| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Should India clear out from the Andaman islands?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Should India clear out from the Andaman islands?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Should India clear out from the Andaman islands?
    Posted: 24 Jun 2010 at 14:48
The Andaman Islands is located in the Indian Ocean and do formally belong to India today. But its native population(s) has lived there for many millennia.
Since the 18th century the islands have experienced increasing colonisation and occupation by foreigners. First it was the Britsih who, among other things, opened a penal colony on one of the Islands. During WWII the Japanes also had a presence on the islands. Since 1947 the islands belong to India.

From the beginning the native population of the islands is calculated to have been around 6000 – 7000 people (the calculations vary between different sources) but violence and above all contagious diseases have since then reduced the population so it is now down to between 500 to 1000 people belonging to 4 groups. Two of the groups (the Jarawas and the Sentinelese) have more or less withstood to be assimilated by foreigners while the other two groups (the Onge and the Great Andamanese) have nearly disappeared. Nowadays the Indian poulation becomes more and more numerous while the native become less and less. The Indians is now about 300 000 and they many time enchroach on the remaining land of the natives, with illegal logging, illegal fishing, illegal hunting, settling and other activitis. Also companies are building roads, or try to build facilities for tourists close to indigenous territory. The only Island that is free from invaders is North Sentinel Island where the inhabitants meet all forms of enchroachment with arrows.

The question is, should not India clear out from the islands and relocate the indian settlers to the mainland and leave the Islands to their original inhabitants?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2010 at 23:37
Yes.
But my reasons for saying that are simply to deprive India of a major naval base.
 
The islands and India have a very long history.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2010 at 23:53
Kashmir (and the far eastern states of India for that matter) has a much stronger case for independence than Andaman yet nobody bothers to even acknowledge that. And in any case the islands were always considered part of India.
 
 
Al-assas
 
 
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2010 at 00:15
I don't know much about the area, but I would assume that there has been continuous Indian contact with the Andaman Islands for millennia.  With that being said, I do believe the Indians should stay, the settlers there have made it their home and why should they be forced to leave, it is their home now.  To ask your question Carch is like asking if Brazil should cede the parts of the Amazon basin where the indigenous groups resist assimilation back to those groups.  Furthermore, you could make the argument then that since places like England and Northern France were colonized by groups of violent agrarian reformers, the descendants of these violent agrarian reformers should cede the areas back to the original inhabitants.  This suggestions seems a little non-sensical does it not?  Since how are we to know who is descended from what group.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2010 at 11:10
It is possible that Andaman islands now and then have been visited by stray Indian sailors since long time. Also stray Europeans visited the islands already in the 16th or at least in the 17th centuries (even a Swede visited the islands in the midth 17th century).

But mostly the population lived isolated until the Brits established a presence there in the 19th century. The Brits also brought Indians there. These contacts became rather disastrous for the native population with a lot of casualties because of violence from the invaders and even more from contagious diseases.

When India became independant around 25 000 indians where present on the islands. Since then the indian population has risen to a staggering 300 000+. These invaders clears down the forests and gradually destroys the environment of the islands. At the same time the Andaman natives number are decreasing and their culture are destroyed or severely threatened.

Still, there are time to save the true Andaman population before they are totally overrun by indians and before they are engulfed by these foreigners. It would surely be possible with a gradual relocation program so the indians could return to the indian mainland and be given resources enough for a new start there. 

The main invasion of the Andaman islands is of a relatively recent date and is still reversible. That one can not say about many other places in the world (even if I think for example Brazil could give back more land in the Amazon basin to its indigenous population).

The Andamans is a place with limited resources and of a limited size. If one want to save these islands and their original inhabitants relocation of most of the indian population is necessary. India should just leave a skeleton crew of doctors, nurses, anthropologists and other experts that could help the Andaman peoples to recover from the invasion.

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2010 at 11:33
Basically, if the natives feel they want independence then yes, India should step back. From what you described though it is already too late innit?

This discussion reminds me also a bit of an old thread on AE, that was talking about the right of the invaders or something like that.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2010 at 11:45
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Basically, if the natives feel they want independence then yes, India should step back. From what you described though it is already too late innit?

This discussion reminds me also a bit of an old thread on AE, that was talking about the right of the invaders or something like that.

Yes, some natives even violently try to keep their ground and not let invaders in on the territory they have left. The best example of that is the Sentineli on Northern Sentinel island. They meet foreigners with arrows. Also a group called the Jarawas have until recently tried to fight of indian settlers that enchroaches into their land. For the Great Andamanese and the Onge the situation is more critical. Just a few of them are still alive and their culture are rapidly deteroirating, as do their physical health.

But to relocate the indians should not be to late, more extensive relocations have occured earlier when colonial powers have cleared out from their former colonies.


Edited by Carcharodon - 25 Jun 2010 at 11:50
Back to Top
whalebreath View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 244
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote whalebreath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2010 at 05:35
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...... If one want to save these islands and their original inhabitants relocation of most of the indian population is necessary. India should just leave a skeleton crew of doctors, nurses, anthropologists and other experts that could help the Andaman peoples to recover from the invasion.

No mention of Indians born in the Andamans-where would you settle them?

FWIW it's a lovely fairy tale scenario you've postulated but it will never happen-not on this earth.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2010 at 13:41
Originally posted by whalebreath whalebreath wrote:

 
No mention of Indians born in the Andamans-where would you settle them? 

With the right rewards, land, monetary compensation and other privileges it would probably be possible to persuade even them to move. And also the resettlement should be gradual so you do not throw out all people at once leaving them empty handed somewhere on the mainland.
And if India says they could not afford such a programm, one can just remember that they can afford wast military expenses and even nuclear weapons.

That it is practically possible to clear out colonialists from a former colony where for example shown when France evacuated 900 000 colonialists from Algeria in just a few months.

Originally posted by whalebreath whalebreath wrote:

 FWIW it's a lovely fairy tale scenario you've postulated but it will never happen-not on this earth.

Well, I agree that the crass reality of politics unfortunately will severely obstruct such a scenario. Maybe one have to (at least for starters) be content with putting aside more land to the natives, protect them better from illegal exploiters and settlers, and stop further immigration from the Indian mainland. Also one could start some kind of campaign for family planning among the Indian population on the Andaman islands.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2010 at 19:05
Knowing virtually nothing about the Andaman Islands other than an occasional mentions in colonial era histories, my gut instinct is that they are better off with India than as merely another failed state.

As for India's military expenses being 'wasted', arriving at that decision would require some serious investigation and analysis that, frankly speaking Carch, you have never shown yourself capable of. My knowledge of the Indian Army is based upon the acquaintance of a single career Indian officer, ergo hardy an informed opinion, but my impression is that they are an important force in internal security, especially in in extremis situations. Ergo, Carch, how much of the Indian defense budget is necessary, and how much is 'wasted'? That is a question that would take an informed person months to answer.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2010 at 20:09
300k Indians there.

5k 'natives'.

No brainer.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2010 at 20:53
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

 Knowing virtually nothing about the Andaman Islands other than an occasional mentions in colonial era histories, my gut instinct is that they are better off with India than as merely another failed state.

Well, India could as I said have some kind of formal responsibility and leave a sort of skeleton crew consisting of doctors, nurses and anthropologists to help those who neeed to be helped to recreate their lifes and the environment that Indian settlers and exploiters have destroyed.

Do not forget that the Andamanese peoples have a very long history on the islands when they actually managed without Indians or other foreigners. 

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

 As for India's military expenses being 'wasted', arriving at that decision would require some serious investigation and analysis that, frankly speaking Carch, you have never shown yourself capable of. My knowledge of the Indian Army is based upon the acquaintance of a single career Indian officer, ergo hardy an informed opinion, but my impression is that they are an important force in internal security, especially in in extremis situations. Ergo, Carch, how much of the Indian defense budget is necessary, and how much is 'wasted'? That is a question that would take an informed person months to answer.

Actually spending money on nuclear (and a lot of other) weapons when you can not meet the demands of your people in a lot of fields are just the wrong way to use resources. If one is not too indoctrinated by military thinking and propaganda one would actually understand that.



Edited by Carcharodon - 26 Jun 2010 at 20:56
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2010 at 21:17
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Actually spending money on nuclear (and a lot of other) weapons when you can not meet the demands of your people in a lot of fields are just the wrong way to use resources. If one is not too indoctrinated by military thinking and propaganda one would actually understand that.



I look forward to Lirelou's response. LOL
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 00:41
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Actually spending money on nuclear (and a lot of other) weapons when you can not meet the demands of your people in a lot of fields are just the wrong way to use resources. If one is not too indoctrinated by military thinking and propaganda one would actually understand that.
The Indian army keeps the country together. India isn't Scandinavia, protected from any real threats by geography and peaceful neighbours. If the Indian army wasn't active and powerful the country would both internally fall apart from its numerous rebellions and externally be dismembered from China and Pakistan (though I am in favour of the dismemberment of course, Delhi, is, properly Pakistani territory).
India has nukes because China has nukes. Defence is a demand of their people.
 
The other thing I wanted to say is what makes you think the situation in the Andaman's is unquie in India? There are similar situations all over mainland india. Have been for thousands of years.
Back to Top
whalebreath View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 244
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote whalebreath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 02:10
Quote Do not forget that the Andamanese peoples have a very long history on the islands when they actually managed without Indians or other foreigners.

A somewhat disingenuous post-in fact Andamese rarely go near the coasts preferring to live inland on their tiny jungle islands-that can hardly be called management.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 11:20
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Actually spending money on nuclear (and a lot of other) weapons when you can not meet the demands of your people in a lot of fields are just the wrong way to use resources. If one is not too indoctrinated by military thinking and propaganda one would actually understand that.
The Indian army keeps the country together. India isn't Scandinavia, protected from any real threats by geography and peaceful neighbours. If the Indian army wasn't active and powerful the country would both internally fall apart from its numerous rebellions and externally be dismembered from China and Pakistan (though I am in favour of the dismemberment of course, Delhi, is, properly Pakistani territory).
India has nukes because China has nukes. Defence is a demand of their people.

Better India and it neighbours improve their diplomatic skills instead of spending a lot of valuable resources on a lot of weapons. And nuclear weapons is a threat against humanity, and that others have them are no excuse to self aqquire them.

Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 The other thing I wanted to say is what makes you think the situation in the Andaman's is unquie in India? There are similar situations all over mainland india. Have been for thousands of years.

Doing wrong in one place do not excuse doing wrong in other places. Andamans are islands in the Ocean with a unique culture and Indians have no business being there and destroy those islands and the people living there. It is better India solve its problems with overpopulation on its own mainland territory instead of swamping other peoples land.


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 11:25
Originally posted by whalebreath whalebreath wrote:

Quote Do not forget that the Andamanese peoples have a very long history on the islands when they actually managed without Indians or other foreigners.

A somewhat disingenuous post-in fact Andamese rarely go near the coasts preferring to live inland on their tiny jungle islands-that can hardly be called management.

Once there were actually more people on the Andaman islands, taking advantage of the whole spectra of available ecological resources, both inland and sea. And that people like the Sentineli and Jarawas are only hiding inland is not true. They also take advantage of marine resources like fish, shell and turtles.

They have actually managed their islands better, for thousands of years, than most other peoples on earth, not destroying their environment. Today indian (and other) settlers, loggers, exploiters, illegal hunters and fishers are destroying the islands and depleting them of their resources.


Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Jun 2010 at 11:32
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 11:27
Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 11:35
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 11:48
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.


I don't really know how to respond to it. I'll try:

Carch's head: War is BAD. Therefore war should be AVOIDED.

Reality: If I throw away my weapons a big bad neighbour will come along and devour me in one gulp.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 11:51
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.


I don't really know how to respond to it. I'll try:

Carch's head: War is BAD. Therefore war should be AVOIDED.

Reality: If I throw away my weapons a big bad neighbour will come along and devour me in one gulp.

Sweden have big bad neighbours and it has still been possible to avoid war true diplomatic skills and politics. So slowly and gradually India and its neighbours should increase diplomacy and try to start to rely less on violent solutions of problems. Its time they grow up if the world shall be able to develop.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 11:53
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.


I don't really know how to respond to it. I'll try:

Carch's head: War is BAD. Therefore war should be AVOIDED.

Reality: If I throw away my weapons a big bad neighbour will come along and devour me in one gulp.

Sweden have big bad neighbours and it has still been possible to avoid war true diplomatic skills and politics. So slowly and gradually India and its neighbours should increase diplomacy and try to start to rely less on violent solutions of problems. Its time they grow up if the world shall be able to develop.


Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 12:15
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 
Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.

There are actually many countries that have no enourmous defence forces but who through diplomacy still manage to avoid war. Its a matter of politics and how one manages political and diplomatic action.

Noone said the Indias should dismantel all their military forces at once, but at least they should not increase them and they ought to be able to dismantel nuclear weapons and also improve their diplomatic skills in order to come to terms with their neighbours (the same goes for Pakistanis and others).


Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Jun 2010 at 12:19
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 12:46
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 
Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.

There are actually many countries that have no enourmous defence forces but who through diplomacy still manage to avoid war. Its a matter of politics and how one manages political and diplomatic action.

Noone said the Indias should dismantel all their military forces at once, but at least they should not increase them and they ought to be able to dismantel nuclear weapons and also improve their diplomatic skills in order to come to terms with their neighbours (the same goes for Pakistanis and others).


I doubt the problems facing the subcontinent can be solved by doing evening classes in diplomacy.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 12:55
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 
Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.

There are actually many countries that have no enourmous defence forces but who through diplomacy still manage to avoid war. Its a matter of politics and how one manages political and diplomatic action.

Noone said the Indias should dismantel all their military forces at once, but at least they should not increase them and they ought to be able to dismantel nuclear weapons and also improve their diplomatic skills in order to come to terms with their neighbours (the same goes for Pakistanis and others).


I doubt the problems facing the subcontinent can be solved by doing evening classes in diplomacy.

Perhaps not, but the general approach by the authorities and people in that place needs some changes in order to solve the problems.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 14:16
If India (which has historical links to the Andamans going back centuries) does not guarantee the security and wellbeing of the islanders by occupying the islands, you will find the Chinese trying to do so instead. That would probably be a worse scenario for the Andamanese.

As for diplomacy, it only works in certain situations. Neville Chamberlain was quite big on the idea, and it did nothing to prevent war. In the words of Athenian envoys to Melos, via Thucydides, 'the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must'. 'Soft power', is often a much cheaper and more humane option when used by a power with the finesse and skill to make use of it. So we cannot discount the use of soft power. But it is hardly a viable long term guarantee for security.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 16:55
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 If India (which has historical links to the Andamans going back centuries) does not guarantee the security and wellbeing of the islanders by occupying the islands, you will find the Chinese trying to do so instead. That would probably be a worse scenario for the Andamanese.

Noone say that India can not guarantee the safety of the Andamans. Actually it is their obligation since they have destroyed part of the islands and more or less swamped the islands with Indian people. And as I said, if the Indians manage to clear out most of the settlers and others who do not belong on the islands and relocate them to the mainland, they still could leave a skeleton crew of doctors, nurses, anthropologists and other experts that can be of some help for the indigenous people. That, and to protect the islands from invaders would at least be some compensation for the plundering of natural resources on the Andaman islands.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 As for diplomacy, it only works in certain situations. Neville Chamberlain was quite big on the idea, and it did nothing to prevent war. In the words of Athenian envoys to Melos, via Thucydides, 'the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must'. 'Soft power', is often a much cheaper and more humane option when used by a power with the finesse and skill to make use of it. So we cannot discount the use of soft power. But it is hardly a viable long term guarantee for security.

Well, neglecting important needs of the people to instead increse ones weapons arsenal and constructing nuclear weapons with a terrible destruction capacity is not the right way to go.

Ever heard about overkill?

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 17:17
"[N]eglecting important needs of the people" what sort of malarkey beyond the typical verbosity found in Carcharedonese is that!?! No government lasts for long if it fails to provide "for the common defense". As for an example of overkill, did not a certain Andamanese group "devour" their "invaders"?Evil Smile As in much else on these threads the "tilting at windmills" has become rather tedious.
 
Not to pick on you Carch but you have become rather predictable. This typical Romanticism for the remoteness of purported Stone Age Edens is so 19th century...it's a rather perverse form of paternalism.


Edited by drgonzaga - 27 Jun 2010 at 17:20
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 20:46
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

"[N]eglecting important needs of the people" what sort of malarkey beyond the typical verbosity found in Carcharedonese is that!?! No government lasts for long if it fails to provide "for the common defense". As for an example of overkill, did not a certain Andamanese group "devour" their "invaders"?Evil Smile As in much else on these threads the "tilting at windmills" has become rather tedious.

Noone denies India a defence, but it ought to be reasonable and no overkill nuclear armament that can never be used without leading to a major disaster.
  
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 Not to pick on you Carch but you have become rather predictable. This typical Romanticism for the remoteness of purported Stone Age Edens is so 19th century...it's a rather perverse form of paternalism.

It have nothing to do with paternalism. To concern oneself for peoples survival is rather the opposite of paternalism or 19th century mentality.


Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Jun 2010 at 20:47
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 00:14

Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Better India and it neighbours improve their diplomatic skills instead of spending a lot of valuable resources on a lot of weapons. And nuclear weapons is a threat against humanity, and that others have them are no excuse to self aqquire them.

Are you advocating negotiating with the Taliban?

Maybe we should just settle it all with a Cricket match?

Quote Sweden have big bad neighbours and it has still been possible to avoid war true diplomatic skills and politics. So slowly and gradually India and its neighbours should increase diplomacy and try to start to rely less on violent solutions of problems. Its time they grow up if the world shall be able to develop.

What a hypocritical bastard you are. Sweden has no diplomatic skills short of surrendering their defence to the USA. The only reason your big bad neighbours don't crush you is because your other big bad neighbours will unleash nuclear destruction if they do. Your anti-war stance is a benefit of the money spent on nuclear weapons in Russia and the US. Not because of any diplomatic skills of your own.
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Not to pick on you Carch but you have become rather predictable. This typical Romanticism for the remoteness of purported Stone Age Edens is so 19th century...it's a rather perverse form of paternalism.

Spot on.
Not only that, but Carch's ideas have been far more effective at genocide than realism or materialism.
If history tells us anything one man like Carch with power over the Andamesese is a far bigger threat than 300k Indians.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.