Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Rafi]

Our negotiators did one hell of a job in the Shimla accord, this was when we were at rock bottom, but we like the Phoenix rose from the ashes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No I don't know. Neighbours attacking and killing neighbours, ordinary respectable citizens usurping another's wealth are now extrimists - well may be I don't know after all.

Perhaps you should study India's communal tensions some more, you obviously have plenty of contemporary events to analyze, rather than going all the way back to the hazy days of 1947.

That actually completely negats the validity of your argument.

Not at all, since the only thing your comment earlier pointed out was that certain parties hold a particular view, for whatever reason on the issue. It does not negate the validity of a plebiscite as a means of resolving the dispute, nor my earlier argument.

ML and Congress definitely had their followers. But, once again, the decision to partition India was never made to go through the rigors of public opinion.

It went through the public opinion of the people of the Muslim majority States/provinces through electoral process, referendums and Jirgas - good enough for then.

Technically every State that ended up forming the contemporary nation of India did not get to 'go through the rigors of public opinion' on whether they wished to be made part of a single 'Indian Union' either.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

No it does not, this argument has been shown wrong dozens of times on this forum. Read the text of the Shimla Agreement and show me where it supercedes the 1947 UN resolutions, and if it does so, then why are the IWT and Sir Creek disputes still handled through international mediation?

Here's the text of the Simla agreement:

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

(iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful coexistence respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and noninterference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means.

(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality.

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

Both governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.

In order progressively to restore and normalise relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land, including border posts, and air links, including over flights.

(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country.

(iii) Trade and cooperation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.

(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.

In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.

This agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.

Both governments agree that their respective heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that in the meanwhile the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalisation of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Quaid-e-Awam President Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Indira Gandhi Prime Minister Republic of India

Simla, the 2 July 1972.

As per the bolded part, since (as far as Kashmir issue is concerned) India has time and again rejected any third party mediation (be it UN or anyone else), the only mechanism left is bilateral and thereby making the UN resolutions obsolete.

Moreover, even if you contend that the IWT and Sir Creek are being addressed according to third party guarantees, I can say that the 'or' in the bolded part provides for this since this something we can agree upon while kashmir is not.

Which has what to do with my comment?

It has to do with your comment since the most fabled 'Azadi' option is not on the table hence the resolutions are meaningless.

His opinion, which carries no weight other than that of being an opinion - it does not do anything with respect to the UNSC resolutions.

Well if you feel that the opinion of the secretary general of the very organisation whose resolutions you seek to be implemented, doesn't matter, then there's really no point in arguing on this. Your position is untenable, to say the least.

The Kashmir pundits can be contacted, verified and registered by the UN in order to obtain their vote in the plebiscite, and there remains no evidence, other than anecdotal, that the demographics in G-B have been altered beyond a few hundred families moving in here and there.

a. It's not so easy in case of Kashmiri Pandits.

b. We cannot take your word at its face value when it comes to G-B.

A part that was barren and uninhabited when China took over administration. Pakistan's agreement with China on handing over administration does indicate that the status of the territories under Chines control will not be final until the UNSC resolutions are implemented.

Barren or not, doesn't matter.

a. You gave away something which was not yours to give in the first place and hence violated the spirit of the UN agreement.

b. That part is under control of PRC and PRC is unwilling to vacate it as has been shown in the recent border talks between India and China.

Which does not change the fact that India committed to the UN, Pakistan and the Kashmir people repeatedly that it would implement the resolutions and that the people of J&K would determine their status through a plebiscite.

And India changed its stance since the resolutions were and are not bginding and as is common knowledge, anything that is not binding, can be repealed.

That is something only a UN held plebiscite can determine conclusively.

a. As I'm hereby proving to you, the plebiscite is no longer possible.

b. The neutral surveys conducted in Indian Kashmir have demonstrated that people of valley prefer Azadi (something that the UN resolutions do not offer) and the people of Jammu and Ladakh want to stay with India.

 

[Rafi]

It is the right of Kashmiris to decide their own future, and they want independence.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

---------- Post added at 01:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

your PM nehru effectively internationalised this issue by going to the UN - you don't except the resolutions - but the first prime minister of independent india opened pandora's box - and you can't close it now, because of that the people of Kashmir feel cheated.

uh not the people of kashmir but only the Kashmiri sunni muslims.

secondly , the hindus and sikhs of kashmir too feel cheated when they were massacred and thrown out of their own land by kashmiri sunni muslims

No one is an angel here .

 

[Rafi]

The vast majority want freedom, and the indian minister seems to think so also.

 

[amigo]

The vast majority want freedom, and the indian minister seems to think so also.

wake up dude, which indian minister has said that, the day any minister says that he will be sitting at home the next moment.

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

Tuesday, 07 December 2010 00:59
The killing of three youngsters in a mysterious shootout at Qammerwari has raised questions including that from a parliamentarian. Meanwhile the army issued a statement with unflattering remarks on state government, embarrassing CM Omar Abdullah. Ilham Hassan reports.

One the face of it, the shootout that took place at Qamarwari in capital Srinagar in the afternoon of November 29, is just an addition to the hundreds of firing or cross-firing incidents which took place in embattled Jammu and Kashmir during past 22 years. Three local youngsters died in the shootout, promptly identified by the police as attackers belonging to a Jaish-e-Muhammad module. A local policeman, selection grade constable Muhammad Ashraf Shah also died in the brief shootout.

But, there are many factors, which make this shootout extra-ordinary. First, the genuineness of the encounter was challenged by Member of Parliament and veteran ruling National Conference leader Shareefuddin Shariq, who described the killing of youngsters as “cold-blooded murder”. The encounter was first of its kind in the city, after the lull in public protests, which dominated its lanes and by-lanes for nearly five months since mid-June. The last standoff between militants and security forces was witnessed in Srinagar at Lal Chowk in the first week of January 2010. The Army’s now-withdrawn comments, that the shootout took place in “demilitarized” Srinagar and is a consequence of withdrawal of CRPF bunkers from the city, provided another serious dimension to the Qamarwari shootout.

The shootout took place at busy Qamarwari Chowk at around 12:35 pm on November 29. Police said that three motorcycle borne youth opened fire on a police party. They were chased and subsequently shot down one by one. Inspector General of Police (Kashmir range) Shiv Murari Sahai said that the police had credible input that the militants were planning to sneak into Srinagar city. Police did not allow media persons, especially the photojournalists, to approach the encounter till the bodies were taken away to police control room, said a photojournalist. The identity of the slain youngsters, too, was kept under wraps till late in the night, he said.

Eyewitnesses of the shootout said that there was a single fire followed by bursts of gunfire. “Within minutes, there was complete chaos. People ran helter-skelter and shopkeepers ran away without downing their shutters. Traffic immediately came to a grinding halt,” a woman said. There was a man wearing a pheran lying in a pool of blood, near a skidded motorcycle. A few yards away, another person was shot dead. The third body was found near Cement Bridge, which opens the area towards Noorbagh pocket of old city.

A deputy superintendent of police, present on the scene said that the motorcycle borne youth opened fire on the policeman deployed in Qammerwari chowk. “They took away his service rifle and during this time his (policeman’s) colleagues opened fire on them”.

When a journalist asked Sahai as to why the bodies of three youngsters riding a single bike were found at three different places, he shot back, “Do you mean we brought them dead from somewhere” before explaining that the militants died in a shootout when they were being chased away. He claimed recovery of two pistols from slain militants.

Locals say that the police have not described the exact sequence of events, which led to the killing of a policeman followed by motorcycle borne youngsters. Who owns the motorbike found from the shootout site, is also not known. Police said they are moving on right track to unravel the details.

Late in the evening, first slain youngster was identified as Peerzada Arshad Bashir, a resident of Alsafa Colony in Sopore. Police had recovered identity card and some academic testimonials from his possession that led them to reach his father. Incidentally, Peerzada was a relative of NC parliamentarian Shareefuddin Shariq, who quickly reacted to his death in the shootout.

“This is a cold-blooded murder. The three youngsters have been killed in a fake encounter. I will take up the matter with Home Minister P Chidambaram and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah,” Shariq was quoted as saying. He also sought punishment for the policemen who were involved in the killings. His demand almost coincided with Director General of Police Kuldeep Khoda’s announcement that the each policeman in the party would be given out-of-turn rank-up promotion besides a collective cash prize of Rs 5 lacs.

Shariq’s comments shook up the police top brass. The DGP immediately flew in from Jammu for damage control. On June 30 afternoon, he addressed a press conference at police control room flanked by IG Sahai and SSP Srinagar Ashiq Bukhari. He described Shariq’s comments as imaginary. “We cannot control imaginary thoughts or views of anybody. All of you know that our brave boy has died in the encounter. The encounter took place in broad daylight in full public view,” he said.

Khoda claimed that the three slain youngsters were militants belonging to a Jaish-e-Muhammad module operating under Waseem Raja Guru, a resident of Seer Jagir in Sopore. “The module was also involved in the killing of two CRPF men on November 10 this year at Pattan,” Khoda said. The DGP said that two revolvers and some hand grenades were recovered from the possession of killed militants.

“Waseem Raja Guru had gone for training across the border in 1991 and returned in 1994. He was working as Battalion Commander of JeM outfit in Sopore. He was booked under the Public Safety Act in 2007 and was released in 2008. He, however, recycled, and remained active since 2008. He was categorized as ‘A’ category JeM militant in 2009,” Khoda said.

About Zahoor Ahmad Hajam of Bandipora, Khoda said the “militant was aged about 30 and was a local trained militant affiliated with Al-Badar outfit in the code name of Tanveer and Imran.”

“He was arrested on August 23, 2004 by the troops of 15 Rashtriya Rifles at Bandipora. On the instance of the militant another militant Hilal Ahmad Shah of Hospital Road Bandipora was also apprehended. A case against FIR No 170/2004 U/S 7/25 was registered against the duo,” Khoda said.

“The militant was detained under PSA for about one and a half year in 2004. After graduation from a private college, he did his B.Ed from Mehboob-ul-Alam College Bandipora in 2008-09. The militant was also working as a teacher in a private school at Bandipora and had left his job some two months back. As per the family sources he left his home on 19 November 2010 and has not returned. He was involved in instigating 2008 agitation,” he elaborated.

About Arshad Bashir, the DGP said that he had passed class XII exams in 2010 and had got admission in Degree College Bemina. “He had close links with the militant organisations and his house was raided in 2009 by police and Army for the presence of JeM militants. He had developed a close liaison with JeM militant Waseem Raja Guru in 2008-09 and used to be with him off and on,” he claimed.

In an apparent reference to Shariq’s remarks, Khoda said, “I have given you facts, figures and background. I mentioned this to put at rest any statement coming in any section of media stating otherwise”.

The relatives and neighbours of the slain youth squarely refuted police claims. Protest demonstrations were held at Sopore and Bandipora to protest against the killings. Relatives of Arshad Bashir said that he had left his home, just a day before to get roll number slip for examination. “He was a brilliant student studying at Bemina Degree College. He never indulged in stone-pelting and was busy either in studies or domestic chores,” said his father Bashir Ahmad. Police pressurized the family to bury his body before the crack of dawn and disallowed them to inter him at their ancestral graveyard at Poutkhah.
Bandipora’s Zahoor Ahmad Hajam, according to his friends and relatives, was preparing for civil services examination. His father Ghulam Qadir swore by his innocence and maintained that he was on way to Kashmir University to register himself for access to books required for preparation to competitive examinations.

His former employer at a prominent private school swore by his honesty, dedication and straightforwardness. The only family, which did not explicitly reject police version, was the family of Waseem Raja Guru, whom DGP described as the leader of the JeM module. Guru’s father Abdur Rashid corroborated DGP’s statement about him. He said that he has seen his son last time in 2008 when he was released from Kuthua jail after serving a jail term for his involvement with Jaish outfit. “After release, he left home and never returned. I don’t know why he became a militant,” he said.

The separatists took a cue from Shariq’s statement to whip up the police and state government for “staging fake encounter”. Jamat-e-Islami lauded Shariq for his plain speak and advised him to stick to his guns. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq described the encounter as “fake” and said it was aimed to “terrorize people”. He also likened it with “government’s plans to link stone-pelting phenomenon with militancy”. Syed Ali Geelani demanded impartial probe into the shootout to find out truth.

Even mainstream politicians like MLA Engineer Rasheed demanded impartial probe into the Qamarwari incident.

The shootout saga took another interesting turn when the Udhampur based Northern Command released a statement analyzing the Qamarwari encounter. After lauding police for eliminating three militants, army said that the encounter took place in “demilitarized” Srinagar. The statement took a dig on Omar Abdullah led state government saying it had ‘given in’ to the clamour of demilitarization and dismantling of bunkers in Srinagar, which had ‘delighted’ the separatists. “Terrorists have shown their presence for the second time in a month,” the statement said.

Even as the statement was withdrawn by the army late in the night, it found place in many newspapers much to the embarrassment of the chief minister.

Omar Abdullah, who heads the Unified Command Headquarters, which took decision to remove some bunkers from Srinagar city following 8-point package announced by the Home Minister P Chidambaram was taken aback by the Army’s comments. He shot a letter to Prime Minister who in turn pulled up northern commander Lt Gen BS Jaiswal. Jaiswal tendered apology to the CM.

In a written statement, PRO (Northern Command) Lt Col Pradeep Kocchar said, “Lt Gen BS Jaswal ‘apologised to the chief minister of Jammu & Kashmir on this issue on Wednesday to resolve the issue’.” “The chief minister and the army commander share extremely cordial relations and have the best of functional rapport. The entire episode is deeply regretted. The state government and army are maintaining best of relations and would continue to do so,” the statement added.

Jaswal also clarified to Abdullah that the army statement had been issued by command PRO on Tuesday without authorisation, a day after the Srinagar shootout, in which three alleged militants were killed.

“The views expressed were personal predilections of a junior officer, which were inadvertently issued as a press release. The contents were neither cleared by Headquarters Northern Command or by Directorate of Public Relations, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi, nor does the army subscribe to the views expressed,” Kocchar stated.

Analysts say that Army’s statement was indicative of growing wedge between political establishment and the armed forces, a phenomenon which was not overtly prevalent in India.

 

[Rafi]

wake up dude, which indian minister has said that, the day any minister says that he will be sitting at home the next moment.

Congress minister stokes row, give "Azadi" to Kashmir
PTI, Dec 6, 2010, 08.00pm IST

JAMMU: A Jammu and Kashmir minister belonging to Congress has stoked a controversy by suggesting that Kashmir be granted "Azadi", remarks that embarassed his party which termed them as his personal view.

Addressing a rally at Bani in Kathua district on Sunday, Congress Minister for Health and Horticulture Sham Lal Sharma had raised the demand for making Jammu a separate state, giving union territory status to Ladakh and granting "Azadi" to Kashmir.

"Give freedom to Kashmir, that's more beneficial. Give separate statehood status to Jammu and make Ladakh a union territory. If this state has to be developed, this is the only solution", Sharma said in the presence of PCC chief Saifuddin Soz.

His remarks drew a sharp attack from state BJP which alleged they "tantamount to treason" and demanded his dismissal from the government and arrest.

In damage-control mode, Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi described Sharma's remarks as his "personal view" and said the party's stand "is very clear--autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution".

The remarks by Sham Lal Sharma had made Soz and his senior party leaders uneasy at the rally. In fact, Soz had tried to initiate damage control and expressed his party's resolve to keep all the three regions of the state united to ensure equal and balanced development in all the regions.

"We are all answerable to AICC President Sonia Gandhi and what we say here be considered as the Congress word and we must speak along the party's line", Soz said.

Seeking to downplay Sharma's view, Singhvi told reporters in Delhi that "I can only describe it as a personal opinion (of Sharma). He was having a discussion at rally in his own home state and certainly this is his personal view".

"Some of the words which I have heard, I can either describe it as a metaphorical speak and should not be taken literally", he said adding "in any case, we do not accept any such allegations".

BJP National Executive Member and former Pradesh President Nirmal Singh told reporters here that "Sharma has taken oath under the Constitution and his statement tantamounts to treason and therefore an FIR should be registered against him and he should be arrested forthwith".

After making such a statement Sharma has no locus standi to be in the ministry and he should be dismissed Singh said.

Congress minister stokes row, give "Azadi" to Kashmir - The Times of India

There's your minister lad

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

Geelani: I will not betray my nation and religion​

Tuesday, 07 December 2010 14:28

Srinagar, December 07, 2010: Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the Chairman of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), termed Farooq Abdullah, the Indian puppet Chief Minister of Occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir (OSJK), as the "National Criminals of Kashmir.

He was responding to the statement given by Farooq Abdullah, criticising Syed Ali Shah Geelani that he want to see Kashmir as graveyard of Kashmiri people.

APHC Chairman, Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that Farooq Abdullah and his company betrayed the Kashmiri people at every critical juncture and played into Indian hands rather working for the noble cause of liberation of Occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir (OSJK) from Indian occupation.

"Farooq Abdullah, the sycophant without conscience, has no standing to merit any attention, but it has become inevitable to set the records straight,” Syed Ali Shah Geelani said in response to Farooq Abdullah. “Hadn’t NC and Shaikh Family betrayed the nation, hadn’t they turned Muslim Conference into National Conference in 1938 or ratified the accession in ’47, the situation would have been different today and we wouldn’t have to receive the bullet riddled bodies of our beloved ones. The Kashmir issue is the consequence of the deceit politics of the Shaikh Family and NC,” he said.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani had also termed the NC rule over OSJK between 1947 to 1953 as "painful chapter in the history of Kashmir". "Those who would talk about Azadi those days were tortured and sent into exile and even people who would listen to Radio Pakistan were subjected to cruelties." Syed Ali Shah Geelani remembers the NC rule during that period.

"They have never been well wishers of Kashmiris. Had they been sincere, they wouldn’t have assumed chair in 1975 which they got in charity after burying the demand of plebiscite." Geelani accused Farooq Abdullah and his party, National Conference, for betraying the Kashmiri people.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani accused Farooq Abdullah, saying that he "stabbed the Kashmiris from the back". Crawling the history pages, Syed Ali Geelani refreshes the memory by saying, "After sacrifices of thousands of people, he (Farooq Abdullah) participated in the 1996 elections and created the STF, group of killers, which indulged in brutal killings of Kashmiris. Again in 2008, when thousands of people were on streets, NC joined the election bandwagon, damaging the cause for which Kashmiris have laid sacrifices"

Responding to the statement of Farooq Abdullah that Kashmiri freedom fighters should talk to India, Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that there is no need to talk with India until India stop calling OSJK as its "integral part" theory and (honestly) accepts that Kashmir is an international dispute. Which needs to be resolved according to the wishes of the people of Kashmir (Self-Determination).

Syed Ali Shah Geelani termed India's rule in Occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir (OSKJ) as "Indian military occupation" and said, "I consider the military occupation of Kashmir by India as unlawful and I would continue to oppose it till my last breath. I wouldn’t betray my nation and religion like Farooq Abdullah and his family."

Geelani: I will not betray my nation and religion

 

[Bang Galore]

Srinagar, December 07, 2010: Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the Chairman of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), termed Farooq Abdullah, the Indian puppet Chief Minister of Occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir (OSJK), as the "National Criminals of Kashmir.

Pathetic reporting! Farooq Abdullah is a union Minister, Omar Abdullah is the Chief Minister.

As for the part about never betraying his nation, to each his own! He does not want to betray his & we won't betray ours.

 

[Jade]

Is Farooq Abdullah the chief minister of J& K? I did not know this….Geelani should remember that almost 50% of the people of J&K are of other faiths. By only talking of his own religion, he is causing damage to his own so called cause.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The RSS is basically demonized because it does not have the same vicious hatred for the Indic civilization that is displayed by the Congress and the Left.

But they are pretty much like boy-scouts. One has to be seriously deluded to call them terrorists.

As regards the Mirwaiz incident - let's not have double standards. When Taslima Nasrin was violently attacked by secularist hoodlums in Hyderabad, the Congress government cowered and cancelled her visa, in deference to the violent secularists.

They may be demonised for this, that and the other, by any group that you care to name, including the Congress and the Left. But that still doesn't give them the right to break the law.

You assert that the Congress, and the Left have a 'vicious' hatred for Indic civilisation. What and where did this come out? What are you referring to, except to the RSS' own self-pitying analysis? And since when did Boy Scouts go around killing people of a different religion?

It might be educative to refer to my detailed response to the ubiquitous, perpetually frenzied Kartic Sri, and my statement that disliking the practised and rehearsed mob-violence of the RSS did not mean support for the Congress or the Left. Which part of that statement did you not understand?

You talk of the Taslima Nasreen incident, and the Congress government cowering and cancelling her visa. Where did you pick up the information that this cowardly behaviour was supported by anyone not supporting the Sangh? What, in short, do the two things have to do with each other?

Finally, when did the MIM become secularist? They are flagrantly communal, down to adopting the name of the faction behind the Razakars in Hyderabad, prior to the police action, and everyone knows they are communal, not secularist. Or is that your way of defaming secularism, by calling a known communal faction secular?

 

[Abhishek_]

I would continue to oppose it till my last breath.

given your age we don't mind waiting it out.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thanks for giving this example.

If the terrorists at Munich would have escaped unpunished and if they were to give lectures after 20 years about compassion and religious tolerance and the world was to listen to it --- then I, as the judge of Ajmal Kasab,would have no other way other than to pardon him on the ground he may become a saint later in his life.

I hope you can relate the above example to our modern day Munich terrorists (Congress,the doyen of India's secularism) and Kasab (Sangh).

Pretty sad logic, if you don't mind my saying so.

The terrorists at Munich did not escape punished; neither has Kasab.

Bringing the Congress into this is ridiculous; nobody, except their fellow criminals, thinks that they are not wrong, or that they should go unpunished. As I have already explained, criticising the crimes of the Sangh does not mean that the critic is authomatically a supporter of Congress or the Left! We were talking about the Sangh; talking about somebody else's crime does not justify their's.

As for the judge, he does not look at other trials and other judges, but at his trial and his judgement of the criminal arraigned before him.

This is basic law; a law court is not a kindergarten class where a child can argue that he should be let off because some other teacher in some other class did that.

And this is my argument.

Two wrongs dont make a right --- but what if one of them is NOT considered a wrong and only the other is accused of wrong ?

Its not you, who I am complaining of exhibiting double standards --- its the general media,the supposedly educated elite who have fallen for this and I am complaining about them and I expect you to acknowledge that such a mis-conception is prevalent in our society.
And since this is the recurring theme in my post ,I ll save you further trouble of reading and basically the format you ve quoted is also a bit tough on my eyes.

And again I have no were condoned Sangh's violent activities if any. Punish them by all means but dont punish them alone ---- they are just one side of the coin.Take a look at the other side also.

But if people were to support the other side blindly because of religion then , I have to take the Sangh's side and I have no qualms in it.

My point is simple --- Treat all criminals as one. If you dont then I dont consider the Sangh as a criminal.

i dont think I have contradicted myself anywhere.

Nobody has suggested that the RSS should stand trial alone. All criminals, of all political hues, should be tried. That's been said again and again before this.

Sorry Karthik, are you suggesting, that just because we could not punish somebody in the past, we will continue to do so for other criminals (even in future).

As an ordianary Indian citizen, who does not have connection with congress/sangh/left, I would want all criminals to be brought to book.

This thread was particularly about sangh, hence please provide merit in sangh's agenda.

Precisely.