#9 I survived. However… on September 12, 2005
"Kashmiris are literally dying to become a part of Pakistan. "

Only somebody completely clueless could make such a statement. or some body who has been brainwashed. or somebody who is prejudiced.

#8 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
Stuka u could be unaware of the situation or like some pakistanis here misinformed. Kashmiris dont want to join pakistan, though they do want union with the other half of kashmir or atleast closer ties, not the artificial seperation that exists between them and their relatives today. Do they want azadi, sure they do, but they dont want anything to do with Pakistan, beyond good neighbourly ties.

Kashmiris, though hardy, have always been a docile people like those of the plains very unlike what mountain people usually are, nor did they harbour any desire to join pakistan. that is why they never rose up to support Pakistani troops in 65 or the tribals in 47. Their punjabised cousins i.e. the Dogras, Mirpuris, Poonchis though are more martial.

The kashmiris also dont identify much with the rest of hindustan, like the pathans and to a lesser extent Punjabis, north easteners etc. Like most muslims in India for a variety of reasons they were not able to make much headway economically, nor was their much industry in their state, from early on in the 50s Sheikh Abdullah complained of discrimination against muslims (i.e. Kashmiris) in jobs etc. This situation grew worse with the growth of unemployed graduates in the 70s and 80s, most of whom could not find place in the tourism industry there.

finally repeatedly jailing sheikh abdullah and then rigginging elections led to resentment, which blew up after the rigged elections of 88/89. the hizb commander Syed Salahudeen was one of the candidates in that elections it was after the police came after him, and the elections were rigged that he escaped across the border.

When the BSF, army and paramilitaries, who were not trained for counter insurgency operations, launched a repressive crackdown under Jagmohan, the kasmiris started mouthing pro Pakistan slogans, more out of spite against their repression than any genuine feeling for Pakistan. Much like the instances of bursting crackers by hindus when India wins in muslim mohallas and by muslims when Pakistan wins, this always happens in communally sensitive mohallas or towns, rarely does one hear of this in non sensitive towns/neighbourhoods, it is a way for the powerless to hurt the powerful emotionally/psychologically and sometimes for the powerful to display their dominance or show the weak their position much like the breaking of babri masjid, infact the whole movement for building the ram temple, or the breaking of temples in bangladesh. This is also often the reason for starting of riots i.e. to fix the other side,. Thus riots are often instigated either through provocation and collusion by the usual suspects or some times spontaneously in which case the retaliation is planned.

Muslims do harbour a soft corner for individual Pakistanis, because of cultural affinities, but not for Pakistan. The affinity if u closely analyse it is cultural and not religous for other wise they would be harbouring soft corners for Saudi Arabia, Syria and Malalsia but that is not the case beyond a superficial aquaintance. Thus it hurts an indian muslim when he is identified as a Pakistani by Indians as often happens outside India, and sometimes within, because he is an indian. But for him the word "Pakistani" is not a pejorative as it is for most Indians, like the words "hindu" and "muslim" are pejoratives for certain muslims and hindus.

#7 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
basically what I am saying is that the situation in Kashmir as with the rest of the muslims in India is complex, and not clearly definable in black and white. Identity itself is a many layered construct.

#6 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
Dost Mittar

There is enough available on the net and various international mags, but if you want first hand info next time you go to India, take a trip to Kashmir, you will have a good holiday and you can find out the situation on the ground. Your urdu is good, if you want dont reveal your name, common people are generally frank through out the world. Ask them their opinion take a wide cross section and see.

You said " just finished reading the memoirs of a former chief justice of India, Mehar Chand Mahajan. He was the Prime Minister of Kashmir at the time of its accession to India. The picture he paints of Sheikh Abdullah is one of a rank communalist and a demagogue, although pro-Indian. On the other hand, he describes Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as a thoroughly secular gentleman. "

One can analyse this statement if one has a rudimentary knowledge of Kashmir. To understand Kashmir it is important to know that it was overwhelmingly a muslim majority state and yet was ruled by hindu and sikh dogras. The peasentry was almost totally muslim and extremely impoverished, it was purposely denied education and a place in the army/secuirity forces to keep them in check, that is why most of the educated muslim Kashmiris of earlier generations were found outside Kashmir i.e. Iqbal, Manto etc. Now in such a situation if a popular leader arose from among them and he was going to take up the rights of the majority of the impoverished it would naturally be of the muslims and when the discrimination they faced was communal in nature naturally the demand for upliftement would be not be entirely secular, I mean there was no point in asking for more education for Pandits when education was largely restricted to them or for place in the army for dogras when they constituted the majority.

Initially the party of which Sheikh was a member was called the Muslim Conference, but later under the influence of socialist ideas and those of Nehru who sought out and befriended the sheikh in the 1930s, The sheikh broke off and created a new secular party called the National Conference. The muslim conference continued to exist and later in the early to mid 40s became a front for the League, where as the National conference allied itself with the socialist congress for the sheikh felt that in a pakistan dominated by feudal elements land reforms which would favour the muslim peasents would not take place, where as in Nehru’s India the chances appeared bright, plus the sheikh was no fan of religion nor did he think that Pakistan would survive like many in the congress.

The sheikh was a populist leader, naturally a populist leader would scare the royalists, but the charge of communalism was never made against him by either the scion of the royal family Karan Singh nor by Nehru, who was quick to spot a communalist of any hue. To depend on the statements of a prime minister of a government that practised officially sanctioned disrcimination is in my opinion not wise. and if the sheikh was truly communal it defies logic to think he would join India or be a socialist. Even later when he was imprisoned by Nehru and shastri and indira gandhi he never advocated joining Pakistan, he talked of independence from time to time, for he felt joining India had not yielded what the Kashmiris had hoped for, he felt they were being discriminated against in jobs etc in the govt and private sector in India and that too many of the rights with which Kashmir had come to India had been revoked or diluted.

Finally after a couple of his less than discreet interviews, in which he hinted at the UN resolutions and independence, Nehru imprisoned him. Installed the puppet Bakshi, and a rigged election later created a parliament that ratified the accession.

Maharaja Hari Singh was given no choice other than accede to India, before any troopps would be dispatched to his aide, simultaneously the sheikhs approval was taken. after this and after making variouses promises in the Indian Parliament and the UN, Patel and Nehru and then Nehru alone kept dragging their feet onseeking the Kashmiri peoples approval or on conducting the UN resolutions, this is clear from the correspondence between the two.

That Bakshi, a brother in law of sheikh abdullah, was a puppet was evident from his lack of popularity among the Kashmiris and his disaissal by the center and the appointment of another puppet in his place, which act continued for a while. as regards his secularity well that is possible though wether it was of any inner conviction is defficult to say considering his duplicitous character. There has been a tendency in India to consider anybody who was pro India as secular and any body in favour of independence as communal, in fact the same man becomes communal or secular depending upon whether in that phase of his life he was supporting Independence or not. this is not a fruitful way of analysing the situation, a better way is to read in detail the reasons for which a man was supporting one view or the other for after all man or rather we all are creatures of self interest, and politicians earn their bread and support by representing those interests which ever way they may be served best.

"When it came to Kashmir, Nehru listened to his friend Sheikh Abdullah more than anyone else." Nehru listened to no one when it came to kashmir, only to those who agreed with his views, infact even his commitment to democracy went for a six when it came to kashmir, for he was deeply emotionally attached to it, you can read the letters written to him by Motilal when he was a boy studying at Harrow, they refer fondly to vacations in the motherland, to not forgetting it etc. for the kashmiri pandit kashmir remained the motherland even two centuries after coming to the Plains. As soon as the sheikh showed an independent line of views nehru improsned him where he remained with a brief respite for two decades. But Nehru never even listened to much closer friends like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Abul Kalam Azad, both of whom risked their careers and lives for the congres in return for nought. Truly tragic was the case of Bacha Khan who became overnight a landless man.

So impatient was nehru to come to power and implement his ideas, so much faith he had in his economic ideas that he couldnt be bothered by any obstacle or delay. ofcourse his biggest failures were not these economic ideas for there was no way to know they were so wrong back then. his biggest failures lay in his inability to stress on universal primary education though he often talked about it and was aware of its importance and his view that india’s burgeoning population was an asset not a liability the consequences of which two we are bearing till today in India.

#5 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
"Mahajan’s communal charge against Sheikh Abdullah is not based on his championing the cause of poor Muslims but on how he acted during the communal riots. According to him, Abdullah’s heart bled only when Muslims were the victims of atrocities committed against them in Jammu and elsewhere, but when Hindus and Sikhs were murdered at Mirpur and other places and their women kidnapped, it had no effect on him. I would add however that it is unfair to single out Abdullah; during that period of madness, it was a rare soul who did not think in communal terms, Mahajan himself could be charged of the same. "

If he did so it was indeed unfortunate, but of what i have read he was sympathetic to the Hindus both who pre-existed whom he reassured and to the refugees who his govt helped settle. But if memory serves me right he was at the time of the accession, which was just a couple of months after partition, imprisoned by the Maharaja, Hari singh, and was asked by Nehru to be realised and his approval taken prior to sending the indian troops, so wether he could do much either way, atleast during the imprisonment period is not clear.

" "it was purposely denied education and a place in the army/secuirity forces to keep them in check"

This was also my impression but, according to Mahajan, about one-third of Maharaja’s security forces were Muslims and most of those joined the raiders from across the border in 1947. "

It is true that their were some Mirpuri and poonchi troops in the MahaRajas forces (what their proportion was I am not sure) but these were often used to keep the kashmiri speaking muslims in check, who were not allowed in security forces. They did join the raiders but maybe you are not aware or have chosen to forget what happened prceding to those raids. The partition refugees and survivors had started trickling into the united J&K which had so far been from communal violence, but then the refugees started trickling in and with the aid of RSS/right wing hindus and the dogra troops among whom the communal virus had spread, the state diarmed and demobilised muslim troops and distribution of arms and atrocities were started with a view to drive out muslims from areas where hindus had a substantial proportion especially in Jammu. Jammu city had a slight hindu sikh majority but the rural areas were all muslim majority, thousands by some accounts tens of thousands were massacred, villages burnt and emptied and women raped this was done on both sides as on the other side a lot of mirpuris and other surrounding areas had been ex british army soldiers in WW II they snatched weapons from the armouries, it was in this atmosphere of flux that the Pathans were motivated to attack they had allready heard of the sikh atrocities in the Punjab and the tales of pathan refugees, being a maurading caste they needed little further instigation than muslims in dangerand for some an opportunity to lot. it was in this charged atmosphere where beastly atrocities were being commited by both sides and the state was partisan with populations being pushed across that the tribal invasions took place. Where ever the refugees arrived in large numbers in India imilar violence took place wether it was hissar and Rohtak in Haryana, or Delhi and its suburbs or north western UP i.e. saharanpur, dehradoon etc, that is why Nehru and the congres wisely halted their further penetration into UP until the embers cooled.

" "his biggest failures lay in his inability to stress on universal primary education though he often talked about it and was aware of its importance and his view that india’s burgeoning population was an asset not a liability the consequences of which two we are bearing till today in India."

I fully agree with you on this one. Never mind Nehru’s socialist vision, any egalitarian would agree that there cannot be any equality of opportunity without equality in education. From the very beginning in India, there were good quality private schools - perversely called public schools for the rich including his own grandsons- and schools without blackboards or benches for others. On the other hand, higher education was of good quality and heavily subsidised, which was really a boon for many of us from the middle and lower-middle classes who would not have been able to afford that education otherwise. "

I would like to make a correction here, there were no schools at all for the majority of indians and very little incentive for them to attend school part of this offcourse was due to India’s very poor economy where it was not producing enough to even feed its own growing population but part of it was due to a lack of prioritisation and obsession with heavy industry.

The misdirected subsidies of India are offcourse a story initself a part of which is the subsidisation of higher education and universitities, my college fees for 3 years was 3300Rs in the mid to late 1990s!!!! thus these and many more subsidies go to those who dont deserve them and those who do receive little.


"The only person who took population control seriously was Sanjay Gandhi during the Emergency and this was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reason for his mother’s defeat in the elections that ensued"

Sanjay Gandhi did more to discourage population control than any man I know. The forcible "nasbandi" i.e. sterilisation by coercion and duping that was done forever created a stigma to population control, not only was it undemocratic and inhuman to deny young men and women, some without any children the one joy that a poor person has, of progeny,but it was hugely counterproductive. But this was in general keeping with the character of the man, he was extraordinarily sexually active, as can be seen by the many girl friends of his who now help run the country and some who are dead like amrita singh’s mother Rukhsana Sultan, even if one doesnt believe the stories of ambassadors waiting outside LSR, which is not unusual in successful men, but he chose to deny the same joys to his fellow man. Lastly he was insanely dictatorial and vain Vice admiral Barbossa in print reveals how during the emergency this 29/30 year old boy wanted to "interview" Barbosa and another three star flag admiral with 35 years experience for the post of CNS!! Barbossa told him to carry on, desspite the fact that he was the favourite and chose to forgo the promotion rather than subject himself to this humiliation.
god knows how many less self respecting officers and bureacrats bent and bowed themselves to his will.

#5 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
"Mahajan’s communal charge against Sheikh Abdullah is not based on his championing the cause of poor Muslims but on how he acted during the communal riots. According to him, Abdullah’s heart bled only when Muslims were the victims of atrocities committed against them in Jammu and elsewhere, but when Hindus and Sikhs were murdered at Mirpur and other places and their women kidnapped, it had no effect on him. I would add however that it is unfair to single out Abdullah; during that period of madness, it was a rare soul who did not think in communal terms, Mahajan himself could be charged of the same. "

If he did so it was indeed unfortunate, but of what i have read he was sympathetic to the Hindus both who pre-existed whom he reassured and to the refugees who his govt helped settle. But if memory serves me right he was at the time of the accession, which was just a couple of months after partition, imprisoned by the Maharaja, Hari singh, and was asked by Nehru to be realised and his approval taken prior to sending the indian troops, so wether he could do much either way, atleast during the imprisonment period is not clear.

" "it was purposely denied education and a place in the army/secuirity forces to keep them in check"

This was also my impression but, according to Mahajan, about one-third of Maharaja’s security forces were Muslims and most of those joined the raiders from across the border in 1947. "

It is true that their were some Mirpuri and poonchi troops in the MahaRajas forces (what their proportion was I am not sure) but these were often used to keep the kashmiri speaking muslims in check, who were not allowed in security forces. They did join the raiders but maybe you are not aware or have chosen to forget what happened prceding to those raids. The partition refugees and survivors had started trickling into the united J&K which had so far been from communal violence, but then the refugees started trickling in and with the aid of RSS/right wing hindus and the dogra troops among whom the communal virus had spread, the state diarmed and demobilised muslim troops and distribution of arms and atrocities were started with a view to drive out muslims from areas where hindus had a substantial proportion especially in Jammu. Jammu city had a slight hindu sikh majority but the rural areas were all muslim majority, thousands by some accounts tens of thousands were massacred, villages burnt and emptied and women raped this was done on both sides as on the other side a lot of mirpuris and other surrounding areas had been ex british army soldiers in WW II they snatched weapons from the armouries, it was in this atmosphere of flux that the Pathans were motivated to attack they had allready heard of the sikh atrocities in the Punjab and the tales of pathan refugees, being a maurading caste they needed little further instigation than muslims in dangerand for some an opportunity to lot. it was in this charged atmosphere where beastly atrocities were being commited by both sides and the state was partisan with populations being pushed across that the tribal invasions took place. Where ever the refugees arrived in large numbers in India imilar violence took place wether it was hissar and Rohtak in Haryana, or Delhi and its suburbs or north western UP i.e. saharanpur, dehradoon etc, that is why Nehru and the congres wisely halted their further penetration into UP until the embers cooled.

" "his biggest failures lay in his inability to stress on universal primary education though he often talked about it and was aware of its importance and his view that india’s burgeoning population was an asset not a liability the consequences of which two we are bearing till today in India."

I fully agree with you on this one. Never mind Nehru’s socialist vision, any egalitarian would agree that there cannot be any equality of opportunity without equality in education. From the very beginning in India, there were good quality private schools - perversely called public schools for the rich including his own grandsons- and schools without blackboards or benches for others. On the other hand, higher education was of good quality and heavily subsidised, which was really a boon for many of us from the middle and lower-middle classes who would not have been able to afford that education otherwise. "

I would like to make a correction here, there were no schools at all for the majority of indians and very little incentive for them to attend school part of this offcourse was due to India’s very poor economy where it was not producing enough to even feed its own growing population but part of it was due to a lack of prioritisation and obsession with heavy industry.

The misdirected subsidies of India are offcourse a story initself a part of which is the subsidisation of higher education and universitities, my college fees for 3 years was 3300Rs in the mid to late 1990s!!!! thus these and many more subsidies go to those who dont deserve them and those who do receive little.


"The only person who took population control seriously was Sanjay Gandhi during the Emergency and this was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reason for his mother’s defeat in the elections that ensued"

Sanjay Gandhi did more to discourage population control than any man I know. The forcible "nasbandi" i.e. sterilisation by coercion and duping that was done forever created a stigma to population control, not only was it undemocratic and inhuman to deny young men and women, some without any children the one joy that a poor person has, of progeny,but it was hugely counterproductive. But this was in general keeping with the character of the man, he was extraordinarily sexually active, as can be seen by the many girl friends of his who now help run the country and some who are dead like amrita singh’s mother Rukhsana Sultan, even if one doesnt believe the stories of ambassadors waiting outside LSR, which is not unusual in successful men, but he chose to deny the same joys to his fellow man. Lastly he was insanely dictatorial and vain Vice admiral Barbossa in print reveals how during the emergency this 29/30 year old boy wanted to "interview" Barbosa and another three star flag admiral with 35 years experience for the post of CNS!! Barbossa told him to carry on, desspite the fact that he was the favourite and chose to forgo the promotion rather than subject himself to this humiliation.
god knows how many less self respecting officers and bureacrats bent and bowed themselves to his will.


#3 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
But the foundation for this decline was laid by indira gandhi herself, when she destryed internal democracy and elections within the congres, she brought in the culture of horse trading and splitting of dismissing elected provincial govts. which didnt bow to her will of rigging elections in certain states and of not letting any viable or promising leaders rise in the congress, of creating a clique of sycophants and coterie of unelected advisers. of nurturing militant and extremist oppositions which served her purpose such as Bhindranwal against the akalis and the LTTE and foisting her stupid sons on the nation. and for continuing and exacerbating state socialist policies which were not performing in order to create patronage power and vested interests for herself and her party. nehru himself wouldnt have done that knowing his commitment to economic development.

some of these flaws would have crept in no matter who came to power but she sped up things. Nonetheless when these blokes are compared with the Advanis, Pramod mahajans, modis and Thakeray’s they seem like demigods.

To some extent Nehru himself is responsible for having allowed his stupid daughter to take a prominent part as his personal assistant and it wasnt as if he wasnt aware, for Gandhi’s grandson wrote a letter to the Times of India once explaining how in the 50s he was unable to afford housing in bombay and there fore requested nehru to write a letter so that he could get a modest govt. subsidised tenement. nehru wrote in reply that his grand father the mahatma would have been dissapointed had he come to know iof the young man’s request !!! the granndson concluded the letter to the newspaper saying that he nonetheless made a successful life for himself on his own in the US but Nehru’s progeny were still benefitting from his name alone !!!! So there is more to be said about Nehru’s failiure’s other than primary education and pop. growth.


#2 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
Though Romair and dost Mittar have decided the sympathies of Kashmiri muslims I am yet to meet one who wants to join Pakistan


1 I survived. However… on September 13, 2005
Another of indira Gandhi’s flaws was the communal baiting game she played on both sides and her disinclination to control such violence, unlike her father who showe his commitment in Jabalpur, this set a bad precedent and started a sad slide.