My Pakistan Diary: Lahore Aaya Main Othay Dil Chhod Aaya!

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

vertex # 286

*****

I would disagree with this. The constitutions of states are not immutable documents, they can be amended. That, of course, requires a political and legal process. If the state prohibits such a process, then it is doing itself an injustice, and in fact invites a violent reaction. I would be somewhat content with a nation-wide referendum on the issue rather than a plebiscite; however I think it`s a rather weak way of solving the issue

****

agreed constitution can be amended. but any kind of dissent has to be shown peacefully and for that you should have popular backing of people. only then it can be addressed.
you take up kalashnikovs and you are double tapped on the head to rest in peace in jannat, with the 72 hooris( did i get the number right?).

what is going on in kashmir has deep religious overtones. that pakistan wants to take a slice out of india to avenge 71 does not help it either. no one can deny that what is going on in kashmir is deeply related to the islamic fundamentalism. why were pandits selectively targetted and driven away? why is it that terrorists make it a point to target the amarnath yatra every year? it is definitely not about aspirations of people of a region, it is about cleansing a muslim majority part of the kafirs and getting a separate muslim state where shariat rules. it is fact and you cant bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and deny it. and that is a major reason why india will not allow the fanaticism in kashmir to succeed , because you cant let ethnic cleansing succeed.

p.s. you had a `sigh` in response to a similar statement by gujju and that tells something about you.

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

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

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

stuka #286: ``An American citizen has the right to argue against American policy but not make a case against violent overthrow of that what constitutes the American consensus which includes territorial integrity``

This is actually not true. Anyone in the USA can demand independence. However, such a plan would never gain any traction, because everyone is part of the USA willingly. In Canada, Quebec demanded independence. And a referendum was held. Had it not been held, there may have been violence.

However, both these issues are different from Kashmri. Kashmir is occupied territory. It is only recognized by India as a part of India. By no one else. Specifically not by Kashmris.

If we use your argument, then the whole independence of India from the British becomes null and void. Anyone asking for the freedom of India was breaking the territorial intergrity of the British Empire. Nehru should have been convicted of treason. As should have everyone in Algeria, by the French.

Similarly, the independence of East Pakistan becomes null and void also. Even more so than Kashmir, because East Pakistan was not disputed territory. Yet India was at the front and center of assisting mlitarily, to the point of crossing Pakistan`s borders, in the independence of East Pakistan.

The independence of Pakistan becomes null and void, under your argument also. As does the independence of USA from the Briitish. Or the independence of Arabs from the Turks. It legitimizes the US occupation and full control of Iraq etc.

In fact, the whole concept of ``independence``and freedom becomes null and void, under your argument. All a country has to do is to conquer another country, or get its dictator to sign his people away to them. Afterwards, that conquest can be made a part of the Constitution, and any attempt at freedom would be considered illegal.

``However, when you cross the line into advocating the partition of territory that the Indian constitution considers its own, then you go from dissent to treason.``

According to the Indian Constitution and maps, I am an Indian also. Muzzafarabad, according to India is occupied by Pakistan, but is really Indian territory. Based on that, I am breaking Indian laws.....Should I be convicted of treason, if I enter India? And your famiy has broken British laws, by becoming independent of UK. And Iraqis are breaking US laws, at the moment......

In fact, every Bangladeshi would then be convicted of treason, as would Indira Gandhi, for supporting them.......

One cannot apply one rule to one`s self, and different rules to others. This is why violence occurs. People only join a country voluntarily. They can never be forced into joining. That is called slavery......And no one likes to be a slave......If tomorrow China took over India, and made it a part of Chinese Constitution, would you fight for independence, or would you consider it treason to do so?

vertex

the big point missing in many arguments for seaparation, (and specially kashmiri) is the value of nationality (in a nation state). in india there is a belief that finally there is a nation state which is worth preserving and there is large benefit, both economic and security in doing so. seemingly separatist associate no cost to separation (by saying all we ask for is vote).

so, the priority 1 would be to convince your co-nationalist (at least in a geographic sense :-) ) that preservation of national integrity is worthlesse, at least there is no or little cost to separation. only then a ``clean and logical`` argument with rhetoric such as ``That, of course, requires a political and legal process. If the state prohibits such a process, then it is doing itself an injustice, and in fact invites a violent reaction`` and so on.

in case of kashmir, full of guns, and an islamic separation reasoning, convincing the nation is a challange. reduction of guns-jihadis and jihadi separation argument (however veiled) will be a huge step towards reducing the cost of separation.

stuka,

Sorry for the late reply, busy with work:

``It is my opinion that a democracy should contain a wealth of variety in positions as long as they are within the constitutional consensus. An American citizen has the right to argue against American policy but not make a case against violent overthrow of that what constitutes the American consensus which includes territorial integrity.``

I agree to a certain extent. Certainly, I will not support terrorists in Kashmir. However, that`s a far cry than supporting a plebiscite, which is more a political action than violent one. Note, also, that this is not in itself advocating independence. The Kashmiris may very well choose (overwhelmingly even) to stay with India. What I think is that the Kashmiris should be given the choice.


``However, when you cross the line into advocating the partition of territory that the Indian constitution considers its own, then you go from dissent to treason.``

I would disagree with this. The constitutions of states are not immutable documents, they can be amended. That, of course, requires a political and legal process. If the state prohibits such a process, then it is doing itself an injustice, and in fact invites a violent reaction. I would be somewhat content with a nation-wide referendum on the issue rather than a plebiscite; however I think it`s a rather weak way of solving the issue. There`s no finality to the end-result, imho. I just don`t see the sense in keeping a region within a federation by force, when it could very well be better for everyone if it had autonomy/independence.

BTW, I`m not even sure what I would consider an acceptable result from a plebiscite either! Certainly not 50%/%50...I guess %80-for /%20-against or something like that. My main problem is with the elimination of legitimate political channels for authentic dissident voices to air their grievances in. Terrorists are not authentic voices, they`re idiots with guns. For all we know, the seperatist sentiment among the average Kashmiri is all but dead!

---

Guju,


``Where did Vertex Mian run away ?``

Some people have jobs.

``You didn`t answer my question Vertex. Why should India honor the aspirations of fanatical fascists that your Kashmiri separatists are ?``

I did answer your question: I simply won`t dignify it with a direct response which would validate your rather childish premise that all separatists are fanatical fascists. They are not. Period. This is not so much a question as a statement, dude.

``What do you say to that Vertex ? You ask so smugly for India to prove its a democratic country and honour the aspirations of the `people of Kashmir` , knowing very well that these `people of Kashmir` are basically religious fanatic muslims who are responsible for one of the biggest ethnic cleansing in recent history by chasing away all the hindu kashmiris out of Kashmir...``

*Sigh*....``right of return`` clause...happy? Wow...I should be a politician.


``Lets have a real peblicite. Let the people of India vote.``

That`s not a Kashmiri plebiscite.

``Not just for the status of our Kashmir (Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) to you) , but also the status of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) -(Azad Kashmir to you).``

Absolutely, as I understand the Pak proposal (yes, it is insincere), the plebiscite suggested would be Kashmir-wide.

``Let the people of the subcontinent decide. Indians , Pakistanis as well as Kashmiri separatists. What do you say ? ``

Why just the subcontinent? Let`s take it to the UN. And at the end of the day, when people sick and tire of the whole situation because they really don`t give a rats arse for Kashmir or it`s status - they will conclude: let the damn Kashmiris decide...

arjun-m #283
Thanks. Quite puzzling, though.

arjun-m #283
Thanks. Quite puzzling, though.

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

satyamavada 280

ya.. we already know it, dont we.

But dont be too concerned about it because FV makes money out of her hatred and her jehadi intentions. And very much like a terrorist, she is cold blooded and professional. so no amount of protest can bring about a change to her.

Just be content that hardly anyone in India pays attention to her frothing over the mouth and that is why she comes here to get some audience from pakiland.

Folks, did you notice that Farzana Versey would support Jihad if it would ``help``.
Also see her article from 2000 where she was supporting Yasin Malik. She equates
the JKLF with INA of the Subhash Chandra Bose.
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000837&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1


This FarzanaVersey - uses the freedom India provides to
promote the dismemberment of India, while she pretends to be oh so secular !
She is a perfect practitioner of Al-taquiyah

---

Farzana Versey wrote:

Meanwhile, my letter to the editor on that interview has been published today, April 30. I have that with me and it is online too. It might give you an idea of what the man is talking about:
- - -
Sir, Does the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid have any political currency to represent the “genuine grievances of the Muslim community” when he is all but ready to play footsie with the BJP? In ‘Bukhari sets a new Muslim agenda’ (The Asian Age, April 29), he is quoted as saying that issues like the Uniform Civil Code, Article 370 and Ayodhya are matters that have been used for emotional blackmail, forgetting that he and his ilk have been at the forefront of such deals. Only now that it seems to suit him, he is talking about security, education and employment, which the minorities as any other community should take as a matter of right, and not something they have to fight for. The Imam’s views are subversive. He believes that issues like the Babri Masjid and the Gujarat carnage can be dealt with in three ways -- through a jihad, or migration of the Muslims or reconciliation. While the first will not help at all, he is only strengthening the general stereotype of the Muslims as jihadis. And how would migration help the Indian Muslim cause? Regarding reconciliation, what does he mean? That the Muslims should gift away the site?

Sincerely,
Farzana Versey

- - -

Can anyone explain what is there in the Outlook article for the Pakistani press and politicians to throw fits over? The part describing the `partying` sounds like a regular column in Najam Sethi`s own Friday Times.

On the Out look article...

Frankly this guy doesn`t have a clue. We are not partying in hiding .... that is the biggest lie by that `outlook article`. The parties held in the honor of our guests were covered by the national media, and even the national tv channels carried reports on it.

Uncle Dost Mittar will agree to the fact that all the parties I took him to were covered by none other than PTV Prime... both Rafi`s party on the Basant Eve and Sali`s party on the Basant Day....

Frankly this article is bogus and based on little knowledge.

PS: I think Najam Sethi put it best:


What has been repeated in the story is an old pitfall that the Indians need to avoid while visiting Pakistan. At the behavioural level, it starts with surprise. (This also happens to many Americans and Europeans visiting Pakistan for the first time.) Instead of seeing a fundamentalist society beating up women for not wearing the veil and sending ‘wine-drinkers’ to jail like the Taliban, they see people living more or less like Indians back home where too some ‘dry’ states drink themselves silly without being punished. But the trouble with the critical Indian is that, unwittingly, he/she puts on the mantle of the unforgiving, sanctimonious Pakistani moaning about his sinning compatriots. He refuses to change his pre-formed view of Pakistani society. He is actually resentful that his definition of Pakistan is challenged by reality. He is always more comfortable with his own definition of the ‘other’ in life because that indirectly defines his own identity