Re: Kashmiris or Indians?

by Idéfix Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:46 am

truthbetold wrote:You have assumed what is in the minds of people. You said BD refugees left BD and would not want to rejoin BD with new districts. In other words, you are assuming these refugees are acting in their economic self interest. Not an unreasonable argument. It does not take a lot of common sense to understand that Kashmiris would be economically better off in India than the failed state of Pakistan. But religious fanatics of Kashmir whipped up such jihadi frenzy that economic self interest is pushed into dustbin to support terrorist elements. If islam can generate such frenzy what makes you so sure that BD refugees and local muslims at some near future point not fall prey to the same sentiments.

Kashmir has always had a sizable independence movement since its accession to India. There is no such thing for the border districts of West Bengal. In Kashmir, religious fanaticism is used to take advantage of this preexisting independent streak. In fact, when the militancy became overtly Islamist in the late 1990s, support from the local people reduced, allowing the Army to get the valley back under control. That is how the restoration of elections and an elected state government became possible. The refugees from Bangladesh made the really difficult choice of uprooting themselves for economic opportunity. So it's not unreasonable to expect them to act in their economic self-interest.

by Idéfix Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Similarly, PakiSatan and Chinamen are the aggressors and India meekly goes about talking about democracy, freedom and rights. Both Pakis and Chinamen are quietly giggling.

Guruvu-gaaru, instead of talking about democracy, should we become more like Pakis and Chinamen? Should we become a militaristic theocracy or a communist dictatorship? Which of those two fine examples should we follow?

by SomeProfile Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:52 pm

Idéfix wrote:
truthbetold wrote:You have assumed what is in the minds of people. You said BD refugees left BD and would not want to rejoin BD with new districts. In other words, you are assuming these refugees are acting in their economic self interest. Not an unreasonable argument. It does not take a lot of common sense to understand that Kashmiris would be economically better off in India than the failed state of Pakistan. But religious fanatics of Kashmir whipped up such jihadi frenzy that economic self interest is pushed into dustbin to support terrorist elements. If islam can generate such frenzy what makes you so sure that BD refugees and local muslims at some near future point not fall prey to the same sentiments.
Kashmir has always had a sizable independence movement since its accession to India. There is no such thing for the border districts of West Bengal. In Kashmir, religious fanaticism is used to take advantage of this preexisting independent streak. In fact, when the militancy became overtly Islamist in the late 1990s, support from the local people reduced, allowing the Army to get the valley back under control. That is how the restoration of elections and an elected state government became possible. The refugees from Bangladesh made the really difficult choice of uprooting themselves for economic opportunity. So it's not unreasonable to expect them to act in their economic self-interest.

FTFY:

~~Kashmir has always had a sizable independence movement since its accession to India.~~

Kashmir has had a sizable Islamist movement before and since its accession to India.

~~There is no such thing for the border districts of West Bengal.~~

There is a definite Islamist movement and mischief in the border districts of West Bengal. It is only the distance from Pakistan which has kept this area at a lower temperature.

~~In Kashmir, religious fanaticism is used to take advantage of this preexisting independent streak.~~

In Kashmir, independence is used as a mask / excuse to achieve the goals of the religious fanatic Islamist movement. Does anyone have any doubt that an independent Kashmir will turn into an Islamic hellhole in no time?

In fact, when the militancy became overtly Islamist in the late 1990s, support from the local people reduced, allowing the Army to get the valley back under control. That is how the restoration of elections and an elected state government became possible.

In fact, Islamist violence from local people naturally reduced when almost all the Kashmiri Pandits had left and there were no more targets left. That is how it was possible to have elections and elected state governments of overtly pro-Islamic parties which blatantly refuse to have a non-Muslim Chief Minister.

~~The refugees from Bangladesh made the really difficult choice of uprooting themselves for economic opportunity. So it's not unreasonable to expect them to act in their economic self-interest.~~

Whatever the reason for refugees from Bangladesh to relocate to places in India, but when they join other Muslims in any location and form a sizeable percentage of the population, there is no doubt that they will behave exactly like Muslims in non-Muslim places behave, which is to create problems for the non-Muslim population, turning even peaceful Buddhist monks violent.

by southindian Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:43 pm

Right on SP.

Islamists take over when Hindus, Pandits move out from a region.

Muslims move in... And present Europe happens.

Current Europe is a great example of 'Results of Muslim % increase in ANY region'.

by truthbetold Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:04 pm

Idefix,

Your are making certain assumptions about people, movements and about historical events. From my point of view those assumptions are serving your POV. I cannot agree with many of those assumptions.

Kashmiris are not making much of an effort to sell their movement to rest of India or to rest of world. Their actions indicate they just want to create terrorist violence and hope India gets tired and gives up, That seems to be more from Pakistan Army's playbook than from a nationalist playbook.

Let us agree to disagree on Kashmir.

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:39 pm

truthbetold wrote:CD,

What can Indian govts do differently other than accepting defeat and allow them to go their way?

Parting ways is not a defeat rather a win-win situation. They get the freedom they wanted and India can free herself of financial burden. Here is why - J & K has been sucking up federal resources. For the last 20 years J & K's share of central grants has been around 10% (about 1.5 lakh crores) where as UP got about 8% in the same period despite their population being 15 times of J&K. To put things in perspective, central govt spent around Rs. 90k per person in Kashmir where as it spent mere Rs. 4000 per UPite. Imagine how much could've been accomplished even with half the funds that were spent on J & K over the years e.g. several Polvaram sized projects could've been built.

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:43 pm

southindian wrote:
CD Dude, no military rule in J&K. If you check you'll find, your mehbooba is running the state.

As far as India is concerned, there's nothing special about Jammu & Kashmir. J&K students study across India in different universities and fly all over the world with Indian passports.

Stop living in a Paki bubble.

I suggest you read up a bit on J & K. Army controls pretty much everything; from maintenance of law and order to running hospitals, airports, bus stations and tourist centres etc.,

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:53 pm

rawemotions wrote:
While the roots of the current Agitation supporting a terrorist is Islamism, with the misguided youths being used as cannon fodder, there is a nefarious design behind the Political Islamists and their Pakistani masters to fuel this agitation. That is to derail the establishment of Sainik Colonies and re-establishment of Kashmiri Hindu Colonies. If that had happened, that would be the end of Pakistan's potential success in the future to take control of Indian territory in J&K. With BJP in power, they could not completely stop it using Political Islamist elements in administration.

It is idiotic to assume that everyone supports it wholeheartedly the violent agitations, just because a few local youths want to shout, throw stones & use acid bombs. 46% of J&K Population and about 25% of the population currently living in the valley of Kashmir, want nothing to do with Pakistan or for that matter the unattainable goal of being a separate country. These include most Gujjar, Paharis, Shias, and off course the exiled population of Hindus and Sikhs. I am pretty sure, there are also some Sunni Muslim folks, including the families of Policemen killed by the terrorists, who want nothing to do with Pakistan. The youths are participating because compared to previous generation the education system has been completely oriented towards Political Islam similar to the Islamization Zia ul Haq initiated in Pakistan.

Pakistan controls the agitations. They enlarge it by inciting violence. They provide support for the agitation including intimidation of those who want peace and oppose Pakistan Sponsored Agitations OR those who question Pakistan's blatant demographic invasion of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The foot soldiers might be local youths, the instigators are still Pakistanis and their Political Islamist supporters in the Valley.

http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/05/29/in-kashmir-nearly-half-favour-independence/

The poll has produced startling results. On average 44 percent of people in Pakistani-administered Kashmir favoured independence, compared with 43 percent in Indian Kashmir.

But in the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley, which is at the centre of the two-decades-old anti-India insurgency, between 75 percent and 95 percent support freedom both from India and Pakistan.[/quote]

-> They may not want anything to do with Pakistan but they do favor independence.

by truthbetold Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:56 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:CD,

What can Indian govts do differently other than accepting defeat and allow them to go their way?
Parting ways is not a defeat rather a win-win situation. They get the freedom they wanted and India can free herself of financial burden. Here is why - J & K has been sucking up federal resources. For the last 20 years J & K's share of central grants has been around 10% (about 1.5 lakh crores) where as UP got about 8% in the same period despite their population being 15 times of J&K. To put things in perspective, central govt spent around Rs. 90k per person in Kashmir where as it spent mere Rs. 4000 per UPite. Imagine how much could've been accomplished even with half the funds that were spent on J & K over the years e.g. several Polvaram sized projects could've been built.

CD,

The only play in your book is India to roll over and allow Kashmir to secede. You never came up with any other play because it is never an option. Your policy was preset for secession. How can any argument from normal Indians or supporters of Indian govt stand would look normal to you? You are never objective on Kashmir.

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:57 pm

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

Your are making certain assumptions about people, movements and about historical events. From my point of view those assumptions are serving your POV. I cannot agree with many of those assumptions.

Kashmiris are not making much of an effort to sell their movement to rest of India or to rest of world. Their actions indicate they just want to create terrorist violence and hope India gets tired and gives up, That seems to be more from Pakistan Army's playbook than from a nationalist playbook.

Let us agree to disagree on Kashmir.

What do you mean by assumptions, if those are assumptions then what is the truth? when in fact your arguments are laced with hypothetical scenarios such as B'desh refugees/illegals in WB would eventually want an independent country out of WB, do you even realize how ridiculous that argument/assumption of yours is.

by confuzzled dude Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:03 pm

truthbetold wrote:
CD,

The only play in your book is India to roll over and allow Kashmir to secede. You never came up with any other play because it is never an option. Your policy was preset for secession. How can any argument from normal Indians or supporters of Indian govt stand would look normal to you? You are never objective on Kashmir.

-> I told you why I think it will be a win-win situation for everyone. How many plays do you have in your playbook? If there are, you haven't revealed any yet, have you? BTW, Here is an argument from a normal Indian which falls in line with mine.

"A good way to begin is by asking ourselves a hypothetical question: What would the reaction in Kashmir, India and Pakistan be if Delhi were to announce that it has decided to cede independence to a freely elected government in Jammu and Kashmir.

This question is not as outrageous as it sounds, for it was first posed to Jawaharlal Nehru at the tail end of the eighth meeting of the defence committee of the Indian cabinet on October 25, 1947. Nehru’s response had been immediate and unhesitating: that he would “not mind Kashmir remaining an independent country [sic] under India’s sphere of influence”.

He said this not only because the question was hypothetical and because he knew – both as a Kashmiri and a close friend to Sheikh Abdullah – that Kashmiris wanted, above all, to preserve their syncretic identity and culture. This would automatically keep them aligned with New Delhi, which had opted from the start for a federal democratic system based upon ethnicity. Does Nehru’s intuitive understanding of Kashmiri aspirations in 1947 still hold true today? At this critical moment in India’s history, this question needs to be asked and answered once again.

Let us start with what the reaction in the Valley would be. Once the initial suspicion of this radical announcement is dispelled, popular unrest will subside. Curfew will be lifted, the police and paramilitary forces will stand down, and normal life will resume. This will not suit those who have been organising the stone pelting, either out of political and religious conviction or because they have been on the dole from the ISI. But these people will have to explain to the youth why they should continue putting their lives in danger even when India has met their fundamental demand. More importantly, the youth will themselves face the concentrated opposition of their parents, something that is conspicuously lacking today. Those who have been systematically instigating stone pelting as a form of protest will therefore find themselves without a following and will have to change their goals and strategy.

After the initial euphoria, Kashmiris will have to decide who the recipient of the power that Delhi is ready to transfer should be. Since that decision rests upon elections, political energy will get redirected towards winning them. Here, the simple majority voting system will come into play. In order to win, political groups will have to enter into coalitions. This will force them to make compromises with other parties and groups that do not share all of their goals. The compromises will inevitably weaken the political extremes and strengthen the centre. The lines between the two wings of the Hurriyat, and between them and the mainstream parties, will begin to blur. Thus, Kashmir’s lost Kashmiriyat will be reborn.

The reborn Kashmiriyat will be inherently moderate for many reasons. First, even in the stressed conditions of today, large segments of the population do not want a complete separation from India. This is because complete independence brings military, political and financial insecurity with it.

Independence will also lay bare the social, religious and ethnic fissures that are present in Kashmir. The Shias, Gujars and the Paharis will almost certainly want to retain some of the protection that national laws give them as a shield against discrimination. The Pandit community will also want the same, both inside and outside the Valley. There will also be a difference of opinion between the older Kashmiris and the ‘youth’, between the poor and the middle class, and between the urban and rural segments of both.

Finally, most Kashmiris will want their economic links with India to remain intact. Any political formation that wishes to win the election will have to take these aspirations and anxieties into account. Thus, the pressure to seek a solution, that is short of a complete separation, is likely to surface shortly after tempers begin to subside.

In Jammu and Ladakh, however, this announcement will be received with mixed feelings and in the case of the latter, with alarm. Ladakh will feel cut-off and the Shia population of Kargil, which has consistently recorded some of the highest turnouts in the state and central elections, will feel particularly threatened.

Ladakh’s fears can be resolved by giving it the full union territory status that it has been yearning for, and by building modern road and rail links between the region and Himachal Pradesh.

There will be mixed feelings in Jammu because, while many in the state want to separate themselves from Kashmir and Ladakh in order to entirely enter into the mainstream of Indian politics, the others – possibly a majority that values their historical and cultural links with Kashmir – will want the status quo to continue. Despite this, it is difficult not to conclude that both parts of the state will be better off if they break the shackles that bind them, for today, communal fervour and intolerance in each is feeding off the other. This vicious cycle needs to be broken.

This decision, however, should not be taken by Delhi, but rather, be left to the people of Jammu and Ladakh to take if they wish. This can be done by attaching a single question referendum to the election that will create the next government in Kashmir.

In Pakistan, such an announcement will be received with consternation because it will put the ghost of a plebiscite to rest and it will be left without an issue to fight India over. This will put the noses of both, the military and the mullahs, out of joint, because Kashmir is the lone common trough from which both have fed and prospered, for decades.

It will have to deal with a spate of similar demands in Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that the Indian decision will set off. To contain these, Pakistan will be forced to democratise its administration in all three, but it will try to do as little as possible. The only sure way to do that will be to ask India to limit its devolution of autonomy as well. Thus, while Pakistan will claim a victory in public, it is likely that it will ask India to limit Kashmiri independence to the proposals contained in the Delhi Agreement of 1952.

With a little deft diplomacy, Modi could therefore revive the Manmohan-Musharaf framework agreement and end the rift created in the subcontinent by the partition. It hardly needs to be added that were India to take such a bold step, its stock in the world would rise sky high and its ‘soft power’ would soar."

http://thewire.in/61373/framework-peace-kashmir/

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:25 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Similarly, PakiSatan and Chinamen are the aggressors and India meekly goes about talking about democracy, freedom and rights. Both Pakis and Chinamen are quietly giggling.
Guruvu-gaaru, instead of talking about democracy, should we become more like Pakis and Chinamen? Should we become a militaristic theocracy or a communist dictatorship? Which of those two fine examples should we follow?

I didn't suggest that India should follow Paki and Chinese models. India should stand up for its rights. I was alluding to gullible rhetoric on democracy, freedom, etc.

by Idéfix Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:33 am

SomeProfile wrote:

FTFY:
In fact, when the militancy became overtly Islamist in the late 1990s, support from the local people reduced, allowing the Army to get the valley back under control. That is how the restoration of elections and an elected state government became possible.

In fact, Islamist violence from local people naturally reduced when almost all the Kashmiri Pandits had left and there were no more targets left. That is how it was possible to have elections and elected state governments of overtly pro-Islamic parties which blatantly refuse to have a non-Muslim Chief Minister.

When you free yourself from facts, you achieve a tremendous ability to reach any conclusion that fits your preconceived notions. The Pandits were forcibly expelled at gunpoint in early 1990. Terrorism in the valley actually increased after the ethnic cleansing of Pandits from the valley. Everybody who knows the history of Kashmir knows this. The locals supported JKLF in the early days. When pro-independence JKLF was eclipsed by pro-Pakistani HuM -- an organization dominated by Punjabis and Pathans -- and waves of more-and-more radical groups like HuA and JeM took over the terrorism business, the locals moved away from supporting the jehadis.

Incidentally, the original ethnic cleansing of was led by HuM, not JKLF. HuM issued a press release in an Urdu -- not Kashmiri -- newspaper asking the Pandits to leave the valley or else. It was one of HuM's early efforts to seize the initiative away from JKLF, because the HuM's paymaster the ISI decided they could not control the pro-independence JKLF to do their bidding despite helping the JKLF with training in Muzaffarabad.

I remember reading about opinion poills not long ago in the valley where a majority of respondents said that they want the Pandits to return.

by confuzzled dude Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:20 pm

VIJAY PRASHAD: You know, Amy, let’s—if we were going to be political scientists, let’s ask, "What’s the ratio of security force to population, you know, until when we call something an occupation?" In Kashmir, for every civilian—for every seven civilians, there is a security force—you know, there’s an army officer or an army personnel. That’s seven to one. Seven civilians, one army person. You know, if this is not an occupation, what else is it? I mean, the Indian ruling elite needs to come to terms with the fact that you cannot have any politics when you have such an enormous military presence inside Kashmir. And, you know, there is no point talking about the details of this, Amy, until this is on the table and seriously discussed. Everything else follows.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/26/vijay_prashad_on_indias_crackdown_in

Wonder what our deshbhakts have to say about this.

by confuzzled dude Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:45 pm

An obstacle to any lasting solution is India’s insistence on seeing Kashmir through the prism of its rivalry with Pakistan. The Indian government’s immediate reaction to this summer’s unrest was to accuse its neighbour of meddling. In fact, Wani was a home-grown insurgent; the young men on the streets are locals. Unemployment is widespread and economic opportunities are few. The state was also promised special status, guaranteeing autonomy, in India's constitution. And many Kashmiris now want more: a survey in 2010 by Chatham House, a think-tank, found overwhelming support for independence. Kashmiris are at best ambivalent about their attachment to India. Until the government recognises their demands, the anger is unlikely to dissipate.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/08/economist-explains-20

by ashdoc Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:32 pm

Unemployment is widespread and economic opportunities are few.

this is because kashmiri muslims are producing too many children .

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:36 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
An obstacle to any lasting solution is India’s insistence on seeing Kashmir through the prism of its rivalry with Pakistan. The Indian government’s immediate reaction to this summer’s unrest was to accuse its neighbour of meddling. In fact, Wani was a home-grown insurgent; the young men on the streets are locals. Unemployment is widespread and economic opportunities are few. The state was also promised special status, guaranteeing autonomy, in India's constitution. And many Kashmiris now want more: a survey in 2010 by Chatham House, a think-tank, found overwhelming support for independence. Kashmiris are at best ambivalent about their attachment to India. Until the government recognises their demands, the anger is unlikely to dissipate.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/08/economist-explains-20

What else do you expect from sickular pseudo intellectuals? TBT has already said that it is the Paki jihadists from across the border who are throwing stones, so it must be true. Economist is anti-Indian. Plain and simple.

by confuzzled dude Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:17 pm

1966, ‘perhaps there is more discontent today amongst the people of the state than at any earlier time. There is more anti-India feeling among them than before’.

How should the government react to this discontent? JP was clear that ‘it will be a suicide of the soul of India, if India tried to suppress the Kashmiri people by force’. Rather than rely on repression, what ‘the Government of India can do is go back to the 1947-53 days, that is, go back to the time when the state had acceded to India only in three subjects [i.e. Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Communications]. This would mean providing for the fullest possible autonomy’.

Back in October 1966, Jayaprakash Narayan insisted that if, in Kashmir, ‘we continue to rule by force and suppress these people and crush them or change the racial or religious character of their state by colonization, or by any other means, then I think that means politically a most obnoxious thing to do’. He continued: ‘Kashmir has cost us a great deal and it is time that every one who is a patriot in this country thought seriously about a really good solution. I have already told you what I think is a really good solution’ (i.e. fullest internal autonomy).

http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/why-we-must-listen-to-jayaprakash-narayan-on-kashmir/story-1ESKtjC4GSm0kzrGumhcYO.html

India, has not learned a thing in 50 years. It is high-time that Indians got together and forced their governments to fully acknowledge/abide by Article 360 rather than being condescending towards Kashmirs.

by Sponsored content