How that Other Democracy (India) Differs

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

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

“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.”

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.

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...

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.

Drivel about how superior, developed, progressive and modern India is by Veeresh...
and the return of the Paki-Basher no1 Sadna on the same day. Brilliant! Though the title betrays a comparison with the US... but it is nothing more than a feel good article by a ``scoundrel`` who as a last resort has sought to make a favorable comparison and contrast with that nation they constantly denounce as ``bankrupt``, ``undemocratic``, ``bigoted`` etc. Surely you don`t need to make comparisons with that country to prove yourself superior...

Veeresh,
Your article doesn`t say anything and is really a bizarre concoction of disparate thoughts. You title your article: ``How that Other Democracy (India) Differs``. So...how does it differ? It is a title/question, which warrants serious thought of which you have shown none. You then mix in your crock-melange the fact that the United States has a bipolar election process, a business gathering you attended, and a book which was presented to you called ``A Time of Coalitions; Divided we Stand`` (which you found ``highly readable``). Then there is the question of language...whatever do you mean when you write:

``Divided we Stand`` brings out, very evocatively, how India would probably benefit from a multi-dimensional political system, with self-correctives born out of practical compulsions and traditions rather than untested and shallow ideologies.``

I have read this sentence about ten times and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Incoherent writing reflects incoherent thoughts. Take some pride in the quality of what you post...

Veeresh

Following has been written by Shahid, in post#8

Quote:

`` Your article doesn`t say anything and is really a bizarre concoction of disparate thoughts. You title your article: ``How that Other Democracy (India) Differs``. So...how does it differ? It is a title/question, which warrants serious thought of which you have shown none. ``

Actually, this makes quite a bit of sense. Title of the aricle is really catchy and accordingly, one was expecting to see some serious thoughts, comparisons in the article but, as noticed by Shahid, there hardly is any which warrants the title that has been given to the article.

Quote from the article:

`` Anybody who claims to be interested in Indian politics is well advised to read this book if they want to get into the depth of many of the widely held perceptions about Indian politics. ``

This is a very strong statement. One would be bit sceptical about it. Surely, it is not expected that those two gentlemen are the last word on Indian politics...

AhmadBilal #3 makes the clearest remark. It does read like a feel-good article (Manto #6).

HP

Tariq Ali acknowledges that the problem of looking down on the other was not one-sided. Muslim League feudals everywhere looked down upon poor Muslims and Hindus. In both cases, this is only a partial explanation of what happened in 1947.


Nasah

Got to say that Sonia HAS silenced her critics, including me. If she actually does turn into a tigress, she may even do India some good.

``I quiz other Hurriyat leaders about their reluctance to contest elections. ``Why don`t you demonstrate your electoral strength,`` I ask, ``win elections and then refuse to sit in Parliament or government?``

This is only logical, I argue, considering that every time India and Pakistan smoke the peace pipe, the Kashmiri leaders complain that their voices are being ignored. To Syed Ali Shah Geelani, I ask, ``If you don`t fight elections, who will represent the Kashmiris?``

They fear the election would be rigged against them?if only to embarrass them before their people. ``Ask for elections under the UN then,`` I suggest. Geelani seems to agree.

The mainstream Kashmiri politicians are a refreshing change.

I have never supported the democratic aberration of dynastic politics. But meetings with Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah prompt me to revise my views: they are genial, clear in their views, and don`t duck inconvenient questions.

Lesson No. 6: Hurriyat is divided, DNA works in politics.``
(Pakistani journalist Mariana Baabar after trip to Srinagar)

10
//...If she actually does turn into a tigress, she may even do India some good. ..//

Hold your horses there ..... these so-called tigers, tigresses, lions, lionesses have never done any good anywhere - let alone in India.

Anything good that has ever come out of Indian democracy in last 55 odd years was actually done by folks who acted and worked more like ants ( use some other ``lowly`` animal/pest, if you will ). They are Rao and Manmohan Singh - folks who had no pretentions of being declared after those royal beasts, the attributes of which we are so fond of bestowing on all sorts of characters, otherwise called ``leaders`` in modern India.

Isn`t Bal Thackeray called the Tiger of Bombay .... or some sh!t like that??

To do India some good, all that ``tigress`` sonia has to do is to keep her bu!tt out of gov`t affairs .... so that the little mouse named Manmohan Singh(to complete the irony, the mouse is actually named after the Lion) can get some good jobs done.

Ref Ralph #10

[Nasah

Got to say that Sonia HAS silenced her critics, including me. If she actually does turn into a tigress, she may even do India some good. ]

Why expend some brainpower in thinking if ine can listen to sound bites from talking heads?

Congress actually lost 6.9% of the popular vote compared to the 1999 elections. BJP lost 1.3% but lost only one seat; Congress went from 75 seats to 68 seats. Sharad Pawar`s NCP went from 68 to 71 but lost 4.35% in popular vote. Shiv Sena gained 2.11% though it lost 7 seats. Congress has the most popular vote at 20.26% followed by Shiv Sena at 19.49%. With 18.20% for the NCP and 13.2% for the BJP, it is obvious that the winners won and the losers lost because of the first-past-the-post electoral system and everybody retained his party`s strongholds and not because it proportionately represents the wishes of the populace.

However, all of this is irrelevant for people like you and nasah. This is the month where we have groups of people going around the streets singing bhajans much like people going carolling during Christmas. People like you need to re-write all the bhajans and substitute Sonia for Durga and Indira for her vehicle the lion (I know you guys you used to call Indira Gandhi the Durga but mercifully she is dead, thank God, so you can now sing Sonia`s praises and after all Sonia is riding on Indira`s name). Singing such bhajans in front of Sonia`s house might give you some personal satisfaction.... you may not be allowed for security reasons to get closer to her butt to kiss it.

Veeresh:
The good thing about the rise of the regional parties is that India is finally becoming a true federation, where the Centre cannot always dictate its will and has to respond to regional aspirations. The flip side is that with one or more provinces facing elections every year, the federal govt. is almost always functioning in an electoral mode which makes it difficult to take difficult decisions, which sometimes require short time pain for long term gain.

About Kashmir, I tend to agree with HP. I suspect that most of the landlords were not Kashmiris (of either Bhatt or Butt variety!) but dogras, i.e., belonging to the Maharaja`s clan. So, the muslims only gained from land reforms. As for POK, any dogra landlords presumably were thrown out/left and so were no threat to anyone. Though I disagree with him regarding that being the cause for the removal of Sheikh Abdullah. He was removed by his friend Nehru who had no sympathy for any landlord regardless of his religion.

harimou:
Statistics notwithstanding, this has to be treated as a big defeat for the BJP-Sena combine. With the NCP-Congress govt.`s dismal performance and the huge dissatisfaction of the people with it, the election should have been a walk-in for the opposition. So, this election should be considered more as a vote against the BJP-Sena than a vote for the govt.
And you could be a bit more generous towards Sonia. Though no tigress, she certainly seems to have developed a halo around her since her `raajya-tyaag` and handing over the `kharhaaon` to Manmohan Singh. I cant help thinking how her name would almost certainly have been in mud if she had chosen to be the PM herself. Reunciation pays in the `hindooland`.

harimau miaN -- that`s indeed a great spin -- congratulations -- I agree with your assessment -- in every win there is defeat for the winner......the Sena.....:-)

Vereesh/HP/dost-mittar: ``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``

Vereesh, for heavens sake, have a heart. I am almost to the point where I will stop reading anything you write, about Pakistan. If you were just a normal Indian with his/her biases, I could understand. But, I believe, you are actually a journalist. If this is what the journalists in India are taught, about Pakistan, then Bhagwan save us.

For starters, have you ever been to POK? Do you know anything about the people, villages, social customs of the area? If not, then don`t you think it is a good idea to follow the rule: ``It is better to remain quite and have everyone think one is a fool, then to open one`s mouth and remove all doubt.``

What HP has written about POK is basically correct. POK (or Azad Kashmir as Kashmiris call it) is the most feudal-less area of Pakistan. It has no feudals (thank God). My extended family is probably about as close to a feudal as you will find there. And I am sitting in North America. If I had enough land in Kashmir, I would be sitting on my land holdings there, not in a apartment in cold North America.

On my last trip to Pakistan, the PM of Kashmir visited us. He travels with a a smaller entorouge than the average Pakistani Provincial Assembly member. And owns less land than your average Pakistani Brigadier. Pakstani Kashmir consisted of poor people in 47. Anyone who was (is) anybody migrated to Punjab or to Bradford and Birmingham. That is one of the reasons I grew up in Islamabad and not in Muzzafarabad.

The only, ``land`` that individuals from Kashmir got was due to military service, under the British, or due to evacuee property, in 1947. And they took that land in Pakistan`s four provinces, not in Kashmir, since land in Pakistan was worth a lot more. And the extent of that land was generally one acre or a few, ``murabbas.`` ``Feudals`` tend to have land in the thousands of acres; not one acre sizes.

But just to keep things honest, can you name one prominent Pakistani feudal from Kashmir (other than me). And can you name one prominent Pakistani fedual politician from POK? If not, then can I kindly request you to do your research on Pakistan properly, before providing us with information............

P.S. Afer reading this, I am seriously doubting whether the Islamabad-Lahore motorway was built by Indian Army Engineering corps, and Pak-Suzuki is actually headquartered in Amritsar..........You had me going on that for a while. Just goes to show, one should stop, when one is ahead........