Of Rites and Rights: An Interview with Asma Jahangir

re HE
``And you thought India could take the world for a ride by presenting Kashmir movement as terrorism?``

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. Whether India exploits that successfully or not does not deduct fro the inherent terrorism in the `jihad` for Kashmir. India`s failing has been its inability, in spite of the 70K troops there, to eradicate this menace while occasionally holding parleys with terror outfits itself.

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).

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

Stuka #68 arjun #73 Romair #76, HisExcellency #75: You all make reasonable comments on the suggestion I had made in my post #63. I would like to build a bit on these points and then perhaps we may get somewhere (at least in terms of being clear in our own minds) what the india-pakistan issues add up to:

Stuka refers to the ``national interest`` of Pakistan. That I think is the million dollar question, and I would like to extend that to the ``national interest`` of India and of the Kashmiris themselves as well.

From the various responses above, the answer would be one or more of the following:
a. Land
b. Water (rivers flow into pakistan)
c. The rights of Kashmiris
d. Benefits to military (particularly pakistani)

In responding, I would first define ``national interest`` of India and Pakistan as follows: Maximizing the well-being of their respective citizens (current and future).

On a.: I would reject that right away: Land is a significant factor of production only in agrarian societies. The future clearly is for economies that are knowledge-based. The addition of held kashmir to pakistan would do essentially nothing to the per capita income of pakistan.

On b: While this has not been raised as a major reason within pakistan, there is an element of truth here. But only an element, as a look at the map easily tells us. Indus is already free of indian interference, and chenab and sutlej would remain vulnerable to indian interference (I say this based on a cursory check of the map) even if held kashmir became part of pakistan. And if there was indian interference, it would probably be such a life-and-death matter for pakistan that it could result in total war between the two nuclear-armed beggar nations. (If this sounds far-fetched, the world bank itself has predicted that india and pakistan may go to war in the 21st century on this one issue as fresh water demand exceeds supply). A very serious problem, but getting held kashmir is not the solution.

On c: Agreed that this is in the interest of kasmiris. But then, every community has a similar right to greater control over their lives. But that isnt about to happen either in India or in Pakistan. Why then should other interests (e.g. the interest of pakistanis to a peaceful future) be sacrificed for one single community only. Only time will evolve both countries towards ceding more control over their lives to local communities living within their borders.

On d: No one would accept this argument as anything more than an absurdity. Ironically, this is conceptually the same argument as c (if one considers the military to be a community).

So, what then is Pakistan`s, or India`s, (or Kashmiri`s) national interest? The answer is simple: ask yourself what is your own personal interest (prosperity, brighter future for your children and their children and their children and so on)?

Multiply that answer by 1.5 billion, and that how important what you perceive as your personal interest is to the national interest of the current generation living in India, of pakistan, of Kashmiris. All other considerations become insignificant before this overriding national interest: peace, prosperity, for all. And there is no conflict of interest here between India, Pakistan, Kashmiris.

Long post, sorry.

#72 by arjun_m

++
BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ON THE
PRESIDENT`S BILATERAL MEETINGS
++

Why don`t you get your laughs watching a sitcom like ``Dharma & Greg`` or ``Everybody loves Raymond`` instead. At least the cast would be better than the ``unnamed senior administration officials`` you are wasting your time on.

But as they say.. to each his own delusions. Ciao!

#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.

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

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

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

#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.

++
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.

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.

#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).

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.

#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.

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.

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.