Philip wrote:That's exactly what I've written and meant.The "trusteeship" I've referred to is the state of affairs/situ that has existed since the war of '48 over Kashmir."Opaque" and the opacity means the reduction of tension in the LOC,easy movement of civilians at certain LOC points,allowing the people of POK to see for themselves across the LOC a better life being part of India.Any agreement would be confined to making the lives of the people of Kashmir easier,which with the reduction in tension would benefit India in the Valley from the security point of view. Cross border terrorism would become unpopular in similar fashion as did Al Q's mindless suicide bombings in Baghdad,which ultimately lost them support.Under no circumstances should we give legitimacy to the partition of Kashmir."Azad Kashmir',once the failed state fails,could just switch allegaince to India,for starters, become a "protectorate" as Bhutan is and later on to be further "merged" when the time is ripe as was Sikkim.So let us be like the "Old Turkey Buzzard"!
Philip ji,
What you say makes great sense.
The porkis want soft borders because then they will claim cousin cousin marriages and hope to change the demographics of the border areas and beyond.
They will flood our border areas, settling for "business", and many will fan out quietly into the hinterland."Kashmiri Handicrafts",no less
Which politician or party has a longterm thought process to handle
the kashmir issue strategically and not tactically. If we thought long term like the british or the chinese, we would be a different country.
Our K policy changes by the month. Jiska lathi, uska bains.
Our changing and wavering policies confirm to the porki abdul that the fruit is ripe for his picking, just a matter of ek aur dhakka.
He sees every Indian politico as an ikg or mms.
Where as we should collectively be seen in the Sardar Patel mould.
This constant whine of " willing to meet them more than half way"
by mms and his ilk also gives the strong feeling to the street abdul that we are desperate for peace and talks. A plague on the houses of all politicians.
Shut up. Don't react to silly statements from the porkis, speak in one voice. One day its the hurryrats, next its the amrekis, sometimes the british or the europeans.
No articles in the DDM, no interviews with rabid isi generals or porki "experts", no showing of kashmir on our channels except rarely. Publicity is the lifeblood of these porkis.
You already have a big stick with a undoubtedly superior Army. Deal from a position of strength that you are really in, given your actual ground position in kashmir.
; it is the agreements ,treaties and MOU's which are signed for they involve a written account of things to be accomplished according to a set of binding rules. Never have I heard of joint statement being qualified as signed/unsigned . If two parties meet and issue a statement with mutual consent at the end of the meet it is by default the official statement/pov of the two Governments ...there is no such thing as a signed/unsigned.
