Interesting article... dharmayudh seems to be on the way...

[Guest guest]

> > The main reason war is being advised in this article is that the vast

> > majority of Pakastani people think Kashmir should be part of Pakastan

> > and the vast majority of Indian people think it should remain with

> > India.

>

> Hmm... I'm not sure if I agree with your understanding here, with all due

> respect, Maharaj. The reason war is being advised is that "terrorism" -

> or in fact the proxy war, which has been going on in Kashmir ("Kashyapa

> Meru" in vedic literature) since 1989 cannot be ended without decisive

> military action from the Indian side - which is the "good" side.

>

> > But this seems like a mute point because Pakastan has not invaded

> > Kashmir, nor is India in any real danger of losing Kashmir do to

> > aggression from Pakastan.

>

> Pardon me, but it's "moot", not "mute". :-)

>

> Pakistan in fact has been sending in "subversives" who have been fighting

> a guerilla action war since 1989. So, in this context I beg to differ

> from your assessment here.

>

> During the period from '89 to the present, many thousands of persons have

> died due to this fighting and Hindus are being systematically attacked in

> remote villages in what is known popularly in the west as "ethnic

> cleansing" by the subversives/terrorists/islamist fighters coming in from

> Pakistan.

>

> > Another point I would like to have clarified is what exactly would India

> > expect to be the result of the war. Let us say that India wins the war,

> > then what will they do... annex Pakastan and make it part of India???

>

> Well, the BJP, which is the political wing of the RSS, definately would

> like to annex Pakistan, which is, in their (and Srila Prabhupada's) view,

> a part of "Akhand" or indivisible "Bharat" ("India" - the British used

> this aglicised form of the word "Hindu" or "Hind", which comes from

> "Sindhu": the Sindhu river. Anyway, let's leave etymology aside for

> now...).

>

> But, at the present moment, the BJP is not in "sole power" of the

> parliamentary government of India. They are indeed the "major parnter" in

> a broad based coalition of various political parties, but they cannot

> foist their own agenda on the other parties: they are bound by a "common

> minimum program" of governance that all the parties in the coalition

> agreed to.

>

>

> > Also do you think that the minds of the Pakastani people, even in

> > defeat, will change regarding Kashmir?

> >

> > Ys TS

>

> Well, there are many Muslims in Pakistan who know that their ancestors

> were forcebly converted to Islam. There are still many Hindus in Sindh,

> and the Sindhi muslims are also not at all at ease with the Punjabi

> muslims... and the same goes for many Pathans (known in the west as

> "Pushtoons"), many of who's leaders were vehemently against the creation

> of Pakistan during the partition of India by the British back in '47.

>

> So, really, it's a question of political power, no? Shouldn't that be in

> the hands of people who are favorable to vedic culture and religion?

>

> I think so!

>

> das,

>

> Basu Ghosh Das