http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... on-kashmir
Indians are now getting increasingly suspicious, sick and tired of Briturds. Check the remark belowAccording to Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir, initially believed that by delaying his decision he could maintain the independence of Kashmir. But caught up in a train of events that included a revolution among his Muslim subjects along the western borders of his state with Pashtun tribesmen, he signed an instrument of accession to the Indian Union in October 1947."This was the signal for intervention both by Pakistan, which considered the state to be a natural extension of Pakistan, and by India, which intended to confirm the act of accession."The Britannica account could also provoke some controversy, as the Pashtuns mentioned were also said to be in fact a flying column of Waziri tribesmen from the Afghan frontier.
But both Dogra and Britannica confirm the error in the original interactive graphic. I am surprised that it went unnoticed for so long, given the fierceness and depth of the arguments over the region. . I do not expect mistakes like this in a publication such as yours unless it has been done on purpose. Conspiracy theories aside, I look forward to your reply."It was certainly not deliberate, there was no conspiracy. However, writing in these sensitive areas often leads to the most fantastic theories about what is nearly always plain human error.So five years later we will correct the webpages in the archive as we would always when there is a clear factual error. As John F Kennedy told a group of journalists in 1962: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." I hope we are not too late.
Ranger99025
This is a pre-emptive post. Usually every article or every mention of the word "India" in Guardian or for that matter any British newspaper / website attracts comments typically claiming "India getting billions in aid from Britain but wasting that money on space program, nuclear program etc. and letting its people starve" ... for such occasions I have a stock response. Here goes :
-----------------
Look, I understand you British people hate India and wish it ill, and seek to disparage it at every opportunity. There is a lot about India to mock, real stuff you can mock.... but please stop resorting to idiotically false statements.
British aid to India is $300 million. US aid to India is around $200 million.
India's recent aid to Europian Union to save the failing European economy was $10 billion. India's aid to Africa this year was $5 billion. India's aid to Afghanistan has been $3 billion over last 2-3 years.So if you people think India is like some sub-saharan country like Rwanda and Somalia that depend on your aid to feed their people, think again.India does not need any aid. If anything, India is by far a net aid donor than a taker.Your (US+UK) aid to India is : Around $500 million. India's combined aid to various countries is : $20 billion.
