Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

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.

I don`t get you on Rachel Corrie`s example being the most pathetic I could have chosen.
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! ;)

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! ;)

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

P.S. I don`t get you on Rachel Corrie`s example being the most pathetic I could have chosen. My illustration of her case was to reject your `common man cannot be separated from govenrmnet` contention. Of course it is despicable that the Jewish-controlled media has been almost mute on the case.

re. champs
``The terrorist-advocates are slimy liars motivated solely by their psychopathic hatred (and envy) against India``

Wow!! Forgot yer pills today, eh?

``We will defend every inch of our motherland from the assault of jihadi terrorists and defeat the jihad waged by terroristan.``

Err.. will that include defending Kashmir too? ;)

re. champs

``The terrorist-advocates are slimy liars motivated solely by their psychopathic hatred (and envy) against India``

Wow!! Forgot yer pills today, eh?

``We will defend every inch of our motherland from the assault of jihadi terrorists and defeat the jihad waged by terroristan.``

Err.. will that include defending Kashmir too? ;)

IF PAKSITANIS JUSTIFY THAT: KASHMIR SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF INDIA AS THERE ARE MORE MUSLIMS NOW(HINDU GENOCIDE OR HINDUS KICKED OUT/SCARED OUT)

THEN
LET ALL MUSLIMS FROM THE WHOLE OF INDIA GO OUT OF INDIA TOO

AFTER ALL, IF INDIA HAS VAST HINDU MAJORITY, THEN WHY SHOULD THEY ALSO STAY IN INDIA. PAKSITAN CAN HAVE THEM TOO

OTHERWISE

IF HYDRABAD OR LUCKNOW ETC ETC.. HAS MUSLIMS AND THEY ARE A PART OF INDIA

THEN

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN KASHMIR BEING A PART OF INDIA

PM #376

What you are trying to imply here is that Kofi Annan and the UN organisation endorse every word and every action of each and every religious bigot in Pakistan including Hafiz Saeed and his call to kill Hindus.

Try some other lie.

#373 Ralph

We should not try to satisfy supporters of terrorism in any way. They can peddle their bizarre theories of goverment (``democracy is irrelvant``,``elections are an eyewash``) and freedom (``we are killing the kashmiris so they can be freed``) to whoever will listen to them (outside Pakistan the cardinality of this set is 0). We should respond forcefully to murder of our citizens by targetting individuals and families of those who would murder us.

We SHOULD try to ensure that our citizens are reasonably happy. This means many things, most of them have nothing to do with autonomy etc.

However, indians like Sabir Shah and others do have a strong point that autonomy was promised to the Maharaja of J&K but not properly worked through. The Mufti needs support and flexibility; there is need for a truth and reconciliation commission. None of this can happen tomorrow, but the federal goverment should clearly state its position in this space. By prevaricating and acting coy it is helping no one, least of all the indians in J&K.

re.
``There is no country in the world in which federal and state relations do not involve give and take. ``

Let`s not forget this is not just any state we`re talking about, so the argument has limited utility. For as much as Sadna would like us to believe that IOK is as Indian as say, Gujarat ;), the UN seems to think otherwise.

Oh, and before some moron throws in the POK-is-not-part of Pakistan too, well, I`ll just ask you not to jump desperately to conclusions on what my position on that might be. It`s really just makes you look desperately silly.

#357 by PM on April 7, 2003 7:19am PT

[Ok.. so lemme see if I get you: The ever growing public protests against the war, in the streets of LA, NYC, and London are acutally demonstrations of the common man`s support of and identification with their governments` foreign policy.
And I`m the one in serious need of psychiartic help? hmmm... Interesting...]

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?

[Tell you what mate... once you`re done with the customary, tired, see-how-Pakis-are-so-denigrated-by-the-US spiel, and decide you actually want to engage in debate, as opposed to escape it with your own oil-smoke tactics, we`ll get back to well, debating the issue at hand. Till then, keep performing your puja to Uncle Sam dutifully. Oh, and keep seeing me as upholder/defender of Pak foreign policy too. It would be quite un-Indian of you to do otherwise anyway. Like you said, it`s stupid to think the common man can think differently from his government? Right?

It`s you who`s trying to skirt around the issue by trying to put a clever spin on words. Regardless of the context of his statement, the bottomline is that murderers like Hafiz Saeed have no value for life: either theirs or others`. 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, or that by killing a Hindu, you can somehow exact revenge for a Muslim victim. Clearly, this man preaches exactly this kind of ideology. And if you`re trying to defend his statement by twisting and turning the context and trying to make it somehow look harmless, and then proceed to deride everybody else on this board of possessing poor comprehension skills, 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.

As regards your advice on performing puja (whatever you meant by that), coming from the land of Mush-whore-uff....amusing to say the least. You might also want to check out what the US State Attorney had to say about your countrymen when some journalists expressed surprise at Pakistan`s quick acquiescence to President Bush`s demands post 9/11. That Pakis wouldn`t hesitate to sell their mothers off for a few $$.

[(...As Rachel Corrie turns in her grave....)]

With due respect to the valiant Rachel Corrie, hers is the most pathetic example you could have chosen to come up with, especially when most of America is busy eating out of the hands of the Jewish lobby.

``Musharaff at Agra`` is how I will summarize all the arguments presented by PM and HE.

Stuka, Sadna, Pmishra, Ralph and other Indians ... please note Vajpayee`s conclusion at the end of Agra: ``No talks, period``.

These so-called defenders of Kashmiris forget that a couple of years back, when local elections were held in ``Azad`` Kashmir, JKLF leaders, prominent among them Amanullah Khan were barred from participating because they refused to sign a declaration in the nomination form that explicitly stated that they whole-heartedly supported Kashmir`s integration into Pakistan. What hypocrisy!!

pmishra2#369
Agreed that the Indian gvt needs to provide answers and solutions to J& Kashmiris. After the elections, the gvt seems have gone into a indefinite wait for an improvement in the `ground situation`, which is waiting a bit too long IMO. Of course if each of those Kashmiri leaders who show an inclination to talk, keep getting killed, thats a problem too.

re:#358 by HisExcellency
``Gandhi was never the leader of Indian freedom struggle. He was a Hindu leader who didn`t enjoy the support of Muslims and Scheduled Castes.``
Which madrassa did you go to? What is it you are smoking now-a-days?
Sridhar

pmisha2

I dont think there is any need to give any greater autonomy to Kashmir. Neither transparent elections nor autonomy will ever satisfy supporters of terrorism.

sadna

``India has ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in convincing assorted murderers and religious bigots in Pakistan about its democratic or its human rights record. These murderers and religious bigots have been getting and will continue to get Indian answers in bullets. ``

Very well put. You speak for many of us. The above is our position and we will stick to it come what may. We ABSOLUTELY feel NO need to convince some two bit terrorist like Hafiz Syed or Masood Azhar or their advocates - PM or HisFlatulence. The terrorist-advocates are slimy liars motivated solely by their psychopathic hatred (and envy) against India. We will defend every inch of our motherland from the assault of jihadi terrorists and defeat the jihad waged by terroristan.