J & K news and discussion

[amit]

Given your statements shown above, that Ra**i comment was not directed at you (or people like you).

Are you trying to say the **** comment was unjustified when used against me but otherwise justified?

If you have sympathy for others, it is my personal view that they have shown third-rate judgment in this case. You have already seen the breadth of arguments one has to collect to oppose the flag hoisting. They have really worked very hard. They should get full marks for showing first-rate imagination.

I have no sympathy for anyone. I've had mega brush in with one of the folks for whom you think the terminology is justified and till date he doesn't respond to even posts which agree with his POV.

My problem is this kind of attitude stifles debate. Are you trying to say every person, including luminaries like Nitish Kumar, who opposed this yatra are anti-national? Mind you I'm not trying to say if they are right or wrong on this issue, I'm just pointing out that just as there was a substantive support for the yatra there was also equal opposition to it. Just because Yasin Mallik was opposed doesn't put everyone else in the same category.

JMT.

Note: edited the adjective after seeing the Mods post.

[Arjun]

You could say that the majority on BR is pro-flag hoisting; and that a handful of folks are 'provoking' the feelings of the vast majority on BR and therefore - applying the same logic that the ANTI-flag hositers are using - the provocateurs should be banned.

In that case what you are saying is that non majoritarian views are not welcome! I don't thin BRF functions that way.

If you ban folks for the simple transgression of not agreeing with the majority view on a subject (however hot button this issue is, it's just one subject of many discussed on BRF and folks with different POV here may be discussing something else where they have exactly the same POV), then I hope you realise where that kind of selectivity ends.

Any such decisions are to be taken by the powers that be.

Amit - you are not understanding my point. I am using the same logic that the ANTI flag hoisters use, back on them. So either they publicly agree to take back support for banning the Yatra (which was based on the principle that the Yatra would provoke the sentiments of the Kashmir people, even though flag-hoisting is a fundamental right) or agree to the same logic being used back on themselves (ie that they are provoking the majority on BR and therefore should be banned even though posting is their right)....This is purely a matter of LOGIC. Opinions don't enter into the picture.

To clarify further - I am not calling for their ban. I am saying THEIR OWN LOGIC calls for their ban.

[Dhiman]

Couldn't the police folks there have taken the flag and put it up the tower themselves if they didn't want to give credit to BJP? Should the flag have been hurriedly bundled into a bag and thrown into a jeep?

Agre, there was an opportnity for doing a lot more on creative adminstrative actions...

I just want to second this and highlight a few other things. Here is what I wrote on 25th:

In other words, BJP laid the bait and congress like a brainless rabid dog bit. Congress here is being as political as the BJP if not more. There was (and still is) a fast disappear space where some agreement could have been made where BJP representatives would have been present for a flag hoisting ceremony at Lal Chowk. However, such demands were rejected outright. Instead the state government backed by the central government immediately started preparing its police forces and security mechanism for counting this march, i.e there is a complete breakdown of communication between the opposition and the ruling party.

Having said that, it will be stupid for congress not to keep nationalistic opinion in mind (instead of attempting to marginalize it) during decision making for the next four years of its rule (provided it survives that long). Otherwise, this story is just getting started.

In hindsight, it appears as if the government was acting with a sense of vendatta against the BJP along with a decent amount of arrogance. Another poster has summarized this quite well:

Secondly, Rahul Babas hand is showing everywhere. The hamhandedness with which this episode has been dealt with by OA and JK police means that little actual thought has gone into how to deal with the situation. Seems less to be actions of by-the-book babus and more a political action by reckless politicians misusing public machinery. Yuvrajs hatred for Hindus organising themselves is now well known. His closest advisors are largely people who have lost elections and have no mandate thereby allowing them the freedom of aggressive action without any repercussions at polls. Yuvraj himself winning is foregone conclusion from Amethi. I really doubt if PC or Pranab would have done this if they hadnt been completely short circuited out of the decision circuit running directly from Yuvraj to OA.

The new generation of politicians are taking over: from BJP side we had "Anurag Thakur", in Kashmir we had "Omar Abdulla", and in Delhi off course we had "Rahul Gandhi". All three from dynastic political linage with their career paths paved with gold rather than merit. I just hope that the way this fiasco was handled is not a sign of things to come.

[Viv S]

As you can perhaps see in my post - this was a simple exploration of the logic that "If" it is claimed that flag-hoisting by BJP would be resented overwhelmingly/en-masse [because otherwise the supposed general break down of law and order cannot be claimed], and not flag-hoisting itself, then it must also logically mean that overhelmingly large/en-masse Kashmiris see their greatest enemy in the BJP.

Is uniformly disliked will suffice. I wouldn't want to get into the semantics of 'greatest enemy'.

If I try to explore possible reasons that could perhaps be advanced - I cannot find much to distinguish between the BJP and comparable in size/legislative representation/presence in national politics etc - parties such as the INC - as far as relevant for Kashmir itself! So I tried to list out the most common arguments given or implied/hinted that could still make some sense in providing some real distinguishing points between the "unwanted" party and not-so-unwanted parties. I landed up with the three as listed in (a), (b) and (c).

Do follow the -if-then sequence!

Its not. But then a BJP in power and a BJP trying to get into power sound very very different. (I'll get back to this point)

Quote:
(a) if it is said that BJP during its central gov phase maintained army presence and the army committed atrocities on "all Kashmiris" - then what frees the Congress from a similar feeling - which was in central power for much longer period and maintained army presence during their tenure for a longer period too!


Nothing of the sort is being said. Though its non-negotiable stand on the AFSPA doesn't help the government to translate the huge drop in violence into socio-political gains on the ground.

Well if this is not a valid distinction between the BJP an dthe Congress for the Kashmiris to resent BJP and not the Congress - fine! One less excuse for picking on the BJP in particular.

It was a Congress government that sent in the army in the first place if I'm not mistaken.

I am sure many will find this together most interesting. As I mentioned before, I was simply exploring the possible hypotheses about distinctions. But at one stroke, you are confirming that you know exactly what "Hindutva" is and what "Hindu" is - and how different they are, since bashing one does not mean bashing the other for you. To claim that you have to have detailed knowledge of both, and in fact complete definition of both - because if you do not know everything about them - you may still miss out on possible similarities, right? If your knowledge is incomplete then you cannot also claim that they are "different", because how would you then know the relative proprotion of similarities and differences? What if more similarities lay in the "unknown" part than you know of differences in the parts "known" to you!

Hindutva is a political idealogy that arose during the beginning of the last century. Hinduism is a religion, which can trace its history back 3000 years. And one doesn't need to believe in Hindutva to be a Hindu and any criticism of Hindutva (regardless of 'similarities') is not an attack on Hindus.

Now after such a complete knowledge of "Hindutva" and "Hindu", you cannot even hazard a guess about what "Islamism" is? Do "Hindutva" and "Hindu" fill your thoughts up so much that there is space for none other! Is it a case of naastika being the ultimate obsession with Ishwar where the latter is constantly present in denial!

I asked you to explain what you perceive it as. Because I don't see something than can apply to a maximum of 14% of the population (not that they're interested in it) can be such a significant threat.

Its so highly gratifying to know that while you have such complete knowledge of "Hindutva"/"Hindu" and "Hindu terror" - to even predict that the latter may yet turn out to be the greatest "threat" - and you even dont know what "Islamism" may mean and whether it could even be a "threat" at all! [Interesting - if you dont know about other potential terror/threat candiddates - how did you know that you have already found the greatest threat? ]

Again 'greatest threat' are your words not mine. And words that you have deliberately (and not very honestly) included. I have not called Hindutva a greater threat than Islamism. I've called Hindu terror a greater threat than SIMI or Pak-based organisations. Its not the same thing.

In the event that I ever talk about greatest threat, you'll hear about the environment, social inequalities or the lack of fundamental economic and political reform not rhetoric about Hindutva or Islamism.

Well if the (1) is not true - that is the anger of "Kashmiris" was not against the BJP raising the flag -then it must be against the flag itself? Also why would then other parties not attempt to raise the national flag - they are not BJP are they? If the admin can go to such lengths to prevent raising of the national flag, and BJP was not the reason, then we are only left with this option (2).

Point a) had to do with the army. Point 1 was your entire first post. And like I said before any anger would have been against the BJP's yatra and yes unfortunately that does give the state incentive to trample over the activists' right of free movement.

[arnab]

and the first step towards that righting that alienation is by giving in to every anti-India sentiment ?
not sure how one leads to another. the need for a yatra won't have been there if normal service was retained there. even yesterday omar could have taken the wind away from bjp's sail by hoisting the flag himself, which is what most CM's all over India do.

Nope as long as the intention is not to throw it in the face of the 'losers' which the whole 'yatra' for flag hoisting was proposing to do. Let us not kid ourselves that it was a purely patriotic gesture that was being attempted out there. You do a flag hoisting - the terrorists milk it as a sign of indian hegemony - stone throwing - few more get killed - you have another round of facile deals and concessions and all the while you tip-toe around what really needs to be done. what is the bloody point? There is a time for iron fist and there is a time for charity (as Putin may be learning).

[amit]

The new generation of politicians are taking over: from BJP side we had "Anurag Thakur", in Kashmir we had "Omar Abdulla", and in Delhi off course we had "Rahul Gandhi". All three from dynastic political linage with their career paths paved with gold rather than merit. I just hope that the way this fiasco was handled is not a sign of things to come.

A very valid point. There used to be a lot of excitement with the idea of new blood coming to power, and with them new ideas and approaches.

I hope this is not a case of: "Morning shows the day..." :-(

So far it's been unmitigated disaster.

[Virupaksha]

Err. Kashmir is not foreign policy! It comes very much under the Ministry of Home Affairs!

Well, it IS foreign policy...India's approach over the decades has been to restrict it to a "bilateral" issue, slowly stretching it into irrelevance...Events like thse of course MAKE it a larger foreign policy issue,..

Yes,

OA and congress have definitely sent a foreign policy message that will not be taking on kashmiri separitists even if push come to shove.

Jai Ho and all that crap.

[amit]

RANDE stands for Rich Anglophone Narcissistic Desi Elite

The last letter was changed to I for Idiots.

I'm sure the subsequent acronym was just coincidental.

Till I pointed out and that post was deleted, nobody seem to notice!

[Sri]

Boss if you call a rotfl gloating then your humor meter needs recalibrating.

He he Amit Ji. One more point of disagreement... anyways, post away man...

[negi]

So the old formula i.e. talk about economic development of state, investing in infra attracting business is being raised again, well it is indeed a good point however I am afraid such one pronged approach won't work. The average per capita income of a common KM in the valley and their living standards are higher as compared to folks in places like Orissa, NE and Jharkhand. Another important fact is with our peaceful neighbor sharing the border with Kashmir it would be very difficult to sustain any developmental activity with the kind of kid gloves separatists and their political fronts (PDP and NC) are being treated with. Today it has become fashionable to blame the mess created by folks with violent and secessionist agenda on poor infrastructure, poverty etc much like D***k vijay singh who claims Naxal and Maoist problem is due to the non performance of Panchayats (WTF) , now the question such loonies should answer is who the fck was in government for last 6 decades or so at center or even in the valley ?

[Viv S]

Viv S: Let us all admit it honestly, in the spirit of discussion that this entire 10-15 pages it is essentially INC vs BJP and how they perceive things. Since you state your opinion, it is expected that you will write on how you arrived at that conclusion. It is a free country, nobody is going to force you to do things that you do not want.

Well I think that debate's already on so no worries.

Coming to the point of BJP and INC, the beauty of it is that they are not actually very different while in power. While in the opposition the BJP perceives itself has having the freedom to trumpet its nationalism throughout the country, but what happened to the governing with b$%&s attitude once they actually gained power? When they actually became liable for the consequences of their decisions and actions?

1. Was Article 370 abolished?
2. What came out of the military's 11 month sojourn at the border and LoC?
3. Was any military action taken against Pakistan in response to the civilian casualties in terror related violence during the period?
4. Barely a year after 2002 build-up weren't Musharraf and ABV chatting over tea in Islamabad?
5. Wasn't the basis for the civil nuclear agreement put in place by the NDA?
6. Didn't border intrusions take place all the time on the Chinese border?
7. Was any central action taken against the Naxal threat?
8. Was the Uniform Civil Code brought into law?


The government at centre regardless of what kind of rhetoric it employed to gain power (and I'm thankful for this) has in general chosen caution and pragmatism over a gung-ho approach. Had the BJP been in power today, I would say its very much possible that they'd discourage any yatra of this sort even if its 'justified' by a flag raising ceremony at the end.

[somnath]

Omar Abdullah is an unmitigated disaster...Even his father would have done a darn better job in this situation..

But its so ironic that "nationalists" fail to see where the REAL action is...The TV on the wall in front has been showing the WEF in DAVOS almost continuously..And gues who is getting the saturation coverage? Its "Inclusive India", which is the theme this year...EVery single discussion seems to be around/about/involving India...

If we had a mishap yesterday - a bunch of BJP activists in Lal Chowk, another bunch of JKLF types, policemen, clashes, firings, a few people killed..Curfew imposed today...Guess what the discussions would have been around? Every foreign minister around the world would have been asked questions on KAshmir and "dispute" and how Indo-Pak peace is required for Af, for India's progress and all tht rubbish...

Irrelevance is the political poison of any insurgency - and "nationalists" want to keep it relvant!

[Sidhant]

I have no sympathy for anyone. I've had mega brush in with one of the folks for whom you think the terminology is justified and till date he doesn't respond to even posts which agree with his POV.

My problem is this kind of attitude stifles debate. Are you trying to say every person, including luminaries like Nitish Kumar, who opposed this yatra are anti-national? Mind you I'm not trying to say if they are right or wrong on this issue, I'm just pointing out that just as there was a substantive support for the yatra there was also equal opposition to it. Just because Yasin Mallik was opposed doesn't put everyone else in the same category.

JMT.

Note: edited the adjective after seeing the Mods post.

Mr Amit, the same applies to you. Just by bashing BJP you are deviating from the key points of the debate, which have been repeated by lots of members on this forum. Also just because major political spectrum opposed BJPs yatra does not denies them the right to hoist the national flag on republic day. The national flag in the hands of any person good or bad is still a national flag and we should give it the same respect and dignity which it commands.

[Sri]

Viv S

I agree, if BJP would have been in power they would have in all probability stopped the Yatra.

And I would have opposed it vehemently even then. If congress would have tried to do ditto when in opposition, I would have supported it.

I hope you are getting the point now...

[amit]

Just by bashing BJP you are deviating from the key points of the debate, which have been repeated by lots of members on this forum.

I'm sorry Sidhant you'll have to point out to me where exactly I was/am bashing the BJP. Otherwise the relevance of your post comes to question in my book because right after the portion you bolded, I wrote:

Mind you I'm not trying to say if they are right or wrong on this issue

[Dhiman]

If we had a mishap yesterday - a bunch of BJP activists in Lal Chowk, another bunch of JKLF types, policemen, clashes, firings, a few people killed..Curfew imposed today...Guess what the discussions would have been around? Every foreign minister around the world would have been asked questions on KAshmir and "dispute" and how Indo-Pak peace is required for Af, for India's progress and all tht rubbish...

And what if better sense would have prevailed for compromise? The only thing our politicians seems to be good at making deals with each other is when it comes to corruption.

[vina]

Irrelevance is the political poison of any insurgency - and "nationalists" want to keep it relvant!

Couldn't agree more. That is why I maintain that this march was not in National Interest and indeed was anti-national.

There are places in central india under maoist influence today, where no administrator since Akbar's time has gone to. No one even knows who or what is there! There the flag that flies there is a Red flag. OA is correct in asking, why don't you go there and plant the flag there? Atleast in Kashmir, there is a govt, an administration and control on the ground with India.

[amit]

Irrelevance is the political poison of any insurgency

Agree on this, that's why a dozen pages or so back I had bought up the analogy of the separatist movements we used have in the North-east, which started right after Independence and continued till the late eighties-early nineties.

The terror outfits were simply worn down, despite generous support from China and on and off support from Bangladesh and Myanmar.

[Sri]

Omar Abdullah is an unmitigated disaster...Even his father would have done a darn better job in this situation..

But its so ironic that "nationalists" fail to see where the REAL action is...The TV on the wall in front has been showing the WEF in DAVOS almost continuously..And gues who is getting the saturation coverage? Its "Inclusive India", which is the theme this year...EVery single discussion seems to be around/about/involving India...

If we had a mishap yesterday - a bunch of BJP activists in Lal Chowk, another bunch of JKLF types, policemen, clashes, firings, a few people killed..Curfew imposed today...Guess what the discussions would have been around? Every foreign minister around the world would have been asked questions on KAshmir and "dispute" and how Indo-Pak peace is required for Af, for India's progress and all tht rubbish...

Hmmm, can someone remind me the name of that country which for 'economic' reasons, continuously surrenders it's sovereignty ? They have a curious national bird... i remember.

[vina]

And what if better sense would have prevailed for compromise? The only thing our politicians seems to be good at making deals with each other is when it comes to corruption.

There is a bigger issue here. Compromise was not the right thing to do and fly a token presence of Sushma, Jaitley and Kumar and do a repeat of MM Joshi (which is what I think the BJP was counting on really , behind all that Yatra nonsense and are pissed when their bluff was called). It is this. Are you going to have a rule of the law in Kashmir and the writ of the state running? This summer is going to be extremely challenging for the J&K and GOI there . They know it and are out to nip any chance to disturb the peace. The separatists are not going to be given permission for marches either (the Eid permission spiralled out of control). There is jaw-jaw going on. No need to vitiate the atmosphere by rubbing it in via strong arm flag hoisting. There are longer term issues involved and cannot be made a "spot", single point issue.

[prahaar]

vinaji, your are making a false argument. If you think central India needs flag hoisting more, you are free to do it. BJP felt JK was more necessary. Why disallow others who do not agree with your priority. Flag hoisting anywhere on 26 Jan must not be a problem.

[sum]

If we had a mishap yesterday - a bunch of BJP activists in Lal Chowk, another bunch of JKLF types, policemen, clashes, firings, a few people killed..Curfew imposed today...Guess what the discussions would have been around?

Are you going to have a rule of the law in Kashmir and the writ of the state running? This summer is going to be extremely challenging for the J&K and GOI there . They know it and are out to nip any chance to disturb the peace. The separatists are not going to be given permission for marches either (the Eid permission spiralled out of control). There is jaw-jaw going on. No need to vitiate the atmosphere by rubbing it in via strong arm flag hoisting.

Sir, you may be right about the entire 10000 people yatra being blocked at Jammu but this simple Q is really nagging and paining me:

Would the 4 guys ( not sure if 4 qualifies as "strong arm") who finally made it to Lal Chowk caused a riot if the tri-colour they had with them was hoisted for even 2 minutes, like was the case in 92?
Cant recollect seeing any "fascist symbols like Trishuls/ Anti- Muslim posters/weapons" etc in their hands at Lal Chowk to merit a thrashing!?

At least, they deserved that for taking all the pain for making it to Lal Chowk amidst all the "tension/hurt sensitivities" of the locals with zilch support of the authorities who were behaving as if the guys were anti-Indian spies.

Did they deserve to be thrashed and the flag snatched away from their hands on live TV? What message does it send? That neither county flag is OK to be flown on R-day ( since we seem to be equating Yasin Malik and other $%#^ with the BJP)

For me, the fact that they just didn't allow the Indian flag to even get a token representation ( in the name of maintaining neutrality with the Paki/separatist flag) at Lal Chowk shows the way the winds are blowing in Dilli, Isloo and Foggy Bottom.
( The flag raising at Lal Chowk was a regular feature till 2009 and didn't happen in 2010 and 2011)

[Sidhant]

There is a bigger issue here. Compromise was not the right thing to do and fly a token presence of Sushma, Jaitley and Kumar and do a repeat of MM Joshi (which is what I think the BJP was counting on really , behind all that Yatra nonsense and are pissed when their bluff was called). It is this. Are you going to have a rule of the law in Kashmir and the writ of the state running? This summer is going to be extremely challenging for the J&K and GOI there . They know it and are out to nip any chance to disturb the peace. The separatists are not going to be given permission for marches either (the Eid permission spiralled out of control). There is jaw-jaw going on. No need to vitiate the atmosphere by rubbing it in via strong arm flag hoisting. There are longer term issues involved and cannot be made a "spot", single point issue.

Vina ji, silently changing the train bogies and deporting Indians from Indian state is what you call rule of law. Rule of law is only required in Kashmir and jungle raj in rest of India? What analogy is this?

[abhishek_sharma]

Are you trying to say every person, including luminaries like Nitish Kumar, who opposed this yatra are anti-national?

Although I think Nitish is far better than Laloo, I was very disappointed by his position. In this case, he was certainly supporting anti-national elements like Yasin Malik (by agreeing with him). Does this imply that he is an anti-national? Obviously it depends on the precise legal meaning of the term. My guess is that he has not crossed the line. But people who continuously argue for concessions to Pakis/separatists are in a different league. They deserve special treatment.

Mind you I'm not trying to say if they are right or wrong on this issue, I'm just pointing out that just as there was a substantive support for the yatra there was also equal opposition to it. Just because Yasin Mallik was opposed doesn't put everyone else in the same category.

I am not so sure. I wrote in a different thread that many (well-educated) people don't know much about these foreign policy/strategic issues. Given that they get their news from people like Burkha Dutt and Sagarika Ghose, their information remains biased. Sometimes there is also an ideological blind spot. For example, one dear comrade was talking about bourgeois and upper caste people.

Others have a propensity for compromise. Their argument is: "We know they are wrong, but why should we respond? Lie low. Give them candy. Probably they will start liking us. If they don't like us, we will send them jalebis. What? Did they kill someone? Oh, it is extremely bad, but don't talk too much about it. Why provoke them again? They could kill others too."

One poster wrote: "Majority of Indians would be "SLIME/DIE or *****". I think the truth/falsity of this statement cannot be judged at this stage. Time will tell.

[Viv S]

Viv S

I agree, if BJP would have been in power they would have in all probability stopped the Yatra.

And I would have opposed it vehemently even then. If congress would have tried to do ditto when in opposition, I would have supported it.

I hope you are getting the point now...

That would imply that flag raising is a fundamental right that supercedes the state's concerns. But is it? If tomorrow I were to take a procession down to the diplomatic enclave at Chanakyapuri to plant a flag on the 26th of January do you think I wouldn't be stopped? After all, I am an Indian citizen and that is Indian territory. Why should some rich pretentious foreign snob driven around in a S-class be deferred to? Why should security concerns prevent something as important as a flag raising? There is symbolism attached to that as well - it will prove that India is not an authoritarian state like China where the internal passport system ensures that poor rural folks admire the glitzy Shanghai landscapes only in pictures; all in India have freedom of movement.


Point is that greater good required the yatra to be stopped. And Somnath made a very incisive point when talked about irrelevance. The Khalistan insurgency was never won, it simply faded away.

[Dhiman]

Irrelevance is the political poison of any insurgency - and "nationalists" want to keep it relvant!

Irrelevance is the poison of everything What is relevant here is the "idea of India", the country itself and the flag which serves as it's symbol. Make sure you are clear on things that need to be made "irreverent". However, if are of the view that even these are not relevant, then I am afraid, I have nothing further with you to discuss.

This summer is going to be extremely challenging for the J&K and GOI there

Extremely challenging compared to what?: Aksai Chin takeover by China, POK takeover by Pakistan, 1962, 1965, 1971, and Kargil wars? Obviously there is a lot of "relevance" that has gone down the drain here.

[abhishek_sharma]

Are you trying to say the **** comment was unjustified when used against me but otherwise justified?

Given the meaning of the r-word, it was unjustified. But people who do == between BJP and Yasin Malik deserve equally strong stuff. Something very strong, but dissimilar from the r-word.

[somnath]

But people who do == between BJP and Yasin Malik deserve equally strong stuff. Something very strong, but dissimilar from the r-word.

This is a fast moving thread, but who did?

[vina]

Would the 4 guys ( not sure if 4 qualifies as "strong arm") who finally made it to Lal Chowk caused a riot if the tri-colour they had with them was hoisted for even 2 minutes, like was the case in 92?

My take on it is this. The BJP/Lal Chowk business was a political event. It is like the BJP hosting it's flag in it's party offices (in fact, i think the BJP in Sringar should have done EXACTLY that, hoisted the flag in their party office there) and not a state event. The govt' didn't want a political event at Lal Chowk this time, just like in '92. And the 4 guys doing so would have been in violations of the restrictions in place at that time.

The CRPF in all probability did raise the flag at lal chowk as per practice . That is however an apolitical CRPF event.

The "official ceremony" was always at Bakshi stadium as per practice and the BJP had a standing invite to it.

The whole problem is not about the BJP being unable to hoist a flag in Srinagar (they could have freely done so with full right in their party office!), but insisting on doing it (not anywhere in Lal Chowk mind you), but exactly on that Clock Tower and simply nowhere else! In the face of such intransigence, no compromise would have been possible.

It is straight from the idgah maidan at Hubli playbook of the BJP. A simple civil litigation /lease dispute between Hubli City and the Muslim org (Anjuman whatever), got blown up into a "national flag" issue by the BJP, with the BJP insisting on raising the flag at the idgah maidan , which I think finally got defused when the Anjuman itself flew the flag there. But seriously, why should the Anjuman be put through such ridiculous tests?

Do you or anyone insist that national flag be flown on a flag staff near the Tirumala temple's tank on Jan 26/Aug 15 or whenever , or even if they did or did not, what was the BJP trying to prove/disprove, other than make innuendos about the patriotism or otherwise of the Anjuman and the Hubli muslims.

[Rudradev]

Rudradevji,

If that was the "standard form" signed in toto by everyone, I stand corrected (on the limited point on whether the document was specific to J&K)...Funnily though, the website says that it is maintained by the Revolutionary People's Front of Manipur!

No Somnathji, you do not stand corrected. Some might say you stand exposed as a rabidly anti-national peddler of propagandic filth, very convenient to the Pakistani point of view, as established fact:

Maharajah Hari Singh "agreed to accede to the Dominion of India on condition that the state retain its own constitution and autonomy in all matters except defense, currency and foreign affairs"

And yes, apparently this website http://www.oocities.com/capitolhill/con ... 9-211.html which contains the Standard Form of ALL Instruments of Accession signed by all princely states which acceded to India, is maintained by the Revolutionary People's Front of Manipur.

Apparently, it is only secessionists, Pakistanis, and yourself who are still so obsessed with questioning the irrevocable, unconditional accession of these States to India, that you would question the Instrument under whose auspices the accession occurred, or seek to impugn it as "conditional". This is no doubt the intention of the RPFM when they hosted such a link on their website, and evidently one you share with them when you apply it to J&K.

If it is your contention that the draft of the Standard Form provided on this website is in any way inaccurate, please provide us with a source that demonstrates this.

Your entire argument was predicated on your assertion that the Instrument of Accession signed by Hari Singh to India was conditional, and specified that the ambit of GOI would only extend to "defence, foreign affairs and currency."

When challenged on this bit of Pakiness, you responded with a link to the Instrument of Accession signed by Hari Singh, as if to claim that there was something unique in the schedule of specific interim powers of legislation granted to New Delhi in the signing.

Now that you've been faced with the Standard Form, demonstrating that ALL princely states acceding to India signed the same IoA with the same schedule handing the same "limited" interim powers to the Dominion of India: you grasp at straws and find fault with the website hosts (who are probably no less anti-national than yourself in their motivations.)

Speaking of your own unimpeachable, pee-er reviewed sources: it's worth noting once again which toilet you lifted that piece of propaganda out of, as a verbatim quote.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=i5cR ... &q&f=false

Patricia Gossman, Vincent Iacopino, Physicians for Human Rights,”The crackdown in Kashmir: Torture of Detainees and Assaults on the Medical Community”(1993)

But coming to the issue, of how the Instrument of Accession is the basis of a "conditionl" accession, the historial (and legal) accounts are many (including in fact your "favourite AG Noorani")...

They are certainly many, and no matter how you strive to cherry-pick quotes from them to suit your essentially anti-national position on J&K's accession... not one of them bears out your assertion in the least.

Justice AS Anand, former Chief Justice, says this in his book "The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, its Development and Comments"..Page 139..

the constitution of India applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir not proprio vigore but by virtue of the Instrument of Accession and subject to its terms and conditions giving reference of Sen DK a competitive study of the Indian constitution 1960 Volume I, P-115

Thus, where as all the States other than Kashmir merged into the Union and adopted the Constitution of India, Kashmir did nothing of the kind and its relationship continued to be based on the Instrument of Accession. The relationship of Kashmir with India was bound to be different from that of the other Indian States. The Constitution of India itself provides for the application of different terms and conditions to different States. There is no constitutional guarantee of equality of treatment of all the States under the Indian Constitution. Hence, the departure is made in the case of Jammu and Kashmir in the distribution of powers is not a violation of the principle of equality before law..

A departure has been made in view of the special circumstances in which the State was placed. The division of functions between the Central Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir was arrived at objective conditions of what powers ought to belong to which Government. It is based on Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the Instrument of Accession

If you had read the whole of Justice Anand's book, instead of picking out a few paragraphs most convenient to the Pakistani point of view, you would have realized that it is, in fact, about the development of the J&K constitution.

Most certainly Kashmir did not adopt the Constitution of India proprio vigore, in 1950 when the other states did. This was for no other reason than that its dispensation was to be decided per the UNCIP recommendations of August 13, 1948 and January 9, 1949. Per those recommendations, the Pakistanis had to withdraw from J&K, and a referendum would be held in the entire state under *Indian* auspices. Pakistan, of course, refused to withdraw from the parts of the state it had illegally occupied and the resolutions *eventually* became moot.

The eventual political solution to that, which Justice Anand's book discusses but your carefully chosen quote does not: was to hold democratic elections for a constituent assembly in 1954. That assembly produced, in 1956, the following document:

http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/140.html

This is the constitution of J&K, enacted in 1956. Please show me where in its entire verbiage the alleged conditionality of accession, or the alleged limitation of Union powers to "defence, foreign affairs and currency" (as you categorically asserted) are even mentioned.

The passage you quote from Justice Anand's book refers to a period before this constituent assembly had been elected, and at which time J&K had not adopted the 1950 constitution of India for obvious reasons. What happened between 1950-56, which is in fact the substance of what Justice Anand's book narrates, renders the fact of J&K not adopting the 1950 constitution absolutely moot. Moreover, the non-adoption of the 1950 constitution by J&K had nothing to do with any "conditionality" of the Maharaja's accession to India... but only to do with the question of dispensation of the state, which was open in the UN at the time.

You are of course aware of Mountbatten's aceptance letter to Hari Singh on the accession. It said

my Government have decided to accept the Accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people

- Page 67

(Cope pasting from a pdf version of the book I have - couldnt find an e-book reference)

It really doesn't help your argument when when you post a segment of Mountbatten's letter to Hari Singh on the accession. Nor does it bolster your credibility or pretensions to support the Indian national interest.

From your statement: Maharajah Hari Singh "agreed to accede to the Dominion of India on condition that the state retain its own constitution and autonomy in all matters except defense, currency and foreign affairs"... the implication that Maharaja Hari Singh applied such a condition is obvious. It is also completely false, per the letter of Hari Singh to Mountbatten (the one that is actually relevant) on the matter of accession. That letter is here:

http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/112.html

Nowhere in its text is any such conditionality even mentioned.

Neither is any such conditionality mentioned in the official document of acceptance of Hari Singh's accession by Mountbatten, dated 26th October 1947.

http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/114.html

The pernicious nonsense about the "the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people" (which those like yourself cite as the basis for an anti-national case on the Kashmiri secessionists' behalf) is from a separate letter to Hari Singh from Mountbatten on the accession:

http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/115.html

If you had India's interests at heart, which I firmly believe you do not, I'd ask you to read C R Das Gupta's "War and Diplomacy in Kashmir" to understand Mountbatten's machinations in this. Under direct orders from the Attlee government in London, Mountbatten and Douglas Gracey (his counterpart in Pakistan) had already decided that Kashmir must not eventually fall into Indian hands. The invasion of J&K by Pakistan had forced Mountbatten into the uncomfortable (for Britain) position of being forced to allow J&K's accession to India per the wishes of its ruler.

However, it was the strong belief of the British foreign office that any referendum among the TFTA Muslims of Kashmir would run in favour of Pakistan; hence the attempt to sabotage accession by introducing the idea of a "reference to the people" in Mountbatten's letter to Hari Singh; and hence the insistence by Mountbatten that Nehru take the problem before the United Nations rather than resolving it unilaterally.

Or is it that you already know this, and still persist in quoting Mountbatten's letter to Hari Singh to support your own attempt at impugning the accession by inventing a "conditionality"?

Also, quoting your "favourite", AG Noorani..

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1719/17190890.htm

The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India by an Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 in respect of only three subjects - defence, foreign affairs and communications. A schedule listed precisely 16 topics under these heads plus four others (e lections to Union legislature and the like).

Clause 5 said that the Instrument could not be altered without the State's consent. Clause 7 read: "Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution." Kashmir was then governed internally by its own Constitution of 1939.

The Maharaja made an Order on October 30, 1947 appointing Sheikh Abdullah the Head of the Emergency Administration, replacing it, on March 5, 1948, with an Interim Government with the Sheikh as Prime Minister. It was enjoined to convene a National Assemb ly "to frame a Constitution" for the State.

Negotiations were held on May 15 and 16, 1949 at Vallabhbhai Patel's residence in New Delhi on Kashmir's future set-up. Nehru and Abdullah were present. Foremost among the topics were "the framing of a Constitution for the State" and "the subjects in res pect of which the State should accede to the Union of India." On the first, Nehru recorded in a letter to the Sheikh (on May 18) that both Patel and he agreed that it was a matter for the State's Constituent Assembly. "In regard to (ii) the Jammu and Kas hmir State now stands acceded to the Indian Union in respect of three subjects; namely, foreign affairs, defence and communications. It will be for the Constituent Assembly of the State when convened, to determine in respect of which other subjects th e State may accede" (emphasis added, throughout). Article 370 embodies this basic principle which was reiterated throughout (S.W.J.N. Vol. 11; p. 12).

So the conditionality of Kashmir's acession was a legal as well as political/strategic fact...You are right, possession is 9/10th of the law...But in a democracy, even the "law" needs to be tailored to vox pop, no?

AG Noorani, like yourself, is economical with the facts so as to utterly and completely distort the truth for his own purposes.

When Noorani says:

The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India by an Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 in respect of only three subjects - defence, foreign affairs and communications. A schedule listed precisely 16 topics under these heads plus four others (e lections to Union legislature and the like).

Clause 5 said that the Instrument could not be altered without the State's consent. Clause 7 read: "Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution." Kashmir was then governed internally by its own Constitution of 1939.

He is deliberately neglecting to mention that ALL princely states signed an instrument of accession that, for the interim period before the Indian Constitution was enacted, gave the Dominion government in New Delhi exactly those limited powers of legislation per the attached schedule. As we have established, there is NOTHING unique about the Instrument of Accession Hari Singh signed. Clause 5 and 7 are, likewise, present in ALL Instruments of Accession signed by all princely states. Again, nothing unique in J&K's case here. Finally, internal governance was carried on by existing systems up until the point where the Indian Constitution came into effect, again in ALL states.

Given his agenda, I am hardly surprised that you quote him.

And yet again, you quote Noorani as the source for this canard:

Nehru recorded in a letter to the Sheikh (on May 18) that both Patel and he agreed that it was a matter for the State's Constituent Assembly. "In regard to (ii) the Jammu and Kashmir State now stands acceded to the Indian Union in respect of three subjects; namely, foreign affairs, defence and communications. It will be for the Constituent Assembly of the State when convened, to determine in respect of which other subjects th e State may accede" (emphasis added, throughout).

These were the subjects under which ALL princely states acceded to the Dominion of India per their respective Instruments of Accession. Since the letter quoted here is dated May 18, 1949, the Indian Constitution had not been enacted, and J&K was in no way unique in terms of the limited interim powers of legislation granted to the Dominion. It had nothing whatever to do with *conditionality*, such as you and the Pakis allege.

The J&K Constitution drafted by the elected constituent assembly of the state in 1956 fully and finally put paid to any of these limitations that the secessionists (and Maino-supported Omar Abdullah) hold to have been applicable sine die.

So the conditionality of Kashmir's acession was a legal as well as political/strategic fact...You are right, possession is 9/10th of the law...But in a democracy, even the "law" needs to be tailored to vox pop, no?

I think the Maino-Manmohan Cabal is about to find out what the vox pop in this country is really saying. Try as they might to hide their own abject sell-out of Jammu & Kashmir... even to the extent of twisting the "law", as they did on Republic Day 2011.

[somnath]

Hmmm, can someone remind me the name of that country which for 'economic' reasons, continuously surrenders it's sovereignty ? They have a curious national bird... i remember.

And by not having an aggressive postured yatra to Lal Chowk and hoisting the flag (for a few minutes) there, we surrendered our sovereignty?! I didnt know sovereignty was so "localised", as there was a flag hoisting ceremoney with all pomp a few hundred metres away!

[abhishek_sharma]

But people who do == between BJP and Yasin Malik deserve equally strong stuff. Something very strong, but dissimilar from the r-word.

This is a fast moving thread, but who did?

This has been a constant theme since this discussion started on page 41 of this thread. From the days of menon s, this debate has been framed as a choice between "Hindu bigots from BJP invading J&K against the will of Kashmiri people" and "Alienated J&K crowd who have been misguided by people like Geelani and Yasin Malik".

[Sri]

That would imply that flag raising is a fundamental right that supercedes the state's concerns. But is it? If tomorrow I were to take a procession down to the diplomatic enclave at Chanakyapuri to plant a flag on the 26th of January do you think I wouldn't be stopped? After all, I am an Indian citizen and that is Indian territory. Why should some rich pretentious foreign snob driven around in a S-class be deferred to? Why should security concerns prevent something as important as a flag raising? There is symbolism attached to that as well - it will prove that India is not an authoritarian state like China where the internal passport system ensures that poor rural folks admire the glitzy Shanghai landscapes only in pictures; all in India have freedom of movement.

Viv Ji, there is no problem in raising Indian flag in Chanakyapuri. Try it. As long as you are NOT doing it inside any embassy (which by convention is notional piece of land belonging to whosoever's embassy it is).

Point is that greater good required the yatra to be stopped. And Somnath made a very incisive point when talked about irrelevance. The Khalistan insurgency was never won, it simply faded away.

Greater good of whom? This is the reasoning behind every despotic regime's actions, including China's. The greater good is in allowing the population of a country to exercise their rights. To express their ideas, thoughts and faith without fear of prosecution.

[Sri]

Hmmm, can someone remind me the name of that country which for 'economic' reasons, continuously surrenders it's sovereignty ? They have a curious national bird... i remember.

And by not having an aggressive postured yatra to Lal Chowk and hoisting the flag (for a few minutes) there, we surrendered our sovereignty?! I didnt know sovereignty was so "localised", as there was a flag hoisting ceremoney with all pomp a few hundred metres away!

Dear Sir,

You said that it would have been foolish to talk about inclusive India in Davos when the yatra drama would have been taking place. You Sir, were 'concerned' that what if other country's diplomat would have inquired about Kashmir in Davos. Hence I wrote what I wrote.

What I meant was if we stopped the Yatra because of the reason's you claimed in your previous post then it is a RAPE logic.

No Sir flying a flag in Lal Chowk and 100 / 50 / 20 mts away is not the same. The Yatra's objective was Lal Chowk not Bakshi Stadium.

[Murugan]

Buddha was born to hindu couple

Ok. And Jesus was Jewish Rabbi! Neither Jesus nor Buddha would have identified themselves as either "Christian" or "Buddhist" because such identities didn't exist when they were alive. So what is your point?

This is crazy and a route to Pakiland kind of politics when a sane teacher in Pakistan said that Prophet's Muhammed's parent's couldn't have been Muslim, because Islam as a religion and identity came only AFTER Mohammed, and guess what , his students yelled Blasphemy! and I am sure that the teacher is either halalled/got a Canadian Vija or is cowering in his Shalwar in some prison dreading when some loony was going to empty a clip from an AK-47 on him!

No point. Allah maaf kare

[somnath]

You said that it would have been foolish to talk about inclusive India in Davos when the yatra drama would have been taking place. You Sir, were 'concerned' that what if other country's diplomat would have inquired about Kashmir in Davos. Hence I wrote what I wrote

Thats NOT what I posted.."Inclusive India" is the theme this year in DAvos! And I was referring to the shape the media coverage would have taken if there was a clash, riot, police firings, killings etc as a result of this yatra..

[Sri]

Thats NOT what I posted.."Inclusive India" is the theme this year in DAvos! And I was referring to the shape the media coverage would have taken if there was a clash, riot, police firings, killings etc as a result of this yatra..

Yeah, What shape would have been media coverage? And how does it matter?

[Dhiman]

Thats NOT what I posted.."Inclusive India" is the theme this year in DAvos! And I was referring to the shape the media coverage would have taken if there was a clash, riot, police firings, killings etc as a result of this yatra..

The wide range of connections and excuses people come up with to justify their (and my apologies for using this term, but this is really such a well-descriptive term and more than that I can't come up with a better one) "dhoti shivering" is amazing.

What people in Davos care about is GDP not Kashmir otherwise countries such as China would be getting zero investment. Everyone who wishes to be aware of Kashmir is already well aware of it and those who matter won't be fooled by a shiny marketing campaign.

[Sanku]

You said that it would have been foolish to talk about inclusive India in Davos when the yatra drama would have been taking place. You Sir, were 'concerned' that what if other country's diplomat would have inquired about Kashmir in Davos. Hence I wrote what I wrote

Thats NOT what I posted.."Inclusive India" is the theme this year in DAvos! And I was referring to the shape the media coverage would have taken if there was a clash, riot, police firings, killings etc as a result of this yatra..

Oh but weren't you on other thread haranguing Bji that image of East Asian primarily Muslim republics has no role in the matter.

You really are a master at being context sensitive in your value system.

But I think when you say "inclusive India" at Davos, you want India to project a image that it includes everything, including a Pakistani flag at Lal Chowk less than half a year ago?

Clearly you want Davos to consider India to include any s*** that gets thrown at her face, so they consider us a safe place for their activities, "Hey we are rank 1 walkovers and pushovers. Investing in India really means no risk, since you money will call greater shots here than any other thing, including stupid Indian state"

"We need the money at any cost, we are beggers, we will sell everything to get the money"

Then people have takleef why R-word is used.

Pray tell what other word describes this behavior?

[Viv S]

That would imply that flag raising is a fundamental right that supercedes the state's concerns. But is it? If tomorrow I were to take a procession down to the diplomatic enclave at Chanakyapuri to plant a flag on the 26th of January do you think I wouldn't be stopped? After all, I am an Indian citizen and that is Indian territory. Why should some rich pretentious foreign snob driven around in a S-class be deferred to? Why should security concerns prevent something as important as a flag raising? There is symbolism attached to that as well - it will prove that India is not an authoritarian state like China where the internal passport system ensures that poor rural folks admire the glitzy Shanghai landscapes only in pictures; all in India have freedom of movement.

Viv Ji, there is no problem in raising Indian flag in Chanakyapuri. Try it. As long as you are NOT doing it inside any embassy (which by convention is notional piece of land belonging to whosoever's embassy it is).

A procession in Chanakyapuri on Republic Day. Having seen the security arrangement up close, I don't think permission for that would ever come through.

Point is that greater good required the yatra to be stopped. And Somnath made a very incisive point when talked about irrelevance. The Khalistan insurgency was never won, it simply faded away.

Greater good of whom? This is the reasoning behind every despotic regime's actions, including China's. The greater good is in allowing the population of a country to exercise their rights. To express their ideas, thoughts and faith without fear of prosecution.

Greater good of the country. And yes it eggs on autocratic governments but it also the reasoning behind .... say land acquisition for the Delhi Metro. Right now its important to the government to ensure peace prevails in a quest to marginalize the separatists. But while we're on the topic, can I assume you think the massive constraints placed on journalistic freedom in J&K throughout the 90s and early 2000s were all unjustified?