Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

Netizen/RawDust: Do both of you support the creation of Bangladesh or do you oppose its creation?

H P

This link will show you some of India`s inner city highways.....`decaying` is the word you used to describe our infrastructure.....yet you pout when we indians propound our pak views based on what we have been taught and learnt through out media.....why this double standard??.........

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=161436

re: Romair # 85

The common view in India is that after a democratically held elections in which ALL Pakistanis took part, a minority part of Pakistan tried to usurp power from Pakistan`s majority part. When the minority part insisted on snatching power by force, the majority part of Pakistan walked away. In a democratic set up, no majority would or should allow/tolerate a minority segment of the population to usurp power through illegal military means.

Was India correct in supporting the Pakistani majority?

Depends on what one means by the word `correct.` Consider India`s options. Hardly five years ago, events in 1965 had made it clear to many in India that Pakistan was not going to live in peace, until it felt it could achieve its objectives in Kashmir militarily. For the proper Indian defense of Kashmir, and for the sake of future peace in the subcontinent, it was necessary to reduce Pakistan`s ability to militarily snatch territory from India.

There was also a major factor that India had not fully anticipated. After a minority group in Pakistan used military force to deprive the Pakistani majority of democratically won power, large numbers of members of Pakistani majority began to pour into India for refuge. If India did not intervene decisively on the side of Pakistani majority, India stood to suffer enormous costs of supporting large and increasing numbers of Pakistani majority refugees.

Facing international pressure, India could not shut its doors to the threatened and discriminated members of Pakistani majority. On the other hand, the nation had no obligation to let this situation worsen endlessly.

``Is there the same kind of hatred in Pakistan for Mujeeb, that exists in India for Jinnah?``

Pakistani attitude toward Mujeeb (or even India) has changed as they have learnt more about what happened in 1971. For quite sometime after 1971, Mujeeb was no hero to west Pakistanis.

Neither are Jinnah and Mujeeb equivalent. Indian hatred for Jinnah arises from his espousal of TNT. On the other hand, Mujeeb, a member of the majority community in Pakistan, continuously emphasized his brotherhood with minority Pakistanis, repeatedly begging minority Pakistanis to believe that he was a good Pakistani brother.

``And is there the same kind of dislike in Pakistan, for Bangladesh that exists in India for Pakistan?``

There would be no reason for the similar kind of dislike for Bangladesh. Pakistan does not lay claim to any Bangladeshi territory now. Pakistan also seeks to establish itself as a sort of leader of Islamic brotherhood.

One doesn`t hate a so-called brother as easily as one hates another who one considers less pure than oneself or religiously defiled. Clearly, there is a deep sense of racism involved here, although Bengalis too suffered the brunt of the same race-based discrimination when they were part of Pakistan.

Finally, if India is viewed as the great enemy and the biggest threat, then it makes strategic sense to promote Islamic brotherhood with Bangladesh and to weaken Bangladesh`s ties with India. The kind of dislike promoted toward India would be very irrational were it also extended toward Bangladesh.

romair, most people in india dont give 2-hoots for bangla desh or jiye sindh or anything. only concern was large refugee population and the way govt put a VAT of 20% on things like bus-tickets to pay for refugees. there is no moral support from indian people for bengali freedom fight. mukti-bahini support was mostly at government-army level. no big rallys collecting funds for bengali freedom fighters that i recall..they got their ammo form indian army straight

#98 is not by me.
Till now i had just heard about computer/network malfunctions, have experienced now.

# 98/99

That`s an important point. Indian interventions in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were largely implemented at the level of governments. In neither case, there was any popular mass mobilization of the Indian populace. Hence, nobody felt any imperatives to justify those military interventions in popular moralistic terms.

Re: # 103

Do you support the cessation of Bangladesh from Pakistan and its creation.......


I am asking on a matter of principle, i.e. Do you think a group of people, if it feels threatened or if it feels it can prosper better on its own, has the right to break away from its parent country, and form its own independent country?

On this basis No. americans lost over 600000 lives on that issue.

But pakistan had no basis from the start itself. Two wings separated by a large enemy country. and with the democratic process muzzled, there was no process to vent anger and frustation other than rebellion. I am surprised that it lasted that long. just because majority of bengalis were muslims doesn`t mean you can form a nation with them. If that were the case forming a nation with persia would have a greater chance of survival.
the same happened with yugoslavia, waiting to explode.

Netizen/Kaalchakra/RawDust: Do you support the cessation of Bangladesh from Pakistan and its creation.......

You have provided all kinds of reasonings, about why and how India supported it. But have not answered the basic question. Every side provides some kind of reason, for what they did or did not do which in many case is conflicting......

I am asking on a matter of principle, i.e. Do you think a group of people, if it feels threatened or if it feels it can prosper better on its own, has the right to break away from its parent country, and form its own independent country?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.......

romair..

``Do you think a group of people, if it feels threatened or if it feels it can prosper better on its own, has the right to break away from its parent country, and form its own independent country? ``

in kindergarten veriety economics we talk of ``ceteris paribus`` .. a silly notion of ``if all other things being equal``. In such conditions, simple answers make sense.

Romair:

``#91 by Romair on June 8, 2005 1:50pm PT
Netizen/RawDust: Do both of you support the creation of Bangladesh or do you oppose its creation? ``

Here is the answer:
Contingent upon the denial of transfer of power to the People`s representatives (democratically elected) - the Federation had seized to exist and it was only the Right course to claim independence from the Occupiers of the federation called Pakistan.

Your question naively implying it was Bangalis who instigated the crisis. How very amusing!

HP:

I agree with the thrust of your article. One could disagree with statements here and there but that would distract from the main analysis, which is on the right track. You have also identified the ointment:

``Both Indian and Pakistani state machineries excel in dragging their feet, shoving issues under the rug and bringing the decision making process to a crawl in their respective internal systems.``

This is why there has been no progress on any of the non-kashmir issues on which bilateral negotiations are taking place.

Re: # 107 BJ
//...Keep your Pakistan! You have earned it (once again) through your religious bigotry, ...//

I understand your frsutration, but I knew you will reach this conclusion sooner or later. Like I have said from the very beginning - there is a reason why partition was done and there is more reasons why it should be enforced.

The reason was simple - as exemplified by closet-mullah32[tahmed]. There were[and still are] a host of muslims[not all] so steeped in prejudices against hindus [and others] they are beyond repair.... It`s always the same - hindu animosity, hindu treachery, hindu cowards, hindu this, hindu that. Mr tahmed perfectly personifies such big0try. Now consider the fact that he is supposed to be one of the so-called liberal paki and self-proclaimed gate-keeper against gross generalizations. And yet - the guy goes on and on about so called ``hindu animosity``[ that`s why I call him the closet-mullah] . SO you can imagine what the not-so-liberal pakis would have in mind so far as hidnus and indians are concerned.

This big0try has always existed[and still does] among a lot of muslims - it springs partly from anti-kufr fascism promoted by islam. It was no secret - Jinnah always knew that too. So when things fell apart with congress - it didn`t take much for him to unleash his last and most potent weapon - the big0try of the common musalman. So when jinnah made his call for war against hindus [he termed it as direct action day] - the faithful were ready to go.

See - jinnah was never a man of the masses. he didn`t talk their language, didn`t eat their food, didn`t pray with them - didn`t identify with them. And yet how come he was able generate the mass hysteria? because he touched the right button which always existed - the button of the un-precedented bigo0try of many muslims agains their fellow men. He appealed to their most basic instincts and the rest is histroy.

It`s good that jinnah did what he did and when he did it - right before independence so that the partition could be done right at the outset. Otherwise, we have had an vicious civil war later - becuase some other politician would have definitely done exactly what jinnah did - because it was waiting there to be exploited.

#77 Tahmed

You win! Keep your Pakistan! You have earned it (once again) through your religious bigotry, hard-headed persistence and absolute obduracy - there is no room for logic and obvious facts in there. Obviously, you have a lot of company on this site. Enjoy each other! Happy trails!

You really DESERVE it - anything but a Hindu. Keep away from all those HINDUS - including me, please! (See, all the problems got solved, didn`t they?)

Have fun!!You and your kind! Now, and forever!

Ref Aha_Snark #95

[...Only 40 years have allowed the Government to contradict in real life the resolution calling for the armed forces to throw the Chinese out. We give Aksai Chin, they give Arunachal and Sikkim.]

No, it is the stupidity of Nehru who thought India wouldn`t need an army now that he was the Prince of Peace, First Among the Beggar Nations, and Bhai-Bhai with China.

It is that b!tch Indira Gandhi who said she won`t go to war with China over land where even grass does not grow.

It is freaking Commies like you who would not mind giving up land to kiss Chinese arse.

Read Kissinger`s books. The Chinese were afraid India, Russi and the US would attack Cina together in 1962.

The Americans not only provided military aid to India in 1962 but suggested bombing the Chinese from the air. Instead, Nehru`s cousin Gen. Kaul meekly surrendered territory in Arunachal Pradesh.

Wimps!

re: 105

I don`t know if most Pakistanis (I am mostly interested in younger people) have come to know/realize the truth of what you wrote.

It`s astonishing that the 1971 debacle is represented as some sort of `breaking away of Bangladesh.` In the post-war period, the nation`s majority, East Pakistan could justifiably have claimed the name of Pakistan for itself, forcing the current `Pakistan` to be renamed as Industan or some such other thing.

In a way, 1971 saw the original Pakistan Jinnah`s dreams break in two radically different parts: one in which the principle of democracy was accepted as supreme, and the other in which legitimate power was accepted to flow from brute coercive force, from the power of the gun.

Surely, it is nothing more than coincidence, but more than 30 years later, the two parts of Pakistan continue to carry the imprints of their original traumatic choices.

re: Romair # 103

``Do you think a group of people, if it feels threatened or if it feels it can prosper better on its own, has the right to break away from its parent country, and form its own independent country? ``


Absolutely not. Feelings are never sufficient justification for radical surgery. Feelings are just feelings, which could be related to deeper maladies.

A wiser decision is to conduct a proper diagnosis, and then if feelings are found to be unrelated to reality, then to cure the source of those feelings.

Sometimes feelings do reflect the reality, as reality is commonly understood. In those circumstances, the appropriate response would be obviously different.