Towards Greater Tolerance

re. arjun_m #259:
``so enough of this high moral ground sh!t... ``
Chill already humberto! In case you haven`t noticed, the debate has moved to strategic considerations, not moral. (Then again, what would a day be without some paki to curse, eh?)

``Wake up and smell the double skim milk latte..India doesn`t need to negotiate/talk or do anything it doesn`t feel like doing. It`s Pakistan that needs talks/mediation/something/anything. Unless there is pressure on India, it will talk when it feels like talking.. ``

Yeah, until then I`m sure it finds it more worhtwhile stationing 700,000 troops in that state, right?

``And for all the people whining about talks..India did talk..Lahore..Agra..these ring a bell?``

Yes. Were not these the talks in which India reminded Pakistan that Kashmir was off-limits, talks-wise?

friend:
Nothing caustic intended in my sh!tty remarks. :) In ``...back over the fence from where it came``, please consider what the word `back` implies.
And what exactly is it do you expect me to comment on re. the UN resolutions? Please clarify.

P.S. (to Aleph)
found this altogether quite ticklish:
``I only hope that your reason for being coy is something other than an awareness of innate insecurity in your own premises, or lack of substantiation for your preferred conclusions.``

While I will, in due time, hope to dispell your suspicion of any such improriety on my part, I should hope that the conclusions you have reached, if contradictory to my own, would be duly substantiated with more than citation of personally observed empirical data.

And if I may be so audacious as to offer advice, don`t dismiss your `understanding of human nature, which, it would appear is anything but ``limited``.

re. @250 byAlephNull:
Aleph, your post was informative and convincing, a well as patient, for which I thank you. Guess I should have read up more on the issue myself, especially on the finer and/or closed-door aspects of the Shimla agreement.

You write, however, :
``You seem to regard India`s failure to ask Pakistan to honour its end of the bargain as evidence of India`s intent to dishonour the resolution. That is certainly a curious position considering that it is Pakistan that plainly has to move first, which it has manifestly failed to do for half a century.``

It is not, per se, India`s failure to ask Paksitan to honour its end of the bargain that I see as India`s intent to dishonour it -- it is its position that Kashmir is `internal` and therefore non-negotiable -- which is altogether a different position. Unless it is India`s intention to provide reasons for the Army to stay in power Pakistan ( I fail to see what benefit it affords anyone BUT that army), would you not agree that this is not the strategically, to say nothing of legality, most sound stance for India to be taking?

``I also regard legalities as being of dubious value in relations between plainly adversarial states.``

When internal pressure is brought to bear, legalities may make the difference between choosing high-cost war and face-losing peace.

re. your #254 dealing with the `tangential` issues. Thanks for the time alotted as well as the stimulating thoughts. I am far from intransigent on the view that that, in practice, large polities/societes are more likely than smaller ones to stifle and constrain individual choice. Off the hip, again, I`d say that individual choice in very large polities tends to give rise to a form of idividualism and lack of identity and moorings that tends to tear at the fabric of the meaningful units of society (family, neighbourhood, town) and this may be a reason that many individuals, or groups of kindred individuals, resist being `swallowed up in a homogenizing superstructure` as it were.

Yes, I`m an anarchist at heart. Hell! in skin too :)

IMO, it takes a great deal of thought, checks and balances, and a tradition of tolerance to create unions in which particular rights of individuals or diverse groups are freely given. I am not sure such can be achieved without a thorough subscription to a philosophy of man; not state, as holding paramount inegrity. Even a society such as the US, with its constitution founded in just such a philosophy felt the need to curtail this right (IMO, rightly in that case, since there was an overriding moral imperative OUTSIDE any consideration of national integrity -- I am referring to the Abolition proclamation. Am I mistaken?).

But I have rambled enough already. Allow me to wipe the dust off my volumes of Locke and Russell and perhaps post a more fitting reply to your interesting queries.

regards,
PM

An aside: I honeslty felt your earleir questions were directed generally to ANY ``votaries of liberty`` that might be lurking in these alleys.

PM #258
As far as need for ``India asserting its supiriority`` in 1951 itself, while waiting for Pakistan to meet its obligations, it conducted elections in J&K. J&K got special status (Article 370) and laws of Indian Parliament have limited applicability in J&K.
On the other hand, Pakistan gifted part of J&K to China, without asking Kashmiri people`s opinion (kindly don`t call it border dispute settlement, if J&K is disputed territory than Pakistan didn`t have any rights to settle its boundary). Nothern part of J&K was just eaten by Pakistan as nothern territories. Those people have no representation and status.

Now, when demography of J&K has changed so much in last 50 years, you want India to go back 50 years and show ``moral supiriority``.!! Can you roll back situation to 1947, make Nothern Areas part of Kasmir and get back territory from China.

All the sides can show this supiriority, Pakistan by refraining from any adventure, direct or indirect and India by taking care of issues faced by Kashmiris (for that matter, by people from all the states).

At this point, imho, converting LOC to IB is sanest (and least cost) solution.

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

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

re. stuka #239
``Is India expected to sit around till the end of time to wait for Pakistan to fufill it`s part??? Maybe the second coming of the Mahdi???``

No. India can tell Pakistan that it can forget about Kashmir until it fulfills its (Pak`s) end of the resolution. That would wonderfully put the ball in Pakistan`s court, exposing the issue for what it really is to Pakistan -- the raison d`etre of the Pak Army, who make sure that masses are reminded cosntantly of Indian expansionist designs and ill-will for Muslims. Apart from Urstruly, few educated Pakistanis believe that the Kashmiri struggle is indigenous, though many believe the issue is historically unresolved.

But no, India needs to assert its superiority in the matter, rather than seek a negotiable settlement in which it would even effectively retain it`s part of Kashmir. It has to show it`s the Alpha male in the region. Perhaps this is understandable: Even a HINT of concession on Kashmir could, no matter what harimau might think, lead to seccessionists rumblings in other parts, which India cannot obviously afford.

``Obviously, if the Pakistanis proceed to wreck havoc with their part of Kashmir (basically treating it as their baap ka maal) and do not make any effort to implement the UN Resolution, then why are we expected to do any different?``

You are not. But just don`t play the ``Kashmir is an integral part of India and that`s a reality`` line. Not only because stating such `realities` is about the intellectual equivalent of Pakistan`s claiming that its part is ``integral`` to it, but because it smacks of provocation. And that is plain dumb to be doing when you already have the card you want in hand and can retain it without having to appear as the Numero Uno of the block.

Unless, of course, you think that India`s current position (`Kashmir cannot be discussed. Period.`) is the stragetically soundest for the Kashmiris as well as Indians.

re. stuka #244
``LOL!!! Pakistan is a bastion of tolerance because the great Patrick Masih said so.``

No. It`s actually a cesspool of intolerance becasue jay, arjun_m and you say so. I bow before your superior knowledge!

(Not that Patrick Masih even made any unqualified statements about the way Minorities, in general, are treated in Pakistan. But I guess reading skills are the first to go when cerished ideas of enemy iniquities are challenged.)

``The reason Pakistan does not have pogroms against Hindus is the same reason India does not have pogroms against the Parsis. They are too insignificant too count.``

Ok. You have a point here. The Shias are probably the closest thing to a threat-posing `minority` to orthodox Sunni extremists, and really, it doesn`t take much of a stretch to imagine organized violence upon them, especailly if, say, the bogeyman of a trainload of Sunni ambushed by Shias were thrown in. I knoiw only to well how potent the mob mentality can be, though I cannot see with any certainty, the government of the two more urban provinced acquiesing in any such massacres.

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

Ref Urs-Stooley #242

[India has secularism and a pluralistic democarcy and yet there are ferocious genocides of minorities on regular basis. According to your thesis it should not happen in India. As compared to them Pakistan seems to be a kingdom of heaven as per your article and posts which are being duly attested by PM.]

Great! I shall immediately go to New Delhi to stand in line in front of the Pakistan High Commission for a permanent resident visa. I am not sure whether the Kingdom of Heaven aka Land of the Pure will grant me 72 houris (please keep the ghilmans to yourselves) when I present my papers at the Wagah checkpost or I will have to settle first in LaWhore. Do you know the answer?

Do you think minorities like me will have a special line at the Pak High Commission? I know the Indian Muslims are already breaking down the doors to get a visa in their bid to move to Pakistan. I wouldn`t want to be caught in a line that is 130 million long.

Ref 12-Head #249

[.Slave ,Kesto Arjun Harimou ,Jay plz get me off your list i never knowingly gave my e-mail to ]

A) I don`t know your e-mail address

B) I don`t write to idiots like you

C) If you now get a deluge of mail, that is payback for all the unsolicited e-mails you had sent to female interactors on Chowk. Just remember, Allah has ordained that you endure this for all the crappy e-mail you had sent to women.

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

PM #225

{Only if we can agree on the idea and extent of autonomy ..... unless we have such agreement, all talk is less than meaningful and not likely to end in agreement. Commonality of premise is a requirement for that of conclusion, right?}

One can try to evaluate the logical soundness or heuristic plausibility of an argument on its own merits, whether or not one agrees with the premises. Such an exercise is valuable - after all, schoolchildren are made to learn Euclidean geometry even though we now believe that spacetime is not flat! That is why I would like to see your detailed premises and conclusions, and at least an attempt at a persuasive argument as to how the latter follow from the former.

{(for me it IS the individual that is paramount, in so far as his liberty/autonomy doesn`t interfere with that of others -- I know, a can of worms in itself!)}

Curiously enough, I too regard the liberty and autonomy of the individual, and his utmost freedom to develop, as paramount. I have grounds to believe that in practice small polities/societes are as likely as, or more likely than, larger ones, to stifle and constrain individual choice,. I admit that I have no rigorous argument in support of this belief - it is based on empirical observation and my limited understanding of human nature.

You seem to have come to different conclusions on theoretical grounds. That is why your comments interest me. We well know that the devil is always in the details, which is why I invited you to elaborate upon your views.

{... matters only tangential to my original comments.}

I disagree with your characterization of these matters as `tangential` to your original comments in #55. Let me quote you again:

{{.... I have never understood what makes SOME people so terrified of the idea of multi-nation theory and political autonomy. Could it be the awareness of innate insecurity in their nationalistic premise? ... I suppose it just isn`t as fashionable to define nationhood in terms of basic beliefs and lifestyles as to demarcate boundaries by language!)}

This led me to believe that your particular preferences were backed by *theoretical arguments*. I understand and deeply respect the power of abstract arguments. That is why I asked many obvious questions in an attempt to understand your rationale. They were *directly addressed* to your comments, and to YLH`s. I intentionally kept them abstract for the most part to avoid another futile wrangle about sub-continental politics, Partition, etc. - but you must realise their fundamental relevance.

{I am neither blessed with the time, nor imbued with the inclination to expound ...}

I know that in the past you have not hesitated to write fairly voluminous posts when the spirit moved you. I`m prepared to wait until after the end of the World Cup and the Karachi football season if need be.

It is your absolute prerogative to not engage me if you find doing so distasteful or on any other grounds - Romiar does it all the time! I only hope that your reason for being coy is something other than an awareness of innate insecurity in your own premises, or lack of substantiation for your preferred conclusions.

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

PM #237

{Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is simple: Hold the plebescite.}

You do realise, don`t you, that the plebiscite is to be held in the entire territory of 1947 J & K, *after* it has been reunited under Indian control, Pakistani armed forces and non-Kashmir-residents have been expelled, and refugees who fled Kashmir have returned. If you read the UN resolutions, they are crystal clear about what Pakistan needs to do as the first step towards their implementation.

When Pakistanis are apprised of these requirements, they are wont to start bleating about `modalities for simultaneous mutual withdrawal of forces` - something for which no provision exists in the resolutions.

{If India has any intention at all to honour that resolution, it should at least leve the subject open to negotiation -- ask Pakistan to keep its end of the bargain, make sure their militia don`t infiltrate etc. -- so that IT (India) can then begin to think about playing it`s part.}

You seem to regard India`s failure to ask Pakistan to honour its end of the bargain as evidence of India`s intent to dishonour the resolution. That is certainly a curious position considering that it is Pakistan that plainly has to move first, which it has manifestly failed to do for half a century.

Pakistanis cannot simultaneously demand the implementation of the UN resolutions AND seek to renegotiate their provisions to better suit their ends. If you want to invoke the UN resolutions, the letter of the resolutions is what you`ll get. You cannot have it both ways.

PM #224

{And this is the same as the current Indian position that Kashmir is entirely an internal matter and not negotiable, right?}

No, it isn`t the same. The basis of the Indian position after 1972 has been the Simla Agreement, according to which all differences between India and Pakistan (the Kashmir dispute is not specifically named) are to be resolved through *bilateral negotiations or any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon*. This is held to supersede the various UN resolutions.

It is widely held that the Indian intent at Shimla was to formalise the post-1971 Line of Control as the de jure International Border, and that ZAB agreed to this course but pleaded that it not be included in the written agreement, as it would make his position at home as the head of a defeated country untenable. Naturally none of this has any legal force.

-------------

I personally believe that the offer of LOC=IB gives away far too much to Pakistan. As far as I`m concerned the control of any J & K territory currently in India`s possession is not negotiable with any other power, least of all Pakistan. I also regard legalities as being of dubious value in relations between plainly adversarial states.

I mentioned the fine print of the UN Resolutions primarily to demonstrate the hollowness of your facile claim about `India having dishonoured the UN Resolutions`.

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