‘Dustbin of history’ or ‘history of sorts’ ElectricSheep:

Could you tell us how separation from India will benefit Kashmir or Kashmiris?

‘Dustbin of history’ or ‘history of sorts’ tahmed32:

I am a solution-oriented person. I think that once a problem is resolved, whether in a just or unjust fashion (in reality it will always be just to some and unjust to others, you and I both got the unjust side), people will over time adjust to it, as you and I both have. But if a problem is allowed to fester, like Kashmir and Palestine, it is a source of unending misery for all concerned. If Nehru had not stopped Patel from letting Hindu and Sikh refugees settle in Kashmir (which is exactly what happened in POK where Hindus and Sikhs were displaced by Muslims), the problem of Kashmir would have been resolved in the same way as the problem of Amritsar and Lahore.

But that was then. We cannot live in the past and this is why I am in favour of India letting go of Kashmir.

‘Dustbin of history’ or ‘history of sorts’ hamidm:

I support India getting rid of Kashmir because the bania in me has done the cost-benefit analysis (taking into account both economic and political costs and benefits) and come to the conclusion that the 'prize' is not worth it. Actually, I would have much preferred Indians to have done a made-in-China Tibet solution in Kashmir, but that sanctimonious idiot Nehru saddled India with Article 370 because of which India can neither swallow this beast, so it must eject it.

But why are you so hot on Kashmir? The only rishta Kashmiris have with Pakistan is La Ilaha L'Ilah, your support suggests that you do believe in the Ummahood. I find people like gowhargelaani an sharmeenqazi as hypocrites of the first order since they hide behind the slogan of 'self-determination' to suggest that they are fighting for a humanitarian and not a Muslim cause.

Since you apparently do not beieve in the concept of Ummah and all non-muslim Kashmiris (pandits, dogras, buddhists, sikhs, christians) do not support Kashmiri secession, why do you? Do you think that either Kashmiris or Pakistanis will be better off if Kashmir joined Pakistan?

Terrorism Accused: Is Legal Aid Justified? KaalChakra:


This is from your very first interact:

"Ordinary people have no such requirement. In fact, it would be very very foolish of you and I to believe that everyone on the face of this green earth, who is not held guilty by a court of law is actually not guilty of anything. People make their own judgements on such things on a case by case basis, given their own understanding of these cases."

To me, this is a support for 'direct action' by people to ignore the law of the land and vigilante action. However, I agree that you have directly supported only denial of help to the accused and not rioting against Muslims. So, it seems that I overreacted to your posts.

Terrorism Accused: Is Legal Aid Justified? sadna:

"btw, Okhla Delhi/Jamia Nagar might be under UP jurisdiction not Delhi jurisdiction(I'm not sure)."

I think that you may be confusing with NOIDA [New Okhla Industrial Development Authority]. Okhla is in Delhi.

BTW, I agree with your stance on this issue. Shorn of obfuscation, Kaal is almost playing the role of enabler of mob voilence. If Hindus have genuine concerns about the state not doing its part in fighting terrorism, their anger should be directed at the state and not at members of the minority community.

‘Dustbin of history’ or ‘history of sorts’ hamidm:#58:

Going by his lota reputation, Rashid might win Chief Ministership of Indian Kashmir but won't be able to live in Srinagar and will be spending most of his time in Jammu, Delhi and London. Ask Farooq Abdullah or his wannabe CM son, Omar Farooq.

Terrorism Accused: Is Legal Aid Justified? KaalChakra:

Do you favour lynch mobs?

Terrorism Accused: Is Legal Aid Justified? Sridhar:

A well reasoned article. I have a minor technical point. It is not just democracy, presumption of innocence in a court of law is independent of the system of governance. The question here, however, is not even of presumption of innocence but the right of an accused to get a legal representation and the right of a lawyer to represent him/her. I may remind here that a former NDA minister, Ram Jethamlani, had represented well known mafia dons in the court of law.

I would however say that a Non-Muslim can probably do a better job of defending a Muslim accused of terrorism than a Muslim. Here in Ottawa, there is a famous case of a Muslim accused of terrorism and he hired a famous Jewish lawyer to represent him as no one would accuse a Jew of being sympathetic to Jews.

Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia bulleya#336:

I did not say that hinduism is the basis of the Indian civilization; when I said hinduism is more than a religion, I could also have said that it is less than a religion. The ties that bind Indian civilization are cultural, some of them may be associated with hinduism. Although I do not know any of the south indian languages, I never feel alien when there; I do feel somewhat strange if I visit a temple because religious practices in the temple there are different from mandirs in the north.Nor did I feel a stranger in Bangladesh which also does not share my language. And I have a feeling that I won't feel a stranger in Sri Lanka also for the same reason.

And no, Fiji or Trinidad will not be part of the Indian civilization even if they become Hindu majority. However, Hindus there probably will feel a link to the Indian civilizations unless they are local people who have converted to Hinduism, just like Afrikaans of South Africa probably feel a link with European civilization.

‘Dustbin of history’ or ‘history of sorts’ gowhargeelani#16:

I was merely reporting Mufti's statement. My own views on the question are somewhat different. Kashmir is not in Europe and it's location makes it a volatile den; I strongly believe that an independent Kashmir would be worse off than Afhanistan is now: internally, it would be caught between jihadis wanting an Islamist state and secularists wanting a non-religious state; externally, it would be caught between a hostile neighbour to the east, a western neighbour which would encourage slogans like "Pakistan se rishta kya?", a northern neighbour nervously watching for any impact on its Uighur minorities and the US wanting to keep it under its influence. So, the choice should be between India and Pakistan; Kashmir has everything to gain by remaining in India and everything to lose by joining Kashmir, including trading a well-respected passport for a somewhat less respected one. But I do realise that the majority of Kashmiris feel that they belong more in Pakistan than in India and, so, I favour Kashmir's accession to Pakistan.

But I also think that Kashmiri Muslims should stop being dishonest and claim that their struggle is anything but an Islamic struggle; there are five or six ethnic groups in Kashmir-muslims, pandits, dogras, sikhs, buddhists and christians. Of these, the only ones who are uncomfortable with India are Muslims and, even there, some shia muslims in the north would rather join Iran, if possible, than either India or Pakistan.

Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia bulleya#325:

"...actually i give a damn also...."

That makes two of you, maybe three if you include Aitezaz Ahsan.

"however it is appropriate for present-day indians to use religion to define a historical civilization, known as india......"

It's more than religion (hinduism itself is more than a religion). You have spent a lot of time now in South India where people do not speak your language and most of them did not share your religion. But I would be surprised if you felt stranger there than you would in Cairo or Marrakish or Riyad or maybe even in Mississipi, USA.

Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia pinku:

I have read parts of Aitezaz's Indus Saga and this is my take on it. Ever since its inception and even before, Pakistanis have been searching for an identity. It was raised in the form of "Pakistan ka matlab kya?" and the convenient answer was "La Ilaha L'ilalah"; an islamic identity was supposed to be the glue that bound Pakistanis together and differentiated them from Indians. However, over time, Pakistanis have discovered that this religious identity was not sufficient to keep the country together as East Pakistan separated and ethnic identities raised their heads. So, Aitezaz Ahsan came up with the concept of a common identity rooted in the Indus Valley civilization. To give it a distinctive colour, he emphasized its differences from what he called Gangetic civilizaion. That's about it.

I don't think that Indians should mind it; except for HP, Pakistanis don't give a damn whether or not Indians also claim IVC as their own.

‘Dustbin of history’ or ‘history of sorts’ Congratulaltions, Geelani Saheb:

Mehbooba has already listened to you!

Separatists flay Zardari for Kashmir remarks

October 06, 2008 14:17 IST


Rejecting Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari's statement that Kashmiri militants are terrorists, separatist leaders in the Kashmir Valley said he was 'ignorant about the sub-continent's history'.

Dismissing Zardari's statement, mainstream Peoples' Democratic Party chief Mehbooba Mufti said, "He is unaware about the ground situation in Kashmir."

The National Conference, however, preferred to go though the statement before any reaction.

Chairman of breakaway Hurriyat Conference Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who did not hesitate to criticise the former President Parvez Musharraf for softening his stand on Kashmir issue, reacted sharply to Zardari's statement, in which he was quoted to have said that Kashmiri militants are terrorists and there was no threat to Pakistan from India.

He said until 1989, the Kashmir Valley people were peacefully fighting for their right to self determination since 1947, which did not get any response from the successive India governments despite the fact it (India) had accepted the United Nations resolutions passed on Kashmir issue.

"Kashmiris are not terrorists. They are freedom fighters," Geelani said, adding he wanted to remind the Pakistan president about the UN resolutions on Kashmir, which had been accepted by Pakistan.

He ridiculed his statement that India was never a threat to Pakistan. This, he said, shows how ignorant he was about the sub-continent's history.

He said the two neighbours had fought three wars since 1947 and it was due to India's intervention that Bangladesh, which was part of Pakistan, came into existence in 1971.

Former chairman of the moderate Hurriyat Conference and Shia leader Maulana Abbas Ansari termed Zardari's statement as irresponsible.

"Let him say what he want, as we have nothing to do with him and will continue our struggle," he underlined.

He said that Kashmiri youth, who were agitating for their right peacefully, were in fact forced to take up guns due to India's rigidity.

Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia pinku#311:

I applaud Pakistanis claiming Indus Valley Civilisation as their own. It is indeed an attempt by secularists like Aitezaz Ahsan to create a land-based Pakistani identity as against one based on religion.

Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia HP#302:

"Here is how it reads:
“What if after just spending 1000 years in India, some Hindus believed that they had some connection outside of the Indian geographical boundaries?”

Please pay attention to “what if” in the beginning."

I am sorry HP, you have to dumb down to me the meaning of "what if". (yes, I am that dumb!)

Actually, harmau makes more powerful arguments against this theory. As I said to him, I am still agnostic about these competing hypotheses.

Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia harimau#300:

"The claim that present-day India has no connection with the Indus Valley Civilization is total bunk. To begin with, the Dravidian languages are related to the Brahui language still spoken in parts of Pakistan. Certain tribal languages in Central and Northern India are also related to this prototype Dravidian language. To have isolated pockets of languages sharing similar grammatical structures and word roots is an indication that these people once lived in the same area and were dispersed for whatever reason.

Secondly, pottery fragments are still being discovered in Tamil Nadu (the most recent discovery was about 6 months back) with writings similar to writings found on the clay tablets of Mohanja Daro and Harappa.

Thirdly, the phallic symbol thought to be worshipped by the IVC people is today's Shiv Mahadev and he was later incorporated into the Rudra that the Vedic people talk about."

While I am agnostic towards the AIT, the above statements are not inconsistent with that hypothesis. That theory states that the local people were driven from the Indus Valley and this is the reason that you do find linguistic similarities with people further south; it also claims that the aryans incorporated some of the local gods into their belief system.

"KaalChakra#301:

Among Punjabis, too, Sheetla Devi is, or at least was, considered a Devi. Indeed, pox-marks on the face were called "mata-de-daagh" and when someone in the family had measles, use of onions was banned in the cooking so as not to displease Mata (supposed to be another version of Vaishno Devi). There was a Sheetla Devi Mandir near our house in Karol Bagh, Delhi (I am told it has become a really large temple now) and after the measles were cured, prayers were offered at that mandir and only then the use of onions was restored.