India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

#3dost mittar #384 urstruly and co. may argue that pakistan was formed on the basis of religion, just as ylh may point to the fact that Jinnah and co. were a secular lot and Maudoodi and co. opposed the creation of Pakistan. And both are right. and both are irrelevant. have to go now but will continue.

Re: # 392

Awwww - hamidm mian - that was touching... coming from you, it was rich... boo hoo :)

Anyway - that report didn`t say who is doing the ``sexual violence``... how much by indians, how much by the freedom figthers... just for information...

Re: # 382 ntsyed

Good story... but don`t try that with bania... remember, bania always has a knife in his armpit... you will never know what`s going to happen when you are sleeping... :)

Re: # 391

arjun,

....... of course you don`t give a flip, but arn`t you ashamed of being an indian - just for a minute or two ......... c`mon, you can`t be that heartless - i like to think that there is a small kernel of decency in every human being

#389 by hamidm2 on December 27, 2006 7:29am PT

#388 by Mantolives on December 27, 2006 7:26am PT

yes yes...it was minorities who were asking for the nation of Pakiland, a land where they`d have an equal shot at making a mark..like president, COAS, chief justice(the real thing, not a temp sit-in)...even a billionaire perhaps...

Sexual violence highest in Kashmir amongst conflict ridden regions

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known as Doctors Without Borders, has in a recently published report found that the incidence of sexual violence in Jammu and Kashmir is highest amongst the conflict ridden regions in the world.

The Dutch Nobel Prize winning global network also says problems like mental health and psychological morbidity have increased during the past six years in Jammu and Kashmir. Its report says that a large section of population in the state feels insecure and almost 44 percent have reported mistreatment.

The organisation carried out a survey last year in Budgam and Kupwara districts. An alarming 11.6 percent of respondents said “they had experienced violation of their modesty” – which is far higher than in other conflict areas such as Sierra Leone (2%), Sri Lanka (2%), Chechnya (0%) and Ingushetia (0.1%). More than one in 10 respondents in Kashmir said they had experienced sexual violence during the last three months. As many as 68 respondents (13.3%) had actually witnessed a rape since 1989 and 26 respondents (5.1%) had witnessed rape more than five times.

Almost one-third of respondents said they were so unhappy they were thinking of committing suicide. “Such a high percentage of suicidal tendencies within a population holding strong religious beliefs that condemn the act of suicide is a worrying indicator of the level of despair and hopelessness,” says the report.

The 30-page report says that almost 99.2 percent of people reported having confronted crackdowns and search operations between 1989 and 2005. Some 85.7 percent reported being frisked by security forces.

Almost 39 percent reported damage to their property. In addition, 33.7 percent said they were forced to work for security forces, while 18.7 percent said they were forced to give shelter to combatants. In the same period, one in six respondents said they had been legally or illegally detained.

The MSF survey reported that almost everyone detained, whether legally or illegally, had been subjected to torture. Three-fourth of respondents were witness to arrests and half of them witnessed mistreatment. Amongst them, 9 percent reported mental problem, while 62 percent suffered from high levels of anxiety.

The survey also found a high incidence of physical complaints including headaches (23.5%), body pains such as joint and back complaints (20.5%), and abdominal complaints (16.9%).

PS: While it could be said that an overwhelming majority of Hindus and Sikhs opposed the Pakistan movement in Punjab and Bengal areas.... it cannot be said every Non-muslim or even every hindu and sikh opposed it...

The role of Christian organisations in support of the Muslim League is well known and Ijaz Gul is progeny of one of the christian workers of the Pakistan movement... similarly the Scheduled Caste Federation and other untouchable organisations under the leadership of Mandal etc supported the Muslim League... and even Khushwant Singh reminisced in his essay in the collection Lahore that he supported Muslim League`s Pakistan Movement never expecting it to be a cmplete partition.

Here too Pakistan`s creation differs from that of the State of Israel.

#381 by ntsyed on December 27, 2006 1:46am PT


Hence, the real question for the Banya right now is whether he would like only the predominantly Muslim states [under his illegal occupation] to be ruled by Muslims, or the entire Hindustan.


Is this the part where I`m supposed to be all scared and quake in my boots at the inevitable prospect of a 100% ntsyed-certified islamic state of Pakiland taking over Indian Kashmir....?

Is dope smoking going to be legal in the 100% islamic state of Pakiland?

Dear VRV,

I see the mirchi has had its effect on you. Again- it was not directed at you but it worked and I am glad.


Dear Dost mittar,

Things are not that simple I am afraid... we as human beings have several identities and we live in over lapping portions of several. Jinnah recognised that even when he was about to win his case... when he cautioned Mountbatten against dividing Punjab and Bengal as they were legitimate sub-national identities that transcended religious boundaries? Paradox? Not really ... except for those who use the occam`s razor where it ought not to be used. Identity is always imagined- I might as well claim that I am a Lahori by identity with an identity in common with all citizens of Lahore and I`d be right and my friend might claim that being a Muslim is his identity and he may equally be correct.... In reality we can be all of these and none of these... who cares? What is important is that the law protects everyone equally and without prejudice to their self styled imagined identities.

There is a very big difference between Israel and Pakistan... Pakistan is the sum of regional identities +2 (local Muslim solidarity and the Urdu language - though this +2 can also be equally divisive) .... where as Israel is based on the identity of the global Jewry with no regional roots. Pakistan in contrast is nothing if not local... Underlying the broad the two nation theory framework were several complex identities at work... do you for example think Sir Sikandar Hayat- an erstwhile Unionist and ally of Sir Chotu Ram- moved the Lahore Resolution- because he believed Hindus and Muslims constituted two different nations?

I think now enough documents have been declassified for us to know the truth... both about partition and the complex nature of forces - including the basic point of divergence aka the conflicting interests of Hindu and Muslim bourgeoisies- for us to continuously repeat the oft repeated national myths and dogmas on both sides... namely the one nation theory and the two nation theory as two mutually exclusive vipers going at each other.

I wrote a piece on Jinnah which was published yesterday on another website which is quite relevant to this discussion:

http://pakistaniat.com/2006/12/25/pakistan-jinnah-legislative-career/

correction to 384:

``area not constituting Israel`` should read ``areas now constituting Israel``.

tahmed32#369:

I am glad that you see the point.

But let me add this. The religious basis of the movement does not in itself make it illegitimate. Non-Jews living in the area not constituting Israel opposed its creation and non-muslims of Bengal, Punjab and Sindh opposed the creation of Pakistan; still the movements were held to be quite legitimate. The point I am trying to make is that Ben Gurion created Israel in the name of Zionism and did not claim to create state based on Palestinian identity; similarly Jinnah created Pakistan in the name of Muslim identity and not in the name of Bengali, Punjabi or Sindhi identity.

So, it is quite legitimate for Urstruly and other Islamists to to support a movement whose popular slogan is ``Pakistan se rishta kya, la-ilaha il-allah``. However, it does pose a dilemma for secular Pakistanis who do not wish to be identified with a religion-based insurgency, so they continue to hide in the burqa of self-determination and UN resolutions.

#380 CoolAl

[what makes the word ``Paki`` derogatory?]

The answer is here.

Re: # 374 mohar11

``Jihad is a real threat to any civilized society... you need to be aware of it... you can close your eyes like gandhi`s monkey which saw no evil - but that doesn`t mean evil is going away...``

``civilized society???``

Like the one being discussed on ``An Untouchable Apology``?

LOL...you`re seriously funny

Here`s a not so seriously-funny joke for you ... I hope you can see its relevance here:

A traveling salesman was looking for a room to spend the night in a small city but couldn`t find one. At one of the motels the clerk told him he was welcome to share a room with another guest, if he could bear the other guests loud snoring. The salesman agreed and took the bed.

The next morning he appeared in the lobby all rested and fresh, which surprised the clerk. The clerk asked the salesman how he managed to sleep in that room.

``All I did was to kiss the sleeping man on his cheek and say `Good night, honey``, the salesman replied. ``The man sat quietly in his bed with his eyes wide open for the rest of the night, while I slept like a baby.``

So keep your eye open, mohar..........LOL

BOO

:-)~~

Re: # 376 arjun2

``so unless India hands over Kashmir, Pakiland doesn`t want trade..trade that will benefit Pakiland more...``

Why would the Indians initiate something that benefits Pakistan more? The Banya can neither be that intelligent nor foresighted nor benevolent. Otherwise, he would have cured the ills afflicting its masses, mostly of lower castes and non Hindus, a long time ago.

He needs to understand that very soon Pakistan will be a proper Islamic state, with Shari`ah enforced in its entirety. Every move the hijackers [read current rulers] make now is a reminder invitation to the Khilafah preparing to take over. Not to mention the moves against the Muslims outside Pakistan are undeniable impetus to this movement.

Hence, the real question for the Banya right now is whether he would like only the predominantly Muslim states [under his illegal occupation] to be ruled by Muslims, or the entire Hindustan. Both options can be arranged in a jiffy.

If he wishes for the latter, then he must keep in mind that next time around his collusion with the outsiders will be crushed beyond imagination by the rules he has formulated thus far.

:-)~~

I wonder about this....

Is calling a British citizen a ``Brit`` derogatory? Is calling an Australian ``Aussie`` derogatory? Is calling a Swedish citizen a ``Swede`` derogatory?

Therefore, what makes the word ``Paki`` derogatory?