I don't usually visit Sulekha much these days. Today, during lunch I had some spare time and decided to see the "latest" developments on Sulekha.
Beside the fact that Sulekha looks even more cluttered than it's previous incarnation, I was pleased to discover that they had re-introduced their Columns section. Now at least the more serious writers will get some better "air-time" and all the stuff that accompanies it.
But I was aghast to read this nugget, written by our own personal enigma -- Sri Anand Nair.
I had decided not to lock horns with this great soul again, but I have to do, this time. And I will post a comment on Mr. Nair's blog/column to give him the freedom to post his comments (either here or via his blogs should he be interested).
Let me quote freely from this article --
After attending a massive rally of over 5 Lakh (500,000) protesters at Srinagar on 19 Aug 2008, Arundhati Roy is reported to have said, "India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India". This statement brings to the foreground, the thorny issue of secession.
Has Miss Roy ever stopped to think of the population of Kashmiri Pandits, who were literally thrown out of the homeland of their ancestors (who roamed freely in the valley long before the Moslems arrived)?
Has Miss Roy any idea what Kashmir means to Bharata Varsha (the Land of Truth)?
Probably not. You see, Kashmir was the land of Abhinava Gupta, Lalla, the mystics of Kashmiri Shaivism. This is the beautiful land from which finest of Indian Philosophical and Cultural treasures arose. It's easy to cater to sensationalism and proclaim Azadi in the hysterical style that is her trademark. But that doesn't do anything to placate...nay! even understand the plight of those whose birthright it is to walk this land free.
The video clip above tells the supressed story. Amidst the rhetoric and lunacy that is the "Kashmiri Freedom Struggle" (read Terrorist Movement), the voice of this minority (Kashmiri Hindus) was all but lost. No one did a thing! The napunsak (eunuch) Indian Government was silent. The world community was silent. The (usually hysterical) NGOs did not say a word. The media merely brushed these things over. I hear that the Pandits still live in refugee camps in Delhi (almost 20 years since their displacement).
Let me quote some more from Sri Nair's article.
To answer these questions, we must first consider the basis of nationhood.
According to Arun Jaitly and many others, all that matters is territorial integrity. Any political discourse that questions this, must amount to sedition -- and will need to be dealt with as such.
I would disagree with the above popular perception. To me, the basis of civilized nationhood can only be a broad consensus that exists among the people that constitute the nation. When a nation includes a variety of ethnic, linguistic, ideological and religious groups, nationhood must be based upon the general desire of these disparate groups to remain part of the union.
Indeed, I would strongly support any move that would grant the right to secede to regions within a nation -- with laid down Constitutional procedures that would make actual secession rather difficult, but not impossible.
In particular, India is a large nation with a multiplicity of languages, cultures, ethnicities, religions and so on. From a moral perspective, our nationhood must be premised on continuing consensus among all federal constituents to voluntarily remain part of the Union. This will indeed put counter pressure on the larger communities, linguistic groups etc to be reasonably sensitive to the cultural/ linguistic/ religious sensibilities of the smaller groups. And pray, why not?
The exercise of the (proposed) right to secede would of course need to be circumscribed by elaborate Constitutional procedures.
Mr Nair's logic states that any group or community that wants to break away from this federation of diverse entities can do so, and the Indian constitution should morally be obligated to support such a scenario.
Umm...okay. So let's drill down further (instead of India, the federation of states), let us take each state itself. So, let's take Sri Nair's own state of Kerala. Which a highly diverse and educated State (there are a substantial percentage of Moslems, Christians, Jews even besides your everyday Hindus in Kerala). If we were to follow Sri Nair's reasoning, the State of Kerala should also be morally obligated to allow say the Christian community to secede should they not be satisfied being a part of the collective whole.
Once they had seceded from Kerala (formed their own state), they then might say (with or without some help from external factors) "Pah! We don't like this Indian Federation business...let us create our own Nation". The Indian Consititution, which now has been ammended to allow for such a situation will naturally allow such a thing to happen (of course, after circumscription of all the Constitutional procedures). So then this will/might set of a chain reaction. We already have some naughty agents of God working their magic in the North East. We've been hearing their calls for freedom too, since the past 30 years or so . So, naturally they will also be allowed to become "independent".
Say, the "secessionists" must be required by law to register their intent with the election commission and then be obliged to form a political party with the stated aim to mobilize support for secession. If minimum criteria as laid down for this are met, the election commission would declare a referendum (to decide the issue either way) five years hence. The five year period is for those who support/ oppose secession to mobilize public opinion in their respective favour -- through peaceful democratic discourse. The referendum will settle the issue either way. It may be specified that over 66% of the registered voters of the region must vote in favour of secession, if this is to be upheld.
If the referendum gives a vote against secession, then there ought to be a bar against another constitutional bid for the same in next 10 years. On the other hand, if the result of the referendum favours secession, this should be followed up with a graceful transfer of power of the territory...
I do not believe that the above will lead to Balkanisation of India. On the other hand, this may well lay the groundwork to undo the partition. It is not impossible that the peoples of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka etc realize the advantage (to themselves) in becoming part of a larger federal republic -- once they see that the Union is Constitutionally sensitive to regional/ subcultural aspirations and differences.
Hmm...doesn't that seem a bit insane? When a group of people of a particular community don't see eye-to-eye with the rest of the group (the majority), they obviously won't want to participate in the democratic process, will they? Because obviously they will lose.
Mr Nair, please take a poll of every Indian today and see what percentage of their votes for the secession of Kashmir! The whole point of a nation being a democracy is that the members (of this democracy) decide via various means what particular course of action they will take (as a collective), based on consensus. How is this consensus arrived at? When a definitive majority comes to the same conclusion. So, while I am certain that Mr. Nair's provision for secession will not work (by virtue of being subject to democratic process), doesn't it seem unnecessary? I think it does.
But what this article doesn't address is that a wonderful portion of this landmass (that is India) and all it's historic and pre-historic memories, artifacts and culture is inextricably woven into the tapestry of India (the past, present and hopefully the future). The heritage of the Kashmiri Pandit is also the heritage of the average Indian in any city, any village. How then can we let go of this essential component of our existence as a nation?
This also brings forth these questions (surely been asked before) --
What is in the best interest of the Kashmiri people (and this also includes the Pandits along with the Moslem population)? Be a tiny little nation which lives off alms thrown at it by it's neighbors and the global community or a proud part of a growing world power?
Don't the Kashmiri people want to tap into the huge potential (slowly being kinetized) of the Indian being?
Has the toxic rhetoric of the terrorists (so valiantly supported by another paragon of democracy the Late Miss Benazir Bhutto, as shown in the video above) so poisoned the hearts and minds of the common people in Kashmir that they don't know what's good for them anymore?
Do these common Kashmiris even have a voice? Or is the majority of the noise being created by secessionists with a different agenda (sponsored by the neighbor to the west)?
A lot of questions. Do you, dear Medhavi have your opinion on this? Do share.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (29)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by mogambo, 2008-10-09 19:35:57
What happened 60 years ago has no relevance today.
Let me give several examples.
!. US army massacred tens of thousands of American Indians, moved them to reservations barely 100 years ago. Does that give American Indians any right to secede from the US. In fact it has been a persistent US govt policy to import millions of Europeans in to US to make American Indians a permanently small minority and thus settle the problem. It is also a fact that US govt chose as a matter of deliberate policy to christianize the American Indian population. Do you think all European settlers in the US should leave US and hand over the entire US to American Indians?
The American Indians have not asked to separate, at least not most of them and not in a united voice. In this case there were people who came from overseas and displaced the local population. In case of Kashmir, many of the muslims were previously hindu and still have their hindu last names such as Bhat, etc. Also the length of history behind Kashmir is significantly larger than in the case of America. We cannot compare the two.
2. In 1861 a very large fraction of Americans chose to secede from the US on the slave issue. Slave issue was left undecided by the founding fathers of the US. Did the US allow these Americans to secede?
This is a valid point. But those were different times and the scope and ability of the secessionists was much limited compared to those in todays world. You have to understand that mogambo's point about kashmir-surgery is for india's best health.
The fact that the Indian President has not revoked or changed Article 370 is a non sequitur issue. What it tells me is that the Indian establishment is mortally afraid of muslims. Just over the India-Tibet border, Chinese Government has adopted the policy of importing millions of Han Chinese into Tibet and solved the problem permanently. There will never again be an independent Tibetan country. Tibetans are already a minority in Greater Tibet.
As a matter of fact India has bent backwards in treating the Kashmiri muslims. The problem could have been easily solved if the US or Chinese approach had been adopted. Even Pakistan and Bangladesh have solved their Hindu minority problem permanently by chasing Hindus out of those countries.I am not suggesting that we adopt the US, Chinese or muslim approach - just pointing out facts.
Mogambo thinks this "could have, would have, should have" point is the moot one. whatever was done was definitely inadequate. but they dont change todays reality.
It is a fact that Hindus have given muslims a large fraction of the Indian continent. In fact muslims got a larger share of the continent then their numbers would justify in 1947. In that fraction muslim behavior to minorities has been appalling. Any muslim who is unhappy in India should go to those parts of the continent set aside for muslims. Muslims, whether Indian or Kashmiri, cannot expect Hindus to keep giving them land.
Finally what Nehru did or didn't is another non sequitur issue. Sardar Patel advised Nehru to trade Buddhist majority Chittagong and Chittagong Hill tracts given to East Pakistan for Kashmir. Patel wanted to settle Hindu refugees from East Pakistan in Chittagong. Nehru refused. Nehru also gave up Tibet to China without a fight. His behavior in India-China 1962 war is well known. He presided over economic stagnation. So Nehru has a long history of erratic behavior.So again bringing up Nehru is a waste of time.
again, mogambo's point is not about religious bickerings. mogambo simply wants to point out that one of the solutions to this problem is to remove kashmir.
it is not practical to simply brush historical facts aside and run roughshod over the people of the land. it is not a simple case of geopolitical gamesmanship. this is about real live people, both hindu and muslim kashmiris whose way of life has been destroyed as a result of this struggle. is it too much to ask that a resolution to this problem be arrived at and that they be allowed to go on with their lives? they have been frozen in time since the past several decades.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-10-06 12:11:33
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370'>http]
What happened 60 years ago has no relevance today.
Let me give several examples.
!. US army massacred tens of thousands of American Indians, moved them to reservations barely 100 years ago. Does that give American Indians any right to secede from the US. In fact it has been a persistent US govt policy to import millions of Europeans in to US to make American Indians a permanently small minority and thus settle the problem. It is also a fact that US govt chose as a matter of deliberate policy to christianize the American Indian population. Do you think all European settlers in the US should leave US and hand over the entire US to American Indians?
2. In 1861 a very large fraction of Americans chose to secede from the US on the slave issue. Slave issue was left undecided by the founding fathers of the US. Did the US allow these Americans to secede?
The fact that the Indian President has not revoked or changed Article 370 is a non sequitur issue. What it tells me is that the Indian establishment is mortally afraid of muslims. Just over the India-Tibet border, Chinese Government has adopted the policy of importing millions of Han Chinese into Tibet and solved the problem permanently. There will never again be an independent Tibetan country. Tibetans are already a minority in Greater Tibet.
As a matter of fact India has bent backwards in treating the Kashmiri muslims. The problem could have been easily solved if the US or Chinese approach had been adopted. Even Pakistan and Bangladesh have solved their Hindu minority problem permanently by chasing Hindus out of those countries.I am not suggesting that we adopt the US, Chinese or muslim approach - just pointing out facts.
It is a fact that Hindus have given muslims a large fraction of the Indian continent. In fact muslims got a larger share of the continent then their numbers would justify in 1947. In that fraction muslim behavior to minorities has been appalling. Any muslim who is unhappy in India should go to those parts of the continent set aside for muslims. Muslims, whether Indian or Kashmiri, cannot expect Hindus to keep giving them land.
Finally what Nehru did or didn't is another non sequitur issue. Sardar Patel advised Nehru to trade Buddhist majority Chittagong and Chittagong Hill tracts given to East Pakistan for Kashmir. Patel wanted to settle Hindu refugees from East Pakistan in Chittagong. Nehru refused. Nehru also gave up Tibet to China without a fight. His behavior in India-China 1962 war is well known. He presided over economic stagnation. So Nehru has a long history of erratic behavior.So again bringing up Nehru is a waste of time.
What happened 60 years ago has no relevance today.
Let me give several examples.
!. US army massacred tens of thousands of American Indians, moved them to reservations barely 100 years ago. Does that give American Indians any right to secede from the US. In fact it has been a persistent US govt policy to import millions of Europeans in to US to make American Indians a permanently small minority and thus settle the problem. It is also a fact that US govt chose as a matter of deliberate policy to christianize the American Indian population. Do you think all European settlers in the US should leave US and hand over the entire US to American Indians?
2. In 1861 a very large fraction of Americans chose to secede from the US on the slave issue. Slave issue was left undecided by the founding fathers of the US. Did the US allow these Americans to secede?
The fact that the Indian President has not revoked or changed Article 370 is a non sequitur issue. What it tells me is that the Indian establishment is mortally afraid of muslims. Just over the India-Tibet border, Chinese Government has adopted the policy of importing millions of Han Chinese into Tibet and solved the problem permanently. There will never again be an independent Tibetan country. Tibetans are already a minority in Greater Tibet.
As a matter of fact India has bent backwards in treating the Kashmiri muslims. The problem could have been easily solved if the US or Chinese approach had been adopted. Even Pakistan and Bangladesh have solved their Hindu minority problem permanently by chasing Hindus out of those countries.I am not suggesting that we adopt the US, Chinese or muslim approach - just pointing out facts.
It is a fact that Hindus have given muslims a large fraction of the Indian continent. In fact muslims got a larger share of the continent then their numbers would justify in 1947. In that fraction muslim behavior to minorities has been appalling. Any muslim who is unhappy in India should go to those parts of the continent set aside for muslims. Muslims, whether Indian or Kashmiri, cannot expect Hindus to keep giving them land.
Finally what Nehru did or didn't is another non sequitur issue. Sardar Patel advised Nehru to trade Buddhist majority Chittagong and Chittagong Hill tracts given to East Pakistan for Kashmir. Patel wanted to settle Hindu refugees from East Pakistan in Chittagong. Nehru refused. Nehru also gave up Tibet to China without a fight. His behavior in India-China 1962 war is well known. He presided over economic stagnation. So Nehru has a long history of erratic behavior.So again bringing up Nehru is a waste of time.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2008-10-03 18:17:03
He means tolerance of injustice by onlookers in any scenario ?in this case this surely means intellectuals/mainstream media who misuse quotes and not ?tolerance? by the helpless oppressed
it is a matter of interpretation. if gandhiji thought it was only the duty of the onlookers to act in case of injustice india would never have become independant.
i think gandhiji meant that unless the people who weere in troble acted against their tormenters, no one could help them. best help is self help.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2008-10-03 18:12:28
My answer: Fair enough! Allow me to raise a similar question.Who are you to decide or judge what the people of India want?
My comment:
Fair enough! But two can play this game. Kashmiri muslims are a minority in India. If we are to live by the rule of democracy and not be hypocrites, then we have to accept the fact that the majority of Indians want Kashmir to remain part of India.With that in mind, should the Kashmiri muslims [minority] not have to deal with it? Therefore, either stay with the Hindus of India or leave India.
there is a diff betwn indian muslims and kashmiri muslims. that is because indian muslims or their parents or grandparents chose to live in india and not become pakistanis.
the kashmiri muslims did not have that freedom. they became part of india because of the king of kashmir. isnt that why pt nehru had agreed to the plebiscite proposed by the un?
therefore it is not correct logic to say that majority of indians want to have kashmir to be part of india so automatically it should become or stay a part of india. the instrument of accession signed by the kashmir king had some special provisions such as article 370 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370) which granted unique rights and privileges to the kashmiri people.
But there is the ability of the indian president to revoke this article or have it apply in very specific cases if he or she chose to.
the fact that this has not happened should tell you something?
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-10-03 13:16:41
M
My query about the context hasn’t been answered.
But it seems the original quote is "Tolerating an injustice is as big a sin as doing injustice". He means tolerance of injustice by onlookers in any scenario –in this case this surely means intellectuals/mainstream media who misuse quotes and not “tolerance†by the helpless oppressed.]
And it looks like the interpreted “quote†is this “If people who are being oppressed don't speak out then they are as guilty as their oppressors?â€
Regarding quotes , if one wishes to educate himself /herself beyond school/ college curriculum ,one would find strong words by Gandhi or Nehru about say, prostelyzation or communism. Since these issues are politically incorrect now , quoters never quote them anyway even in relevant contexts.
Just wanted to highlight how words of famous people get misused.
My last sentence in the previous comment is about high profile , globe trotting, NGO’s/â€thinkersâ€/intellectuals whose billionaire- hood depends on the oppressed they help “protectâ€. Of course they are the people who decide who gets help. They also make sure the donations that ordinary people make towards any rescue /relief operations never reach the intended.
They won' be amused by the oppresed-oppression-oppresssor theory presented here!
Ofcourse the cries of some oppressed people can be even heard by those who are asleep but can never be heard by those are pretending to be asleep.
Ordinary folks or famous leaders, everyone would unanimously agree that trying to uproot a tree upon which one is sitting and by which one is benefiting is a not a smart idea by anyone’s standards.
Regards
My query about the context hasn’t been answered.
But it seems the original quote is "Tolerating an injustice is as big a sin as doing injustice". He means tolerance of injustice by onlookers in any scenario –in this case this surely means intellectuals/mainstream media who misuse quotes and not “tolerance†by the helpless oppressed.]
And it looks like the interpreted “quote†is this “If people who are being oppressed don't speak out then they are as guilty as their oppressors?â€
Regarding quotes , if one wishes to educate himself /herself beyond school/ college curriculum ,one would find strong words by Gandhi or Nehru about say, prostelyzation or communism. Since these issues are politically incorrect now , quoters never quote them anyway even in relevant contexts.
Just wanted to highlight how words of famous people get misused.
My last sentence in the previous comment is about high profile , globe trotting, NGO’s/â€thinkersâ€/intellectuals whose billionaire- hood depends on the oppressed they help “protectâ€. Of course they are the people who decide who gets help. They also make sure the donations that ordinary people make towards any rescue /relief operations never reach the intended.
They won' be amused by the oppresed-oppression-oppresssor theory presented here!
Ofcourse the cries of some oppressed people can be even heard by those who are asleep but can never be heard by those are pretending to be asleep.
Ordinary folks or famous leaders, everyone would unanimously agree that trying to uproot a tree upon which one is sitting and by which one is benefiting is a not a smart idea by anyone’s standards.
Regards
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-10-02 11:37:53
Mogambo has asked the following question:
Who are you to decide or judge what the people of Kashmir (okay the muslims of Kashmir) want?
My answer: Fair enough! Allow me to raise a similar question.Who are you to decide or judge what the people of India want?
Mogambo has also stated:
Pandits are a minority. If we are to live by the rule of democracy and not be hypocrites, then we have to accept the fact that the majority of Kashmiris want out of India. With that in mind, should the Pandits [minority] not have to deal with it? Therefore, either separate with the Muslims from India or leave Kashmir.
My comment:
Fair enough! But two can play this game. Kashmiri muslims are a minority in India. If we are to live by the rule of democracy and not be hypocrites, then we have to accept the fact that the majority of Indians want Kashmir to remain part of India.With that in mind, should the Kashmiri muslims [minority] not have to deal with it? Therefore, either stay with the Hindus of India or leave India.
Who are you to decide or judge what the people of Kashmir (okay the muslims of Kashmir) want?
My answer: Fair enough! Allow me to raise a similar question.Who are you to decide or judge what the people of India want?
Mogambo has also stated:
Pandits are a minority. If we are to live by the rule of democracy and not be hypocrites, then we have to accept the fact that the majority of Kashmiris want out of India. With that in mind, should the Pandits [minority] not have to deal with it? Therefore, either separate with the Muslims from India or leave Kashmir.
My comment:
Fair enough! But two can play this game. Kashmiri muslims are a minority in India. If we are to live by the rule of democracy and not be hypocrites, then we have to accept the fact that the majority of Indians want Kashmir to remain part of India.With that in mind, should the Kashmiri muslims [minority] not have to deal with it? Therefore, either stay with the Hindus of India or leave India.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2008-10-02 07:34:38
Did he? In what context? Can we know?
So, the logic is this-The oppressed themselves , if they dont want to feel guilty about being as bad as their oppressors will take care of oppression!
No group needs to fight for anyone's rights. That would put a lot of groups out of business. How sad for them.
Did you not read in school about Gandhis immortal statement "Tolerating an injustice is as big a sin as doing injustice".
Mogambo does not understand what you mean by your second para. Someone always has to fight for someones rights. Best candidate for such a fight is the one/group being oppressed.
Partha there is no vested interest or closed mind here. Why dont you list out for mogambo pros and cons of kashmir being part of india and kashmir not being part of india?
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2008-10-01 02:25:00
Well said, dear Narensomu.
It will indeed be a sad world in which one cannot speak up for the oppressed who happen not to be very visible speaking for themselves.
Dear Dwai,
You can debate and negotiate even with vested interests, but not with closed minds. Do save your breath.
Warm regards. Partha.
It will indeed be a sad world in which one cannot speak up for the oppressed who happen not to be very visible speaking for themselves.
Dear Dwai,
You can debate and negotiate even with vested interests, but not with closed minds. Do save your breath.
Warm regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-10-01 01:12:09
If people who are being oppressed don't speak out then they are as guilty as their oppressors? I didn't say it, Mahatma Gandhi did.
Did he? In what context? Can we know?
So, the logic is this-The oppressed themselves , if they dont want to feel guilty about being as bad as their oppressors will take care of oppression!
No group needs to fight for anyone's rights. That would put a lot of groups out of business. How sad for them.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2008-09-30 19:07:29
I have a feeling that you are operating under the presumption that Kashmiri muslims want "freedom" from India, as opposed to seeing what it really is. The entire Kashmir "Freedom" issue is a sensationalized, manufactured and intentional attack on the body of the Democratic federation of India by a non-secular, make-believe democratic (only the democracy part is make believe) autocracy of Pakistan.
Who are you to decide or judge what the people of Kashmir (okay the muslims of Kashmir) want?
Isn't the fact that there is such unrest proof enough that they do not want to be part of India? How is it that a 20+ yrs of fighting can be sustained without real intentions or genuine interest?
Do you think that Kashmiri people are stupid!? That they'll simply support Pakistan's propaganda without considering their own interests?
Pandits are a minority. If we are to live by the rule of democracy and not be hypocrites, then we have to accept the fact that the majority of Kashmiris want out of India. With that in mind, should the Pandits [minority] not have to deal with it? Therefore, either separate with the Muslims from India or leave Kashmir.
Who are you to decide or judge what the people of Kashmir (okay the muslims of Kashmir) want?
Isn't the fact that there is such unrest proof enough that they do not want to be part of India? How is it that a 20+ yrs of fighting can be sustained without real intentions or genuine interest?
Do you think that Kashmiri people are stupid!? That they'll simply support Pakistan's propaganda without considering their own interests?
Pandits are a minority. If we are to live by the rule of democracy and not be hypocrites, then we have to accept the fact that the majority of Kashmiris want out of India. With that in mind, should the Pandits [minority] not have to deal with it? Therefore, either separate with the Muslims from India or leave Kashmir.
-
- +0
-
-
written by dwai, 2008-09-30 17:18:18
Let me take this argument further for arguments' sake. In most cases you will observe that an organ that has developed cancerous cells can be saved only if the disease is caught at the right time. If one is too late, nothing except a miracle can save that patient. Same is the case with Kashmir and India. I think too much time has elapsed for selective surgery to function. If India can deal with it, let it do a surgical removal and then chemotherapy.
Mogambo,
Agreed that the dissent and terrorism has been allowed to grow beyond what is even marginally tolerable (and for a long enough time). But by cutting off Kashmir it will only lead to subsequent increase in such activities all over India.
I have a feeling that you are operating under the presumption that Kashmiri muslims want "freedom" from India, as opposed to seeing what it really is. The entire Kashmir "Freedom" issue is a sensationalized, manufactured and intentional attack on the body of the Democratic federation of India by a non-secular, make-believe democratic (only the democracy part is make believe) autocracy of Pakistan.
There are many ifs and buts and speculations on the historical events that occured around the time when Pakistan invaded Kashmir (which was then a Princely state ruled by a Hindu Prince). It is obvious that he sided with a predominantly Hindu (but constitutionally secular India --and that he was right in his assessment of the two nations is evident in every news medium in the current times).
Bottom-line, if India agrees to give away Kashmir, very soon the North-eastern states (ULFA, Bodoland, etc), Punjab (with the Khalistan movement), the Maoist belt will all want to secede. It is just not fair and morally or ethically right towards the majority of the democratic members of the Indian nation to let a travesty like that happen.
As far as Kashmiri Pandits are concerned -- why do you think they didn't do anything? They screamed, they shouted, they raged, they shed tears of blood. No one listened (didn't you see the video that was posted here)?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2008-09-30 13:53:56
Dear Gangp,
Your solution to me appears a very idealistic solution. I am afraid by giving them an inch, they will want a mile!
Mogambo,
If you shear off every inch of your body if their is cancer, there will be no body left. A better approach is to have targeted solution, take a biopsy of the cancerous tissue and then prepare a personalized immunotherapy that will boost your immune system, which will ultimately kill all the cancerous cells. In this way, you do not fear to lose your body parts..
Regards,
Hatimtai
Your solution to me appears a very idealistic solution. I am afraid by giving them an inch, they will want a mile!
Mogambo,
If you shear off every inch of your body if their is cancer, there will be no body left. A better approach is to have targeted solution, take a biopsy of the cancerous tissue and then prepare a personalized immunotherapy that will boost your immune system, which will ultimately kill all the cancerous cells. In this way, you do not fear to lose your body parts..
Regards,
Hatimtai
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-09-30 12:49:10
It would have been possible to do a surgery while Nehru was alive. It is impossible to do that now.
What is needed now is a creative solution. A better alternative is to have some kind of condominium
arrangement with Pakistan in the Kashmir Valley region where both India and Pakistan would govern the
Valley. In such an arrangement the Pundits would use Indian passport and have freedom to do business
and anything else in the valley. Similarly, valley muslims would be able to use Pakistani passport
(if they want) and would be free to do what they want without infringing on the rights of Pandits.
Valley muslims and Pandits would together decide on the valley's affairs with both Indian and Pakistani
government playing a role.
Only Indian Army would operate in the valley. This is because the valley is necessary for the defence of Ladakh.
Both Indian and Pakistani tourists would be able to visit the valley without any visa but they would not
have the right to settle in the valley. Hindu temples in the valley like Kshir Bhavani would be looked
after by any organization recommended by the Pandits. Both Jammu and Ladakh should be separated from the valley and
given separate statehood within Indian Union. Neither valley muslims (those who opt for Pakistani passport)
nor Pakistanis would be allowed to enter Jammu or Ladakh wihout visa. Places important to Hindus like Amarnath
cave should be detached from the valley and merged with Jammu.
Some type of solution like that sketched above is the way to go.
What is needed now is a creative solution. A better alternative is to have some kind of condominium
arrangement with Pakistan in the Kashmir Valley region where both India and Pakistan would govern the
Valley. In such an arrangement the Pundits would use Indian passport and have freedom to do business
and anything else in the valley. Similarly, valley muslims would be able to use Pakistani passport
(if they want) and would be free to do what they want without infringing on the rights of Pandits.
Valley muslims and Pandits would together decide on the valley's affairs with both Indian and Pakistani
government playing a role.
Only Indian Army would operate in the valley. This is because the valley is necessary for the defence of Ladakh.
Both Indian and Pakistani tourists would be able to visit the valley without any visa but they would not
have the right to settle in the valley. Hindu temples in the valley like Kshir Bhavani would be looked
after by any organization recommended by the Pandits. Both Jammu and Ladakh should be separated from the valley and
given separate statehood within Indian Union. Neither valley muslims (those who opt for Pakistani passport)
nor Pakistanis would be allowed to enter Jammu or Ladakh wihout visa. Places important to Hindus like Amarnath
cave should be detached from the valley and merged with Jammu.
Some type of solution like that sketched above is the way to go.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2008-09-30 12:34:38
A better approach is to only eradicate the cancer cells and try and save as much of the organ as possible. And the Chemotherapy analogy makes me think of a parallel in real/political life and I can only think of some mechanism to do a reverse brain-washing.
Hi dwai,
Let me take this argument further for arguments' sake. In most cases you will observe that an organ that has developed cancerous cells can be saved only if the disease is caught at the right time. If one is too late, nothing except a miracle can save that patient. Same is the case with Kashmir and India. I think too much time has elapsed for selective surgery to function. If India can deal with it, let it do a surgical removal and then chemotherapy.
The Kashmiri pandits should have raised their voice at time of the initial unrest. Then perhaps things would not have been so bad.
I find this comment not only sad but also offensive. The Government is elected to govern and also ensure that the citizens are safe-guarded and their fundamental constitutional rights are preserved. The Fundamental rights of the Pandits were not protected. Instead the Government (then and even now) simply did not do anything beyond setting up refugee camps for them. Imagine being a refugee in your own country...what could be sadder than that?
You have to come up with a better argument than what you put forth to be able to convince me. Let's see what the other medhavis have to say...
If people who are being oppressed don't speak out then they are as guilty as their oppressors? I didn't say it, Mahatma Gandhi did.
-
- +0
-
-
written by dwai, 2008-09-30 11:16:31
Hi Mogambo,
Thanks for posting your comment.
If I were to indulge in polemic I would have this to say to you --
A better approach is to only eradicate the cancer cells and try and save as much of the organ as possible. And the Chemotherapy analogy makes me think of a parallel in real/political life and I can only think of some mechanism to do a reverse brain-washing.
I find this comment not only sad but also offensive. The Government is elected to govern and also ensure that the citizens are safe-guarded and their fundamental constitutional rights are preserved. The Fundamental rights of the Pandits were not protected. Instead the Government (then and even now) simply did not do anything beyond setting up refugee camps for them. Imagine being a refugee in your own country...what could be sadder than that?
You have to come up with a better argument than what you put forth to be able to convince me. Let's see what the other medhavis have to say...
Thanks for posting your comment.
Let me give you an analogy. If you have cancer in a particular organ, you cut the cancerous part away and bathe the area and surrounding areas with radiation. India needs to do the same with Kashmir. It is a malignancy that needs to be surgically removed and thrown aside before India can heal.
If I were to indulge in polemic I would have this to say to you --
A better approach is to only eradicate the cancer cells and try and save as much of the organ as possible. And the Chemotherapy analogy makes me think of a parallel in real/political life and I can only think of some mechanism to do a reverse brain-washing.
The Kashmiri pandits should have raised their voice at time of the initial unrest. Then perhaps things would not have been so bad.
I find this comment not only sad but also offensive. The Government is elected to govern and also ensure that the citizens are safe-guarded and their fundamental constitutional rights are preserved. The Fundamental rights of the Pandits were not protected. Instead the Government (then and even now) simply did not do anything beyond setting up refugee camps for them. Imagine being a refugee in your own country...what could be sadder than that?
You have to come up with a better argument than what you put forth to be able to convince me. Let's see what the other medhavis have to say...
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2008-09-29 20:33:14
Hi,
Read your article and the one by Nair. I think he might be onto something in his article. Your critique of his blog was wrong.
Let me give you an analogy. If you have cancer in a particular organ, you cut the cancerous part away and bathe the area and surrounding areas with radiation. India needs to do the same with Kashmir. It is a malignancy that needs to be surgically removed and thrown aside before India can heal.
The Kashmiri pandits should have raised their voice at time of the initial unrest. Then perhaps things would not have been so bad.
Read your article and the one by Nair. I think he might be onto something in his article. Your critique of his blog was wrong.
Let me give you an analogy. If you have cancer in a particular organ, you cut the cancerous part away and bathe the area and surrounding areas with radiation. India needs to do the same with Kashmir. It is a malignancy that needs to be surgically removed and thrown aside before India can heal.
The Kashmiri pandits should have raised their voice at time of the initial unrest. Then perhaps things would not have been so bad.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2008-09-03 13:51:05
Thanks Dwai for the link to the straight talk from the Colonel who ought to know. Not only in Kashmir, but anywhere in India, where the central government believes that some trouble is being fomented by ISI, it turns out on closer look that the origin is in Arab hands or in Indian misguided chelas inspired by the same agencies.
Regards. Partha.
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by dwai, 2008-09-02 16:00:31
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/02guest.htm
Read the two articles in the URL above. Col. Athale says it like it is.
Kashmir trouble is a result of a spineless Government and dubious interests...
Read the two articles in the URL above. Col. Athale says it like it is.
Kashmir trouble is a result of a spineless Government and dubious interests...
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2008-09-02 09:16:50
Whaaa....ttt........... 
AS(S) NO-HAIR is at it againnnnnn!!
Two points on language-
Kashmir- a corruption of the Sanskrit Kashyapa-Maar (Maar=lake; and For those with some feel for Vedic Rishis, that is self-explanatory)
Arabic words 'Ummah" & Dar-Ul-Islam. Lands once occupied / overrun by Invaders under the banner of Islam are classified as 'Islamic' (Dar Ul-Islam, as opposed to the rest- Dar-Ul-Harb). After this, at any point of history, even if they're regained by the locals, they are considered 'legally' (Islamic) as in need of 'Freedom' (azaadi..yeah). It is another matter that Islam expects the whole world ultimetely to be the fiefdom of the 'soldiers of Allah'= dar Ul Islam.
Begum Arudhati...ab inka kyaa kehnaa...badi Zor-zabardast Shayaree kar leti hai...haqukeekat ka falooda bana ke... (Aur hamare AS(S) No-Hair saab Duum hilate pirte hain..ird-gird...)
AS(S) NO-HAIR is at it againnnnnn!!
Two points on language-
Kashmir- a corruption of the Sanskrit Kashyapa-Maar (Maar=lake; and For those with some feel for Vedic Rishis, that is self-explanatory)
Arabic words 'Ummah" & Dar-Ul-Islam. Lands once occupied / overrun by Invaders under the banner of Islam are classified as 'Islamic' (Dar Ul-Islam, as opposed to the rest- Dar-Ul-Harb). After this, at any point of history, even if they're regained by the locals, they are considered 'legally' (Islamic) as in need of 'Freedom' (azaadi..yeah). It is another matter that Islam expects the whole world ultimetely to be the fiefdom of the 'soldiers of Allah'= dar Ul Islam.
Begum Arudhati...ab inka kyaa kehnaa...badi Zor-zabardast Shayaree kar leti hai...haqukeekat ka falooda bana ke... (Aur hamare AS(S) No-Hair saab Duum hilate pirte hain..ird-gird...)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-08-29 10:59:00
Dear Dwai,
You are right that it is not possible to drive all muslims out of India. I wrote
about it to show that giving up Kashmir valley would mean in real terms a blood bath.
Since no one wants such a thing, it is thus impossible to give up the valley.
Regards
Pradip da
You are right that it is not possible to drive all muslims out of India. I wrote
about it to show that giving up Kashmir valley would mean in real terms a blood bath.
Since no one wants such a thing, it is thus impossible to give up the valley.
Regards
Pradip da
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-08-29 07:37:24
Friends
http://shehjar.kashmirgroup.com/viewArticle.do?method=magazineissuearticlepages&maga_arti_id=413&page_no=1&PAGE_ID=1&mag_issue_id=40
This is a link that has some beautiful pictures of Amarnath.A bit of going off in to a tangent though.
Found this line in this article at the link interesting .
"Siva represents the eternal process of creation and destruction. He is the subject and the object, experiencer as well as the experienced."
Dwai
I stand corrected.
I meant Azadi from such negative ideas [that have plagued us since very long]and not the people who espouse such ideas.We can hope and pray they change their wrong approach to issues ,for the good of all concerned .
People like Ms. Roy get a lot of publicity and should know what they say can influence educated Indians and speak accordingly.
One can't sit on the top branch of a tree and try to cut the trunk of the same tree.
Bad for everyone concerned.
The reaction which wasn't worded properly was because I read that article and comments first.
Thanks for the correction there.
Regards
ns
http://shehjar.kashmirgroup.com/viewArticle.do?method=magazineissuearticlepages&maga_arti_id=413&page_no=1&PAGE_ID=1&mag_issue_id=40
This is a link that has some beautiful pictures of Amarnath.A bit of going off in to a tangent though.
Found this line in this article at the link interesting .
"Siva represents the eternal process of creation and destruction. He is the subject and the object, experiencer as well as the experienced."
Dwai
I stand corrected.
I meant Azadi from such negative ideas [that have plagued us since very long]and not the people who espouse such ideas.We can hope and pray they change their wrong approach to issues ,for the good of all concerned .
People like Ms. Roy get a lot of publicity and should know what they say can influence educated Indians and speak accordingly.
One can't sit on the top branch of a tree and try to cut the trunk of the same tree.
Bad for everyone concerned.
The reaction which wasn't worded properly was because I read that article and comments first.
Thanks for the correction there.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by dwai, 2008-08-28 19:33:25
Friends,
This is not about Nair. This is about the idea he is espousing (him and Ms. Arundhati Roy).
Pradipda,
I have to humbly disagree with your options. I think by virtue of being a free and democractic nation, India has to respect the wishes of those millions of moslems who/whose ancestors did not want to part from India.
I'm sure we all know many moslems in our personal circles who abhor the idea of a Islamic state over a democratic, secular India. What is important is not to alienate those who are also integral parts of India because of secessionist movements elsewhere.
Also, India should openly allow immigration of those Hindus that are being persecuted in other parts of the world. Look at Israel -- it was a state created to provide sanctuary to the persecuted Jewish people from all over the world.
Best,
dwai
This is not about Nair. This is about the idea he is espousing (him and Ms. Arundhati Roy).
Pradipda,
I have to humbly disagree with your options. I think by virtue of being a free and democractic nation, India has to respect the wishes of those millions of moslems who/whose ancestors did not want to part from India.
I'm sure we all know many moslems in our personal circles who abhor the idea of a Islamic state over a democratic, secular India. What is important is not to alienate those who are also integral parts of India because of secessionist movements elsewhere.
Also, India should openly allow immigration of those Hindus that are being persecuted in other parts of the world. Look at Israel -- it was a state created to provide sanctuary to the persecuted Jewish people from all over the world.
Best,
dwai
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2008-08-28 19:11:59
Rudra,
I have gone through your "response" to my blog at Medha Journal.
I have no specific comment on this, other than what I have already stated in my blog, and and what I state as part of the ongoing discussions here with those who have come up with more reasoned criticisms of my "proposal"....
Anand
I guess, this man is not worth the interaction for any sane discussion..Obviously, he has been getting neglected off late and wanted to increase his popularity through this ridiculous blogging..
It is appalling that Indian govt. should ignore Kashmiri pundits and won't do anything bettwr for them!!
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-08-28 12:20:04
Dear Dwai
While some of A N 's writings put the blood on the boil, some actually make me laugh [ the one on freedom to worship idols =freedom to break the same idols] .
This one is of the former kind.
I see there are 100 odd comments and some bloggers are valiantly arguing with him.
Your anger is understandable and we feel the same way. Kashmir itself means "red" in Samskrit [one of its meanings ] isnt it?The name is Indian too.
I just read tamilhindu.com website where this is the lead article-They have published the "map" that is the one we use and pointed out that it isnt the true one.
I am surprised that there are many who aren't aware of this fact -looking at the comments section.
India needs Azadi from the likes of Ms. A. R and A.N.
I want to quote Poet Bharathi here
Pei arasu seidhal
PiNam thinnum sathirangal
"When devils rule
laws eat dead bodies"
Regards
ns
While some of A N 's writings put the blood on the boil, some actually make me laugh [ the one on freedom to worship idols =freedom to break the same idols] .
This one is of the former kind.
I see there are 100 odd comments and some bloggers are valiantly arguing with him.
Your anger is understandable and we feel the same way. Kashmir itself means "red" in Samskrit [one of its meanings ] isnt it?The name is Indian too.
I just read tamilhindu.com website where this is the lead article-They have published the "map" that is the one we use and pointed out that it isnt the true one.
I am surprised that there are many who aren't aware of this fact -looking at the comments section.
India needs Azadi from the likes of Ms. A. R and A.N.
I want to quote Poet Bharathi here
Pei arasu seidhal
PiNam thinnum sathirangal
"When devils rule
laws eat dead bodies"
Regards
ns
-
- +1
-
-
written by Mita, 2008-08-28 11:12:15
Dear Dwai,
Mr Nair's logic eludes me and you are right in pointing out the plight of Kashmiri pundits in this whole debacle and who is looking after their interest. They are refugees in their own country. What appalls me most is that even our own government calls them "Migrant" Kashmiri pundits. The Indian government must first recognize the Pundits as legitimate victims of terror in Kashmir. They must then give them back their stolen property and they must win the war on terror in Kashmir. By doing so, they will also allow the moderate Islam of Kashmir to return to that once fabled Himalayan paradise where Kashmiriat prospered before the militants took over.
Mr Nair's logic eludes me and you are right in pointing out the plight of Kashmiri pundits in this whole debacle and who is looking after their interest. They are refugees in their own country. What appalls me most is that even our own government calls them "Migrant" Kashmiri pundits. The Indian government must first recognize the Pundits as legitimate victims of terror in Kashmir. They must then give them back their stolen property and they must win the war on terror in Kashmir. By doing so, they will also allow the moderate Islam of Kashmir to return to that once fabled Himalayan paradise where Kashmiriat prospered before the militants took over.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2008-08-27 17:23:14
Yes, I went back to the link on Sulekha, and got bomabarded with noisy ad campaigns!! 
Well, it is ridiculous to even write an article that proposes Kashmir being a separate state or part of any other country as Anand Nair has suggested...
Hopefully, India is not going to elect Anand Nair(or his likes)as their next leader...I agree that given his proposition we will have multiple countries within India (something that keeps biting India now and then)...Once again Mr Nair your proposition could be a way to create some sensation through your serious column writing!
Well, it is ridiculous to even write an article that proposes Kashmir being a separate state or part of any other country as Anand Nair has suggested...
Hopefully, India is not going to elect Anand Nair(or his likes)as their next leader...I agree that given his proposition we will have multiple countries within India (something that keeps biting India now and then)...Once again Mr Nair your proposition could be a way to create some sensation through your serious column writing!
-
- +1
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2008-08-27 15:54:55
Dear Dwai,
Does Ms Roy mean to say that it is Azadi for India to get rid of Kashmir because it has been nothing but a headache to free India since 1947? If her India has to carry with it only states which are assets to it, either in terms of economics,or because of freedom from dissent, how compact and governable would she like it to be? What other areas would she like to snip off our map? Does our friend from Sulekha have the same regions in mind as Ms. Roy? Has he carried most of the Sulekha members with him as well?
Regards. Partha.
Does Ms Roy mean to say that it is Azadi for India to get rid of Kashmir because it has been nothing but a headache to free India since 1947? If her India has to carry with it only states which are assets to it, either in terms of economics,or because of freedom from dissent, how compact and governable would she like it to be? What other areas would she like to snip off our map? Does our friend from Sulekha have the same regions in mind as Ms. Roy? Has he carried most of the Sulekha members with him as well?
Regards. Partha.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-08-27 15:02:02
Dear Dwai,
Mr. Anand Nair's suggestion will, given India's staggering diversity, lead to complete anarchy. What Mr. Nair doesn't seem to understand is that there is an element of coercion in the functioning of every state. There would have been 2 United States today if Abraham Lincoln had lost the 1861-1865 civil war.
I have a different take on the Kashmir valley question. I have no doubt that 99 % of the Kashmiri muslims would indeed vote for secession from India in any fair and honest vote. I think we should indeed discuss with Pakistan the fate of the Kashmir valley. It is not, however, simply a question of handing the valley over to Pakistan. The fate of the valley is intrinsically connected to the fate of Indian muslims and Pakistani Hindus. I think we should give Pakistan 2 choices:
CHOICE 1:
We would hand over Kashmir valley to pakistan provided Pakistan agrees to absorb the entire Indian muslim population; or
CHOICE 2:
We would hand over Kashmir valley to Pakistan provided Pakistan agrees to give us 14 % of its territory along the India-Pakistan border. The reason for this is that we need this amount of land to settle pakistani Hindu population which shrunk from 15 % in 1947 to 1 % in 2008
Regards
Pradip da
Mr. Anand Nair's suggestion will, given India's staggering diversity, lead to complete anarchy. What Mr. Nair doesn't seem to understand is that there is an element of coercion in the functioning of every state. There would have been 2 United States today if Abraham Lincoln had lost the 1861-1865 civil war.
I have a different take on the Kashmir valley question. I have no doubt that 99 % of the Kashmiri muslims would indeed vote for secession from India in any fair and honest vote. I think we should indeed discuss with Pakistan the fate of the Kashmir valley. It is not, however, simply a question of handing the valley over to Pakistan. The fate of the valley is intrinsically connected to the fate of Indian muslims and Pakistani Hindus. I think we should give Pakistan 2 choices:
CHOICE 1:
We would hand over Kashmir valley to pakistan provided Pakistan agrees to absorb the entire Indian muslim population; or
CHOICE 2:
We would hand over Kashmir valley to Pakistan provided Pakistan agrees to give us 14 % of its territory along the India-Pakistan border. The reason for this is that we need this amount of land to settle pakistani Hindu population which shrunk from 15 % in 1947 to 1 % in 2008
Regards
Pradip da
-
- +2
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Like I've stated in the article, it is impractical to suggest secession is a valid option since in light of the larger picture, India cannot ethically or morally allow that.
If we were to peel back the layers of the onion, Kashmir has been a "Hindu" land and a seat of Indic (Hindu and Buddhist) culture for thousands of years (many thousand years before the birth of Islam or Muslims). Since the primary criterion for the Kashmiri muslims to want secession is religion, it is trumped by an even more ancient claim in place (based on historical evidence) by the Hindus and Buddhists.
Also, if India does allow this secession, then this will open up a slew of other such "movements" (revival of Khalistan, renewal of ULFA and Bodoland movements, etc).
For the good of the largest number of people (more people in rest of India vs not so many people in Kashmir, when compared), Kashmir cannot be removed from India. Instead what Indian government should do is abolish article 370 and encourage industrial and service-sector development in the Kashmir valley (and also in Jammu) and revive the economy that predominantly has depended on tourism.
Once the Kashmiri people are economically integrated into the fabric of the nation, the benefits of being a part of India will be very obvious to them.
This whole issue of secession is not a freedom movement in the classic sense, since there IS no oppressor or occupier (per Article 370, rest of India's citizens cannot even own land in Kashmir). The Army is there in Kashmir to ensure fair-play and safeguard India's territorial boundaries.
A lot of vicious propaganda has been perpetrated by Pakistan in this matter and the motives of the separatists cannot be considered to be untainted. If you compare the freedom movement of India, you'll see there was no external influence that was needed to trigger the movement.
Also, violence is not a solution. It must be noted that India was freed via non-violence.
The African-americans in the US gained equality in civil rights, etc through non-violent protests and civil disobedience.
I'd be interested in reading other thoughts on these points.