Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

#266 by dionysus on June 14, 2005 3:11am PT


Here are some more solemn pledges, just for you. Read em and squirm:


I`ll see your dead PM statement and raise you a parliamentary resolution...

Indian Parliament Resolution on Jammu & Kashmir
dated 22-Feb-1994

Firmly declares that-

1. ``The state of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;


i.e. The Indian parliament sez bite us....

Re: # 250 stuka

Youhana is a Chamar. It`s very telling that you chose a Chamar to a South Indian because they both belong to the same Dravidian race. And if you`re staying that most Indians look like our ChewRay then the vast majority of Pakistanis will agree with you. (T)

266 by dionysus

[Have some respect, you fuddu. This is Pandit Jawahralal Nehru we are talking about: the founder, creator, father and first PM of your country, not some two bit Gandhi family puppet.]

Nehru, who? Unlike you, we are not hung up on personalities, be it Gandhi, Nehru, or whoever. So what if Nehru said that? In case you missed it, this is circa 2005 and we left behind 1952 some 53 years ago.

[If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir.]

If you want help, I can locate some more of Nehru`s ``solemn pledges``. But they are just that, pledges. However, if you are trying to appeal to our conscience (after having tried thrice to grab Kashmir by force, unsuccessfully if I may add), you`re only deluding yourselves.

Re: # 265 harish

Have some respect, you fuddu. This is Pandit Jawahralal Nehru we are talking about: the founder, creator, father and first PM of your country, not some two bit Gandhi family puppet. It was Nehru who negotiated the terms of the Indian invasion with Sheikh Abudulla and the Kashmirs, not the puppet. Nothing the puppet says can invalidate the solemn pledges of Pandit Nehlru.

Here are some more solemn pledges, just for you. Read em and squirm:


``If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. ``


PM Nehru in a statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952.

#263 by dionysus

[BTW, the Republic of India never agreed to ``partition``, but it certainly, emphatically and very publicly agreed that Kashmir wasn`t a part of India]

In case you didn`t notice, just as certainly, emphatically, and publicly, Manmohan Singh said something that I reproduce below for you:

``I have said to President Musharraf that India will never accept anything which smacks of a further division of our country on religious lines -- and I have no mandate to negotiate to redraw the boundaries of our two countries``. -- Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on May 30, 2005.

How on earth is one person going to prove that Ghazni had/has anything to do with Islam, if another refuses to accept that? What kind of evidence would you furnish? And what would that evidence achieve?

The flip side of `Ghazni was secular` argument is that India didn`t exist and all its sundry variations. Does one expect to make any greater progress in `explaining` these issues?

Neither evidence, nor logic, nor history is the issue in such debates.

So I repeat, it is not worth a cent to be discussing issues like what India is, whether India existed or not, whether Hinduism ever existed, or whether Indian civilization means the same as the Hindu civilization.

If one must indulge in such intellectually robust excercises, one will need to begin with the basics. We can`t use Indian concepts (of religion, culture, society, polity, and, above all, the individual human being) and expect people unfamiliar with them to understand the distinctions we so effortlessly make.

There is a reason why Indian society is so different. It is because our basic tools of thought - cultural concepts, assumptions, models - have been different, both in a good and bad way.

That`s why, the dialogue between Dost-Mittar and Romair seems like one person speaking in French, the other in Chinese. I wonder if any other Indian feels the same way?

stuka ``But the Republic of India agreed to Partition.``


BTW, the Republic of India never agreed to ``partition``, but it certainly, emphatically and very publicly agreed that Kashmir wasn`t a part of India:

`` Kashmir is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision``.


Jawarhalal Nehru, PM of India in Calcutta, on 2nd January, 1952

Re: # 248 stuka ``Dude, I have met plenty of clean shaven Sikhs and they look no different from Biharis and UPites. If some Punjabis are brought up on fukked notions on racial superiority, that does not take away from facts on the ground.``

hahahaha...you have lost your fucken mind! No one is denying that there is overlap in the racial characteristics of all the Indo-Aryan nations but to claim that there are no differences whatsoever between them , and that they are the same even as the South Indian Dravidians is the senseless delusion of a brainwashed mind that sees only what it wants to see. Sikhs and Punjabis look like Biharis????? Even Biharis themselves don`t believe it hahahahahaha




``The TNT is not my theory. It is the Pakistani theory``

No, the issue is not the TNT per se but the notion of defining nationhood through religuon which, according to Hindus, is evil when Muslims do it but just fine and dandy when Hindus themselves do it. The hypocrisy is simply breathtaking!

``I could. But the Republic of India agreed to Partition. End of Story. ``

The Republic of India didn`t agree to shit. The Republic of India came into existence one day after the Republic of Pakistan so it couldn`t agree to anything when it didn`t even exist. The Republic of India still hasn`t come to terms with the Pakistani right to self-determination excericed in 1947, just look at the fuss about Advani`s comments Jinnah, for instance.

So ask I you again, if you can use those pile of shit arguments about being Hindu to illegally occupy Kashmir why can`t you use them also to invade, occupy and brutalize West Punjab or Sindh with a perfectly clear, serene Gandhian conscience? haiN?



Thanks in advance.

Re: # 235

Romair:

``You seem extremely interested in quoting from the Quran? Why is that? We are not discussing the Quran. Why don`t I have any interest in quoting from the Hindu Vedas? Please do go ahead and quote. Let`s see how knowledgeable you are. I hope your knowledge of the Quran exceeds your knowledge of Ashoka.........

---

Because you alluded to hate speech from Hindu Indians, I reminded you of the hate speech from Quran.. You are free to quote from Vedas.. That is called the freedom of speech..

Well for a start, some samples from Quran chapter 2: the cow :-))

Quran Surah 2: The Cow

Don`t bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 6
Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 10
A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 24
Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 39, 90
For disbelievers is a painful doom. 104
For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 114
Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 126
The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 162
They will not emerge from the Fire. 167
Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 174
How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 175
Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191
War is ordained by Allah. 216
Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 217
Disbelievers worship false gods. They will burn forever in the Fire. 257
Allah does not guide disbelievers. 264
``Give us victory over the disbelieving folk.`` 286

References:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/quranindex.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

Now, If this doesn`t sound like hate speech then what is??

---

``Studying history, of South Asia, objectively is very important. I would suggest you study that first, before trying to study the religious books of other faiths. This is what I do. Especially for Indians. And specially for Indian Hindus. It is this history, on the basis of which, many current social relationships are being formed. I think it affects Indian Muslims the most.

If everyone in India, keeps thinking that Ashoka did not kill anyone and only Ghaznavi did. And that any Hindu who invaded another land in South Asia was a hero and any Muslim (specifically one who did not have Hindu wives) who invaded another land was an invader, then they will always have a view of Islam, that you currently have....``

-- FYI I never said Ashoka did not kill people.. This is what I said..

``Good question.. .. The revulsion about the invasion from Ghori/Ghazni than the invasion of Ashoka maybe due to the accompanied atrocities carried out by the armies.. While it`s clearly documented and boasted by Ghazni there is no documented atrocities (atleast that I know of..) from Ashoka.. other than Ashoka himself changing his heart on seeing the destruction caused by wars and enforcing a golden rule.. ``

and this is how I ended..

``History/Religion are different beasts to different people.. I think it`s better to focus on current affairs and see how we can just move on.. I am not religious (infact anti-religious esp.. anti-Hindu to begin with..) had no knowledge of Islam/Quran.. before I chanced upon a few websites.. I think you`ve alluded to ``hate speech`` by Hindu Indians in a few responses in this board.. I felt like laughing.. What`s your opinion on the ``hate speech`` in your ``holy book``?.. Do you want me to quote the verses??.. :-))

Makes sense??..

Romair:

Your jubiliation is premature. Ashok IS a hero to all Indians, including those Punjabis who consider themselves Indian. However, to you and others for whom Punjab is not part of the Indian civilization, he may not be so...and I have no problem with that.

romair you are right. indians have a sense of arrival. ``arrival`` is the ultimate ram-rajya of peace tranquility and prosperity for all, not that of conquest over skinny dark people. neither does it involve gene-pool improvemnt experiments. its a bania thing..so anyhoo, please dont wait for the indian rupee - monetary union, and pay those royaltees in your retirement.

HP #255: ``PS. Youhana and Balaji...They are both so freaking ugly... ``

I always thought Balaji was a good-looking guy. Kind of like an Indian Imran Khan. I must say I am surprised Stuka thinks so low of his South Indian looks........

Balaji was the most popular Indian, during the recent tour of Pakistan. Everyone, from college girls to politicians were chasing after him. He was himself, completely overwhelmed by his popularity, in comparison to others like Irfan Pathan, Sachin etc......He became a sex symbol of sorts.......Apparently, in India, he does not get the same fan following.........

jang #256: ``we have arrived.``

I have always wanted to ask our Indian colleagues why they are so interested in, ``arrving.`` Every Indian wants to, ``arrive.`` Why do you want to, ``arrive`` so much.........

``pakistanis, you better pay some royalities..``

We, ``arrived`` a few hundred years ago. We had our fun. And now we are into retirement......It`s too hard to rule over you guys, forever. We have now decided to let you, ``arrive`` so you can have a feel of it, also :-)

also, it used to be panjabi fair, bengali short and black and ugly.

stuka
yohanna is a bad example.. you need a real surajvanshi rajput .. not the ..whats that word they use in pakistan..something starting with cho..

anycase, fact that in india an ex-pathan from dilli acts with a khatri kapur to celeberate a bihari king hero and people spend money with the behari kings lion-seal to watch means we have arrived. pakistanis, you better pay some royalities..jinnah chap currency is ok..dont wait-up for the common southasian rupee.

Okay, this thread is now Oficially closed. No more posts. Find something better to do in life.

PS. Youhana and Balaji...They are both so freaking ugly...

Is he really that deluded to think India is about to make territorial concessions?

Kashmir solution in two weeks if leaders show will: president

KUALA LUMPUR: President General Pervez Musharraf said on Monday that the decades old dispute with archrival India over Kashmir could be resolved in two weeks if leaders of both countries showed political will.

“I am just saying two weeks (as an example.) The most important thing is for the leadership to have the will to reach a conclusion,” Musharraf told reporters in Kuala Lumpur during a refuelling stop on his way to Australia. “At this moment, the leadership has the will and I am very hopeful.”

Musharraf confirmed that talks with India were proceeding on issues such as withdrawing troops from the Siachen glacier. He said negotiations to re-deploy the troops were meant to end the “eyeball to eyeball confrontation,” adding that he was “sure we’ll reach a conclusion.”

Asked if he would like to visit Indian Held Kashmir, Musharraf said: “I would love to go there.” But he added that he would not make a formal proposal to visit the region because, “the time is not ripe yet.”

Musharraf refused to affirm if he would step down by 2007 and hand power to civilian leaders, saying “we will cross the bridge when we come to it.” The president also defended the decision to deport top Al Qaeda operative Abu Faraj Al Libbi to the United States after his arrest in May, saying it was an important move for the international fight on terror.

“If you can do much more to get to the roots of Al Qaeda, to apprehend more people around the world through the interrogation of this one man, I think that is more important than trying him (in Pakistan),” he said.

Later on Monday, President Musharraf arrived in Canberra, becoming the first Pakistani head of state to visit Australia. During his visit, Australia and Pakistan are to sign a new counter-terrorism pact, making Pakistan the 11th country to sign an agreement with Australia since the Sept 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, as Australia continues to build regional cooperation against terror groups.

The focus of Musharraf’s trip will also be on alleviating Canberra’s concerns about the links between Al Qaeda or other Pakistan-based militant movements and Islamic radicals in Southeast Asia, including Australia.

Three out of four suspects currently charged with or facing trial in Australia for terrorism offences are alleged to have obtained terrorist training in Pakistan. Prime Minister John Howard said Pakistan was a strong ally in the war against terrorism and the campaign to dismantle Al Qaeda. “These agreements play an important role in fostering cooperation between our intelligence, security, law enforcement and defence agencies,” Howard said in a statement. agencies