Of Rites and Rights: An Interview with Asma Jahangir

kashmir should be united like baluchistan, like pakthoonistan and like sindh after throwing out illegally settled retired punjabi military officers from their place.
gwadar should be given to marri or a mengal. is it okay for all punjabi mundas!? pakistan has made fun of us, saying we mishandled kashmir, what about the mohajirs, sindhis, baluchis and pashtun`s, do they not have greviances against the federation? apart from,some political sympathies we never tried to make an issue of allof it.today at a time when pakistan grieves, we keep quiet, bb`s speeches, aggravating kashmiri secession, is not forgotten by us, but we knew she was helpless. we gave autonomy tokashmir, tillthis day no indian can buy land in kashmir,this despite the fact that 350,000 pundits were thrown out of the valley, can the same be said of your side of kashmir? the ethnicity of pakistani kashmir has been altered in the past 50 yrs by massive migration from punjabi plains. in short all ihave to say is people who live in glass houses cannot throw stones at each other.

Thanks for the post. We are all concerned about the Khurafaat of the madarsa jihadis and the ISI who are the real parasites of the Pakistani society and have to be contained by the moderates in PAkistan before they start assasinating the moderates openly.

#162 by mumbaikar on October 1, 2003 12:36pm PT
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript236_full.html

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

...will pakis ever stop crying over kashmir and wake up to reality?...

plats8

...no need to apologise...have a feeling here on I/P interacts the readers would like to know who is lobbing the grenades...one of us or one of them;)...zakhmi tO hona hay, laikin kis ki gooli say!...

...t

Required: Balance in the reaction of Pakistanis towards India...

Either the Pakistanis hate India to the extent that they want to nuke it or they are ready to lick the feet of the Indians...

Maybe this is disappointing for the toe-lickers but Asma Jehangir doesn`t fit into either category... that is why her credibility remains higher than pseudo-self styled variety of liberals.

Stuka #148,

Well, the Pakistani restaurant at College Park was a favourite haunt of mine -
good, cheap food served quickly. The clientele tends to cut across nationalities.
I don`t remember the introspection comment - if I did, would like to apologise.
However, I am from India.

India`s endgame in Kashmir is that it will continue to keep the army in Kashmir as long as it takes the Pakistani army to take pity on Kashmiris or on their own population. Indians are not looking forward to the next 20 years or 30 years but to the next 50 or 100 years.

Independence of Kashmir has no support either in India or in Pakistan. Pakistanis are committed to grabbing Kashmir. And Indians have seen what has happened to `azad` Kashmir. The idea of Kashmiri independence is dying within Kashmir as well, with the active help of a certain unnamed country.

But it is refreshing to see Romair extend his time frame to the next 20 years. I could find his earlier posts a few years ago when he excitedly awaited Kashmir`s separation from India over the next 3 to 5 years.

:)

stuka #148 agreed that insurgents cannot be expected to fight like gentlemen. but the ones tossing bombs in kashmir dont fight like an average man either - how low does a man have to be before he will strike a woman, for example? and these individuals not just attack women, they attack them with weapons and bombs and acid. and i realize they claim to be on ``our`` (pakistani) side, but they are no more on ``my`` side than a common killer.

in any case, the time for wars in south asia - by gentlemen or by lowlife - ended in south asia the day the first nuclear bomb was tested. insurgencies dont change national boundries, they just kill people. and nuclear weapons have checkmated (lets hope) the chance of a full scale war. time to look at more interesting stuff offered by the future than land disputes.

Pak population will swell to 349m by 2050

By Syed Asif Ali
and Muddassir Rizvi

KARACHI/ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s population will swell to 349 million by year 2050, making it the fourth most populated country in the world, cautions a Washington-based population monitoring group.

According to the latest report of the Population Reference Bureau, which has been providing timely and objective information on the US and international population trends and their implications for the last 70 years to policymakers globally, Pakistan and ``much of the world is challenged by skewed population growth rates``.

The Bureau projects India will become the world’s most populated country with 1,628 million people by 2050, tailed closely by China with 1,394 million. The US will increase its population from the existing 292 million to 422 in the next 43 years, while Indonesia, with the current population of 220 million, will grow by 94 million during the same period.

The Bureau’s 2003 world population data sheet puts Pakistan’s existing population at 149 million, the sixth largest in the world. According to the Pakistani government, the country was seventh population-wise globally in 2001 with 142.5 million people.

``The pace of population growth inexorably affects markets, capital accumulation, labour availability, job creation, immigration, migration, healthcare, retirement benefits, education and a host of other national considerations,`` the Bureau says.

However, officials in the Pakistani government disagree with the Bureau’s projection, saying it is rather on the higher side and does not take into account the expected slowdown in the population growth rate in the coming years. One of the official surveys last year said that if the same pace of the population continued, it would double during the next 33 years.

However, the government officials agree that increasing population at the rate of 2.06 per cent every year is indeed an issue that merits political commitment and matching actions. ``The government has been running a population planning programme for the last 40 years, but the current population growth rate still stands at around 2.1 per cent, which is quite high,`` commented Mahbubul Sultan, officiating Director of the National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS).

The NIPS director minced no words in declaring that the ongoing efforts to curtail the rising population are inadequate. ``But this has more to do with issues of implementation, institutional weakness and lack of commitment in the field staff in the absence of rewards and promotions,`` said Sultan, without censuring the approach of the government’s intervention.

However, he suggested that the horizontal and vertical linkages of the population-planning programme with other public sector service delivery systems, particularly health care, would give it the required boost and increase its coverage. ``Essentially, population planning is a multi-sectoral programme, but unfortunately in Pakistan its implementation is limited to provincial population welfare departments. Only a holistic approach towards the programme and its implementation would yield the required results,`` he said.

According to official estimates, the existing 1,600 family welfare centres provide coverage to a bit over 50 per cent of the country. Although 97 per cent of the people know family planning, only 33 per cent of the women in childbearing age (15-49 years) are using some form of contraceptives.

According to one of the NIPS surveys, 33 per cent women between the ages of 15 and 49 years do not want a child, but are not using any contraceptives. The major factor of high growth rate, according to population experts, is the high fertility rate. Currently, over 40 per cent population is below 15 years of age and about 22 per cent are females in the reproductive age, a figure that is likely to increase. ``Such age structure has a built-in momentum for future population growth,`` observed the Centre for Research on Poverty Reduction and Income Distribution (CRPRID), an autonomous body set up in January 2002 and housed in the Planning Commission, in one of its reports earlier this year.

The centre said that the prevalence of modern contraception was still very low and both actual and desired fertility levels were very high. ``Exceptionally, Pakistan has a large magnitude of unmet needs. In this situation, the implications are obvious for the country; by meeting the unmet needs, on one hand, it can accelerate the decline in fertility, and on the other hand, face grim consequences by ignoring the seriousness of the problem,`` the centre observed.

An exceptionally high population growth already has its impacts on the country in the form of rampant poverty in the absence of adequate policy responses to improve the situation. The population growth has caused an eight-time increase in the unemployment ratio during the last 30 years.

With almost one third of the population living in abject poverty, 54 million people do not have access to safe drinking water; 55 million people are living in one-room houses; 17 million are the residents of Katchi Abadis in urban areas; 74 million are living without sanitation facilities; and 53.5 million are illiterates. The population explosion has led to the shortage of educational facilities, health services, housing units, food, living space, arable land and clean water.

The government now hopes to bring down the population growth rate to 1.8 per cent per annum by the year 2004 as part of the objectives set by its Population Policy and Interim Population Sector Perspective Plan 2012.

While the policy sets a broad framework and provides futuristic vision to achieve the ultimate aim of reducing poverty and raising the quality of life of the common man, and the plan 2012 addresses various dimensions of population issues in an informed, voluntary and coordinated manner by government, NGOs, private sector and civil society.

The plan 2012 has five time-bound objectives: decrease the population growth rate to 1.82 per cent in 2004 and 1.6 per cent by 2012; achieve a replacement level of fertility (2.1) by the year 2020; increase contraceptive prevalence rate to 43 per cent in 2004 and to 57 per cent in 2012; increase population planning programme coverage to 76 per cent in 2004 and 100 per cent by the 2010; sustain increase in ``age at marriage`` of girls and ensure a reduction in population momentum through delay in marriage, and fertility decline and changes in birth spacing patterns, which should reduce proportion of under 15 population from 40 per cent to 30 per cent.

However, government officials say little is being done to rope in, for example, the health delivery system in expanding the coverage of the population planning programmes. Similarly, the Ministry of Population Welfare’s initiative to engage district Nazmeen and other local level leaders to boost the effort at the grassroots level did not yield much.

Against this backdrop, the population continues to rise, and so do issues arising out of the population-resources gap. ``Have and have-not nations live in totally different worlds...but they are all shaped by their rate of growth. What constitutes balanced population growth remains for each nation to decide and is a question of endless debate,`` says the Washington-based Bureau.

An astounding 99 per cent of all population growth takes place in developing countries. ``Developed countries, which held roughly one-third population in 1950, now represent less than one-fifth of the total - and the percentage will fall annually,`` the Bureau said.

With six babies adding to the population every minute, the looming socio-economic nightmare becomes all the more frightful for the debt-ridden Pakistani nation. Experts too paint a dreadful picture.

``The continuity of the trend means shortage of educational facilities, health services, food, clean water, living space, housing units, arable land, depletion of natural resources, as well as increase in poverty, unemployment, crime, unrest, environmental problems, congestion in households, land fragmentation, etc,`` said Dr Rehana Ahmed, Chief Executive, Greenstar Social Marketing, one of the most active NGOs in the field, while talking to The News in Karachi.

The government does appear alive to the gravity of the situation and is making efforts for taming the population monster, which is devastating the whole socio-economic structure of the country, sharing 2.36 per cent of the world population.

``If not controlled timely, the population bomb will explode any time. We are well aware of it and have been taking practical steps for tackling the situation,`` said Imtiaz Shaikh, Sindh Minister for Population Welfare.

``On the directives of President Musharraf, the central and provincial governments have laid special emphasis on measures for containing the population boom and raising the awareness level. And the result is that we have overreached the target of 2.1 per cent growth rate for the current year and will, God willing, achieve the 1.9 per cent national target, set for the year 2004,`` he claimed.

In her comments on the issue, Dr Rehana said: ``I believe awareness is there, but it is superficial. People do have information about family planning, but they don’t know who are the concerned persons, how to reach them, how much is the cost, etc. They are also not properly aware of the benefits involved.``

Describing the government as both ``practical`` and ``supportive`` in its approach towards family planning, she said the government did reduce the growth rate target to 2.06 in 2003 from 3.66 per cent in 1961-72, but ``it should do more of what is being done currently.``

She said that Pakistan’s resource generation was not at par with the population growth, ``which is undermining our growth in every sector.``

``This high population growth rate has almost neutralised all efforts aimed at socio-economic progress in the country and jeopardised development planning, and more so implementation. As a result the nation is deprived of even the basic civic facilities like education, health, housing, etc,`` she said.

According to Dr Rehana, about 30 per cent of the Pakistanis live below the poverty line; country’s population per doctor is 1,466, per nurse 3,347 and per hospital bed 1,517; there are only 170,000 primary schools in the country.

She believed that the situation had particularly affected the youth. ``This is evident from the eight times increase in the unemployment rate — from 0.4 per cent in 1970-71 to 3.3 currently,`` she added.

``The government has limited resources, limited budget; it can’t undertake the task alone. Partners like NGOs, social marketing organisations, private practitioners will have to collaborate,`` said Dr Rehana. The population minister too believes that ``the government efforts for taming the population monster need the support of private partners.``

Romair:

``Where does it see Kashmir twenty years from now? Is it planning on keeping hundreds of thousands of troops there for the next few decades? ``

Good question. And the answer is yes.

re: Field Marshal`s ramblings
Hey, Field Marshal Romair.
Take a break, will you. Go and smoke some cocaine or marijuana or whatever it is you used to smoke. You were more logical when you smoked.
Sridhar

Ref Field Marshal Hotair #150

[The other strange part is the lack of Indias` endgame in Kashmir. Where does it see Kashmir twenty years from now? Is it planning on keeping hundreds of thousands of troops there for the next few decades?]

Actually, that`s what the Kashmiris would very much like. The money that the Indian soldiers spend in the Valley and the money spent on visiting politicians and military bigwigs have hooked the local businessmen to such an extent that they are all enjoying the current situation. So what if a couple of shoppers get killed daily in the vegetable market in Srinagar when the guys running the nice hotels stand to make so much money?

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

hamidm2 #144: ``............ i never said kashmir should be united with pakistan .......... i said kashmir should be reunited like korea and germany and taiwan .......... there is a big difference .......... .......i just can`t wait to read another long post from romair .......... don`t you think this stuff is getting rather stale?``

:-) Actually, I agree with everything you have stated. I have been saying the same thing for a long time. I don`t think Kashmir should be reunited with Pakistan either, since India would never agree to that, thus making the solution impractical. I am even willing to accept a Kashmir united with India, provided the Kashmiris vote that way. That would make me an Indian, since on Indian maps, Pakistan Kashmir belongs to India.

I also don`t think there is a military solution for Kashmir, from the Indian or Pakistani side. Hence it is useless to fight it out in places like Kargil and Siachen. And even more useless to fight it out in places like Wagah and Kutch.

There were a couple of solutions for the Kashmir problem on BBC site, as well as on the Kashmir study group site. I think the best one, that would be acceptable to everyone, would be: Pakistan keeps Azad Kashmir, India keeps Jammu and Ladakh (or close to all of it), and the Valley becomes independent, with open borders to India and Pakistan, with internationally enforced treaties on issues like water, rivers etc. This would result in a tiny area of a few thousand sq. miles becoming an indepdent country. Interestingly, this is inline with the voting patterns of those areas.

One would be barely able to spot the independent Kashmir, on the map. No one in the world would blink an eylid. Just like no one blinked when East Timor became independent. It would result in no change in lifestyles for arjun_m, Jay, dost-mittar, shankar, stuka etc. If anything, they would be much more welcomed there, than they are now.

I have never been able to figure out, why Indians do not agree to that. I think they just hate Pakistan too much, to agree. Indians could continue to hate Pakistan, and still agree to the above solution. After all, Pakistanis can continue to hate India, yet still are willing to agree to the above (or to some version of the above).

The total number of Indian soldiers killed in Kashmir now must be in the thousands. One American soldier gets killed in Iraq, and Bush`s rating goes down another point or two. So many more Indian soldiers are getting killed unnecessarily in Kashmir, and it does not affect anyone in India.

As long as the situation on Kashmir does not approve, the more extremist groups on both sides will be able to control the politics. If the military govt. (and Maulana Fazl, as head of MMA) have agreed to the above solution, then why doesn`t India agree?

The other strange part is the lack of Indias` endgame in Kashmir. Where does it see Kashmir twenty years from now? Is it planning on keeping hundreds of thousands of troops there for the next few decades?

TAhmed:

``But that was another kind of a war where the Pakistan army fought like men. Not like a bunch of cowardly killers of innocent hindu and sick villagers, as the terrorists have been doing. ``

You are talking about a war fought like gentlemen, without bitterness and hatred. Insurgency is another kind of war, much dirtier and leaves no room for nobility.

Back in 1965, a captured PAF officer would be taken to the mess for a drink before taking him to camp. Ofcourse, in those days Ii think Pakistanis were more open about drinking as well.

Plats8:

Well, you mentioned a Pakistani restaurant one time...

And also, you said Iindians seem to be incapable of introspection in some context, don`t remember which..I had assumed you are Pakistani.

hamidm2 #144 I am with you 100 percent on this one.

The Pakistan Army has had two chances (1948, 1965) and they but they lost. I shall always remain proud of the fact I mentioned before on chowk that it was a relative of mine - maternal uncle - who commanded the tank regiment that spearheaded the attack at Chhamb, did the initial breakthrough past their concrete bunkers and chased them over hill and dale and across the river Tawi and to Jaurian and kept them running until ordered to stop as India got ready to attack Pakistan proper and these people had to move. But that was another kind of a war where the Pakistan army fought like men. Not like a bunch of cowardly killers of innocent hindu and sick villagers, as the terrorists have been doing.

So, now I say - it is no longer worth it. Been there, done that.

And, as you say, with the passage of time people will wonder what all this fuss over kashmir was about. LIke the alsace-lorraine province between france and germany that spilt so much blood in the 19th century.

We need to get over it, and focus on educating our people.

PM

...roger...want to meet area chowkies?

Stuka, I am really a bit baffled here. Why are you surprised to know that I am
not Pakistani ?

tahmed,

............ i never said kashmir should be united with pakistan .......... i said kashmir should be reunited like korea and germany and taiwan .......... there is a big difference ..........

............ personally i am for peace and all the other good stuff, but that does not necessarily mean that pakis have to roll over and let the horrible hindoos have their way ........... a little pride and some self-respect is in order ..........and to tell you the truth, if i thought the paki army was capable of doing it, i would be all for marching into srinagar - but since that is not possible, there is no point in huffing and puffing about it .......... it just makes you look silly and distracts from the real issues................and who knows, in another generation people on both sides might not even care about what happens to the dang kashmiris ................in the meantime you can still keep the ``issue`` alive and fuss about it at the united nations once in a while without loosing any sleep over it ......... spain has still not given up on gibraltar but i don`t think they are about to send suicide bombers to trafalgar square .......... what i don`t like is that we seem to be consumed with the kashmir issue while the military is sticking it to us and the mullahs are about to shove god down our throats ..............

.......i just can`t wait to read another long post from romair .......... don`t you think this stuff is getting rather stale?

..in context of the Pakistani establishment I mean. Public opinion of Pakistanis seems to be very fragmented.

plats8:

You are not Pakistani then? Your questions seem to be too uncomfortable.

ATTN temporal:
No response from your chowk addy.
Will be in Islington area Sun night. Please email if interested. youkowmyaddy@yahoo :)

Sigalph,

So what is your impression of the public opinion in ``Azad`` Kashmir ?
The Indian army surely indulges in gruesome violence in Kashmir, but
sometimes I wonder what someone like Hafez Assad would do to the Jihadis
in Kashmir, and what the official Pakistani response to that would be. I bet we
would see some sublime spin-doctoring.

stuka #131 Flattery will get you far in this world (``your post is best``). You are welcome to my home anytime, with or without flattery.

Arjun:


You are saying the same thing as me. Though Tancredo is a Republican, the push is coming from unions who would also coopt Democrats if required. I don`t discount Vote Banks though. Campaign contributions mean diddly if you alienate your base vote. Remember the ``Reagen Democrats`` ?

Arjun

No. I am saying that India was peripheral at best. Regardless, it did try its best with the India caucus to tie in safeguards and in that it succeeded. But that should have been factored in by Pakistan even before they came to the states.

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

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

His Excellency:

``I thought democrats wanted to extricate America from international conflicts and focus on a stronger domestic policy.``

Not true. Democrats have traditionally been outward looking based on values. Republicans are outward looking in terms of national interest.

`` Over the last decade, democrats have followed pro-active domestic policies and inert foreign policies. ``

Clinton`s involvement...from what I remember..included Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, continued bombing of Iraq with sanctions etc. Only diff is that he was very careful to fight media friendly wars. Also, in neither of the above cases were American interests directly threatened or involved. Bbut, they either created problems (Somalia) or postponed them (Iraq)




``If my reading is correct, then the U.S. economy will rebound under a democratic president, ``

I don`t think the economy in general is affected by those elected to political power at the time. Regardless of whover is elected, if the Chinese economy falters and they stop their current financing of the American deficit (as they do know bu buying US Govt bonds) the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates thus threatening economic recovery regardless of whosoever is president. This is just a scenario...point is economy is affected by multiple unknown factors.

``H-1B visa quotas will expand,``

The biggest opposition to H1Bs is from unions..a democrat vote bank.

`` American involvement in Middle East will decrease and the U.S. will gradually relinquish control of Iraq. In addition, the American facilitation/shadow diplomacy in Kashmir will also end. Ultimately, this hands-off approach will benefit the Israelis and Indians. ``

The Israelis might lose out because Democrats are far more sensitive to human rights compared to Republicans who use it as a tool and not much more. OTOH, as far as Kashmir is concerned, American involvement is negligible beyond asking Pakistan to stop CBT and asking India to hold talks. That will carry on in a Democrat admin as well..

My original point was that a Dem admin will be irritating to both Indian and Pakistani establishments. The Democrats will give more headache to Musharaaf on reforms etc, making him crack down on more than he is willing to. India will face a problem in weapo acquisition and additional pressure on talks with Pakistan.

Basically, Americans wanting to do good are more dangerous for the establishments of other countries compared to Americans wanting self interest.

Do you disagree with this analysis??

re HE # 87 and 86

I am not an Indian by any stretch. I have been to Azad Kashmir so I know a thing or two about the `overwhelming` pro-Pakistan sentiment there.

Terror apologists always use the canard that the definition of terrorism is subjective. Not quite, as the world is coming to realize now. Individuals and groups who deliberately target civilians are terrorists no matter what the cause, what the issue, and where the place. And the root cause of terrorism is terrorists, as John Howard so memorably said.

Arjun

``refusal to sell F-16s is policy,``

And it is good policy too.


``not increasing textile quotas substantially,``

And that is bad policy.

Pakistan has not been compensated enough in an economic sense. I don`t blame India for trying to screw up the deal because currently India and Pakistan operate in a zero sum environment, but I do feel the US has been insensitive towards Pakistan in helping where it can and also where the help would do much more good.

Infact the textile quotas by themselves would be more helpful then a $3 Billion loan.

I also blame Musharraf for being an idiot in the sense that he is wasting his political/diplomatic capital on points that have no chance of success (NSEERS, F 16S) rather than the one or two specifics which would have succeeded (Textile quota elimination for Pakistan, Aid tied to infrastructure building)

What leads me to disrespect the Pakistani team and Mush is they had no clue about the current thinking in the US and wasted time in asking for stuff that any sensible Pakistani American could have told them that the F 16s would not be sold or that NSEERS was not a Pakistan specific measure.

TAhmed:

Your post is the best. So when are you inviting me for home cooked Pakistani food??

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

I agree. Great post.
#123 by tahmed32 on September 25, 2003 9:03am PT

So was.
#124 by rsridhar on September 25, 2003 9:03am PT
re: Mushy`s wet dreams . The mushy guy is a crazed General with dimag ghutne mein. Sab logo ko chutia bana raha hai.

hamidm2 #111 why do you talk about being reunited with the kashmiris in the future? it isnt like there is a pool of Phds and philosophers and investors and entrepreneurs sitting there. We had a kashmiri guy who would come by weekly to clean the house, and it turned out that all the while he was busy cleaning up other things too. like coins, dollar bills, jewellry, kid watches. Now, i dont wish to hold his deeds as representing that of the kashmiri people, but it does illustrate my point, which is: isnt 135 million starving people enough for pakistan? why add another god knows how many million kashmiris as well (sorry, capital G on God - dont mean to get sattar2 or urstruly upset).

#107 by stuka

++
I think Bush is going to be in deep political trouble. The only chance of his being reelected is if there is another major terrorist attack from now to Nov 2004.
++

I agree with that.

++
However, from a foreign policy issue, a Demcrat president will be bad news for India and Pakistan (establishments)
++

I thought democrats wanted to extricate America from international conflicts and focus on a stronger domestic policy. Over the last decade, democrats have followed pro-active domestic policies and inert foreign policies. If my reading is correct, then the U.S. economy will rebound under a democratic president, H-1B visa quotas will expand, civil liberties will also be restored (to some extent), American involvement in Middle East will decrease and the U.S. will gradually relinquish control of Iraq. In addition, the American facilitation/shadow diplomacy in Kashmir will also end. Ultimately, this hands-off approach will benefit the Israelis and Indians.

Do you disagree with this analysis??

...pakis are driving their country into the ground over kashmir...good work kids...

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

stuka #109: you write ``You are taking the narrow view of land as economic resource only. You are ignoring the impact of reorgainizing borders on a country`s internal body politic. ``

I am not sure what you mean here. What for example do you think would be the impact on pakistan`s ``internal body politic`` of incorporating indian kashmir (or held kashmir, as we say in pakistan) within its borders? My own sense is - nothing. We ``lost`` bangal and nothing happended as far as the average pakistani is concerned - if anything, everybody`s blood pressure came down about 5 points because now we did not have bengali news and bengali lessons thrust on us on prime time on TV. I think the bengaldeshis blood pressure also came down 5 points a bit, now that they did not have urdu being thrust on them.

I just think we pay too much homage to this mythical creature called the ``state``, and too little homage to this very real creature - the individual. If we really care for the kashmiris, we should see what their interest is as individuals - which is to live peaceful and prosperous lives. Whether it is under one piece of rag (the Indian flag) or another piece of rag (the Pakistani flag) it does not matter.

re: Mushy`s wet dreams
A$$HOLE numero uno says democracy is thriving in Pakistan:

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=317849
Sridhar

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

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

Aleph Null:

``What is clear is that physical possession by Pakistan of Indian Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh would absolutely deny India the ability to divert any portion of the flow originating in those areas.``

Well that ofcourse is unthinkable. :) I did not even consider that scenario.

Aleph Null:

Oh yeah, it was a simplistic assesment based on looking at the maps I could locate, but it is also based on additional knowledge that I do have specifically about the Chenab. The Chenab has it source as well as bulk water flow outside the valley.

Also, if the water treaty has continued for these many years, I don`t really see it as a causative factor of the Kashmir issue.

Alephnull#114
[Whatever Asma Jehangir’s stature, the attitude she espouses here is wrong. ]

I dont think Asma is ``espousing`` this attitude. She is simply expressing this attitude which, whether right or wrong, is undeniably present.


HE#96
Others have already responded to you. All I can add is that neither India nor Pakistan stood/stands on a high moral ground. Neither do Kashmiri Muslims. Any moral right they had to self-determination was lost when they ethnically cleansed their Kashmiri brothers (not only from the valley but also from the POK. POK had thousands of hindus and sikhs when it came under Pak occupation!). Lofty terms like the right of self-determination are only applicable to civilized people who do not indulge in ethnic cleansing.

Harimou:
[On the other hand, NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH has ever VOLUNTARILY embraced Islam.]
Your posts are generally quite rational, but this is one of the most irrational statements I have seen. Americans from Mohammad Ali down have been embracing Islam voluntarily on a daily basis. In India, too, there are several women who have chosen to marry a Muslim and embrace his religion voluntarily. You can wonder why on earth they would do such a thing, but they do!

Asma Jehangir says (from the interview):

“But where India fails us is their own domestic policies of promoting intolerance towards the religious minorities. It would be foolish to say that what happened in Gujarat doesn’t leave a bad taste in the mouth here. It is their country and it is their domestic affair, but it just shows that there is this bitterness in the region and it will be looked at in an emotional way in Pakistan. And it’s not necessary that because you’re a Muslim you’re looking at it in that way but the fact that this is what is happening to religious minorities in India, which prides itself in being secular, it gives a set back to secularists in our country…”

Whatever Asma Jehangir’s stature, the attitude she espouses here is wrong.

If India does not act in good faith to protect its law-abiding citizens from violence, irrespective of their religion or any other attributes – and does not act effectively to forestall or punish law-breakers and perpetrators of violence, irrespective of what group they might belong to – it is Indians’ collective national funeral.

Equal protection of all Indian citizens is something that Indians owe themselves, for their own good. It is not something due to Pakistan or Pakistanis. Pakistan is a separate sovereign nation, to whom India and Indians owe nothing. What Pakistanis do to each other on their own soil is their own affair and should not be used as a reference point or justification for any actions by Indians in India. And the same ought to hold for Pakistan and all other countries.

I reproduce my earlier post on the report by Anwar Ali. A must read for the ignorant Paki Islamists.
Kashmir and Indian Muslims
By Anwar Ali
A seminar was organized in Saharanpur recently by the local branch of ‘Milli Talimi Trust’. The topic of the seminar was ‘Role of Ulama in the War of Independence’. Many good speeches were delivered and crusading spirit and high moral characters of ulama of the past were emphasized.

But an important question that arises is ‘Will the ulama of the present day, specially those invited for this seminar and other prominent ulama whose names were included in the invitation follow the examples of previous ulama?’

Among the ulama of the past, two are great generals of the war of independence viz Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani. For the present and under the existing circumstances the two most important problems for the future of Muslims are Hindu-Muslim problem and Kashmir problem and for both these problems the thoughts and activities of these great ulama are very important.

Maulana Azad wrote in his paper Al-Hilal in 1912 and subsequently said in his presidential address in the Khilafat conference at Agra in 1921 about Hindu Muslim problem and ‘the problem of nationality.

‘Hindu-Muslim unity is essential for India’s deliverance or freedom and also for Muslims to give their best performance in India. This is my belief which I have already declared in 1912 in the first issue of Al-Hilal. It is the religious duty of Indian Muslims to forge the bond of love in all sincerity with Hindus of India and become one nation along with them. They should mix up with twenty-two crore Hindus of India in such a way as to become one nation of India. Muslims of India will give their best performance when they will become one with Hindus’. (Ref. Khutbat-e Khilafat, pp. 87-88 ‘Marsia’ Prof. Mahmood Ilahi, Publisher: Urdu Academy, Lucknow).

In this way the late Maulana Azad induced Muslims in order to adopt the political principle of ‘Indian United Nationality’. This political belief of his is as important even now as it was during the days of Khilafat movement.

Sheikhul Islam Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani has described in detail this principle of ‘United Nationality of India’ in his famous work ‘United Nationality and Islam’. The political theory presented by him in this book in brief is: ‘Nations are built with motherland not with religion. This is to say, the basis of nationality is motherland. The Indian peninsula, with the Himalayas in the north, Indian Ocean in the South, Bay of Bengal and Arakan hills in the east and surrounded by Arabian Sea in the west is a geographical national unit, and its inhabitants, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians form one ‘United Indian nation’. This principle of united nationality or nationhood is the basis of Constitution of India and the soul of the principle of secularism.

Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was formerly, during a major part of his political career, was a believer in this principle and took pride in calling himself a disciple of Gokhle. Later on (after 1934) he became a standard bearer and champion of separate nationality and two-nation theory. The hero of Sarojini Naidu and the ‘ambassador of Hindi-Muslim unity’ got the country partitioned. But in his first speech of 14 August 1947, which he delivered in the inaugural session of Pakistan’s Legislative Assembly. He abandoned the two-nation theory and openly presented the theory of United Pakistan Nationhood’. He presented a blueprint of a secular, democratic and progressive Pakistan where in all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians will be free and independent Pakistani citizens.

In short, the basis of a bright future of India (including Pakistan and Bangladesh as well) is the theory of united nationhood. Same was the theory or concept of the crusading ulama of freedom as well.

The Muslim mind projected by Maulana Azad and Rafi Ahmad Qidwai about the Kashmir problem was the same concept of united nationhood. Having faith in the same concept Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was a strong champion of Kashmir’s accession to India and he described the accession as final.

And now, voices are being raised that the Kashmir Valley should be declared an independent territory and the Kashmir problem should be solved in this way. The Sangh ‘Parivar’, which believes and is working for a ‘separate nation of Hindus’ in accordance with the political ideology of Hindu Mahasabha and Jan Sangh calls Muslims as ‘they’ and Hindus as ‘we’. If Kashmir is divided and this problem is proposed to be solved by declaring Jammu (Hindu), Laddakh (Buddhist) and Kashmir Valley (Muslim) as regional units, this solution will have an adverse effect on the future of Muslims of India. Ismat Jahangir, head of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, in an interview to The Times of India correspondent expressed the fear that such a solution may result in Hindu backlash and even the security forces will not be able to control their feelings of ‘Hindutva’.

It is now the need of the hour that the ulama associated with Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind following in the footsteps of their predecessors and other ulama associated with Milli Council, Muslim Personal Law Board, Imam Bokhari, Sayed Shahabuddin and other intellectuals and important personalities should come forward to lead the Muslims. They should take practical steps following those of Maulana Azad and Rafi Ahmad Qidwai and in support of Sheikh Abdullah’s stand. They should also declare in loud and clear words that Muslims should also be included in any talks regarding Kashmir problem and that no solution of Kashmir problems will be acceptable without inclusion of Indian Muslims and that the problem of Kashmir should be solved on the basis of united Indian nationhood.

Let us hope that the organizers, ulama and others participating in the Saharanpur seminar will issue statements in detail and impress upon their central leaders to leave aside their political and other differences and unanimously declare that Indian Muslims believe in ‘united Indian nationhood’ of their founding predecessors and that solution of Kashmir problem will not be acceptable at the cost of ‘United Indian nationhood’. (Translated from Urdu) 
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01082002/01082002049.htm

Regarding #55 by HisExcellency on September 24, 2003 9:05am PT

``the Pakistani elites are the worst enemies of Indian Muslims....``
Oh! I forgot to add that the Pakistani elites are the worst enemies of their own people as well.
The General and his military elites have ensured that they remain relevant to the US by raising the spectare of Nuclear conflagration, war, terrorism and to the Pakistani public by making Kashmir the central and core issue to Pakistan`s nationhood (the unfinished business of two nation theory). He has ensured his survival for another decade and I doubt anyone will be able to unthrone him now. Pakistan will always remain under the tinpot despots for quite some time.

Regarding most of the immigrants becoming successful business people (perhaps dukandaars) is to taken with a pich of salt. In fact, most of the second generation Pakistanis care two hoots for Pakistan.

````To the contrary, Pakistan is highlighting the atrocities commited against Indian Muslims.......``

By what right Pakistan is speaking for the Indian muslims ?- this political ploy has been rejected by India muslims- they want Pakistan to mind its own muslims (if they can do it competently) and should not incite Indian muslims by recruiting the ignorant through ISI to kill its own bretheren. The Indian muslims do not want Pakistan to create an impression that they support the two nation theorists and re-affirm that they want to stay and adopt a secular Indian Constitution rathar than a fantasy land whose constitution itself is under dispute.

``That`s a confusing statement. ...``
I thought the conclusion was evident- ``Buzz - off`` and think about your own dismal future in your Pure-Land than try to pontificate on my problems in India.

Read on this report for a better understanding of Indian Muslim`s viewpoint than trying to speak for them without invitation:


````MPs` team sees change in mindset

By B. Muralidhar Reddy

ISLAMABAD June 24. The first Indian parliamentary delegation to visit Pakistan after the Kargil conflict is returning home with impressions of ``fundamental changes`` in the mindset of various sections of Pakistani society vis-a-vis India.

......................................
Mr. Siddiqui said he was intrigued by the people`s apathy towards jehad.

``
``In the past, whenever I mentioned Indian Muslims I was not allowed to speak. This time not only people are listening but they are also appreciating my point that Indian Muslims are a crucial part of the Indian secular fabric. And the Indian secular fabric is inextricably linked to a solution to the Kashmir issue``, he said.

He said in private people admitted that Pakistan cannot ignore the interests of the 18-crore Muslims of India for the sake of one-crore Kashmiri Muslims.
.............................
``.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/06/25/stories/2003062505681200.htm

Stuka #106

{{The first shows the Jhelum and the second shows the Chenab and the Indus. The first two originate from Jammu and the Indus actually originates in Himachal.

Therefore, water is not the issue because Pakistan has been hankering after the valley and that still leaves India in possession of the original points of all rivers….}}

I suspect this reasoning is simplistic. A great river may have a designated source – typically in a glacier or glacial lake, if snow-fed – but it invariably has multiple tributaries and drains water from its entire catchment area, whether obtained from snowmelt or rainfall. For instance, I would guess that, although the Brahmaputra originates in Tibet, the majority of its flow is obtained from rainfall in India’s North-East, on our side of the Himalayas.

It would be necessary to determine the exact contributions of various sources and geographical areas of the Indus basin to the cumulative flow through the system. What is clear is that physical possession by Pakistan of Indian Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh would absolutely deny India the ability to divert any portion of the flow originating in those areas. Perhaps (I am speculating in absence of a detailed knowledge of the topography) possession of a much smaller section – such as the valley and environs - would suffice for this purpose because of the technical infeasibility of diverting flow south from Ladakh.

HE #96

{{In all 3 cases (Junagadh, Kashmir, Hyderabad), the Indian case was constructed after a military invasion, not before it.}}

There is ample evidence that relatively insignificant Junagadh was a cunning trap laid by Jinnah to facilitate the accession of the far greater prizes of either Hyderabad or Kashmir. Thus the ‘fortuitous’ placement of Muslim League politician Shahnawaz Bhutto as Junagadh Dewan in May 1947. And hence Junagadh going into play on August 15th 1947 with its accession to Pakistan, in order to establish precedent one way or other.

As to military invasions, it is significant that the first such invasion was of Pakistani raiders led by Pakistani officers into Kashmir on 24th October 1947. Hari Singh acceded to India within the next two days and Indian troops were in Srinagar by 27th October. Indian troops did not move into Junagadh until November 9th 1947, at the express request of Dewan Shahnawaz Bhutto. The Hyderabad Police Action action came later in 1948

{{ 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.}}

Yeah … and so did Pakistan. Don’t tell me the Junagadh ploy was anything but disingenuous and self-serving.

The difference is that India won, Pakistan mostly lost except for Indian land grabbed in Kashmir and Gilgit. Most of Pakistan’s sly schemes collapsed.

The outcome could have been predicted given the difference in resources between the two then dominions. And that is how matters stand today. Reconcile to it and get on with life.

{{Failure to find a solution will hurt both India and Pakistan (although some interactors here naively believe otherwise).}}

We’re already playing a zero-sum game at Pakistan’s insistence. Pakistan continues to bleed disproportionately and sink further into irrelevance compared with India. That is perfectly fine with me … it can continue indefinitely.

............ this dang kashmir issue is getting on my nerves......... all this talk about who is right and who is wrong is pure kaka .......... the only thing that matters is that india has posession which, as they say, is ninety nine percent of the law, and there is not a darn thing pakistan can do about it ........so there is no point in getting a hernia over some silly ``principles`` .......... if the pakistan army had the gonads to march onto srinagar without getting their tails kicked again, i would be all for it - after all, armies are paid to fight wars and not to check electricity meters or make corn flakes .............. but since this army is only capable of conquering islamabad, i would suggest that all pakis on chowk and elsewhere just shut up and get on with their miserable lives before they get into more trouble ............it just ain`t worth it .......... what if the horrible hindoos get all upset and decide to march onto muzaffarabad?......... and don`t tell me one jihadi equals ten vegetarians - that math has been proven wrong .............

............ and if our darned principles are really right, then sooner or later kashmir will be reunited, just like taiwan and china, north and south korea and the two germanies.......... it might take a hundred years, but what is the big hurry?............

Waisey, as a general comment, we have rehashed history a million times. It is better to look at present and future, rather than interpret history biased towards where we were born.

HE

``India applied self-serving and inconsistent criteria to each state. ``

True. So did Pakistan. In fact Patel offered a deal to Pakistan offering to exchange part of Kashmir for Hyderabad (Pakistan dropiing its claim) and Jinnah turned it down. Also, Indian Army went to Hyderabad only AFTER the Nizam broke the stand still agreement.

HE:

``I am glad to hear that at least some Indians are not afraid of the ``P`` word. ``

Sorry to dissapoint you. Sigalph is Bangladeshi, hence his previous discussion with you over 1971.

I don`t think you will find a single INDIAN who is okay with a plesbicite :)

HE:

``what do you think of the sudden challenge raised by Wesley Clark to George Bush? Opinion polls suggest a 3% lead for Clark just 1 week after his announcement to enter Presidential race! ``

I think Bush is going to be in deep political trouble. The only chance of his being reelected is if there is another major terrorist attack from now to Nov 2004. However, from a foreign policy issue, a Demcrat president will be bad news for India and Pakistan (establishments)

ArjunM:

``First of all, the major rivers run through Indian Kashmir..second of all, its the paki armies gravy train...How else would you explain el-presidents saying a piece of land they never held runs in their blood while a piece of land they ruled till 1971 was given away tamely...clearly Kashmir is about strategic importance(read rivers) and not about ideology... ``

Does not hold up to scrutiny. Check out these links carefully...

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_area.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_disputed_2003.pdf

The first shows the Jhelum and the second shows the Chenab and the Indus. The first two originate from Jammu and the Indus actually originates in Himachal.

Therefore, water is not the issue because Pakistan has been hankering after the valley and that still leaves India in possession of the original points of all rivers. Also, the river sharing agreement was signed after the Indo Pak dispute started on Kashmir and has carried on. There have been differences of opinion at times but the Treaty has withstood the test of time.

Internally, I agree that Pak Army has a stake in the Kashmir conflict. However, there is no guarentee that [ak Army will stop seeing India as an adversary and promoting that image in order to continue an advantageous position in its internal polity.

TAhmed: You are taking the narrow view of land as economic resource only. You are ignoring the impact of reorgainizing borders on a country`s internal body politic.

re:#56 by HisExcellency
Asma Jehangir`s thoughts have crystallised into present form after years of struggle and seeing the ``reality``. She says (and rightly) that trade and prosperity in the region should not be contingent on ``solving the Kashmir problem``.
Some day (hopefully) Pak would learn to throw all miltary dictators into the Arabian Sea and learn to elect ``popular leaders`` as rulers. When that happens, one hopes people like Asma Jehangir finds a place in the governance. She can do more ``good`` than all the military dictators have done for Pak so far.
Pak has squandered much wealth and opportunity by tying its fate with fate of Kashmir and allowing military rulers to determine how the country is to be governed. Pak needs trade because it is profitable and in a few years time it will be forced (by WTO rules) to grant India an MFN status. Trade is inevitable. The big question is : is Pak ready for it? By creating a constituency of hatred against everything ``indian``, trade with India is viewed in Pak as something ``undesirable``. Why? Nobody seems to know.
In this regard, Pak may learn something from the way India has forged ahead with trading with its bitterest enemy viz China.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,211400,00.html
Excerpts:
``As far as some in India are concerned, the Chinese strategy of encirclement is betrayed not just in Beijing`s military ties with Islamabad, but with other budding alliances on India`s border. Foremost among these is Burma, whose ruling generals are dependent on China for most of their military hardware, diplomatic support and trade.

In addition, China is trying to build up a `free trade area` between itself and the 10 members of Asean - a grouping that excludes India.

India`s response to this fear of encirclement is threefold. First, it is aggressively boosting economic ties with China. Trade between the two has risen from US$100 million a decade ago to an expected US$10 billion by the end of next year. `We are not saying that trade with China will solve our border dispute,` said a senior Delhi official. `But it will help to put it in its proper perspective.`

Second, it is placing greater emphasis on its relations with the US. Third, it is stepping up ties with other Asian countries to counter China`s growing commercial reach. New Delhi is in talks with Thailand, Singapore and Asean to create free-trade agreements.``
Sridhar

re:#56 by HisExcellency
Asma Jehangir`s thoughts have crystallised into present form after years of struggle and seeing the ``reality``. She says (and rightly) that trade and prosperity in the region should not be contingent on ``solving the Kashmir problem``.
Some day (hopefully) Pak would learn to throw all miltary dictators into the Arabian Sea and learn to elect ``popular leaders`` as rulers. When that happens, one hopes people like Asma Jehangir finds a place in the governance. She can do more ``good`` than all the military dictators have done for Pak so far.
Pak has squandered much wealth and opportunity by tying its fate with fate of Kashmir and allowing military rulers to determine how the country is to be governed. Pak needs trade because it is profitable and in a few years time it will be forced (by WTO rules) to grant India an MFN status. Trade is inevitable. The big question is : is Pak ready for it? By creating a constituency of hatred against everything ``indian``, trade with India is viewed in Pak as something ``undesirable``. Why? Nobody seems to know.
In this regard, Pak may learn something from the way India has forged ahead with trading with its bitterest enemy viz China.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,211400,00.html
Excerpts:
``As far as some in India are concerned, the Chinese strategy of encirclement is betrayed not just in Beijing`s military ties with Islamabad, but with other budding alliances on India`s border. Foremost among these is Burma, whose ruling generals are dependent on China for most of their military hardware, diplomatic support and trade.

In addition, China is trying to build up a `free trade area` between itself and the 10 members of Asean - a grouping that excludes India.

India`s response to this fear of encirclement is threefold. First, it is aggressively boosting economic ties with China. Trade between the two has risen from US$100 million a decade ago to an expected US$10 billion by the end of next year. `We are not saying that trade with China will solve our border dispute,` said a senior Delhi official. `But it will help to put it in its proper perspective.`

Second, it is placing greater emphasis on its relations with the US. Third, it is stepping up ties with other Asian countries to counter China`s growing commercial reach. New Delhi is in talks with Thailand, Singapore and Asean to create free-trade agreements.``
Sridhar

re:#61 by HisExcellency
There is a saying in Tamil, which when translated, means `` a frog, living in a well, thinks that the whole world is dark``.
That pretty much sums up the mindset of people like you.
You seem to be in your own little world, not aware of what is happening around you. Do you know why there was a bill introduced in the US Congress to ``monitor`` the training camps in Pak? President Bush has to certify yearly that Pak is making progress before the sum of $ 3 billion can be disbursed. Would this happen if everything was hunky-dory in ``the land of pure``?
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=317796
``... the India Caucus, led by Eni Faleomavaega (D-AK), sponsored an amendment titled ``Section 708. Report On Actions Taken By Pakistan``, which was adopted. Accordingly, for the next two years, the president is required to prepare and transmit to Congress a report describing the extent to which the government of Pakistan has closed all known terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan and Pakistan-held Kashmir, has established serious and identifiable measures to prohibit the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the Line of Control (LoC) into India, and has ceased the transfer of weapons of mass destruction, including any associated technologies, to any third country or terrorist organization. ``
Sridhar

Ref arjun_m #78

[++
Kashmiri Muslims are in a majority in J&K. Under the India Independence Act
++

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..]

Actually, Hyderabad acceded to India just like Kashmir did, though it took its own sweet time about it. It is Junagadh that acceded to Pakistan due to the machinations of Jinnah and Shah Nawaz Bhutto (yes, the father of Zulfie Bhutto!) who was the Dewan of Junagadh. After the Nawab fled to Pakistan, the Dewan himself asked that the accession be revoked and a plebiscite was held in Junagadh which overwhelmingly supported accession to India.

End of history lesson.

Ref HisExcellency #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.]

Hasidic Jews, Catholic bishops and nuns, Hindu sadhus and Buddhist monks do not throw acid on the faces of people who do not obey their dress codes. Also, all these people (with the exception of the Hasidim) voluntarily chose to accept these restrictions when they became members of the communities and the Hasidim have the choice of leaving Hasidic practices behind and joining any other Jewish groups or even other religions.

On the other hand, NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH has ever VOLUNTARILY embraced Islam. You are either born into it or were coerced into it and trying to leave Islam is punishable by death. Thus throwing acid on the faces of women who violate the Islamic dress code -- which is NOT the shuttlecock burqa, I would like you to show me where exactly in Life`s Little Instruction Book According To Prophet Muhammad it says it is indeed the shuttlecock burqa that Allah has ordained that women should wear -- is in fact terrorism.

End of Logic Lesson #1.

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. Cath