Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
md. ammar ali

Kashmir Issue

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

And how many times are you going to ram it down our throat regarding this invasion of Kashmir? Are you looking for a medal or some recognition of some sort?

Kinda like repeating Indians oppressing Kashmiris?

You can go back and forth for another 10 pages regarding the events that took place after the root issue, it's not going to go anywhere, both Pakistan and India have bloody hands.

If you think I am arguing that Pakistan should have all of Kashmir you are wrong. I am dealing with the present fact that the Muslims in Indian occupied Kashmir are being oppressed and want independence. It is for them to decide.

However this Varun character here has spent much of this thread evading the recognition in this fact.

My point of contention is the present situation of Kashmir - you can go on harping about what happened in the past, just as much as Varun harps on about Pakistani war crimes in Bangladesh. But to what avail?

There should be no independent option, that contradicts the whole fundamental objective of partitioning in the first place, and that would be unjust to the states who had to join India/Pakistan. Not only that, it will give other states like Baluchistan motivation to rebel thinking they can be the next independent Kashmir.

And believe me, neither Pakistan nor India are going to let go of real estate.

Or another option would be to make the line of control a permanent border and move on.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ *sigh*

But he's a malang, so it's not a surprise.

Anyhow Ugly Jinn, you suggested the idea of letting the UN mediate this issue, well do your best to convince the Indian government of that, and let me know how that works out. I could bet you a million dollars that India would never accept an international body resolving this conflict. Everyone including the Pakistani's and Kashmiris have been constantly calling for an international resolution, it is the Indian state that wants to keep the Kashmir issue away from that domain, and for understandable reasons.

India wouldn't do it, I agree. They believe it's an internal issue and outsiders should keep out. But getting the UN involved would be something I'd like India to do.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know why some idiots hate india soo much

they are unfit to stay here(india)

they must be kicked on their asses out of the country

kick kick harder on their bloody asses

:mad:

WAITING FOR THAT ONLY

JAI HIND LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay so this discussion is over, you can discuss the root issue all you want, it is pretty subjective, perhaps even back to the Mughal period if you want to get technical, that debate will never end. We have to deal with current realities on ground. The fact is that Pakistan has been insisting on a UN Plebiscite and India will not let that happen. It is quite obvious who is playing the classical role of a big bully here. What else is there left to say?

*sigh*

The current is linked to the past, you can't ignore the origin of the current situation. Pakistan has no say into the matter regarding Kashmir, the invaders now want to the best for Kashmiris' is comical at best.

The root of the problem is not subjective, it's a known historical event.

And I'm baffled how Pakistanis want India to 'play by the rules' yet they were the ones to break the rules in the first place. It's like a thief telling others not to steal. :wacko:

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

The current is linked to the past, you can't ignore the origin of the current situation. Pakistan has no say into the matter regarding Kashmir, the invaders now want to the best for Kashmiris' is comical at best.

The root of the problem is not subjective, it's a known historical event.

And I'm baffled how Pakistanis want India to 'play by the rules' yet they were the ones to break the rules in the first place. It's like a thief telling others not to steal. :wacko:

Who cares? Do you want the oppression to end or just remain bitter about Pakistan's actions in the past and them simply behaving like states usually do. Forget what Pakistan's intentions are, just forget Pakistan all together, it maybe an evil, corrupt and a thief state telling others not to steal. Who gives a damn? What is the best resolution to this conflict? Get a neutral international body to intervene, force an international consensus on India and allow for a Plebiscite to be held. Kashmiris will most likely opt for independence, so let them be. India is oppressing Kashmiris in Kashmir, forget Pakistan and let the UN and International human rights organizations put an end to this ordeal. Pakistan's stance might be hypocritical, but for our practical purposes its current stance happens to be the right one, so let it go dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arundhati Roy is an Indian gem, I observed the episode when she was to be charged with sedition. It was obvious that all that propaganda would backfire on the state, and it eventually did. State lunacy knows no bounds while under the spell of self imposed paranoia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, Hagop. You summed it up succinctly. +1

Marbles: some questions for you (if you don't mind). What, in your opinion, made Jinnah go from a secular liberal with a negative opinion on the establishment of a Muslim homeland, to a supporter of the notion, including his use of populist and arguably insincere religious sloganeering to attain this objective? Do you think that there was an element of wanting to be big-fish-in-a-small-pond (i.e. Pakistan) amongst the more secular-minded Indian Muslim elites?

I couldn't do justice with a topic as complex and multi-layered as this in a few compact words. This is off-topic and quite long, indeed, very long. So skip this post those who don't want to read it.

Jinnah's political trajectory was defined by a gradual but decisive change and, in my opinon, can be described on two fronts. 1) His reaction to Indian socio-politial circumstances and 2) his personal quest for leadership.

Jinnah appeared on the Indian scene as one of the most prominent young Congress leaders, if not the most prominent, in 1910s and 1920s, wholly endorsed by men like Naoraoji and Gokhale, a Zoroastrian and a Hindu respectively, his mentors. He was instrumental in changing the character of Muslim League from an elite club loyal to the Raj to an independence-seeking party, hitherto seen by the Raj officials as counter-weight to Hindu dominated agitation of the Congress, now turned into a potent threat to the Raj, just three years after Jinnah joined the League.

His successes in bringing the League on the same platform as Congress, as a member of both parties, and in framing a collective working method was hailed by one and all. His achievement as architect of the Lucknow Pact of 1916 is held to be of pivotal importance in independence struggle even if one, in principle, objects to the idea of separate electorates as inherently divisive. According to Stanley Wolpert, if Indian demands for Independence stipulated in that plan had continued with a united front created that year, the independence of India could well have been brought forward a couple of decades, with Jinnah's portrait printed on Indian bank notes of a free India. However that was not destined to happen.

Even before the year of Lucknow Pact, 1916, Jinnah had supported political safeguards for Muslims. At first his support for safeguards was to ensure Muslim support to Congress' national cause. The fear, whether founded or not, of being turned into an irrelevant and oppressed minority in Hindu majoritarianism after the British had gone ran strong in Muslim minds. The aggressive and expanding politics of Hindu right-wing movements and parties, like that of Hindu Mahasabha, served to cement those Muslim fears.

Even a hint of proposal of special safeguards for Muslims in political/electoral reforms was met with complete and utter vehemence by Gandhi, arguing that it would set the tone for further division of the religious communities and such constitutionally recognised separate identities would further drive the wedge between Muslims and Hindus. Yet it can be argued that Gandhi's refusal was exactly the sort of attitude which drove Jinnah and Muslims away from the Congress. After the initial success of Lucknow Pact 1916 and it's ultimate failure, precipitated in no less measure by Gandhi, for all the good intentions he had had, embittered Jinnah found it harder and harder to influence Congress policies, which, by 1920, were taken over by Gandhi, aided by his unquestionable popularity among Indian masses.

The repeated failure of Jinnah to persuade his Hindu colleagues of the need to win Muslims to Congress through political safeguards convinced him that Congress was a party concerned only with gaining power on the back of Hindu majoritarianism and that at the expense of religious minorities. Jinnah came to believe that Congress only paid lip service to secularism and communal equality, values Jinnah held in high esteem, and that in practice it neglected both values when given a chance to power. Yet, one must marvel at the great irony that, in time, it was the Congress which came to rule over a secular, if imperfect, India and Jinnah, for all his secularism and his struggle for equality for Muslims, came to preside over a religiously-defined, theocentric polity.

But, again, it did not happen at once. It took at least a decade, from mid-30s to mid-40s, for Jinnah to metamorphose into a communal leader, employing Islamic rhetoric to rouse Muslim sentiment, even going so far as to shed off his English Seville Row suits in favour of sherwani coats and caps identified with Muslims. From deploring a mere mention of an individual's personal faith, he came to see an individual's professed religion as sole or main criterion for determining his political affiliations.

Despite that, the idea of Pakistan remained for Jinnah a bargaining tool to bring adamant Congress leadership to the talking table, as testified by the fact that the much-touted Lahore Resolution, which put forward the demand for a Pakistan, couldn't actually define it: Whether it was a state or states, whether it was a separate country outside India or a semi-autonomous polity within the Indian Union. Jinnah couldn't answer when questioned by the English press. His definition of Pakistan remained vague and illusionary precisely because he never put serious thought into really winning a separate, independent country with international borders outside India.

The Idea of Pakistan retained its importance as a bargaining tool as late as 1946. Jinnah was willing to accept a Pakistan within India, that is, 'a grouping of internally autonomous Muslim-majority provinces within the Indian confederation.' By this time, it was not only Gandhi who opposed it; Nehru, with the consensus of Congress, also rejected it out of hand. The failure of Indian parties to agree on Cabinet Mission Plan drove the final nail in the coffin of a united India.

Now a few words on the personal side:

There was a profound clash of personalities between the two most important leaders of the independence, Jinnah and Gandhi. Their methods and ideas for independence were greatly divergent and perhaps can be said to be antithetical to each other. Jinnah was a staunch secularist who couldn't stand a mention of religious faith in political discourse; Gandhi's every expression was imbued with deep (Hindu) religiosity. Jinnah was a constitutionalist par excellence and a legalist who wanted to win over British by employing their own methods; Gandhi was a mass agitator and in that capacity the leader of a number of massive civil disobedience movements. For Jinnah it was beneath his respect and dignity to be jailed; Gandhi believed if he was let to remain free by the British, it meant he wasn't doing enough for Independence. Both of them absolutely found no common ground in propounding their ways for attaining independence - the goal they had set their lives and minds on.

Jinnah had a high opinion of himself. His meritorious rise through the ranks of Congress and sudden and painful fall after the arrival of Gandhi at Indian scene engendered a dislike of Gandhian politics and personality which lasted all his life. Jinnah couldn't accept a "half naked Fakir", as Churchill dubbed Gandhi, to be at the forefront of the most important struggle for which Jinnah had devoted himself. The seeds of hurt ego sown in the '20s grew into a tree as time flew past. In the years approaching Independence, particularly after a reclusive and soul-searching retreat in England in the early '30s, Jinnah returned to India determined to make a mark on the Independence Movement, and that he did.

The disagreements between Jinnah and the man who become the most important leader of Congress, Pandit Nehru, were no less profound. Nehru was a hardcore socialist who believed in strong central government and universal welfare. This dream couldn't be realised in the uncertainty of an Indian confederation, constituting as it would have been of internally autonomous provinces and perhaps semi-autonomous princely fiefdoms with only defence and foreign affairs in the hands of Centre. He'd rather have a cut up India, but that which would be moulded into his political philosophy, rather than a united India with weak central government, big landowning elite and a backward, poor society.

I venture to opine that, except the Mahatma that was Gandhi who foresaw the horrors of Partition and its continuing consequences, both Jinnah and Nehru (along with Patel), and more generally the League and the Congress, in the final years approaching Independence, became so myopic and lacking in foresight, perhaps even excited at the prospects, that the greater good of their country and people became subservient to their political convictions and personal successes. It was a collective failure and we are still reeling under it in the year 2012.

Lastly, what is your opinion of Sher-e-Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah?

PS - I like your blog btw. Have found some great reading material through it (so thank you).

On Sher-e-Kashmir later. Thanks for taking a look at the blog.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams Marbles,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. That was very informative.

Looking forward to the next installment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the terms of Partition, Kashmir was supposed to go to Pakistan, the erstwhile Maharaja of Kashmir wanted to do this, but was prevailed upon by Nehru to join the Indian Union. Now all that is so much water under the bridge. Presently, even Pakistan is trying to change the demographic population in the Pakistan Administered Kashmir by bringing in Punjabis etc. This is something the Indians have not done; the Indians on the other hand, have something around 700,000 military personnel there with the draconian AFSPA law to help them. Both sides are in the wrong; it will be better to give the Kashmiris Independence, and allow them to join the SAARC as its 9th member State. Both Pakistan and India leave them to have their own Independent country, the Pakistanis should remove their people from other parts of Pakistan whom they are 'settling' in Kashmir, and the Indians remove their troops from there. It is better to live peacefully as neighbours rather than continuing strained relations. This will also take the wind out of the sails of the fanatics on both sides of the border. it is simply not worth losing good men over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Independence , alas ! is a costly, costly term. Its very complicated, and that might be an understatement. What would independence mean ? would it be for Indian administered ( occupied if you may ) Kashmir only ? What about POK, what about the part annexed by China, what about Jammu and its people, How do you define J & K ? Kashmir is landlocked between three nuclear powered and highly militirised countries, economic super powers if you may. Our resourses have been drained, our reserviours of water et all are annexed by treatises between these powers. How will Kashmir survive ? These are all relevant questions. Economy plays a huge role. Kashmir and its freedom requires a world movement, where India, Pak, China are all willing to let it go ( even writing it in words is daunting). But if things do miraculously happen, i recon Kashmir will survive, we have resources, water, green gold ( woods) , land and ofcourse our people. Kashmir over all has good literacy rate, Doctors, Engineers, lawyers, scientists et all ,we have them in plenty, thousands of them working in lands as distant as America, Europe, New Zealand, Middle East. But the question is of initial survival, the initial three decades or so, who will bank roll our projects. Kashmir can easily emulate the swiss model of tourism and investment banking ( cut out the Ri'bah ), Medical tourism , A Zurich like plan of hosting Institutions , all of this can be done and Kashmir will florish. This is a distant dream, but the question when and how shall be the start, its difficult nay a tad bit may be impossible as of now, but the most important thing is " One day it has to be done." Finally to quote Margaret Thatcher , same holds true for us : " We may be a small Nation, but we are not a small People ."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

I am from India. I think its a well known fact that there are HR violations in Kashmir. Many Indians have written about it as well. but really what is the solution ? Will Pakistan ever get Kashmir....no ...Its not possible.... nothing less than a nuclear war will happen..which is illogical.....Kashmiri people want freedom and independent state, but that is also no option.

There are lot of issues...Even if Kashmir becomes free will it be peaceful ? no it will be just an extension of Taliban-afghan. There will be killings of shias and other minorities. I dont think India can afford something so dangerous close to Delhi. Plus dont forget India is a mixture of different groups/regions etc. at one point in time every part wanted freedom from india.Khalistan to tamils to Nagaland. If India compromises on one its gone ..its finished.

so the way i see it is Kashmiri people should try and live peacefully with India and Pakistan shud stop playing politics with this issue...it shud stop supporting separatist activity. If things go little better may be AFSPA can be removed and we have peace in the valley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The map also says Indian administered Kashmir. Of course if you are Indian you would see it as Pakistan occupied and vice verca (Pakistanis refer to their part as "Azad Kashmir" or Free Kashmir). Although many say that if given a choice, most Kashmiris would either want an independent state, or rather be part of Pakistan than India, seeing as it is a Muslim majority state that is under oppressive rule, by a mostly Hindu military presence, Also the Chinese occupy a substantial portion of Kashmir, but no one ever mentions this.

China and Pakistan are good and great allies to each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...