Ephemeral_Being

Okay, so, realistically what do you expect to happen? Like, do you actually think that Kashmir has any hope of achieving independence?

There hasn't been a successful secession movement in... what? A century? The political reality of the world is that no nation state is willing to relinquish control of its territories. Remember Catalonia, a year ago? You know why there hasn't been a rush to update all the maps? That's because the instigators were all arrested, and charged with various crimes. Spain put down a secession movement. Spain. A country with much less willingness to employ force against its subjects than India. There is no universe in which India allows that to occur within its borders.

So, unless I'm missing a secret nuclear arsenal, Kashmir is not powerful enough to break away from India without the support of a greater power (or which there are... two? The United States and China?), and I find it hard to imagine one will come to her aid. Even if China decided to back the process (which is a huge IF), Kashmir would be essentially a puppet state, with the threat of losing her sovereignty if China stopped protecting her. So, we're at best-case you become a puppet state of an autocracy, at constant risk of conquest by India should China pull out. That sounds... bad.

Kashmir cannot be absorbed into Pakistan. That would literally start a nuclear war. We're not doing that. No one would support that plan seriously. I doubt even the Pakistani government would allow such a movement. Too volatile. Besides, you said the people of Kashmir don't really want that.

So, unless someone does something, Kashmir is subsumed into India, and you have to deal with the loss of some autonomy, as well as the death of any dreams of Independence. This seems by FAR the most likely scenario. Unfortunately, that probably means we see militant groups rise up in protest, regional instability, and Kashmir becomes a miserable place to live. Unless, of course, the people just accept they can't win and decide not to fight. That seems highly unlikely, but it is technically an option.

Does any part of this logic seem faulty? And, if not, with the choice between puppet state, nuclear Holocaust, and "being part of India," can we all agree only one of those is even slightly okay?

What am I missing, here, that makes Kashmir think it could ever be independent?

Okay, you are correct. I forgot about that. I don't know if I would consider South Sudan a success, given there have been literally constant civil wars going on since the country's inception, but it is technically recognized as an independent state, and the secession is generally considered to be lawful.

I guess we can add "independent, with a corrupt government that is constantly at war with armed factions within its borders as well as the country it is supposedly independent from" as a hypothetical fifth option to the table, if you can somehow stage a civil war in Kashmir long and costly enough to force the Indian Parliament to see granting Kashmir independence as the most effective option to end the conflict.

I shudder to think about the cost in lives necessary to bring a nation of over a billion people to her knees, though. The conflict in the Sudan killed approximately two million people, in a nation of only fifty million. That is roughly four percent of the population. I don't think there is any way a conflict in Kashmir (population ~15m) could approach those casualty figures, and that's a good thing. But, in a hypothetical world where you muck up the water tables enough to kill four percent of India's population, you've just killed fifty million people, mostly civilians, in an attempt to free fifteen million from a democratically elected government.

Are we seriously saying THAT is the best-case scenario, in the minds of the people of Kashmir? Does ANYONE think this sounds like a valid, reasonable alternative to "be part of India?" I'm... struggling to see how that could be true.

Same boat, mate. Sorry.

You should seriously consider the TNF inhibitors they're suggesting you take. I assume that's the "immune suppressants" you mentioned in the OP? They actually work. It reduces the pain a bit, after a few months. Only annoying thing is they keep testing for TB every six months.

Also, you tried pregabalin? 'cause, that makes a huge difference in my ability to function. Gabapentin fucked with my head, but pregabalin has virtually no side effects (at least for me - this differs on a patient to patient basis).

Uh. Dude? Not healthy. That's... not what doctors mean when they say to stay active. You do you, but that's WAY beyond what most of us are willing (or able) to subject ourselves to.

When I tried what you're suggesting, my body literally shut down. It would sleep for 20 consecutive hours after a day of pushing (I would physically move about my room, but I have no recollection of doing so - apparently I would disable alarms, answer in the affirmative that I was awake, and then go back to sleep), and 14+ for the next 2-3. I passed out in a Chem lab, at one point. Doing titration, I fell over and woke up on the floor with the TA standing over me. She thought fumes had knocked me out, and was evacuating the lab.

I would seriously consider doing what your doctor's recommend, and I am almost certain it won't be that.

Not OP, but a chronic pain patient.

If you keep the dose low and run liver/kidney panels every six months, you're fairly safe. NSAIDs are standard treatment for many types of chronic pain, and the damage isn't generally acute. The little damage I did to my kidneys self-medicating healed once I dropped the dose to more reasonable levels, and my doctors are keeping an eye on it.

The reality is that everything has some risk, but doing nothing means you spend all day, every day, laying in bed. Increased stress on your liver and kidneys is better than being a useless lump. If you die in 25 years instead of 50, at least you're doing something with those years and in less pain. I call that a success.