J&K News and Discussion-2011

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 24 Feb 2011 03:27

Akalam ji,

IT industry is a freak where the majority are educated. Except for that industry, for every one managment personnel to work, he will have to have 10-50 "uneducated horde" working under him.

Traders can work without owning land. But non-trade businessmen, i.e. say shop owners, hotel owners,resorts, fruit industry, a normal industry will need to have ownership of land. Most of the industry anywhere is not the biggies, it is all about very small businesses sustaining and some lottery pick, very random one becoming big. These business owners would need somewhere they can set up their families and so on. These small businesses cannot be influential enough to be certain that come the time for renewing their lease, they can give enough bribe/influence to renew their lease. What will be the resale value of such a business?

J&K has one of the highest per capita income of Indian states. You are not taking this fact into your narrative.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 24 Feb 2011 04:00

ravi_ku ji,

If landownership is required for the business, then that is exactly what I am refering to as making an exception in Art. 370 for the explicit purpose of creating job opportunities and economic growth for the state. Same exception should be applied to ownership of residential land and house, for the new migrants.

I understand that owner, manager and skilled personnel will be much less in number than less skilled and unskilled labor, but they will bring their families and extended families, so over time it will accumulate.

I am not sure if a proposal like this has been discussed with KM politicians, but I see no reason why the above will be rejected by KM politicians, because the benefits will be immediate and obvious and downsides are negligible to none.

It may not be ideal for both sides, but I think its a good start for a win-win solution for a meaningless impasse.

As for Kashmir to have one of higher incomes among Indian states, I have heard that before I think, obviously they are spoiled, but they occupy a strategic piece of land and some "questionable" history in their mind, a fact which they are taking advantage of.

My simple suggestion was a way to integrate them in a gradual way with Indian polity and economy and at the same time changing the demographics on the ground.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Feb 2011 06:45

ravi_ku wrote:Akalam ji,
-----------
Traders can work without owning land. But non-trade businessmen, i.e. say shop owners, hotel owners,resorts, fruit industry, a normal industry will need to have ownership of land.
-------
J&K has one of the highest per capita income of Indian states. You are not taking this fact into your narrative.

What proportion of small businesses in India "own" the RE that they use? Even the richest toniest small business in most cities are operated out of leased premises...A "normal" industry does not need "ownership" of land, what it does need is "access" - the two are not the same...And Art 370 is no deterrent for any business, a large (HMT-style) factory, a (Centaur-style) hotel, a call centre or anything else...Long leases are pretty common, and the state govt itself gives out 99-year lease to businesses (a 99-year lease in many places in India and around the worl, qualifies as "sale" btw)...

J&K has the lowest pverty levels among all states in India, and a rasonably high PCI as well...Art 370 didnt prevent the Lalit Suris of the world to set up hotels back when things were "normal", why should it prevent anyone from doing the same today?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Feb 2011 07:31

brihaspati wrote:Prem ji,
this is why I welcomed any Egypt style "uprising" planned for the valley. It opens the door for a much bigger assembly by the majority as a whole within the rashtra. Only that the regime in Delhi should be aware of the chain reaction - which need not be immediate. Although an immediate reaction would be better for Delhi - because the more delayed the reaction is, the more thorough and unrelenting will it be.

Regarding this Egypt-style uprising:

1. If the govt can stop BJP's yatra, why can't they stop any protests in the valley?

2. Even if 50,000 people start a dharna in Srinagar, it is not a problem for us. I am pretty sure there are hundreds of dharnas happening in all parts of the country. Who cares? Ask Laloo and Mulayam and they will start a dharna outside Parliament in 2 hours. I don't think GoI has any problem with dharnas. Last year, civilians were killed because they were attacking public buildings and infrastructures. If they do so again, they should (and will) be punished.

Like munna, I am also not a finance whiz kid. So this post mainly reflects my "bravado" and "fanciful" thinking.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 24 Feb 2011 08:19

Kashmiri fighters who lost their cause?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12492173

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 09:13

Akalam-ji -- I agree with you that a structured gradual dilution of 370 on the lines you mention would be a good idea. There is much merit in what you say.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Feb 2011 10:55

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12560761

At least 10,000 people have attended a recruitment rally of the Indian Army in Indian-administered Kashmir.....

The army has held recruitment rallies in the valley before, every time attracting big crowds.

Observers say it shows the dilemma faced by the average Kashmiri - who shares separatist sentiments on the one hand but is frustrated by being unemployed on the other.

I guess the idea that the political instability and economic disruptions caused by separatism deters private investment in the state and hence contributes to unemployment does not occur to them? Or maybe the average Kashmiri is not a separatist, it is the RAKE (analogous to RAPE) class that is separatist?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 24 Feb 2011 12:25

somnath wrote: What proportion of small businesses in India "own" the RE that they use? Even the richest toniest small business in most cities are operated out of leased premises...A "normal" industry does not need "ownership" of land, what it does need is "access" - the two are not the same...And Art 370 is no deterrent for any business, a large (HMT-style) factory, a (Centaur-style) hotel, a call centre or anything else...Long leases are pretty common, and the state govt itself gives out 99-year lease to businesses (a 99-year lease in many places in India and around the worl, qualifies as "sale" btw)...

J&K has the lowest pverty levels among all states in India, and a rasonably high PCI as well...Art 370 didnt prevent the Lalit Suris of the world to set up hotels back when things were "normal", why should it prevent anyone from doing the same today?

Somnath,

Then you didnt get the difference between a top level private/public sector, HMT-style, Centaur-style hotel to a normal businessman. If you get down from the ivy level with an mba degree to a average indian, you will understand the difference.

Can the normal business sell his business and move out if he needs to? What will the selling of business involve?? Will the land (in lease/own) be transferred if so for how many years and after greasing how many palms? Can he make a long term investment? Will you build a say build a small fruit processing industry if his lease is going to expire in 10 years?

These issues for the HMT/Centaur are non-issues. They can get 99 year leases with recommendations from the PMs/CMs and paying off any babus. But a normal business man, where will he get that from? All those long leases from state, those are not for a small scale business man.

Infy didnt get all those excise benefits right at the start. It started in some one's backyard where their own house doubled up as their office, thus saving rent. It is when a 1000 of such businesses run, one infy comes up.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 24 Feb 2011 12:39

Kashmiris asks world to attach permanent seat of India in UNSC with Kashmir issue solution
Addressing the conference Kashmir American Council President Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai said that the protest demonstrations which were carried out by Kashmiris in favour of their freedom movement were bigger than that of the demonstrations which were carried out in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan and Aljazair but international community did not heed to these demonstrations, adding that the reason behind the issue is that these demonstrations were peaceful.

http://www.sananews.net/english/2011/02 ... -solution/

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Feb 2011 12:43

Ravi_ku-ji,

I am as average an Indian as the next big city middle class (father-in-govt-service) guy...Which is precisly why I know that in Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta (as well as in Durgapur, Agra, Hazaribagh) most small businesses operate out of leased premises...From the vegetable seller in Paharganj (its in Del) to Olive in Bandra to Ramkrishna Mishtanna Bhandar (near my house in Calcutta

) - all of them operate out of leased premises...The business model itself doesnt lend itself to owning the property, its too expensive! If anything, guys like Lalit Suri can well afford to buy, rather than lease...

In case there is such a huge amount of latent interest in living and working in J&K, Art 370 should be no barrier at all!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 24 Feb 2011 12:47

Kalam ji,

For an educated and skilled enterprenuer to move to "risky" place, he will need overwhelming incentives.

The need for such incentive decreases as the education and skill decreases

I see merit in what you say, but all the movement from the present dispensations has been step backwards from what you have espoused.

The only major movement I have seen is in the "glacial pace" development of railways. Apart from that all I have seen is pandering and appeasement like latest episode of interlocutors.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 24 Feb 2011 12:54

somnath wrote:Ravi_ku-ji,

I am as average an Indian as the next big city middle class (father-in-govt-service) guy...Which is precisly why I know that in Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta (as well as in Durgapur, Agra, Hazaribagh) most small businesses operate out of leased premises...From the vegetable seller in Paharganj (its in Del) to Olive in Bandra to Ramkrishna Mishtanna Bhandar (near my house in Calcutta ) - all of them operate out of leased premises...The business model itself doesnt lend itself to owning the property, its too expensive! If anything, guys like Lalit Suri can well afford to buy, rather than lease...

In case there is such a huge amount of latent interest in living and working in J&K, Art 370 should be no barrier at all!

How many businesses have started where their home initially doubled up as business address to save up on rent.

I have been involved with some of my friends starting small shops. From that minute experience, I will say that having leases on both house and business is a big drain for a start up. Either one needs an own home/(living with parents - basically no need to pay rent) or a much much larger capital to start up.

For the most part, my personal experience says that if your house rent is also on the line with your startup business, the chances of that business going bellyup goes manifold.

In Kashmir, a non-kashmiri Indian cant hope to ever settle, because he can never own his own house. A small scale business man can never "settle" down.

What is the percentage of Indian people who could permanently settle down in soudi arabia, there are some exceptions? Why? If you have been read it, foreigners arent allowed to own houses in India, there was a big ruckus in goa about the same where all these snake oil of 99 years leases/owning through companies were peddled. GoI one fine day, said no more of these snake oil. Guess what those foreigners are saying now and their hopes of settling down in goa. India mike forum has some sad stories of people who bought that snake oil. How is it too much different from what a non-kashmiri Indian is going to face.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 24 Feb 2011 16:11

NITIN PAI`s Article on Kashmir summer of 2011 and Social networking.
Despite the best intentions of the state government, supported by political moves from the Centre, it is possible that some protests — whether localised and sporadic incidents, or a sustained Valley-wide movement — may still occur in the Valley in summer of 2011. It is also possible that social networking may be used as a tool to organise these protests. While that may or may not be the most important factor in organising the protests, the separatists and the political opposition in the state would be more interested in conveying the message that even the smallest of protests are part of the larger narrative of twitter “revolution” sweeping the Middle East.
The reason for that is simple. Indian security forces have defeated the militancy in the state. Politically, the state seems to be moving towards normalcy with the announcement of the panchayat polls later this year. The separatists stand discredited after their failed antics of last year. The best they can then hope for is to latch on to a larger populist narrative to enhance their own credibility and show to the outside world that they continue to be relevant in today’s Kashmir.
Protests may or may not happen in the Kashmir Valley in the summer of 2011. One fervently hopes that they don’t. But if they do occur, then remember that protests were happening in Kashmir even in 2008, 2009 and 2010, before the “Twitter Revolution” overthrew dictators. Let us not unnecessarily start crediting Tunisia or Libya or Egypt for them. The blame would still rest on the loony separatist Kashmiri leadership, and their benefactors on the other side of the Line of Control.
Lest some think that the fear of the wrong narrative is overblown, one of the national dailies has already started building up the story. Perhaps this newspaper has never heard of OMPP, Oldest Mistake in Public Policy — mistaking correlation for causation. Or as they say, what we see depends mainly on what we are looking for.

wig · Post by **wig** » 24 Feb 2011 17:00

there are a few facets that arise out of the existence of art 370.
whilst it is true that industry can and is allotted plots of land for long leases (i think, currently it is 40 years) that is in industrial areas.
the owners and workers need to stay in residential areas, where there are schools, markets, the like. for this reason they have to stay in rented premises.
industry to be successful needs large numbers of skilled and unskilled labour. persons who need some small place to set up a homestead, in the case of people from outside J&K they cannot buy land for homesteads.
also whilst the big industry that comes can afford to park its employees in premises that a few have constructed inside the factory plots; the small ancillary units, repair units etc cannot afford even the govt lease land rates. these small units generally functiion from sheds in other industrialised areas. at times i have observed that the workers and their families live on the premises itself. since they will not have any ration card etc they will not prefer coming to J&K. in other places small units generally start as squatters near by. In J&K that is not possible as they being outsiders have little rights and the political outfits are not bothered since these people lack the right to vote in state and municipal elections.
then the offspring of the workers are not eligible for admission to professional degres /diploma courses. the offspring do not get scholarships (means/ merit based)
the offspring of the labour is not eligible for government jobs once they have attained a certain level of education.
in case the outsider marries a woman who is a local then the woman and the offspring of the marriage also lose the state subject status and their children are also as good as any migrant.
all in all art 370 is ill concieved and works against the interest of the state. it benefits only a very narrow class of people some of whom in any case have a vested unrest in sustaining the ongoing tragic circle of violence.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Feb 2011 18:57

Ravi_ku-ji,

If I understand you correctly, once Art 370 is repealed, a lot of people wil come and use their capital to buy property....And then they will start small businesses in the garages of those homes...Is this how small busineses are started? Move into a new city, buy a home and start a business there? Maybe , but somehow doesnt seem to be a 20-30 lac migration opportunity...

But anyways.......My last post on the topic...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 19:47

>> but somehow doesnt seem to be a 20-30 lac migration opportunity...

Wont be overnight obviously. How long Bangalore need to become the behmoth it is? 20 years?

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Feb 2011 20:12

Sanku wrote:Wont be overnight obviously. How long Bangalore need to become the behmoth it is? 20 years?

Sanku-ji it can be, actually! One simple fact that everyone very conveniently ignores (you see in mighty world of phinance/e-con-omics one assumes away what one cannot model or explain) is the presence of Jammu and its populace. Jammu region is populated by a large number of Dogras, Saraswat Brahmins and Gujjars. These communities have had traditional marital and commercial ties with areas that now fall in Punjab (Gurdaspur, Pathankot itydai) and Himchal Pradesh. A lot of their cousins populate these border areas that remain undeveloped due to lack of well defined political status. Given chance, lower land prices, arable land in plains of Jammu, nice orchards on hill slopes of Patnitop area and cheap electricity and subsidies in Kathua will result in an overnight migration of a huge chunk of folks in Jammu alone.

Why did a pissed Omar clamp Jammu region down on 26th? It answers a lot of questions. A million here or there will destroy the so called "speciasl statu majority" of the state and that too by folks who are ethnic sons of the soil.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 24 Feb 2011 20:47

somnath wrote:Ravi_ku-ji,

If I understand you correctly, once Art 370 is repealed, a lot of people wil come and use their capital to buy property....And then they will start small businesses in the garages of those homes...Is this how small busineses are started? Move into a new city, buy a home and start a business there? Maybe , but somehow doesnt seem to be a 20-30 lac migration opportunity...

But anyways.......My last post on the topic...

Somnath,

Rome wasnt built in a day. Create right conditions and the things you want will follow.

You might think that this is going to be an overnight project. It is going to be a multi decade project and all through this period, these people will have to count on state support that.

My home city, hyderabad and it's ups and ebbs along with nizam, andhra state, initial telangana movement, then the normalcy and the later movement all give lessons to me as how a city gets built/decayed.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 24 Feb 2011 21:13

ravi_ku wrote:My home city, hyderabad and it's ups and ebbs along with nizam, andhra state, initial telangana movement, then the normalcy and the later movement all give lessons to me as how a city gets built/decayed.

It was a Muslim majority city in 60s and an even city during 70s. Now you can only say it has substantial Muslim population. During 70s when there was a cricket match at Lal Bahadur Shastri stadium, folks used to see Pak flags and also Pak Zindabad even when the match is between India-NZ.

Now Hyderabad is like any other city of India.

If there is a will power, Kashmir valley is no different. It could be made that way. Not that the demographies will be some 20:80 in favor of non valley folks but even if you bring it to 60:40 in favor of valley muslims things will fall in place.

Devendra · Post by **Devendra** » 25 Feb 2011 01:25

There is quite a lot of fanciful kibbutz redux thinking around ownership of land in Kashmir..Abolish 370, lots of mainland Indians would buy land there, and bingo, problem solved...But wy exactly would mainland Indians buy land in Kashmir? Do a lot of mainland Indians buy land in Manipur? Or Meghalaya? Or for that matter Bolangir? Or Hazaribagh?

Businesses can already take property on 99 year lease in J&K...they are not exatly coming in droves..

When population moves to a particular area for business, job or any other economic purpose, a fraction of them spent a significant amount of lifetime in that region. In such cases, people also keep in mind that whether they will get equal civil rights in that region. Because of article 370, The person spending his life in J&K does not have civil rights (e.g transfer of voting right, possibility of settle down/buying land..) and so it is a major hurdle.. You claim that business starts on leased properties. I agree with that. But I believe people doing business try to settle down/buy property in such regions. Article 370 stops this.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 25 Feb 2011 02:05

somnath wrote:
What proportion of small businesses in India "own" the RE that they use? Even the richest toniest small business in most cities are operated out of leased premises...A "normal" industry does not need "ownership" of land, what it does need is "access" - the two are not the same...And Art 370 is no deterrent for any business, a large (HMT-style) factory, a (Centaur-style) hotel, a call centre or anything else...Long leases are pretty common, and the state govt itself gives out 99-year lease to businesses (a 99-year lease in many places in India and around the worl, qualifies as "sale" btw)...

A specious argument. Businesses in the rest of India, even if they do not own the premises where they operate, certainly can avail of the option to acquire and own them. In J&K this option is nonexistent, precluded by Article 370. Most financial analysts worth their salt would recognize that there is real value associated with having an option... maybe that isn't part of the Elite Iskool curriculum.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 25 Feb 2011 02:08

somnath wrote:
Shankk-ji, no democracy has managed en masse resettlement - by definintion it involves force which democracies cant exercise...

Another instance of "history as a matter of convenience" from the Mainovadi septic tank.

How exactly did the United States (surely a democracy) expand from sea to shining sea?

Here's a hint: it had *everything* to do with the promise to settlers that the potential to own land existed. Look up the term "boomer" in the context of Oklahoma for an example.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 25 Feb 2011 02:11

during PDP government, they have passed or failed to pass a bill that makes even the JK folks losing their exclusivity of Art370 if they marry outside JK. The fear is if the Jammu and Ladakh folks marry in exodus outside the JK then all the non-JK Indians can start buying off the lands.

The fear of Pandits also is similar. Pandits will marry someone in UP or AP and if the spouse is Ambani then that fellow can buy a lot of JK lands. As India is growing such fears are increasing day-by-day.

The whole premise of let us settle things now (or never we can) is coming from India's economic growth.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Feb 2011 03:27

A view about marriage with non-Kashmiris from Kashmiryiat!

http://ikashmir.net/gljalali/docs/Identity%20Crisis.pdf
Identity Crisis Craze for non-Kashmiri brides
G.L.Jalali

There is absolutely no exaggeration in the confession that this craze for non-Kashmir brides has become fad with our politicians, wealthy business- man and even clerics" who claim to be the sole religious monopolists doing politics under the garb of religion. It is just to gain their personal ends and vested interests.

This snobbery started in the elite section of Kashmiri Muslim society in our valley with the marriage of the first Awami Chief Minister of our state. He married a non-Kashmiri lady in early thirties. The bride' s father (some say) was a Christian or Jew (not exactly known) who came to Kashmir from Great Britain for business purposes. He is credited for establishing the first western-type hotel in the heart of Srinagar. By chance he married a (Gujar) Muslim lady who was earlier divorced legally by a Lahore based foreigner. After her marriage to the highly educated Kashmiri youth, she was converted to Islam and all along her life she remained a devout Muslim lady, taking deep interest in the state politics. Reverently, she was called Madr-i-Meherban (Affectionate Mother). Both she and her illustrious husband rejuvenated the dormant Muslim society and brought them political awakening.

The eldest son of this leader of towering personality followed into the footsteps of his father, he also married a non-Kashmiri girl who was also British national.. After the death of his father, he too became the Chief Minister of the state. Had he desired, he could have chosen a Kashmiri lady and married her. The father of the bride was a well known Kashmiri businessman who had business connections in London. Born and brought up in London the girl (bride) was an employee in a London hospital. Her husband, a medical doctor by training, is a flamboyant politician who had done a lot for the welfare of his people in the state as the chief Minister of J&K. His son, the present Chief Minister of J&K state, did the same as his father and grad father did. He did not deviate from the tradition set up by the grandfather. Shunning Kashmeri brides, the young Chief Minister married non-Kashmiri class mate-Sikh girl.

The examples of choosing non-Kashmiri brides are not just stray ones. Perhaps the youth belonging to the elite section of Kashmiri Muslims have no liking for marrying non Kashmiri girls. I can quote many examples of Muslim bureaucrats who are married to non-Kashmiri girls. Even they got their daughters married to non-Kashmiri grooms. One such bureaucrat was a senior most commissioner in the rank of Chief Secretary who got his two daughters married to non-Kashmiri Muslims, including a Bihari Muslim. Apart from these Muslim bureaucrats, it may not be out of place to refer to a number of valley's topranking politicians. Three years ago, the chairman of a well known separatist party in the north Kashmir, married a non-Kashmiri girl who can hardly converse in Kashmiri language. This highly educated leader happens to be the son of a slain separatist leader who commanded a great respect for pleading Kashmir's independence vociferously at the international level. His example was apparently followed by another separatist leader. His religious discourse, usually on Fridays, draws thousands of his acolytes. Surprisingly, this moderate politician, who spends much time on foreign tours, married a girl born and brought up in the United States. She is, for all practical purposes, an American national - hardly conversant with Kashmiri ethos which is so dear to her husband. A well-known Kashmiri Muslim (retired) bureaucrat is married to a Christian lady hailing originally from Norway, Denmark.

A new development in the Kashmiri Muslim community has come to light. Three months ago, a Kashmiri secessionist leader married a Pakistan girl (an artist by profession, they say) in Islamabad. On their arrival the couple was given a warm welcome as reported by Srinagar media. The young newly married secessionist leader said to pressmen, "The bride is the bride of all Kashmiris" (Greater Kashmir) A good number of Kashmiri Muslim doctors settled in US, UK, Canada, Arab countries etc. are mostly married to non-Kashmiri ladies. There is no consideration of religion for them. Some of them are reported to have married non-Muslim girls.

We have observed one interesting thing about Kashmiri Muslim militants. On their arrival in PoK and Pakistan for receiving arms training in terrorist training camps, they are coaxed by ISI officials to marry Pakistani girls. These facts were revealed by a Kashmiri Militant who crossed the border and was arrested along with his Pakistani wife and seven year old child. Perhaps they are lured by ISI to go for arms training in the terrorist camps in the hope of marrying Pakistani girls.
If any credence is to be given to media reports, general public in the valley resent the marriage of their leaders with non-Kashmiri girls. Obviously, they have reason for it. They think that their marriages with non-Kashmiri girls weakens the true spirit of Kashmeriat. One Srinagar based paper had published adverse remarks on this growing trend among militants. Next day some unidentified men attacked the newspaper office and vandalised it.

For most Kashmiri Muslims it is the question of retaining their identity as Kashmiri Muslims. In other words they fear that this growing trend being set up by their leaders and members of the elite class may prove detrimental to their centuries old identity and traditions. It is strange and perplexing to note that all those leaders who talk loudly about preserving the identity of Kashmiri Muslims they themselves, wittingly, or uncertainly, take the measures that cut deep at the roots of this ethos (Kashmeriat). Marriage with non-Kashmiri girls goes a long way in dealing a death blow to "Kashmiri Particularism (Kashmeriat).

There is another story related to the migrant Pandit community. The displaced community is scattered all over India. But bulk of displaced Pandits are temporarily staying in Jammu. They are also losing fast their identify and facing a grave social crisis rooted in their forced migration from the valley. It is contrary to that of Kashmiri Muslims but bearing the same results. Unlike Kashmiri Muslims, Pandit girls go in for their marriage with non-Pandit grooms.

Statistically worked out 40 per cent Pandit girls marry outside their caste and community.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Feb 2011 03:45

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_j- ... us_1367893

It was not only in 2004, this has been continuously tried out - with a court intervention in 2002, then again being attempted in 2004, rejected by voice vote, and then allowed to be raised again in March, 2010. Was dropped quietly in April, 2010.

The pressure is obviously there.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2011 03:49

How come they don't want similar action for Kashmiri men?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Feb 2011 03:50

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_re ... rt_1512426
Religious groups cry foul as Amarnath Yatra is cut short
24th Feb, 2011

The decision of the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB), which holds the annual pilgrimage to the holy cave shrine, to curtail the duration of the yatra by 15 days has evoked widespread criticism.
[...]
The duration of the yatra is a contentious issue as the saffron groups are against a shorter version of the pilgrimage while the separatists have asked to make it 15-day long.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Feb 2011 03:55

ramana ji,
it was always, always about denying the Kashmiri woman her property/employment rights if she married a non-Kashmiri man, while this was not to be done if the Kashmiri man [state-subject] married a non-Kashmiri woman. It is driven by the Islamic demand that Muslim men must be allowed to marry any non-Muslim woman while Muslim women must be strictly forbidden to marry non-Muslim men. It is pure biological greed/social engineering and also connected to appropriating women of "others" while denying the "others" to reproduce, as much as possible. Solid textual tradition - so no excuses of later "deviation" etc possible.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2011 04:24

So it has nothing to do with diluting Kahsmiriyat!

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 25 Feb 2011 04:33

Finally PM says something I like!

Fingers crossed for Kashmir summer: PM

New Delhi, Feb 24: Noting that Jammu and Kashmir had gone through a “difficult time” last year, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Thursday said the government was keeping its “fingers crossed” this summer while remaining vigilant as he asserted that “no quarter would be given to secessionists.”

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 25 Feb 2011 05:06

^^^ thats raja impact

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 25 Feb 2011 06:11

Rudradev wrote:Here's a hint: it had *everything* to do with the promise to settlers that the potential to own land existed. Look up the term "boomer" in the context of Oklahoma for an example.

Rudra: American settlers often violated US laws and east-coast business lobbies to 'squat' on native american property. Squatters got temp legal rights only in 1830 and full rights in 1862.

Oklahoma was post 1862 and an exception rather than a rule - wherein the govt. threw open what was a native reservation to settlers. It was almost the last phase of the vast land-grab that was US.

So it's good to study the american settlement - but the lesson is the opposite of what you derive - people can't wait for parliamentary process to reclaim J&K.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Feb 2011 06:29

ramana ji,
some people think that the law was also aimed at preventing the KP - who have been forced out more from the state - from getting a wider network of marital alliances with a more militant "Hindu" male pool coming in. Although the logic does not really cut much real ice. Actually even the Islamist logic is a bit flawed, since the Kashmiri women are being prevented from marrying non-Kashmiri Muslims too then.

What it may actually indicate is the possibility that the Islamists are afraid of Valley Muslim women finding non-Muslim non-Kashmiri men more attractive even out of sheer economic reasons. I know several such cases with the women marrying into non-Muslim families abroad.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 25 Feb 2011 07:17

ManishH wrote:
Rudradev wrote:Here's a hint: it had *everything* to do with the promise to settlers that the potential to own land existed. Look up the term "boomer" in the context of Oklahoma for an example.
Rudra: American settlers often violated US laws and east-coast business lobbies to 'squat' on native american property. Squatters got temp legal rights only in 1830 and full rights in 1862.

Not an accurate generalization. The Midwestern land boom following the Louisiana Purchase was ignited by the federal government and its friends among land speculators, precisely because they wanted to *sell* land (at high prices) to settlers. The settlers did not mind paying as long as they could own it, given the high demand for US agricultural commodities. This carried on through the Panic of 1819, when increasing dependence on distant markets caused the land bubble to burst, but in the event this only slowed and did not deter the continuing expansion.

The point being that the US government was *encouraging* settlers to travel West and own land... in contrast to the non-Indian Maino Government which is actively *prohibiting* ownership of land in J&K.

Oklahoma was post 1862 and an exception rather than a rule - wherein the govt. threw open what was a native reservation to settlers. It was almost the last phase of the vast land-grab that was US.

I wouldn't say Oklahoma was the "last phase"... while NM, Oregon and California came nominally under the control of the US following the Mexican War in 1848, they were not properly settled or organized until the beginning of the twentieth century. It wasn't an exception either... attempts by the GOTUS to force the Plains Indians into reservations led to widespread struggles throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, as the West was colonized following the Civil War.

The very existence of that native reservation in Oklahoma derived from the fact that Andrew Jackson forcibly moved native Americans from their tribal lands east of the Mississippi and concentrated them in Oklahoma. Again, the fact remains that the Government acted in what it perceived to be American interests... both in facilitating the *ownership* of land by settlers, and in forcibly resettling native populations en masse (something that has been alleged as impossible for a democracy to achieve.)

So it's good to study the american settlement - but the lesson is the opposite of what you derive - people can't wait for parliamentary process to reclaim J&K.

I'm not sure what lessons you think I have derived. I have nothing against mass migration to J&K and forcible "squatting" if necessary... but the reason why that will not happen is apparent.

In the United States, the "squatters" fully trusted (based on previous government policies) that the GOTUS would eventually assist their settlement and ownership of the land they occupied. In India, people have no incentive to go and squat in the vale of Kashmir because there is no confidence that the GOI will ultimately legitimize their ownership of it.

Such actions as the Congress Government taking up the separatists' cause against raising the national flag in Srinagar on January 26th, allow aspiring settlers no cause for optimism.

How do you propose that people can reclaim J&K given a central government that is doing everything in its power to discourage them? Article 370 is only the beginning.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2011 07:36

What are current laws regarding spouses and children of state subjects? Can they become state subjects?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 Feb 2011 08:12

Rudradev wrote:Most financial analysts worth their salt would recognize that there is real value associated with having an option... maybe that isn't part of the Elite Iskool curriculum

Would have ordinarly ignored the comment given its tenor, but couldnt because of the allusion to option values...Surely, given your vast knowledge (from maybe "non-elite" schools) on option valuations, you know the meaning and import of options with deep OTM strikes? For a vast majority of people who migrate in this country (including graduates of "elite" schools migrating to the financial capital!), the option to own property is one with deep OTM strikes...Most people spend entire lifetimes living at a place not able to exercise the options at all, given how far away the strikes are...They dont migrate on the premise of the "property owning option", in fact most of them use their jobs to generate an economic surplus in their "karmabhoomi" to get "Knocked out" of poverty with enough "Rebates" to be able to fund ATM options in their home-states...

But of course, we will always have nationalist kirana store-wallahs in huge numbers for whom annulment of Art 370 will result in availability of "home buying options" with deep ITM strikes, isnt it?

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 25 Feb 2011 09:23

Rudradev wrote:How do you propose that people can reclaim J&K given a central government that is doing everything in its power to discourage them? Article 370 is only the beginning.

Rudra: setting aside for a minute the temptation to analyze the amriki kabza-e-zameen.

On J&K, I'd say we are in vehement agreement except that 80% think Art.370 is the prime obstacle. whereas 5% think lack of political will is an obstacle and Art.370 a fig leaf.

Supposing that 5% were to come over to your viewpoint and do satyagraha for Art370 repeal - do you realistically see a 2/3 majority in parliament which'll vote for that ? I think nationalist sentiment will be a minority in electoral politics in years to come.

Supposing that 80% were to come over to the 5% viewpoint and demand from our "nationalist" parties to stop making law as an excuse for lack of political will and devote the same energy they did to the Janmabhoomi issue. (Remember central govt. opposed Janmabhoomi too)

I'm willing to concede if you foresee events that kindle hope in the 80% solution (BJP manifesto).

PS: Using Janmabhoomi instead of Babri (which flamed some).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Feb 2011 10:11

ManishH; Janmbhoomi was a different kettle of fish, because for all its achievements, there is still no temple.

Settling Kashmir is like building a temple on the Janmsthan. Knocking down the offending structure is only one part. This can be compared to the tiranga yatra(s).

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 25 Feb 2011 11:26

^^^SankuJi, I agree, Janmabhoomi is a different fish. And I concede, tiranga yatra is a good symbolic start.

Please pardon my lebensraum bhashan - a nation's objectives must be purely material - land, prosperity, trade, influence, arms. Religion, race etc. are only tactics to achieve those objectives.

Janmabhoomi, even if successful, will give us a purely non-material gain - sort of pride or self-confidence. But it gives us, nor our progeny, any material benefit.

Whereas reclamation of J&K will give us pride and material benefit, and in years to come, I think even more than what our schoolbook naksha is today.

wig · Post by **wig** » 25 Feb 2011 12:15

Pranav wrote:What are current laws regarding spouses and children of state subjects? Can they become state subjects?

if a male state subject marries a female non state subject then the female and the offspring are entitled to be registered as a state subject.
if a female state subject marries a male non state subject then the female loses her status as a state subject and the children are not entitled to the state subject certificate.

there is a judgement of the J&K High Court titled Dr Ravinder Madaan & ors vs J&k wherein the said plaintiff moved court and got a judgement that the female marrying a male non state subject would be entitled to continue in her job after marriage.
various J&K Govts have from time to time tried to introduce legislation to deny female state subjects marrying male non state subjects from any rights to jobs or education or right to buy land and settle down.
it turns out to be a human tragedy when the female is widowed/ divorced/ estranged and occasionaly returns to her parents family with her children. she or her children lack any facilities for education(scholarships) or a widows pension that the State Social Welfare Board hands out.
all in all a disgraceful situation. It violates the constitutional premise that there should not be any discrimination on the basis of sex.