Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

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: # 267 harish

``Nehru, who? Unlike you, we are not hung up on personalities, be it Gandhi, Nehru, or whoever. ``

You really are a dumb fuddu, aren`t you? This isn`t just any personality. This isn`t some Nathoo Raam pakora fryer on some smelly chowk in Delhi. This is Pandit Nehru, the father of your country and the leader of your country during the Indian invasion of J & K. His pledges aren`t just his personal pledges, they are the pledges of the Indian government.

`` In case you missed it, this is circa 2005 and we left behind 1952 some 53 years ago. ``

Yes, all these years and you still haven`t honoured your pledges to the Kashmiris. In fact, you`ve now started murdering, torturing and raping them in order to avoid honouring your pledges to them. You people have no shame.


``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.``

It would be a bit dumb to appeal to the conciences of people who having once made solemn pledges to the Kashmiri nation are now mass-murdering them in order to avoid honouring those pledges, woudn`t it? Clearly such people don`t have a conscience to appeal to.

But FYI, the first attempt to grab Kashmir from India came in 1965, several years after India all-of-a-sudden started declaring Kashmir to its be own part. And futhermore, you have made commitments to the Kashmiris themselves. Nothing we do can invalidate or free you from them.

#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.

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.

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

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

Dost-mittar #247: ``You have a point if you look strictly from a Punjab perspective. You could go down further and look it from a Multan versus Lahore perspective also, if you so want.``

Thank God!!......Now I can rest in peace........I hope I will not catch you dancing to the songs of the movie Ashoka, staring Shahrukh Khan, anytime soon. That would be no different than someone in Lahore dancing to the songs of a movie about Ghaznavi.......Do keep in mind that Ashoka (and others) could have killed many of your ancestors.........Had they not done so, there could potentially be a hundred Dost-mittars in Ottowa and a hundred Stukas in USA.......

``The world historians will continue to treat the whole subcontinental civilization as one, albeit one comprising several strands, even though it is now divided into four nation states.``

Yes. Which is an idiciation of how little, the world historians know about this area............

Stuka #250: ``Romair..interesting that you bring up this point...I am pasting below two images..the first is Yousaf Yohana..a ``Fair and Lovely`` Punjabi of Pakistani heritage. The send is the Dark Madrasi Balaji. Please point out what racial differences you see...``

You seem to be brinigng down South Indians in the looks dept. I never said they were inferior looking. Why do you keep saying they are. I just said people look different across South Asia.........

I will give you the one on Yosuf Yohana.......He could pass off for Balaji.............But I was comparing the whole team to Sri Lanka. And compared Harbajan to Balaji..........Do post their pictures..........

I know so many Punjabis and Pathans who could pass off as Britishers. That does not mean a majority of Punjabis could. We are discussing the majority here..........Minorities keep migrating in and out. Put up a complete picture of the Pakistan team and the Sri Lankan team, and we can do a comparison...........I think many would find the Sri Lankan team better looking.........But everyone would find the two team different looking..........

Stuka #249: ``Damn, this Punjabi = Fair and Tall and Bihari = Short and Dark mantra has been internalized wesat of the Border.``

I never once mentioned that Punjabis were better looking than Biharis. You seem to have come up with that notion on your own. Husn-e-Bengal is world famous. I just said they looked different............

``These extend from Punjab all the way to Eastern UP and Bihar. Would you say they are different nations?``

It`s not a question of nations. It is a question of civilizations. Many civilizations can be in one nation. As in India. Or in Pakistan. If the above-mentioned satisfy the pre-requisites of a civilization, then they are. Otherwise they are not........

``Who said Urdu`s roots are Turki and Irani? That is the root of the script. If Urdu`s roots were only Turkish and Iranian, no Indian would understand it. Urdu is a combination of Hindi mixed with the languages you mention. But Urdu is way more similar to Hindi that it is to Turkish and Persian. How many Iranians would understand Urdu compared to Indians?``

Hindi can be looked at two ways. The original Hindi, with Sansikrit and Prakrit roots. However, the spoken Hindi is more like Urdu (from what I understand). Urdu`s roots are actually Persian, Turkish, Arabic and Sansikrat-based Hindi. The word Urdu is, itself, a Turkish word.

In that sense spoken Hindi is similar to Urdu. Not the other way around. I assume, original Hindi, would be more Sansikrit bases. I think it would be easier for an Urdu speaker to study Persian than to study Sansikrat.........

``Western civilization is one large civilization that exists in multiple national manifestations.``

Western civilization is one large civilization, only after Samuel Huntington published his book. He also considers Islam to be one large civilization. As well as Hinduism to be one large civilization. He, himself argued that he was writing at a very abstract level.

Do you consider Islam or Hinduism to be one large civilization? I certainly don`t. Languages are actually very good indicators of civilizations............

``So, since an Englishman may not understand French, you mean England and France are two distinct civilzations?``

Yes. Of course..........Perhaps not within their current geographical boundaries. But on ethnic historical basis............Punjab is a civilization of its own which is currently split across two countries. As are Bengalis. As are Pathans, split across two countries.........