The Ground Beneath Pakistan’s Feet

Romair #553, {Before this thread runs out, I would like to thank Salim_Ch for his insightful comments and admittances ...I would like to nominate him (and Stuka) as the most honest Indians on this site........... ...If today, I steal Anil`s (just an example) money, occupy part of his house, double-cross him, get his wife to divorce him and his childiren to run away from home. If today, I regularly change the goalposts in my business policies in dealing with him, then will he trust me in the future ....``}

Romair,
Once again, thank you very much for your kind compliments. My aim in life is to help the blind to see better. BTW, while I appreciate being called an honest Injun, I am actually an honest Paki - hailing from Karachi originally. :) Being lumped in the same category with Stuka is quite a compliment, as long as he is OK with it. :)

I got lost in all your stealing Anil`s money, taking over his house, causing his divorce, and changing the goalposts. Does he know all this?

Actually, why stop beating around the bush. Let`s talk openly. Imagine how the Hindus and Sikhs feel. Take a huge country, called India, piss on their cherished day of independence by dividing their country into two, ostensibly to provide a homeland for Muslims, then end up having more Muslims than the truncated Pakistan, after it couldn`t keep itself together by religion, and ended up breaking along ethnic and linguistic lines. Then, having jihadis infiltrate a UN-policed LoC to blow themselves up and take Indian soldiers and mostly Kashmiri Muslims, who they are trying to liberate, with them and then watching the Pakis get caught with their pants down in PoK in an earthquake that kills 50,000 or how many we will never truly know. Then having Pakis turn down Indian help to save Kashmiris only because Indian helicopters would spy on the effort to liberate Kashmiris. So, it is more important to save Kashmiris from Indian occupation than from a grotesque death. Now that is true love for Muslim brethren and sistren. -)

This type of logic, Captain Romair, is too convoluted even for my understanding.

Romair, I didn`t say self determination is a human right. FYI, there is an international charter of human rights which is fairly comprehensive and it does not include self determination as a right.
The community of nations occasionally recognizes the right to self determination of a persecuted group. This is however different from ``human right.``
If you continue to assert that self determination is a human right recognize that this is true only in Romairstan. No one else would agree with you on this.
There is a real problem in arbitrarily granting a right to self determination, as others have pointed out in various ways. How big is this group that ought to be granted self determination? What if their demand for self determination encroaches on others` right to the same (similar to your freedom begins where my nose ends, etc.)? Who owns the land? Can a group usurp someone else`s land and claim rights to it and consequently, a right to self determination? How far back in time can you go?
As you might be able to appreciate, if you`d sit down for a minute and meditate, rather than flail about and clubbing everything with everything else, an arbitrary and general right to self determination will only lead to anarchy.
You`d have to approach kashmir from a different angle, methinks.

#547, {``I don`t think you have a pro-Indian point of view. A pro-Indian point of view would never admit to, ``Jiss kee lathi, uss kee bhains.`` Perhaps this is a Freudian slip on your part. But, I have debated these issues with Indians for six years.``}

Romair,
I don`t see what`s wrong with India using force for its legitimate national objectives. Retrieving Pondicherry, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Kashmir, Goa, Daman, Diu, and obtaining Lakshwadeep, Andaman, and Nicobar islands were all brilliant and very far-sighted acts on the part of Indian leaders. Do you really think that the Portuguese deserved to hold on to their colonies in India? I think that Pakistan supported Portugal against Nehru and even took in thousands of Goanese to show their sincerity. The disection of Pakistan in 1971 was a brilliant stroke by Indira Gandhi. Don`t blame your adversary for your own shortcomings. Again, stop looking East or West and try looking inwards and correcting what is really wrong. Don`t wait for the American fleet to rescue you from your own blunders.

Before this thread runs out, I would like to thank Salim_Ch for his insightful comments and admittances. Even if it was a Freudian slip, which he may regret later. I would like to nominate him (and Stuka) as the most honest Indians on this site...........

Having said that, one`s past defines how one`s future relationships develop. If today, I steal Anil`s (just an example) money, occupy part of his house, double-cross him, get his wife to divorce him and his childiren to run away from home. If today, I regularly change the goalposts in my business policies in dealing with him, then will he trust me in the future. If tomorrow, I, then, come to him with the greatest business plan in the world, should I expect him to partner with me......

My guess is No. He would not partner with me. And I could not blame him. Because economic (and social) partnerships of today and the future are built on trust established during the past. They are built on the following of a constant principle (be it on self-determination, human rights, loan repayments, etc.) and not on changing goalposts. And they will never succeed if, ``Jiss kee lathi, uss kee bhains`` philosophy is followed.

This is what our Indian colleagues need to introsepct on. Can they define a constant principle India has followed, historically, in dealing with Pakistan. Any principle, even if Pakistanis disagreed with it, but was followed consistently, by India. If they cannot, then acknowledgement of this shortcoming is the first step.

It is only after such acknowledgements and subsequent fair actions, that trust can be built. And it is only after such trust has been built, that grandiose plans of textile mills and economic unions can take place...........

Until then, I will have to say, Pakistan future lies with Israel - a country that desparately wants Pakistan to recognise it, and develop relations with it.........

dharma #548,
Just watch as the Pakis stop repeating the plebiscite mantra that they have been chanting since `49. Already I see growing signs among Pakis that a referendum may not go their way.

Romair #547, {``I didn`t know you were a Muslim. From your comments, you seeemed like a Sardar. ``}

What can I say? Some are fortunate to be born Sardars, others have to earn it.

Re: # 547 romair
now all the self righteous talk about human rights is gone when you cant answer simple questions from salim and myself. Now it is all about politics. but what about hyderabad, what about junnagarh and some other nonsense.

#547, Captain (not the naval type!) Romair {``Finally, we have someone who is willing to speak the truth. ... Pakistan future should be directed towards the West (UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) and China, Israel, USA (if possible) etc. ``}

Romair,
Thank you for allowing me to inject some harsh logic into your soft excuses concerning self-determination. I believe that Arjun has declared many times that India holds on to Kashmir because it CAN.

Now, your nonsense about self-determination and human rights doesn`t pass the reality test because of Pakistan`s acceptance of Chinese rule over Sinkiang with a further blessing of a slice of Kashmir as dressing.

Don`t you think that Pakistan should look in its own ``girabaan`` rather than North, South, East, or (God forbid) West?

Since you liked my bhens proverb so much, here is another one for you:

``BheNs ke aagey been bajana ...``

#546 salim

Pakistanis have uncanny ability to skip the facts that dont suit them and keep on harping on the same mantra, in the hope that repeating it many times will make it true.

Salim_Ch# ``You could argue that why couldn`t Junagadh accede to Pakistan? Well, ever hear of ``Jiski laaThi uski bheNs?``

Finally, we have someone who is willing to speak the truth. Thank God! This is the policy that India has occupied (no pun intended) in South Asia, historically. And this is what I have been trying to get our Indian colleagues to introspect on, or at least admit to.

The rules and definitions have been changed by the Indian govt. and populace, from India`s independence, to Pakistan`s independence, to Kashmir`s independence, to Hyderabad`s independence, to Junagarh and to Bangladesh. No sane person can put up a logical argument that supports any principled stance that India has followed on all these issues of self-determination and human rights. It is mathematically impossible.......

This is what Indians need to acknowledge and accept, i.e. that their govt. has followed and continues to follow double standards, in South Asia. After which, we can move forward. What will that forward be? Depends. If the policy remains, ``Jiss ki lathi, uss kee bhains,`` then my guess is while individual friendship based partnerships will occur between India and Pakistan (like mine), Pakistan future should be directed towards the West (UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) and China, Israel, USA (if possible) etc.

If, however, Indians are willing to acknowledge, like our resident Prince of Jaipur that India has changed the goalposts as and when required, and agree to one principle, from this point onwards, then I think there will be a tendency to look East, in Pakistan.......

``Romair is not going to even consider the presence of a Muslim with a pro-Indian viewpoint.``

I didn`t know you were a Muslim. From your comments, you seeemed like a Sardar.

I don`t think you have a pro-Indian point of view. A pro-Indian point of view would never admit to, ``Jiss kee lathi, uss kee bhains.`` Perhaps this is a Freudian slip on your part. But, I have debated these issues with Indians for six years. No one other than you has ever admitted to this (actually Stuka is the only one who admitted to it, once)..........

#545, dharma {``Who occupied Kashmir? India was never without Kashmir in its history.``}

Very good point. Another aspect to consider is the following logic:

Kashmir has a Muslim majority and is occupied by India, so Pakistan wants India to honor the wishes of Kashmiris

Sinkiang (Eastern Turkistan) may still have a Muslim majority and is occupied by China, but Pakistan does not press China to honor the wishes of the native Uighurs.

Is there some hypocrisy in this dichotomy?

Unlike India, China has shipped numerous Han Chinese to alter the demographics of Sinkiang. To make matters worse, Pakistan has sucked up to China by rewarding it with a sizable chunk of Kashmir.

Re: # 541 romair
>The question is not of secession. It is of occupation. Do you support occupation? Or do >you consider it a human rights violation?

Kashmir has been part of Indian culture and ethos for thousands of years. India`s first prime minister was from Kashmir. Kashmir is and has been sacred land of majority of indians. Who occupied Kashmir? India was never without Kashmir in its history.

>India has killed between 40,000 to 80,000 Muslim Kashmiris. Hence you are a bit late on >this claim. I don`t think Pakistan has killed anything close to this number.........

What percentage of it is because of the jehad supported by pakistan? Or you dont want to take any responsibility? Also when people follow extreme ways they have no right to expect peace. Peace begets peace. And violence begets violence. That is one reason none of the non kashmiri indians sympathise with them. We are the land of gandhi, budha and inumerable other saints. Indians as majortiy never can relate to violence. They always worshipped sanyasis not warriors.

These are all normal logical, moral questions every indian asks , but no pakistani ever answers, like the other 10 questions i asked, they are always on indians minds. If they are not logically explained they have no reason to change their minds. They are in the right as far as logic and morality are concerned.

Just like the Muslim League in India, Romair is not going to even consider the presence of a Muslim with a pro-Indian viewpoint. Some things never change. The Muslim League considered Azad, Kidwai, and Madni traitors to Islam.

Soysauce #518: ``Romair, almost no one else will agree with you on self determination being a human right. There is, in certain cases, a right to self determination that is acknowledged. Your definition being unique, youre not going to be able to goad anyone else to agree to it.``

Dost-mittar thinks self-determination is not a human right, at all. You think it is a right in certain cases. Even the two of you cannot agree, on a defintion of human rights. At least agree to one definition, historically. Stop changing the goalposts, as and when it is suitable.........Either support one definition, or oppose one definition.....My guess is that both of you have different definitions when your nationalism is involved........

It`s a no-win situation. When it suits India, the defintions or right and wrong change. I am not stating this as an attack on India. Just trying to get our Indian colleagues to introspect. So that they stop giving lectures to Pakistanis twenty-four hours a day, and start looking at themselves and what they are doing wrong (and right)......

So, based on the above, agree to one defintion of self-determination and apply it across the board. And see where you end up, with regard to the various stances India has historically taken in South Asia.........I will accept any definition you would like. And if you see contradiction, and double standards, then at least accept that India has indulged in double standards. We cannot do much about it now. But it may result in Indians admitting the faults they have made......

Kindly check out the following examples:

It was under the defintion of, ``self-determination`` that India, itself, got its independence. It was under this definition that Pakistan got its independence. It was under this definition, that India assisted Bangladesh in getting its independence. With respect to Kashmir, it is the accepted stance of the whole United Nations. Amongst other indivduals, Nehru, Gandhi, and Indhra Gandhi, Mujib also believe in it:

``If the people of Kashmir do not want to stay with India, we will not force them against their wishes,`` (Nehru)

``....The people of Kashmir should be asked whether they want to join Pakistan and India. Let them do as they want. The ruler is nothing. The people are everything.....If the people of Kashmir are in favour of option for Pakistan, no power on earth can stop them from doing so. But they should be left free to decide for themselves.`` (Gandhi)

Indhra Gandhi and Mujib made similar speeches about the freedom of Bangladesh. You can search for them, on the net.............

So, is self-determination a human right or is it not. Or is it a human right, if India is pushing it, but not if someone is pushing it against India? Make up your mind and let me know.........

Romair #541 {``It is alright for India to assist in the succession of Bangladesh - a non-disputed territory, but Kashmir is atut-ang - a dispute territory, regardless of what the people want. I am afraid I see contradictions here``}

Romair,
Sorry for interfering - I realize your response was addressed to DM, however, I read it and got very confused. First of all, I think you mean secession of BD. If that is right, then please be advised that the secession of BD was legally recognized by Pakistan. I believe Mr. Bhutto accepted that one. Therefore, secession of BD from Pakistan is NOT analogous to the situation in Kashmir.
Under the Indian Independence Act, there was a stipulation that the ruler of the princely states could accede to either India or Pakistan, taking into account the wishes of his people. Maharaja Hari Singh did sign the accession papers in favor of India - Mr. Krishna Menon made sure of that. Hyderabad tried to become independent, but that was not one of the options. You could argue that why couldn`t Junagadh accede to Pakistan? Well, ever hear of ``Jiski laaThi uski bheNs?``

Dost-mittar #517: ``My concept of human rights does not extend to anyone seceding to have their own country, and that too without a justifiable basis. You are creating this ``human right`` to justify a narrow end, but it is a recipe for chaos in the whole world.``

The question is not of secession. It is of occupation. Do you support occupation? Or do you consider it a human rights violation?

I think you have highlighted the double standard that has been followed in South Asia. Based on your definition, where exactly does the creation of Bangladesh fit in? India`s official policy has been to support succession. Not oppose it. So doesn`t that indicate an obvious double standard? How can anyone gloss over that, so easily......I am not talking about your personal views. But the official Indian policy..........One cannot have it both ways. One cannot change the goal posts, and definition of human rights, as and when one sees fit.........You are far too intelligent to not see this contradiction. Are you willing to, at least, admit to it?

``Just to clarify my post#516, I am not suggesting that India should have followed Pakistan and killed, converted or thrown out Muslim Kashmiris.``

India has killed between 40,000 to 80,000 Muslim Kashmiris. Hence you are a bit late on this claim. I don`t think Pakistan has killed anything close to this number.........

This is the whole point I am trying to make, when I point out the direction Pakistan should look towards. Let`s assume what you are stating is correct. And India never does anything wrong, while Pakistan ethnically cleanses Kashmiris. Even then, the situation doesn`t change.

What I consider massive human rights violations, you consider normal appropriate behavior. If you and I cannot even agree on the definition of a basic human right of a person, then what are the chances of the Indian hate brigade on this site and I agreeing. It is alright for India to assist in the succession of Bangladesh - a non-disputed territory, but Kashmir is atut-ang - a dispute territory, regardless of what the people want. I am afraid I see contradictions here........Even if you don`t........

Yet, I don`t see any introspection from Indian on this. They all seem to want to give lectures to Pakistanis, on what they should and should not do. Any Indian who racially and in a bigoted manner abuses Islam and Pakistan for two years, is not a bigot, but someone who has a, ``killer instinct!`` So on and so forth...........

Don`t you think it is about time Indians started a little soul-searching regarding their attitudes towards South Asia and Pakistan, and got out of self-defined solutions and stuck with one definition of human rights and succession, etc.?

If not, then can you blame Pakistanis, if they look East and not West?