Firstly, too many people opposed to India on the matter of Kashmir utter the words "UN resolution" as a sort of magic chant that automatically validates all that they say - they should first comprehend what the resolutions actually states.
Secondly, 'post-colonial' motives may or may not have been at play in the UN in 1948 (personally I think it's possible, but unlikely... reasons below: _
By end 1948, India had a legal basis to annex Jummu and Kashmir (the treaty of accession signed by it's Maharaja), however thin this may sound. Pakistan did not. The Indian Prime Minister at the time was a from a Hindu family from the Kashmir valley. He had participated in the movement that won freedom for both India and Pakistan, and he and his family had considerable respect in the valley. Virtually no support for joining Pakistan existed in J& K itself -- J&K had more in common in terms of culture and tradition with India than the newly formed Pakistan. J&K political leaders like Sheikh Abdullah (the father of the current J&K chief minister) were also partial to India. Many observers state that a fair plebescite at the time would have been in India's favor (of course it's hard to imagine this now).
All this would have weighed in the minds of the UN delegates when they came up with the resolution they did.
Look at the top of the webpage below for a Paksitani military perspective on their 1948 Kashmir infiltration. It's pretty clear that Pakistan had little to no sympathy in the valley itself -- they wouldn't have had to inject foreign tribals and their own troops surreptitiously -- they could simply incite and arm a local rebellion as they are doing now.
> > Here's why the post's wrong: First: India is a constitutionally secular [alfa.nic.in] country, not a Hindu one.
Maybe. But what's going to stop all the right-wing Hindu politicians from passing laws that hurt non-Hindus
The same thing that stops them in other countries - a national constitution. If I remember my civics lessons correctly, changing the Indian constitution requires a 66% majority in parliament, assent from a majority of states, and the assent of the Indian president (the current one - KR Narayanan - is a former 'untouchable')
And given this ineffectiveness of making the caste system illegal, one could argue it's just a token law to shift blame when the shit hits the fan. Particularly here [cnn.com],...
It's easy to knock something done imperfectly (like the abolition of untouchablity in India), but India is in a *much* better state than it was when the British left, thanks to her constitution and hundreds of thousands of honest people who enforce it. Remember George Wallace and Alabama? It's been only a few decades since blacks got the right to vote in the USA -- things changed for the better rapidly once a critical mass for change was reached. India is pretty close to that stage now.
The Google postings on the conversion -- yes, it did happen, but from one false faith, to another.
That's a bad load of anti-Indian slander from 'Anonymous Coward'. Just about the only thing right in his post was that India should focus on improving life for her downtrodden.
Here's why the post's wrong: First: India is a constitutionally secular country, not a Hindu one. (I myself am an Indian Christian, a recent convert from Hinduism). The Caste system is illegal, and practising it prosecuted under Indian law. The implementation of these laws, however, is not thorough -- inefficiency and corruption plague the Indian administration and justice systems. (Though recently, things have been improving faster)
Secondy, as far as coveting Kashmir goes, the state of Jammu and Kashmir legally merged with India sometime in 1948. A UN resolution passed then, required Pakistan to withdraw it's forces, and let Kashmir come under complete *Indian* control. India was then to host a plebiscite over the entire state. However Pakistan never withdrew... and the rest is history. You can verify this here (see page 11).
Lastly, getting down to the main topic -- I think using a Carnivore-like system to promiscuously trawl for information without a court order is wrong. An analogy would be a policeman habitually entering into people's homes to check for thieves. And I also think that the spook (it must be one of ours) who released this to our media was simply indulging in wishful thinking (fundamental rights are -- we don't have that many supercomputers.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, 'post-colonial' motives may or may not have been at play in the UN in 1948 (personally I think it's possible, but unlikely... reasons below: _
By end 1948, India had a legal basis to annex Jummu and Kashmir (the treaty of accession signed by it's Maharaja), however thin this may sound. Pakistan did not. The Indian Prime Minister at the time was a from a Hindu family from the Kashmir valley. He had participated in the movement that won freedom for both India and Pakistan, and he and his family had considerable respect in the valley. Virtually no support for joining Pakistan existed in J& K itself -- J&K had more in common in terms of culture and tradition with India than the newly formed Pakistan. J&K political leaders like Sheikh Abdullah (the father of the current J&K chief minister) were also partial to India. Many observers state that a fair plebescite at the time would have been in India's favor (of course it's hard to imagine this now).
All this would have weighed in the minds of the UN delegates when they came up with the resolution they did.
Look at the top of the webpage below for a Paksitani military perspective on their 1948 Kashmir infiltration. It's pretty clear that Pakistan had little to no sympathy in the valley itself -- they wouldn't have had to inject foreign tribals and their own troops surreptitiously -- they could simply incite and arm a local rebellion as they are doing now.
. htm
http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/anatomy
Maybe. But what's going to stop all the right-wing Hindu politicians from passing laws that hurt non-Hindus
The same thing that stops them in other countries - a national constitution. If I remember my civics lessons correctly, changing the Indian constitution requires a 66% majority in parliament, assent from a majority of states, and the assent of the Indian president (the current one - KR Narayanan - is a former 'untouchable')
And given this ineffectiveness of making the caste system illegal, one could argue it's just a token law to shift blame when the shit hits the fan. Particularly here [cnn.com],...
It's easy to knock something done imperfectly (like the abolition of untouchablity in India), but India is in a *much* better state than it was when the British left, thanks to her constitution and hundreds of thousands of honest people who enforce it. Remember George Wallace and Alabama? It's been only a few decades since blacks got the right to vote in the USA -- things changed for the better rapidly once a critical mass for change was reached. India is pretty close to that stage now.
The Google postings on the conversion -- yes, it did happen, but from one false faith, to another.
That's a bad load of anti-Indian slander from 'Anonymous Coward'. Just about the only thing right in his post was that India should focus on improving life for her downtrodden.
Here's why the post's wrong: First: India is a constitutionally secular country, not a Hindu one. (I myself am an Indian Christian, a recent convert from Hinduism). The Caste system is illegal, and practising it prosecuted under Indian law. The implementation of these laws, however, is not thorough -- inefficiency and corruption plague the Indian administration and justice systems. (Though recently, things have been improving faster)
Secondy, as far as coveting Kashmir goes, the state of Jammu and Kashmir legally merged with India sometime in 1948. A UN resolution passed then, required Pakistan to withdraw it's forces, and let Kashmir come under complete *Indian* control. India was then to host a plebiscite over the entire state. However Pakistan never withdrew... and the rest is history. You can verify this here (see page 11).
Lastly, getting down to the main topic -- I think using a Carnivore-like system to promiscuously trawl for information without a court order is wrong. An analogy would be a policeman habitually entering into people's homes to check for thieves. And I also think that the spook (it must be one of ours) who released this to our media was simply indulging in wishful thinking (fundamental rights are -- we don't have that many supercomputers.