How that Other Democracy (India) Differs

Well said HP...

Ofcourse to Veeresh who is blinded by delusions of greatness , your logic will not make any sense.

Prepare to be declared an Islamist Pakistani fanatic.

today in Maha Maha Rashtra -- the election results have turned ``Veer Savarkar`` into a ``Gambheer Savarkar``......

from J&K to Manipur -- the Vultures have been chased away by a lioness and her packs of local lions all across India -- the juveniles MMPs -- Mulayams, Mayawatis and Paswans -- should join the pack......they should be happy -- their STUPID attempts to divide the secular vote failed miserably......

this is India`s Homecoming with a bang...

A comment about the closing remark:

You can actually dig further into your remark and come to the real conclusion that the big difference between India and the developed countries is the huge proportion of poor people in India. Unless this issue of poverty in the third world is addressed, any comparisons with the developed countries are quite useless.

“For readers at The Chowk, of topical interest may be a special reference to the Jammu & Kashmir issue, with the role of the National Conference therein. One of the lesser known facts about J&K is that it was amongst the earliest states in India to actually go through with land reforms, way back in 1950, thus making landowners out of tenants and peasants. That this upsets a large number of the Muslim feudals in POK, who view this as a land-grab, could probably explain much of the angst about trying to ``save Kashmir`` that keeps emanating from across the border.”

Veeresh,
You really have to make this point stick. It is just an assertion that has no legs. Let’s look at it this way. I don’t know how you determine feudal. Is it the land holding size or it is just the cultural thing as in feudal culture? No matter how you look at it, the part that eventually became POK, as you call it, was actually the poorest part of the pre 1947 Kashmir. (Whole state was poor then and still is.) What you term feudal, on Pak side of Kashmir, were most likely, some people with really small land holdings and they cannot be called feudal in any form or shape.
Most of the feudal were part of ruling class of Kashmir and were still in the Indian Occupied Kashmir. It was in Sheikh Abdullah’s interest to get rid of them to secure his political future. Did it have any impact on Pakistani side of Kashmir at all? There is no evidence to prove that.
A cursory study would tell that most of the feudal were related to Maharaja and most likely Hindu due to their relationship with the Maharaja. So, Hindu Feudal were probably trying to save their lands when they supported the removal and arrest of Sheikh Abdullah in 1951!

Kashmir issue is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Here is what the Kashmir Chief minister Albion Bannerji, the British-approved Chief Minister of Kashmir, said about Kashmiri Muslims in 1930s. `The large Muslim population,` he said, `is absolutely illiterate, labouring under poverty and very low economic conditions of living in the villages and practically governed like dumb driven cattle.`

Those governing them were Hindu Feudal of Maharaja family.

Some more quotes from Tariq Ali’s book “Bitter Chill of Winter”.

“Non-Muslims in Kashmir were mainly Hindus, dominated by the Pandits, upper-caste Brahmins who looked down on Muslims, Sikhs and low-caste Hindus alike”
“…the Maharaja`s purchase of a Cadillac. When His Highness drove the car to Pehalgam, admiring peasants surrounded it and strewed fresh grass in front of it. The Maharaja acknowledged their presence by letting them touch the car. A few peasants began to cry. `Why are you crying?` asked their ruler. `We are upset,` one of them replied, `because your new animal refuses to eat grass.`”

Here is what Pandit Nehru, himself a Kashmiri (barely though) said about Kashmirs and Punjabis etc.

“Nehru, asked at a dinner the next day how he compared the regions he had visited most recently, replied: `Punjabis are crude, Bengalis are hysterical and the Kashmiris are simply vulgar.`”

Richard Whately put it rightly and I quote for your benefit: “He who is unaware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge.”

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

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