Re: Judgmen'T' day

by Idéfix Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:03 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:

Nice. Going by this, if someone comes over to one of your homes - acquired or inherited - with well documented evidence that their distant ancestors lived in a home that existed on that very land and later migrated elsewhere, they can reclaim that piece of land from you.
Moreover, India can claim all of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and so can Iran. It would be just as "plain and simple!"

Let me ask you a simple question. Does Kashmir (all of it) belong to India? You can answer with a yes or no.
But why stop at Kashmir? Why not claim Pakistan and Afghanistan using your logic?
No answer on Kashmir?

Everything is not "plain and simple" as you seem to think. In the world of international politics, Jerusalem and Kashmir are two of the farthest issues from "plain and simple."

by Hellsangel Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:09 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Moreover, India can claim all of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and so can Iran. It would be just as "plain and simple!"

Let me ask you a simple question. Does Kashmir (all of it) belong to India? You can answer with a yes or no.
But why stop at Kashmir? Why not claim Pakistan and Afghanistan using your logic?
No answer on Kashmir?
Everything is not "plain and simple" as you seem to think. In the world of international politics, Jerusalem and Kashmir are two of the farthest issues from "plain and simple."

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. But you refuse to answer about Kashmir.

by smArtha Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:06 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Let me ask you a simple question. Does Kashmir (all of it) belong to India? You can answer with a yes or no.

If we cede control on any asset for a period of time, we lose the right to call it ours even if it was 'rightfully' ours at some point in history. The span of this 'period' varies with the asset in question. This is why I think Nehru was an absolute idiot to invoke peace from a winning position on Kashmir and leave so much of ambiguity and conflict for the many generations to deal with. He could have settled it once for all - aggression or otherwise. Now we cannot do better than make LoC a formal boundary.
Even in our itihaasa this is a reason why kaikEyi put a specific calculated period as a condition for srI rAma vanavAsam and so did kaurava for pAndava vanavAsam. manu says that even a wife can quit and go to another man after some (may be 7 or 8 - no sure) years had elapsed since last communication from him.

by Hellsangel Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:19 pm

smArtha wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Let me ask you a simple question. Does Kashmir (all of it) belong to India? You can answer with a yes or no.

If we cede control on any asset for a period of time, we lose the right to call it ours even if it was 'rightfully' ours at some point in history.

Yeah. Who controls the asset known as Jerusalem?

by smArtha Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:52 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Yeah. Who controls the asset known as Jerusalem?

I didn't question your conclusion just the original line of reasoning - Israel belongs to Jews because they lived there some 2k years ago. If you said that Israel belongs to them as they control it now and have been living for the last 50 years then I'd not have questioned that line.

In fact, by the same token I refuse to buy the T-side argument that Hyderabad belongs to them by virtue of they being part of its long history. SA and Hyd-SAs have to be involved to cede it to them - they can coerce center to give it to them and kick SAs out OR fight and get it from SAs OR convince/plead with them for it. But they don't have any more rights on it than the current Hyderabadis (where ever they may have come from).

If the Samikya leaders had taken this stand a decade ago we'd not be in this mess. The way to call the opportunistic and purely political T-movement a bluff would have been to say that if T'ites want to decide their boundaries exclusive of rest of Andhra, then Hyderabadis can decide their boundaries by the same token. I'm surprised that none of the Samaikya leaders pursued this line and get the situation in their control. This is why I have no sympathy to their cause. This doesn't mean that I agree with the T-cause.

by Idéfix Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:57 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Let me ask you a simple question. Does Kashmir (all of it) belong to India? You can answer with a yes or no.

If we cede control on any asset for a period of time, we lose the right to call it ours even if it was 'rightfully' ours at some point in history.

Yeah. Who controls the asset known as Jerusalem?

Did the Palestinians cede control of the asset? Is their claim based on an ancient holy book that is prone to wild exaggeration, or on people actually living in the city?

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:32 pm

smArtha wrote:

]If the Samikya leaders had taken this stand a decade ago we'd not be in this mess.

It is very well documented fact [for a long time] that SeemAndhra folks are for Samikya Rashtarm.

smArtha wrote:
The way to call the opportunistic and purely political T-movement a bluff would have been to say that if T'ites want to decide their boundaries exclusive of rest of Andhra, then Hyderabadis can decide their boundaries by the same token. I'm surprised that none of the Samaikya leaders pursued this line and get the situation in their control. This is why I have no sympathy to their cause. This doesn't mean that I agree with the T-cause.

Leaders are leaders whether they belong to 'T' or 'SA' looking out for their survival & Mantri giri. Right now NGOs, students and common man from SA are fighting, just like the 'T' NGOs, students and common man did for last decade.

by Hellsangel Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:09 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Let me ask you a simple question. Does Kashmir (all of it) belong to India? You can answer with a yes or no.

If we cede control on any asset for a period of time, we lose the right to call it ours even if it was 'rightfully' ours at some point in history.

Yeah. Who controls the asset known as Jerusalem?
Did the Palestinians cede control of the asset? Is their claim based on an ancient holy book that is prone to wild exaggeration, or on people actually living in the city?

Still no answer on Kashmir?

by Idéfix Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:45 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Let me ask you a simple question. Does Kashmir (all of it) belong to India? You can answer with a yes or no.

If we cede control on any asset for a period of time, we lose the right to call it ours even if it was 'rightfully' ours at some point in history.

Yeah. Who controls the asset known as Jerusalem?
Did the Palestinians cede control of the asset? Is their claim based on an ancient holy book that is prone to wild exaggeration, or on people actually living in the city?

Still no answer on Kashmir?

I gave you my answer. You may not like it, but that is my answer: anything but plain and simple.

by confuzzled dude Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:54 pm

Here is the kicker; the latest proposal from Renuka Chowdary is to make north andhra a part of 'T' so the state will have a sea port, she says not having one will hinder T's development.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:59 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Here is the kicker; the latest proposal from Renuka Chowdary is to make north andhra a part of 'T' so the state will have a sea port, she says not having one will hinder T's development.

Why only N Andhra, why not incorporate S Andhra as well? :-)

by Idéfix Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:11 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Here is the kicker; the latest proposal from Renuka Chowdary is to make north andhra a part of 'T' so the state will have a sea port, she says not having one will hinder T's development.
Why only N Andhra, why not incorporate S Andhra as well? :-)

LOL! They still make jokes in Telangana about Chenna Reddy's complaint that Telangana doesn't have a seaport and how that is the fault of AndhrOLLu.

by goodcitizn Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:43 am

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Here is the kicker; the latest proposal from Renuka Chowdary is to make north andhra a part of 'T' so the state will have a sea port, she says not having one will hinder T's development.
Why only N Andhra, why not incorporate S Andhra as well? :-)
LOL! They still make jokes in Telangana about Chenna Reddy's complaint that Telangana doesn't have a seaport and how that is the fault of AndhrOLLu.

There's a limit to greed. How many states have seaports, really?!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:59 am

goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Here is the kicker; the latest proposal from Renuka Chowdary is to make north andhra a part of 'T' so the state will have a sea port, she says not having one will hinder T's development.
Why only N Andhra, why not incorporate S Andhra as well? :-)
LOL! They still make jokes in Telangana about Chenna Reddy's complaint that Telangana doesn't have a seaport and how that is the fault of AndhrOLLu.
There's a limit to greed. How many states have seaports, really?!

Actually, it is time that the center take over all rivers and make the major ones navigable. all advanced countries have navigable river. Columbia river has around 30 dams along the stretch but also navigable by barges.

Krishna and Godavari should be easily made navigable.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:07 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Here is the kicker; the latest proposal from Renuka Chowdary is to make north andhra a part of 'T' so the state will have a sea port, she says not having one will hinder T's development.
Why only N Andhra, why not incorporate S Andhra as well? :-)
LOL! They still make jokes in Telangana about Chenna Reddy's complaint that Telangana doesn't have a seaport and how that is the fault of AndhrOLLu.
There's a limit to greed. How many states have seaports, really?!
Actually, it is time that the center take over all rivers and make the major ones navigable. all advanced countries have navigable river. Columbia river has around 30 dams along the stretch but also navigable by barges.

Krishna and Godavari should be easily made navigable.

Yes they both are. Even Buckingham canal is.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:54 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote: Why only N Andhra, why not incorporate S Andhra as well? :-)
LOL! They still make jokes in Telangana about Chenna Reddy's complaint that Telangana doesn't have a seaport and how that is the fault of AndhrOLLu.
There's a limit to greed. How many states have seaports, really?!
Actually, it is time that the center take over all rivers and make the major ones navigable. all advanced countries have navigable river. Columbia river has around 30 dams along the stretch but also navigable by barges.

Krishna and Godavari should be easily made navigable.
Yes they both are. Even Buckingham canal is.

........in coastal Andhra. I heard that in Chennai, Buckingham canal is polluted (like Musi in Hyderabad).

by Idéfix Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:10 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:LOL! They still make jokes in Telangana about Chenna Reddy's complaint that Telangana doesn't have a seaport and how that is the fault of AndhrOLLu.
There's a limit to greed. How many states have seaports, really?!
Actually, it is time that the center take over all rivers and make the major ones navigable. all advanced countries have navigable river. Columbia river has around 30 dams along the stretch but also navigable by barges.

Krishna and Godavari should be easily made navigable.
Yes they both are. Even Buckingham canal is.
........in coastal Andhra. I heard that in Chennai, Buckingham canal is polluted (like Musi in Hyderabad).

Correct. But I don't know if the rivers are navigable into Telangana. I suppose large vessels can get past the crest gates of the Prakasam and Dhawaleshwaram barrages. I know Krishna can't be navigable upstream of Nagarjunasagar because the locks needed to accomplish that would be really expensive. Godavari may be navigable up to Pochampadu.

But seriously, it is a stupid argument to say that Telangana can't develop with a seaport of its own. If that is the case, then they should not be asking for Telangana -- stay in a united state if access to the sea is a prerequisite for development! Ask for a separate state only if you are confident you can develop the separate state better than what is possible in a united state.

by confuzzled dude Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:43 pm

Idéfix wrote:I looked into the constitution, and it looks like you need a two-thirds majority to pass the amendment to the First Schedule. The bill itself may be called Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act of 2013, and mentioned in the First Schedule listing Telangana as a new state. The bill itself would need a simple majority, and needs to pass along with the constitutional amendment. So in effect, you need a two-thirds majority.

You need 364 votes in the Lok Sabha to pass this. Here is the current makeup of the Lok Sabha, in order of support for the T bill:
- UPA, 229: will go along with Congress plan (may be even if it R-T, not T)
- SP, 22: likely to go along with Congress plan regardless (probably would like to hurt BJP in the new state if they can, with R-T)
- TC, 19: likely to go along with Congress plan regardless
- RJD, 4: likely to go along with Congress plan regardless
- BSP, 21: will support T, but not sure what they will do with R-T
- JDU, 20: will support T, but not sure what they will do with R-T
- NDA, 138: will vote for T, but not go along with R-T because that disadvantages BJP in the new state
- TDP, 6: will vote against T and R-T
- YSRC, 2: will vote against T and R-T

Unknowns:
- Left Front, 23
- DMK, 18
- BJD, 14
- AIADMK, 9

All other parties have 2 or fewer seats. This means that a T resolution will pass comfortably. But an R-T resolution will get 274 votes in favor, 146 votes against, with the rest up for horse-trading. Another 36 votes against would kill the bill, while Congress would need to get 90 more votes to make it squeak through. Even if Congress gets all of BSP, JDU, Left Front, and DMK to go along with R-T, they would still be 8 votes short.

So I don't think Congress has the votes to pass R-T. Why, then, do they keep talking about it? And why are T politicians talking to them, knowing this math? I hope Congress is not trying to pull another elaborate trick on Telangana like they did in 2009.

Latest: 6 Seemandhra MPs have issued no-confidence motion against UPA. Wonder how the equation has changed since this discussion. Would BJP want to ride on the wave of recent success and support these MPs? Sooner the elections, better for BJP, isn't it?

by namo Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:20 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Latest: 6 Seemandhra MPs have issued no-confidence motion against UPA. Wonder how the equation has changed since this discussion. Would BJP want to ride on the wave of recent success and support these MPs? Sooner the elections, better for BJP, isn't it?

Wonderful! The sooner the lame duck Congress govt is toppled and the sooner the parliamentary elections are held, the better.

by truthbetold Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:26 am

50 mps are required to introduce no confidence motion. this motion if.consolidated only has 12 or 13. however if tmc or some other outfit joins hand it could gain momentum. this motion has no real chance of getting to vote unless bjp decides to join in.

by confuzzled dude Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:08 am

truthbetold wrote:50 mps are required to introduce no confidence motion. this motion if.consolidated only has 12 or 13. however if tmc or some other outfit joins hand it could gain momentum. this motion has no real chance of getting to vote unless bjp decides to join in.

Is 50 a constitutional requirement? None of media outlets mentioned this initially but now there seems to be different opinions on requiring 50 members.

by truthbetold Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:36 pm

Cd
according to what i read the process is a) speaker has to bring a no confidence motion to floor for a vote to allow Discussion on the motion (assuming it is technically correct) b) if the motion is supported by 50 mps (or 10% of parliament) then it has to be included in the agenda for discussion within 10 days. i think one day min discussion is required followed by voting.
will the ap guys get initial 50 to stand up.
other than 10 plus from three ap parties, bjd agreed to support. will tmc, shiv sena and akali dal join? can they rope in dmk ?
once the discussion starts ball goes to bjp court. they can then decide the fate of congress.
my opinion. not likely.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:03 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd
according to what i read the process is a) speaker has to bring a no confidence motion to floor for a vote to allow Discussion on the motion (assuming it is technically correct) b) if the motion is supported by 50 mps (or 10% of parliament) then it has to be included in the agenda for discussion within 10 days. i think one day min discussion is required followed by voting.
will the ap guys get initial 50 to stand up.
other than 10 plus from three ap parties, bjd agreed to support. will tmc, shiv sena and akali dal join? can they rope in dmk ?
once the discussion starts ball goes to bjp court. they can then decide the fate of congress.
my opinion. not likely.

The BJP will be looking for the right moment. For them, another 4 to 5 months will be beneficial. They will likely form a Govt in Delhi and TRY to show some improvement in Law and order and Onion Prices (which is easy bcz DikShit messed up so much) over the next 4 months to take the focus off AAP.

Their next election however has to come between the potato and the tomato seasons to derive maximum benefit.

by Sponsored content