Kaskmir, a envoy needed
Debate Rounds (3)
I shall start by first outlining the Kashmir problem. After gaining independence from Britain, there was some political unrest because the Muslims wanted a Muslim Homeland and demanded a partition of India. Once the split took place, Pakistan was founded as a Muslim Homeland. Kashmir is the bit of land between India and Pakistan, and Pakistan wanted Kashmir because most of its inhabitants were Muslim (1). Kashmir though, was and is an independent state. And Kashmir had the choice to be a part of India or Pakistan or continue functioning autonomously (2). Pakistan invaded Kashmir; Kashmir asked India for help; India goes to war with Pakistan. The two countries have been fighting since, though recently, they have been working toward peace (3).
A US envoy would not be necessary because he/she would interfere with current proceedings between the two countries. When India and Pakistan are trying to find peace between them, and by doing so, solve the Kashmir problem, why should the US interfere? All that would happen was a 3rd, completely unrelated, party to come into the negotiations. A third party would have to be pleased in the negotiations, and it is taking more than 60 years for 2 parties to find common ground. US involvement only complicates matters.
Moreover, it should not be a US envoy. It should be an envoy sent by the UN if any envoy should be sent at all. The UN has a committee dealing with the Kashmir problem, and they haven't sent an envoy. Instead, the people have issued some orders that have yet to be followed (India and Pakistan have been procrastinating for decades). Back to my point, the UN has yet to send an envoy to solve the problem, so why should the US send an envoy when they have less to do with the problem.
The possibility of nuclear war is very minuscule. To deny any chance is foolhardy as there is always a chance no matter how small. But I can say nuclear war is one the hardest stretches a person would consider. If there was to be nuclear war, India would win. India has the advantage with more nukes in hand, though that isn't too much of a difference, Pakistan going to a nuclear war with India, it would mean certain destruction for Pakistan (4). The purpose of Pakistan was to create a Muslim Homeland, and going to war endangers that Homeland. Furthermore, if Pakistan was to bomb India, Pakistan would be killing more Muslims that it would be saving. Both go against the purpose of Pakistan's existence or efforts.
(1)- India, Pakistan, and Kashmir: Antinomies of Nationalism by Ashutosh Varshney
(2)- India, Modern found in the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
(3)- India: New Elected Leader Brings Hope for Peace in Kashmir by Athar Parvaiz
I now await my opponent's response.
mr.cots forfeited this round.
I await my opponent's argument.
mr.cots forfeited this round.
Oh so sad. Now hippie time!!!!!!!!!! Aww, bummer duuude--
--Yeah, I can't do that...
Oh, and remember, vote CON!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by karththegeld 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.