Chowking the North South Divide
Harish Nambiar July 28, 2000
#81 Posted by cutandpaste on January 9, 2001 8:01:40 pm
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002
Cover story
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
Cover story
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#80 Posted by mohajir on September 1, 2000 5:24:40 pm
Amanullah Khan
With the passage of time, the above pledges, instead of being honoured, changed into the question as to who should own the whole of Kashmir, with both India and Pakistan claiming it on different grounds. India claims proprietorship of the whole state on the basis of the Kashmir rulers` defective and conditional accession of the state to India. Pakistan, claims it on the basis of the two-nation theory, ignoring the fact that the theory did not apply to princely states, including Kashmir, as confirmed by her own founding father`s stand. Pakistan had got the Kashmiris` choice limited to choosing only between India and Pakistan (per UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949) to make sure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan as a result of the proposed plebiscite.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2000-daily/31-08-2000/oped/o2.htm
Will Pakistan agree to the concept of Kashmir being an independent state (not being part of India nor Pakistan) that includes both Indian and Pakistan administered Kashmir?
With the passage of time, the above pledges, instead of being honoured, changed into the question as to who should own the whole of Kashmir, with both India and Pakistan claiming it on different grounds. India claims proprietorship of the whole state on the basis of the Kashmir rulers` defective and conditional accession of the state to India. Pakistan, claims it on the basis of the two-nation theory, ignoring the fact that the theory did not apply to princely states, including Kashmir, as confirmed by her own founding father`s stand. Pakistan had got the Kashmiris` choice limited to choosing only between India and Pakistan (per UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949) to make sure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan as a result of the proposed plebiscite.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2000-daily/31-08-2000/oped/o2.htm
Will Pakistan agree to the concept of Kashmir being an independent state (not being part of India nor Pakistan) that includes both Indian and Pakistan administered Kashmir?
#79 Posted by krashid on August 8, 2000 1:48:16 am
VijayAmrit!
I am a poor soul.
And probably don`t know what you know or at least your post is suggesting many times whether I know this what you know.
Probably it is best for us to stop biases which we think is a discussion.
Thanks.
I am a poor soul.
And probably don`t know what you know or at least your post is suggesting many times whether I know this what you know.
Probably it is best for us to stop biases which we think is a discussion.
Thanks.
#78 Posted by vijayamrit on August 7, 2000 10:34:34 pm
Hi KRashid,
1)Do not assume things and put it as my ideas. I said I like to discuss on points.
2)I never said secularism denies nationhood.
3)I never said nationhood should be imposed.
4)I did say, that think of the greatest nation today USA. Do you know what the father of this nation, Abraham Lincoln did?
5)The per capita income of Pakistani was higher than that of Indians. They are poorer than India??
I know there are poor muslims, as there are poor hindus. Most of the poors may be converted hindus. I again do not look at religion of poor people.
6)Partition benifitted the poorer muslims. How?
7)History does not start for me with Mughals and Britishers. May be for you. (I also know about Ashoka, also know about Tipu Sultan. I am not sure if you do. You may have never heard of Gupta period of India.)
8) Some how Hindus took advantage of Britisher rules and Muslims did not. How is that Possible? Do you know how Aligarh Muslim University and Benaras Hindu University Built? (My knowledge might be incorrect as I am not very familiar with either, but it seems one was built with the help of britishers.)
9)Talking about what world thinks.Do you know what world thinks of Pakistan?
10)Are you not assuming that Partition should have been the basis of nationhood? Are you not imposing nationhood on Kashmir and Bangladesh by that?
11)I have not yet told you on what basis a nation should be formed. If you want you can think about it.
Vijay
1)Do not assume things and put it as my ideas. I said I like to discuss on points.
2)I never said secularism denies nationhood.
3)I never said nationhood should be imposed.
4)I did say, that think of the greatest nation today USA. Do you know what the father of this nation, Abraham Lincoln did?
5)The per capita income of Pakistani was higher than that of Indians. They are poorer than India??
I know there are poor muslims, as there are poor hindus. Most of the poors may be converted hindus. I again do not look at religion of poor people.
6)Partition benifitted the poorer muslims. How?
7)History does not start for me with Mughals and Britishers. May be for you. (I also know about Ashoka, also know about Tipu Sultan. I am not sure if you do. You may have never heard of Gupta period of India.)
8) Some how Hindus took advantage of Britisher rules and Muslims did not. How is that Possible? Do you know how Aligarh Muslim University and Benaras Hindu University Built? (My knowledge might be incorrect as I am not very familiar with either, but it seems one was built with the help of britishers.)
9)Talking about what world thinks.Do you know what world thinks of Pakistan?
10)Are you not assuming that Partition should have been the basis of nationhood? Are you not imposing nationhood on Kashmir and Bangladesh by that?
11)I have not yet told you on what basis a nation should be formed. If you want you can think about it.
Vijay
#77 Posted by krashid on August 7, 2000 12:12:04 am
VijayAmrit!
Nationhood is not imposed.
India has been a single country only under British, for their purpose.
Sub-continent has been divided into many different states.
North India had been ruled by Mughals etc. But South India, including Hyderabad, Mysore etc, Bengal, Punjab, Pashtun areas etc had their own Governments.
India is very varied in language culture etc. And each area wants to have some independence in its own affairs.
The matter is complicated further by religion. In Hindu culture because of caste system, lower caste Hindu usually take stand with oppressed people. Muslims who were ruling for thousand years along with priviledges associated with it, were systematically left behind by British and Hindus took advantage of opportunity presented to them during British rule.
At the time of independence, Muslims were economically disadvataged, which united them in struggle for Pakistan.
As far as special status of Kashmir. That is India`s matter. But as far as Pakistan is concerned, and international community is concerned, Kashmir is a disputed territory and according to partition plan should have belonged to Pakistan.
Muslims are not only living in India, but all over the world. And in some countries as minorities and are doing good.
If people of an area because of cultural homogenity, whether in the form of religion or language want to live independently, it is their right. If you are aware of history of partition, then you will know that Sheikh Abdullah, did not want to join India, nor Pakistan but wanted an independent Kashmir. It was in 1953 that the status of Kashmir changed.
So it is not as easy as you are saying that suddenly India decides to take a stand on an issue and expect all other people to take a similar stand, because it is done in the name of secularism.
Nationhood is not imposed.
India has been a single country only under British, for their purpose.
Sub-continent has been divided into many different states.
North India had been ruled by Mughals etc. But South India, including Hyderabad, Mysore etc, Bengal, Punjab, Pashtun areas etc had their own Governments.
India is very varied in language culture etc. And each area wants to have some independence in its own affairs.
The matter is complicated further by religion. In Hindu culture because of caste system, lower caste Hindu usually take stand with oppressed people. Muslims who were ruling for thousand years along with priviledges associated with it, were systematically left behind by British and Hindus took advantage of opportunity presented to them during British rule.
At the time of independence, Muslims were economically disadvataged, which united them in struggle for Pakistan.
As far as special status of Kashmir. That is India`s matter. But as far as Pakistan is concerned, and international community is concerned, Kashmir is a disputed territory and according to partition plan should have belonged to Pakistan.
Muslims are not only living in India, but all over the world. And in some countries as minorities and are doing good.
If people of an area because of cultural homogenity, whether in the form of religion or language want to live independently, it is their right. If you are aware of history of partition, then you will know that Sheikh Abdullah, did not want to join India, nor Pakistan but wanted an independent Kashmir. It was in 1953 that the status of Kashmir changed.
So it is not as easy as you are saying that suddenly India decides to take a stand on an issue and expect all other people to take a similar stand, because it is done in the name of secularism.
#76 Posted by vijayamrit on August 6, 2000 9:22:07 pm
krashid #77
I like to discuss to the point. You said in one of your replies that Kashmir should be treated differently because it has Muslim majority, which is not true for the rest of the country. You assumed that religion should be basis of formation of a country. I disagree. A secular/religious person will not look at religion as dividing force. As I mentioned before, India is different from Europe. It was ruled by kings, whose kingdoms crossed boundary of religion and language. Europe was more divided based on language.
What should be the basis of formation of a Nation?
(You can say religion, I disagree.) If you say language, than Bangladesh should never have been part of Pakistan. Kashmir has a different language too so should not be part of Pakistan. India`s strength is in diversity. A few number of muslims in one regions, may cause them to be in majority, but when compared to the number of muslims in other part of India, it is minuscle.
The problem in India of injustice is corruption. The same corruption which also inflicts Pakistan. The roots of the corruption are in British system (may be in Mughal times also but I doubt) where officers were not punished for being corrupt as long as the masters were benifitting. This is still continuing.
Europe is now more united milatarily and economically. We are still fighting among each other. Britisher used the divide and rule principle to conquer India (same as Ghouri used JaiChand to conquer PrithiviRaj Chauhan). This does not augur well for us. Pakistanis after leaving with Hindus for 100s of years claim to be a different nation. (Some say they think we should be one nation, like Jinnaha first tried, but Hindus were bad so we cannot live together.)
I think I am a neutral observer. But when you say that 100 hindus were killed and you need proove that it was not done by militants in Kashmir (who are officially just given moral support by Pakistan) I doubt your neutralility. You may want to think again if you were neutral.
You can list the criteria by which a Nation should be built, but always remember Abraham Lincoln. People wanted to secede, and he did not allow and people call him father of the nation. I think only good came out of it, as common man who lived together before can always live together.
There should be reasons why someone say we need a different nation. The reasons should sound reasonable (a subjective thing).
Vijay
I like to discuss to the point. You said in one of your replies that Kashmir should be treated differently because it has Muslim majority, which is not true for the rest of the country. You assumed that religion should be basis of formation of a country. I disagree. A secular/religious person will not look at religion as dividing force. As I mentioned before, India is different from Europe. It was ruled by kings, whose kingdoms crossed boundary of religion and language. Europe was more divided based on language.
What should be the basis of formation of a Nation?
(You can say religion, I disagree.) If you say language, than Bangladesh should never have been part of Pakistan. Kashmir has a different language too so should not be part of Pakistan. India`s strength is in diversity. A few number of muslims in one regions, may cause them to be in majority, but when compared to the number of muslims in other part of India, it is minuscle.
The problem in India of injustice is corruption. The same corruption which also inflicts Pakistan. The roots of the corruption are in British system (may be in Mughal times also but I doubt) where officers were not punished for being corrupt as long as the masters were benifitting. This is still continuing.
Europe is now more united milatarily and economically. We are still fighting among each other. Britisher used the divide and rule principle to conquer India (same as Ghouri used JaiChand to conquer PrithiviRaj Chauhan). This does not augur well for us. Pakistanis after leaving with Hindus for 100s of years claim to be a different nation. (Some say they think we should be one nation, like Jinnaha first tried, but Hindus were bad so we cannot live together.)
I think I am a neutral observer. But when you say that 100 hindus were killed and you need proove that it was not done by militants in Kashmir (who are officially just given moral support by Pakistan) I doubt your neutralility. You may want to think again if you were neutral.
You can list the criteria by which a Nation should be built, but always remember Abraham Lincoln. People wanted to secede, and he did not allow and people call him father of the nation. I think only good came out of it, as common man who lived together before can always live together.
There should be reasons why someone say we need a different nation. The reasons should sound reasonable (a subjective thing).
Vijay
#75 Posted by krashid on August 6, 2000 10:50:15 am
Vijay Amrit#
Secularism, does not mean, not recognizing the rights of a nation for self determination. With this example, Europe which has recently, achieved monetary unity, should have been united together once they were secular (meaning century ago). Still there are many problems between European countries among themselves although all of them are secular.
The creation of nation states out of bigger European entities like Prussia does not negate secularism.
It is not the force by a nation or group to unite all but wishes of sub-nationalities to unite themselves on some common basis to form a nation.
Why I am stressing secularism for India, is not because I am pretending to be a great friend (nor am I enemy of India). I always talk about actions, because for me they are the real criteria of judging. Whatever happens in India, there will be a fallout in whole of this region, and that is of concern to me. I will present few reports to judge for yourself, why I am pessimistic, if current trend continues.
The summary of Amnesty International report 2000:
``Human rights violations occurred throughout India against a backdrop of instability. The socially and economically weaker sections of society continued to be particularly vulnerable to human right abuses. Attacks, often with the apparent connivance of police and local authorities on Dalit communities and tribal people were commonplace. Women continued to be particularly vulnerable to abuse in this contexts. Access to justice for these victims of human right abuses remained problematic and those engaged in protecting the rights of most vulnerable groups also came under increasing pressure, often themselves becoming the victims of abuses. 1999 saw a rise in communal violence, often attributed to Hindu group close to BJP. The Government`s preoccupation with matters of National security led to discussion of new anti-terrorism legislation at the end of the year. Armed conflicts in northeastern state of J&K claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians.``
The 1997 report of fact finding mission of three Indian Egos (AP civil liberties committee, Committee for the protection of Democratic rights (Bombay) and people`s union of democratic rights (New Delhi) is full of atrocities committed by armed forces in Kashmir.
I am a neutral observer of events as far as politics is concerned.
The recent happenings in Tripura, Assam etc plus the recent assertion of rights by states against creation of Federal force, and many other events does not augur well.
Secularism, does not mean, not recognizing the rights of a nation for self determination. With this example, Europe which has recently, achieved monetary unity, should have been united together once they were secular (meaning century ago). Still there are many problems between European countries among themselves although all of them are secular.
The creation of nation states out of bigger European entities like Prussia does not negate secularism.
It is not the force by a nation or group to unite all but wishes of sub-nationalities to unite themselves on some common basis to form a nation.
Why I am stressing secularism for India, is not because I am pretending to be a great friend (nor am I enemy of India). I always talk about actions, because for me they are the real criteria of judging. Whatever happens in India, there will be a fallout in whole of this region, and that is of concern to me. I will present few reports to judge for yourself, why I am pessimistic, if current trend continues.
The summary of Amnesty International report 2000:
``Human rights violations occurred throughout India against a backdrop of instability. The socially and economically weaker sections of society continued to be particularly vulnerable to human right abuses. Attacks, often with the apparent connivance of police and local authorities on Dalit communities and tribal people were commonplace. Women continued to be particularly vulnerable to abuse in this contexts. Access to justice for these victims of human right abuses remained problematic and those engaged in protecting the rights of most vulnerable groups also came under increasing pressure, often themselves becoming the victims of abuses. 1999 saw a rise in communal violence, often attributed to Hindu group close to BJP. The Government`s preoccupation with matters of National security led to discussion of new anti-terrorism legislation at the end of the year. Armed conflicts in northeastern state of J&K claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians.``
The 1997 report of fact finding mission of three Indian Egos (AP civil liberties committee, Committee for the protection of Democratic rights (Bombay) and people`s union of democratic rights (New Delhi) is full of atrocities committed by armed forces in Kashmir.
I am a neutral observer of events as far as politics is concerned.
The recent happenings in Tripura, Assam etc plus the recent assertion of rights by states against creation of Federal force, and many other events does not augur well.
#74 Posted by macgupta on August 5, 2000 10:29:35 pm
In Kashmir, Hizbul beats security forces by 24
Srinagar, Aug. 5: The Indian Army and the Hizbul Mujahideen, battled it out again in the Kashmir Valley, but in an encounter of different kind.
This time on a cricket field which the latter won by 24 runs.The friendly encounter took place in Khipora of Handwara in frontier district of Kupwara on Friday between Hizbul Mujahideen and the Army’s 4-Rashtriya Rifles.
The match was a treat to the local people in this small frontier village which had otherwise seen these two battling during it out with guns.“Players” of Hizbul Mujahideen batted first and later bowled out the Armymen-turned-players 24 runs short off the target.
This match was a part of confidence building measures between the two sides which have seen a lot of bloodshed in past decade, a Hizbul Mujahideen commander had quipped after the match.
Meanwhile, three militants, including a self-styled district commander, were killed in separate gunbattles with security forces while eight people, including an SHO, were wounded in two grenade explosions in Jammu and Kashmir since on Friday evening.
A self-styled district commander of Jaish-E Mohammad, Wazir Khan, was killed in a shootout with security forces at Mirang in Kupwara district.
Srinagar, Aug. 5: The Indian Army and the Hizbul Mujahideen, battled it out again in the Kashmir Valley, but in an encounter of different kind.
This time on a cricket field which the latter won by 24 runs.The friendly encounter took place in Khipora of Handwara in frontier district of Kupwara on Friday between Hizbul Mujahideen and the Army’s 4-Rashtriya Rifles.
The match was a treat to the local people in this small frontier village which had otherwise seen these two battling during it out with guns.“Players” of Hizbul Mujahideen batted first and later bowled out the Armymen-turned-players 24 runs short off the target.
This match was a part of confidence building measures between the two sides which have seen a lot of bloodshed in past decade, a Hizbul Mujahideen commander had quipped after the match.
Meanwhile, three militants, including a self-styled district commander, were killed in separate gunbattles with security forces while eight people, including an SHO, were wounded in two grenade explosions in Jammu and Kashmir since on Friday evening.
A self-styled district commander of Jaish-E Mohammad, Wazir Khan, was killed in a shootout with security forces at Mirang in Kupwara district.
#73 Posted by vijayamrit on August 5, 2000 11:11:09 am
krashid #72
It is interesting how you should argue that India should be secular, but treat Jammu&Kashmir different because it has muslim majority. Don`t you see a contradiction? If you are secular, you will not look at which religion has majority. You certainly want it both ways.
(By the way I read recently somewhere the majority was 60% i.e. only 60% were muslims. Now since most pandits have migrated things might have changed).
It is strange how some of you put the arguments. I do not see clear thinking.
1)In one of the postings, it was suggested that Mughal rulers were given there women by Hindus cowards. (It was a different matter that the author had no idea of johar, women burning themselves in fire to escape the mughals). Somehow the cruelty done to Hindus was completely ignored and was blamed on Hindu`s cowardness.
2)It is same now. People kill hundred of hindus. Now they are shameless enough to blame that on India. Any man with common sense will know who will do such an act. If you need proove well not a single case against Indian Army cruelty has been prooved (I am sure if a case has been prooved the person will be punished). But you all say that repeatedly. Why this double standard? (By the way, Clinton called Vajpayee and asked if he should talk to Pakistan to stop these killings. One of the American news media says India and Pakistan blamed each other as always. So I got angry at comparing India with Pakistan, it is like comparing America with Iraq)
3)Killing of 25000 people in Kashmir. It includes the Indian Army. They are human beings too. They have lost lives too. They have family too. It includes the Hindus who have lost lives too. It includes the Kashmiri Pandits who were made to fled their homes by this terror. Are only muslims human? If Indians have to kill muslims, they don`t have to search for them in Kashmir. It is the coward militants who dress like common man and make life tough for the army. Any Army will find it difficult to separate the innocent from the guilty in such scenario (It does not mean that they will kill the innocent). When India-Pak war was won by India, India did not go on killing the common Muslims, it was fighting a well defined army. It is the coward militants who hide behind the masses are responsible for the killing of the common man. It it the militants who can know the difference between Indian Army and common man, still chooses to kill common man if he/she is Hindus. You support those militants and blame Indian Army.
4)If you think India can be secular and Hindus and Muslims can live together why not in Kashmir?
5)Let me tell you one more thing. You believe in secularism and seem to believe that Hindus and Muslim can live together. I do too. So I believe that Partition was a mistake (not saying they should re-unite). The only way Pakistan can proove Partition was not a mistake was by prooving that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. If Hindus and Muslims start fighting in India, the one country which will be most glad is Pakistan(excluding people like you). They will say ``See we were right``. It seems some of them really believe that Hindus are bad, inspite of history being cruel to Hindus by Mughals (not all Mughal kings were bad, and yes we read about the good ones in our school too.) One of the reasons why fundamentalism is increasing in India now is because there were some Indian Muslims who support Pakistan (even if Pakistan preaches hatredness against Hindus). But I do believe that the rise in fundamentalism in India will fix the problem and then fundamentalism will die. Democracy has this un-understood way of fixing severe problems.
6)Do you have to proove your extra loyalty to Pakistan by being anti-India? Once I read recently (few months back) a report in America said that, Pakistan will get divided in next 25 years. (You always seem worried about India`s unity so just gave you some facts of what other thinks)
Vijay
It is interesting how you should argue that India should be secular, but treat Jammu&Kashmir different because it has muslim majority. Don`t you see a contradiction? If you are secular, you will not look at which religion has majority. You certainly want it both ways.
(By the way I read recently somewhere the majority was 60% i.e. only 60% were muslims. Now since most pandits have migrated things might have changed).
It is strange how some of you put the arguments. I do not see clear thinking.
1)In one of the postings, it was suggested that Mughal rulers were given there women by Hindus cowards. (It was a different matter that the author had no idea of johar, women burning themselves in fire to escape the mughals). Somehow the cruelty done to Hindus was completely ignored and was blamed on Hindu`s cowardness.
2)It is same now. People kill hundred of hindus. Now they are shameless enough to blame that on India. Any man with common sense will know who will do such an act. If you need proove well not a single case against Indian Army cruelty has been prooved (I am sure if a case has been prooved the person will be punished). But you all say that repeatedly. Why this double standard? (By the way, Clinton called Vajpayee and asked if he should talk to Pakistan to stop these killings. One of the American news media says India and Pakistan blamed each other as always. So I got angry at comparing India with Pakistan, it is like comparing America with Iraq)
3)Killing of 25000 people in Kashmir. It includes the Indian Army. They are human beings too. They have lost lives too. They have family too. It includes the Hindus who have lost lives too. It includes the Kashmiri Pandits who were made to fled their homes by this terror. Are only muslims human? If Indians have to kill muslims, they don`t have to search for them in Kashmir. It is the coward militants who dress like common man and make life tough for the army. Any Army will find it difficult to separate the innocent from the guilty in such scenario (It does not mean that they will kill the innocent). When India-Pak war was won by India, India did not go on killing the common Muslims, it was fighting a well defined army. It is the coward militants who hide behind the masses are responsible for the killing of the common man. It it the militants who can know the difference between Indian Army and common man, still chooses to kill common man if he/she is Hindus. You support those militants and blame Indian Army.
4)If you think India can be secular and Hindus and Muslims can live together why not in Kashmir?
5)Let me tell you one more thing. You believe in secularism and seem to believe that Hindus and Muslim can live together. I do too. So I believe that Partition was a mistake (not saying they should re-unite). The only way Pakistan can proove Partition was not a mistake was by prooving that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. If Hindus and Muslims start fighting in India, the one country which will be most glad is Pakistan(excluding people like you). They will say ``See we were right``. It seems some of them really believe that Hindus are bad, inspite of history being cruel to Hindus by Mughals (not all Mughal kings were bad, and yes we read about the good ones in our school too.) One of the reasons why fundamentalism is increasing in India now is because there were some Indian Muslims who support Pakistan (even if Pakistan preaches hatredness against Hindus). But I do believe that the rise in fundamentalism in India will fix the problem and then fundamentalism will die. Democracy has this un-understood way of fixing severe problems.
6)Do you have to proove your extra loyalty to Pakistan by being anti-India? Once I read recently (few months back) a report in America said that, Pakistan will get divided in next 25 years. (You always seem worried about India`s unity so just gave you some facts of what other thinks)
Vijay
#72 Posted by macgupta on August 5, 2000 11:11:09 am
http://www.timesofindia.com/today/05home2.htm
But another prominent separatist leader Shabir Shah, who is the president of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, said the start of talks between home ministry officials and Hizbul Mujahideen leaders here was a healthy sign and a good beginning. He hoped the talks would bring lasting peace to the state.
Shah said if both the parties were sincere, peace would be restored in the state. Asked if he was being invited for the dialogue, he said: ``We are not concerned whether we are invited or not. But let there be peace. We may also be involved at a later stage.``
According to him, the Hizbul Mujahideen should also take into confidence other militant organisations, like the Laskhar-e-Toiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jehad Council, in the process of talks. He blamed the hardliners among the militants for the recent carnage at nine different places in the state. Shah also visited Pahalgam and talked to the pilgrims and promised them full support of the locals.
-arun gupta
But another prominent separatist leader Shabir Shah, who is the president of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, said the start of talks between home ministry officials and Hizbul Mujahideen leaders here was a healthy sign and a good beginning. He hoped the talks would bring lasting peace to the state.
Shah said if both the parties were sincere, peace would be restored in the state. Asked if he was being invited for the dialogue, he said: ``We are not concerned whether we are invited or not. But let there be peace. We may also be involved at a later stage.``
According to him, the Hizbul Mujahideen should also take into confidence other militant organisations, like the Laskhar-e-Toiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Jehad Council, in the process of talks. He blamed the hardliners among the militants for the recent carnage at nine different places in the state. Shah also visited Pahalgam and talked to the pilgrims and promised them full support of the locals.
-arun gupta
#71 Posted by jntuece99 on August 5, 2000 5:22:31 am
reply to : krashid #72
```````````````` In the current scenario, the most likely looser if current talks continue will be Sheikh Abdullah, so he will be the last to accept any peace process going.
Indian Government, due to its fuelling of Hindu Nationalism, will make any peace process unacceptable to Indian people, and in a way will benefit if current peace talks discontinue.
Kashmiri Mujahideen and Pakistan have nothing to gain from derailment of peace process.
The reason is that aim of Kashmiri Mujahideen is self determination and not bleeding of India and they will be the first to accept acceptable peace process. Compared to Indian Army which is fighting on command from Indian Government, Kashmiri Mujahideen are fighting on their own and they would like to see their massacre stopped as soon as possible, if their voice is heard.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, it will go the way Mujahideen determine.````````````
what a nice way to argue... some how i get a feeling that either you are still ignorant of the ground reality or you are also one of those rabid jehadis masquarading as a peace loving citizen........
since you very nicely articulated why india and sheikh abdullah had a stake in the contuinance of the turmoil in kashmir , let me tell you what stake pakistan and mujahideen has in this turmoil.......
pakistan establishment wants this kashmir struggle to continue not only to ensure the focus of the people is diverted from the rampant corruption and fuedalism, but also to ensure that the rabid fundamantalists are busy fighting in kashmir. otherwise these jihadis turn their attention to every cause in the country and make life hell for the establishment..
it is riding a lion which it has created and there is no choice but to continue riding... the establishment ( army, which is the ony establishment you have ) also wants to justify their existence by keeping up the enimity with india so that they can enjoy the power and the illicit drug money......
well , the kahmiri mujahideen may not have any interest in further continuing this struggle, but sadly the struggle has gone out of their hands now.... it is hijacked by mercenaries from different islamic countries..... and these mercenaries have lot to loose if this struggle is stopped ( to start with their sustenance maybe)......
krashid, please open your eyes to the reality.... don`t go by whatever is being taught in your history books or whatever is being told to you by your government.... to start with why don`t you watch bbc or any other supposedly neutral newspapers.... u might get second thoughts.... of course that too if u r willing to accept them.........
A Concerned Indian
```````````````` In the current scenario, the most likely looser if current talks continue will be Sheikh Abdullah, so he will be the last to accept any peace process going.
Indian Government, due to its fuelling of Hindu Nationalism, will make any peace process unacceptable to Indian people, and in a way will benefit if current peace talks discontinue.
Kashmiri Mujahideen and Pakistan have nothing to gain from derailment of peace process.
The reason is that aim of Kashmiri Mujahideen is self determination and not bleeding of India and they will be the first to accept acceptable peace process. Compared to Indian Army which is fighting on command from Indian Government, Kashmiri Mujahideen are fighting on their own and they would like to see their massacre stopped as soon as possible, if their voice is heard.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, it will go the way Mujahideen determine.````````````
what a nice way to argue... some how i get a feeling that either you are still ignorant of the ground reality or you are also one of those rabid jehadis masquarading as a peace loving citizen........
since you very nicely articulated why india and sheikh abdullah had a stake in the contuinance of the turmoil in kashmir , let me tell you what stake pakistan and mujahideen has in this turmoil.......
pakistan establishment wants this kashmir struggle to continue not only to ensure the focus of the people is diverted from the rampant corruption and fuedalism, but also to ensure that the rabid fundamantalists are busy fighting in kashmir. otherwise these jihadis turn their attention to every cause in the country and make life hell for the establishment..
it is riding a lion which it has created and there is no choice but to continue riding... the establishment ( army, which is the ony establishment you have ) also wants to justify their existence by keeping up the enimity with india so that they can enjoy the power and the illicit drug money......
well , the kahmiri mujahideen may not have any interest in further continuing this struggle, but sadly the struggle has gone out of their hands now.... it is hijacked by mercenaries from different islamic countries..... and these mercenaries have lot to loose if this struggle is stopped ( to start with their sustenance maybe)......
krashid, please open your eyes to the reality.... don`t go by whatever is being taught in your history books or whatever is being told to you by your government.... to start with why don`t you watch bbc or any other supposedly neutral newspapers.... u might get second thoughts.... of course that too if u r willing to accept them.........
A Concerned Indian
#70 Posted by krashid on August 5, 2000 1:42:19 am
ZZ#64
You are right that, uniform are a dime a dozen and does not proove anything.
First of all putting blame, without investigation, is beyond any standard of fairness.
Like Mufti Saeed, former interior minister puts the blame on Farooq Abdullah. Farooq Abdullah is putting the blame on Pakistan, so is Vajpayee. Pakistan and Kashmiri militants straightaway deny their involvement.
In the context that previously lot of wrongdoings done by state and federal Government (meaning police and military) have been put on the shoulders of Mujahideen.
In the current scenario, the most likely looser if current talks continue will be Sheikh Abdullah, so he will be the last to accept any peace process going.
Indian Government, due to its fuelling of Hindu Nationalism, will make any peace process unacceptable to Indian people, and in a way will benefit if current peace talks discontinue.
Kashmiri Mujahideen and Pakistan have nothing to gain from derailment of peace process.
The reason is that aim of Kashmiri Mujahideen is self determination and not bleeding of India and they will be the first to accept acceptable peace process. Compared to Indian Army which is fighting on command from Indian Government, Kashmiri Mujahideen are fighting on their own and they would like to see their massacre stopped as soon as possible, if their voice is heard.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, it will go the way Mujahideen determine.
If you see the tactics of BJP, starting from Babri Mosque fiasco, you will know right away, that it is not impossible for them to do such a thing, with advantages I mentionad. But, my fingers will point first to Shaikh Sahab.
McGupta# 62
I am not reporting my own. I have given the dateline and source, which you can verify.
Satyavadi!
Your long response from your heart was very good. Let me point out a few things.
1- The difference between Kashmir and other parts of India is that Kashmir is a Muslim majority area.
2- Muslims in other parts of India are a minority.
3- As far as Indian Muslims vis-a-vis Pakistan. You can see in context of Balkan Muslims, like Kosovo, Bosnia etc that the whole Muslim world shared their pains and if there is a backlash in India, the same thing will happen, on a humanistic, moral and religious ground.
4- The solution of Kashmir is diplomatic and political and not force. If somehow India is able to suppress the current uprising, the movement will go underground. As you have already seen that even after 50 years, the problem is still there and more complicated both in context of loss of life and dynamics of movement.
5- In any solution, there is always give and take, depending upon the situation and analysis.
6- How BJP Government tackles the issue, is important.
7- As far as my analysis of Indian situation in other parts, I would stand by my point. The only solution to Indian problem is secularism and not force.
You are right that, uniform are a dime a dozen and does not proove anything.
First of all putting blame, without investigation, is beyond any standard of fairness.
Like Mufti Saeed, former interior minister puts the blame on Farooq Abdullah. Farooq Abdullah is putting the blame on Pakistan, so is Vajpayee. Pakistan and Kashmiri militants straightaway deny their involvement.
In the context that previously lot of wrongdoings done by state and federal Government (meaning police and military) have been put on the shoulders of Mujahideen.
In the current scenario, the most likely looser if current talks continue will be Sheikh Abdullah, so he will be the last to accept any peace process going.
Indian Government, due to its fuelling of Hindu Nationalism, will make any peace process unacceptable to Indian people, and in a way will benefit if current peace talks discontinue.
Kashmiri Mujahideen and Pakistan have nothing to gain from derailment of peace process.
The reason is that aim of Kashmiri Mujahideen is self determination and not bleeding of India and they will be the first to accept acceptable peace process. Compared to Indian Army which is fighting on command from Indian Government, Kashmiri Mujahideen are fighting on their own and they would like to see their massacre stopped as soon as possible, if their voice is heard.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, it will go the way Mujahideen determine.
If you see the tactics of BJP, starting from Babri Mosque fiasco, you will know right away, that it is not impossible for them to do such a thing, with advantages I mentionad. But, my fingers will point first to Shaikh Sahab.
McGupta# 62
I am not reporting my own. I have given the dateline and source, which you can verify.
Satyavadi!
Your long response from your heart was very good. Let me point out a few things.
1- The difference between Kashmir and other parts of India is that Kashmir is a Muslim majority area.
2- Muslims in other parts of India are a minority.
3- As far as Indian Muslims vis-a-vis Pakistan. You can see in context of Balkan Muslims, like Kosovo, Bosnia etc that the whole Muslim world shared their pains and if there is a backlash in India, the same thing will happen, on a humanistic, moral and religious ground.
4- The solution of Kashmir is diplomatic and political and not force. If somehow India is able to suppress the current uprising, the movement will go underground. As you have already seen that even after 50 years, the problem is still there and more complicated both in context of loss of life and dynamics of movement.
5- In any solution, there is always give and take, depending upon the situation and analysis.
6- How BJP Government tackles the issue, is important.
7- As far as my analysis of Indian situation in other parts, I would stand by my point. The only solution to Indian problem is secularism and not force.
#69 Posted by somnath on August 4, 2000 9:46:58 pm
Going through the comments/replies posted against Harish Nambiar`s article was quite an experience. It was amazing to see how the discussion could (or is it a deliberate scheme?) get distracted into irrelevance. A simple cultural differentiation, so natural and pleasantly presented, was twisted and used for advocacy of one`s own views which were not even remotely connected with the theme of the article. Don`t the Indians find similar cultural differentiations within Northern India; say between the Punjab or Rajhastan and Utter Pardesh or Bihar? What is so common between the Bengalis and the Sikhs or the Rajputs, besides living in India?
The tenor and quality of discussion raise many serious questions. How should free discussion be defined? Does it have no binding parameters beyond good English? What about intellectual discipline? What is the purpose of this website? To encourage wild and incoherent discussion (frequently degenerating into Pakistan bashing)? Whose interests is it prompoting? The very few participants who keep revisiting the site with old and hackneyed rhetoric only make the discussion stifling. The arguments should be based on knowledge and not fixed ideas and petty feelings. Chowk needs some fresh air.
It would have been far more interesting to have brought out and commented on `the East-West Divide`, or `the Continental Divide` or yet `the sub-continental diversities` which carry undisputed geo-historical permanance and contemporary relevence. These have decisively shaped and influenced events in the sub-continent and even today dominate the lives of its people. A meaningful discussion on these, would have led to more relevant conclusions.
Would Gautier, Jay Sadhna or anyne else make an attempt?
The tenor and quality of discussion raise many serious questions. How should free discussion be defined? Does it have no binding parameters beyond good English? What about intellectual discipline? What is the purpose of this website? To encourage wild and incoherent discussion (frequently degenerating into Pakistan bashing)? Whose interests is it prompoting? The very few participants who keep revisiting the site with old and hackneyed rhetoric only make the discussion stifling. The arguments should be based on knowledge and not fixed ideas and petty feelings. Chowk needs some fresh air.
It would have been far more interesting to have brought out and commented on `the East-West Divide`, or `the Continental Divide` or yet `the sub-continental diversities` which carry undisputed geo-historical permanance and contemporary relevence. These have decisively shaped and influenced events in the sub-continent and even today dominate the lives of its people. A meaningful discussion on these, would have led to more relevant conclusions.
Would Gautier, Jay Sadhna or anyne else make an attempt?
#68 Posted by jntuece99 on August 4, 2000 9:46:58 pm
Re: vito
I might have been emotional when i wrote that article but not immature.... i was exactly driving the same point to home .....
if pakistan really wanted peace, then this is not the way to react to a peace proposal initiated by one of their support groups.. not by killing some other innocent citizens...
i am not asking kashmiris or some others who are unhappy with their situation to give a damn for my opinion of them...
what i am asking is when they themselves want to have peace and initiate a dialogue, then others who profess support to them should not derail the process by resoting to some inhuman mindless massacres........
u got my point... i am in no way either denouncing or supporting the kashmiris expression for self rule.. what i am berating is the cowardly involvement of third parties....
````````they do not give a damn what u or anyone else sitting in Bombay, or Delhi or Lahore think without respect to the ownership of Kashmir...they simply want their basic human rights to be granted to them...they dont want to see their brothers tortured and shot dead without proof...they dont want to see their sisters get raped in front of their eyes by agencies that are supposed to protect them...``````
this is very good articulation ...
ya , they sure want to have their basic rights... so when they are ready for a dialogue , then why stop it... do you think by killing some other innocent people , kashmiris will achieve their objectives... when will guys like you understand that violence begets only violence..
it is easy to get personal... i would like you to ask you to refrain from indulging in personal attacks because that would be sign of immaturity which u seem to detest......
An Concerned Indian
I might have been emotional when i wrote that article but not immature.... i was exactly driving the same point to home .....
if pakistan really wanted peace, then this is not the way to react to a peace proposal initiated by one of their support groups.. not by killing some other innocent citizens...
i am not asking kashmiris or some others who are unhappy with their situation to give a damn for my opinion of them...
what i am asking is when they themselves want to have peace and initiate a dialogue, then others who profess support to them should not derail the process by resoting to some inhuman mindless massacres........
u got my point... i am in no way either denouncing or supporting the kashmiris expression for self rule.. what i am berating is the cowardly involvement of third parties....
````````they do not give a damn what u or anyone else sitting in Bombay, or Delhi or Lahore think without respect to the ownership of Kashmir...they simply want their basic human rights to be granted to them...they dont want to see their brothers tortured and shot dead without proof...they dont want to see their sisters get raped in front of their eyes by agencies that are supposed to protect them...``````
this is very good articulation ...
ya , they sure want to have their basic rights... so when they are ready for a dialogue , then why stop it... do you think by killing some other innocent people , kashmiris will achieve their objectives... when will guys like you understand that violence begets only violence..
it is easy to get personal... i would like you to ask you to refrain from indulging in personal attacks because that would be sign of immaturity which u seem to detest......
An Concerned Indian
#67 Posted by satyavadi on August 4, 2000 2:53:07 pm
Sadhana #68::
I will reproduce the two statements that led u to mildly remind me that ``That all Muslims of J&K support the idea of secession, noone can make such a claim.``
1. ``HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, even if all but one Muslim were seditionists, that one Muslim would be as Indian as me, you or any one else. You cannot punish a whole community for what you think was a treacherous act by some members of that community.
2. ``But you cannot ignore the fact that its ONLY among the Muslims of J&K that there is ANY support for the idea of secession from India``
You inadvertently missed the ``hypothetically speaking`` from the first sentence and also the emphasis on ``any`` in the second one, both of which phrases, I should have, but didnt capitalize in my original post. I hope this clears your doubt.
You guessed it right, I too think, that not all Muslims of J&K donot support seccession. Not with Farooq Abdullah`s National Conference getting 15-20% (or 10-15%) of the vote of the total electorate of J&K
, despite calls for boycott and threats from the militants.
Satyavadi
Satyavadi
I will reproduce the two statements that led u to mildly remind me that ``That all Muslims of J&K support the idea of secession, noone can make such a claim.``
1. ``HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, even if all but one Muslim were seditionists, that one Muslim would be as Indian as me, you or any one else. You cannot punish a whole community for what you think was a treacherous act by some members of that community.
2. ``But you cannot ignore the fact that its ONLY among the Muslims of J&K that there is ANY support for the idea of secession from India``
You inadvertently missed the ``hypothetically speaking`` from the first sentence and also the emphasis on ``any`` in the second one, both of which phrases, I should have, but didnt capitalize in my original post. I hope this clears your doubt.
You guessed it right, I too think, that not all Muslims of J&K donot support seccession. Not with Farooq Abdullah`s National Conference getting 15-20% (or 10-15%) of the vote of the total electorate of J&K
, despite calls for boycott and threats from the militants.
Satyavadi
Satyavadi
#66 Posted by sadna on August 4, 2000 1:17:29 pm
satyavadi #61
Thanks for your reply. Yes, you answered my question and I agree with you in the main with just one reminder. You say:
``its ONLY among the Muslims of J&K that there is any support for the idea of secession from India``
and
``Even if all but one Muslim were seditionists, that one Muslim would be as Indian as me, you or any one else. You cannot punish a whole community for what you think was a treacherous act by some members of that community.``
That all Muslims of J&K support the idea of secession, noone can make such a claim. That may seem like a finer point, but its definately not, for Indians, atleast(and I guess you probably think so already).
pullu #54
I included females in the `helpful` category, and I am one, too :-)
BTW, just in case you haven`t seen it, pl see my post #135 in the Shandana Minhas `Proud to be a Pakistani` thread.
Sadhana
Thanks for your reply. Yes, you answered my question and I agree with you in the main with just one reminder. You say:
``its ONLY among the Muslims of J&K that there is any support for the idea of secession from India``
and
``Even if all but one Muslim were seditionists, that one Muslim would be as Indian as me, you or any one else. You cannot punish a whole community for what you think was a treacherous act by some members of that community.``
That all Muslims of J&K support the idea of secession, noone can make such a claim. That may seem like a finer point, but its definately not, for Indians, atleast(and I guess you probably think so already).
pullu #54
I included females in the `helpful` category, and I am one, too :-)
BTW, just in case you haven`t seen it, pl see my post #135 in the Shandana Minhas `Proud to be a Pakistani` thread.
Sadhana
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ajeya: #24 Posted by dost_mittar [But... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- masadi: Anil sahib, nice try... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pakiturk: My friends, ML, MQM, PPP,... MQM - History and
- anil: Masadi sahib: Your brain is... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- masadi: Thinking sahib, Please pardon the... Fathers and Daughters
- masadi: Anil writes "You show... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pakiturk: #86 Posted by hamidm2... MQM - History and
- vatanparast: #107 Whatever I say is... MQM - History and
