What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
I guess you're right, Prometheus. I should have written "on a regular basis" after "how come the Indian police does not fire at people into the crowds protesting elsewhere in India".

Also, you seem kind of proud of that news. Something's wrong when all you can think of when defending your actions is cite other times you committed the same crimes.

You Sir, have no idea of ROE.
You are correct. Please explain the ROE to me, but before that, please write a letter to the parents of these three 8 and 9 year olds explaining that their children died despite a strict commitment to the ROE on the part of the CPRF.

8-yr old Kulgam boy succumbs
2 more killed, 9-yr old among victims

Also, I can't find the third article which contained a pcture of a 2-year-old girl shot right through the head during a march. Now you could say, "What was a 2-year-old doing at a protest?" That would be a valid question, and a difficult one to explain for someone who has enjoyed freedom all his life to someone who has done the same. But the simplest way to make you understand would be so: if you have access to someone who was around before the partition, maybe your grandparents, ask them whether pro-freedom and anti-Britain rallies and protests were age specific. Ask them whether women and children participated in the struggle. Ask him if, despite being young at the time, they had a desire to do something to help attain freedom. Maybe then you will understand.

Edit
Found a picture from our protests yesterday at the Indian Consulate. Notice the Sikhs in the background?
photo_23_8_2010_326.jpg
 
Firstly, very interesting that you chose to concentrate on 2 words of the entire posting. It's often what you choose not to say that says it all.
What is interesting is that you some reason think that what I would chose to reply to is not entirely resting upon my volition.

Secondly, the stone throwing begins after tear-gas and rubber bullets and even live rounds are fired into a crowd consisting not only of young men but also the elderly, women and children. If your mother or father was pelted by rubber bullets in front of your eyes, I'd like to see your reaction. And even if that isn't the case, as you will probably contend. These people have been occupied for 63 years. You imagine being forced to stay in home for 6 days straight, and then tell me that you don't feel like hitting someone.
Clueless is the word that comes to mind.

And in any case, how come the Indian police does not fire at people into the crowds protesting elsewhere in India?
Clueless, once again. The most recent (2008) shameful incidence of police firing that killed 11 (official claim is 11, unofficial claim is close to 100) happened at Nandigram, West Bengal. I can give you a long list, but I understand that it will be futile. You know how to google, don't you?
 
Last edited:
I have opened this thread to Discuss how indian media treats protests in Kashmir and the motivation behind that ..

TOI brings Islam into Kashmir imbraglio


By Ghulam Muhammad

As a gift of India’s 63rd Independence Day, Time of India has once again targeted Indian Muslims for their grave sin of adopting Islam as their religion.




TOI published an article on August 15, 2010 in its print edition, penned by TOI’s own special hatchet-man, bearing a Muslim name, but sold out to his employers in churning out articles that do not reflect either the truth or the real aspirations of Indian Muslims, whom TOI had directly addressed its exhortation.

By selecting the headline: “Geelani should re-read Islam”, Mohammed Wajihuddin and TOI have challenged Indian Muslims in general to interpret Islam, as per the guidance of the Jain owner’s own agenda.

However, the Kashmir problem which is being discussed interwoven into the narrative, has nothing to do with Islam. It is a movement against the oppression of a government run by a hawkish oligarchy that is so drunk with the power of army, that it has no need to treat its ‘supposedly’ own people as human beings. Can the modern media-linked world remain calm if 50 protestors are killed by security forces within a fortnight in any part of the world?

The name of democracy, freedom and secularism is repeatedly abused in legitimizing an obnoxiously oppressive regime on people that are not necessarily of the same colour, race, religion, social status and/ethnicity as the ruling elite.

To make Kashmir, an issue of Islam, Wajihuddin has blatantly sidetracked the grievances of Kashmiris as articulated at least in large part by Ahmed Shah Geelani, whose personal antecedent is only incidental as his word of peace that brought the stone-pelting youngsters from the streets of curfew-imposed Kashmiri towns and villages, to call off their street violence, has more to do with Geelani’s steadfast opposition to New Delhi, which has for all practical purposes imposed an occupation army on the state.

By bringing in Islam, Wajihuddin and TOI are trying to sidetrack the whole issue of legitimate public protests against the brutal stranglehold of a web of so-called security regime, whose mind-set has been most pronouncedly for decades that of an occupied force holding on to a conquered people.

Wajihuddin’s line up of the 3 Islamic scholars to bolster his agenda against Islam, themselves have not been able to establish any linkages between the current political upheaval and Islam.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s narration of an stray incidence has nothing to do with any Islamic content to his political views that with the so-called independence, if at all granted to Kashmir, Azad Kashmir will be a failed state. That verdict is a political judgment and has nothing to do with his Islamic scholarship.

The same is the case with Wajihuddin’s other favourite Islamic scholars, who are bringing in the subject of Islamic fundamentalism and extremism to legitimize the fundamentalism and extremism of the Indian security elements in Kashmir.

Sultan Shahin has an axe to grind against Islamic radicals and his vision is so blurred that he cannot see that the problem of Kashmir is not of the making of any Islamic fundamentalist; though they, the radicals may try to hijack it as such. It is a straight forward problem of governance of a people that do not see eye to eye with their distant rulers who have made their everyday lives fraught with fear and despair and that too for over half a century.

By trying to sideline the real problem from the real life miseries, and shift the focus to Islam and its radicals, TOI and Wajihuddin are in fact rendering a disservice to India itself.

Unless the rulers are made aware that the protests mounted by genuine victims of India’s heavily oppressive army presence in every nook of corner of their communities, is not emanating from Islam, all efforts if any by the ruling coterie at the helm of affair in New Delhi, will only buy time for a further later postponement of the real problems till outsiders intervene. If India is constitutionally secular, the basic logic of its solutions for Kashmir has to be on the lines of secular principles and not on the confrontational lines of Islam v/s Hindutva, as TOI would like to have it.

Wajihuddin holds that ‘ The demand for a separate or Pakistani Kashmir is based on a skewed, selective reading of Islam.’ He brings in Geelani’s supposed ideological mentors, Jamaate Islam’s founder Maulana Abul Ala Maududi and Egyptian scholars Syed Qutub and Hasan al Banna before him who propagated the theory that Islam wanted Muslims to strive and establish an Islamic state. But the exclusivitism idealized by some Islamic scholar does not hide the fact that it is a basic human instinct. Did not Nehru, Patel and other Congress leaders, agreed to partition as they wanted the rest of India to be ruled exclusively by them --- the Brahmin ruling class? So why then merely demonise Muslim scholars. This is age-old and universal and almost human phenomenon. History is unfortunately replete with incidents where the need to go exclusive has been the real motivations to lead to both victories and disasters. Are US and Zionists not trying to impose their New World Order to achieve exclusive power to rule the world on their terms?

It is another matter that in India, Congress leaders did not succeed in achieving the exclusivity that they had planned by wholesale transfer of entire Muslim population to the other side. But short of that, have they not succeeded gaining effective and practical exclusivity by continuing to discriminate, de-legitimise and corrode Muslim citizenship in India. It started with India’s first President Rajendra Prasad passing a decree to exclude Muslim Dalits from any reservation equations, even if they were backward and Dalit. It started with India’s first home minister Sardar Patel issuing secret memo to all security agencies in the land to weed out Muslims. Why Wajihuddian and TOI does not raise its ‘truth should prevail’ campaign against that Brahmin ‘exclusivity’ instead of crying over Maududi’s call for Muslim state which is hardly relevant to India or Kashmir?

Wajihuddin has a point that ‘the argument that the Muslim majority Kashmir must either go to Islamic Pakistan or become a separate, sovereign Islamic state defies the Valley’s own history.’ That ethos is still thriving when Geelani wants Kashmiri Brahmins to come back in full peace, honour and brotherhood. In Kashmir, if the so-called fundamentalist Muslim like Geelani extends a welcome to Brahmins, he has people’s trust to see that happen in toto. Kashmir has been an island of communal harmony for ages, till outsiders spoiled the paradise. That outside influence has to be neutralized, in whatever shape or form, for Kashmir to turn again into a Paradise on earth.

Times of India’s separate agenda of demonizing Muslims and Islam keeps popping up, as the editors and owners seems to have built up a constituency that thrives on hate and division. Their communal management of public issues vital to the integrity and security, by bringing in extraneous divisive misinformation to their extensive readership of the nation, needs to be condemned and checked with appropriate actions by the government in the best interest of the country.

TOI brings Islam into Kashmir imbraglio :::: ndChronicle.com
 
This obsession of Pakistan with Kashmir…is myopic and surely dangerous to its own existence.
 
I guess you're right, Prometheus. I should have written "on a regular basis" after "how come the Indian police does not fire at people into the crowds protesting elsewhere in India".
That is a strange thing to say. The flip side of that bizarre statement must also be true. Since Police in India doesn't kill 'on regular basis' but on irregular basis, India para-military force should therefore concentrate on killing Kashmiris on irregular basis, just not 'on regular basis'.

I just puked a little in my mouth.

Also, you seem kind of proud of that news. Something's wrong when all you can think of when defending your actions is cite other times you committed the same crimes.
It was you who raised this nonsensical argument.
 
Kashmir is just another state… if the same things would have gone in Tamil Nadu or UP, police would have acted similarly…however, I feel police should act more responsibly
 
I must admit, ignorance has its benefits. Now I am beginning to understand the exasperation that GoI representatives must be feeling everytime they talk to the head-in-the-air separatists. If Res 47 is indeed relevant, then all the negotiations at UN are void in the first place, because all those negotiations revolved around those two resolutions in general and resolution of 13th Aug, 1948 in particular. Sir Owen Dixon, Dr Frank Graham, Dr Joseph Korbel, to name a few, were all idiots.

Res 47 is redundant because;

(Part A of this resolution was replaced by Part I & II of res of 13th Aug, 1948):
  1. It doesn’t recognize the fact that PA was directly fighting in Kashmir and hence, there is no provision for cease fire. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 has a specific part (Part I) for cease fire.
  2. It doesn’t require PA to withdraw, but instead, requires India to reduce its troops to a minimum. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 requires complete withdrawal of PA.
  3. It requires that the Commission and Plebiscite Administrator shall decide where to place Indian troops. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 doesn’t require so, for obvious reasons.
  4. It is silent about provocative military build-up on Pakistan’s side of Kashmir, a key point because that permitted Pakistan to fortify its position in Kashmir at the peril of Indian position. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 requires both India and Pakistan to ‘refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control’.
  5. It doesn’t require any military observer to be stationed in Kashmir. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 appointed military observers, called UNMOGIP, on both sides. They continue to be so appointed.
  6. It doesn’t require Pakistan to hand over administration of P0K to any ‘local authority’, a key point because it is considered as recognition that Pakistan has no role to play in the administration of P0K. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 requires Pakistan to do so, after its complete evacuation.
(Part B of this resolution was replaced by Part III of res of 13th Aug, 1947 and res of 5th Jan, 1949)
  1. Res of 13th Aug, 1948 and 5th Jan, 1949 require that plebiscite be held, only and only if and when the demilitarization is completed. Demilitarization required complete withdrawal of PA. There is no such provision in res 47.
  2. It requires that Plebiscite Administrator be appointed by Secretary-General of UN without giving India any opportunity to be heard. Res of 5th Jan, 1947 requires Secretary-General to make such appointment only on recommendation of the Commission. That gives India an opportunity to express its opinion on the matter of appointment of the Administrator.
  3. It gives Plebiscite Administrator extra-constitutional power (e.g. to direct the State of India where to place its Army in Kashmir) and hence places him above the State. Res of 5th Jan, 1947 binds him to the constitution by the specific words, ‘The Plebiscite Administrator shall derive from the State of Jammu and Kashmir the powers he considers necessary for organizing and conducting the plebiscite……’
  4. Etc. etc. etc.

Without referring to the many more nuanced differences, one can see that the basic import of Res 47 was severely altered, modified and in most cases reversed, rendering it superfluous. However, Part of the resolution (not contained in Part A and B of the resolution) that appointed UNCIP continues to hold.
Res 47 itself provided a very detailed mechanism for holding plebiscite. Since it was based on a wrong premise that PA was not involved, everything that followed became void ab initio. This was rectified in those two resolutions after taking into consideration of PA’s involvement.

That is a laughable explanation. UN was well aware of its military ability when it passed Res 47. The reason why change occurred is because of the realization that India, alone can’t hold a plebiscite under the existing condition without active co-operation of Pakistan.

If this is how the separatists are going to argue, then GoI can sleep easy.

Your Long list of reasons is nothing more than the changed political realities on ground and hence corroborates the point that subsequent UN resolutions were confronted with practical aspects of holding the plebiscite and hence needed to be rooted in political realities on ground. The subsequent UN resolutions have altered and modified RES 47 only in aspects related to practical implementation of plebiscite and not in its basic and substantive aspect i.e. RSD of people in J&K. Your inability to distinguish between two different aspects UN resolutions viz moral, which grants RSD to people of J&K, and practical which was needed to devise a mechanism to implement that right , renders your analysis as logically flawed and no amount of fake indignation and contempt can hide that.
 
Pakistan should move in full force and liberate Kashmiris from barathi tyranny. We won Kargil, still hold on 4 strategic points to this day which india could not reclaim even after sending their entire military. We have more nukes and more powerful nukes than india. Its a sure loss for india. :cheers:

One of the most practical,sane comments I have ever read....three cheers to S_O_C_O_M.:yahoo:
 
Obsession leads to self destruction! ... anyways people always want what they can't have ... it's all about the have's and have not's.

For the last 60 years ... neither did Pakistan grew nor did it allow India to concentrate on factors that really matters to it. Pakistan has become a big migrane is India. India doesn't consider Pakistan as a formidable enemy, it's more concerned with China developments.
 
Its not a small portion of population , It is a whole population which even the world has granted implicit recognition of nationhood that is demanding freedom .

Even if it comes to explicit recognition - india is not going to budge.When will you people recognise that territorial integrity is paramount of all.
 
India lost Kashmir?? It seems thread starter lost his mind.. lolz :no:
 
Your Long list of reasons is nothing more than the changed political realities on ground and hence corroborates the point that subsequent UN resolutions were confronted with practical aspects of holding the plebiscite and hence needed to be rooted in political realities on ground. The subsequent UN resolutions have altered and modified RES 47 only in aspects related to practical implementation of plebiscite and not in its basic and substantive aspect i.e. RSD of people in J&K. Your inability to distinguish between two different aspects UN resolutions viz moral, which grants RSD to people of J&K, and practical which was needed to devise a mechanism to implement that right , renders your analysis as logically flawed and no amount of fake indignation and contempt can hide that.

Your are not replying to this - The UNSC resolutions dont give you the right to Independence - they only say that you will be a part of India or Pakistan.

So how will you get your much cherished "azaadi" since it is not in the option granted by UNSC

p..s: The independence option was dropped on the request of PAKISTAN.
 
Back
Top Bottom