The Naval War College Bomb Blasts

Re: # 243
I think, similar problem was there in couple of other states also. Nehru, Gandhi were master manipulators and to some extent favoured Abdullahs to acquire power.Rigging has reduced to large extent throughout India with strong EC and introduction of EVM. Even in West Bengal & Gujrat EC is taking upper hand than CM of that state . Congress is largely responsible for most of the sectarian problems. They have never come out of cow belt syndrome (UP,BIHAR, MP centric thinking).What is happening in Kashmir is going against India, and it will be so (people of Kashmir have not tested Pakistan so far). I would have preferred a settlement of Kashmir during 1971. As long as Indian army is there in Kashmir, the problem will not svanish. Army does not solve any civilian problem. They aggravate. Jihadi problem in India is recent one. But that uprising happened in Kashmir long back. The way South India developed, Kashmir had better opportunity. But they have entered into the islamic nutshell and destroyed themselves.

#177 Posted by stuka

My point was that Taliban and the Kashmiris (ethnic or Punjabis) had two separate sets of political motives. You are actually confirming what I said already and I don’t see the disagreement there. The Kashmir fight got Pakistani interference around 1988-89 when the jihad in Afghanistan against Najib was at the verge of closing down. The afghan Jihadi or the OBL followers never showed up in Kashmir en bloc despite the reported efforts by the Pak agencies because they never considered Kashmir to be their issue. In fact like the previous Afghan governments, the Taliban in Afghanistan were almost neutral on the Kashmir issue!

There are several glaring differences between the current Jihadis and the ones that were fighting in Kashmir.

The Kashmir oriented Jihadi were involved in sectarian violence in Pakistan but they never fought against the state and they are still not doing that.

The afghan oriented Jihadis are fighting against the Pakistani state but they never fought in Kashmir. So as I had pointed out in my earlier posts, the kashmiri jihadi and the afghan/Taliban/tribal are two different threads and should be treated differently.

There might be some cooperation between the groups because of the overall criminal nature of these groups but politically they are different and should be assessed separately for any discussion!

Harishbhai,

Rigging takes place on a small scale basis everywhere in the country but rarely is it large enuff to overturn the verdict completely. And as far as JK is concerned this business of disqualifying inconvenient politicians, dismising inconveninet govts and rigging elections to the point of changing results has been going on since 1953.

Naturally with Pak's proximity and Islamic influence it caused the jihad which it did not elsewhere.

Regards

#239 by dost_mittar

Kashmiris were never given a chance to elect their leaders freely. The very first election (1951?) was massively rigged and Sheikh Abdullah's candidates won unopposed everywhere except in Jammu; their agents were prevented even from filing nomination papers.

DM Sahib, do you seriously think people in UP/Bihar or for that matter just about anywhere in India get to elect their leaders freely? Every election in India has been rigged to some extent. The same was/is true for Kashmir. What makes them so special that everyone talks about them with so much concern while no one talks about the rest of the country? Besides, the proximity (if only geographical) to Pakistan and that country's express intent to grab Kashmir by hook or crook made the Indian govt understandably insecure to the point that they started "installing" their favorites in power - unfair but one can understand why.

Can anyone deny the freedom Kashmiris enjoy in comparison with the rest of India?

Urstruly,

(Guess whom they are coming after once they are done with big satan and its pakistani chamchas.)

Once they are done with, once....

Regards

akcheema:

"In the next 100 years or so, these arguments WILL evolve; no one would be immune to question in this era of information technology. After that, Islam will become another nono-theistic religion, alongside Judaism and Christianity, where people would have learnt to separate wisdom from madness, and basically, just GROW UP."

Cheemaji, twaadey moonh'ch ghyoo tay mishree (naal chooree vee). Now, if you could only convince the resident expert on islam, Hazrat Eklavya!

bjkumar:

If anil has a soft spot for Kashmiris, you have the opposite problem.

Kashmiris were never given a chance to elect their leaders freely. The very first election (1951?) was massively rigged and Sheikh Abdullah's candidates won unopposed everywhere except in Jammu; their agents were prevented even from filing nomination papers. And when Abdullah started to act a bit independently, he was sent to a prison (albeit a mansion in Ooty) and replaced by the puppet Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. The saga continued until Vajpayee held the first free elections in the State which defeated the incumbent Farooq Abdullah govt. in 2003.

As regards Shri hamidm on Kashmir, he views it as an unfinished business of TNT, according to which Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan and also because India has gone back on its commitments. Where he goes wrong is in not recognizing that a victory of jihadis in Kashmir would be hailed by zee's friends as a great victory of the ummah and energize them as nothing else would; that would be the day hamidm mian would rue the day he supported them.

Re: # 236

I am sorry you feel that way; we are not all biped beasts; anyway.

The Punjabis (both sides of the border) have DNA sequences that are, in many ways, more similar to those of westward of Iran. They share genetic heritage with other Indo-European tribes from ancient times. This includes people from the Prussian empire, todays Germany, to name a few. It didn't happen by chance.

Let's not be too parochial about our thinking here. I accept responsibility and apologise for the wrong-doings (actual and perceived) on behalf of my forefathers.

Does that help in any way?

I think people like Mahmood of Ghazni etc have a lot to answer for. Even Babur immediately after India came under Moghal rule; but then these guys stayed and became more and more Indianised. Today more than 95% of muslims of the Indian sub-continent share their gene pool with Hindus and Sikhs; they ARE Indians, same as everyone else.

As for the religious intolerance, if you read the last few interacts, that is as much of an issue for me. Like I said befor, any religious mythology (not to mention language, caste creed etc) can be a point of discontent. The Danish Cartoon thing came out ages before all this; we had a good laugh about it. Then some deranged mullah from Egypt saw his chance and instigated whatever happened afterwards. It is just SO easy to use these things to inflame people. Don't tell me the Hindus never used the same strategy once or twice?

Hence my aversion for religion in general without exceptions.

Re: # 235

"Anil is right in a way. We (Muslims) needs a serious introspection and sought out our problem on an urgent basis.
Following are the problems I could identify:"

I thought I should set some sort of precedence by attempting to answer your "problems" as you list them.

a) either to side with ummah or the state which you live in ; be a patriot or a mujahid

Ans: The state; no question. I live in Australia and WILL die for it if have to.

b) on shria – should it be imposed? Or is it stone-aged

Ans: As if my contributions weren't explanatory enough, I don't recognise its authority, even a suggestion that there is anything worthwhile in it that humanity didn't have before or since.

c) concept of sectarianism

Ans: Like I said, pluralism is the way to go but I don't believe in "multi-culturalism". It allows mad ideas to survive.

d) jihad – who calls for a jihad

Ans: The collective human conscience of the day; the "moral zeitgeist". Only to prevent injustices, not to invade/impose.

e) tolerance for other religions

Ans: To me they ARE equal; equally invalid as far as their use for legislation etc or state affairs is concerned. In their daily lives, people can believe in the toothfairy if they want, I couldn't care less.

f) respect for women

Ans: Those who disagree WILL have to recognise that women ARE human afterall! May be a noval concept for some but eventually we'll get there.

g) Islam and politics – should they mix?

Ans: ABSOLUTELY NOT! Nor should any other "divine" doctrine.

Re: # 234
India has been invaded multiple times before the muslims set foot here. Aryan civilisation dates back to 5000 years, it wasn't native but a result of Aryan invasion.

ANS: Aryans were not invaders. It was a theory created by Max Mueller and other Europeans at the time of British rule. In later part of his life,Max Mueller found his folly. There is no historical proof of large scale migration from West to India. Neither there is any evidence of aryan invastion exists. India was invaded multiple times, but that have contributed to civilisation ( art,culture,science...) and then mixed with local population and identity. Other than Islamic invaders, nobody has tried to harm civilian structure ( loot temple wealth, destroy beatiful architecture, kill scientists & artists) and society. Alexander was far greater and braver warrior than arabs invaders (who have invaded Persia & Pakistan) But, apart from military casualty, there is not record of civilian destruction during his military expedition. Ratherit has contributed to art and culture based on the existing culture ( like Gandhara paintings in Ajanta and Elora). So, it ( Alexander's invastion) was not a destructuve one. He never tried to force Persians or Indians to put some greek name and destroy centre of excellences (mainly temples, ashramas those days).
History of muslim invastion is different. Man, see the condition of Pakistan and Iran. That will provide you enough clue. A newspaper in Denmark published cartoon, some bipeds in Pakistan are burning flag of a sovereign country.
When their own people are killing each other, there is no protest; forget about charity.
I don't consider these barbaric bipeds as human. The degrade of human value mostly due to Islam. These barbarians use preachings and deeds of Muhammed to carry out such dastardly activities.

Re: # 234, akcheema sahab,
Anil is right in a way. We (Muslims) needs a serious introspection and sought out our problem on an urgent basis.
Following are the problems I could identify:
a) either to side with ummah or the state which you live in ; be a patriot or a mujahid
b) on shria – should it be imposed? Or is it stone-aged
c) concept of sectarianism
d) jihad – who calls for a jihad
e) tolerance for other religions
f) respect for women
g) Islam and politics – should they mix?

Re: # 232

nkg sahib,
just accusing Mohammed and his adherents for all the problems is not wise I think. India has been invaded multiple times before the muslims set foot here. Aryan civilisation dates back to 5000 years, it wasn't native but a result of Aryan invasion.

Just so my argument doesn't get mis-construed, I talk about the "warrior" jutts, (given I am one - hence the god-given right to take the p...!), described as "brave warriors" by Alexander and his soldiers. Brave! for what? throughout history they sided with the invaders against their own countrymen! I call them a bunch of loosers.

However, why do you think that was? Because India, as we know it, has never been a mono-lithic country. There has always been small tribalistic and parochial states, often at war with each other, and the same weaknesses were exploited by any invader of the time.

You can't just put it down to one factor. Anything, be it religion, language, caste, social status can be exploited by opportunists. There are far more war-mongering and violent verses in the Bible for example. It is the overall accepted attitude of the "believers" in these that matters most.

Muslims are going through a tough time; for the first time we are being openly questioned about a lot of things we took for granted as "faith". This is not dissimilar to what happenend to christianity through the renaissance; fair enough that was over 500 years ago; then again, we are about that much younger than christianity as well!

In the next 100 years or so, these arguments WILL evolve; no one would be immune to question in this era of information technology. After that, Islam will become another nono-theistic religion, alongside Judaism and Christianity, where people would have learnt to separate wisdom from madness, and basically, just GROW UP.

#214 Anil

Anil, thanks for that analysis.

Clearly, you have a soft spot for the place where you originated – so you treat the Kashmiris softly, and gently.

I understand, but I disagree.

First, it was the Kashmiris themselves who did not want to integrate with the rest of the India. They chose to have a set up where they would elect their leaders and give them more power than any local leaders in any part of India. After doing all that, then they elect lousy leaders – again and again – then turn around and blame INDIA for their own idiocy!

Second, what exactly does “azadi” mean for the Kashmiris – when they shout that word?! What right do they expect to achieve which they do not already have? The right to elect their own leaders? But they already have that.

Why is INDIA to be blamed every time the Kashmiris screw themselves up? First, they want India to keep "hands off" so India lets them elect whoever they want to elect - then they elect lousy leaders and blame India for NOT getting involved! Heads I win, tails you lose!

My statement to the Kashmiri “freedom-fighters” is simple – if your heart throbs for that mythical Ummah – well, at least be upfront about it! But do not give us “secular” pretenses while you kick out the small minority – nobody believes you!

In my view, the people who have REALLY screwed up Kashmir are the Kashmiris themselves who, like the Jinnah, hold an endless list of demands and at the slightest objection – start to threaten that they will be breaking up!

“Meri maangeiN poori karo – varna main paDosi ke yahan chali jaaongi! HaaN!”

Core of all these problems is Muhammed. That scoundrel had damaged so much to this part of Asia. Can any sane person remind Pakistanis about their 5000 year old , home grown civilisation rather than 1400 year old arab barbarism, improted by looters and invaders?

Re: # 219
Pakistan is trying that for last 60 years. Military & Jihadi. But of no avail. If Kashmir would have been natural to Pakistan, these tribal islamists (biped beasts) should not have invaded Kashmir valley in 1948 and looted, raped ,destroyed houses/churches. It was stupidity of Hari Singh and Nehru, which has created such situation.

Can you specify under which logic Kashmir should be part of Pakistan?

Re: # 219 Posted by hamidm2 on March 6, 2008 5:16:45 pm

hmaid mian,

[.. sometimes i don't even know which side i am on ..] You can say that again.