Remembering the Jallianwala Bagh, Gandhi, Churchill and Jinnah

It is simple the right thing is that Kashmir shouldn't go to Islam, so fight for it properly. Giving more land to Islam or creating muslim majority nations is as good as creating more problems for future. Till Islam reforms try to protect nations from Islamic rule or muslim majority (second will always lead to Islamic rule in little time).

India will not be able to solve its poverty for next 30 years or so in any case.

#137 nkg

[Pinku...
.....GoI admitted Kashmir as disputed territory ]

Of course. I could go over to where you live and stake a claim on your house. And if you dispute that, as you must, then it becomes a "disputed terrotory" too.

Mooslas have a habit of laying claim to other people's lands and before long, it becomes "disputed territory". And then with the help of the lefties and the liberals, it becomes "moosla territory". Mecca, medina - were once almost 100% Jewish. Today, Jews will be killed if they even set foot in Mecca and Medina. Kashmir was once 100% Hindu. Today, mooslas want a purely Islamic state there. Assam is headed in that direction. And Tripura.

Mooslas will do moosla-giri wherever they go. Anyone who has lived with them side-by-side with them will become their enemies before long. Without exception. Look at Greece and Turkey. Look at Yugoslavia. Look at France. Look at Netherlands. Look at China. Look at Malayasia. Look at Armenia. Look at UK. Americans have not had this experience. So they don't know. If the populations of Muslims grows in the US, the same will happen there.

Add to #138 Posted by pinku on,

Instead of solving anything it will give a huge communal and economic shock to India. Kashmir will surely become an Afganistan in that case. Can you think of an Islamic state ever becoming better? It is other way round, even if you can somehow start with a secular state with muslim majority, you will probably end up with Islamic state. That is the essence of political Islam.

Believe me, you don't need to let Kashmir go, what you need is to change internal Kashmir policy. Our defense expenditure will never go down till we are surrounded by unstable, undemocratic and un-secular states around us.

Pakistan's Army's only long term goal is destablization of India and not well-being of Pakistan. And unless Pakistan learn the art of being secular and democratic, where former is impossible and latter very difficult, this goal willl not change.

Kashmir can only improve if it remain with India, any other way it will become a mess.

Re #137 Posted by nkg ,

I can understand your sincerity. But I don't think this will solve any problem. Pakistan is not even able to handle the number of muslims it has currently (though it has just muslims??). Indian muslims are in general more secular than Pakistani muslims and more that one reason they won't be willing to go anywhere else. Many of them know that despite all that they blame on Hindus, India is still better place than Pakistan.

Re: # 134
Pinku...
Assam and West Bengal is different issue. GoI admitted Kashmir as disputed territory and it is an economic burden to India. If you think India is rich country, please check the HDI of India. Literacy rate, number of BPL family is very high. The amount of money pumped into Kashmir so far to make these arab slave,barbarians behave like indians, is very high and it is very unlikely that these people will turn into civilised/Indian. What for wasting all that money? The same amount, if we have spent in North Eastern states, it would have produced something better for India (Like Karnataka, Gujrat, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra received very high amount of central govt. loan and they contribute most to the central Govt. exchequer). Why to keep a burden with you, when there is opportunity to invest in better place?
May be another 4/5 years, there will be another devastating earth quake in Kashmir again. See what happens to these barbarians,then?

Regarding 150 million other moslems, I don't think Pakistanis will agree to take it now. If possible, India can negotiate as 50 million moslem transfer as part of the deal (US$100bn + 50mn moslems, specially from UP and Bihar or US$250bn)....

Re: # 135

Cobra:

On Tuesdays I do not discuss violence.

Anil, I don't know if you were drawing parallels between this event and recent firing in Kashmir there is a fundamental difference here. In case of Kashmir my regret is not all our bullets found targets. I wish they were all were dead.

Re #131 Posted by nkg on

How big a cancer can 5 million people create??? And how do you know you are getting rid of this cancer?? What if it is already there in other parts but you ignore minor symptoms because pain is strong elsewhere.

We have around 20 million Bangladeshis??? They are also muslims. Most of them come almost empty handed into India and start working as maids or laborers. They are also concentrating in a few areas, tomorrow how will you handle that? 1 trilllion dollars from Bangladesh???

Then Assam? If you get rid of Kashmir what will you do in Assam, why you can't do it now??? Because you don't have enough Army or enough money or what???


Poors are not fed by governments in a country like India, the money spent on Kashmir can go to Infrastructure projects but it won't go in feeding hungry in north-east. The hunger has to be removed by employing people, not by making them beggars. With 7/8 percent GDP growth, you get enough money each year to tackle north-east problems if you can think of a solution. You can tell this to Arundhati Roy, that India doesn't have the luxury of creating beggars and feeding them for next few decades. Unfortunately, they will have to remain hungry.

Re #130 Posted by nkg on

nkg, the article may be good for you but for me thinking in terms of billion or trillion dollars doesn't work in case of Kashmir or division of a nation. Her language is verbose like a novel and uses less reasoning and lots of descriptive language. Use of such language while making a such a point suits her but doesn't make much sense to me.


The basic reasoning of why we need to keep Kashmir with-in India is exactly what Arundhati Roy is using to say that we should let it go. It is the secular nature of India that she says she loves a lot. She hasn't thought about what Kashmir is, or how many muslims live in India.

India can spend and will have to spend trillions of dollars to maintain its secular structure. If you let Kashmir separate this amount will increase and your whole of south Aisa will become a much more deadly play ground then it is today. People who want to remove nuclear flash-point by separting Kashmir do not know that afterwards it will not be a flash-point but a continuous nuclear flash. A hindu India will be as deadly as an Islamic Pakistan and may try to do all that many right wing politicians have suggested. Which will eventually mean destruction of Kashmir, Pakistan and India.


The second important thing is that nations are not divided for $200 billion, this one time amount is nothing for India (PPP per year is 5 trillion or so). You can talk to Arundhati Roy and ask her what are her plans about rest of 160 million muslims living in India. What does she feel willl be repurcussions of such a division on them and on rest of India, has she thought about those things. If she is willing to answer then I will create better questions for her. So that she can review her statement in proper context.

Re: # 101
Majumder....
Actualy, I use this term (Bengali/Sanskrit - Dwipad) as written in some of the bengali books. In Sanskrit/Bengali, it do not look like foul word....

What Ramkrishna defined "manush" is something do not matches with common biped. It has nothing to do with Western People alone....

Vivekananda, after touring Europe and USA, had said something like this "ora to sudhu baire sada noi bhetore o" (They are not only white outside, inside too)....

Satya, Pinku...
India has ignored North East for long time. Let us concentrate on that....
There is no point hoping for recovery of a apendix with cancer...

Satya, Pinku...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/kashmir.india
Good article by Arundhati Roy. Though she is biased against BJP (some times justified but most often not...), but states the current state in Kashmir. There is no point keeping Kashmir with India, if Pakistan is ready to pay for the investment India have made in Kashmir. Kashmir is one state, with highest per capita central loan (non-defence expenditure). Let them lead as mediaval arab slaves. And may be within another couple of years, another devastating earthquake, and all these barbarians will be with begging bowel, pleading for livelyhood.
I can recall one story from a girl in my team. One of her classmeates (Kashmiri) in Electronics and Telecom Engineering ( in a private engineering college in AP), used to advocate for integration with Pakistan. That stupid girl was not knowing, if that had happened 30 years back, she would been withing black gunny sack, nurishing 4 /5 babies and carrying another one, in her womb at this age (instead of studying microwave engineering, digital communication). And single interaction with a non-relative male, she would have been the practise object of stone throwing islamic mob (exactly what is happening in SWAT valley in Pakistan). And once, Kashmir is out off India, it will not get Indian tourists as well as international. How will it survive? Large part of Kashmiri (POK) wealth is courtsey to UK. I am sure, couple of years now, UK will not be able to provide financial assiatance to these people. And like rest of Pakistan, it have to depend heavily upon foreign dole...
It will be wise to sell Kashmir to Pakistan, if Pakistan can manage that money from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's master (200bnUS$ is very reasonable price)...

Re: # 128
Pinku...
Common personal code is not possible in diverse culture, like India. We can add some clauses or may impose some restrictions. BJP people, try to bring this issue, when media highlights events of muslim barbarism. But, it should not be treated as benchmark. The cultural difference between Manipur/Mizoram and Kerala is so huge that, there should be some sort of liberty, as per as civil law is concerned. Pre-british period, they were part of different kingdoms, with different set of local laws.....

Re #126 Posted by satya100,

This seems to be true.. It is almost stupid to have not used common civil code from the very beginning (at least it seems like that). When the deal was to become secular how the hell can you treat religions differently. Why do you even need to bother to take anybody's persmission.


What is ttp?

Re #123 Posted by satya100 on,

This time it is nearly impossible to create "enough is enough" kind of psychology:

because of following:
1. People know that we have 160 million muslims and Kashmir has only 5 million, so enough will not be enough for long.

2. There is nothing like "azadi of India" that is at stake.

3. Neither the middle class nor the poors of India can digest separation of Kashmir, only rich and anglicized people in India can think like that.

4. The Indian intelligence, Army and high-ranking intellectuals in administration know well the price of Kashmir separation and will openly challange it if it considered as an option.

So even if english news-papers seem to suggest such things, people at large will move from 60+ percent to 90+ percent in no time.


====

It is true only a strong India can help solve such things, Pakistan will not be able to come out of Islamic lines for quite long time. Kashmir will have to be solved by India and only when they can behave strongly like China in their internal matters.

He is right, Kashmir needs to remain with India to keep its secular ideology alive. Kashmir gone, India will be more or less Hindu country.

"This disoriented silence is understandable. The Nehruvian project rested on the assumption that the emotional foundations of India would become unshakeable if the Muslim minority were allowed a generous measure of separateness and firewalled from the intrusions of both the secular state and civil society. Nehru believed that "temporary provisions" giving a special status to J&K in the form of Article 370 would reconcile Kashmiri sub-nationalism with Indian nationhood. A common civil code was also put on hold because he felt that in time Muslims would voluntarily accept the idea of non-religious personal laws.

While Nehru viewed separateness as a temporary balm on the scars of Partition, his successors elevated it to a non-negotiable tenet of Indian secularism. The results have been hideous. Far from nurturing a Amar-Akbar-Anthony form of multi-culturalism, separateness nurtured both ghettoisation and separatism. The perverse mindset of SIMI and IM activists, for example, is almost entirely a creation of the ghetto and centred on an abstract ummah that takes precedence over actual neighbours. The similarities between the IM mindset and the radical Islamism of the Pakistani ghettos in Britain are striking. And the problem in both countries has been encouraged by an intelligentsia that equates liberty with licence and turns every complaint into victimhood.
"