Re-thinking Kashmir
Beena Sarwar July 4, 2004
#129 Posted by HP on July 8, 2004 4:29:05 pm
#25 by stuka
“we say it is not a core issue, what we mean is that it is not the only issue bedeviling Indian-Pakistani relations.”
Well! Which issue is bigger or central then the Kashmir issue between the two countries?
Here is what I think Pakistan’s real position in Kashmir:
-Kashmir is an issue that India has to resolve and Pakistan should be part of the settlement whatever form and shape it takes. -
India for a better part of the last 50 years has been trying to sidestep the Pakistani claim though admitting Kashmir to be a major problem that India would rather like to be resolved between Kashmiris and Indians.
When Pakistan claims that Kashmir is a “core issue” between India and Pakistan, it becomes important for the Indian side to diplomatically counter that with the argument that there are other issues that are important. That is another way of saying that Pakistan is not part of the Kashmir issue so there is really no “core issue” to talk about.
To preserve its position it has to always maintain that Kashmir is not a ‘core issue” or it gives into Pakistani argument. The weakness of the Indian argument is that there is really no issue worth talking about even.
Kashmir aside,Pakistan and India have lived w/o each other for a long time now to not to worry about each other but being neighbors, it is the feel-good factor that becomes important in neighborly relations. Pakistan army hates that feel-good thingy and the Indian side knows the importance of feel-good thingy. Imo, There is lot of gamesmanship in Pakistan-India relations and talks than the substance. Then there are some international pressures that both countries have to live with and that makes them talk and talk again.
When I castigated the “core issue” I attacked the way Veeresh has argued about the core issue. India or Pakistan’s existence does not depend on Kashmir. But if you closely study the issue-Kashmir- it is much more important for India than it is for Pakistan. Now you and DM have already discussed this in details so there is no point in getting into it now. But the reality remains that it is an Indian problem as you have stated and it is a big problem where some of post Independent India’s ideological and other essential issue are stake.
Status quo is even more difficult position to defend. The simple logic would be; If the issue is dormant, the status quo can be maintained but once the issue becomes active there is no status quo any more. An issue may have several minor issues to go with it but once “the issue” is under challenge, it is or any part of it can not remain under status quo anymore.
“we say it is not a core issue, what we mean is that it is not the only issue bedeviling Indian-Pakistani relations.”
Well! Which issue is bigger or central then the Kashmir issue between the two countries?
Here is what I think Pakistan’s real position in Kashmir:
-Kashmir is an issue that India has to resolve and Pakistan should be part of the settlement whatever form and shape it takes. -
India for a better part of the last 50 years has been trying to sidestep the Pakistani claim though admitting Kashmir to be a major problem that India would rather like to be resolved between Kashmiris and Indians.
When Pakistan claims that Kashmir is a “core issue” between India and Pakistan, it becomes important for the Indian side to diplomatically counter that with the argument that there are other issues that are important. That is another way of saying that Pakistan is not part of the Kashmir issue so there is really no “core issue” to talk about.
To preserve its position it has to always maintain that Kashmir is not a ‘core issue” or it gives into Pakistani argument. The weakness of the Indian argument is that there is really no issue worth talking about even.
Kashmir aside,Pakistan and India have lived w/o each other for a long time now to not to worry about each other but being neighbors, it is the feel-good factor that becomes important in neighborly relations. Pakistan army hates that feel-good thingy and the Indian side knows the importance of feel-good thingy. Imo, There is lot of gamesmanship in Pakistan-India relations and talks than the substance. Then there are some international pressures that both countries have to live with and that makes them talk and talk again.
When I castigated the “core issue” I attacked the way Veeresh has argued about the core issue. India or Pakistan’s existence does not depend on Kashmir. But if you closely study the issue-Kashmir- it is much more important for India than it is for Pakistan. Now you and DM have already discussed this in details so there is no point in getting into it now. But the reality remains that it is an Indian problem as you have stated and it is a big problem where some of post Independent India’s ideological and other essential issue are stake.
Status quo is even more difficult position to defend. The simple logic would be; If the issue is dormant, the status quo can be maintained but once the issue becomes active there is no status quo any more. An issue may have several minor issues to go with it but once “the issue” is under challenge, it is or any part of it can not remain under status quo anymore.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#130 Posted by nikki7777 on July 8, 2004 4:29:05 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#131 Posted by Faruk on July 8, 2004 4:29:05 pm
Re: urstruly #102
“With 77% majority of Muslims in Indian Oppressed Kashmir, Muslims can even change the constitution because that is well over 2/3rd of the population. No wonder Indians need 700,000 guns to stiffle their voice.”
In Pakistan you have 99% majority of Muslims, Muslims can write or change the constitution as much as they like but it does not matter because the 500,000 strong Pakistani army uses it for toilet paper in the morning. Chew on that!
Faruk
“With 77% majority of Muslims in Indian Oppressed Kashmir, Muslims can even change the constitution because that is well over 2/3rd of the population. No wonder Indians need 700,000 guns to stiffle their voice.”
In Pakistan you have 99% majority of Muslims, Muslims can write or change the constitution as much as they like but it does not matter because the 500,000 strong Pakistani army uses it for toilet paper in the morning. Chew on that!
Faruk
#132 Posted by rsridhar on July 8, 2004 7:23:41 pm
re:#113 by americanFOB
I thought you were a Paki (by which i mean a Pakistani; i use it not in any derogatory sense). I guess all of us suffer from some biases which are inbuilt!
``So assume that the muslims and other minorities are usually underdogs, while the majors groups such as the Hindus are always in massive numbers..``
Well, it is true that in a democrazy, there is strength in numbers. But, this is really illusory not real. What matters more is: how much strings can a community pull at the political level (what is called as ``political influence`` or ``lobbying`` in USA).
In these matters, clearly communities like the Parsees or sikhs pull more strings than hindus who are divided along caste lines. Even among hindus, Gujaratis pull more strength than marwaris in Bombay due to their wealth and greater control they exercise over the stock market (i am discounting the influence of goons like Thackeray here).
Even in USA, Jews have disproportionate influence over politics (compared to their numbers).
So, to assume that a community must be holding all the cards just because of their numbers is not true in a democrazy.
Muslims in India have not organized themselves well until very recently. They have let themselves be pampered by selfish ``so called seulcar`` politicians who treated the former as vote banks. This has led to a situation where there is no real leadership among muslims. But, it is gratifying that IMs have realized who their real benefactors are and have been voting cleverly in a clear departure from the previous pattern. The recent general election is a clear proof of that.
``...all I here that: in India politics run hand in hand with religon....``
Religion does play a role in politics in India but not to such a great extent. In fact. BJP and the ``Sangh Parivar`` would like nothing better than to see hindus vote on the basis of religion and give BJP a clear majority. This has not happened as Hindus have traditionally voted along caste lines. AT least in one sense, caste has done India some good in that it has kept away a right wing party from getting an absolute majority!
Sridhar
I thought you were a Paki (by which i mean a Pakistani; i use it not in any derogatory sense). I guess all of us suffer from some biases which are inbuilt!
``So assume that the muslims and other minorities are usually underdogs, while the majors groups such as the Hindus are always in massive numbers..``
Well, it is true that in a democrazy, there is strength in numbers. But, this is really illusory not real. What matters more is: how much strings can a community pull at the political level (what is called as ``political influence`` or ``lobbying`` in USA).
In these matters, clearly communities like the Parsees or sikhs pull more strings than hindus who are divided along caste lines. Even among hindus, Gujaratis pull more strength than marwaris in Bombay due to their wealth and greater control they exercise over the stock market (i am discounting the influence of goons like Thackeray here).
Even in USA, Jews have disproportionate influence over politics (compared to their numbers).
So, to assume that a community must be holding all the cards just because of their numbers is not true in a democrazy.
Muslims in India have not organized themselves well until very recently. They have let themselves be pampered by selfish ``so called seulcar`` politicians who treated the former as vote banks. This has led to a situation where there is no real leadership among muslims. But, it is gratifying that IMs have realized who their real benefactors are and have been voting cleverly in a clear departure from the previous pattern. The recent general election is a clear proof of that.
``...all I here that: in India politics run hand in hand with religon....``
Religion does play a role in politics in India but not to such a great extent. In fact. BJP and the ``Sangh Parivar`` would like nothing better than to see hindus vote on the basis of religion and give BJP a clear majority. This has not happened as Hindus have traditionally voted along caste lines. AT least in one sense, caste has done India some good in that it has kept away a right wing party from getting an absolute majority!
Sridhar
#133 Posted by rsridhar on July 8, 2004 7:23:41 pm
re:#102 by Urstruly
``With 77% majority of Muslims in Indian Oppressed Kashmir, Muslims can even change the constitution....``.
The 77% muslims in that state can ensure that the majority of MLAs in the state assmembly are muslims. These MLAs in turn can make laws pertaining to the state. That is how it works. To change the constitution, we need 2/3rds majority vote in the parliament (in the center). I hope u now realize how stupid your above statement was.
As always, i am happy to educate the ignorant.
Sridhar
``With 77% majority of Muslims in Indian Oppressed Kashmir, Muslims can even change the constitution....``.
The 77% muslims in that state can ensure that the majority of MLAs in the state assmembly are muslims. These MLAs in turn can make laws pertaining to the state. That is how it works. To change the constitution, we need 2/3rds majority vote in the parliament (in the center). I hope u now realize how stupid your above statement was.
As always, i am happy to educate the ignorant.
Sridhar
#134 Posted by stuka on July 8, 2004 7:54:19 pm
HP:
I see your point about the core issue. There is however a perception, not exactly unfounded, that the the core issue is Pakistani self definition as the Un-India. In the Indian mind, that is the core problem.
However, your thesis about diplomatic maneouvring is equally valid. India percives or wishes the Kashmir issue as one that has already been solved externally. Their regret is its internationalization by Nehru and the failure of Indira Gandhi to end the issue in 1971.
Ofcourse the dormancy was vitiated by the Indian state itself and the fruits are there for us to see. But then again, India percieves the issue to be easier solved if Pakistan is not involved.
I think you misunderstood my reference to ``status quo`` which is used in India at least in a territorial sense.
You said..
``An issue may have several minor issues to go with it but once “the issue” is under challenge, it is or any part of it can not remain under status quo anymore. ``
I disagree to the extent that if the situation again becomes dormant with nothing having changed in a realistic sense then status quo is maintained. Look at the Indian Punjab insurgency as an example.
I see your point about the core issue. There is however a perception, not exactly unfounded, that the the core issue is Pakistani self definition as the Un-India. In the Indian mind, that is the core problem.
However, your thesis about diplomatic maneouvring is equally valid. India percives or wishes the Kashmir issue as one that has already been solved externally. Their regret is its internationalization by Nehru and the failure of Indira Gandhi to end the issue in 1971.
Ofcourse the dormancy was vitiated by the Indian state itself and the fruits are there for us to see. But then again, India percieves the issue to be easier solved if Pakistan is not involved.
I think you misunderstood my reference to ``status quo`` which is used in India at least in a territorial sense.
You said..
``An issue may have several minor issues to go with it but once “the issue” is under challenge, it is or any part of it can not remain under status quo anymore. ``
I disagree to the extent that if the situation again becomes dormant with nothing having changed in a realistic sense then status quo is maintained. Look at the Indian Punjab insurgency as an example.
#135 Posted by AmericanFOB on July 9, 2004 7:06:34 am
# 133 rsridhar
thanks for the info, nothings perfect :)
thanks for the info, nothings perfect :)
#136 Posted by bongdongs on July 9, 2004 7:06:34 am
Jaswant says it best!
``The Pakistanis keep talking about Kashmir as something that was stolen or lost, when in fact it was neither,`` he said.
``Pakistan`s fixation with Kashmir should be understood as an objectification of Pakistan`s predicament as a lost soul among nations, an ersatz country whose founders` only real legacy was a permanent reminder of what a tragic mistake partition had been,`` Singh said.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/09us.htm
``The Pakistanis keep talking about Kashmir as something that was stolen or lost, when in fact it was neither,`` he said.
``Pakistan`s fixation with Kashmir should be understood as an objectification of Pakistan`s predicament as a lost soul among nations, an ersatz country whose founders` only real legacy was a permanent reminder of what a tragic mistake partition had been,`` Singh said.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/09us.htm
#137 Posted by Layman on July 9, 2004 7:06:35 am
Urstruly #112:
``As if 700,000 gun totting war criminals were not enough to gag a whole nation, Indians are building a wall to incarcerate a whole nation in Kashmir. Is it that India is hiding something that is worst than South Korea? Where will it end?``
Heh heh. The fence is to protect us Indians (including Kashmiris) from Puki terrorist vermin. Anyone who wants to go to the other side legally has to get a passport, get a visa and is ready to go. Urstruly, why is the fence bothering you, given that it is about one km within OUR territory?
If the Indian army is ``gun toting war criminals``, what do you call the Puki army who have conquered Pukistan innumerable times so far - war heroes?
My sincere advice to Pukis is this - dont worry about Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq or anything else. Worry about Pukistan. Fight for the liberation of Sindhudesh, Baloch Nadu, POK and Pakhtoonkhawa from the oppression of the Punjabees.
``As if 700,000 gun totting war criminals were not enough to gag a whole nation, Indians are building a wall to incarcerate a whole nation in Kashmir. Is it that India is hiding something that is worst than South Korea? Where will it end?``
Heh heh. The fence is to protect us Indians (including Kashmiris) from Puki terrorist vermin. Anyone who wants to go to the other side legally has to get a passport, get a visa and is ready to go. Urstruly, why is the fence bothering you, given that it is about one km within OUR territory?
If the Indian army is ``gun toting war criminals``, what do you call the Puki army who have conquered Pukistan innumerable times so far - war heroes?
My sincere advice to Pukis is this - dont worry about Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq or anything else. Worry about Pukistan. Fight for the liberation of Sindhudesh, Baloch Nadu, POK and Pakhtoonkhawa from the oppression of the Punjabees.
#138 Posted by dionysus on July 9, 2004 9:15:11 am
#131 nakhok
Pandit-ji was indeed an eloquent speaker, as well as a man of his word. :)
``I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view``.
-Pandit Nehru , (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).
``We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide - And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir``.
--Pandit Nehru, in a broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947
Pandit-ji was indeed an eloquent speaker, as well as a man of his word. :)
``I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view``.
-Pandit Nehru , (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).
``We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide - And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir``.
--Pandit Nehru, in a broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947
#139 Posted by dionysus on July 9, 2004 9:15:11 am
#131 nakhok
Forget about that idiot Jaswant Singh. Pandit-ji is far more eloquent. :)
``We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it``.
--Pandit Nehru, broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947,
``I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations``.
-Pandit Nehru, In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan
Forget about that idiot Jaswant Singh. Pandit-ji is far more eloquent. :)
``We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it``.
--Pandit Nehru, broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947,
``I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations``.
-Pandit Nehru, In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan
#140 Posted by jang on July 9, 2004 10:46:32 am
#139
leader of 3-rd world panditji: dead
daughter, and liberator of bangla indira: dead
mr neutrer sanjiv: dead
mr clean rajiv who bought the bofors howitzers for deployment in kashmir: dead
just some news you may have missed. so, look forward.
leader of 3-rd world panditji: dead
daughter, and liberator of bangla indira: dead
mr neutrer sanjiv: dead
mr clean rajiv who bought the bofors howitzers for deployment in kashmir: dead
just some news you may have missed. so, look forward.
#141 Posted by dionysus on July 9, 2004 10:46:32 am
nakhok
``We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.
Such noble words. Nakhok send these to Jaswant Singh, India`s greatest Freudian pyscho-analyst. :)
``Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.
--Pandit Nehru, addressing the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952
``We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.
Such noble words. Nakhok send these to Jaswant Singh, India`s greatest Freudian pyscho-analyst. :)
``Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.
--Pandit Nehru, addressing the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952
#142 Posted by dionysus on July 9, 2004 10:46:33 am
nakhok
What kind of pyschosis afflicted India to make Pandit-jee say things like this. Perhaps Jaswant Singh sahib should do some psycho- analysing here to. :)
`` [Kashmir] is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision``.
--Pandit Nehru, Prime Minister of India, on 2nd January, 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji`s question in the Indian Legislature
What kind of pyschosis afflicted India to make Pandit-jee say things like this. Perhaps Jaswant Singh sahib should do some psycho- analysing here to. :)
`` [Kashmir] is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision``.
--Pandit Nehru, Prime Minister of India, on 2nd January, 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji`s question in the Indian Legislature
#143 Posted by stuka on July 9, 2004 11:38:25 am
Dionysus:
Pandit Nehru tau mar gaya yaar. Woh tau bilkul phuddu banda si.
It is Parliament that is supreme as a voice of the people. A Parliamentary resolution of India says that Kashmir is an integral part of India. What an individual said is immaterial. Also, the UN resolution is non-binding. U can check what Kofi Annan said about that.
Pandit Nehru tau mar gaya yaar. Woh tau bilkul phuddu banda si.
It is Parliament that is supreme as a voice of the people. A Parliamentary resolution of India says that Kashmir is an integral part of India. What an individual said is immaterial. Also, the UN resolution is non-binding. U can check what Kofi Annan said about that.
#144 Posted by bongdongs on July 9, 2004 12:38:48 pm
#142
Jaswant seems to have hit a nerve here!
As for me I believe all states are kind of ``ersatz`` anyway. No matter who`s typewriter created it, Pakistan exists here and now and its up to pakistani`s to make the best of it. Overcoming their obsession with being ``un-India`` and ``liberators of Kashmir`` would be the best step towards it.
(but I am sure you knew all that anyway, lets have more quotes from Nehru :-))
(btw, more interesting than Nehru it seems was Rajendra Prasad who had a colorful UP vocabulary. A friend of mine narrates hearing Rajendra Prasad call out to Nehru during some ceremony ``Arre Jahurwa mera khaniee ka dibba dikhat hai kya babuwa``)
Jaswant seems to have hit a nerve here!
As for me I believe all states are kind of ``ersatz`` anyway. No matter who`s typewriter created it, Pakistan exists here and now and its up to pakistani`s to make the best of it. Overcoming their obsession with being ``un-India`` and ``liberators of Kashmir`` would be the best step towards it.
(but I am sure you knew all that anyway, lets have more quotes from Nehru :-))
(btw, more interesting than Nehru it seems was Rajendra Prasad who had a colorful UP vocabulary. A friend of mine narrates hearing Rajendra Prasad call out to Nehru during some ceremony ``Arre Jahurwa mera khaniee ka dibba dikhat hai kya babuwa``)
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dost_mittar: tahmed32: "As for your question... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- borivili_express: hamidm after reading stuka's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- dost_mittar: nkg, mohar & others: We... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- borivili_express: hamidm u might be... Pleas For Sanity as
- drlokraj: Good analysis, but still... Pleas For Sanity as
- SR: Deepak Chopra on Mumbai... Pleas For Sanity as
- SR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cIG80dlUHA&feature=related http://www.y outube.com/watch?v=WACjyXfBD_I&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/wat ch?v=nvf2GP2XzVY... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: Re: # 154 Beena, Yes, but... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
