Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

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

re: rsridhar #372

Some people drink from the fountain of wisdom, but judging from your remarks, it seems you gargled.

In case you spent all your life in a Gandhi ashram or learned your history by watching Attenborough`s propaganda ``Gandhi``, here are some historical facts that prove Gandhi was never the leader of Muslims and Scheduled Castes in India. In 1937 elections, Gandhi`s Congress won 711 out of 1585 general seats but only 28 out of 485 Muslim seats. In 8 out of 11 states, Congress didn`t win a single Muslim seat. Just 6 months before the election, B.R. Ambedkar formed an Independant Labor Party which won 13 out of 15 Scheduled Caste seats. Sikhs, Muslims and Scheduled castes rejected the message and leadership of Gandhi in 1937.

Gandhi was quite aware of this fact. On March 25, 1938 he addressed the Gandhi Seva Sangh meeting and said: ``Today, we have power neither over the Princes, nor over the zamindars, neither over the Muslims nor over the Sikhs.``

On March 28, 1938 Gandhi said:
``Congress got many Muslims enrolled as members. But they had to be coaxed into becoming members. This is a kind of flattery, or you may call it a politically motivated policy. We maintained friendly relations [with the Muslims] merely from a practical point of view: it was like a businessman`s practical policy``.

Jawaharlal Nehru observed a CWC meeting in August 1938:
``The Mussalmans had absolutely no trust in him [Gandhi] and considered him their enemy``

On August 31, 1937 G.D. Birla (the key financier of Congress) wrote to Gandhi:
``The Congress is without doubt a party enjoying mass support, but it is essentially a Hindu Party``

Although Congress has Muslim members, few of them were members of the Congress Working Committee or High Command. Even in the All India Congress Convention (AICC), there were only 6 Muslims members out of a total of 143. Maulana Azad sat in this committee as an honorary member.

All references are included on the following link:
http://www.maoism.org/misc/india/india_raj_v2/chap-5.htm

If there is any doubt left in your mind, you may check the statistics of 1945 elections that further confirmed that Gandhi was a Hindu leader only. In 1945, the Congress won 90% of general (Hindu) seats whereas Muslim League won 87% of Muslim seats. The few Congress Muslims were simply ``show boys`` to create the impression that Congress speaks for all of India.

I must thank you for giving me the opportunity of pricking the bloated bladder of lies with the spear of truth.

Cheers.

re: 386 harish_hyd

I am sure harish_hyd has many virtues, but I am bound to say that political honesty and objectivity are not one of them.

[Whilst thugs like Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, Maulana Masood Azhar and Abdul Majid Dar all but destroyed Kashmir through violence..]

They may be thugs to Indian chowkies, but they are freedom fighters to the Kashmiris and Pakistani chowkies. We do not differentiate between Mahdi Sudani, William W`allace, George Washington, Bhagat Singh, Yasir Arafat, Mustafa Kamal Pasha and the Mujahideen who are fighting 700,000 Indian Army scoundrels in Kashmir. Any presence of Indian security forces on Kashmir, is a violation of Kashmiri sovereignty. Armed resistance to these occupation forces has been legimitized by the UN. Not once in the last 54 years, has the UN declared these people terrorists. Unless the UN declares these persons as thugs, we are not compelled to accept them as such. American, Indian, Israeli, Russian or British pronouncements are neither binding nor universal.

[the so-called moderates like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Abdul Ghani Lone, Yasin Malik and Shabir Shah have, at various times supported the armed insurgency, either out of fear of the gun or due to political maneuvers of their masters pulling the strings from across the borders]

There is nothing immoral about supporting the armed insurgency. India unilaterally broke its promise to facilitate the self-determination of Kashmiris through a referendum or plebiscite. Now India has no moral authority to dictate to Kashmiris how to conduct their struggle. To borrow from Rousseau, this was a social contract between Kashmiris and Indians. Indians violated the contract. Every tactic, every strategy that can contribute to freedom is now kosher.

[an unholy nexus between Pakistan and the leaders of the separatist movement, each for his own ends]

There is nothing unholy about the nexus between Kashmiris and Pakistani leaders. Some of them want to join Pakistan, some want independence. Under UN SC resolution 654, Pakistan is already a party to this dispute. Being pro-Pakistan may be a sin for an Indian, but for a Kashmiri this is a source of pride and a fundamental right. If there are any doubts about the Kashmiri support for insurgency, read the BBC news item about total strike in Kashmir to protest the custodial death of Saiful Islam by Indian security forces:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2914009.stm

#358 by HisExcellency on April 7, 2003 12:04pm PT

[Similarly Kashmir cause doesn`t have one leader but several. Some are violent, some nonviolent. Hafiz Saeed, Salahuddin, Maulana Azhar, Abdul Majid Dar, etc represent just one side of the Kashmir struggle. The other side comprises Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Ali Shah Jeelani, Abdul Ghani Lone, Yasin Malik, Shabbir Shah, etc.]

Here goes another attempt at putting a clever spin on words. Whilst thugs like Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, Maulana Masood Azhar and Abdul Majid Dar all but destroyed Kashmir through violence, the so-called moderates like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Abdul Ghani Lone, Yasin Malik and Shabir Shah have, at various times supported the armed insurgency, either out of fear of the gun or due to political maneuvers of their masters pulling the strings from across the borders. Neither of which speaks very highly of them. The real tragedy in Kashmir has been that ordinary Kashmiris have become pawns in what is essentially a profitable business venture for leaders of the so-called movement as a result of which most of them have acquired plush property worth crores of rupees at prime locations in Srinagar, while for Pakistan, it is an out and out land-grab exercise cloaked in moralistic posturing. In reality, the so called moderate leaders are in fact wolves in sheep`s clothing, projecting the political front for what is in fact an unholy nexus between Pakistan and the leaders of the separatist movement, each for his own ends. The ordinary Kashmiri’s interests have ironically been well and truly abandoned by those whom he considered his all.

re. 377 by harish_hyd
``How then do you explain Bush`s soaring approval ratings? The demonstrations that you are referring to in London, NYC and LA were significant but do they reflect the majority opinion? How does that prove your point?``
The point wasn`t whether ther was a majority or not. The sizable numbers coming out to protest the governments war policy all comprised the the common man, just as much as the 56% (which, as a 4% increase thanks to successful media propaganda, isn`t exactly what I`d call `soaring` anyway) who support Bush & Co.

Now, would you like me to quote you on `common man and government`?

``It`s you who`s trying to skirt around the issue by trying to put a clever spin on words. ``

Not really. I was not defending Hafiz Saeed the terrorist at all (and admitted early on to not knowing of his association with L-i-T). I merely questioned what Indians found so inherently evil in a tit-for-tat killing policy.

``Regardless of the context of his statement, the bottomline is that murderers like Hafiz Saeed have no value for life: either theirs or others`.``
Whatever the truth of that statement, with all due respect, it was NOT was was being discussed. (But I guess it is too much to expect an academic/philosophic discussion on a matter with Indians/Pakistani when K- or J-word is involved.

``There`s no point carrying the argument further if you think a Muslim life is more precious than a Hindu or Christian life or vice-versa,``

Now this is PRECIOUS . Your powers of deduyction and comprehension are absolutely astounding. Thank you, you just confirmed my assertion above re. the possibility of debating the issue objectively.

`` or that by killing a Hindu, you can somehow exact revenge for a Muslim victim.``

Actually, that is exactly what the word `revenge` implies. What dictionary do you use? I may or may not believe that revenge killing is morally acceptable, (certainly not when innocents are killed in revenge), but you`d be going against a very very long tradition of Utilitarian ethics (most recently espoused by Sadna too-- and why not!) in suggesting that revenge killing is (totally) unacceptable (if that is indeed what you are saying).

``Clearly, this man preaches exactly this kind of ideology``
Let me reiterate for the reading challenged: The man did not suggest any greater value of Muslim life over Hindu or Christian in the interview posted. If you were able to infer ``this kind of ideology`` from that interview, either present it, or enroll wth Sadna and pmishra in Reading Comprehension 101.

``And if you`re trying to defend his statement by twisting and turning the context... ``

Please demostrate where I have turnedand twisted the context, as opposed to simply clarigying it (in other words, not reading any more into it than one should)

``...and trying to make it somehow look harmless,... ``

Harmless? Where`d you pick that up? Revenge killing may be `understandable` and, as per utilitarian schools, kosher and even necessary. But harmless? Nooo! I never said that! I never intended to make light of his very serious statements.

``...and then proceed to deride everybody else on this board of possessing poor comprehension skills,``

Well, what can I say?? I back up my contentions with evidence, which is a lot more than can be said for the form of derision frolks from `your side` resort to, such as:

``... it reveals a certain mindset, typical of Pakistanis, even amongst the highly educated``

``Or it could be that medical condition called Dysrythmia where a person`s ability to put this thoughts accurately into words is severely impaired.
``
I`ve suspected for a while it might be just that! Now that you have a name for it, please seek help. Honest! ;)