J&K News and Discussion-2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby RamaY » 09 Feb 2011 18:14

Realpolitik is the process of acting (only) for supreme national interest, on the basis of facts as they exist and capacities as they exist...


Somnath, I have asked you what those national interests in your opinion are, that makes the negotiation purely based on realpolitik.

If you are talking about facts,it is a fact that JK is a Hindu land for time immemorial. It is acceded to India by raja Harisingh. That Pakistan is sponsoring cross border terrorism in that region. And that west is indirectly supporting this nonsense with a single aim to tie Indian potential to south Asia. That China is helping Pakistan so it can get a land route to ME.

My issue with you is that you were pontificating few pages ago as if india has no locus standi and Indian culture and civilizational history doesnt matter. But you do not give your parameters for jk talks even after repeated questions. I want to know how you plan to talk to terrorists and how it is different from our views.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby brihaspati » 09 Feb 2011 18:46

It will be a most curious argument indeed - if say 90% of polled opinion saw unemployment as the critical problem if in reality unemployment was far less than 90%.

How can the two be reconciled: these are the ways I can think of:
(a) the polls selected only those who were unemployed [either by selection bias or otherwise]
(b) even those who are employed face so much trouble from the "few" unemployed that for them unemployment becomes the most critical problem
(c) those who are employed do not feel that they are "employed"
(d) there is a complete mismatch between what we understand as "unemployment" and what the respondents mean by "unemployment".

How many of the above are "realistic"?

If some degree of prosperity actually drives a more intense desire for separatism, the logical conclusion is that to defeat separatism then the prosperity levels have to be brought down. This is the obvious conclusion if we are not to consider any ephemeral principles of "justice", "fairness" or humanitarian behaviour - and if we of course think "defeating separatism" is in "supreme national interest". So no more investments should be made in KV - as that would increase the tendency towards separatism.

If the above link is not true, and we have to then consider other "factors" since not everything is straightforward, "black and white", then those other factors should be discussed at the same time this prosperity factor is discussed. If prosperity alone is not deterministic for separatsim, or that it cannot manifest its efffects without other factors mediating it - then propsperity has no reflection [not analyzable anyway] on separatism.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby somnath » 09 Feb 2011 19:53

RamaY wrote:My issue with you is that you were pontificating few pages ago as if india has no locus standi and Indian culture and civilizational history doesnt matter. But you do not give your parameters for jk talks even after repeated questions. I want to know how you plan to talk to terrorists and how it is different from our views


When did I say that India has no locus standi? the limited point was that bringing in assorted Rishis, Ranjit Singh's armies et al has no bearing on our strategies or potential outcomes....Terrorists looking to cross the LoC are not deterred by stories of Ranjit Singh's armies, but by the electrified fence and 3-tier security...Pak is apprehensive of us in Afghanistan not because of the Gandhari connection, but because of our stakes in the Noerthern Alliance...

I repeat, the essential objective (not mine, but successive Indian govts, articulated by quite a few who made those decisions) has been to consolidate and sanctify India's borders...For that, three things (wrt J&K and all other separatist insurgencies) need to be achieved:

1. Military dominance over the armed groups
2. Irrelevance of the movement
3. Getting global support for the position

the first we have substantially achieved...Talks with the separatists is to bring about the second - either by co-opting them (a la North East) or by showing them up as nincompoops unable to deliver a deal (a la Simranjit Singh Mann)..Talks with Pak is a way of attaining the third - it keeps the world away from speculating on a "nuke flashpoint", and consolidates opinion in support of our objective (sanctifying the LoC)....

If you see, there has been progress on all three counts over the years...Terror rates are down, large sections of the Hurriyat are marginalised, and support for LoC as the de facto boundary has been almost unanimous....

What do you talk to them on? Well, from insaaniyat to "sky is the limit", anything - the process is important, and the bottomlines are already etched...As a status quo power, which is winning, we have the luxury of stretching out as far as it takes!

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby RamaY » 09 Feb 2011 21:24

Somnath,

What you are missing is that at the core of India's claim on J&K is it's civilizational history; which mainly means assorted Rishis and Ranjit Singh's army.

Once you are clear about it, your strategy for JK will become clear. The realpolitik is only a tactic, as you have to change/tune your strategy when the opponent is strong. But that wouldn't undo Bharat's claim over JK state.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse when it comes to strategy.

All the progress (if you want to call it that) is not because India's great strategy. I would rate India's strategy on JK as C- at best if you take only realpolitik as the criteria. What held and progressed Bharat's hold on JK is that civilizational relationship.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby brihaspati » 09 Feb 2011 23:54

What is the need for successive GOI's to try so hard to hold on to the Kashmir Valley? What "realpolitik" reasons can be given to even try so hard for 63 years to even sanctify the LOC as IB?

Is it to simply gain or hold onto land? Is that land highly profitable economically? Any cost-benefit analysis done - so that the supreme "economic gain" criterion [a criterion which apparently overrides all other concerns of ideology etc] can be applied?

Is it for some strategic/military defense of Indian territory further interior for which the KV is seen as a buffer? But then from the purely military viewpoint why is not getting control over the entire POK a better option as a buffer?

Is it out of a perception that has never changed over 63 years, that Pakistan was and forever will remain a "national enemy" of India? Now why should that assumption be valid? International relations are supposedly completely determined by the overriding concerns of economic profit. Moreover past/history does not affect the outcomes of the future in such interactions. Ideology has no place in driving "national agenda".

So Pakistan's radicalization/Islamization, is a purely ideological phenomenon and its past history of conflict with India will be irrelevant for future Paki behaviour and Pakistan as a country should not be assumed to remain hostile to India forever into the future. Any economic steps that can be taken to "normalize" relations should override all such ideological/"ancient history" factors? So why instead of trying to invest heavily in Pakistan's economic development - which would then immediately erase all "historical/ideological" factors spend so much obstinate effort to try and stabilize a "small" border?

Moreover, since international relations are completely and overridingly determined by economic considerations only - and not by "religion/history/ideology", there is no reason for Pakistan to refuse such heavy Indian investments? So why not do that instead of trying so hard to hold onto such a small strip of land at such a huge financial/human cost?

By the way, out of necessary limitations of human expression at any given time point - what we "have not said" is always infinitely larger than what we "have said". So I have never said that alternatives to what I have said are not alternatives.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Prem » 10 Feb 2011 00:17

RamaY wrote:Somnath,
All the progress (if you want to call it that) is not because India's great strategy. I would rate India's strategy on JK as C- at best if you take only realpolitik as the criteria. What held and progressed Bharat's hold on JK is that civilizational relationship.


RaMaYa Ji
This will tantamount to admitting that India has/had Civilization, a bad idea and very much an existential issue for DIEs. These Shatranj ke Khilari Nawabs must have daytime Khwabs and not be disturbed even if country goes down the drain. Realpolitick demand that valley be filled with people from all parts of India and application of "bigrya tigrya da Danda Pir".
The stone pelters, the islamist demons-traiters ought to have been picked up and dropped in near Nicobar or Lakshdip to protect sea lanes from sharks and whales eating up our natural resources ,small defensless fishes.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby RamaY » 10 Feb 2011 01:06

Prem garu,

That is what I was hoping Somnath would say, after presenting all his realpolitik parameters. But he is not coming forthright on that, where as he is very comfy comfy making passing comments on assorted Rishis. Every RANDE worth few $ nowadays talks about Rishis as if they are his maternal uncles and their staleness as if they know everything.

Another thing I always wonder is how much personal sacrifice these people, who profess making peace-deals with terrorists and pakis, are willing to do when push comes to shove.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby brihaspati » 10 Feb 2011 01:22

I forgot to add, that since in international relations - ideology plays no driving role - and financial concerns override all else, there is no reason for Pakistan to refuse huge economic incentives from Indians side, and any such incentive should have immediate reductions of all hostilities, and a permanent solution for the so-called "Kashmir" problem.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Prem » 10 Feb 2011 01:45

Personal Sacrifices by DIE !! They think asking transparency from them is like blasphemy in Pakistan.
Talking to indians is beneath their dignity.People who have been making sacrfices are called Lumpens by these RANDES. This is one of the most abhoring aspects of DIE mentalbation.Chacha went to Amritsar to inspect refugee camp in 47 , councling patience and peace ,asking not to evenge the Poak perfidy . Then he suddenly admonished and slapped a person who happened to touch one of his family members on the shoulder.The gentleman asked Chacha, how come you cant tolerate innocent touch on the shoulder of your family member and yet you advise us not to take revenge.
The need of the hour is to have strong, self confident leadership and not spineless lizards making compromises in secrecy . The experimental statements coming out of PMO are contrary to the Indian national interests which must run supreme for at least the next ten-twenty years to permanentally get out of the wilderness of last few hunded years . There will be plenty to earn, loot and enjoy after that.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby svinayak » 10 Feb 2011 01:48

RamaY wrote:
Once you are clear about it, your strategy for JK will become clear. The realpolitik is only a tactic, as you have to change/tune your strategy when the opponent is strong. But that wouldn't undo Bharat's claim over JK state.


They are in the kindergarten level of understanding realpolitic.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby RamaY » 10 Feb 2011 02:14

^

The sad part is that people think one becomes a strategist by taking one or two half-credit strategy courses... I see similar trends in e-con-my thread from the Em-bee-Ye types. Tweaking inflation/GDP growth/Captial-investments by few basis points makes the nation wealthy and alleviates poverty...sigh...

somnath wrote:Realpolitik is the process of acting (only) for supreme national interest, on the basis of facts as they exist and capacities as they exist...


Somnath,

Strategy is about building capabilities that are required, and utilizing the conditions created by the vision to play realpolitik and maximize the payoffs. But, even the greatest strategy is worthless without a Nationalistic Vision, which ensures that the payoffs you get are the right-ones.

Your vision on JK is faltered and that is why you are not going beyond realpolitik. Once you conclude that JK is a legitimate procession of Bharat, then you will know that GOI's strategy is faltered. And that realization helps you identify the culprits, who are sitting pretty in PMO.

The nationalistic vision creates the "right" conditions for a smart leader to apply realpolitik and win the game. It is the failure (and in some cases their unpatriotism) of the leadership (especially who are in power) if they cannot make better use out of the conditions created by the nationalistic vision. The Amarnath-Yatra issue and recent Ekta-Yatra are examples of those conditions.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Prem » 10 Feb 2011 02:46

[quote="Acharya]They are in the kindergarten level of understanding realpolitic.[/quote[/quote][/quote][/quote]


But they do consider themselves Master In Realpolitik (MIR SAHIB).
Question they sould ask is why Only india is victimized this way and the role DIE play in the game by spreading false perception of India and Indian people.
They remind me of fickle woman who looking for attention ,burnt her own house to gather crowd so she can point at the fire with her finger adorned with expensive ring=False erudition serving none but the enemies.

( Then some one noticed and exclaimed what a beautiful ring on the finger !! and she said had you noticed this before i would not have to burn my house) :( :x

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby krisna » 10 Feb 2011 03:34

arnab wrote:
krisna wrote:All my posts to you are related mainly to the polls as you initially based your independence part on the polls. Now you are backing up with data from other sources which every brfite knows.
KV has 90% unemployment is from the polls.It is not my conclusion. your conclusion that KMs has decisively opted for independence is based on an opinion from the polls. You appear to be consistently inconsistent. :wink:


Sir ji - thoda dimag lagane ka. The poll says 90 % (or 87%) of the people consider unemployment to be a major issue (it is a poll). It does not mean that there is 90% unemployment.

The previous posts and the content were known to both of us( myself and somnath). Point noted. :(( Thanks.
As an analogy - if there was a poll across India about what is the most critical problem facing India. And assume 50% of them answered 'Kashmir'. Does that mean 50% of Indians are kashmiris?

IMO —thoda dimag lagane ka to you also as somehow it does not jell with the above. I would not like to go into details as it is irrelevant. :P

brihaspati wrote:It will be a most curious argument indeed - if say 90% of polled opinion saw unemployment as the critical problem if in reality unemployment was far less than 90%.
<snip>
If prosperity alone is not deterministic for separatsim, or that it cannot manifest its efffects without other factors mediating it - then propsperity has no reflection [not analyzable anyway] on separatism.


IMO It is very noticeable about some incongruity in the polls. Hence was referring to it frequently along with other issues particularly mentioned by KMs in KV. It does not tally with what is known to outside world. Either KMs lied in the polls or pollsters lied or what the outside world knows is a lie. (or what they understood was false)
Just wondering if it was done by Indian pollsters it would have been likely discredited. In fact the polls are somewhat favorable to India considering the international attention J&K has got over the years.
As we don’t have any polls other than the lastest chatham polls recently, can we say with any reasonable certainty that KMs want independence- what to make of the elections,elected govt. what about the irrelevance of hurri rats. What about militancy which is rejected by mango Indians( kashmiris are Indians) as evidenced by declining incidents of violence.
somnath wrote:1. Military dominance over the armed groups
2. Irrelevance of the movement
3. Getting global support for the position

Agree with the above.
One of the factors working all over the above 3 points mentioned is the economic growth of India. This has helped in multiple ways along with relative increased gap between India and TSP as terroristan is committing soosai. This has increased the costs on 3.5 friends. They are coming closer to India due to economic growth and better prospects for their countries something like mercenaries.
India has to court them and get some influence over them vis avis TSP. If and only when the benefits outweigh the support to TSP then the TSP will be in deep sh*t.( now it is barely above). unless TSP becomes friends with India- of course it is unheard off in this present universe. :mrgreen: as TSP will cease to exist from that time onwards.

Sporadic protests like when ombaba came are one off events – separatists go on fund raising drive elsewhere as they know the impending visit of ombaba. Here funds are for a specific purpose and finite time, hence achievable to instigate temporary protests. However to sustain it on an ongoing basis requires different level of dedication and perseverance with unlimited funds and no time limit. IOW be a kubera with cheque to be encashed at a later date if successful. If failure then accept the losses.
So far India is defending well keeping the costs absorbed thanks to its economy. It has to change the course politically and economically to keep up the pressure. Military is out of question and is a non starter. It is like a bull dog chained which prevents outsiders to enter but cannot go on its own as it is chained.
Most important of them is destroy TSP which is achievable and cost effective relatively.
It also shifts the scene of action to mainland TSP rather than J&K.
India is always on high alert on north western borders so it does not change much.

Generally chai biskoot sessions are fine but leadership tends to have bouts of momentary madness which results in India rectifying the mistakes leisurely at considerable cost - SeS, selective leaks of so called saffron terrorism, pandering to extremists when law and order should be applied equally to all etc…..
Somehow the feeling is current politicians are not well versed in statecraft. They are good only in putting down locals in pursuit of elections. Hence the despondency among some Indians.Hope future leaders are of different mettle.
Overall nothing will come of the chai biskoot & interlocutors massaging sessions etc other than buying time and show off middle finger to the world.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby arnab » 10 Feb 2011 04:54

brihaspati wrote:It will be a most curious argument indeed - if say 90% of polled opinion saw unemployment as the critical problem if in reality unemployment was far less than 90%.

How can the two be reconciled: these are the ways I can think of:
(a) the polls selected only those who were unemployed [either by selection bias or otherwise]
(b) even those who are employed face so much trouble from the "few" unemployed that for them unemployment becomes the most critical problem
(c) those who are employed do not feel that they are "employed"
(d) there is a complete mismatch between what we understand as "unemployment" and what the respondents mean by "unemployment".



The answer is actually quite simple. Survey designers know that Surveys are not meant to be able to 'answer' all questions. I think there was an episode in 'Yes Minister' which showed the limitations of such surveys.

Imagine a pretty young girl from a 'phoren' reaserch firm approaching kashmiris to do a survey. Assume again that the kashmiri population can be divided into 4 categories - Mango jehadi sympathiser (believes major issue is lack of islam in J&K), Mango Jehadi hater (believes jehadis are the core problem), Mango violence hater (believes both jehadis and security forces are the problem) and a Mango unemployed (believes unemployment is the problem).

When the question is asked as to what is J&Ks most critical issue - all these folks want to appear rational and they fear that their responses are being overheared by - jehadis or security forces or both. In which case for the first 3 groups the most appropriate 'median' response would be - unemployment. It is an answer which will not really annoy anybody. Hence the bias creeps in. So the survey is not meant to be able to answer such questions. The trick is to distill the relevant and usable information from such surveys.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby somnath » 10 Feb 2011 06:53

RamaY wrote:What you are missing is that at the core of India's claim on J&K is it's civilizational history; which mainly means assorted Rishis and Ranjit Singh's army.


Well RamaYji, that is a POV, which is fine by me...But I will then be constrained to ask you again - if all that matters is civilisational linkages, then why stop at J&K? Why not right upto Afghanistan? And eastwards into Bangladesh, Burma and upto Indonesia?

If "nationalist strategists" looked at civilisational linkages to articulate a POA, Sardar Patel (hopefully he was nationalist enough?) would not have been perfectly ambivalent about the status of Kashmir to start with - in fact initially he was quite open to the idea of J&K acceding to Pak...It was only later, when a mix of Hari Singh's foolishness, Pak stupidity and Nehru's insistence gave rise to an opportunity did he took up J&K's accession to India as part of his mission...

RamaY wrote:What held and progressed Bharat's hold on JK is that civilizational relationship


Well I guess then there is no reason to keep that border fencing, all those troops, multiple listening posts on Shankaracharya Hill - Rishi Agastya (or Ranjit Singh's armies) will consolidate the border! :wink:

It is interesting that some people try to impart moral, civilisational dimension to strategic objectives...The moral/legal/civilisational arguments are for post-event corroboration and/or creation of the appropriate "story" or "intent"...And as real strategists dont tire of repeating, intent does not matter as much as capacities...China could have cried as much as it liked about its civilisational suzerainty over Tibet, if it didnt put boots on the ground there, it would have mattered zilch...Just as they can keep talking about "one china", but instead of pulling out the sabres they pull out the wallet in dealing with Taiwan...while Taiwan keeps alternating between a hostile and a friendly regime in power...

India's objectives of keeping J&K are much more serious than civilisational linkages:

1. A second division of the country will only encourage other secessionist movements to be in the "game"..
2. J&K is the head of the major rivers watering the Punjab plains - enormous insurance and even bigger lever..
3. The Himalayas provide a more formidable natural barrier than a border that is further south..
4. India cannot be seen to be a great power if it cannot maintain territorial status quo...Great powers do not lose territory..

However,
krisna wrote:Most important of them is destroy TSP which is achievable and cost effective relatively.


Have you done a cost benefit analysis of Pak destruction? what do you mean by "destruction" in the first place? And what costs would an attempt on that inflict on India?

PrasadZ
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 08:42

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby PrasadZ » 10 Feb 2011 07:24

somnath wrote:Well RamaYji, that is a POV, which is fine by me...But I will then be constrained to ask you again - if all that matters is civilisational linkages, then why stop at J&K? Why not right upto Afghanistan? And eastwards into Bangladesh, Burma and upto Indonesia?

somnath wrote:intent does not matter as much as capacities...
India's objectives of keeping J&K are much more serious than civilisational linkages:
1. A second division of the country will only encourage other secessionist movements to be in the "game"..
2. J&K is the head of the major rivers watering the Punjab plains - enormous insurance and even bigger lever..
3. The Himalayas provide a more formidable natural barrier than a border that is further south..
4. India cannot be seen to be a great power if it cannot maintain territorial status quo...Great powers do not lose territory..


It seems to your arguments can be used to argue for taking over POK
1. Further accretion of territory is a worthwhile goal to pursue
2. Afghanistan provides land routes to the mid east - insurance, levers are improved
3. NWFP are Himalayan foothills and provide "formidable natural barriers"
4. India will be seen as a great power that can increase territory just like China

I fail to see how realpolitik conflicts with civilisational motives. Both sides argue for increasing territory where they can - and take not losing territory as a minimum. Then the argument should only be about means, is it not?

somnath wrote:Have you done a cost benefit analysis of Pak destruction? what do you mean by "destruction" in the first place? And what costs would an attempt on that inflict on India?


Gaming on this forum, clearly, indicates "destruction" means visiting the fate Pak envisaged for India for themselves - i.e., break up the country. Forcing a formal admission of Indian boundaries as Indians view it is expected to cause that. Again, the difference in your emphasis only seems to be on methods and means

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby somnath » 10 Feb 2011 07:48

PrasadZ wrote: the difference in your emphasis only seems to be on methods and means


Oh absolutely, all of us are on the same side (of India)!

PrasadZ wrote:I fail to see how realpolitik conflicts with civilisational motives


It doesnt necessarily..But civilisational motives/intent without real capacity is worth nothing, while capacity and intent without any civilisational motives counts for a lot..

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Airavat » 10 Feb 2011 07:54

somnath wrote:It was only later, when a mix of Hari Singh's foolishness helplessness, Pak stupidity invasion, British perfidy, and Nehru's insistence stupidity gave rise to an opportunity did he took up J&K's accession to India as part of his mission...

Fixed.

Meanwhile:
70% stone pelters are drug addicts:SSP Srinagar, Syed Ashiq Bukhari

Sudip
BRFite
Posts: 378
Joined: 28 Oct 2008 05:42
Location: Paikhana

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Sudip » 10 Feb 2011 08:21

This video has been uploaded recently. Some prominent kashmiris and muslims have come nd lent their voice in support of country.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby abhishek_sharma » 10 Feb 2011 08:26



ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2011 10:03

I talked a retired Army guy from the old days. He says historical access routes to and from Kashmir Valley were always to West Punjab aka Lahore was the enterport. So when Independence came and the issue of accession came Hari Singh's dilemma was he access routes would be cut off and he didn't get any assurance from JLN coterie as to how they would provide access to Kashmir. Hence his delay. He was truly helpless and GOI wasn't making it any easy for they didn't understand the dilemma.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby svinayak » 10 Feb 2011 10:58

Sudip wrote:This video has been uploaded recently. Some prominent kashmiris and muslims have come nd lent their voice in support of country.

Looks like there is social change going on.
Deep economic connection is changing the perception of hindustan

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2011 11:27

Kashmir Silk carpets are amazing. They have 4000 knots per square inch and fold a 9 by 13 carpet can be folded to fit in a small suitcase. And the designs are classic. In the 90s I could tell the make and pattern of the carpets. Now I lost the art!

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Airavat » 10 Feb 2011 12:29

ramana wrote:I talked a retired Army guy from the old days. He says historical access routes to and from Kashmir Valley were always to West Punjab aka Lahore was the enterport. So when Independence came and the issue of accession came Hari Singh's dilemma was he access routes would be cut off and he didn't get any assurance from JLN coterie as to how they would provide access to Kashmir. Hence his delay. He was truly helpless and GOI wasn't making it any easy for they didn't understand the dilemma.

And even after Hari Singh offered accession in September Mr. Nehru refused to accept!!! As Mehr Chand Mahajan records in Looking Back:

"In Delhi in company with Sardar Baldev Singh, the Defence Minister, I saw Sardar Patel the Home Minister on 19th September.....I also met Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, and I told him the terms on which the Maharaja wanted me to negotiate with India. The Maharaja was willing to accede to India and also to introduce necessary reforms in the administration of the State. He, however wanted the question of administrative reforms to be taken up later on. Panditji wanted an immediate change in the internal administration of the State and he felt somewhat annoyed when I conveyed to him the Maharaja's views."

This decision of Nehru gave the opening to Pakistan for stepping up its infiltration in Jammu, the coup in Gilgit, and the invasion of Kashmir. Countless Hindus and Sikhs in Jammu lost their lives thanks to our first prime minister.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby brihaspati » 10 Feb 2011 18:22

If JLN was insisting on administrative reforms first before accession - he was not understanding "realpolitik" at all - isnt it? For "realpolitik" would see opportunity to immediately extend territorial influence and sovereignty first?

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby brihaspati » 10 Feb 2011 18:32

Airavat ji,
would you have any info on whether similar "internal administrative reforms" were demanded of any other states prior to acceptance of accession?

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby brihaspati » 10 Feb 2011 19:16

We still have no clear answer to what constitutes the "realpolitik" reasons for consecutive GOI's simply to hold on to the LOC. Economic reasons/profit motive not clear as we still have no clear indication of the profitability of KV. As for territorial defence - strategic depth - military considerations - the high ground held by the Pakis all along the northern arc has been pointed out by military experts on the forum as being in favour of the Pakis. This makes holding onto the KV rather weak as territorial/military/tactical consideration. In fact the same logic could actually make reintegrating POK more preferable than merely holding onto KV - since if the Himalayas are the best boundary then having sovereignty over entire state of J&K would be the best case scenario. We cannot use a mnountain as a barrier, if we do not have control over the access points through the mountains, or as in case of NA if the other side of the mountains are not so difficult to approach while the slope/gradient acts in the way of defence from our side.

So finally only one reason remains : that of loss of face as "great power" if we lose "territory". Now "losing face" smacks of ideological considerations - if practical considerations imply "losing territory" is better for the country's finances then should not mere ideologicaql considerations be trashed?

But then by that logic, India has been constantly losing face from the first huge and continuing effort to stabilize the border and hold onto territory in Kashmir Valley - it has lost parts in Eastern J&K, it has lost parts in far north-eastern India. It has gained the territorially locked and disadvantaged Portuguese settlements, and Sikkim. So it has been a mixed bag. But more importantly it has lost parts of the northern territories since independence, to China. It has gained some and lost some in 1965 war with Pak.

Then again, isnt 9% growth and economic prosperity of India the real indicator of "great power status" - the real power that appears to be holding the ground for India? Suppose at some stage trying hard not to lose face as a great power by desperatly holding on to territory, contradicts the other measure of "great power" by growing economically at a super fast rate - which one should prevail?

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby wig » 10 Feb 2011 19:34

Pak to India:Limit trucks carrying goods to PoK
The cross-border trade suffered a set back today after officials from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) requested Indian officials to restrict the number of goods-carrying vehicles to 100 per week.

Across the border trade, which is conducted every Tuesday and Wednesday, has been increasing with more than 325 trucks crossing the Line of Control last week.

However, the Trade Facilitation Officer at Chakoti PoK has sent a letter to his counterpart, requesting the number of vehicles carrying goods to Pakistan occupied Kashmir to be limited to 50 a day.

Indian Nodal officer N A Baba said, "The centre on the other side does not have adequate infrastructure to handle unlimited number of trucks... so have requested for restricted number of vehicles
http://www.ptinews.com/news/1341684_Pak-to-India-Limit-trucks-carrying-goods-to-PoK-

Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Abhi_G » 10 Feb 2011 20:50

ramana wrote:I talked a retired Army guy from the old days. He says historical access routes to and from Kashmir Valley were always to West Punjab aka Lahore was the enterport. So when Independence came and the issue of accession came Hari Singh's dilemma was he access routes would be cut off and he didn't get any assurance from JLN coterie as to how they would provide access to Kashmir. Hence his delay. He was truly helpless and GOI wasn't making it any easy for they didn't understand the dilemma.


Was the issue of Gurdaspur which contains the routes to J&K vexing the Maharaja? ML was bitter with the award of this 55% Muslim populated district to India and accused Mountbatten to be favouring India. Apparently, in "exchange", Hindu majority Chittagong Hill Tracts (Chattagram) were given to Pakistan.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nyk6oA ... et&f=false

Radcliffe submitted his report on 15th August 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby abhischekcc » 10 Feb 2011 21:18

brihaspati wrote:It will be a most curious argument indeed - if say 90% of polled opinion saw unemployment as the critical problem if in reality unemployment was far less than 90%.

How can the two be reconciled: these are the ways I can think of:
(a) the polls selected only those who were unemployed [either by selection bias or otherwise]
(b) even those who are employed face so much trouble from the "few" unemployed that for them unemployment becomes the most critical problem
(c) those who are employed do not feel that they are "employed"
(d) there is a complete mismatch between what we understand as "unemployment" and what the respondents mean by "unemployment".

How many of the above are "realistic"?

If some degree of prosperity actually drives a more intense desire for separatism, the logical conclusion is that to defeat separatism then the prosperity levels have to be brought down. This is the obvious conclusion if we are not to consider any ephemeral principles of "justice", "fairness" or humanitarian behaviour - and if we of course think "defeating separatism" is in "supreme national interest". So no more investments should be made in KV - as that would increase the tendency towards separatism.

If the above link is not true, and we have to then consider other "factors" since not everything is straightforward, "black and white", then those other factors should be discussed at the same time this prosperity factor is discussed. If prosperity alone is not deterministic for separatsim, or that it cannot manifest its efffects without other factors mediating it - then propsperity has no reflection [not analyzable anyway] on separatism.


A lot depends on the way question is framed.
If the question was "What in your opinion is the main problem facing KASHMIR", the results will be very different had the question been "What is the main problem facing YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL".

The presentation of the results does not indicate what the question was, only that unemployment is the main concern of the people.

That azadi and politics is the least of all the Kashmiris' concern is borne out by the poll.

Raghavendra
BRFite
Posts: 1252
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 19:07
Location: Fishing in Sadhanakere

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Raghavendra » 10 Feb 2011 21:24

Abhi_G wrote:
ramana wrote:I talked a retired Army guy from the old days. He says historical access routes to and from Kashmir Valley were always to West Punjab aka Lahore was the enterport. So when Independence came and the issue of accession came Hari Singh's dilemma was he access routes would be cut off and he didn't get any assurance from JLN coterie as to how they would provide access to Kashmir. Hence his delay. He was truly helpless and GOI wasn't making it any easy for they didn't understand the dilemma.


Was the issue of Gurdaspur which contains the routes to J&K vexing the Maharaja? ML was bitter with the award of this 55% Muslim populated district to India and accused Mountbatten to be favouring India. Apparently, in "exchange", Hindu majority Chittagong Hill Tracts (Chattagram) were given to Pakistan.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nyk6oA ... et&f=false

Radcliffe submitted his report on 15th August 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947.



that 55% muslims population was mostly constituted of Ahmadiyyas, considered non-muslims by jinnah and his descendants in pakistani politics. So they have no right on that part of indian territory in the first place. jinnah was trying to play the victim card policy which is followed even today by pakistan when they claim We-are-victims-of-terrorism even thou they train, arm and fund terrorists. good that we didnt give it up or today qadri clones would be doing wajib-ul-qatal parties in gurdaspur instead of islamabad

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8284
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby anupmisra » 10 Feb 2011 21:35

Raghavendra wrote:that 55% muslims population was mostly constituted of Ahmadiyyas, considered non-muslims by jinnah and his descendants in pakistani politics.


Ahmadiyyas were a major proponents (or financiers) of the idea of pa'astan.

Raghavendra
BRFite
Posts: 1252
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 19:07
Location: Fishing in Sadhanakere

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Raghavendra » 10 Feb 2011 22:22

anupmisra wrote:
Raghavendra wrote:that 55% muslims population was mostly constituted of Ahmadiyyas, considered non-muslims by jinnah and his descendants in pakistani politics.


Ahmadiyyas were a major proponents (or financiers) of the idea of pa'astan.


Even in those times they were considered heretics. Maybe they thought helping creation of pakistan may change attitudes towards them.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby brihaspati » 10 Feb 2011 22:39

For any modern survey, sensitive questions are sought to be placed in as much as possible "blinded", single or double blind. The effect of human surveyor in modifying response is well known, so such considerations will have to be built in in any reputed polling service. However we do not know exactly what the stratification rules employed, were, or the sampling strategy.

Even hypothetically speaking, if there is a statistically significant finding of common refrain of unemployment being the most critical factor - even assuming that all respondents were deceptive and being socially correct - it implies that they "believe" that socially "unemployment" is thought of as the most critical factor among the not-uncomfortable-reasons. So even if not individual, such a response may actually reflect collective belief [which need not always coincide with individual belief].

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Pranav » 10 Feb 2011 22:42

Sudip wrote:This video has been uploaded recently. Some prominent kashmiris and muslims have come nd lent their voice in support of country.


Interesting. I noticed from the banners that the meeting was held in Mavlankar Auditorium, Delhi. When was it held? How come no publicity at all?

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Prem » 10 Feb 2011 23:01

anupmisra wrote:
Raghavendra wrote:that 55% muslims population was mostly constituted of Ahmadiyyas, considered non-muslims by jinnah and his descendants in pakistani politics.


Ahmadiyyas were a major proponents (or financiers) of the idea of pa'astan.

Karma got them, they are enjoying their just dessert .

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby Airavat » 11 Feb 2011 04:03

Abhi_G wrote:Was the issue of Gurdaspur which contains the routes to J&K vexing the Maharaja? ML was bitter with the award of this 55% Muslim populated district to India and accused Mountbatten to be favouring India. Apparently, in "exchange", Hindu majority Chittagong Hill Tracts (Chattagram) were given to Pakistan.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nyk6oA ... et&f=false

Radcliffe submitted his report on 15th August 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947.

It was Viceroy Wavell who decided that in the event of partition, Gurdaspur would have to go with India, because it provided access to Amritsar, the holy city of the Sikhs. The other routes to Amritsar were blocked by the Kapurthala princely state, and in Wavell's time the British policy was to keep the princely states autonomous.

In exchange for accepting partition, the INC was promised the princely states without any interference by the British and the common Instrument of Accession was drafted. The route to Amritsar was therefore open but the whole of Gurdaspur could hardly be given to Pakistan with its slender 51% majority. Therefore Radcliffe hived off the Muslim-majority areas like Shakargarh and gave it to Pakistan. The route to Jammu passed through the Pathankot tehsil which had a solid 65% non-Muslim majority.

This principle of dividing as per tehsils was followed in Lahore, where the city had a non-Muslim majority, but the district as a whole was alloted to Pakistan. Kasur tehsil had a non-Muslim majority but only half was given to India.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby somnath » 11 Feb 2011 06:57

^^^the issue of Gurdaspur's status in the Punjab Boundary Award is one of the most delicious conspiracy theories on the Indo-Pak partittion/J&K narrative...

Most "neutral" chroniclers tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Mountbatten, and confirm that there was really no Kashmir angle to Gurdaspur...Some other, Alistair Lamb being the most credible, takes the opposite view...Though I am told Lamb himself concurred with the majority view in an earlier work (which I havent read to be honest)...

Interestingly, MJ Akbar's biography of Nehru tends to confirm somwhat the conspiratorial view (though that is not the tenor of Akbar's narrative)...MJA credit Nheru's foresight and amibition on Kashmir enormously for the state's final accession to India...And he writes clearly that it was Nehru who planted the idea in Mountbatten's mind that Gurdaspur is critical to Kashmir..

Personally, I would like to believe the conspiracy theories though...It shows up Indian leaders in the Congress to have the foresiht and vision and enough "chanakyan-ness" to push through an agenda that they thought would make the best of a bad situation (partitiion)..

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10057
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: J&K News and Discussion-2011

Postby sum » 11 Feb 2011 09:49

Sopore girls part of Christian group, says Kerala evangelist

The case of the murder of two teenaged sisters by suspected militants in Sopore has a new twist. Paul Ciniraj Mohammad, a Christian evangelist based in Kerala’s Kottayam district, has claimed that “the girls were active participants of an underground Christian group.”

J&K Police, however, termed the evangelist’s claim as “false”. They said their investigation found the claim to be factually incorrect” and that “there are no missionaries active in Sopore.”

“I had seen the girls during my visit to Sopore a few years ago, “ Paul Ciniraj Mohammad told The Indian Express . “The girls were not converts. They had started reading the New Testament of the Bible. I suspect that the militants might have come to know about the group and the girls’ involvement in its activities,” he said.

Ciniraj, who runs an evangelical group, Salem Voice Ministries, said the Christian group was working among Muslims in a secret manner. “Only three or four members of the group are converts, whereas others are dedicated believers in Christianity. An evangelist from Kerala had been operating in Sopore,” he said.

:shock: :shock: :eek:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests