J&K News and Discussion-2011

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 May 2011 07:05

RamaY wrote: However IMs, especially KMs organize mass mobilizations to protest against any Islamic cause be it Quran burning or Taslima or Salman Rasdie or great Satan, and so on...

After all those posts in various threads, this question from you indicates that you are intellectually biased. Nothing wrong but that shows your bias and nothing can change your opinion... So what is the point.

No bias (well, at least attempted

), but an attempt to understand the real motivatiosn rather than the superficial..

Yes, of course, we have had some resonance in the Indian muslim street for pan Islamic causes..No doubt...There would be some real sympathy/empathy for the cause, but it takes a lot more than just that to put up a "street show"...

As for news articles, there are lots of such "optics"..I "Googled" for one..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/destr ... ms/403617/

For KMs, the political mtivations are even clearer..the so-called "moderate" groups have for long been sidelined, and the poltical space is taken up by various shades of Islamism - Geelani on the extreme Right to PDP somewhere in the middle...Hence, we saw an islamist-inspired shutdown in the valley when the US attacked Afghanistam, even when much of the Hurriyat appealed against that...So we had this ironic scenario where the US, which is widely expected to "deliver" Kashmir to the Kashmiris from the Indians, is often and wiely reviled!

That KMs are a sullen group at best is something that we need to take as a ceteris paribus condition..In fact Indian policy makers do exactly that...The attempt is to always take the sting, either internal provoctaive, or external support related, out of that sullen-ness, so that we dotn have uprisings to deal with..Maybe in a couple of more decades, as KMs get a bigger taste of the "India story", things might change, but till then, we will need to "manage" the sullen-ness...

IMs in mainland India have a different story and narrative - and that is complex in itself!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 May 2011 07:09

"While terrorism is destructive, jehad is constructive."

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 May 2011 18:27

somnath wrote: No bias (well, at least attempted ), but an attempt to understand the real motivatiosn rather than the superficial..

Yes, of course, we have had some resonance in the Indian muslim street for pan Islamic causes..No doubt...There would be some real sympathy/empathy for the cause, but it takes a lot more than just that to put up a "street show"...

Why do IMs resonate for pan Islamic causes? What makes a Palestine or Chechnya or Iraq or any regional issue an ISLAMIC cause? Can you please explain? If the suffering of a fellow muslim 10,000 miles away becomes an Islamic cause, why not care about a Muslim 10 feet away and help him academically, economically and socially? If they really care about fellow Muslim, why IMs are perceived and projected as down trodden even after hundreds of years of Islamic kingdoms and 60 years of [sic] secular, democratic India?

Does this apply to other religions and faiths as well, for example Indian Christians (they do of course), Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus and so on start resonating to pan-religeous causes? What will be the state of Indian nation?

Why did you complain when fellow Indians sympathized with fellow Hindu jammu public when they were agitating during recent Bharat swabhiman yatra?

Your biases and prejudices are highly visible, attempted or intended or otherwise. I have no problem with that as everyone is entitled to their opinions and prejudices. The only irritant is that when it is not accepted and admitted. That creates unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding. Please stand by what you write and others (include me) will have a better understanding of your opinions and preferences.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 May 2011 19:23

RamaY wrote:Does this apply to other religions and faiths as well, for example Indian Christians (they do of course), Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus and so on start resonating to pan-religeous causes? What will be the state of Indian nation?

Why did you complain when fellow Indians sympathized with fellow Hindu jammu public when they were agitating during recent Bharat swabhiman yatra?

Not sure where you found in my post any "justification" of the pan-islamism among (sections of) IMs...It was simply a statement of fact...Its not desirable, but its a ceteris paribus condition, and we (the Indian nation state) needs to dovetail its policies around the same...Thats all..Most of the time, its not a big deal...India doesnt have too much of a bone in most islamist causes, looked at very dispassionately..And in many cases, there are faultlines that we can suitably exploit...But thats besides the point...

The original question was why we dont have a procession (presumably of the Ekta yatra type) of IMs in support of the state position in J&K..The answer to that was my interpretation of the "why" - you dont have IM processions taking to the streets in favour of KMs either..simply because political dividends for doing so either ways are limited...On the other hand, there are political benefits, perceived or otehrwise of some other issues - whether slamming Pak for jihadi attacks or Taslima Nasreen - so you see dutiful "muslim political processions" on these regularly...

Which was the entire rationale for my opposition to the BJP shindig as well..There is nothing terribly spontaenoues about any politiccal mobilisation most of the time - hindu, muslim or secular...They are conscious, managed activities, requiring a lot of deliberate effort...Which was the case in the BJP yatra as well..My bone (as was for a lot of others) was simply that the yatra created no additional strategic space for India in J&K in any manner, but gave renewed oxygen of pubicity to the separatists - which has precisely been the effort of the Indian state to deny......You only have to look at BJP's political narrative to see what rank they give MMJ's Ekta Yatra.......

Finally, biases and prejudices should be ideally divorced from exigencies of tactical statecraft...All that matters is to get the job done, and not let the adversary an upper hand..Works both ways..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 May 2011 19:25

RamaY guru, the concept of standing for something is not necessarily considered a virtue in some circles.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 May 2011 22:24

somnath wrote: The original question was why we dont have a procession (presumably of the Ekta yatra type) of IMs in support of the state position in J&K..The answer to that was my interpretation of the "why" - you dont have IM processions taking to the streets in favour of KMs either..simply because political dividends for doing so either ways are limited...On the other hand, there are political benefits, perceived or otehrwise of some other issues - whether slamming Pak for jihadi attacks or Taslima Nasreen - so you see dutiful "muslim political processions" on these regularly...

Which was the entire rationale for my opposition to the BJP shindig as well..There is nothing terribly spontaenoues about any politiccal mobilisation most of the time - hindu, muslim or secular...They are conscious, managed activities, requiring a lot of deliberate effort...Which was the case in the BJP yatra as well..My bone (as was for a lot of others) was simply that the yatra created no additional strategic space for India in J&K in any manner, but gave renewed oxygen of pubicity to the separatists - which has precisely been the effort of the Indian state to deny......You only have to look at BJP's political narrative to see what rank they give MMJ's Ekta Yatra.......

Finally, biases and prejudices should be ideally divorced from exigencies of tactical statecraft...All that matters is to get the job done, and not let the adversary an upper hand..Works both ways..

1. The original point was Hulaku's statement about KMs and people thought it was not [sic] secular enough and must be corrected. Both you and I entered that discussion with our own opinions.

2. Any procession, be it spontaneous or pre-planned, will have certain objectives mostly political advancement. It is a different matter if that political mileage is achieved internally or externally. I do not like you separating J&K and India (in the bold) and do not understand how India (that is inclusive of J&K) can do something for J&K in a way that is harmful/beneficial to J&K. On the other hand Kashmir Valley Muslims have done much damage to entire India in terms of lives, economy and national prestige; and they deserve all the tough love that they get; be it generalization of their hubris or something other.

3. We have had enough discussions on Bharat Swabhiman Yatra, and you participated in it. If you go thru that thread you will understand the idea behind that Yatra. For your kind information the stone pelting nonsense happened well before any yatra by BJP. It is a different matter if you do not think that Yatra did not achieve anything.

4. Even being on the right side is a form or prejudice or bias. It is a different state of being when one achieves that 'sthita prajnata'. Even then, one has to take a side and stand by his dharma when it comes to action. I do not understand how you can take a stand, define and identify your 'adversary', and get the job done in statecraft without having a prejudiced (however dharmic it is) strategic position.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 24 May 2011 22:31

I think BJP in conducting that yatra, defied the usual (cynical too) expectation that marches are for political gains. The yatra will not gain it any political mileage, but it was a principled stand, very rare for todays' politics.

Whether it'll gain India a strategic points in J&K or not is yet to be seen. But if it fulfills the goal of putting the importance of integration of J&K in popular perception, I'd say it has succeeded. Merely annoying Hurriyatvadis doesen't mean the yatra hasn't gained "strategic space". My contention is that any move to gain "strategic space" in J&K will necessarily be opposed tooth and nail by separatist. It is actually the Chamberlainesque peace-with-honour type of deals being touted that'll end up losing "strategic space" for Inia.

My only cudgel with BJP is that it hasn't yet come out with a "roadmap" that was promised after Rajnath Singh's delegation went to J&K.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 May 2011 23:49

Obama is talking of going back to pre-1967 borders. Curiously, I remembered that in 1967 J&K, there was a violent state crackdown on "satyagrahi"s protesting the abduction of a minor KP girl - Parameswari. Can the p-secs or "real-politikos" please point out what BJP/JanaSangh atrocity incited by Sangh was perpetrated on KM in 1967 that brought out such an act? I think the Ayodhya +Godhra+Gujarat incident were some decades yet to come. In 1967 there was no Indo-Pak war too - it was all peace, peace and peace.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 May 2011 00:02

Why do IMs resonate for pan Islamic causes?

I don't think there is a problem with Muslims, IMs, KMs or anyone. The root of 'pan Islamism' is in Islams doctrine. The concept of Dar ul Harn and Dar ul Islam is itself a declaration of War. So Muslims are thrust by doctrine itself to pitch into conflict. Open Koranic injunctions towards not treating Christians and Jews (both people of the book) as friends has led to problems in the ME and West. All conflict is doctrinal. So is Islams clash. It's not radical Islam thats the problem (fact is there is no such thing as Radical Islam), it's literal Islam that is the problem. The fight in Pakistan and the clash between the bigger beard and smaller one is that, the clash between more pious and less pious is exactly that. Majority Dharmic inclusivity and the Indian constitutional doctrine accounts for the fact that most IMs don't fall prey to literal Islam. That was what was anethema for many IMs pre partition that led to direct action day and separate nations. KMs a large number have fallen prey to that literal ideology. The more literal one goes into Islam, the further the distate for Ahmedi's, Sufi's not to mention infidels kufr etc. This must be understood to comprehend problems today. I only partly agree with Obama and Bush that 'we' are not at war with Islam..but is literal Islam not a declaration of war on us even if we are not? Once that is internalized..conflict will reduce a large extent.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 May 2011 01:14

Harbansji,

If and when literal Islam is the root of the problem, that literal Islam must be fought against and defeated; without any prejudices or excuses. If I understand your post correctly there are good muslims in bad Islam where as there are bad Hindus in good Hinduism. That is the key difference.

The difference between more and less pious doesn't arise when dealing with non-believers

If you contemplate deeply on partition you will realize that the separation from non-believers is core of IM population of that day. The muslim majority regions were able to physically separate from Dharmic dominated regions. And all the IMs who can afford complete relocation of their assets, families etc did move to pure lands. Only the IM population that could not relocate (for any reason) stayed back. I admit that there were millions of Dharmic muslims (DM) in India then and are living in India, Pakistan, and BD even now. For those DMs it doesn't matter where they live (I/P/B) as they are at peace with their surroundings.

Various shades of Islam come out only in muslim majority regions. In all other places, nations muslims unite against non-believers. What GWB or OBL says doesn't matter as they are holding a political office and driven by those compulsions. For a non-muslim their fight is with Islam (literal or otherwise), where as for a muslim it could be different shade of Islam (the close to the Literal Islam the more purity).

Coming to J&K issue, it is the Kashmir Muslims who are making it a religion issue and our Somnaths support that nonsense. Kashmiri Muslims have no right to demand any thing on the basis of their religion. They should get same rights and responsibilities as rest of Indians. If they think they can get better life and human rights, they are more than welcome to immigrate.

P.S: I am still waiting for Somnathji's answer to "What is ISLAMIC about Palastine or Chechen or any other cause?".

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 May 2011 03:15

If I understand your post correctly there are good muslims in bad Islam

Ramay Ji, no there are no 'bad muslims' in Islam, except 'hypocrite' as in literal Islam. There are only literal muslims who break infidel/ kufr law. You are still not looking at it from the level of doctrine. You are still assuming it's 'people', Govts, sects behind what we call Terrorism etc. All conflict i repeat ALL is rooted in doctrine.

Change the Indian Constitution today and give Bukhari status of India's emperor with Sharia law and call Kiyani for talks and make him President of Mughalistan, combining India and Pakistan. ALL India's problems in Kashmir, Pakistan will get solved overnight. Christine Fair will think it's the fair solution. It might be also if one thinks there will be reduction of present day tensions, nuke threats etc. Question is why we don't want that? It's not about good or bad. It's about more. It's Dharma. It's doctrinal.

Because we (including many IMs, KMs etc) have made a personal choice (doctrinal) to be pluralist, secular, democratic while the literal interpretationists of Islamic doctrine have not. The conflict is right there. Try seeing things through that prism of doctrine.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2011 03:44

Is it at all possible to have "non-literalism" in that doctrine? When you make a single text written in a particular dialect at a particular time and place - the inalienable and unalterable be-all and end-all - you cannot but be literal. Interpretations and reinterpretations are always standing on the risky one-step to potential alterations and adulterations of meaning. Hence any functional interpretation of that doctrine cannot deviate too far from "literalism" as otherwise it delegitimizes itself.

Hence, no matter how much "reform" is tried - sooner or later any such reform comes into conflict with the doctrine, and there is a reversion to "literalism". If it has to continue to exist, it can either reject itself and come out of it - or go for increasing "literalism". There is no middle ground - any such middle ground is an unstable equilibrium. Literalism is less taxing on the brain, and therefore more certain and likely always to be the more stable equilibrium.

In J&K as everywhere else, what they did was systematically destroy all complexities of "others" presence- they are doing it even now. They are simply creating the conditions where civilization reduces to the basics of biology - and then that will be in stable equilibrium compatible with a forever-fixed doctrine.

Doctrine is the real problem - that has been my contention. But it is incorrect to say that the problem lies in "literalism" - the doctrine is inseparable from "literalism".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 May 2011 04:12

As TSP goes deeper into doo doo the antics of APHC etc all become irrelevant.

Omar's coup also becomee worthless.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 May 2011 04:14

Doctrine is the real problem - that has been my contention. But it is incorrect to say that the problem lies in "literalism" - the doctrine is inseparable from "literalism".

Brihaspati Ji, i am too in full agreement that Doctrine is everything. I keep stating that. But enlightenment in Europe made people shun literal Christianity specially Old Testament texts to separation of Church and State..though gradually. What i wanted to put forward was that there is no such thing as radical Islam. It's literal Islam that causes problems. If practitioners can separate literal Islam and State, and the State made powerful enough to implement anti-blasphemy laws, freedom of speech and propagation in Islamic countries say ME..then literal Islam or otherwise cease to be a problem there. Whether thats going to happen in the ME is yet to be seen. I have my doubts though..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2011 04:16

You mean anti-anti-blasphemy laws?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2011 04:19

ramana wrote:As TSP goes deeper into doo doo the antics of APHC etc all become irrelevant.

Omar's coup also becomee worthless.

But they can try to reactivate this sector simply as a means of national diversion and focus away from their own poo! At the moment they have no great national objective! At least not something that is compatible with constructed Paki H&D. Reactivation would be the perfect way out.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 May 2011 05:34

harbans wrote:
Change the Indian Constitution today and give Bukhari status of India's emperor with Sharia law and call Kiyani for talks and make him President of Mughalistan, combining India and Pakistan. ALL India's problems in Kashmir, Pakistan will get solved overnight. Christine Fair will think it's the fair solution. It might be also if one thinks there will be reduction of present day tensions, nuke threats etc. Question is why we don't want that? It's not about good or bad. It's about more. It's Dharma. It's doctrinal.

Harbansji,

I was one of the people who did not make a distinction between Islam and islamism and got warnings in the process.

Actually that will be just beginning of real problem.

First there will be pressure on Yindoos to convert. It starts with raping of Yindoo women and demanding four witnesses. Once the Yindoos are converted or dead or migrated to west (would west give political asylum to Yindoos?), the focus will be on Christian converts. After some bitter fights and govt sponsored and militant genocides, there will be a temporary truce.

In the meantime the peaceful Indian Muslims will face persecution from Paki Muslims as they were not pure enough and lived peacefully with Yindoos for 60 years.

In summary, Pakistan will never become India, not as long as Islam exists, irrespective of you give then JK or whole india or whole world. In turn they will transform india into today's Pakistan.

All these WKK types are Paki wannabees. The best solution for them is to migrate to Pakistan and create their utopia.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 May 2011 06:27

RamaY wrote:Coming to J&K issue, it is the Kashmir Muslims who are making it a religion issue and our Somnaths support that nonsense

RamaY-ji, unfortunately you confuse analysis with "stance", or "prejudice"..Different concepts..When did I "support" the islamism of the KM? Recognising a fact doesnt mean "supporting" the same..If you read what i wrote, you will find that I considered KMs to be a "sullen group at best"..Our challenge is to keep extreme "radicalistic" actions out of that group...Essentially, it means "talk softly, and carry an effective stick"...Which is what the Indian state typically tries to do, with varying degrees of success, in dealing with its various mutinies..Rooftop sloganeering baying for blood or cultural shifts unfortuantely yield close to nothing in strategic terms, but provide fuel for lethal acts...

RamaY wrote:P.S: I am still waiting for Somnathji's answer to "What is ISLAMIC about Palastine or Chechen or any other cause?".

There is nothing partcularly "islamic" about the Palestine issue (people forget George Habash), but it has gotten converted into a benchmark case of anti-muslim orientation of the West...But India really has no bones in that dispute, and letting a bunch of right wing loonies engage in a bit of agitprop on the issue is a good "vent" for genuine grievances they might have against the Indian state..Again, while its not ideal, I dont see a reason for people to get all worked up and start counter-agitprop on the issue - that simply queers the pitch for the Indian state..

If you look at the politics of identity in India, overdone, they start having HUGE diminishing marginal utlity...Mulayam Yadav is a perfect case, with his attempts at muslim identity based politics...His irrelevance in UP perhaps started with his attempts at declarng Friday as a state holiday...BJP found out the limitations of hindu identity politics in 1996, and has been constantly reminded of it ever since - latest by Nitish Kumar...Which is why one needs to take these "spontaeneous demonstrations" with huge doses of salt...They invariably have organised political sponsors with a certain agenda, and those sponsors themsleves would stop well short of the agitprop position when it came to a crunch, because on most issues the standard stance of the state is what is standard narrative for most parties as well...

It gells well with the whole "argumentative Indian" philosophy - there are multiple strands, motivations, mutinies etc...the trick for the nation state is to "manage" these while concentrating single-mindedly on development...Trying to take "sides" on issues that are almost always marginal and peripheral does precious little for the Indian project...
But I guess al this is way OT for the J&K thread!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 May 2011 07:23

Somnathji,

Fair enough! I will take your word on your intensions.

But then you repeat the same pattern of thought process. If Palastine issue has no Islamic bearing how could Muslims (including the silent majority) make it an Islamic cause? How is it west's mistake to support their ally in land dispute? What right Pakistan has to exist on the map if Israel doesn't have a right to exist?

Secondly, how did you get to connect the 'venting' of IMs on Palastine with their "genuine" grievances with India? What anger IMs have to vent w.r.t Palastine? And what "genuine" grievenes you are talking about?

If you are serious about "talk softly but carry big stick"strategy w.r.t KMs, why did you support INC action on Bharat Swabhiman Yatra while allowing the interoculators to entertain autonomy nonsense? What big stick the "autonomy" to cashmere idea offers to India?

There is nothing partcularly "islamic" about the Palestine issue (people forget George Habash), but it has gotten converted into a benchmark case of anti-muslim orientation of the West...But India really has no bones in that dispute, and letting a bunch of right wing loonies engage in a bit of agitprop on the issue is a good "vent" for genuine grievances they might have against the Indian state..Again, while its not ideal, I dont see a reason for people to get all worked up and start counter-agitprop on the issue - that simply queers the pitch for the Indian state..

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 May 2011 07:42

RamaY-ji, you are not reading my posts..

RamaY wrote:If Palastine issue has no Islamic bearing how could Muslims (including the silent majority) make it an Islamic cause?

I said that the issue by itself isnt "Islamic", but it has become a symptomatic cause of western discrimnation against muslims - its a fact, not a POV...

RamaY wrote:Secondly, how did you get to connect the 'venting' of IMs on Palastine with their "genuine" grievances with India? What anger IMs have to vent w.r.t Palastine? And what "genuine" grievenes you are talking about?

The biggest grievance that IMs should have w.r.t the Indian state is that of tokenism..But thats my POV, IMs can have others.The limited point is that venting anger on non-issues like Palestine is a convenient vent to that disfection, and prevents more radical outcomes from that..

RamaY wrote:If you are serious about "talk softly but carry big stick"strategy w.r.t KMs, why did you support INC action on Bharat Swabhiman Yatra while allowing the interoculators to entertain autonomy nonsense? What big stick the "autonomy" to cashmere idea offers to India

The effective stick" is the security apparatus...The "autonomy" proposals are the "talk softly"...If you look at the state's track record dispassionately, all that we have done over the decades is to erode the so-called autnomy..Fat chance that we will roll back something substantive...All this talks et al give optics of movement, keeps the sepratists elements at some even keel...Makes the job of the security apparatus easier in terms of dealing with a lesser number of lethal elements...

About the yatra tamasha, I said before - all it did was give some more precious oxygen of publicity to the separatists, and brought the "kashmir issue" back into limelight...dont take my word for it - is even the BJP serious about the "yatra"? If it was, would it have entrusted it to a junior backbencher MP? Would it have forgotten about it soon after?

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 25 May 2011 07:57

Halaku (Khan)

Very simple 2 cents.

1. I am with Vikas ji here, Kashmir Valley like the J&K belongs to India. To me it is the rejection of TNT in all it forms. Or in other words I refuse to accept that religion is the ONLY criteria in defining a nation.

2. There are 2 ways of living in India, under an State assembly elected by people or under President's rule ratified by the mother of all Assemblies. There is no third option.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 25 May 2011 08:41

India's right to curtail western media psy-ops is now being called "censorship". How about showing Scotland and Malvinas independent in your own maps ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13529512

The Economist magazine has accused India of hostile censorship after being forced by the country's authorities to cover up a map in its latest edition.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 25 May 2011 09:49

^ Kick these psy-ops carrying ragtags where it hurts the most..in the money gut. Next time fine them few 100 thousand pounds for depicting incorrect map of India.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2011 17:39

The "yatra" is a "tamasha" to all pseudo secular pseudo nationalist pretenders - because it forced them to openly come out and side with protecting the "separatist" sentiment. It is this being forced to openly choose sides - that rankles these minds. Ah, after all it was so cozy - in doing business on the sly with separatists - sending out "interlocutors" a la the Clinton admin to Kosovo/Croatia in preparation to create an Islamist "homeland".

But on the other hand - do we really have reasons to be so angry with the Economist?

People from the rest of India could not go and raise the national tri-colour in that "state". Both the GOI as well as the state gov collaborated - and therefore agreed that the state had its own independent right to decide who from outside its "borders" could come in to exercise a right allowed to such people as citizens of their own nation.

The state has its own flag, which is flown at par with Indian national tricolour, and has separate and parallel citizenship with that of India. Non-citizens of the state cannot own land in the state. The state has its own civil law not just based on the Sharia but explicitly mentioned also as Sharia Law as per its legislative declaration. Moreover, the Indian Constitution really does not apply fully to the state - with the state having virtually its own independent Constitution.

In many respects the state behaves like an independent rashtra, and the GOI agrees to such behaviour. There is only one exception where the state is unable to exercise its "sovereignty" [others like finance or communications are essentially beneficial to the state if paid for by India and hence not much of an obstacle] and that is the presence of Indian national security forces and the army. For all practical purposes therefore it can be interpreted by those who are inclined to do so as an uneasy truce by which Indian token authority in the territory is maintained only by military presence and the state is virtually and for all practical purposes independent.

Most importantly, GOI in a sense acknowledges such "independence" by actively using its rashtryia authority to prevent challenges to such "independence". So why the khujli if others call the bluff of official claims of "integral part" while behaving like a "foreign power" maintaining a "protectorate" on ground?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 May 2011 19:06

How about the following proposal :

(1) return to pre 1987 demographic profile in Indian administered J&K, especially in land and property ownership. All KP property both private and public [like the various temple and trust lands occupied since 1947] - both under J&K state government as well as private individuals restored to rightful descendants.
(2) return of Hindu and Sikh properties in POK to rightful descendants. Exchanges of properties with Muslims who were "illegally" expelled [if any] should be considered fairly.
(3) extension of a special administration to entire state of J&K, including POK under the Indian constitution within the framework of an Union territory during the transition.
(4) Those residents who do not wish to remain within the Indian Union will be given financial compensation to resettle in Pakistan or nations of their choice who are willing to accept them as immigrants.

We can consider financially "buying" up the "land" and occupation , but it must be conditional on resettlement elsewhere - so that no lingering "claims" are sustainable. Also the money must be given individually and not to Pak gov.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 25 May 2011 21:51

B Ji, How do you implement point# 3 without getting into a war with TSP (on PoK part).

On#4 when denizens of Kashmir are getting free money from GoI as FD, why would they leave and settle in Pakjabi land or KSA Land to be oppressed by local thugs who are mostly interested in their women.

To play devil's advocate, GoI only signed up for separate Flag while non-citizens not able to buy land was there evn before accession and GoI chose not to scrap it. Why blame current generation of J&Ki'tes ?

Last why no one ever talks about Kashmir under Chinese illegal occupation?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 May 2011 00:27

VikasRaina ji,
I guess you are responding partly to my earlier post about khujli about Economist. The flag issue is just one of many. But are we not supposed to look forward and not live in the "past"?

My proposal is simply the germ of an idea that came today after reading one more of the subtle pseudo-secular pseudo nationalist posturings that I increasingly see. There is a reason for my offer of "financial incentives". It is claimed that doctrine is no issue, ideology does not matter, and the particular faith that often comes up in issues about the valley - is supposedly very peaceful inherently, and that the community simply is concerned about material well-being. So they must have their monetary price according to this theory. Yes they get some help time to time, but surely a lump-sum if sufficiently large should over-ride all other considerations of doctrine etc?

You mention about #3 etc. But the killing of OBL should prove that even Pak can be bought. With money. If we offer POK residents residence under the Indian union, in a Union Territory of J&K - some will be asked by ISI to simply remain and join in so that they can act as fifth column. Maybe some of their relatives will be held hostage to ensure this. But we can tackle that, can't we? I think some of them will prefer even to live in a union territory and get the economic and other developmental benefits in return for giving up on "special status".

War with Pak? That is inevitable sooner or later. There is only one way that Pakis can prolong their independent existence now - that is provoke a war with India over KV.

My proposal is a semi-maximalist position. But we have been negotiating on the minimalist position in a way so far. If development is the demand - we should promise it only in return for giving up of "special status" claims, not make it automatic. Negotiations should be opened with Baltistanis.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 May 2011 00:53

The entire value of the Chinese occupation lies in that thin strip of land at the base of the entrance to the KV from Punjab [or current Pakjab]. Once POK comes back to it rightful position as a territory of India - all of the investments and value of the Chinese activities come to nil. Perhaps negative too - because the infrastructure built by them can be used in reverse.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 26 May 2011 09:31

brihaspati wrote: (4) Those residents who do not wish to remain within the Indian Union will be given financial compensation to resettle in Pakistan or nations of their choice who are willing to accept them as immigrants.

B-Ji: I doubt any of the separatists will take up any amount of money to leave the valley. Their ideology has already marked J&K as "Islamic Lands" and vacating them will be out of question. Any "incentives" will be futile, only "pressures" will work. A "pressure" to either integrate or get lost.

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 May 2011 11:44

From rediff:

11:47 AM 12-member team heads to Pak for K solution:

Heads up. Our Delhi correspondent reports India sent a high-level 12-member parliamentary delegation led by Jammu and Kashmir Congress chief Prof. Saifuddin Soz to Pakistan to look for a political solution to the Kashmir tangle, besides discussing steps to build confidence and trust.

This the first Indian visit to Islamabad after the Americans smoked out Osama bin Laden from his hideout in Pakistan's cantonment town of Abbottabad.

The delegation includes five Congress MPs namely Dr Keshava Rao, Aaron Rasheed, Dr Sudharshan Nachiappan, Shadi Lal Batra and Madan Lal Sharma, thee from Left Front, Syed Aziz Pasha, Mohammad Amin and R C Singh.

Also on board are Tariq Anwar of the Nationaist Congress Party, Sharifuddin Shariq of National Conference and Rajniti Prasad of Rashtriya Janata Dal.

None from the opposition National Democratic Alliance and no explation was forthcoming why.

Since the delegation has three MPs from Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmir problem would form core of discussions.

Something doesn't smell right here...

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 May 2011 11:45

More:

11:52 AM Kashmir will form core of discussions:

Our Delhi correspondent adds that since the delegation has three MPs from Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmir problem will form the core of discussions.

"We will tell our Pakistani friends to use their influence to ensure a political space in Kashmir by asking militants not to target activists of mainstream political parties," said Shariq of National Conference which rules J&K.

"In return, the governments both the Centre and state can ensure a peaceful political space for separatists as well," he said.

The MPs, who were briefed here by the top foreign ministry officials before they left for Islamabad said they would attempt to reassure Pakistani counterparts to concentrate on the battle against terrorism and extremism as it was threat to the whole region.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 26 May 2011 13:48

sum wrote:From rediff:
11:47 AM 12-member team heads to Pak for K solution:
None from the opposition National Democratic Alliance and no explation was forthcoming why.
Something doesn't smell right here...

It's all politics - Rajnath Singh led a separate NDA delegation earlier. In a way it's good, because it'll give the Indian people two approaches - with no petty compromises. Indian people can evaluate both approaches and figure out which one meets the national goals.

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 May 2011 13:57

It's all politics - Rajnath Singh led a separate NDA delegation earlier.

An NDA delegation visited Pak to discuss K? Hadn't seen this in the DDM.

Could you please provide link for this?

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 26 May 2011 14:43

brihaspati wrote:VikasRaina ji,
I guess you are responding partly to my earlier post about khujli about Economist. The flag issue is just one of many. But are we not supposed to look forward and not live in the "past"?

My proposal is simply the germ of an idea that came today after reading one more of the subtle pseudo-secular pseudo nationalist posturings that I increasingly see. There is a reason for my offer of "financial incentives". It is claimed that doctrine is no issue, ideology does not matter, and the particular faith that often comes up in issues about the valley - is supposedly very peaceful inherently, and that the community simply is concerned about material well-being. So they must have their monetary price according to this theory. Yes they get some help time to time, but surely a lump-sum if sufficiently large should over-ride all other considerations of doctrine etc?

You mention about #3 etc. But the killing of OBL should prove that even Pak can be bought. With money. If we offer POK residents residence under the Indian union, in a Union Territory of J&K - some will be asked by ISI to simply remain and join in so that they can act as fifth column. Maybe some of their relatives will be held hostage to ensure this. But we can tackle that, can't we? I think some of them will prefer even to live in a union territory and get the economic and other developmental benefits in return for giving up on "special status".

War with Pak? That is inevitable sooner or later. There is only one way that Pakis can prolong their independent existence now - that is provoke a war with India over KV.

My proposal is a semi-maximalist position. But we have been negotiating on the minimalist position in a way so far. If development is the demand - we should promise it only in return for giving up of "special status" claims, not make it automatic. Negotiations should be opened with Baltistanis.

B Ji, Thanks for explaining. I guess no Idea should be off the table.

The only thing that we know about this wh0re called TSP is that it will sell to any bidder except for India. It considers India as Father's Jageer.
For what you are suggesting to happen, we should leave TSP in dumps and ignore them completely and totally for them to feel the heat. As long as Pappi-Jhappi will go on, they will always feel that they have a chance to grab Indian prosperity without giving up anything including Jehad.
Unfortunately except for war, everything else to dismember TSP is in the hand of father time and some amount of luck knowing how much GoI is interested in bringing peace to the world.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 26 May 2011 17:19

sum wrote:
It's all politics - Rajnath Singh led a separate NDA delegation earlier.
An NDA delegation visited Pak to discuss K? Hadn't seen this in the DDM.

Could you please provide link for this?

Oh no, not to Pak. Rajnath Singh led an NDA-only delegation to J&K earlier.

http://www.thenorthlines.com/newsdet.aspx?q=42086

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 May 2011 17:31

^^ But this is supposed to be a "all party delegation" ( without NDA) going to a neighboring country to discuss about giving political legitimacy to separatists provide jihadis are reined in! Not sure if it is same as a NDA delegation to J&K

arun · Post by **arun** » 26 May 2011 18:07

sum wrote:^^ But this is supposed to be a "all party delegation" ( without NDA) going to a neighboring country to discuss about giving political legitimacy to separatists provide jihadis are reined in! Not sure if it is same as a NDA delegation to J&K

This is with reference to the current jaunt to Islamabad and not the one by Rajnath Singh to wherever. It is supposed to be a “Parliamentary-cum-civil society delegation” to attend a two-day Pugwash Conference. No mention of “All Party”:

Pugwash conclave begins today

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 26 May 2011 21:16

Gunfight rages in south Kashmir

Security forces have upped its anti-militancy operations in Kashmir as they laid another siege in south Kashmir to nab militants just a day after killing two militants in north Kashmir’s Handwara district. A special team, comprising army personnel, police’s special operation group, threw a cordon of Kellar village, more than 60 km south of Srinagar, in the afternoon. A specific area called Khanday Mohalla was circled by heavily-armed security forces along with their heavy weight vehicles carrying men and ammunition. The security forces were working on a lead about the militant presence in the area.

“The encounter started in the afternoon. It’s on. No confirmation on the number of militants holed up or the death toll,” said army’s Srinagar-based spokesman J.S.Brar.
--------------------------------------------------------
In a separate operation launched in north Kashmir’s Handwara area on Wednesday, the death toll of militants reached two as the security forces recovered one more body. The identity of the militant, recovered from a house in Laribal village, was not established immediately. The gunfight ended yesterday but the operation was on to comb the encounter site. One AK47 Rifle, two magazines, one wireless set and a Global Positioning System (GPS) were recovered from the encounter site.

This summer the militants are on the receiving end as the comprehensive network of the security forces have kept them at bay. Sources said the security forces are ensuring that the militants do not establish bases in civilian areas and are pushing them into forests. The strategy has paid as the militants have been paralyzed to launch any attack in towns and cities in recent times in Kashmir valley.

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 27 May 2011 23:26

Top Pak militant killed in Kashmir

Indian security forces have killed two militants in a gunbattle in the restive region of Kashmir, including a "most wanted" commander from a Pakistani group, a police officer said.

The Islamist rebels were identified on Thursday in the village of Keller, 50 kilometres south of the main city of Srinagar, police superintendent Mumtaz Ahmad told AFP.

A top local commander of the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) militant outfit named as Qari Zubair was killed in the ensuing firefight along with his bodyguard.

In April this year, local chief of JEM Sajjad Afghani and his bodyguard were shot dead by police in a gunfight along the banks of Dal Lake in Srinagar, the summer capital of the region.

Thursday's killings took to six the number of suspected rebels shot dead by Indian troops in the Himalayan region since Monday.

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 31 May 2011 07:01

From http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/796859/

Why does Arundhati Roy want to burn Kashmir: Farooq
Agencies Posted online: Sun May 29 2011, 20:26 hrs
Pahalgam : As he backed the Jammu and Kashmir government over preventing a rights activist from entering the Valley, Union Minister Farooq Abdullah sought to clarify that he doesn't interfere in the administrative matters of the state.

Defending the state government's decision to turn back Navlakha, who is known to have separatist views on Jammu and Kashmir, he said: "It is all right. For safety of Kashmir, we will do anything. It should be done. We want tourism, we do not want tragedies."

Gautam Navlakha, a frequent traveller to the Valley for the last two decades, has written extensively about alleged human rights violations in the state and is consulting editor of a leading magazine. He was detained at Srinagar Airport yesterday under section 144 CrPC.

Asked if Arundhati Roy will be allowed to visit the Valley, Abdullah evaded a direct reply saying, "I do not know what she is coming here for. I have nothing to do with her or with her book."

"What are they coming for? What does that writer want - to burn Kashmir? Let them burn some other place in India.

Also from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/antii ... la/791053/

‘Anti-India speech charge against Roy, Geelani true’
Almost five months after Delhi Police registered a case of “sedition” against writer Arundhati Roy, Hurriyat leader SAS Geelani and four others, a status report was filed in a city court recently. In the report, the police said that the allegations made in the complaint against the accused regarding “anti-India speeches were true” and they needed more time to file a detailed report.

In the report filed before a Delhi court, the police said they were yet to question Roy, Geelani and others named in the FIR but had interrogated Sushil Pandit who was a complainant in the case.