The Real Jehad

Fuzair various posts:

You may find this interesting...

ANALYSIS

Of the India-Pakistan summit, 1955

A. G. NOORANI


``...Nehru made three mistakes. Pakistan, aggrieved, could not acquiesce in a status quo established by force. Sheikh Abdullah would not continue with his support to Nehru if it cost him popular support in the State. Nehru`s third and gravest mistake was in underestimating the assertiveness of the people if not, indeed, of their relevance. ``It must be remembered that the people of the Kashmir Valley and round-about, though highly gifted in many ways - in intelligence, in artisanship, etc. - are not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living...``

rest at
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1815/18150730.htm

rgds,

t

Some good news:

``IMF says Pakistan`s macroeconomic performance is ``solid``: Karachi, Aug 29 :The International Monetary Fund has completed its final review of Pakistan`s current one-year standby facility which expires in September, and termed the country`s macroeconomic performance ``solid``. The IMF resident mission in Islamabad said in a statement today that it would advise the managing director to recommend executive board to accept the final review report prepared by the mission.`` (DAWN, Pakistan)

``The only solution to Pakistan problem is for Pakistan not to exist any more. Euthanasia has its use.``

Dude, I honestly think that is a very uncalled for statement. See, I don`t mind returning an insult 10 times over, but I see nothing in this whole interact that warranted this statement. Rather than asking you to apologize, I apologize to Fuzair for your statement.

RSaxena

And I think the wishes of the Kashmiris who want to join Pakistan should be granted. As I said before, put them on a truck and send them across the border into Romair`s open arms.

LOL, therin I agree. Though I think the Indian government should be more generous and provide airconditioned buses with video phillum.

Fuzair

India recognises Tibet as an autonomous province of China. The border dispute is over Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin. There are other discrepancies in the MsMahon line, but the 3 above are the essentials

Fuzair:

``India has a legal claim to Kashmir--based on the negation of the democratic ideal--but it has no moral claim to it. I think the start of the Kashmiri insurgency makes that clear.``

You are absolutely right, with the term of reference being limited to independence. I do contend that after Kashmir became part of India, it was never treated as a colony. The treatment of the Kashmiri people (or mistreatment) was the same, if not more favorable than the treatment (or mistreatment)that ordinary Indian citizens get in any other part of India.

With regards to Junagadh and Hyderabad, Romair too had brought up that point. You are absolutely right that India tried to have its cake and eat it too. No doubt about that. Reading your exchange only, it seems that the Indians were willing to see Kashmir go to Pakistan, till they actually saw a chance to grab it. And then they did.

Interestingly, no one has brought up the issue of Gurdaspur here. Gurdaspur was given to India way before Hari Singh`s ascension to India. Why? Foresight or a well thought out conspiracy? By all rules, Gurdaspur should have gone to Pakistan as it was a Muslim majority district and contiguous to Pakistan. Yet, it was given to India, the reason being that it contained the only road head to Jammu Kashmir. Well, if Nehru and Patel were so sanguine about Kashmir going to Pakistan, why did Gurdaspur become so relevant.

Gowardhan

``stuka

Indians should not use the misguiding phrase kashmir problem. There is only one problem - Pakistan problem.``

That Sir is a wrong statement. There is definitely a Kashmir problem besides the fact the fact that there is a Pakistan Problem. The Pakistan problem started in 1947 itself as a dispute over Kashmir. The Kashmir problem started in 1989. Pakistan in fact, from 1971 to 1989, had practically no role in Kashmir. Yes, they would raise the issue at international forums, and the Indians would reply, and the diplomats of all other countries would switch of their headsets and go to sleep, but that`s it. The initial Kashmiri youth crossed over in 1987, into the welcoming arms of the ISI.

Assuming that Pakistan stops its support tommorow, we still have a Kashmir problem. An easier problem to tackle, nevertheless, a problem.

Re: Gowardhan and Stuka

Certainly Kashmir is Indian legally. The Maharajah signed the instrument of accession, didn`t he? Although some Pakistanis so argue--on what basis I`m not sure--that the instrument was not valid. However, the Kashmiri (and through that the Indian) claim to the Northern Areas is very tenuous, as strong probably as the Chinese claim to Tibet which the Indian government, I believe, rejects.

Hari Singh did not have the moral character to acede to Pakistan as did, for example, the Nawab of Bhopal to India: on the grounds that the ruler should honor the wishes of his people. Bhopal then migrated to Pakistan, his personal wish. Bhopali independence was even less feasible than Kashmiri but he didn`t even try to strike a deal for himself with the Indian government.

So what about Hyderabad and Junagadh? Why are they Indian? Why isn`t Junagadh Pakistani and Hyderabad, if not Pakistani, at least independent? Seems to me that the Indians are having their cake and eating it too: Kashmir is ours because Hari Singh signed the instrument in our favor; Hyderabad and Junagadh are ours because their population is Hindu. This is why I am in favor of both sides keeping their bits of Kashmir and forgetting about the rest of it. Granted the current situation in Kashmir is no more a genuine uprising of the Kashmiris and it is Pakistan that is keeping it alive, but do you seriously think that the average Kashmiri wants to remain Indian after all that has been done to them by the Indian Army, BSF, CRPF and any other of the lakhs of soldiers you have their? Similarly, I`m not sure that too many of them want to join Pakistan either.

There is a very old joke about Kashmir that I first heard when I was in my teens. It goes something like this: Neither side actually wants s a plebicite in Kashmir since the Indian Kashmiris would vote for Pakistan and the Pakistani Kashmiris would vote for independence!

So, you see, there is a distinction between what is right legally and what is right morally. India has a legal claim to Kashmir--based on the negation of the democratic ideal--but it has no moral claim to it. I think the start of the Kashmiri insurgency makes that clear.

Regards.

Are we seeing beginning of ``post vietnam syndrome`` in the demoralised,puposeless,inhuman behaviour & night marish condition of civilian tortures,Among the fitigued army ?????

Kashmir soldier kills colleagues



The stress of battle can sometimes be too much

By Altaf Hussain in Srinagar

Police in Indian-administered Kashmir say a member of India`s Central Reserve Police Force has shot dead two of his colleagues and wounded another after an argument.

The soldier himself is also believed to have been wounded in the incident.

This is the latest in a series of such attacks in the state, where the Indian security forces have been fighting militants for more than a decade.

Incidents of Indian soldiers killing their colleagues have increased in Indian-administered Kashmir since 1997.

At least 50 army, paramilitary and police personnel, including a dozen officers, have been killed and many others injured in such incidents.

Earlier this year, an army constable, Ram Niwas, was sentenced to death at a court martial for killing a colonel and his three security guards.

The sentence is yet to be carried out.

Battle fatigue

He carried out the killing in the frontier district of Kupwara after the officer stopped him and other soldiers from torching a village to avenge the killing of fellow soldiers by the militants.

Most incidents where soldiers turn their weapons on their colleagues are believed to be the result of battle fatigue, homesickness and indiscipline.

In several cases, soldiers have gone berserk because their leave applications were rejected by their commanding officers.

India`s Defence Ministry has sent a team of psychiatrists to study the causes of such incidents.

However, their finding have so far not been made public.





Click here for more background reports

Are we seeing beginning of ``post vietnam syndrome`` in the demoralised,puposeless,inhuman behaviour & night marish condition of civilian tortures,Among the fitigued army ?????

Kashmir soldier kills colleagues



The stress of battle can sometimes be too much

By Altaf Hussain in Srinagar

Police in Indian-administered Kashmir say a member of India`s Central Reserve Police Force has shot dead two of his colleagues and wounded another after an argument.

The soldier himself is also believed to have been wounded in the incident.

This is the latest in a series of such attacks in the state, where the Indian security forces have been fighting militants for more than a decade.

Incidents of Indian soldiers killing their colleagues have increased in Indian-administered Kashmir since 1997.

At least 50 army, paramilitary and police personnel, including a dozen officers, have been killed and many others injured in such incidents.

Earlier this year, an army constable, Ram Niwas, was sentenced to death at a court martial for killing a colonel and his three security guards.

The sentence is yet to be carried out.

Battle fatigue

He carried out the killing in the frontier district of Kupwara after the officer stopped him and other soldiers from torching a village to avenge the killing of fellow soldiers by the militants.

Most incidents where soldiers turn their weapons on their colleagues are believed to be the result of battle fatigue, homesickness and indiscipline.

In several cases, soldiers have gone berserk because their leave applications were rejected by their commanding officers.

India`s Defence Ministry has sent a team of psychiatrists to study the causes of such incidents.

However, their finding have so far not been made public.





Click here for more background reports

stuka

Indians should not use the misguiding phrase kashmir problem. There is only one problem - Pakistan problem.

The only solution to Pakistan problem is for Pakistan not to exist any more. Euthanasia has its use.

RE: Stuka

``Therin will lie the reason for our satisfaction. Both sides will declare victory, and the likes of you and me will still be arguing with the likes of Romair and HobbyTy fifty years from now over whose victory is sweeter.``

My victory became sweeter in 1947, even though I wasn`t born then. It is sweeter because I ended up in the better country which doesn`t have people like Romair and ylh.

And I think the wishes of the Kashmiris who want to join Pakistan should be granted. As I said before, put them on a truck and send them across the border into Romair`s open arms.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

RSaxena:

I personally have no love lost for Kashmiri Muslims, simply because I don`t think they had (pre 1989) any valid reason for coveting azaadi.

Yes, elections are rigged. Yes, there was poverty. Yes, there were successive unresponsive state governments, but the same exists all over India. The Kashmiris in fact were mollycoddled by the central governement, just to keep the population happy. To me it is obvious that the only reason the Kashmiris thought they could get/should get Azaadi is because it happens to be a Muslim majority state, and they carry the baggage of communal based partition. All these human right violations, the presence of the Army etc only happened after 1989, after the insurgency was well under way and the local police could not handle the situation.

Thefore to blame the Indian Army for creating a situation where Azaadi is the only option is the height of hypocricy. Mind you, I am not talking about the problem between India and Pakistan over Kashmir which has existed since 1947, but the demand for Azaadi within Indian Kashmir itself. Pakistan has merely taken advantage of our domestic situation, it has not created it. The shouts for Azaadi were a bonus given to Pakistan by our own Indian Kashmiris.

The British left behind 2 countries, India and Pakistan, and thru means of legality, treaties , and the occaisional etc, the borders were demarcated. There was no Republic of Kashmir. Only India and Pakistan. Maybe it is my refugee mentality talking, but I am not moved by the demand for Azaadi. IMO, if Kashmiri Muslims are not happy in India, they should move to Pakistan. That is the unfinished agenda of Partition. Partition involved the creation of 2 countries, and the transfer of population. Well, the two countries are here, the unsatisfied can move to the dominion of their choice.

However, these are just my emotion generated feelings. Realistically speaking, someone on Chowk hit the nail on the head when they said that India has neither been humane enough, nor inhumane enough as far as Kashmir is concerned. We have not come close to genuinely giving in to demands (humane approach), nor have we gone and changed the demographic balance( the inhumane approach)

The status quo will not last. I say this not on the basis of secularism, religion and all the bunkum, but because of National Interest. There will be some sort of deal, and it will be a deal that will be less than 100% of what we want. And we Indians will get used to it. We will get used to the idea of modification, and the reason for that is Pakistan will also not get 100%. Therin will lie the reason for our satisfaction. Both sides will declare victory, and the likes of you and me will still be arguing with the likes of Romair and HobbyTy fifty years from now over whose victory is sweeter.

hobbyty (307)

thanks for the invite - I have avioded that particula board - any board which has 20 odd continuous posts from the famous alumni from a university in New Jersey (or is it Delaware), should be avoided at all costs ;-).

That was an interesting post. Here is something which has happened - reality - what was discussed there(on the other board) is a perception a distinction between having faith in satan and believing that satan exists (this is very much abstract - satan itself is a mirror image of ourselves - and this image is what creates that abstract distinction between faith and existence -man and satan, god and lucifer, good and bad, nice and nasty all perceptions) - there are no certanties with perceptions, but surely there is a certainty associated with reality.

the event

{Ahmediya shrine razed, 28 arrested,

Pakistani police arrested 28 Ahmediyas after Muslim protestors bulldozed their place of worship in the Punjab province on Monday, the South Asian Dispatch Agency reported.

According to the police, an anti-Ahmediya organisation complained that the Ahmediyas were planning to hold a meeting aimed at hurting the religious sentiments of the majority.

Acting on the complaint, the police convened a meeting of the elders of both the Muslims and the Ahmediyas, who agreed not to indulge in any activity that would disturb peace in the area.

But the Ahmediyas allegedly breached the contract and started pouring in at their place of worship. A mob of around 150 Muslims then attacked the place and burnt furniture and electronic equipment. No one was injured in the attack.

Police rushed to the place and ringed the area.

``We will release all the arrested Ahmediyas as soon as the situation returns to normal,`` a police officer said.

Pakistan declared the Ahmediyas non-Muslims during the reign of the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto after widespread riots between Muslims and Ahmediyas in 1974.

According to Pakistani law, the Ahmediyas are prohibited from declaring themselves Muslims. Many Ahmediyas, who form a small part of the country`s population, have migrated to foreign countries, especially to Europe where they get asylum.

Pakistan saw some of the worst Ahmediya-Muslim riots in the 1980s. Since then, there has not been any major incident between the two groups.

Indo-Asian News Service }

Re: Stuka

``But for us, to physically give up, or to envision another communal partition, it is pretty hard.``

India is not going to give up Kashmir. It is too strong and the world too secular (the parts that matter) for any more religion-based divisions. The world finds that repulsive; particularly for it to happen in a secular, democratic country where there are 200 million other Muslims with full constitutional rights.

Either there will be a resolution to put this issue for which there currently appears to be no realistic (note ``realistic``) solution on a backburner so both countries can focus on development, or the current violence will continue until Pakistan sinks even further.