HomeSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Kilo
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:48 am

Quote :
Just because a country is a democracy does not mean it will act incongruently with its own strategic security. Democracies are just as ruthless in the pursuit of their strategic prerogatives as are authoritarian regimes.

Q. What is the definition of a fascist who trample over other people's rights and freedoms to safeguard their own?

A. Look at India and the justification they use as quoted above.
Back to top Go down
hated-in
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Posts : 76
Join date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:58 am

Quote :

I have stated many times before in this forum, that in a politically matured neighbourhood, Kashmir would have been and should have been independent a long time back.

Some have even argued that government should not try to expand its role, but the effort should always be to minimize the role of the government as much as possible with the reasoning that a minimal government would offer the maximum freedom to diverse groups and individuals within the country. There are extensive political and academic debates on this ideology. What will we get rid of? Ministry of Education? Foreign Affairs? Tariffs and Customs? Taxes? Even Defense and Foreign Affairs?

Off course this is unworkable at least for the next 500 years either in India or anywhere else in the world, so the question does arise? What level of freedom is Kashmir Valley really looking for and what will be the role of government 20, 50, 100 years from now in India, or say at a time when people in KV think (at least in their perspective) that they are Independent.

What gives the government the right to tell an individual that you should be paying income tax otherwise you would be prosecuted? Nothing really! In an ideal free society, taxes should be something that people give to the government out of their own free will rather than being levied and enforced by the government.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:28 pm

@Reporter,

You asked for an example and I gave you one. US occupation of Iraq is a contemporary example. I am not justifying anything. Simply stating the fact that democracy or no democracy - any nation would vigourously pursue its strategic objectives and a nation is highly unlikely to actively create a weakness in its own strategic security.

Granting independence to Kashmir when Pakistan is an enemy of India is not in India's strategic security interests. I don't see how that strategic calculus would change regardless of whether India is a democracy or not. That calculus would only change when Pakistan ceases to be an enemy of India.
Back to top Go down
~T
Guest



PostSubject: Re:   Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:56 pm

@peace:
yes i agree with you, the need is to find feasible ideas and not go circles over irrelevant issues. hatred will only stem hatred. i think the indian government, pakistani government and leaders of kashmir, the co-ordination committee and prominent figures in the society in kashmir should sit down for talks and work out a formula which is acceptable to all. more lives shouldn't be lost over this. (i just read that more people were killed in srinagar)
but then, i know i sound pessimistic, but none of these leaders will want that, even though it is very do-able, because as long the flame is burning they have an issue to fight their elections and ideologies and as long there is hatred they thrive. so lets hope for the best.
@Reporter:
nobody is and can ever justify an action of injustice or brutality. if you want to know, yes, i can tell you with confidence, that there are more indians who condemn excessive force in kashmir than kashmiris. but you have to understand that the reality is far from what we read and understand terms such as democracy. now, whether we like it or not, governments are not going to change their policies overnight and start following gandhian ideals. so be it india or pakistan, they are not going to accept independence for kashmir. so india will never agree for a plebiscite, pakistan has more to lose if kashmir goes its independent way and so it won't agree for it either.
so my point is, even though one can't dispute a few facts, we certainly need to work on a compromise rather than losing too much on something not feasible. we can keep crying hoarse over atrocities and like deaf animals, nobody will bother. i hate to see kashmiri mothers crying over dead sons and daughters who have died for no reason as much as i hate to see innocents in cities getting killed by bombers in the name of kashmir. so lets talk and not bicker.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:17 pm

@~T
Quote :
~T wrote:
so my point is, even though one can't dispute a few facts, we certainly need to work on a compromise rather than losing too much on something not feasible

Yes, good point and excellent post.

Strategic case for the Indian presence in Kashmir Valley under the current circumstances in undeniable. The moral case for the Indian presence in Kashmir Valley is weak and has always been weak.

Art 370, in its original formulation (not the later watered down version) was meant to be the compromise between India's undeniable strategic case in Kashmir Valley (Defence, Foreign Policy, Communications) and India's lack of a clear moral case in Kashmir Valley (hence autonomy in all other respects).

So could restoring the original Art 370 be the basis for progress in Kashmir Valley ? Thoughts anyone ?
Back to top Go down
peace
Leading Member
Leading Member
avatar

Posts : 132
Join date : 2008-08-17

PostSubject: @everyone   Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:25 pm

let us not discuss which country is democratic and which not..i firmly belive that no country is fully democratic in this world..i dnt think india,US,UK or name any other country..US has descrimination accusations against blacks, maybe the reason abraham lincon was assasinated for..india has internal problems undermining its existance as a democratic country..pakistan has problems with balochis..every country has..
...the major sad part about the whole issue at present is the brute force by the indian authorities against purely armed resistance by common people..why is there a major crackdown on common people for participating in rallies and processions..was a single police station set ablaze as in jammu..was a single minority including amarnath yatris even touched while muslims in poonch,rajouri,jammu were killed...was a single policeman or an army personal killed in kashmir as was done in jammu by the people..when u had such a peaceful movement going on what is the need of such a major crackdown on people now by the authorities..i will not question why not the same treatment with the jammu people because that is expected and reasons are simple..there people came out on streets with indian flags and here with green flags(in very few cases with pakistani flags which i really regret)..there people shouted against the authorities demanding land back and here people demanded freedom of speech,freedom to live with honour and dignity, there basic human rights..that is the fault of a kashmiri i guess..if the demands fall in line with the ideologies with the indian authorities then u will be listened if not then u will be punished..that seems to be the approach by the indian government...
...sadly india has failed again in kashmir to understand the basic problem and that is to deal with the issue with a humane approach..the government is never ready to listen to kashmiris and ignore there wishes and aspirations as if they are dealing with a bunch of livestock..if this kind of an approach is met to any nation then naturally they will raise there voice against it, maybe peacefully or militarily...
whatever happened and is happening in kashmir is without any doubt very sad to say the least..let us not try to enforce our views here because in the whole process let us all remember one thing that it is a common kashmiri who is dying everyday in kashmir..sometimes he is the only bread earner of the family,sometimes the only son of his parents,sometimes leaving behind his wife and children to the mercy of others..we are all humans and unless and untill government of india does not understand that no matter how much trust builds in between india and pakistan,no matter how much friendly relations the two countries achieve, the basic issue of the people will remain as it is...i hope we all come to right senses and realize that these are human lives at stake..
thankyou all..
regards
Back to top Go down
peace
Leading Member
Leading Member
avatar

Posts : 132
Join date : 2008-08-17

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:27 pm

let us not discuss which country is democratic and which not..i firmly belive that no country is fully democratic in this world..i dnt think india,US,UK or name any other country..US has descrimination accusations against blacks, maybe the reason abraham lincon was assasinated for..india has internal problems undermining its existance as a democratic country..pakistan has problems with balochis..every country has..
...the major sad part about the whole issue at present is the brute force by the indian authorities against purely unarmed resistance by common people..why is there a major crackdown on common people for participating in rallies and processions..was a single police station set ablaze as in jammu..was a single minority including amarnath yatris even touched while muslims in poonch,rajouri,jammu were killed...was a single policeman or an army personal killed in kashmir as was done in jammu by the people..when u had such a peaceful movement going on what is the need of such a major crackdown on people now by the authorities..i will not question why not the same treatment with the jammu people because that is expected and reasons are simple..there people came out on streets with indian flags and here with green flags(in very few cases with pakistani flags which i really regret)..there people shouted against the authorities demanding land back and here people demanded freedom of speech,freedom to live with honour and dignity, there basic human rights..that is the fault of a kashmiri i guess..if the demands fall in line with the ideologies with the indian authorities then u will be listened if not then u will be punished..that seems to be the approach by the indian government...
...sadly india has failed again in kashmir to understand the basic problem and that is to deal with the issue with a humane approach..the government is never ready to listen to kashmiris and ignore there wishes and aspirations as if they are dealing with a bunch of livestock..if this kind of an approach is met to any nation then naturally they will raise there voice against it, maybe peacefully or militarily...
whatever happened and is happening in kashmir is without any doubt very sad to say the least..let us not try to enforce our views here because in the whole process let us all remember one thing that it is a common kashmiri who is dying everyday in kashmir..sometimes he is the only bread earner of the family,sometimes the only son of his parents,sometimes leaving behind his wife and children to the mercy of others..we are all humans and unless and untill government of india does not understand that no matter how much trust builds in between india and pakistan,no matter how much friendly relations the two countries achieve, the basic issue of the people will remain as it is...i hope we all come to right senses and realize that these are human lives at stake..
thankyou all..
regards
Back to top Go down
Vikram
Guest



PostSubject: To LiberalM   Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:05 am

I have to commend your maturity, knowledge and civility.

My post was more aimed towards the general attitude that many 'middle-class' Indians have towards Kashmir, where they fail to understand Kashmir as a human story, until recently I was one of those people.

I think the Hindu middle class failed to properly condemn the Jammu agitations. An economic blockade ? How could the BJP even dream of doing such a thing ? They can, because they have the tacit support of India's radicalized anti-minority and anti-reservation middle-classes, who completely endorse their violence.

India is not behaving democratically in Kashmir, or for that matter even in Gujjar agitations in Rajasthan or in Orissa, is it necessary to kill so many people, who are taking out a peaceful march for their political rights, who are demanding control over their resources, who are demanding some affirmative action ? Why does the middle class protest over Constitutional reservations, and not over the killings of innocent protesters ? Why are they silent when girls from the NE are abused and raped in the capital ?

I never hear of as many people being killed in 'police firing' anywhere else in the world. Not even in Pakistan. I just saw a movie, A Wednesday, which openly endorses police violence, masked in the garb of middle class 'suffering'.

The truth is that we have an extremely fascist middle class with a democratic political system (which the middle class is always trying to subvert), your rational arguments are an exception, most middle class Hindus will not oppose the mass extermination of Kashmiris (or Muslims for that matter).
Back to top Go down
Vikram
Guest



PostSubject: My last statement   Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:07 am

I take back that last statement, what I meant to say was that the middle class would be indifferent to pogroms against Kashmiris just as they seem to be against the Gujarati Muslims.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:17 am

@Vikram,

Thank you for your kind words. I think the people who really deserve the commendation here are the administrators of this site who work hard to keep this site up and running and who ensure a free and fair flow of ideas regardless of their own views.

There are many in India who don't identify with the BJP and/or Hindutva brigade and their narrow-minded philosophy. The BJP and the Sangh Parivar did receive their comeuppance in the last general election, didn't they ? That was the time for the silent majority to exact its revenge and boy did they deliver !

I would like to take this opportunity to commend my fellow posters (all of you) who have contributed their thoughts into the mix here. Inspite of our differences in opinions, I respect you and your right to have your own views. Hopefully, with these types of rancour free and thoughtful discussions, every one of us will go back feeling a little bit wiser.
Back to top Go down
hated-in
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Posts : 76
Join date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:36 pm

Quote :

Strategic case for the Indian presence in Kashmir Valley under the current circumstances in undeniable.

LiberalM,

Perhaps you can further clarify 1) Kashmir Valley is strategic and 2) Moral case for Indian presence in Kashmir Valley is weak.

The state of J&K is strategic for India is because it largely prevents Pakistan and China from accessing each other. Northern Areas are strategic to Pakistan because it prevents India from accessing Afghanistan and maybe even Tajikistan directly. Similarly teen-bigha corridor and A&N islands are strategic. But how is Kashmir Valley by itself strategic?

Quote :

The moral case for the Indian presence in Kashmir Valley is weak and has always been weak.

There is a moral issue with respect to human-rights situation, terrorism, etc in Kashmir Valley, but that is different from "Indian presence" in Kashmir Valley. India, in some way, has always had a presence in Kashmir. So I am not sure what you mean by "moral case" here.

Quote :

Art 370, in its original formulation (not the later watered down version) was meant to be the compromise between India's undeniable strategic case in Kashmir Valley (Defence, Foreign Policy, Communications) and India's lack of a clear moral case in Kashmir Valley (hence autonomy in all other respects).

I am not sure if you mean just Kashmir Valley or entire J&K? In any case, I think we clearly need to distinguish between "Undivided J&K", J&K, Kashmir Valley, POK, Northern Areas, Northern Areas under China, and Aksai Chin and get away from colloquial usage in which all these areas are bundled up together and/or confused with each other.

Thank you (along with Admin, Reporter, and others) for bringing this forum to a point where reasonable discussions can be carried out.
Back to top Go down
hated-in
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Posts : 76
Join date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:41 pm

LiberalM wrote:

There are many in India who don't identify with the BJP and/or Hindutva brigade and their narrow-minded philosophy. The BJP and the Sangh Parivar did receive their comeuppance in the last general election, didn't they ? That was the time for the silent majority to exact its revenge and boy did they deliver !

Personally, I would like to see national elections in India to be a three-way affair. Right now it seems like its either BJP combine or congress combine.
Back to top Go down
hated-in
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Posts : 76
Join date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:15 pm

LiberalM wrote:

So could restoring the original Art 370 be the basis for progress in Kashmir Valley ? Thoughts anyone ?

As far as I can see two things are going to happen as India develops: 1) center-state relations in India will change offering more freedom to states in many specific areas, less in perhaps other areas and 2) intra-state relations and interactions, and 3) Will neighboring countries will come closer at least economically and maybe even politically in some ways (visa-less travel etc). If things continue to improve in Afghanistan, I can certainly see a visa free travel between Afghanistan and India. So the real impact of "freedom" in Kashmir Valley would need to be examined against these factors - it just may happen that "Kashmir Valley freedom" may become a symbolic issue as opposed to a real issue at some point in future. However, as it has been discussed earlier, it would definitely take a lot of maturity from all involved sides and definitely a lot of patience and wait.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:09 am

@hated-in
Quote :
hated-in wrote: Perhaps you can further clarify 1) Kashmir Valley is strategic and 2) Moral case for Indian presence in Kashmir Valley is weak.
Yes, sure. What I wrote earlier was (1) Kashmir Valley is strategic to India under the current circumstances (of overt India-Pakistan enmity). Here I was only focussing on Kashmir Valley as being the part wanting to and most likely to secede away from the Union. The strategic value for Kashmir Valley as of now stems from it having the only viable route from Jammu to Ladakh (Parts of J&K most likely to stay with the Union) and beyond. Of course, there is alternate route to Ladakh from Manali but none from Jammu to Ladakh except through Kashmir Valley. As I wrote earlier, a seceding Kashmir Valley will have little strategic value if there is no overt India-Pakistan enmity.

As you rightly pointed and I agree, that the entire original state of J&K is strategic and hence different parties are holding on to different pieces of it. All I was suggesting was Kashmir Valley perhaps is the least strategic part of it and can be let go but only when the overt enmity between India and Pakistan is eliminated.

Quote :
hated-in wrote: There is a moral issue with respect to human-rights situation, terrorism, etc in Kashmir Valley, but that is different from "Indian presence" in Kashmir Valley. India, in some way, has always had a presence in Kashmir. So I am not sure what you mean by "moral case" here.
I had two parts in mind: (1) A large number of People in Kashmir Valley do not seem to feel comfortable how their state (or at least the valley as being a part of the larger state) came to be a part of the Indian Union, we in India and Jammu and Ladakh feel comfortable with it but they don't (2) a large number of People in Kashmir Valley do not appear to be comfortable continuing to be a part of the Indian Union as of now.

So India's moral case of staying on in Kashmir Valley (not in the larger state of J&K but only in Kashmir Valley) to me, appears to be weak.

Quote :
LiberalM wrote: Art 370, in its original formulation (not the later watered down version) was meant to be the compromise between India's undeniable strategic case in Kashmir Valley (Defence, Foreign Policy, Communications) and India's lack of a clear moral case in Kashmir Valley (hence autonomy in all other respects).

hated-in wrote: I am not sure if you mean just Kashmir Valley or entire J&K? In any case, I think we clearly need to distinguish between "Undivided J&K", J&K, Kashmir Valley, POK, Northern Areas, Northern Areas under China, and Aksai Chin and get away from colloquial usage in which all these areas are bundled up together and/or confused with each other.
You are absolutely right. We need to be clear with the nomenclature we are using here. Here in the case of discussing of Art 370 as a compromise, I should have used "J&K" instead of Kashmir Valley. So I will rephrase slightly what I wrote earlier.

Art 370, in its original formulation (not the later watered down version) was meant to be the compromise between India's undeniable strategic case in J&K (Defence, Foreign Policy, Communications) and India's lack of a clear moral case in Kashmir Valley, a part of J&K (hence autonomy in all other respects).

Thank you for raising these excellent points.
Back to top Go down
hated-in
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Posts : 76
Join date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:48 am

LiberalM wrote:

I had two parts in mind: (1) A large number of People in Kashmir Valley do not seem to feel comfortable how their state (or at least the valley as being a part of the larger state) came to be a part of the Indian Union, we in India and Jammu and Ladakh feel comfortable with it but they don't (2) a large number of People in Kashmir Valley do not appear to be comfortable continuing to be a part of the Indian Union as of now.

So India's moral case of staying on in Kashmir Valley (not in the larger state of J&K but only in Kashmir Valley) to me, appears to be weak.

LiberalM,

I get a sense of your reasoning as to why the moral case for India staying in Kashmir Valley is weak. However, I don't think anyone will deny that Kashmiri separatist movement has a strong religious component to it. Do you agree? Personally, I tend to think that religion is the one and only root cause of Kashmiri separatist movement and hence it is the non-inclination (or insecurity) of Sunni Kashmir Valley (unlike Buddhist Ladhak, Hindu Jammu and minor sprinkling of Christianity) to co-exist with other religions that makes it seek separate country or merger with Sunni Pakistan. Certainly there is no "moral sense" in this either?

Furthermore, if you agree that the root cause of Kashmir Valley separatist movement is religion, then a strong argument can be made that the entire movement is devoid of any moral sense. If we look at last 7000 years of J&K history, the entire J&K, including Kashmir Valley, has been Buddhist and/or Hindu with Islam entering Kashmir Vally only very recently around 14th century. Hence, given that Kashmir separatist movement is based on religion, one can easily lay the claim that it is not the secular "Indian occupation" of Kashmir Valley that is the problem, but the historically recent "Islamic occupation" of Kashmir Valley that is the problem. Hence, the moral issues regarding a secular India's actions in Kashmir valley does not arise.

I know many Kashmiri separatists (who tend to look at things from a very religious perspective) will claim that "India is not secular, but a Hindu state pretending to be secular". Even if we give weight to such thinking, all it means is that a Hindu India is defending its rightful territory from a centuries old Islamic Invasion. So even the Kashmiri separatists claim of a Hindu India does not devoid India of its moral authority in Kashmir and nor does it lend a moral authority to Kashmiri separatist movement.

PS: I know I will get re-branded as Hinduvata agent for some of the reasoning in the post and definitely not going to indulge in any discussions regarding that those who accuse me of being Hinduvata agent should look in the mirror themselves.
Back to top Go down
Anon
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:49 am

Quote :
Here I was only focussing on Kashmir Valley as being the part wanting to and most likely to secede away from the Union. The strategic value for Kashmir Valley as of now stems from it having the only viable route from Jammu to Ladakh (Parts of J&K most likely to stay with the Union) and beyond. Of course,

Lets correct it a bit more to say (and any one correct me if I am wrong) that- the 'kashmiri freedom movement' is originallyand ostensibly based on the plank of independence for the whole of J&K, including the mixed pupulation districs of Doda, Poonch, Udhampur and Rajouri and the predominantly hindu population districts of jammu and Kathua , all of whom fall in the Jammu region plus the whole pakistan occupied kashmir. The Pok is that part of J&K which was cleaved off as a result of a Pak 'invasion', and stands as a true technical example of forcible occupation by military means. Though called 'azad kashmir', the measure of azadi that is afforded to people of kashmiri origin by 'friend' pakistan is yet another story.

No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan.or the sovereignty, integrity of Pakistan or security of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the Judiciary of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or Pakistan, or who defames or brings into ridicule the Judiciary of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or Pakistan, or the Armed Forces of Pakistan
—Part 7(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 ......

The reason why I quote this is just to submit my point, that more than India, its pakistan that will resist any such option that has to do with the kashmiri's demand of independence. There are many stake holders in the propagation of pak anti-india agenda and money flows involved in keeping the pot burning. In my humble opinion, therefore, maybe , just maybe our country could consider such an option, if for nothing else but rightousness.... can't say that for the other side. So there has to be something more tangible than hope, that kashmir will not have a strategic value if pak be-friends india, or vice versa. Looking at pakistan's track record and credibility, I have no doubts in my mind.

On whether indian forces have a moral right to be there sir, --our kashmiri brothers and sisters might still be living the life of our other brother and sisters in Pok, along with 'Baradaris' the 'Sudhans rajputs ' and the 'Gujjars' and 'potohari punjabis' and 'Mirpuri jats' who comprise the influential communities of Muzzafrabad. If for nothing else, at least kashmiriat is in tact with India.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:29 am

@hated-in
Quote :
hated-in wrote:
I get a sense of your reasoning as to why the moral case for India staying in Kashmir Valley is weak. However, I don't think anyone will deny that Kashmiri separatist movement has a strong religious component to it. Do you agree? Personally, I tend to think that religion is the one and only root cause of Kashmiri separatist movement and hence it is the non-inclination (or insecurity) of Sunni Kashmir Valley (unlike Buddhist Ladhak, Hindu Jammu and minor sprinkling of Christianity) to co-exist with other religions that makes it seek separate country or merger with Sunni Pakistan. Certainly there is no "moral sense" in this either?
Honestly, I think we would never know the answer to the question why. I don't know why being part of India doesn't bother the Pandits but greatly bothers the Kashmiri Sunnis. So it would seem that there is a religious undertext to the disaffection. But whatever it may be, being part of India just bothers them and as a secular country, we have to deal with that disaffection without overtly reading religion into it.

As most people know, logic doesn't work in the affairs of the heart. A large number of people in the Kashmir Valley don't want to have anything to do with India and no amount of rational thought processes from our side are going to convince them to do otherwise. I think most of us tend to see their protestations in an inimical way. Most ordinary Indians would say "please stay with us and let us try to understand each other better and let us live together and prosper together as a big country". To this, it is possible that ordinary Kashmiris are simply saying "we feel more comfortable being with our own people in a homegeneous society, but we still want to be friends with you". So the only reasonable and morally right thing to do is to try to find a way that helps them do that (be out of the Union or as much out of the Union as possible) while keeping Indian strategic interests in mind. Only that would put us on a path to a more polically matured neighbourhood.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:49 pm

@anon,
Quote :
anon wrote:
The reason why I quote this is just to submit my point, that more than India, its pakistan that will resist any such option that has to do with the kashmiri's demand of independence. There are many stake holders in the propagation of pak anti-india agenda and money flows involved in keeping the pot burning. In my humble opinion, therefore, maybe , just maybe our country could consider such an option, if for nothing else but rightousness.... can't say that for the other side. So there has to be something more tangible than hope, that kashmir will not have a strategic value if pak be-friends india, or vice versa. Looking at pakistan's track record and credibility, I have no doubts in my mind.
It is almost certain that Pakistan doesn't want to see an independent Kashmir (Kashmir Valley + POK). It would not even want to see an independent Kashmir Valley. To Pakistan, even an independent Kashmir Valley that houses a large chunk of the subcontinental muslims is a second and "a much closer to home" blow to the very reason of its own founding.

Quote :
anon wrote: On whether indian forces have a moral right to be there sir, --our kashmiri brothers and sisters might still be living the life of our other brother and sisters in Pok, along with 'Baradaris' the 'Sudhans rajputs ' and the 'Gujjars' and 'potohari punjabis' and 'Mirpuri jats' who comprise the influential communities of Muzzafrabad. If for nothing else, at least kashmiriat is in tact with India.
Do we have a moral right to be in Kashmir Valley so we could save Kashmiris from sharing the fate of their brethren in Azad Kashmir ? No, I don't think so - morally we have to leave them to their devices if a large number of them truly want out, even if (we think) they all want to jump in the ocean. But our strategic right to be in Kashmir Valley as long as Pakistan remains an enemy of India will see to it that Kashmir Valley would not share the fate of Azad Kashmir whatever that fate (good or bad) may be.
Back to top Go down
hated-in
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Posts : 76
Join date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:19 pm

LiberalM wrote:

I don't know why being part of India doesn't bother the Pandits but greatly bothers the Kashmiri Sunnis.

I tend to think its important to know that mainly because it will help the to evaluate approaches and solution and will also allow Sunni Kashmiris to introspect. When more than 500 groups more or less can live peacefully in India whats the problem with Kashmir Valley. I don't think its as straightforward as "do a plebiscite and if you win we will stay in India at peace from the very next day." These are more or less excuses, but not the real issue. There are enough Muslims in India who are at peace. Hopefully, someone more insightful that me will write out it someday in press or media and I hope to read that.

Quote :

So the only reasonable and morally right thing to do is to try to find a way that helps them do that (be out of the Union or as much out of the Union as possible) while keeping Indian strategic interests in mind.

I can almost guarantee it that as soon as India leaves Kashmir Valley, Taliban style Jihadists will role in at the invitation of one or another political faction and exploit religion and emotions for worse. Extremists will find it easy to set up bases in Kashmir Valley to plan terror activities in India. What will we do then? Take military action in a foreign country whose general population is already hostile? At least now we have a historical moral authority since Kashmir Valley is/has been part of India. If India formally withdraws from Kashmir Valley that moral authority to intervene goes too and all we would be able to do is watch as terror activities in India are planned and executed from Kashmir Valley. At least for next 10 years, keeping Indian strategic interests in mind means keeping Kashmir Valley.
Back to top Go down
hated-in
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Posts : 76
Join date : 2008-09-03

PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:32 pm

LiberalM wrote:

Do we have a moral right to be in Kashmir Valley so we could save Kashmiris from sharing the fate of their brethren in Azad Kashmir ?

As of now they are Indian citizens. Offcourse they have the option to renounce citizenship and migrate to POK. However, as long as they are Indian citizens and on Indian soil, we do have a moral obligation to do whatever possible to ensure that they don't meet the same fate as POK. Kashmir Valley is devoid of leadership, but that does not mean that the rest of India should also devoid itself of leadership.

Quote :

No, I don't think so - morally we have to leave them to their devices if a large number of them truly want out, even if (we think) they all want to jump in the ocean.

If there is an earthquake in Pakistan tomorrow and food supplies block, it becomes the moral obligation of India (and other countries as well) to intervene and overcome the calamity even though we know that many of the people we might be helping are hostile. This issue did come up during earthquake in POK and Indian government did intervene in whichever way Pakistan allowed. There are similar debates on whehter US should intervene in Sudan where warlords have brought upon a man made famine and war that has killed millions.

Quote :

But our strategic right to be in Kashmir Valley as long as Pakistan remains an enemy of India will see to it that Kashmir Valley would not share the fate of Azad Kashmir whatever that fate (good or bad) may be.

More than Pakistan, the strategic problem in Kashmir Valley is terrorists and jehadist establishing themselves there both independently of Pakistan's influence and under Pakistan's influence. Again based on lessons of Afghanistan, we have a moral obligation to make sure that it does not happen in Kashmir Valley.
Back to top Go down
mir
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:10 pm

Quote :
As of now they are Indian citizens. Offcourse they have the option to renounce citizenship and migrate to POK. However, as long as they are Indian citizens and on Indian soil, we do have a moral obligation to do whatever possible to ensure that they don't meet the same fate as POK. Kashmir Valley is devoid of leadership, but that does not mean that the rest of India should also devoid itself of leadership.

Typical example of Hindutva thinking. Occupy a country and make the subjects of that state subservient to your will. Hated-in I dont know how long it will take to absorb the fact that Kashmiris are not Indian citizens. YOur country is illegally occupying us and the sooner you understand that fact, the better the chances of your impoverished country to feed your starving millions.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:35 pm

Quote :
hated-in wrote:
I tend to think its important to know that mainly because it will help the to evaluate approaches and solution and will also allow Sunni Kashmiris to introspect.
I agree. It is important but for that the Kashmiri Sunnis have to introspect and talk. I have not heard anyone so far.

Quote :
I can almost guarantee it that as soon as India leaves Kashmir Valley, Taliban style Jihadists will role in at the invitation of one or another political faction and exploit religion and emotions for worse.
That is a likely situation if India leaves today. But India isn't going to do that. It is almost certain that India will leave only when its security case is 100% taken care of - and that means Kashmir Valley's strategic security interests will have to be aligned (via a formal treaty) with those of India's before Kashmir Valley can get its independence.

Quote :
At least for next 10 years, keeping Indian strategic interests in mind means keeping Kashmir Valley.
Independence to Kashmir Valley will almost certainly be a long drawn out affair as strategic security pieces get re-arranged. Yet, the lack of our moral case dictates that move towards that goal (albeit carefully) for not just the Kashmiris sake but for ours as well.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:50 am

Quote :
hated-in wrote:
As of now they are Indian citizens. Offcourse they have the option to renounce citizenship and migrate to POK. However, as long as they are Indian citizens and on Indian soil, we do have a moral obligation to do whatever possible to ensure that they don't meet the same fate as POK.
If there were a few people who didn't like staying on with India, then that reasoning (renounce citizenship and leave) would have been alright. But when a significantly large number of them feel that they don't want to have anything to do with India, then we are morally obligated to find a different solution (keeping in mind our security concerns but we are only talking about the moral issues here right now). On whether they meet the same fate of POK or not, we don't know that. We cannot deny them their right to go their own way just because (we think, very strongly that) they are heading into an unmitigated human, security, and political disaster. If there is only one thing people want and that is "out with you", in spite all the logic and rationality dictating a saner and more modulated approach and in spite of all the evidence pointing to the unviability of such an idea, then there is absolutely nothing left to do but to let them go their own way.

It all comes down to this: does one have a moral right to tie a person and confine him/her in a mental asylum all his/her life just because one feels that if freed, that person is likely (not certain, but only likely) to commit suicide ? This I think is very tricky terrain of presumptive moral obligations with lots of grey areas. So I think we should just stick to the basics and say we don't really have a strong case for holding on to a people who are absolutely certain of only one thing: that they don't want to stay with us.

Quote :
There are similar debates on whehter US should intervene in Sudan where warlords have brought upon a man made famine and war that has killed millions.
When a disaster strikes the moral terrain becomes extremely clear. After a disaster, there are no presumptive moral obligations but only real moral obligations and people/countries therefore have no qualms about rushing in help even to sworn enemies.

Quote :
Again based on lessons of Afghanistan, we have a moral obligation to make sure that it does not happen in Kashmir Valley.
Again, we are in presumptive moral obligation territory as far as Kashmir Valley is concerned, and very tricky to see the moral case or the lack thereof here. We can point to numerous examples of human and political disasters in the neighbourhood that point to a worrisome future for an independent Kashmir Valley - but it will be of no use because the disaster is still only likely to happen and not certain to happen. So I would just stick to the basics and say that when a large number of people do not want to be around you then we don't have a moral right to force them to stay with us.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "trillion-dollar-economy" Indians   Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:04 pm

@mir
Quote :
Mir wrote: Typical example of Hindutva thinking. Occupy a country and make the subjects of that state subservient to your will. Hated-in I dont know how long it will take to absorb the fact that Kashmiris are not Indian citizens. YOur country is illegally occupying us and the sooner you understand that fact, the better the chances of your impoverished country to feed your starving millions.

Residents of Kashmir Valley are de-facto Indian citizens (and I think this is all what hated-in appears to have meant, correct me if I am wrong hated-in). People of India further believe that residents of Kashmir Valley are de-jure citizens of India as well. People of Kashmir Valley do not think that they are de-jure citizens of India and they have every right to think so.
Back to top Go down
LiberalM
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Impoverished Indians   Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:49 pm

@chinaar,

Anon was right then after all. It is India-bashing time again at the forum Cool . I have no idea how this is supposed to move the dialogue forward (or how even to have a dialogue in the first place). Emotional outbursts delivered in an impetuous, confrontational, and breathless manner don't help your cause of freedom one bit. Your intended audience (us impoverished Indians) will at best ignore the drivel or at worst just move on to better things in life (like hunting for our next meal), leaving you with like-minded people. And then you and them will get sick of saying the same things over and over again to the same group of like-minded people. You get this one window to meet and talk and converse with ordinary Indians and this is what you do: bash them and their country.

A little sanity helps everyone. China is a totalitarian state that executes more people than the rest of the world combined every year. Burma is another military-led dictatorship that has imprisoned its duly elected leader for last many years. Pakistan is a theocratic chaos that has hanged one elected prime-minister, and killed another one in a melee and has had un-elected military rulers ruling it for more than half its existence. Most Indians are glad that India is not exactly on friendly terms with these countries. Now, that, is a view that you won't get to hear in your group of like-minded people.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians   

Back to top Go down
 
Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Castle Craig Death was "Avoidable"
» "Drop Your Disabled Kids At a Shelter" Indiana Parents Are Told
» Businessman who helped expose Nursery paedo ring has "no regrets"
» GREECE MAY HAVE IT"S CREDIT RATING TO JUNK FROM BBB-
» "The Little Coat" by Alan Buick

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Kashmir Forum :: Kashmir forum main. :: All issues relating to Kashmir. [NO REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. YOU MAY POST ANONYMOUSLY]-
Jump to: