My Pakistan Diary: Lahore Aaya Main Othay Dil Chhod Aaya!

deja-vu?

arguments by romair on kashmiri independance with suppporting stuff from us and canada follwed by stuka pointing out the civil war (what a name for a war) and dm`s clearing up some mis-conceptions about qubec movement. also romair using a ``well known`` important person baker and aishas interview and then allephs pointing out what baker is well known about.

This thread deserves a permanent thread on chowk, so in future, interactors can refer to any subset, and the whole shows up.

On a more important note, i saw a movie ``main hoon na`` in which sunil shetty shars as harimou, stuka as kabir bedi and there were two gay characters (shahrukh and zayed khan). the story was very toung in cheek by someone on chowk.

for more on the movie,

http://specials.rediff.com/movies/mhn.htm

Dost

I liked this segment of your reportage better.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

stuka:
``I also read about the Canadian experience which well might have gone in favor of Quebecois independence thereby disenfranchising the English speaking and native American Quebecois.``

There is a good deal of confusion about the Quebec referendum. The referendum was not about independence but to seek a Mandate-To-Negotiate a sovereignty-association with the rest of Canada. While the Quebec govt. was allowed to hold such a referendum twice, there was no promise/commitment/requirement on the part of the federal govt. to accept such a vote. The federal govt. could easily tell the Quebec govt. to go fly kite and do nothing about it. Would it have done so? Maybe no, maybe yes, because the rest of Canada was so fed up with the Quebec shenanigans that many of them would have also wanted to kick Quebec out of Canada.
The Canadian constitution does not provide for a method for seceding from the confederation. Following the close call in the last referendum, the federal govt. brought in a legislation whereby the situation is now clearer (not 100% clear even now). According to the Supreme Court verdict, a province can hold a clearly-worded referendum on separation, but to secede, it will have to negotiate not only with the federal but also all of the provincial governments.
What are the chances that all provincial governments and the federal govt. will agree with the dissenting province? Nil, according to me: to date, they have never been able to agree on anything, not even on giving the province of Quebec any special rights as a distinct society within Canada.
And those who give the example of Quebec, forget that when insurgency broke in Quebec in the `70s, the federal govt. stamped down on the insurgency in Quebec with a much firmer and heavier hand than India does in Kashmir, by imposing a War Measures Act. Even today, if there is one picture of Trudea that has endured in the Canadian mind, it is his ``Watch Me!`` response to a correspondent`s question, ``How far are you willing to go?``
It is only when the separatists gave up the bullet for the ballot that the rest of Canada began to treat them with any respect.

Vertex:

``However, that`s a far cry than supporting a plebiscite, which is more a political action than violent one. Note, also, that this is not in itself advocating independence. ``

I agree.

With regard to the bulk of of the remainder of the post, I see your implicit acceptance of the complexity if the issue as well. BTW, I never said a constitution is sacred. But it is sacred enough for change to come only through massive voter mandate. Hence my reference to the nationwide referendum. I also read about the Canadian experience which well might have gone in favor of Quebecois independence thereby disenfranchising the English speaking and native American Quebecois.

Romair:

``This is actually not true. Anyone in the USA can demand independence``

That is false. You are negating the entire experience of the US Civil War where the Southern or Confederate States demanded exactly that.

re:#302 by arjun_m
The perception of morality differs from one region or country or religion or race to the other. What is moral for us may be immoral for somebody else. Indians obviously think that it is moral to defend J and K with violence. A lot of people in Pak do not think so. Terrorists in Palestine do not hesitate to kill innocent people by being a part of `` suicide squad`` and are hailed as martyrs. Clearly the definition of ``what is moral`` differs from person to person.

In general, there is a consensus that one should not change the status quo if that does not threaten the world order or peace. India`s claim to J and K is justified because the elected members of Parliament in 1950 declared the state as a part of what constitutes ``Republic of India``. This was ratified later by the Legislature of J and K under the leadership of Abdullah.
The big question then is: can a part of this entity called ``Republic of India`` say that it wants to secede. This was the dilemma that faced Lincoln more than 200 years ago and we now know how he dealt with it.
If ``morality`` and ``might is right`` is the reason why India is in J and K, then how about USA occupying the state by force and declaring a truce and saying that it is doing so for world peace? Would that then be justified?
I think not. India, despite showing its might in fighting the terrorists (and indirectly the Pak Army who want to change the status quo) has not shied away from holding elections. It is the terrorists who do not want anything to do with the elections. India is saying to the Kashmiris: we are offering a way out through the ballot. We know how much freedom exists for Kashmiris in POK.

There is another important difference. The world is comfortable with the status quo in J and K. It would like the terrorist attacks to stop, India to reduce its force in the valley and give more autonomy to the Kashmiris but few want to make any drastic changes. It is Pak which has been trying to change the status quo and failing miserably everytime. India keeps talking about ``POK as being a part of India`` but has never tried to annex is forcibly. This has not gone unnoticed. India stil has to win the battle of hearts and minds of the Kashmiris but the rest of the battle is already won.
Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: India`s real enemy
India need not fear Pakistan or any other country. The real enemy within India is so tiny that it remains unseen by many, yet the result is devastating. I am talking about HIV virus. With the moral decay that has started to happen in a country where newfound money and prosperity means: just go and have a good time, this was inevitable. Result: India is home to one of the fastest rising HIV cases and if not controlled, will do more damage to India than any terrorists ever can.
India has the second highest rate of HIV infection after South Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3095573.stm

And, it all begins in the sex-capital of India: New Delhi
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040517&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1&pn=4
Sridhar

re:#278 by Mantolives
So, all that Mantolive Mian can say is the Outlook article is bullshit and could not have happened. Does he give any reason why he thinks it is bullshit! NO.
The same article by Najam sethi also faults Pakis about overreacting. Manto Mian conveniently forgot that.
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/

``Leading the nasty charge is a rabid anti-India (read anti-Hindu), “thekedar of Pakistan” newspaper whose other virtues are being pro-Nawaz Sharif and anti-General Musharraf. It has been particularly harsh on General Musharraf for wanting to play ball with America and for his flexible and pro-peace policy vis-à-vis India. It has distorted the article in question to try and erode the public goodwill for General Musharraf’s India policy.``

The fact is: Indians are going to give their opinions of Pak and Paki society and that may not exactly match what Pakis perceive to be true but why do Pakis care? Since when did Pakis start concerning themselves with what Indians think of them? Or is this a newly acquired (post-9/11) trait?
Sridhar

#288 by Romair
``This is actually not true. Anyone in the USA can demand independence.``
This is called a twisted logic.
The last time Southerners demanded seperation, America had Civil war and more than 600000 people died, which was almost a quarter of the US population at the time. NO kidding!
Url:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/overview.htm
Romoron may go to the above Url and educate himself about he American Civil war, which was a direct result of an act of secession.
Excerpts:
``With the election of the anti-slavery Republican candidate for President, Abraham Lincoln, the Southern states decided they had to take drastic action in order to protect their own interests. On December 20, 1860, a secession convention met in South Carolina and adopted an Ordinance of Secession from the Union. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas quickly followed suit. These states sent delegates to Montgomery, Alabama and on February 8, 1861 adopted a provisional constitution for the newly formed Confederate States of America. Jefferson Davis was chosen as the President for a six-year term of office. The Constitution by which the permanent government of the Confederate States of America was formed was reported by the committee and adopted by the Provisional Congress on the 11th of March, 1861, to be submitted to the States for ratification. All States ratified it and conformed themselves to its requirements without delay. The Constitution varied in very few particulars from the Constitution of the United States, preserving carefully the fundamental principles of popular representative democracy and confederation of co-equal States.
These events were to set the stage for the bloodiest and saddest war in American istory. In a conflict that combined elements of the Napoleonic Age with features of the new Machine Age, at least 600,000 Americans would lose their lives fighting for constitutional principle, sectional differences, economic self-interest, and moral righteousness.``

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397cbbad611b.htm

``The historical result of the effort begun that day is well known and indisputable: after four years of brutal warfare, which killed 620,000 Americans, the United States negated the secession of the Confederate States of America, and forcibly re-enrolled them into the Union. The Civil War ended slavery, left the South in economic ruins, and set the stage for twelve years of military rule there.``
So, not just Civil war, death and devastation but result was 12 years of military rule in the South. How many of us knew this? And this happened to the most successful and powerful democracy in the world!

More interistingly, Abraham Lincoln declared secession of Confederate States as illegal. Url:


http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dwhat%2bwas%2bAmerica`s%2bpopulation%2bin%2b1861%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=what+was+America`s+population+in+1861&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d24452022544520225%26sid%3d34452022544520225%26qid%3d5CAAA0D9940BE740A234E1ADC8ABB4EB%26io%3d3%26sv%3dza5cb0ddb%26o%3d0%26ask%3dwhat%2bwas%2bAmerica`s%2bpopulation%2bin%2b1861%26uip%3d44520225%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dThe%2bUnited%2bStates%2bin%2bthe%2b1840s%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d102%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.nv.cc.va.us%2fhome%2fnvsageh%2fHist121%2fPart4%2f1840s.html&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nv.cc.va.us%2fhome%2fnvsageh%2fHist121%2fPart4%2f1840s.html&qte=0&o=0


``1861

February 9 Jefferson Davis elected President of Confederate States of America

Mar 4 LINCOLN TAKES OFFICE: Constitutional dilemma--no guidance on how to confront crisis. President Lincoln put together a balanced cabinet, headed by William Seward who hoped to conciliate the South and Salmon Chase who was a spokesman for abolitionists. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln declared that secession was illegal, but that his administration posed no threat to slavery. ``

The legal argument put forward by Lincoln (a brilliant lawyer of his time) can be read under the following Url:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397cbbad611b.htm
The jist of the argument is: constitution is supreme and no single entity forming a union can secede without the approval of the whole union. USA went to war to preserve its unity. And, today, India is at war with secessionists in J and K. The difference is: the latter are aided by a terrorist state that is impotent enough (or shall i say not manly enough) to take on India in a direct war but is inflicting injury indirectly through terrorists!

And to think the same USA, that once went to war with its own people to preserve its unity, is lecturing India to compromise on its territorial integrity, one is left with wondering: how the mighty have fallen!
No country can compromise on its territorial integrity. India`s fault lies in being a soft state. It should go to war with Pakistan and once and for all finish off this nuisance.
Sridhar

#288 by Romair
``Kashmir is occupied territory. ``
Correct. POK is occupied by Pakistan.

``It is only recognized by India as a part of India. By no one else.``
No one else needs to. India has a constitution ratified by its people and protected by a legal framework. The consititution declares J and K to be a part of India. That is all that matters. No one gives a rat`s A$$ what Pakis or the world thinks.

``Specifically not by Kashmris. ``
Prove it! I have heard this argument so many times that it is now boring.
Sridhar

re: Romair`s last idiotic post
``One cannot apply one rule to one`s self, and different rules to others. This is why violence occurs. People only join a country voluntarily...``
Ha!
Now, our Jehadi friend justifies violence. So, if u do not like what you see tomorrow in Canada, you and your co-Pakis will demand a small part of Canada as your own and would want to secede! After all, you are in Canada voluntarily right? I mean, nobody is forcing you to live there.
The same rule applies to all Kashmiris. They have the same privileges as rest of Indians. If some or the majority do not like to live in that state of Jand K, they are welcome to go to Pakistan, which was after all created for the muslims of the subcontinent.
Sridhar

re: Gujjubania`s various posts
More than the argument that ``might is right`` (which is never a good argument), or that India is economically powerful so can do whatever it wants, the real good argument for India`s claim over Kashmir is India`s constitution which claims J and K to be an integral part of India.
The following are the facts that Pakis do not recognize:

#1 UN Security Council resolutions 38-40, and particularly the resolution of August 13, 1948, said that Pakistan had attacked Kashmir, and ordered Pakistan to withdraw its forces and its tribals. Pakistan has yet to obey UN Security Council and withdraw from lands (now called POK, Pak Occupied Kashmir) controlled illegally.

#2 Recently released documents reveal that in 1948, the then US Secretary of State Gen. George C. Marshall told the pro-Pak British that Kashmir`s accession with India was legal and final as far as US was concerned.

#3 In 1952, the Kashmir legislature, elected in elections recognized by observers as free and fair, with 100% of the legislators Muslim, voted to ratify Kashmir`s accession with India.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/08arvind.htm
Pakis, read and weep:

``February 15, 2004 marked the golden jubilee of the day that witnessed J&K`s accession to India being signed, sealed and delivered -- not by a Hindu maharaja ruling over a population of which 77 percent were Muslims, but by a democratically elected constitutional body all of whose 75 members were die-hard followers of a colossal Muslim leader called Sheikh Abdullah.``

# 4 Pakistan gave away large part of the POK to China, which now claims those lands as its own.
Moreover, Pak wants plebescite (of late it is saying it does not but it is not sure!).
From Url:
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DA24Df02.html

``While India is often accused of refusing to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir in accordance with UN resolutions, a not so well known fact is that the conditions for holding the plebiscite that the UN prescribed were never met. The UN Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) declared in August 1948 that before a plebiscite could be conducted, a two-part action was necessary. In the first part, Pakistan should withdraw its forces from the disputed territory, and ``secure the withdrawal from the state of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the state solely of the purpose of fighting``.

In the second part, ``when the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals ... have withdrawn, the Government of India [will] begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that state in stages ...`` Once both withdrawals were completed, a plebiscite would be held.

To date, Pakistan has not vacated the territory it occupied in 1947. With that condition not met, the subsequent step - Indian pullout - was never taken. Consequently, argues India, the question of holding of a plebiscite does not``.

Whatever be Pak`s legal position, the way it went about it (sending terrorists into India and trying to change the status quo) is simply not tolerated in this day and age. I only wonder at the impotence of ABV and his group who, pushed by USA, are willing to negotiate with scums like Mushy. Meanwhile, Pak grows economically to purchase more arms from the open market and give India more grief!
Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref Romair #288

[If we use your argument, then the whole independence of India from the British becomes null and void. Anyone asking for the freedom of India was breaking the territorial intergrity of the British Empire. Nehru should have been convicted of treason.]

Nehru WAS convicted of sedition and spent a total of 19 years in prison. Gandhi was also convicted of sedition. As were most leaders of the fight for Independence.

That information -- that people went to prison and the charge was sedition -- would come as a surprise to those who believe that Jinnah was the architect of freedom in the Indian subcontinent and who believe that changing from suits tailored in Saville Row to sherwanis stitched in Bombay is sufficient to turn one into a nationalist.