Of Rites and Rights: An Interview with Asma Jahangir

re:#94 by HisExcellency
Speeches do not make ``policies``. But laws passed in the congress do. Read my previous post to you on the law passed whereby Bush has to certify that Pak is not using the $ 3 billion dollar dole towards militancy. That is law. Who cares for speech?
Sridhar

Ref HisExcellency #96

[However, the invasion of Junagadh and Hyderabad by Indian Army (on Patel`s orders) and refusal to accept verdict of princely rulers only highlights that India applied self-serving and inconsistent criteria to each state. In all 3 cases (Junagadh, Kashmir, Hyderabad), the Indian case was constructed after a military invasion, not before it.]

In the case of Kashmir, the Indian case was constructed after the PAKISTANI invasion of Kashmir. There is that little difference.

End of History Lesson #2.

arjun #88 i basically agree with everything you say here, and there is no inconsistency between what you say here and what i have always maintained on chowk: kashmir is not worth a single life. which implies accepting the status quo and moving forward from here to build better lives for the poor populations of both countries.

on #99, i think the point to remember is what I called the million dollar question regarding the definition of ``national interest``. I had defined it as follows: national interest is what you perceive to be your number one priority multiplied by the number of other people in the country concerned.

And it goes without saying that the number one priority of every individual is his or her own well being plus that of his or her children. (Even the head mullah of jamaat i islaami in pakistan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed knows this truth, and so has his son in the USA even as he rants about the decadent society there.).

One can differ on the most practical means to further this ``national interest``. The important thing is not to lose sight of the meaning of concept of ``national interest``. In case of Kashmir, it goes without saying that it is in pakistan`s national interest to accept the status quo.

you mention the indian national interest. i frankly am not worried about it (although as an indian you obviously should). The weight of speaking up for the national interest of 135 million people of pakistan is more than enough for one poor chowk poster like me to carry on his shoulders ;-)

HE #85

{{ The Indian Independence Act 1947 states that rulers of princely states will ascertain the wishes of their subjects before making the decision.}}

It does NOTHING of the sort.

Let me quote II (4) of the act:

“Without prejudice to the generosity of the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the accession of Indian States to either of the new Dominions.”

There is further comment in VII (1) about lapse of suzerainity of the British crown over the Indian states on the appointed day. Nothing at all about the wishes of the subjects.

HE # 96

{{ Agreed that the Indian Independence Act offered an advice (``will of the people``) and not a precondition. (Geographical contiguity was not stipulated in the act, but of course that is common sense).}}

False again. Made-up history.

If HE disagrees he is quite welcome to quote chapter and verse of the act to prove me wrong. Be advised I have access to a copy of the act, as well as some other historical documents from the period.

As for the principle of geographical contiguity it is mentioned in speeches by Mountbatten but not in the Independence Act. The “will of the people” is mentioned NOWHERE in the act, not even in the advisory sense.

HE # 75 wrote, ``Kashmiri Muslims are in a majority in J&K. Under the India Independence Act, majority populations cannot be asked to migrate.``

I am not sure I understand. Is it HE`s contention that ``Under the India Independence Act, minority populations can be asked to migrate`` ?

Ethnic cleansing of minorities cannot be justified under any circumstances. Here`s a write-up that brings out the tragedy quite graphically:

The Horizon
30th October, 1998

Self-determination Isn`t Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi

Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of our times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to verbalize his compassion and concern for fellow human beings. But the political arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use the word in a way that is a travesty of the lofty principles that had animated President Wilson and is a cruel mockery of human rights. No one can possibly be left in doubt about this once he witnesses the plight of the quarter million Kashmiri Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral home in the face of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking self-determination for the Muslims in Kashmir.

The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave the word ``self determination`` into their righteous chants in a clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal of turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination of ``their`` people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of others.

Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses its sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching orders for the rest. Ofcourse, people don`t leave their homes voluntarily. They have to be persuaded. That means killing them untill everybody gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah`s Pakistan is an example of self-determaination of this evil variety. Pakistan lived upto its name by becoming a ``cleansed land`` within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is
taking a leaf out of Jinnah`s book. Self-righteous chanters of ``self-determination`` with direct Pakistani assistance seem well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and Kashmir.

Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could be: ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security
and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.``

Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person`s self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour`s extinction. Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.

Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted ``secession`` to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must summon the courage to confront those that chant ``self-determination`` in heedless pursuit of Jinnah`s evil ideology of religious apartheid.

abay arjun_m:

when mush comes to america, you seemed to get more excited than a g.i. landing in bangkok after two year tour of duty in iraq. actually, strike this analogy cause you probably dont understand how it feels given your history. lets just say anyone who hates taxi drivers, loves paki news papers and is fascinated by mush has to be one sick person.

#90 by arjun_m

What a shmuck, this Bush dude really is! I have had up to my neck with his consistent inconsistencies. I mean for pete`s sake, he should atleast have been sensitive to the Indian viewers in his UN speech. Not a mention of India in a speech that was all about terrorism and Iraq. Hey, it seems India is irrelevant on both counts. Prime Minister Voyage-Pai and deputy goon Advani must only hope that Bush is tougher on Jamali than he was on Musharraf.

RE HE#86
``There is no definition of terrorism. One man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter. So why get into the business of arbitrary definitions of terrorism? Every definition of terrorism is essentially a subjective one.
Take your own definition for example. How can proclaiming a dress code make you a terrorist?? Conservative Muslims have a dress code. Hasaddic Jews have it. Catholics bishops, nuns and pastors have it. So do Hindu saadhus and Buddhist monks. Just because you have a prejudice against burqas and hijab doesn`t mean that you can call it an act of terrorism. ``

Great if one of the more articulate and educated interactor is taking this position then what hope do we have? People are forced to wear a particular garb because the alternative is being splashed with acid. Obviously this is not terrorism just a subtle re-education campaign and highly pursuasive one judging from the reports.

#91 by dost-mittar

Agreed that the Indian Independence Act offered an advice (``will of the people``) and not a precondition. (Geographical contiguity was not stipulated in the act, but of course that is common sense).

However, the invasion of Junagadh and Hyderabad by Indian Army (on Patel`s orders) and refusal to accept verdict of princely rulers only highlights that India applied self-serving and inconsistent criteria to each state. In all 3 cases (Junagadh, Kashmir, Hyderabad), the Indian case was constructed after a military invasion, not before it.

Above all, India`s own pledge to hold a plebiscite means that indeed the principle of self-determination for Kashmiris was accepted even by India. Problems arise because this pledge has not been honored. This is why the Kashmiri people feel betrayed by India.

Pakistan is not insisting on plebiscite as the only solution. There are a number of other possibilities that are not so drastic. The only problem is that India is:

(a) refusing to acknowledge that Kashmir is a genuine problem that needs to be solved according to wishes of Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Indians; and

(b) not realizing the extremely dangerous mixture of nuclearization, Hindu/Muslim fundamentalism, human rights violations, lack of dialogue process and fanatical Jihadis in South Asia.

Solutions are only found when governments and people adopt a middle ground instead of a hardline. Failure to find a solution will hurt both India and Pakistan (although some interactors here naively believe otherwise).

HE:
[The Indian Independence Act 1947 states that rulers of princely states will ascertain the wishes of their subjects before making the decision. ]
It was a bit more nuanced than that. The princely states were told that they had the right to join either of the dominions or remain independent, but in choosing a dominion they should take into consideration the geographic contiguity and the will of the people. There was no mandatory requirement for them to do so.
Indeed, the British could do nothing more than advise the princely states as to what they should do. In freeing them from British suzereignty, they had turned princely states into sovereign states and could not tell them what to do.
Jinnah accepted this position. This is why he was only concerned with obtaining the consent of the Maharaja of Kashmir and not interested in talking to Sheikh Abdullah, by far the most popular leader at that time. This was also the reason why Pakistan laid claim to Hyderabad and Junagarh, which had a Hindu majority.

++
Any movement that deliberately targets civilians, endorses acid-throwing on girls, and proclaims a dress code to be followed by others is, by definition, a terrorist movement
++

There is no definition of terrorism. One man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter. So why get into the business of arbitrary definitions of terrorism? Every definition of terrorism is essentially a subjective one.

Take your own definition for example. How can proclaiming a dress code make you a terrorist?? Conservative Muslims have a dress code. Hasaddic Jews have it. Catholics bishops, nuns and pastors have it. So do Hindu saadhus and Buddhist monks. Just because you have a prejudice against burqas and hijab doesn`t mean that you can call it an act of terrorism.

#81 by sigalph235

++
And I am someone who has long supported, and continute to do so now, the right of plebiscite for ALL of J&K (yes, that includes the misnomer `Azad` Kashmir).
++

I am glad to hear that at least some Indians are not afraid of the ``P`` word. One plebiscite can settle an issue that dozens of sham elections, wars, Chenab formulas and bus yatras could not solve. But I am afraid that once you realize how pro-Pakistan the sentiment is in ``Azad Kashmir`` as well as Indian-occuped Kashmir, you will also develop a phobia for the ``P`` word like Mr.Nehru and all Indian politicians after him.

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

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

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

#78 by arjun_m

++
Umm...It was left to the ruler to decide and the hindu ruler decided in India`s favor...IF you have any dispute, it should be over hyderabad...we can hold a plebiscite there if you want..
++

Nope dude... The Indian Independence Act 1947 states that rulers of princely states will ascertain the wishes of their subjects before making the decision.