Re-thinking Kashmir

dost-mittar #60
``.because right or wrong, we have a secular state in India. Maybe it was a mistake India made in 1947 and they should have done the same to muslims what was done to hindus and sikhs in Pakistan, but we made a choice then and have to live with it. ``.``

Precisely. A secular state can not be sustained if it keeps revising itself to concede Muslim homelands, itself becoming a defacto Hindu homeland for cleansed populations. If Pakistan and Bangladesh had ever been willing to repatriate Hindus and Sikhs and given them equal rights, then finding a J&K solution would have been easy. Here we have even Valley Muslims refusing to repatriate Valley Hindus.


``As for creating another `revisionist jihadic state on its border`, if this happens, this state will require less subsidies and fewer troops than are needed to keep it as a more or less ``occupied territory.``

IMO, it is wishful thinking that conflict levels will come down. There is enough rhetoric and enough uncontrollable factionalism among Kashmiris and Pakistanis to sustain the conflict at the same level despite any solution as you and stuka suggest - there are enough factions which would consider any solution like `hand the valley over` to be merely interim.

The Kashmir polity is badly split and pulling in different directions, a lot like Afghan warlords with Geelani the Pakistani proxy fundo Kashmiri like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was their proxy fundo Afghan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar with all his extremeness, US weapons and Pakistan`s backing could not impose a solution on Afghanistan. He got full support to eliminate his rivals for power, much like Geelani`s rivals have been killed one by one. Najibullah was brutally murdered and his body hung in the open for a week for the sin of being a Soviet collaborator. What do you think will happen to the Abdullah or Mufti Sayeed family or the remaining members of political parties, which are already getting murdered one by one?

Some one is needed to impose the peace in any secceded portion of J&K to prevent it from slipping into armed chaos, if you are saying it is the Pakistani Army, then why say you are not appeasing Pakistan - because that is precisely what they have been demanding.

You are also assuming that the geography of the place is such that after withdrawing from some parts, it makes it easier for Indian Army to defend the territory it retains - while if I am not mistaken, the geography is such that India`s defence of its remaining territory becomes even more intractable.

dostji, we will never agree on this. I will therefore cease and desist. One thing is that in the unlikely scenario that India ever concedes a communal solution(any surrender of sovereignty will essentially be a communal solution), as I have said before, I will then stand behind any campaign for declaring India a Hindu rashtra.

The reason is that declaring India a Hindu rashtra will then be the last remaining chance to remove this dangerous and prolonged ambiguity of India being a defacto Hindu homeland and dejure secular state, a dangerous ambiguity which has made Indian Muslims sitting ducks since independence. This ambiguity will only increase after a communal solution in J&K, putting Indian Muslims at greater risk. The ambiguity must be ended for the sake of their physical safety, and IMO, if they are unhappier but physically safer in a dejure Hindu rashtra, so be it.

On Kashmir: The very mention of Kashmir should be completely erased from the text books in Pakistan. Period! This step ought to be taken regardless of the route adopted to resolve the hovering issues of Kashmir. It`s a terrible and horrible topic to teach students at any level. The poor student does not learn anything from the ongoing and upcoming ``bukwas``. They can certainly consult the newspaper for the current developments in the region, provided they find the newspaper(s) worth reading.

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

Its supplement to ZahraJ`s ... not only Kashmir issue but everybody knows that how the government/education system tries to make fool out of everybody, oh common people look at the world around, in fact we act like ``KunweN ke maindak`` ...

Sadna
``..The reason is that declaring India a Hindu rashtra will then be the last remaining chance to remove this dangerous and prolonged ambiguity of India being a defacto Hindu homeland and dejure secular state, a dangerous ambiguity which has made Indian Muslims sitting ducks since independence. This ambiguity will only increase after a communal solution in J&K, putting Indian Muslims at greater risk..``

Yes, Sadna you are right, the IM also consider their future interwined with the issue of resolution of the Kashmir not on the basis of communal question and TNT but on cultural uniqueness of the region such as its `kashmiriyat`. So redrawing of the international borders is impossible- so is the `exchange` of populations. You are right in stating that IM have become sitting ducks because the communal question has been kept `open` by giving a special status to kashmir- and this has kept ths issue of TNT alive since so many years. Remember, it is the Paki establishment which has played with the mullahs to keep their TNT alive and are now paying a huge price for sponsering jehadism. IM have as much a right to India as any other Hindu like Stuka of DM and these people do not decide whether IM including kashmiri muslims would agree to any raising the communal question again in this country. The fact remains that TNT was long buried in 1947 when the IM decided NOT to migrate to that fabled land of pure. Their decision is irreversible and the Indian Constitution has to honor its obligations by ensuring that people like Dost Mittar or Stuka do not raise this communal question again.
I think dost mittar is turning senile and weak that he can even contemplate of the communal solution- I am amazed!

Sadna
``..The reason is that declaring India a Hindu rashtra will then be the last remaining chance to remove this dangerous and prolonged ambiguity of India being a defacto Hindu homeland and dejure secular state, a dangerous ambiguity which has made Indian Muslims sitting ducks since independence. This ambiguity will only increase after a communal solution in J&K, putting Indian Muslims at greater risk..``

Yes, Sadna you are right, the IM also consider their future interwined with the issue of resolution of the Kashmir not on the basis of communal question and TNT but on cultural uniqueness of the region such as its `kashmiriyat`. So redrawing of the international borders is impossible- so is the `exchange` of populations. You are right in stating that IM have become sitting ducks because the communal question has been kept `open` by giving a special status to kashmir- and this has kept ths issue of TNT alive since so many years. Remember, it is the Paki establishment which has played with the mullahs to keep their TNT alive and are now paying a huge price for sponsering jehadism. IM have as much a right to India as any other Hindu like Stuka of DM and these people do not decide whether IM including kashmiri muslims would agree to any raising the communal question again in this country. The fact remains that TNT was long buried in 1947 when the IM decided NOT to migrate to that fabled land of pure. Their decision is irreversible and the Indian Constitution has to honor its obligations by ensuring that people like Dost Mittar or Stuka do not raise this communal question again.
I think dost mittar is turning senile and weak that he can even contemplate of the communal solution- I am amazed!

Kashmir is a no-go area for any hindu from the mainland anyway - anyone who dares go there goes at the risk of being beheaded or being shot at. It is as good as not having it. So why bother? It is true that for you hindus everything is chamri jaye par damRi na jaye, but if you look hard it is clear that you are losing both chamRi and damRi over at Kashmir. So why bother?

sadna #65 excellent post.

#59, 71 by Urstruly

You have tried it thrice and your butts were handed to you on a platter each time. So now you resort to other tactics? Remember, the resolve of 1 billion Indians (and yes, that includes Muslims) is behind our Kashmir policy. So mouth off as much as you can, for that`s ALL you can do.

Urstruly #59:
``It is time for hindus to RE-THINK kashmir. Sooner or later you will have to cough it up. Sooner the better.``
Heh heh, funnyman Urstruly, indulging in wishful thinking and divorced from reality as usual, like the Puki army. We can fight the terrorists that you send across to J&K indefinitely. We have the money and the manpower and the willpower. It is your pathetic nation that is going to suffer - when the jihadis turn their sights onto Musharraf, Karachi, your Shia-Sunni professionals, mosques etc.
You have already coughed up East Pakistan (remember?). NWFP is slipping from your grasp and was never yours. Kargil was on the Puki side till 1971. You have also coughed up Siachen to us (thank you!). The day is not far when you will have to cough up PoK and Sindh. The sooner the better.

Urstruly,

Please see a shrink, actual Jehadis die, the e-jehadis go mad.

The strain is getting to you.

`Rassi jal gayee par bal nahin gaye`

ballukhan,

There is no such thing as Kashmiriyat, certainly not unique enough to trigger division of land. If Kashmir valley has a different culture, so has Jammu and Ladakh. If Ks have a different language, so have Tamils, Assamese and Punjabis. A single inch of land given to `land of pure` or not-so-pure enemies of India will be suicidal.

Retaining Kashmir may have some strategic advantages as Sadna pointed out, but it is an ideological bulwark against tendencies of some people to dominate India and declare all others unIndian, and hence unwelcome. Maulana Bukhari (erstwhile Imam of Delhi Jama Masjid) met Syed Shah Gilani whem Mushy had come to India. He repeated the `atut ang` theory to Gilani who got infuriated and told him to lay-off; and that Indian Muslms don`t have a stake in Kashmir.

The fact is they do; and their stake is much higher than the stake of non-Muslim Indian citizens. If K is gone, Hyderabad, Bihar, U.P., North-East, Tamilnadu and Assam will follow. I`ll become a Khalistani myself and fight to give Sikhs their own state, based on religion. Why not?

Agar India ladoo baat raha hai, to Urstruly ka hi mooh kyun meetha ho, bakiyon ne kya gunah kiya hai?

Kaurasach:
“It is naive thinking like yours that India is in such an acursed shape. If this attitude continues, your descendents will be looking for roots from East of Ganga, and or south of Chambal”

My attitude is not new; if you go back to my article and interacts on this issue it has been quite consistent. It’s both moral and pragmatic. After accepting the UN resolutions, we backtracked right away. It is true that Pakistan did not vacate the occupied territories as required by the UN resolution, but it is also true that India refused cooperation with every UN intermediary sent to the region during the fifties (Dixon, Jarring?), all of whom blamed mostly India for non-cooperation. We went back even on our agreement with the Maharaja, which disillusioned even our own man, Sheikh Abdullah. We packed assemblies and our ‘pithoos’ won majorities in the Assembly even without fighting elections. We lost any goodwill we had among the populace by rigging elections and imposing unpopular governments there. Do you know that most of the Hurriyet leaders, even the Pak-based Salahudin are one-time politicians who were turned off by Indira Gandhi’s dictatorial ways?

So, we did not stand our moral grounds. How about pragmatic? We have not allowed other Indians to buy property or settle in J&K, unlike Pakistanis who have reduced local Kashmiris into a minority in POK. If we were not going to be moral, we should have done what Pakistan had done in POK and China had done in Tibet to change the demographics of the state to make it more favourable to us. We rejected proposals such as allowing ex-army people to settle in Kashmir. So, we failed on pragmatic grounds as well.

Failing both the morality and the pragmatic tests, our situation is that of:
Na khuda hee mila, na vasaal-e-sanam
Na idhar ke rahe, na udhar ke rahe

“What have you personally or the entire nation gained besides misery and several million refugees by yielding 25% of prime realestate and invaluable sentimental attachments? It has brought more misery than anything else.”

I do not know if I would have been better off if India had remained undivided [probably not, because all the cards would have been stacked against Hindus and Sikhs in the Muslim majority Punjab, just like against Kashmiri Pandits whom India could not protect]. But I am certain that India is better off, after having amputated the diseased limb. India today is politically stronger and more united than it has even been in its history, which would not have been the case if those muslims who wanted a separate country of their own were still there; the only ones who want to separate now are Kashmiris and see how much damage they have caused to the nation’s fabric. India would have been even stronger and more united if Kashmir had a nawab instead of a maharaja as its head at the time of the partition.

The big losers in the division of the country, in my opinion, are Muslims in general and the people of Pakistan in particular. After ethnically cleansing of the ‘napaak’ elements, they lost all hope of ever becoming a truly pluralistic society and will for ever be one or another variant of an Islamic society. They also lost the most dynamic and entrepreneurial class of people and have since been dependent for their survival upon allah, army and international crises as their saviours.

Sorry for the long answer to a short comment.


Ballukhan#68:

“Yes, Sadna you are right, the IM also consider their future interwined with the issue of resolution of the Kashmir not on the basis of communal question and TNT but on cultural uniqueness of the region such as its `kashmiriyat`.”

Who talks about Kashmiriyat except mostly Indians? Where was that kashmiriyat when the original kashmiris were run out of their homes? I think that the chances of the pandits ever going back to the valley is not much higher than the hindus-sikhs going back to Pakistan. It is ironic that one hardly hears this kashmiriyat word from the valley muslims.

I have always resented people asking IMs to prove their loyalty to India, and always will. But I do not overlook the fact that the attitude of IMs on the Kashmir issue, with exceptions like Chagla’s and Rafique Zakaria’s (both of them bohras, btw), was indifferent at best until the saffronites made it a ‘loyalty test’ for them. I am aware of the potential adverse implications of losing the valley for IMs and is the sole reason why I am not enthusiastic about this prospect (and wonder about the sincerity of those pakistanis who pretend that their hearts bleed whenever a Muslim bleeds and still want kashmir to secede!). But these adverse effects can be minimized if there is no plebiscite and the blame for losing Kashmir falls on the negotiating politicians rather than muslims voting against India.

I do not believe that Kashmir is necessary for a secular India. India is secular because of its constitution and because its Indian version is quite compatible with the pluralistic nature of the hindu religion.

Sadna:

I agree that the prospect of Kashmir turning into another Afghanistan cannot be discounted. But if India resists the temptation of supporting one or the other faction, it can immunize itself from its fallout after it washes its hands off it.

Yes, we agree to disagree, because you are less affected by the communal virus than I am!

dost-mittar #77
``because you are less affected by the communal virus than I am!``

Glad that we agree to disagree, but didn`t understand this?

Just let them vote on it! plebiscite! And make it fair!...the Kashmiri people have a right to form their own nation, or do whatever they want. India and Pakistan should help them hold a plebiscite, one welcome to all classes of Kashmiri people. But of course that would happen in an ideal world. Back in the real South Asia, I don`t think the dictionary can define the terms free, fair, or justice in good ole South Asia. If I`ve reverberated on somebody elses comments, please forgive me for the repetition. I`m too lazy to read all of the comments. If one gets involved with India and Pakistan in the Kashmir issue then politics get really complicated. So a peaceful decision, whatever it is, would be the best solution.

Ref Urstruly #71

[Kashmir is a no-go area for any hindu from the mainland anyway - anyone who dares go there goes at the risk of being beheaded or being shot at.]

I think you mean Karachi, not Kashmir. There have been half a dozen articles on Chowk about Karachi after one of the usual bouts of Shia-killings.

Beheading? I am glad at least one Pakistani has memories of Daniel Pearl.