Well.. bhutan, nepal ....and various other landlocked countries around the world come to mind.....nation states which have problems but are recognizable entities....

i think its worth a try letting kashmir fend for itself as an independent country, it should be upto them to figure out a way....not that its ever going to happen given the realities on the ground....

the whole thing in kashmir is a waste of time and money -- apart from what it does to morale....i think its a grevious error on the part of the government to use the military as a kind of police force to enforce law and order ... - the military is trained to fight and kill and inflict collateral damage against an enemy force. One cannot expect a change of attitude on the part of the military simply because the conflict and the enemies are internal. 


On 10/17/06, Badri Natarajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can see how they feel that way - that's very sad. However, I will note
that Kashmir has no (economic) future as an independent country - no food
security and not much to trade (just tourism won't cut it). It will
effectively end up as the client state of either India or Pakistan (or
maybe China) anyway - so I'm not sure I see the point of independence
(except possibly to stop the drain on the Indian GDP). And that's apart
from all the other arguments in favour of Kashmir staying part of India..

Badri


Reply via email to