Arundhati ‘Pakistani’ and ‘Patriotic’ Right-wingers

anil saheb:

I do not believe in morality as the basis of diplomacy and said so. But I was dragged kicking and screaming into that debate.

Masadi sahib:

Can you teach me the relevance of right wing / left wing nonsense in addressing problems today's societies face? Today, this is so useless, that this cut cannot be used to factorize any problem.

Otherwise, please get over your rant and delusions of grandeur. It was sad to read Yasser saying what community of your peers think.

Masadi sahib, you have not claimed to replace the prophet of God yet. You have no direct connection to your God, therefore, opinions of community of your peers should be respected and mean a lot to you.

Get over it, Masadi, before you waste away all your marbles.

Dost sahib:

It is a wastage of arguments to discuss the issue of Indian Kashmir on the basis of debris of TNT and partition. There is Kashmiri blood in Indian and Pakistani hands, there is land grab and land sale in Pakistani Kashmir and part sold to China. Both sides have used both Kashmiris as convenient pawns to secure their interests and not thing else.

It is therefore, useless to debate what is moral and who is moral and less moral. Such arguments are necessary only to perpetuate the status quo, and not solve the problem.

TNT / partition debris must be consigned to the Ganges or buried by your generation. This generation has done enough harm to the minds of grandchildren of TNT/partition generation by teaching them "K" for Kafir nonsense. No more corruption of mind. Ajeya is a product of this corruption on Indian side. There is a need on Indian side which has zero tolerance any corruptions in the future. What happens in Pakistan, will be determined by many factors over which even Pakistanis have no control. From the get go, they had been very opportunistic with Kashmiri issue, and have harmed themselves. Otherwise, who would have a state policy to have a civilian guerilla movement created by its own government. Only fools will not realize that this can blow back onto them, as it is now.

There is no point blaming America or India for ambition to have strategic depth in Afghanistan and strategic heights in Kashmir.

This presupposed that only army on donkeys would be facing them at the both places.

Riaz Haq had posted a link to 45 mins documentary on Kashmir. This documentary is prepared by Pervaiz Hoodbhoy. It is a very refreshing and the message is much like what I have seen saying here on Chowk. Please review it and let me know if you have any disagreements with PH. At least for me it was reassuring that there are sane voices and saner thinking in Pakistan on this issue, and these saner voices have courage to speak out.

India too, message and educational and economic benefits need to demodulated out of the current confusion. Indian Kashmiris have an opportunity in Indian Union (to which they are permanent part, as this pregnancy could not be aborted). Indian Kashmiris can achieve the respect for their religions (not just Muslim Kashmiris), can get access to larger markets for their talent, resources and produces. Rest of India needs to show that all the benefits from this union outweigh the all attempts for impossible break up.

The time for TNT/partition is long over. Only thing achieved in current status quo, is more miseries to them. Rest of the world is marching on, India too is limping on. The micro indicators tell a very different story of Pakistan, than Pakistan want to accept or acknowledge. There capable people are busy creating and fighting wrong wars, and in fudging up the macro indicators to fool themselves into believing that Pakistan is genuinely growing and is better off than its neighbors.

This is my view.

In #84 I misread a post and so referred to the quotes coming from "the right wing lunatic Majumdar (with apologies)." However those words were penned by the right wing bigoted moron bjkumar...

Please note the correction and my apologies to The right wing lunatic (with apologies) Majumdar.

TNITC masadi

#231 dost-mitter

dost-mitter,

The vast majority of people believe what they feel comfortable believing. Long-held beliefs are like an old pair of shoes - familiar, comfortable, and fits exactly with existing world-views. It is only the very few who have the self-respect to not want to believe in what is not true. The best scientists are like that. If you can logically prove it to them, they would be happy to be proved wrong. Because truth is important above all.

So I understand why it was so hard for me to get you to finally SAY it - that you feel that IT IS NOT MORAL of India to hold on to Kashmir. And I understand why it makes you so uncomfortable, and why you want no further discussion on the subject. I do understand.

You are, of course, completely wrong. Here's why:

1) One has to ask the question : Did Nehru have to say what he said, and when he said it, in order to get the Maharaja to sign on the dotted line? The answer is a resounding NO. When Pakistanis attacked Kashmir illegally, and started looting and killing, the Maharaja called the Indian government in a panic, and hastily signed the Instrument of Accession. So Nehru had to deceive NO ONE to get Kashmir to join India.

2) So then there is the next question: How about the Indian prime minister's promise to the people? If Lalu Prasad Yadav promises to Bihari muslims that the best state jobs will be reserved for them regardless of merit, and then doesn't deliver on his promise, does that mean that Bihari muslims now have a right to the best state jobs? Because Lalu "promised" them? So the state now "owes" them the jobs? NO. If a politician makes a promise, go catch the politician. The people of the state owe you NOTHING.

3) Now let's go farther. Let's ASSUME FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE (FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE ONLY) that the Indian State OWES the Kashmiri people the plebiscite that Nehru "promised". Well, that right has been nulled and voided by the following incidents:
a) Pakistan illegally attacking Kashmir, in contravention of the treaty they signed, AND THEN KEEPING THE STOLEN GOODS.
b) Pakistanis murdering, looting and pillaging in Kashmir,
c) Their acts have completely changed the atmosphere in the state from what existed back then.
d) Their acts have totally changed the demographics of the state from how it existed then. 400,000 Pandits have been forced to leave their own homeland by Tahmed and Hamidm's friends because of terrorism, threats and intimidation.

and so on...

4) Let's go EVEN FARTHER. Let's suppose that the plebiscite "promise" has not been compromised by 3) above. Well, as I have said many times before, if in the plebiscite, the majority religious community imposes its will on the minority community along religious lines, then such a plebiscite should be deemed undemocratic (read the American constitution and what it says about the tyranny of the majority). Period.

Therefore MORALLY AND LEGALLY, India has EVERY RIGHT to have Jammu and Kashmir as part of herself.

I will understand if you do not want to answer. Because you have an "image" to uphold on Chowk (rolling eye icon here), and cannot afford to admit the truth. Or maybe you cannot afford to admit the truth in your personal life. I don't know.

In any case - there it is. Read it. Digest it. See if you can refute it. I don't think you would be able to.

The truth is more important than anything else. Satyam Shivam Sundaram.

And by the way, it is curious that you feel like a Buddhist when you are contemplative. Hindu philosophy does not require any contemplation - eh? : )

Dear ajeya:

I really, really, hate this kind of debate. I have made my viewpoint and you have yours and it is an open forum for all to see. After a point, we start repeating ourselves and it gets very, very, very boring.

Okay, this is where I stand:

- India's stand is not moral (and that is irrelevant). We should not make pledges we cannot keep. I have a strong feeling that Nehru knew that he could not win a referendum in Kashmir but made a pledge nevertheless because he was too concerned about his international image. In fact, there was quite a discussion in the cabinet (don't ask me for the source, I don't keep them on my fingertips) about whether to use referendum or plebiscite ..lawyers were consulted and the latter term was used because it was felt that it was a weaker term and could be obfuscated.

And while it is true that Pakistan did not remove all the forces that it was required under the UN resolution, it is also true that during 1950s, the UN sent several envoys to create the required conditions for the plebiscite and they were all frustrated by the lack of cooperation, mainly by the Indians. They made their frustrations with Indians well-known - again feel free to accept or reject what I say but don't ask me to provide proofs, I have neither the time nor the resources to dig out their statements. Gosh I can't even remember their names, though Gunnar Jarring is one that comes to mind).

- India's stand on Kashmir was quite opposite to that in Junagarh, which was more or less a mirror image of Kashmir, namely a Hindu majority and a Muslim Nawab who wanted to join Pakistan. By the same token, Pakistan too was hypocritical in claiming both Junagarh and Kashmir.

However, my support for India getting rid of Kashmir is not based on any morality whatsoever; it is just that I think that Kashmir is a pain in the Indian a*s, and given the pusillanimity of the Indian leadership and the lack of consensus among Indian politicians about removing Article 370, will continue to be so. I think that India will be a stronger country, politically, militarily and morally if it lets go of Kashmir than otherwise.

This is definitely my LAST post on this topic. I am not interesting in either winning any debating points or exercises in logic. And yes, even without waiting for your answer, I would say that you win. So, be happy!

#227 dost_mittar

Ask yourself - why are you uncomfortable answering this question? Let us say for argument's sake that this question is irrelevant to what will actually happen.

But what is the harm in answering it? Just as a logical exercise?

#227 dost_mittar

[Why should I discuss something that I think is irrelevant? ]


Because you have been justifying the muslims' rights to taking Kashmir with them to Pakistan all along as what "should" happen. And suddenly you don't want to discuss whether they have a right to do it or not?

For example:

Justification on why it should happen:

"- Your leader made a commitment to the people of Kashmir (besides to the UN) that the accession to India was tentative and subject to reaffirmation by them;"

Mentioning that Muslims HAVE A RIGHT to separate:

"Where did I say that kashmiri muslims do not have a right to separate..."

Mentionaing that Indians SHOULD let go of Kashmir:

"So, Indians should let the Muslims in Kashmir join Pakistan (I am against an independent Kashmir)..."

And one thing that is obvious to any onlooker should be, WHY, after all these posts, you suddenly feel too tired to type a yes or a no. Whether India has a moral and legal right might suddenly seem to be irrelevant in your eyes, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT AN INVALID QUESTION. So I see no reason for you to try and avoid answering it.

#226 majumdar

[I am inclined to agree with DM sahib. India's legal and moral rights are irrelevant.]

If there's one thing I respect, it is loyalty, and it is touching to see you rush in to rescue a fellow liberal.

See, the problem with me is, I won't be persuaded to budge from the actual point being discussed. The point being discussed was whether India has a legal and moral right over Kashmir. NOT WHETHER THE LEGAL AND MORAL RIGHT IS RELEVANT TO HOW THIS "PROBLEM" WILL ACTUALLY BE RESOLVED ON THE GROUND.

The point is very clear. Except for those who don't want to admit that they have been wrong for many years on Chowk.



I have litTle respect for intellectual dishonesty.

ajeya:

Why should I discuss something that I think is irrelevant?

Ajeya babu,

I am inclined to agree with DM sahib. India's legal and moral rights are irrelevant. India won Kashmir because India had a bigger bamboo than the Pakis had (although an honourable mention also has to be made of the contribution that the nuns of St Joseph's Baramulla made) and will retain Kashmir as long as India has a bigger bamboo than Pak and has the inclination to wield it.

As Milosevic has found out.

Milosevic is a citizen of Serbia which is hardly a world power. Tomorrow if Jiang was to sluaghetr the entire Tibetan or Uighur population or Putin slaughter Chechen wholesale, you can bet your last dollar that no International Court wud ever touch them

Regards

#224 dost_mittar

[If I give a yes or no answer, will it end this interminable discussion? I am obviously getting tired and quite willing for you to claim victory. ]

It is pretty annoying when people just won't budge from the point being discussed, isn't it?. And I won't. So yes, I need a yes or no.

It's interesting how discussions seem interminable when one is backed into a logical corner that one cannot escape from.

A yes or no please.

ajeya:

If I give a yes or no answer, will it end this interminable discussion? I am obviously getting tired and quite willing for you to claim victory.

#222 dost_mittar

[I never said anything about morality. International issues are decided on the basis of realpolitik, not morality. ]

I disagree with you on that. It is a combination of everything. Realpolitik is cynical, and can backfire. And there are many people with morals who influence the political process as well. And there is International Law and due process. As Milosevic has found out.

However, we are deviating from the topic. I am not asking you how it will ultimately be decided. I am asking you whether you agree with me that India has BOTH moral AND legal rights on Kashmir.

A direct yes or no will be appreciated.

ajeya:

I never said anything about morality. International issues are decided on the basis of realpolitik, not morality.

#219 Pew_Research

[Re: # 218 Riaz

"...The resolution called for withdrawal of ALL troops..."

NO,SIR! Check the following UN resolution:]

Don't hold your breath on Riaz responding to that one. He'll probably do a Tahmed on you.