Kashmir - Think the Unthinkable

[ejaz007]

It was banned Indian member called Ghatak, made his re entry under the Pakistani flag and a muslim name.
Dumbas$!

He joined to post his articles read news and share views, however became confused, perhaps could not bear the truth and ended up fused and reentry refused.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Indeed it is morally wrong, in more ways than one.

Dan Burton is an opportunist, one cannot possibly take his words at face value.

Asking for money in exchange for favors using ones position - unethical perhaps.

But, the issue at stake, right to self-determination, is neither immoral nor unethical.

Questions surrounding his motivations? Perhaps.

But there are no questions over the validity and morality of the position he has taken.

 

[Flintlock]

Asking for money in exchange for favors using ones position - unethical perhaps.

But, the issue at stake, right to self-determination, is neither immoral nor unethical.

Questions surrounding his motivations? Perhaps.

But there are no questions over the validity and morality of the position he has taken.

Well I have made my position clear earlier regarding the morality of the argument.

I have also made it clear that the motivations of people who are making such statements lie purely in self-interest.

 

[dabong1]

I do not know what are you talking about? If situation being created and at aprticulat time, if you ask people in Pakistan to self determine then perhaps Pakistan will be divided in more that 2 to 3 pieces. So do not give irrelevent logic of self determination........

Why dont we also hold a vote in india and see if the people from Assam, Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh want to be part of india..........what about indian punjab,let the sikhs decide there own future about khalistan.

It is time to let the people of "india" chose if they want to be part of india or not.

 

[Spring Onion]

eR! You are wrong on that count.. The land is not transferred or given to any shrine! The Government will be having the land as before and the Shrine will use it for maintaining facilities during the time of pilgrimage..

The protesting Hindu elements of the drive said that they are suspending protest after the decision temporarily as their other demands are still not accepted and they will press the pupet de-facto govt of Indian Occupied Kashmir to transfer the land to the non-Kashmiris.

Its just the begining

 

[Spring Onion]

Could you pls dwell on this " drama"..

third eye Kindly let me and other members know the origion of this Hindu shrine in Indian Held Kashmir.
i am waiting for the reply from you then i will reply your question.

The problem was not even half as big as it has been made out to be by short sighted politicians who lost control once things began to spiral out of control.

PDF always had reservations in supporting Congress for its term in the chair. Sniffing the possibility of elections , they promptly withdrew their support thus begining the crisis.

To make it more "current" the issue of land transfer was thrown in, even though the PDF was on board when the decsion was taken, they agitated against it..

Who had thrown the land issue ??? Why suddenly the Indian government felt to transfer Kashmiri land to the non-Kashmiris that too Indians in the first place???
For temporary shelter there is no need to transfer the land ownership.

and puppets surely do not represent the entire Kashmiris.

Lastly , if a demographic change was intended, be rest assured it would have been done. 90 acres of Indian land seasonally used by Indians does not in any way tantamount to a demographic change.

This is the start my dear who knows the Indians will carve more such shrines to grab more land in future.

When Israel started settelment slowly no one knew that one day Palistinain areas will be represented by small dots here and there by replacing the major land with Israeli illegal occupation.

 

[dr.umer]

Kashmir's "children of conflict" rise in anger​

Reuters | 4 Sep 2008
By Alistair Scrutton

SRINAGAR (Reuters) - The protesters organise with Facebook, YouTube as well as via messages from local mosques. They eschew violence, but are seething with anger.

They are Kashmir's new generation of radicalised separatists who are proving a huge challenge to New Delhi by spurring the biggest demonstrations against India in two decades.

"The older generation is tired." said Zaffar, a 23 year-old student in Srinagar, Kashmir's summer capital, in a street under curfew where dozens of heavily armed police patrolled. "Our generation has understood what the problem is."

Zaffar was surrounded by similar youths, each recounting a police beating or an abuse at the hands of troops. With text messages blocked by the government and many mobiles mysteriously cut, they often relied on the Internet to communicate.

Protests by hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris in the last month highlight how a younger generation who know little but war are taking the lead and radicalising a separatist movement that had tentatively talked peace with New Delhi.

In at least two incidents, protesters marched to separatist politicians' homes demanding they lead them in marches.

This anger may prove a setback for any negotiated solution to a conflict that has already sparked two wars between India and Pakistan, which rule in parts but claim the region in full.

For nearly two decades, politics in Kashmir often appeared to be about residents being caught in crossfire between militants and troops, or about a wider issue of Pakistan-India relations.

Many people kept their heads down in a conflict where at least 43,000 lives were lost. Sporadic protests were quickly squashed in one of the most militarised places on earth.

Then a row over land for Hindu pilgrims suddenly snowballed into protests by hundreds of thousands of people that reminded old-timers of the start of a revolt against Indian rule in 1989.

Police reacted, killing at least 35 protesters in the Muslim Kashmir Valley. At least a thousand people have been wounded. The government says police were fired upon. They say agitators hijacked protests and that ordinary Kashmiris were marginalised.

But for many Kashmiris, the crackdown was a travesty. With local militants declaring a ceasefire to support the protests and editorials in India mulling secession, separatist hopes peaked.

"It is totally indigenous and peaceful," said Sajad Lone, a separatist involved in talks with New Delhi for years. His father was a moderate separatist leader murdered by suspected militants.

"My generation was anti-India. But this generation hates India," he added, emphasising the word "hates".

"The children of conflict have taken over."

AN OLD MIND-SET

For years, New Delhi had a mind-set seeing the conflict as a battle against Pakistani-backed militants. Governments pinned hopes on mainstream parties, which back a union with New Delhi.

But the protests put a spanner in the works.

"I don't think New Delhi has ever seen such huge protests," said Mehbooba Mufti, president of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), a mainstream party.

"This is a peaceful movement that wants to secede. It has to be taken seriously but New Delhi finds it very hard to make concessions."

Mainstream parties now appear marginalised. The PDP is perceived to have tilted towards separatism.

"Nobody is ready to believe anyone in New Delhi now," said Mufti, who still advocates talks with the government.

Separatist leaders, including the main separatist alliance All Parties Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference which renounces militant violence, also feel burned after talks with New Delhi.

"Moderates were made into a bunch of jokers," Lone said. "The credibility of the institution of dialogue was eroded, perhaps irreversibly."

Lone held talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He published a road map for peace. The result, he says, was a slew of probes by authorities into his affairs, including tax audits, and delays in getting a visa for his Pakistani wife.

On the streets, when Zaffar and his colleagues were asked which leader they admired, many opted for 78-year-old cleric Syed Ali Shah Geelani, for years seen as a marginalised hardliner.

Geelani's uncompromising stand of refusing to talk to India has in the eyes of many Kashmiris been vindicated, even if they reject his pro-Pakistan stance.

"He perhaps foresaw what would happen to us," said Lone.

POLARISATION

Therein lies a risk of political polarisation.

"This young generation is angrier than when I was their age," said Yasin Malik, who fought as a militant in the 1990s before rejecting violence to campaign for an independent state under his Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front.

He sat up weakly, covered in a blanket in his Srinagar home, his health affected by years in detention and a recent hunger strike. He had just been released from more than a week in jail without charge.

"Like our generation, there is a risk they will get rejected and pushed to violence."

To ensure peace, many separatists believe there will eventually have to be talks. At the same time they distrust India. It is a contradiction that could take time to solve.

On the streets, there appeared to be no interest in dialogue.

"I'm not for any political party," said Malik Sajad, a 20-year-old cartoonist for Great Kashmir newspaper who is planning a graphic novel about the conflict.

"I'm for freedom. It's the same idea as 20 years ago. It's the expression that has changed."

(Additional reporting by Sheikh Mushtaq)

 

[Spring Onion]

Any tele-communication from Indian Held Kashmir to Pakistan has been banned long ago by Indian government.

So if anyone from Pakistan visits Indian Held Kashmir well you are gone virtually no contact back home and anything can happen to you right from your killing in fake encounter to your arrest as atankwadi .

 

[dabong1]

The situation in the early 90s was far, far worse. The likelihood of India giving up a part of their land to appease any one particular group Muslim or otherwise is pretty much nil. I do however think that subsidized repatriation offers have to be made. If anyone truly believes he or she is Pakistani on account of the "Islamic connection", then they ought to move there and it is in the government's best interest to cover a part of the moving costs so as to avoid any more social unrest that is crippling one of their states.

A better idea is ,all the pro indians in kashmir...if there is any ....move to india.
The UN and other world bodies can get together with the indian govt and pay for the movement of people to india.

 

[dabong1]

Any tele-communication from Indian Held Kashmir to Pakistan has been banned long ago by Indian government.

So if anyone from Pakistan visits Indian Held Kashmir well you are gone virtually no contact back home and anything can happen to you right from your killing in fake encounter to your arrest as atankwadi .

Totally correct....my own family in IOK has to go to india to phone relatives in pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well I have made my position clear earlier regarding the morality of the argument.

I have also made it clear that the motivations of people who are making such statements lie purely in self-interest.

As an agnostic, I don't consider morality or basic human dignity or rights to be relativistic - your argument serves to limit morality by raising a self serving argument of 'nationalism and civilization'.

As a self proclaimed atheist, this should have been amply clear to you - since the relativistic morality of some cultures and faith's is abhorred and criticized by leading atheist philosophers - Yet you have done just that with by making freedom and self determination secondary to 'nationalism and civilization'.

Nationalism and civilization are still no excuse for occupying a people and denying them their right to determine which nation they wish to be a part of.

The motivations do not matter so much, so long as the central argument is moral. One could argue that the fact that everyone in the US legislature isn't making the same arguments and demands as Burton is because their motivations are suspect because of India's economic clout, long term US strategic interests wrt China, and a strong Indian and Jewish lobby.

The central argument however, of the Instrument of Accession and the UNSC resolutions laying out that the people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination, to decide between India, Pakistan and independence, is not invalid based on how many people are publicly for or against it.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

As an agnostic, I don't consider morality or basic human dignity or rights to be relativistic - your argument serves to limit morality by raising a self serving argument of 'nationalism and civilization'.

How can morality be absolute when the notion of morality varies with perception. For us Indians what your country had done to BD and AFG was immoral while it is oK for your country men while it is immoral when Indians lay claim to Kashmir .....Again I ask , how can morality be absolute....

IPF

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

The central argument however, of the Instrument of Accession and the UNSC resolutions laying out that the people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination, to decide between India, Pakistan and independence, is not invalid based on how many people are publicly for or against it.

If I remember not long ago, did you not use the term "Our territory" . Morality influenced by emotions I guess?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How can morality be absolute when the notion of morality varies with perception. For us Indians what your country had done to BD and AFG was immoral while it is oK for your country men while it is immoral when Indians lay claim to Kashmir .....Again I ask , how can morality be absolute....

IPF

Morality is not relativistic in the case of Kashmir because the freedom of a human being is not relativistic, the right of a human to determine with which extended social and political unit he wants to associate with, the right to choose whose sovereignty to acknowledge, is not relativistic.

In Kashmir's case, the moral argument is also backed up by the legal argument related to the conditions in the IoA and UNSC resolutions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If I remember not long ago, did you not use the term "Our territory" . Morality influenced by emotions I guess?

I have no clue what you are getting at here? If the Kashmiris choose Pakistan, yes 'our territory'.