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

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Trivikrama Swami wrote:

> the Prime Minister is from the BJP and if he decides to

> start a war with Pakastan nobody can stop him at this point. Fortunately, in

> my opinion, it looks like he has decided not to do that.

For what it's worth, the US press seems to have downplayed this

round of the India/Kashmir/Pakistan issue altogether, until it was no

longer avoidable. Even now, it almost seems to portray India as the

aggressor, or at least as the stubborn party; no doubt this is what

Musharraf requires. Is the US is afraid of bin Laden's new home?

 

 

 

> > > 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.

...not to mention those who migrated from India during partition,

who have been treated as second class citizens ever since. The myth of

the great "Islamic brotherhood" exists chiefly in the media, where it seems to

have been created, as well as in the minds of a few quixotic terrorists.

 

Mukunda Datta dasa