Re-thinking Kashmir

Again every ethnicity has the right to it`s own home. After Kashmir, obviously those other groups will want liberation too. It`s only natural. AGain do your research, this mirrors the break up of the soviet union. If you clump opposing ethnicities together, then you get another Bosnia. Plus Europe couldn`t stand a muslim nation in its midst either.

By the way sometimes different groups do find unity together in one nation, and sometimes they don`t. A plebiscite wouldn`t always declare a new country. Sometimes a minority or majority is happy with the other because they bring something to the country. Look at the US for an example. Puerto Rico is still trying to join the US as a state instead of a territory. Latin American Politics are a subject for another day :)

Re: dost-mittar # 77

If you are talking of chopping of diseased limb won’t bihar make a better case.

There is no gainsaying the fact that India has made many mistakes in Kashmir. But things are getting better after the last election. Everyone agrees it was free and fair and the govt. is doing a good job. Tourist’s are back with a vengeance and the law & order situation has improved after the fencing.

Regards,

Faruk

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

Bringing people into a different land is like playing with fire. You can see it on the Gaza Strip. You saw it in Bosnia. The idea of bringing Indians into the value for the sole purpose of making Kashmir truly part of India is the dumbest, piece of sh*t idea I have ever heard of. I can already see the deadly war like division that would occur in Kashmir if the muslims vs. the Indians scenario ever came to be. again...PLEBESCITE! FAIR AND FREE! By lumping different ethnicities together under the reign of the hindu government is a bad idea to begin with. A little reminiscent of what happened after Communism fell in Europe and the USSR began to divide up. Bigger isn`t always Better!

sadna#78:
That remark was meant as a compliment to you! Despite my best efforts, I probably still have an of element communal thinking in me.

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

Okay, this is the last chance for hindus to RE-THINK Kashmir....last chance or else......

I have some questions not related to the board (my apologies in advance):
a) Why do Muslims worship at the Kaaba, which is just a stone, when Islam bans idol-worship?
b) What is the Kaaba made of (granite?) - I am assuming it is man-made and not naturally occurring, since it is a cube. Who built or created the Kaaba?

I could not find the answers on any website, hence the query on this board.

re: stuka #62

///``I think your idea is flawed. What would autonomy / handover achieve? Make the goons in charge! They would implement their laws and no one can question them. This is exactly what the goons want their fiefdom.``

But at least it would not be our problem.///

Didn’t we try that in 1947? I am not sure it worked…….


/// By status quo I meant that Indians do not have a desire to either fight for POK or give up Kashmir. I think that is in line with current thinking even now. Can you extrapolate your point?///

Stuka I travel a lot all over India and whenever the topic of Kashmir has come up in a conversation I have noticed a hardening of attitudes all over the country. There is a feeling among Indians especially the young that we have almost sorted out the problem in Kashmir and we do not need to negotiate with Pakistan. In fact there is a definite desire to liberate POK.

Regards,


Faruk

Ref Urstruly #71

[Kashmir is a no-go area for any hindu from the mainland anyway - anyone who dares go there goes at the risk of being beheaded or being shot at.]

I think you mean Karachi, not Kashmir. There have been half a dozen articles on Chowk about Karachi after one of the usual bouts of Shia-killings.

Beheading? I am glad at least one Pakistani has memories of Daniel Pearl.

Just let them vote on it! plebiscite! And make it fair!...the Kashmiri people have a right to form their own nation, or do whatever they want. India and Pakistan should help them hold a plebiscite, one welcome to all classes of Kashmiri people. But of course that would happen in an ideal world. Back in the real South Asia, I don`t think the dictionary can define the terms free, fair, or justice in good ole South Asia. If I`ve reverberated on somebody elses comments, please forgive me for the repetition. I`m too lazy to read all of the comments. If one gets involved with India and Pakistan in the Kashmir issue then politics get really complicated. So a peaceful decision, whatever it is, would be the best solution.

dost-mittar #77
``because you are less affected by the communal virus than I am!``

Glad that we agree to disagree, but didn`t understand this?

Kaurasach:
“It is naive thinking like yours that India is in such an acursed shape. If this attitude continues, your descendents will be looking for roots from East of Ganga, and or south of Chambal”

My attitude is not new; if you go back to my article and interacts on this issue it has been quite consistent. It’s both moral and pragmatic. After accepting the UN resolutions, we backtracked right away. It is true that Pakistan did not vacate the occupied territories as required by the UN resolution, but it is also true that India refused cooperation with every UN intermediary sent to the region during the fifties (Dixon, Jarring?), all of whom blamed mostly India for non-cooperation. We went back even on our agreement with the Maharaja, which disillusioned even our own man, Sheikh Abdullah. We packed assemblies and our ‘pithoos’ won majorities in the Assembly even without fighting elections. We lost any goodwill we had among the populace by rigging elections and imposing unpopular governments there. Do you know that most of the Hurriyet leaders, even the Pak-based Salahudin are one-time politicians who were turned off by Indira Gandhi’s dictatorial ways?

So, we did not stand our moral grounds. How about pragmatic? We have not allowed other Indians to buy property or settle in J&K, unlike Pakistanis who have reduced local Kashmiris into a minority in POK. If we were not going to be moral, we should have done what Pakistan had done in POK and China had done in Tibet to change the demographics of the state to make it more favourable to us. We rejected proposals such as allowing ex-army people to settle in Kashmir. So, we failed on pragmatic grounds as well.

Failing both the morality and the pragmatic tests, our situation is that of:
Na khuda hee mila, na vasaal-e-sanam
Na idhar ke rahe, na udhar ke rahe

“What have you personally or the entire nation gained besides misery and several million refugees by yielding 25% of prime realestate and invaluable sentimental attachments? It has brought more misery than anything else.”

I do not know if I would have been better off if India had remained undivided [probably not, because all the cards would have been stacked against Hindus and Sikhs in the Muslim majority Punjab, just like against Kashmiri Pandits whom India could not protect]. But I am certain that India is better off, after having amputated the diseased limb. India today is politically stronger and more united than it has even been in its history, which would not have been the case if those muslims who wanted a separate country of their own were still there; the only ones who want to separate now are Kashmiris and see how much damage they have caused to the nation’s fabric. India would have been even stronger and more united if Kashmir had a nawab instead of a maharaja as its head at the time of the partition.

The big losers in the division of the country, in my opinion, are Muslims in general and the people of Pakistan in particular. After ethnically cleansing of the ‘napaak’ elements, they lost all hope of ever becoming a truly pluralistic society and will for ever be one or another variant of an Islamic society. They also lost the most dynamic and entrepreneurial class of people and have since been dependent for their survival upon allah, army and international crises as their saviours.

Sorry for the long answer to a short comment.


Ballukhan#68:

“Yes, Sadna you are right, the IM also consider their future interwined with the issue of resolution of the Kashmir not on the basis of communal question and TNT but on cultural uniqueness of the region such as its `kashmiriyat`.”

Who talks about Kashmiriyat except mostly Indians? Where was that kashmiriyat when the original kashmiris were run out of their homes? I think that the chances of the pandits ever going back to the valley is not much higher than the hindus-sikhs going back to Pakistan. It is ironic that one hardly hears this kashmiriyat word from the valley muslims.

I have always resented people asking IMs to prove their loyalty to India, and always will. But I do not overlook the fact that the attitude of IMs on the Kashmir issue, with exceptions like Chagla’s and Rafique Zakaria’s (both of them bohras, btw), was indifferent at best until the saffronites made it a ‘loyalty test’ for them. I am aware of the potential adverse implications of losing the valley for IMs and is the sole reason why I am not enthusiastic about this prospect (and wonder about the sincerity of those pakistanis who pretend that their hearts bleed whenever a Muslim bleeds and still want kashmir to secede!). But these adverse effects can be minimized if there is no plebiscite and the blame for losing Kashmir falls on the negotiating politicians rather than muslims voting against India.

I do not believe that Kashmir is necessary for a secular India. India is secular because of its constitution and because its Indian version is quite compatible with the pluralistic nature of the hindu religion.

Sadna:

I agree that the prospect of Kashmir turning into another Afghanistan cannot be discounted. But if India resists the temptation of supporting one or the other faction, it can immunize itself from its fallout after it washes its hands off it.

Yes, we agree to disagree, because you are less affected by the communal virus than I am!

ballukhan,

There is no such thing as Kashmiriyat, certainly not unique enough to trigger division of land. If Kashmir valley has a different culture, so has Jammu and Ladakh. If Ks have a different language, so have Tamils, Assamese and Punjabis. A single inch of land given to `land of pure` or not-so-pure enemies of India will be suicidal.

Retaining Kashmir may have some strategic advantages as Sadna pointed out, but it is an ideological bulwark against tendencies of some people to dominate India and declare all others unIndian, and hence unwelcome. Maulana Bukhari (erstwhile Imam of Delhi Jama Masjid) met Syed Shah Gilani whem Mushy had come to India. He repeated the `atut ang` theory to Gilani who got infuriated and told him to lay-off; and that Indian Muslms don`t have a stake in Kashmir.

The fact is they do; and their stake is much higher than the stake of non-Muslim Indian citizens. If K is gone, Hyderabad, Bihar, U.P., North-East, Tamilnadu and Assam will follow. I`ll become a Khalistani myself and fight to give Sikhs their own state, based on religion. Why not?

Agar India ladoo baat raha hai, to Urstruly ka hi mooh kyun meetha ho, bakiyon ne kya gunah kiya hai?

Urstruly,

Please see a shrink, actual Jehadis die, the e-jehadis go mad.

The strain is getting to you.

`Rassi jal gayee par bal nahin gaye`