsible rhetoric. While it probably rallies support and gets some votes, it isn't likely to go over too well in Pakistan.

At some point, these nations need to achieve a permanent solution at the bargaining table. A nuclear exchange may seem to some as a desireable course of action, but even that wouldn't resolve the matter permanently.

Fortunately, I think both sides know that or we would have had war earlier this year.

[gorebegone]

Warning: Country infested with the religion of Peace!

[keri]

I think you're in the wrong theater...

[Aaron_A]

While it probably rallies support and gets some votes, it isn't likely to go over too well in Pakistan.

Do you think he cares? Surely Prez Bush didn't care about hurting the Taliban or Al Qaeda's feelings when he mentioned wanting OBL dead or alive.

[Dog Gone]

Well, obviously he doesn't care.

[itsahoot]

At some point, these nations need to achieve a permanent solution at the bargaining table

Precisely what they did when Pakistan became an independant country. Oops, didn't last, did it?

[dfwgator]

I remember a line in Patton, where he said, "this match has been postponed long enough." That's basically what's happened here. Let 'em go at it, and let God sort it out, just get it over with.

[Dog Gone]

Precisely what they did when Pakistan became an independant country.

It didn't last because it never happened. Dust off your history books.

[itsahoot]

From the CIA Fact Book
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html#Intro

This looks pretty much like a political settelement to me, the fact that it didn't work, shows the futility of political settelements, of the Chambers type.

The separation in 1947 of British India into the Muslim state of Pakistan (with two sections West and East) and largely Hindu India was never satisfactorily resolved. A third war between these countries in 1971 resulted in East Pakistan seceding and becoming the separate nation of Bangladesh. A dispute over the state of Kashmir is ongoing.<

[Dog Gone]

I think you weren't paying attention in history class. Great Britain created Pakistan at the time it withdrew from India. India didn't give anything to the Muslims and the process was anything BUT peaceful. The bloodshed was horrific.

I completely agree that India must do whatever is necessary to protect itself from the Islamic terrorists. I don't think a war would accomplish that. I could be wrong, of course, and I would be glad to be wrong if it solved the problem.

[swarthyguy]

>>Great Britain created Pakistan.

>>>India didn't give anything to the Muslims

Pakistan was created over the protestations of the vast majority of Indians, of ALL faiths.

India was the first land for peace deal of the post colonial area that was driven by the islamifruitcakes, even tho' Jivin Jinnah was a ham chomping, cigar smoking scotch sipping city slicker who wasn't even married to a muslim.
Yet he evoked the dream(nightmare) of islami to conceive and bring to term his poisoned child.
Ego, religious belief and a English infatuation with the muslims of the subcontinent led to Pakistan's creation.

The bloodshed was created by the population transfers and fear generated by the partition of the adminstrative structure of the British Raj.

There are qualitative differences, profound ones between India and Pakistan, regardless of a long standing western and American inclination to look at them both as equal entities, which they are not, based on any standard except that of chronic poverty. Ethically, morally, economically, civilisationally, Pakistan can't compare in the least in virtually any endeavor. Yes, instrumental in the Sovietjihad but a puss filled oozing sore of rancid islamiarabi.

[keri]

Great Britain didn't create anything. The Muslim League did... Great Britain told India (at that time Pakistan was non-existent and part of India) it could have its independence after World War II was over. India was supposed to help the war effort, and did declare war on Nazi Germany the same day that Britain did: September 3, 1939. In 1940, Jinnah demanded a separate nation be carved out of India. (Pakistan, Land of the pure)

In 1946, Britain "offered" India its independence contingent upon all parties (Jinnah's Muslim League) agreeing upon a government. Dear Jinnah did not think the Muslims would ever get a fair shake, and declared August 16, 1946 as "Direct Action Day" to establish the nation of Pakistan. The following day, on the 17th, rioting commenced in Calcutta.

Great Britain gave in to the Muslims on August 14th, 1947, creating the lovely hell-hole now known as Pakistan. The following day on August 15th, the British were kind enough to give "India" its independence.

I'd say India got a royal screwing out of the deal.

All the documents and history are posted at the UN's website. Quite interesting, the true story... Also, if one is interested the Kashmir story is told there via actual documents. Amazing the mis-information and inaccuracies the media has propagated through the years.