KASHMIR: ANOTHER PALESTINE by Reshmi Sehgal

Quote :

Kashmir: Another Palestine?

Rashmi Sehgal draws some striking parallels between the two deadliest unresolved conflicts of our times.

Is Kashmir another Palestine in the making? An attempt to answer this takes dust off many an interesting fact that explains why Kashmir-can-become-another-Palestine notion is a wrong one to nurse. And why it is not.
First, the similarities between the Kashmir and the Palestine conflicts ¯ perhaps the two deadliest unresolved conflicts of our times.
The year India and Israel celebrate their birthday is actually the birthday of these two conflicts. India got her independence in 1947. The state of Israel was also founded and recognized in 1947 on the basis of a United Nations decision to partition the territory between the Jordan River and Mediterranean sea between two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Zionist leadership agreed to the partition. However the Palestine leadership, which represented the majority of the Arab population, opposed the partition. Together with neighboring Arab it attacked Jewish settlement in Palestine and lost the war. Following the 1967 war, Israel took control over the territory between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Thereafter many resolutions passed by the UN have failed to attract peace to the region.
On the other hand, J&K has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan from 1947 when at the time of independence from the English; the then about 565 princely states were offered to choose between the Hindu-majority Indian dominion and newly-born Muslim-majority Pakistan. Ambivalence on part of the Hindu king of the Muslim-majority J&K and added confusion due to the partition, saw Kashmir acceding to India through an instrument of accession between the Dogra king of J&K and the Indian government. This instrument of accession has since been controversial with some quarters considering it valid and some a farce. The first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru internationalized the issue by taking it to the UNO. At the time of accession he declared that “once the soil of the state had been cleared of the invaders (from Pakistan) and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under the international auspices”. The referendum is yet to become a reality.
Now back to the question, can Kashmir become Palestine? The kind of land row that J&K witnessed recently has an intriguing precedent far off in Palestine. A somewhat similar kind of land issue happened in Palestine in 2005 in which Israel Lands Authority (ILA) published tenders for the construction of 130 new housing units in Har Homa, East Jerusalem. In addition to the public announcement of the tenders, there were 500 houses already under construction in Har Homa, and 240 in the settlement of Maleh Adumim in East Jerusalem. At the same time as the Har Homa tenders were being published, Israeli officials also called for bids from construction companies to build more than 300 apartments in the West Bank settlement of Beitar Illit near Bethlehem. There are approximately 430,000 Israeli settlers residing illegally in the West Bank. Well in Kashmir, after the diversion of the 98 acres of forest land to the SASB, the fears of Palestine saga getting re-enacted in Kashmir were all but compounded.
As a result of the land expropriation by Israel, several acts of civil disobedience were launched to retain the pieces of land that were confiscated. The result was gruesome deaths, arrests and injuries. The excessive use of force by the security forces on protestors in Kashmir demanding the land diverted to the SASB back and the subsequent loss of life and damage to property make for a good comparison vis-a-vis the situation in Palestine.
Lessons for India:
India seems to be following into the footsteps of “God Father” Israel when it comes to holding on to Kashmir. Nonetheless India, an emerging economy and an expecting superpower, needs to do more homework and understand the cost to Israel under the shadow of the Palestine conflict. The Israeli economy has experienced significant growth since 1967. However, in absence of the conflict, its economy would have undergone much higher economic growth. During 1968 to 1972 the economic growth of Israel was around 75% but just after the first intifada in 1987 the economic growth came down to 58%. Since 1987, the Palestinian uprisings have created a disparity between the economic growth in Israel and those in other developed and emerging economies. Israel experienced high growth rate of 9 percent in 2000; 5.2 % in 2004 and 2005, but also faced negative growth, following the second Intifada — minus 0.4% in 2001 and minus 0.6 in 2002. During the decade of 1997-2006, Israel’s economy experienced growth of 43 percent, far less than the growth of other developed countries in the same period.
The impact of the conflict on Israel as also on Palestine is evident in other sectors also like in the tourism sector. The number of tourists visiting Israel is significantly lower than the number of tourists visiting Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates and even Jordan. When it comes to tourism, Israel is like Lebanon and Algeria, which are faced with prolonged domestic conflicts.
The Palestine conflict has also a bearing on the international image of Israel, the legality of its actions and its human rights record. The diplomatic isolation has made Israel solely dependent on the United States of America for support. However supporting incessantly the spoilt Israeli state is proving disadvantageous to the U.S as well. Israel’s relation with the European Union has also been marked with conspicuous frictions. Interestingly, the EU is Israel’s second largest trading partner.
Coming to India and the conflicts it is mired in; imagine when questions can pop up on the creditability of Israel and that too despite the strong backing of the U.S, where does India stands? According to the Human Development Index of the United Nations Development program, Israel stands at 23rd position while India is at 128 out of 177 countries. India is already in external debt of $221.20 billion (2008). India ranks measly at number three in the number of underweight children only after Bangladesh and Nepal, in which Israel does not exist. Gauging by The Asian Development Bank’s revised international poverty line norm of earning of $1.35 per day on purchasing power parity, more than half of India’s 1.1 billion populations, about 55 percent, qualifies for the “poor category”.
Shelving the economic weaknesses and Kashmir problem for a minute, India also faces undeniable challenges in other aazadi-seeking states in the North East which constitutes a total population of 35 million. They were the first people to raise their voice for freedom from India. Surprisingly the north-eastern region has only 2 % of its land border with India which is why it often denoted as “chicken neck”.
It is in the best interests of India to realize that even Israel with better economic condition than India and strong U.S support is yet to come to terms with the losses it incurs due to the Palestine conflict. India is much worse off, economically, politically and also in terms of the number of disputes it faces. If India had to handle only one Palestine-like Kashmir, the things might have been little easier, but here the scene is different. We have Palestines everywhere. And we are not even Israel. Nor should we ever want to be.

I think this subject deserves some discussion as our position in a lot of ways is akin to the Palestinian imbroglio. Also the Indians have become the single largest buyer of Israeli military hardware most of which is used IN J&K. The Israeli defence establishment has also started working in close co-operation with the indians on tackling the revolution in Jammu & kashmir.

Comments are welcome.

Palestine problem is way different my friend.

You are man of Book I suppose you should know ....

Kashmir is inverse image problem of that .. its not akin to it....

You are entitled to your opinion my friend but the 7.2 million Kashmiris today excluding those living in POK agree that Palestine has many many similarities with Kashmir.

If they think so, then they are choosing there own vision. and consciously choosing the path of hatred and violence.

Indian government has officially said that Isarel should deal fairly with Palestine cause.

Also Indian government is equally friendly with Arab Nations, Afghanistan, and Iran etc etc.....

Its easy to choose the path of hatred. but see the facts.

I don't see any mention of Israel in any of the lectures by any politicians.

And as far as general mass is concerned, a average Indian does not even know what is Israel-Palestine Issue.
I myself is not still sure if West Bank is controlled by Israel or not?

Its fear mongering and in name of religion arousing them...
It has happened in all the time of ages but atleast from educated people one can expect otherwise.

News Agency of Kashmir 9/22/2008 6:11:28 PM
New Delhi, Sept 22(NAK): The book under review is mainly the collection of articles written by the well-known journalist, Balraj Puri, on the problems of the post-Partition Muslims of India. Most of these articles were published in the Economic and Political Weekly. His knowledge of the problems of the Muslims of India, South Asia, and of Islam as a religion, Arabic and Persian, is commendable. He utilises this expertise while discussing the contrasts between Dr Mohammed Iqbal, the poet of the National Anthem of India, and the "thinker of East and Pakistan", and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the Congress leader.

Balraj Puri picks up the thread of the argument of his book with the trauma of Partition. The Pakistan Movement was strong in the Muslim minority provinces such as UP, CP and Bihar. It was quite weak in the present-day Pakistan, and Bangladesh. After Partition the feudal Muslim Leaguers and entrepreneurial Muslims callously left for Pakistan. The remaining Indian Muslims were stigmatised by the extremist Hindus as the guilty of taqseem (division). In those circumstances Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai and Sheikh Abdullah stood by the Muslims and acted as the bridge with other communities. They told the Muslims that their identity was in nowhere else but in the Ganga-Yamuna delta culture. They have to acquire their jobs, and safeguard their rights within the Constitution framework of India. Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru's secular leadership also became a source of support to the post-Partition Indian Muslims. Being convinced by these ideas the Indian Muslims started their new political life in secular India.
With the exception of the RSS nobody doubted the loyalty of Muslims towards India. In the 1965 war, Hawaldar Abdul Hamid was decorated posthumously the highest military award, the Ashok Chakra. And the Indian Muslim remained delinked from any sort of terrorism. Only after 9/11, the Bangalore-born doctor, Hanif, was suspected in Australia for terrorism but his activities were not directed at India. According to Balraj Puri, till recently the Muslims were not suspected for any terrorist activities. The explosions in the Samjhauta Express running between Delhi and Lahore in February 2007 gave some clues about some South Indian Muslims, otherwise nobody pointed fingers at the Muslims as a whole. Dawood Ibrahim, the Bombay drug baron, who was allegedly behind the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 1993 as a reaction to the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992, and still reportedly facilitates the ISI activities in India, living in Pakistan, escapes the author's attention.

To Balraj Puri, the Muslim status of the University of Aligarah, Urdu, and Muslim Personal Law remain the symbols of the identity of the Indian Muslims. Since Banaras and the Aligarh Universities retain their respective titles, the issue is settled now. The author believes that the attachment of the Muslims of North India with the Urdu language is natural. It is next to religion for them. But like him there are many non-Muslims who also love Urdu. In the early days of partition 22 lakh Muslims and non-Muslims sent a petition to restore the official status of Urdu as the medium of instruction in North India. Balraj Puri argues that the Muslims should look at Urdu not through the religious prism but through the cultural one. And in fact, most of the symbols of the classical Urdu poetry such as maikhana, maikada (tavern), sanam, (idol) or beloved have the pre-Islamic Indo-Persian origin. Thus, the issue of Urdu as the medium of instruction for both temporal and religious education should be taken from the cultural point of view in unison with the non-Muslim fans of the language.

Balraj Puri's assertion that Urdu speakers in Pakistan and Biharis in Bangladesh are victimised communities is debatable. (Chapter 8, pp. 91-98) On the contrary, most of them belong to the upper or middle class (Nadeem F Paracha, "Fissures in the middle", Dawn Sunday Magazine, July 27, 2008), whereas 73 per cent of the Pakistanis, especially Sindhis and Balochs live below poverty line. The Urdu speakers may not be more than eight per cent of the population of Pakistan but their language is the national language of Pakistan whereas Sindhi, Saraiki, Balochi, Punjabi and Pashtu, having roots in their respective ancestral homelands, are just regional languages, which appears to be unjustifiable. Urdu speakers, after Punjabis, are the second largest group in the bureaucracy. Musharraf has been one of the most unpopular but the longest serving head of Pakistan. He has promoted disproportionately Urdu-speaking officers in the senior ranks of the armed forces. The Muttahida Quoami Movement, representing mainly Urdu speakers, reportedly and needlessly under Anglo-American pressure, is the coalition partner of the PPP in Sindh.

Balraj Puri takes Altaf Hussain, the leader of the MQM, as the spokesman of the Urdu speakers, which appears to be incorrect. As a matter of fact, many educated Urdu speakers because of the alleged MQM's terrorist activities, especially the carnage it committed on May 12, 2007 in Karachi on the occasion of the visit of the deposed chief Justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammed Chowdhry, whom it dubs as the dahashatgard (terrorist) judge, keep a distance from the MQM.

MOST of the Pakistan-born Urdu speakers will not be pleased with the problematic title of the "Non-Resident Indians (NRIs)" (p. 96) conferred on them. Similarly, the MQM ideologue, late Rais Amrohi's demand for the creation of a "homeland" or "Urdu Pradesh" for the "Pak-Indians" (p. 95) in Karachi and Southern Sindh is unacceptable to all Pakistanis in general, and Sindhis in particular. Many realist Urdu speakers will distance themselves from such provocative ideas. Thus, Puri should have avoided taking sides in the ethnic politics of the Pakistani polity.

As far as Biharis are concerned, due to their support to the Pakistani Army during the 1971 war, they have not been properly treated by the Bangladeshi authorities. But now the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has given them the right to vote in the next general elections which will grant them citizenship. In a BBC documentary it was shown that many of them take Bangladesh as their country. They are born and bred there; only some leaders from Pakistan instigate them to migrate. ("Asia Today", BBC Television, 4.45. GMT, July 22, 2008) Balraj Puri is right when he argues that Urdu speakers in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should adjust themselves with the local cultures, such as participating in the local festivals and visiting the shrines of the saints, learning the local languages without losing their identity. They should give up their siege mentality, if any.

The third point of the identity of the Indian Muslims is ostensibly their demand for the application of the Muslim Personal Law to them. It is primarily Muslims of the Hanifi sect, comprising the majority of Muslims, who make this demand. The Hanafi jurisprudence allows its adherents to divorce their wives just repeating the word 'talaq' three times. Polygamy is also allowed in Islam. Defending Muslims, Balraj Puri argues that all Muslims are not polygamists. There may be more non-Muslim polygamists than Muslims. However, the law allowing them to divorce their wives without their consent ought to be reformed. In addition, giving Muslims a special status will fan the flames of communalism which is a stigma to the Indian polity.

The last chapter 'Azad and Iqbal: A Comparative Study' is a piece of scholarship. It examines the perceptions of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr Mohammed Iqbal, the two great scholars of India, about the Indian Muslims. Being a Brahman by origin, Iqbal knew Sanskrit well. He had the best possible relations with the non-Muslims. He was a Western educated scholar who wrote in Urdu, English and Persian, but not in his mother tongue, Punjabi (emphasis is added). He believed in modernity and suggested that Islam can be reinterpreted through the institution of ijma and ijtihad (congregation). His thoughts curved from Indian nationalism to Pan-Islamism and ended up in Muslim Homeland, only in the Muslim majority areas in western India. He suggested to Jinnah even to exclude the Muslim minority areas from his Muslim homeland.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was an orthodox in his views about Islam. He wrote prose in Urdu and English. His political career began as a Pan-Isalmist and he became quite close to Gandhiji during the Khilafat Movement, launched for the restoration of the Turkish Empire after 1918, which Iqbal opposed. Azad stuck to Indian nationalism. To him Allah is the sustainer of the universe (Rabul Alamaeen) not only of the Muslims. The creation of a state in the name of religion was un-Islamic to him. He opposed the Partition because, among other things, it would divide Muslims and make them weak in their mainland, India. Unlike Iqbal, who died before the creation of Pakistan, the Maulana became the Education Minister of Azad Hindustan.

Summing up his ideas, Balraj Puri states that if the Muslims of India had heeded Azad's advice, they would have not been divided into three states. If they had followed Iqbal's suggestion they would not have been stigmatized for the Partition of India. Thus, after a circular argument, Azad and Iqbal reach to the same point. The author recommends a fresh study to find a synthesis between the ideas of these scholars, having a great deal of impact on the minds of the Muslims of the subcontinent in general, and India in particular. The book is an excellent study of its own kind on the post-Partition Muslims of India. Students of Indian politics in the whole subcontinent should read it. Such clarity and broadmindedness which Balraj Puri demonstrates in this book are rare in our region.

ABC,

As promised I will be posting the forum rules on a thread shortly.
But it is understood that we cannot deviate from the topic of the thread. And we cannot cut/paste an article on a thread without our own analysis about the article. Therefore why shouldnt we delete your above post?

Admin

I agree

This Post can be deleted Mr Admin

I will shortly write with my analysis.

Thanks

Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia can not be compared with the Isarel Palestine Issue.

Indian Subcontinent has it own synthesis of civilization. Its not comparable to Arab/Persian/Western Civilization.

I am talking here of Civilization and not of a religion in particular.

Many scholars like Iqbal, Maulana Azad, Zakir Hussain, Dr Abdul Kalam, have said time and again that Indian Subcontinent is inherently one unit.

By merge of language, culture, food, and people themselves.

There is no direct comparison with Arab/Roman/Greek/Western/Eurpoean civilizations.

I am saying the above statement by not gut feeling but there are many literary work available which substantiate this fact.

To divide the people is cause agnoies to them

The wounds of 1947 have not yet replenished, and that parition has done more harm than good,

its always tells, that brother can betray brother.

There is nothing similar to palestine-israel

By that standard the whole country will be fragmented in millions of pieces.

People who say that are living in middle ages, this is modern era. where we all work together,

If you quote atrocities done by one community on another you are not doing good to either community, as there are many such stories, the cause should be to bring the wrong doer to justice, the struggle should be to hold the law and justice and constiution above all.

It has been proven that there is no israel similarity in india .. its rediculous...
it only shows how little one knows about the history and culture of this country.

Quote :

@ all those who think that Kashmir and Palestine have nothing in common

When Rashmi Sehgal equated Kashmir to Palestine, here is what she was basing her opinion on:

1) Both India and Israel are occupying vast tracts of territory in defiance of numerous UN resolutions/ Intellectual world opinion.

2) India and Israel are responsible for countless killings of innocent civilians in the garb of fighting against terrorism/territorial integrity (Ironically it is they who are the transgressors).

3) India and Israel spend billions of US Dollars annually to contain the peoples of areas which they occupy (and how much have they been able to contain is quite debatable!!!!!!).

4) Both India and Israel are in continual denial of ground realities with respect to territories which they occupy.

5) Both India and Israel continue to exploit a people who are culturally, ethnically, linguistically and demographically distinct from them in the name of pseudo democracy.

6) No wonder then and no surprises that India and Israel have found a common ground and every year at least 2 to 3 Israeli defense delegations visit Kashmir to exchange information with the Indians/ Vice Versa. Israel after US and Russia is the 3rd highest supplier of arms n ammunition to India much of which is deployed in Kashmir.India is the largest buyer of arms and military hardware from Israel.

7) India and Israel as nations have a common ground when it comes to bashing Muslims in the territories which they occupy ( it does not matter whether the people being bashed like Kashmiris have a just cause or not…..as long as they happen to be Muslims……anything goes).

8)Just like the wall constructed by Israel….India continues to strengthen and fence the Line of control making it impossible for the two Kashmirs to unite as one entity.

At conclusion…….we have seen one side of the coin by being with India for more than 60 years………….and a fat lot of good it has done us!!!!!! Why not try the NATO example and go the Swiss way………….In today’s world of information and better justice….we will most likely survive just like a country called BHUTAN or Nepal continues to thrive in our volatile region.

Chinaar wrote:

Quote :

@ all those who think that Kashmir and Palestine have nothing in common

When Rashmi Sehgal equated Kashmir to Palestine, here is what she was basing her opinion on:

1) Both India and Israel are occupying vast tracts of territory in defiance of numerous UN resolutions/ Intellectual world opinion.

Quote :

India is not an Occupant as per law is concerned,
Also the UN disagreement is because of Indian Territory occupied by Pakistan and china.

2) India and Israel are responsible for countless killings of innocent civilians in the garb of fighting against terrorism/territorial integrity (Ironically it is they who are the transgressors).

Quote :

This comparison is incorrect and unfounded.
The innocent killed in Kashmir are Millitants and who supports them.

3) India and Israel spend billions of US Dollars annually to contain the peoples of areas which they occupy (and how much have they been able to contain is quite debatable!!!!!!).

Quote :

Its the duty of every Indian to guard its own territory.

4) Both India and Israel are in continual denial of ground realities with respect to territories which they occupy.

5) Both India and Israel continue to exploit a people who are culturally, ethnically, linguistically and demographically distinct from them in the name of pseudo democracy.

Quote :

this is incorrect, Kashmir is part of India since 5000 years, we have legacy from Kashmir which is well documented and established.
Yes we had transgressers from foreign Arab Land who occupied our territory.

6) No wonder then and no surprises that India and Israel have found a common ground and every year at least 2 to 3 Israeli defense delegations visit Kashmir to exchange information with the Indians/ Vice Versa. Israel after US and Russia is the 3rd highest supplier of arms n ammunition to India much of which is deployed in Kashmir.India is the largest buyer of arms and military hardware from Israel.

7) India and Israel as nations have a common ground when it comes to bashing Muslims in the territories which they occupy ( it does not matter whether the people being bashed like Kashmiris have a just cause or not…..as long as they happen to be Muslims……anything goes).

Quote :

Totally incorrect,
you can propogate Hate as much you want.

8)Just like the wall constructed by Israel….India continues to strengthen and fence the Line of control making it impossible for the two Kashmirs to unite as one entity.

Quote :

India Actually demands the Whole Kashmir from Both China and Pakistan.
LOC to safeguard its own Citizens in Kashmir.

At conclusion…….we have seen one side of the coin by being with India for more than 60 years………….and a fat lot of good it has done us!!!!!! Why not try the NATO example and go the Swiss way………….In today’s world of information and better justice….we will most likely survive just like a country called BHUTAN or Nepal continues to thrive in our volatile region.

Quote :

Kashmir is India's Integral Part by Instrument of Accession and Kashmiris have Article 370 for their Autonomy by Indian Consitution. UN Resoultion is not Mandated by Chapter VII as per Kofi Anan.

[quote]


My Friend,

Their is no end to division, their is no end to hatred.
Any force which is divisive can not be welcomed by intellectuals.

You may disagree but thats a fact.

[quote="ABC_to_XYZ"]

Chinaar wrote:

Quote :

@ all those who think that Kashmir and Palestine have nothing in common

When Rashmi Sehgal equated Kashmir to Palestine, here is what she was basing her opinion on:

1) Both India and Israel are occupying vast tracts of territory in defiance of numerous UN resolutions/ Intellectual world opinion.

Quote :

India is not an Occupant as per law is concerned,
Also the UN disagreement is because of Indian Territory occupied by Pakistan and china.

2) India and Israel are responsible for countless killings of innocent civilians in the garb of fighting against terrorism/territorial integrity (Ironically it is they who are the transgressors).

Quote :

This comparison is incorrect and unfounded.
The innocent killed in Kashmir are Millitants and who supports them.

3) India and Israel spend billions of US Dollars annually to contain the peoples of areas which they occupy (and how much have they been able to contain is quite debatable!!!!!!).

Quote :

Its the duty of every Indian to guard its own territory.

4) Both India and Israel are in continual denial of ground realities with respect to territories which they occupy.

5) Both India and Israel continue to exploit a people who are culturally, ethnically, linguistically and demographically distinct from them in the name of pseudo democracy.

Quote :

this is incorrect, Kashmir is part of India since 5000 years, we have legacy from Kashmir which is well documented and established.
Yes we had transgressers from foreign Arab Land who occupied our territory.
India is land of varied culuture and language that is no basis for divisions.
Ethnically we are same, we are all one, We are either Hindu or Mulim or Sikh or Christian by Faith, that is no cause of division of country.
Language changes every 30 KM in india, see the diversity from North to South and East to West.
Kashmir is India and India is Kashmir. All Kashmirian are our brothers.

6) No wonder then and no surprises that India and Israel have found a common ground and every year at least 2 to 3 Israeli defense delegations visit Kashmir to exchange information with the Indians/ Vice Versa. Israel after US and Russia is the 3rd highest supplier of arms n ammunition to India much of which is deployed in Kashmir.India is the largest buyer of arms and military hardware from Israel.

Quote :

Defense is not against Kashmiris
Its against the divisive forces Pakistan and China.
We have right to defend ourselves.
WE have partnership with Iran Arab as well why dont you quote those here?

7) India and Israel as nations have a common ground when it comes to bashing Muslims in the territories which they occupy ( it does not matter whether the people being bashed like Kashmiris have a just cause or not…..as long as they happen to be Muslims……anything goes).

Quote :

Totally incorrect,
you can propogate Hate as much you want.

8)Just like the wall constructed by Israel….India continues to strengthen and fence the Line of control making it impossible for the two Kashmirs to unite as one entity.

Quote :

India Actually demands the Whole Kashmir from Both China and Pakistan.
LOC to safeguard its own Citizens in Kashmir.

At conclusion…….we have seen one side of the coin by being with India for more than 60 years………….and a fat lot of good it has done us!!!!!! Why not try the NATO example and go the Swiss way………….In today’s world of information and better justice….we will most likely survive just like a country called BHUTAN or Nepal continues to thrive in our volatile region.

Quote :

Kashmir is India's Integral Part by Instrument of Accession and Kashmiris have Article 370 for their Autonomy by Indian Consitution. UN Resoultion is not Mandated by Chapter VII as per Kofi Anan.

Quote :

My Friend,

Their is no end to division, their is no end to hatred.
Any force which is divisive can not be welcomed by intellectuals.

You may disagree but thats a fact.

@ABc

Quote :

This comparison is incorrect and unfounded.
The innocent killed in Kashmir are Millitants and who supports them

Are you high on some narcotics?
The 40 innocent protestors recently murdered in cold blood by barbaric Indian soldiers were militants?

You hindutva agents are so illogical that its not worth my time.

Kilo wrote:

@ABc

Quote :

This comparison is incorrect and unfounded.
The innocent killed in Kashmir are Millitants and who supports them

Are you high on some narcotics?
The 40 innocent protestors recently murdered in cold blood by barbaric Indian soldiers were militants?

You hindutva agents are so illogical that its not worth my time.

You are free not to go by hindutava agenda,
If you dont have time, Its not my problem
You seems to remember history of only one month, I was mentioning history of atleast 60 years, and Infact history 600 years.

Mr Admin and Moderators,
Kindly suggest my Friend Kilo to use proper language.

My friend Kilo and others.

I just want to clarify that my comments are based on the history of millitancy and other development.

I dont mean to say that there are no innocent men killed

And my comments are not mypoic in the sense that it only talks about the development of last 1-2 months.

What ever has happened in last 1-2 month is bad ... We all are sorry about that.

Thanks.

@ABC_XYZ

Quote :

India is not an Occupant as per law is concerned,
Also the UN disagreement is because of Indian Territory occupied by Pakistan and china

Yeh Darlling hai! India. Guys what kinda non-sense is this.

Quote :

This comparison is incorrect and unfounded.
The innocent killed in Kashmir are Millitants and who supports them.

Wow!!! Naye Naye packet mei bheje tum ko cheez puraani,Phir bhi Dil hai Hindustani. Are you nuts or what.

Quote :

Its the duty of every Indian to guard its own territory.

How grotesque.....and while doing so kill all the occupants living on that territory too. This is not your territory my friend. You have to give us the freedom before we decide that.

Quote :

Kashmir is India and India is Kashmir. All Kashmirian are our brothers.

You have a nerve to tell us that we are your brothers after killing a 100,000 plus of our kith n kin. wow u guys sure are unique.

Quote :

Kashmir is India's Integral Part by Instrument of Accession and Kashmiris have Article 370 for their Autonomy by Indian Consitution. UN Resoultion is not Mandated by Chapter VII as per Kofi Anan

READ THIS LOUD!!!!! THE WHOLE WORLD AND THIS INCLUDES EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (EXCEPT of course india) RECOGNIZES J&K AS A DISPUTED TERRITORY (SOURCE BBC COUNTRY PROFILES/ CIA WORLD FACT-BOOK) AND AS SUCH J&K IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDIA or PAKISTAN or CHINA. THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION IS NULL AND VOID AS UNITED NATIONS DECIDED THAT JUNAGADH (SURAT) AND HYDERABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) HAD MUSLIM RULERS WHO DID NOT WANT TO BE WITH INDIA. UN RESOLUTIONS ARE NOT MANDATORY ONLY WHEN ALL PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE DECIDE OTHERWISE.....try n get that into your head.


@ admin

Guys!!!! Don't give up......India is 99 % ABC_XYZ but they have 1% Rashmi Sehgal, Arundhati Roy, Vir Sanghvi etc so lets not give up. please try n make ABC_XYZ understand the J&K problem as he seems to be completely unaware of the situation here.

Quote :

ABC, You may disagree with reality but here are some blatant facts from a reliable source: From Jan. 1989 to August 31, 2008 (Source : http://www.kmsnews.org/)

Total Killings* 92,532
Custodial Killings 6,944
Civilians Arrested 115,500
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 105,645
Women Widowed 22,663
Children Orphaned 107,194
Women gang-raped/Molested by army 9,837
Unmarked Mass Graves 3000 (at last count)

* (including custody killings)

@chinaar,

Quote :

chinaar wrote:
READ THIS LOUD!!!!! THE WHOLE WORLD AND THIS INCLUDES EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (EXCEPT of course india) RECOGNIZES J&K AS A DISPUTED TERRITORY (SOURCE BBC COUNTRY PROFILES/ CIA WORLD FACT-BOOK) AND AS SUCH J&K IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDIA or PAKISTAN or CHINA. THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION IS NULL AND VOID AS UNITED NATIONS DECIDED THAT JUNAGADH (SURAT) AND HYDERABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) HAD MUSLIM RULERS WHO DID NOT WANT TO BE WITH INDIA. UN RESOLUTIONS ARE NOT MANDATORY ONLY WHEN ALL PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE DECIDE OTHERWISE.....try n get that into your head.

Here is a quick and reasonable account of what happened in Junagadh. You can check all the facts. There are more than enough resources on the web to do that.

Junagadh's ruler had acceded his country to Pakistan. Junagadh actually lived on as Pakistani territory for a few months. Junagadh had no (zero) physical contiguity with Pakistan. 100000 of its people fled to neighbouring India. Further, Junagadh had Indian enclaves in the heart of Junagadh. After a few months of economic blockade from the surrounding Indian territory, came the economic end of Junagadh, which was quickly followed by its political demise. Junagadh's Dewan handed the territory to India. India wrote to Pakistan suggesting to hold a referendum. The referendum was held. Out of approximately 190000 voters, 91 voted for Pakistan. Junagadh's entire ruling clan then fled to Karachi, Pakistan. India moved in.

Hyderabad was a more complicated case. Hyderabad was independent for almost a year. Indian Army was withdrawn from Hyderabad by Dec 1947. Thereafter, the Nizam violated the standstill agreement his government had with India. Razakars went on a communal killing spree inside the state for almost a year. Madras asked for Indian military aid. Nizam went to the UN in August 1948. India intervened militarily in Sept 1948. Nizam's army surrendered in four days. Nizam withdrew his case from UN in September 1948.

Junagadh and Hyderabad have no bearing whatsoever on the Instrument of Accession that Hari Singh signed. There is no (zero) connection between the two. I challenge you to cite United Nations document/s that suggest otherwise.

There is enormous difference between Palestine and Kashmir situations. In Palestine, the Palestinians were forcibly displaced to make room for the Israelis. In Kashmir, Art 370 was enacted to prevent people from other states to move into Kashmir. Exactly opposite. What greater difference do you want to see between the two situations ?

@ liberal Marathi

Quote :

The referendum was held. Out of approximately 190000 voters, 91 voted for Pakistan. Junagadh's entire ruling clan then fled to Karachi, Pakistan. India moved in.

You have answered my question my friend, please hold a referundum here too.

Quote :

Nizam went to the UN in August 1948. India intervened militarily in Sept 1948. Nizam's army surrendered in four days.

So an occupation here too despite the rulers reluctance to join. I guess might is always right. "Chit bhi meri aur pat bhi".

Quote :

Junagadh and Hyderabad have no bearing whatsoever on the Instrument of Accession that Hari Singh signed.

They have everything on earth to resemble what Hari singh signed. Hari Singh was a Hindu King of a Muslim majority region whereas the rulers of Hyderabad and Junagadh were muslim monarchs of Hindu majority regions. In other words India took into cognizance the Hindu majority subjects of these states whereas turned a blind eye to the opposite factor in J&K. I guess as long as India is concerned.....anything plus everything goes to satisfy its goal of occupying J&K illegally.

Quote :

I challenge you to cite United Nations document/s that suggest otherwise.

When a world body passes a resolution and declares that a particular territory is disputed, it does so on certain facts and ground realities (Do some home work on why Pakistan was accepted as an equal party to the J&K dispute despite it having attacked J&K in 1948). One of the salient points that Pakistan raised up at the UN was that of the issue pertaining to Junagadh and Hyderabad. But continue belieiving in whatever you think is right...you are entitled to your opinions sir!

Quote :

There is enormous difference between Palestine and Kashmir situations. In Palestine, the Palestinians were forcibly displaced to make room for the Israelis. In Kashmir, Art 370 was enacted to prevent people from other states to move into Kashmir. Exactly opposite. What greater difference do you want to see between the two situations ?

Bro or if you are a sister, come and live in Kashmir for a few months like a common man/siter, you will get all the answers you need. However, there are lakhs of canals of orchards, agricultural land, hotels, homes, forest areas, even street corners under the forcible occupation of the Indian army. Of what value is article 370 when you have approx 700,000 troops on the ground. When your prime minister is arrested like a common criminal and sent to rot in jail for 11 years. when your sisters, mothers and daughters are raped, when your children are orphaned. BROTHER IF YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL REALLY CARE ABOUT US, COME AND LIVE IN SRINAGAR FOR A FEW MONTHS AND TALK TO PEOPLE HERE. TALK TO A LAYMAN WALKING ON THE BYLANES OF SRINAGAR. IF AFTER SPENDING A FEW MONTHS HERE, YOU STILL FEEL THAT WE ARE TALKING RUBBISH, I WILL STOP COMPLAINING AND CRYING OUT ALOUD LIE THIS. KASHMIR AND PALESTINE MAY HAVE A FEW MINOR DIFFERENCES BUT THE SIMILARITIES ARE MIND BLOWINGINGLY ACCURATE!!!!

@chinaar,

Quote :

chinaar wrote earlier:THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION IS NULL AND VOID AS UNITED NATIONS DECIDED THAT JUNAGADH (SURAT) AND HYDERABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) HAD MUSLIM RULERS WHO DID NOT WANT TO BE WITH INDIA.

chinaar wrote:They have everything on earth to resemble what Hari singh signed.

chinaar wrote:One of the salient points that Pakistan raised up at the UN was that of the issue pertaining to Junagadh and Hyderabad.

Based on your earlier post, I challenged you to cite references to UN documents that declare the Instrument of Accession as Null and Void. Now you are claiming that it only resembles the situation in Junagadh and Hyderabad, or that Pakistan raised the issue pertaining to Junagadh and Hyderabad.

So I assume that you don't have UN documents that show that the "THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION IS NULL AND VOID AS UNITED NATIONS DECIDED THAT JUNAGADH (SURAT) AND HYDERABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH) HAD MUSLIM RULERS WHO DID NOT WANT TO BE WITH INDIA". So let us not bring this topic up from next time.

Quote :

Bro or if you are a sister, come and live in Kashmir for a few months like a common man/siter, you will get all the answers you need. BROTHER IF YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL REALLY CARE ABOUT US, COME AND LIVE IN SRINAGAR FOR A FEW MONTHS AND TALK TO PEOPLE HERE. TALK TO A LAYMAN WALKING ON THE BYLANES OF SRINAGAR. IF AFTER SPENDING A FEW MONTHS HERE, YOU STILL FEEL THAT WE ARE TALKING RUBBISH, I WILL STOP COMPLAINING AND CRYING OUT ALOUD LIE THIS. KASHMIR AND PALESTINE MAY HAVE A FEW MINOR DIFFERENCES BUT THE SIMILARITIES ARE MIND BLOWINGINGLY ACCURATE!!!!

I would love to live in Kashmir, but I cannot. Art 370 takes care of that. You, on the other hand, are free to live anywhere in the rest of India.

Quote :

However, there are lakhs of canals of orchards, agricultural land, hotels, homes, forest areas, even street corners under the forcible occupation of the Indian army. Of what value is article 370 when you have approx 700,000 troops on the ground. When your prime minister is arrested like a common criminal and sent to rot in jail for 11 years. when your sisters, mothers and daughters are raped, when your children are orphaned.

Say what you want, Kashmir wasn't like what it is now before 1989. My research into Kashmiri casualties and their breakdown is still work-in-progress. But it is apparent that nearly all the civilian casualties in Kashmir have taken place after 1989. More than half of those casualties are armed Kashmiri and Foreign militants. Of the remaining casualties, there is a heavy proportion of civilian casualties that were the work of militants (Hindus, Sikhs, fellow Muslims, Journalists, Political leaders, you name it). No one (neither the armed forces, nor the armed militants) have covered themselves with glory and civility in Kashmir. Militants have been equally brutal in civilian killings with many execution-style killings. There were nearly 300-400 kidnappings a year in Kashmir by armed militants. Nearly half of those kidnapped were killed (shot or decapitated). My research isn't complete yet. It is mentally hard to read those entries in human rights websites. Do I grieve for the ordinary Kashmiri civilian caught in this cross-fire ? Yes, most reasonable people do whether they were killed by militants or armed forces. But it is the armed militants supported by Pakistan that turned Kashmir into an active battlefield. Now when peace has returned and people are ready to deal with the problems in a civilized manner, the CRPF will go back and must go back.

Here is the perception of an ordinary Indian: Kashmir had a free hand to do pretty much what it wanted under a popular leader. It is the Kashmiri leadership (Sheikh Abdullah at that time) who wanted more than what was agreed to (Defence, Communications, Foreign Affairs). It is the age-old problem of leadership pushing the envelope of their egotistical needs. Kashmiri people are paying the price of extremely poor leadership. Did other Indian states have poor leadership ? Absolutely 100%. But we didn't have Art 370, which meant that we were not insulated from the moderating effects of investments and people coming in from other states.

Quote :

It is the Kashmiri leadership (Sheikh Abdullah at that time) who wanted more than what was agreed to (Defence, Communications, Foreign Affairs)

Your ignorance of the facts only reinforces my belief that your purpose here is only to function as a troll.

I am not going to lecture you on Kashmir's history here, of which you have displayed your utmost ignorance, but I challenge you to support your above claim with resources to back the above claim, or lose credibiltity.

You lost credibilty before when you claimed in your arrogance that "Nepal is an Indian protectorate"

Now you will lose credibilty because you are going to have a hard time proving that Sheikh Abdullah "wanted more than was agreed upon".

@kilo,

Quote :

kilo wrote:
am not going to lecture you on Kashmir's history here, of which you have displayed your utmost ignorance, but I challenge you to support your above claim with resources to back the above claim, or lose credibiltity.

You lost credibilty before when you claimed in your arrogance that "Nepal is an Indian protectorate"

I don't remember ever making that statement. Other people may have implied such in what I wrote but that is not under my control. All I have argued before is that Nepal and Bhutan had to suffer a loss of a part of their sovereignty because of their buffer status - thereby making a case for Kashmir to face similar issues if it were to be independent. I even cited the links to those agreements when posters questioned. They never came back into the argument again.

As far as my credibility and/or ignorance of the issues involved here, one man's views don't bother me. It is my conscience that matters to me. And I believe that most ordinary people are reasonable people and are good people at heart. They don't make exaggerated claims. Read my posts before. I have slammed the brutality of Indian forces as much as I have slammed the brutality of the armed militants. I have slammed Kashmiri leadership as much as I have slammed Indian leadership. I have never let religion take a center stage in the arguments that I was making.

I have not seen you challenge the main gist of my argument: that Kashmir and its leadership had a chance to do right by their territory and they didn't.

Another unfortunate part is, in all this lecturing about Indian forces doing this and doing that: I have not seen one (not ONE) kashmiri poster slam the brutality of the armed militants who have taken thousands of innocent human lives (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Journalists, Political Leaders, Foreigners) in Kashmir. Shall we not spare a thought for those lives as well ?

As far Kashmir and Palestine is concerned, since the genesis of the problem (in my opinion) are based on diametrically opposite reasons, there is no basis whatsoever for comparison, Reshmi Sehgal or not.

@kilo,

Quote :

kilo wrote:
Now you will lose credibilty because you are going to have a hard time proving that Sheikh Abdullah "wanted more than was agreed upon".

It is easy to quote someone without context. Here is what I wrote.

Quote :

LiberalM wrote:
Here is the perception of an ordinary Indian: Kashmir had a free hand to do pretty much what it wanted under a popular leader. It is the Kashmiri leadership (Sheikh Abdullah at that time) who wanted more than what was agreed to (Defence, Communications, Foreign Affairs).

Read the first words again ... "Here is the perception of an ordinary Indian". It is clearly stated as an opinion of what an ordinary Indian thinks caused a problem later. I am not stating that as a fact, it is purely my perception of an event and very clearly stated as such. You are free to have a different perception/opinion about the genesis of the Kashmir problem.

"The Delhi Agreement, 1952 arrived at between Kashmir government led by Sheikh M Abdullah and the Govt of India was discussed in the Union Parliament on August 7, 1952 and accepted.

But inspite of all these discussions and decisions in the Kashmir Constituent Assembly, the implementation of the agreement was not forthcoming. This aroused suspicion in the minds of the public about the intentions of the leaders of the Government.

In the working committee of the National Conference (Kashmir) there was sharp criticism of the Government’s policy.

There was a serious rift in the Cabinet itself. The difference of opinion reached a peak when Sheikh Abdullah, instead of implementing the agreement, started advocating secession, which would make Kashmir an ‘independent State’.

The people of the State were quick to perceive the danger of such a course for they had seen that the tribal attack in 1947 which had caused much devastation was a direct consequence of Kashmir’s isolated position. There were ‘inflammatory rumours that United States was backing the Kashmir’s independence". Sheikh Abdullah was accused both by his colleagues in the Cabinet and by the public outside of trying to create a State for himself. In fact, three members of the Cabinet submitted a memorandum to Sheikh Abdullah accusing him of various charges. It soon became obvious that the capacity of the Administration to function efficiently was doubtful. The whole matter was spotlighted

when the Sadar-i-Riyasat, who, taking cognisance of the situation, on August 8, 1953, dismissed Sheikh Abdullah from the post of Prime Minister of Kashmir and dissolved the Cabinet.

On the same day in order to "avoid a political and administrative vacuum", the Sadar-i-Riyasat invited Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, the erstwhile Deputy Prime Minister, to form the new Cabinet.

On 9th August, 1953, Sheikh Abdullah was arrested at "Gulmarg", a health resort about twenty-eight miles from Srinagar valley, under the State Preventive Detention Act. He was released four years later in 1958 but was shortly re-arrested on a charge of "Conspiracy to overthrow the Government". His followers and well wishers including the then Revenue Minister were arrested with him.

Accordingly, the Sadar-i-Riyasat wrote to Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad when inviting him to form the new Cabinet, "the continuance in office of the new Cabinet will depend upon its securing a vote of confidence from the Legislative Assembly during its coming session." The State legislature met on October 5,1953, and passed a unanimous vote of confidence in the new Cabinet.

The National Confernece had earlier approved the change of Government. A Convention of about 400 delegates from the National Conference throughout the State met in Srinagar from September 13-15, 1953 and approved the change of Government as ‘inevitable in the interest of the country and the national movement,’ and expressed complete confidence in the new government, promising their fullest co-operation.

In Pakistan, however, the events in Kashmir provoked a wave of indignation. There were accusations against India of having overthrown Sheikh Abdullah, "until then a quisling in the opinion of the Pakistanis but who, now, through a twist of history not without its" comical aspects had become a martyr in the struggle of Kashmiris. But this propaganda in Pakistan was met with sharp criticism in Kashmir. In the September Convention of the National Conference the members opposed association with the ‘ruling clique of Pakistan’ and regretted their behaviour.

Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad immediately upon taking the oath of office, went before the microphone to make a policy statement. In his statement he bitterly deplored the idea of an ‘independent Kashmir’ under the patronage of the United States of America, which he said "would be a threat to the freedom and independence of Indian and Pakistani people. He praised India with which Kashmir had entered into "indissoluble links".

With his coming into power, the formulation of Constitutional relations between Kashmir and India entered a new phase. The work of the Constituent Assembly started afresh with renewed phase. The work of the Constituent Assembly started afresh with renewed vigour. ‘Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Citizenship’ and "Basic Principles Committee" were set up on 20th October, 1953. The Assembly met on February 6th, 1954, and adopted the reports of the "Basic Principles Committee on Fundamental Rights," thereby fulfilling one of the major tasks with which it had been charged. The ‘Drafting Committee’ presented its report on February 12th, 1954, and the report was adopted on February 15th, 1954. The adoption of this report embodied the ratification of the State’s Accession to India."

THAT SHEIKH ABDULLAH WANTED MORE THAN WAS AGREED UPON:-- PROVED that Sheikh Mohd Abdullah did not stand true to the Delhi Agreement to which he was a signatory, rather started advocating secession from india for 'independence', thereby clearly 'wanting more',. His absence from the political scene wasnt much felt by the people of the State, because Bakshi Ghulam Mohd immediately filled this space and carried on to serve the people of the State with perfectly good working relations with the govt of India. This wa the time when developmental activities increased in the J&K State. Every thing went on well with subsequent chief ministers like GM Sadiq and then again Sheikh M Abdullah , and never was the 'sacred cause of kashmiri independence' ever heard anywhere in the valley. Seemed people just had better thingss to do!! Then it started changing for kashmiris when the pakis started playing their flute and the rest is history.

And by the way, fellow indians, don't see too much into ' come and live in kashmir and you'll see whats happening here" rattle because nothing is happening here except when kashmiris choose to defy police restrictions or curfew and thats when they feel the force of law. Nothing that we dont see on a daily basis across india!! I would rather suggest that a walk at the boulevard will rejuvinate your senses:-)

Now that you did a good cut/paste job. I would like you to cite your sources...

Quote :

The Delhi Agreement, 1952 arrived at between Kashmir government led by Sheikh M Abdullah and the Govt of India was discussed in the Union Parliament on August 7, 1952 and accepted

What exactly was agreed upon? Care to refer to that?

Quote :

There was a serious rift in the Cabinet itself. The difference of opinion reached a peak when Sheikh Abdullah, instead of implementing the agreement, started advocating secession, which would make Kashmir an ‘independent State’.

Which was within the framework of the UN resolutions, which gave the people of Kashmir the ultimate right to choose their fate. I guess you choose to conveniently ignore this part of the fact!

Quote :

In fact, three members of the Cabinet submitted a memorandum to Sheikh Abdullah accusing him of various charges

Again Cite sources...the rest is jsut Hindutva propaganda, which will not hold upto to scrutiny...

I ask Admin to verify the authenticity of the anon's post because it has all hallmarks of Hindutva propaganda Cut/pasted from their hate websites.