Posted on 08/10/2019 4:37:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
or a long period, the sun never set on the British Empire, until after World War II when the UK experienced a relative decline from its prominence in the international arena and granted independence or ended its rule over territories it controlled. Within one year, Britain ended its control of the India subcontinent with the creation of India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947, and ended its League of Nations Mandate in Palestine, with the creation of Israel on May 14, 1948. In both cases, the now independent areas were troubled by internal and irreconcilable differences between population groups, a situation which led to hostilities and which still exists. In both cases, independence movements were active and militant, and division and partition of the disputed territory was suggested as a solution. Two of the three countries, Israel and India, have been basically secular countries with doctrinaire religious minorities which inflame the political and social atmosphere. All countries are said to have nuclear potential. All have had to defend themselves against external aggressors as well as against internal militant opponents of central command. All seek harmony and a peaceful environment with neighboring countries.
In the Indian subcontinent, British Crown Rule, the British Raj, was set up in 1858 after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, succeeding the East India Company, the former joint stock company that had controlled a large part of the territory. The area had more than 550 princely states in which about 1,200 civil servants governed more than 300 million people. On August 15, 1947, the Indian Independence Act and its aftermath divided the territory into two states, India, with a largely Hindu population, and Pakistan, almost entirely Muslim. The Muslim population, about 20 per cent of the whole, differed politically, socially, and economically from the Hindu majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Muslim population, and there are problems? Go figure.
Amazing that the same British that have gone INSANE in protecting muzzies with hate laws were once this powerful.
Yup, the mooselimbs on one side of the many global conflicts.
Funny that!
Given the Muslim population, why does India stay there. It would seem the solution is for India to leave. Absent that, Hindus should be encouraged to move there and Muslims forced to leave.
The problem is a Muslim-majority enclave will never consent to be governed by non-Muslims.
And they will always seek to expand their influence through high birth rates and emigration. Their attitude will always be “What’s ours is ours forever. What’s yours will be ours, eventually”.
I used to live two blocks down from that building on St Mark’s Place back in my college days. Never knew it at the time.
I do not get it, is it some sort of phrase?
Physical Graffiti is the Led Zeppelin album with the song Kashmir on it. My video link in post#9 is the song...
Also, it’s very ironic your name is Steven Tyler and you don’t get it.
There is a tea store called Physical Grafitti tea in the lower part of the building on the right - here is a picture with a little-known harmonica player in front of it.
Same reason we are in Afghanistan, Minerals.
Kashmir is about the richest area of India.
Duh, thank!
From a guy who has the Led Zepplin 4 CD box set.
Total. Complete. Humiliation.
I need to go hide in disgrace and drink moar coffee
thanks for that
From the article: “Kashmir remains what it has always been, a complex problem, difficult to resolve, in some ways akin to the difficulty in finding a universally accepted solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. However, one difference is evident in the two situations. The U.S. should play, and is playing, a role in finding a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East.in which every State can live in security.”
Why?
Why are the situations different?
Either the United States is a universal governor, willing to back up its imperial pretensions with dead deplorables, or it is not.
The notion that the US “should” play a role in finding a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East (which is not possible) is a formula for perpetual war. This is neither our obligation, nor is it in our interest.
Either we “should” commit to endless war to “solve” the Kashmir issue BECAUSE of it’s similarity to the Israeli-Arab conflict, or we should do neither.
no problem bert.
I said the same when someone asked why we are in Afghanistan.
They said they thought I was nuts, (which I am not challenging), but they checked and found that in regards rare and precious minerals, the country is filthy rich, if said minerals can be exploited.
well, well..... double OK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.