J & K news and discussion

[Theo_Fidel]

Buying a ticket is a contract.

There are all kinds of outs from these things in India. The railways is under no obligation to get you to your destination. They could have routed the train thru Digboi if they so chose. This is some thing RM has railed about in the past. If the system wants to get you it will grind you to dust. Legally.

At best you can get a refund.

The more I think about it the more certain I am that the founding fathers were right to reserve the use of the flag. It is impossible to argue logically with someone who wraps himself in the flag. This is becoming dangerously similar to the 'insult to prophet' argument across the border. Here it is 'insult to flag'.

This was a BJP rally planned for the lal chowk wrapping itself in the flag. How cynical is that.

The more I see this cynical Ronna Dhonna, the more I'm coming to the view OA was right to keep these lumpens out.

[abhishek_sharma]

The more I see this cynical Ronna Dhonna, the more I'm coming to the view OA was right to keep these lumpens out.

Why do you call them lumpens? Any evidence?

I thought we should have civil conversation here.

[Theo_Fidel]

Nice! All class...

Hard to beleive but OA may come out of this stronger politically..

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/jammu-bjp-wo ... 568-3.html

Jaitley, Anant Kumar and Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha president Anurag Thakur, intercepted the minister's vehicle at Kachi Chawani area of the city, they said.

BJP activists hit the vehicle and pulled out the state flag, but did not touch the national flag, they said, adding that minister's escort and police swung into action and pushed the workers aside.

Rather was inside the vehicle at the time of incident but nobody could see him due to tinted glasses, official sources said.

Reacting to the incident, Rather told PTI on the sidelines of a function at Raj Bhawan "it is minor incident. They did not attack me."

Playing down the incident, he said that state flag was not torn by the BJP activists but an attempt was made in this regard.

[Viv S]

Marten,

Sorry about the late reply. I see the thread seems to have advanced twenty pages since then. Nevertheless.. better late than never.

Your opinion is wrong. Are you telling me the Panun Kashmir can raise the Indian flag in Lal Chowk any day of the week?
Do you know any Pandit families who lost family members to militants and Wahhabi neighbours? I know several and would be happy to introduce you to many more. They will NOT be allowed to hoist the flag. The state simply does not allow for it.

That's debatable. Yes I know members of Pandit families who were driven out. I also know some who stayed back and some who moved back (and forth - mainly for business though) and the unanimous opinion was that physical threat appeared to have been stamped out and no lives or limbs were likely to be threatened any more, though apprehensions were oft stated. So while a Pandit delegation would be intercepted by the security because it is a restricted zone but they're not likely to be assaulted by anyone. But I must qualify that opinion, as one based on an older situation - I haven't been to Kashmir in period following the recent unrest.

The vast majority of people are NOT pro-militancy but are still alienated. And seeing as I've repeated this, I guess I might as well illustrate it with an example. A close friend of mine hails from Srinagar (though we didn't meet up when I stayed there). His dad's a senior police officer in the JKP and he graduated from an IIT. His grandfather was shot on the street by soldiers on suspicion of being a militant. Now while my friend is pro-India, its very easy to tell he's very alienated, and considers the state of affairs as imposed on Kashmir from New Delhi responsible (a view most in his native place share).

Thanks for acknowledging what most folks miss. I completely agree. The folks who feel alienated are so because they are not integrated with the rest of the country. Send in more Indians, send out more Kashmiris (to the rest of the country), and they will change for the better.

However, they aren't exactly benign as you see them. Where were the same folks when the Pandits were being slaughtered and cleansed from the valley? btw, I call BS on your story. Shot on suspicion? Have you been to the city? Your best friend might be from there, but have you seen how how the valley itself is being divided by sloganeering and stone throwing.

First off, I wouldn't want to identify people from the heartland moving to Kashmir as 'Indians' because that would imply that the people of Kashmir were not. Secondly the influx of Han Chinese into Tibet didn't help with integration, I don't think the same would work for J&K. Opening it up for immigration can come at a later stage, for now the easier solution is get the Kashmiris involved in the Tier-I and Tier-II cities and get the industries across the Pir Panjal.

'Where were the same folks' isn't really a valid argument? That's like holding all Gujaratis responsible for the 2002 riots, holding all Delhiites responsible for 1984 riots or holding all Germans responsible for the Holocaust, and so on and so forth.

And BTW the story isn't BS. And it isn't from last year, its from the peak years of the insurgency in the 90s. The sloganeering and stone throwing is small potatoes compared to the situation a decade and a half back when separatist sentiment actually raged strong. Today as long as peace can be ensured for about ten more years (though I wouldn't bet on that figure) the valley will sink into the union.

One Sualeh or Aijaz makes not a good sample size. Think hard about it.

That example was by no means an exception and it was very far from being the only one I learnt about.

For all the rights and wrongs of it, fact remains a yatra by right wing hard-liner party in the state is resented by those in the valley. Call them traitors or make it a matter of principle, a show of muscle doesn't win them over.

Who asked the other parties not to join in? This is supposed to be an INDIAN flag that is being hoisted. Winning them over need not be the goal. That is precisely the simple-mindedness I was talking about. If they refused to speak up against militancy despite hating it, why would they speak up against a peaceful crowd of folks who want to raise the flag on Indian soil? Really, how is it going to make it worse? Explain that in lucid detail and we can have a meaningful discussion.

The objective needs to be winning them over. Unlike most others on the thread, I don't believe that its unattainable or too expensive a goal. And such a march by a right-wing party that the people of the valley rightly or wrongly perceive as being contemptuous towards their concerns, doesn't help matters.

As far as the right to hoist the national flag goes. If I were journalist who decided to hoist the INDIAN flag at Lal Chowk a decade back, the state and army wouldn't have allowed me to enter the area without permission and an escort let alone give me the freedom of movement that is my constitutional right. They're responsibility was to ensure stability and not personal rights even if it was perceived as one of great symbolic importance.

Militants are fast losing relevance. The insurgency has been dormant for a while now, especially compared to what it was a decade ago. Point is to marginalise the separatists by bringing the moderates into the limelight. And instead of bringing Indians from the heartland into the valley, I think at this stage it'll be better and softer approach would be to take the Kashmiris into rest of the country.

The softer approach is how we allowed militancy to make a come-back. The NC and INC had the opportunity to wipe it clean, but refused to do so. Make no mistake here -- I'm not a fan of the BJP too. But I respect the fact that the yatra will establish one fact -- that the writ of militants does NOT rule in the valley. That is the most important factor here. Trouble-makers will try hard to raise havoc, let them do so. That is the best way of letting the silent majority understand how they are being manipulated by the militants who're backed by Pakistan.

Come-back? Statistics show that militancy has been dropping at a such a pace (including the period after 2004 when the Congress assumed power) that casualties in J&K are dwarfed by those Naxal infested areas. Like I said, the writ of militants is fast become irrelevant both to the state and to the people.

PS: Thank you for a civil discussion.

Likewise.

United Jihad Council chairman and Hizb supreme commander Mohammad Yusuf Shah's marriage to Ms Baba at his Rawalpindi home drew neither television crews nor newspaper reporters. It ought to have: that the 61-year-old jihad commander had love on his mind this summer, rather than war, tells us not a little about where Jammu and Kashmir is headed. Eight weeks after the November 2008 carnage in Mumbai, Shah told a rally in Muzaffarabad, “Jihad will continue until the independence of Kashmir.” Instead, violence in the State has diminished to an all-time low and the Hizb has all but disintegrated.

The decline in violence has, oddly, made it difficult for the two key actors in the peace process — the jihadists and Kashmiri secessionist politicians — to reach for New Delhi's olive branch.

Pakistan-based jihadists have found their political leverage within Jammu and Kashmir severely degraded. India's intelligence services estimate that there are between 500 and 600 jihadists operating in the State today — less than a tenth of the numbers in 2001. Ethnic Kashmiri jihadist groups like the Hizb no longer have the network and infrastructure to benefit from post-peace politics. Islamist elements in urban Kashmir are increasingly supportive of the global jihadist project of organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, not the Jamaat-e-Islami linked, State-focussed politics of the Hizb. None of the five sons Shah left in Kashmir to be brought up by his wife Taj Begum when he left for Pakistan in 1994 has, notably, been drawn to their father's cause; three of them hold government jobs.

http://thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article449158.ece

[abhishek_sharma]

Nice! All class...

Certainly not from your side.

[abhishek_sharma]

There are all kinds of outs from these things in India. The railways is under no obligation to get you to your destination. They could have routed the train thru Digboi if they so chose. This is some thing RM has railed about in the past. If the system wants to get you it will grind you to dust. Legally.

At best you can get a refund.

Great! We all look up to a government which could use legal loopholes to deny rights to their citizens. Thank you very much.

The more I think about it the more certain I am that the founding fathers were right to reserve the use of the flag. It is impossible to argue logically with someone who wraps himself in the flag. This is becoming dangerously similar to the 'insult to prophet' argument across the border. Here it is 'insult to flag'.

If you are more certain after thinking about it, then I guess you should take a break. It is pretty clear you are not thinking clearly.

Probably you have not realized that BJP workers were not threatening violence (hence no comparison with the 'insult to prophet'). They just wanted to hoist the flag and the separatists are threatening to deny this right. I do not understand what kind of "thinking" supports this kind of appeasement of people who threaten violence.

This was a BJP rally planned for the lal chowk wrapping itself in the flag. How cynical is that.

You are trying to defend the policy of denying genuine rights to citizens who are exercising it peacefully. You are wrapping votebank policies and Omar Abdullah's appeasement of extremists and anti-nationals in the garb of so-called liberalism. How cynical is that.

[RoyG]

Buying a ticket is a contract.

There are all kinds of outs from these things in India. The railways is under no obligation to get you to your destination. They could have routed the train thru Digboi if they so chose. This is some thing RM has railed about in the past. If the system wants to get you it will grind you to dust. Legally.

At best you can get a refund.

The more I think about it the more certain I am that the founding fathers were right to reserve the use of the flag. It is impossible to argue logically with someone who wraps himself in the flag. This is becoming dangerously similar to the 'insult to prophet' argument across the border. Here it is 'insult to flag'.

This was a BJP rally planned for the lal chowk wrapping itself in the flag. How cynical is that.

The more I see this cynical Ronna Dhonna, the more I'm coming to the view OA was right to keep these lumpens out.

er, OA and congress are stopping people from flying the Indian flag...Islamic fundamentalists are stopping people from insulting the prophet. It's impossible to argue logically with someone who wraps himself in twisted logic. But hey, what more can we expect from lumpens...?

Do you also believe that Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Danish cartoonists, etc should stop doing what they do b/c some inbreed buffoons issue death threats, harm others, and destroy infrastructure much like the separatists in the Valley?

[jrjrao]

This dude in Srinagar is delighted by the "equal-equal".

Carrying the tricolor
by
Zahir-ud-Din

Not only Syed Ali Geelani, the JKLF leadership too has a reason to rejoice. In Kashmir, if people have been arrested for hoisting the Pakistani flag, they have also been arrested for carrying the Indian National Flag

http://risingkashmir.com/news/carrying- ... -5764.aspx

(added link later)

[brihaspati]

Viv S wrote
First off, I wouldn't want to identify people from the heartland moving to Kashmir as 'Indians' because that would imply that the people of Kashmir were not. Secondly the influx of Han Chinese into Tibet didn't help with integration, I don't think the same would work for J&K. Opening it up for immigration can come at a later stage, for now the easier solution is get the Kashmiris involved in the Tier-I and Tier-II cities and get the industries across the Pir Panjal.

Okay - so Kashmiris are "Indians". But then how does it fit in with the comparison of Tibetans versus Han Chinese? Do you mean to say that Kashmiris are as "Indians" as Tibetans are "Han Chinese"? If that comparison does not hold then the failure of "integration" of Tibet example does not apply. Also a curious parallel arises for other regions in India too - anyone moving from one part of India to another part cannot call themselves "Indians" who are moving within their country?

Are you really sure about what you characterize Kashmiris as? A separate ethnicity distinct from all other ethnicities that comprise Bharat - and also an ethnicity that has no "Indian" roots or components or similarities? Or just one population where multiple ethnicities have already combined in the historical past and no distinct ethnicity can really be identified? What exactly is uncommon in Kashmir with the rest of India - that cannot be applied as a criterion for other regions within India with respect to "India" too?

[brihaspati]

Theo_Fidel ji,
what exactly is your definition of "lumpen"?

[ramana]

A major disconnect in the groups that oppose the flag raising(J&K and GOI) is the fact that the separatists are a miniscule portion of the Kashmiri Muslims even D. Padgoankar, chief interlocutor, was affirming that, yet these separatists are being protrayed as representative of all Kashmiri Muslims. And to not offend their sensibilitites the rights of other Indians are being suppressed.

[Prem]

Theo_Fidel ji,
what exactly is your definition of "lumpen"?

I think big chunk of IA consists of some kind of Lumpen families , emotionally attached to the land , country and God.

[Viv S]

Viv S wrote
First off, I wouldn't want to identify people from the heartland moving to Kashmir as 'Indians' because that would imply that the people of Kashmir were not. Secondly the influx of Han Chinese into Tibet didn't help with integration, I don't think the same would work for J&K. Opening it up for immigration can come at a later stage, for now the easier solution is get the Kashmiris involved in the Tier-I and Tier-II cities and get the industries across the Pir Panjal.

Okay - so Kashmiris are "Indians". But then how does it fit in with the comparison of Tibetans versus Han Chinese? Do you mean to say that Kashmiris are as "Indians" as Tibetans are "Han Chinese"?

I don't mean to say anything with regard to commonalities between Han Chinese and Tibetans. I'm saying an influx of immigrants will lead to a backlash from an alienated population. Also, I said that if we start describing the dynamic as one between 'Kashmiris and Indians' then we can forget about any true integration (plenty of forum members have done so) into the national mainstream.

If that comparison does not hold then the failure of "integration" of Tibet example does not apply. Also a curious parallel arises for other regions in India too - anyone moving from one part of India to another part cannot call themselves "Indians" who are moving within their country?

Are you really sure about what you characterize Kashmiris as? A separate ethnicity distinct from all other ethnicities that comprise Bharat - and also an ethnicity that has no "Indian" roots or components or similarities? Or just one population where multiple ethnicities have already combined in the historical past and no distinct ethnicity can really be identified? What exactly is uncommon in Kashmir with the rest of India - that cannot be applied as a criterion for other regions within India with respect to "India" too?

Would you care to elaborate? How did you gather that impression from my post?

[ManjaM]

If a potential threat to peace is used as a pretext to crack down on elected representatives and citizens alike, then the same pretext can be used to prevent assembly of the opposition party every time. I do believe, this has set a dangerous precedent for crushing any form of popular protest by any illegal or unconstitutional means.

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.

I feel that Yuvraj has finally come to a stage where congnitive dissonance has completely taken over and he is unable to connect with indias past, present or future. Let him and his coterie push himself over the brink.

[Frederic]

ManjaM,

The qn is before he goes over the brink, how many more Indics have to suffer?


Best
Fred

[Prem]

ManjaM,
The qn is before he goes over the brink, how many more Indics have to suffer?
Best
Fred

Hope many more , because this is the onlee way to bring the desired change. The probabaility of Jalianwala 2 under Bambini is now a realistic scenario in near future.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
almost all who have bashed the attempt at flag-hoisting here have primarily given the "Kashmiri" aspect as based on two primary points :
(1) That there will be a general - which implies all Kashmiris - reaction against the BJP raising the flag and not the flag per se. Now what has the BJP really done to deserve such universal "Kashmiri mobiliziation"? well bits and pieces thrown out seem to be all based on supposed trauma over supposed atrocities on "Muslims" all around in India, and that BJP does not condemn the "Hindu". There is no other explanation possible - since

(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!

(b) as far as Kashmir seems to be connected - the difference between the two parties is simply too thin to discriminate in on-ground security responses. But the big difference between the two is ofcourse the perception, rightly or wrongly - that they have significant differences on attitudes towards Islamism. While Congress appears to submit to and protect Islamism, BJP criticizes but rarely takes any concrete steps to attack Islamism's fundamental institutions.

(c) The much greater differences - much more than on the issue of Islamism - is of course the attitude towards the "Hindu". Whereas Congress does everything possible to bash the "Hindu" in the name of bashing "Hindutva", BJP does not bash the Hindu. Congress is ready to paint "Hindu" as the greater threat to "India" by painting Hindu "terror" as the real threat, while the BJP has not done it.

(2) All Kashmiris will be enraged at the Indian national flag. Now that is a curious claim. I think anyone who has to justify this will ultimately land up in claiming Kashmiris as non-Indians, as anti-Indians, as anti-Indians because all Indians are anti-Muslims, as anti-Indians because all Indians are Hindus - or various combinations of all four.

[SwamyG]

The more I think about it the more certain I am that the founding fathers were right to reserve the use of the flag. It is impossible to argue logically with someone who wraps himself in the flag. This is becoming dangerously similar to the 'insult to prophet' argument across the border. Here it is 'insult to flag'.

This was a BJP rally planned for the lal chowk wrapping itself in the flag. How cynical is that.

The more I see this cynical Ronna Dhonna, the more I'm coming to the view OA was right to keep these lumpens out.

"Founding Fathers".....ha ha it is from American Republican Playbook. They throw the words "founding fathers" all the time bending the Constitution to suit their needs.

It is also impossible to argue with people who only see BJP as a "hindutva" party and nothing more. It is indeed heights to conclude that OA acted rationally or to imply he had great insight.

[SwamyG]

Nice! All class...

Hard to beleive but OA may come out of this stronger politically..

Like the BJP supporters announcing victory here, you are just announcing victory to OA/INC. After all it is just petty politics. Yet everyone on your camp chose to climb on to Ivory Pedestals and preach others.

[Anindya]

A major disconnect in the groups that oppose the flag raising(J&K and GOI) is the fact that the separatists are a miniscule portion of the Kashmiri Muslims even D. Padgoankar, chief interlocutor, was affirming that, yet these separatists are being protrayed as representative of all Kashmiri Muslims. And to not offend their sensibilitites the rights of other Indians are being suppressed.

Ramana - I dont think that this is necessarily true. Padgaonkar's data is just an assessment and is not backed up by any hard data. On the other hand, IIRC we had a HT poll during the stone throwing days which showed that about 60% of the the Kashmir valley respondents supported some form of non-Indian political solution. (was posted on this thread)

[brihaspati]

Viv S wrote
Would you care to elaborate? How did you gather that impression from my post?

Well the Tibetan integration failed because Tibetans have a consciousness of separate ethnicity, and there is little "Han Chinese" roots discernable within Tibetans even culturally. Because you chose the Tibetan example for failure of integration by ethnicity claims to predict the same for Kashmiris - I thought logically one can only do so if Kashmiris are thought similarly as a homogeneous distinct "ethnicity" like the Tibetans.

The second part of my question was based on as to why you think the Kashmiris must resent any Indian's moving around them who call themselves "Indians". That can only happen if you think Kashmiris think of themselves as belonging to a mythic homogeneous "Kashmiri" identity which has no components in common with and more importantly most components antagonistic to that of "Indians".

[Viv S]

ramana ji,
almost all who have bashed the attempt at flag-hoisting here have primarily given the "Kashmiri" aspect as based on two primary points :
(1) That there will be a general - which implies all Kashmiris - reaction against the BJP raising the flag and not the flag per se. Now what has the BJP really done to deserve such universal "Kashmiri mobiliziation"? well bits and pieces thrown out seem to be all based on supposed trauma over supposed atrocities on "Muslims" all around in India, and that BJP does not condemn the "Hindu". There is no other explanation possible - since

Is the question of what the BJP has done to deserve it relevant to this particular debate? Because I was informed on this thread that it was a different question that could be taken up elsewhere. Regardless -

(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.

(b) as far as Kashmir seems to be connected - the difference between the two parties is simply too thin to discriminate in on-ground security responses. But the big difference between the two is ofcourse the perception, rightly or wrongly - that they have significant differences on attitudes towards Islamism. While Congress appears to submit to and protect Islamism, BJP criticizes but rarely takes any concrete steps to attack Islamism's fundamental institutions.

My obvious question would have been what is 'Islamism' and what sort of threat is it, but I suspect this debate will veer off on a tangent if one pursues that line of questioning.

(c) The much greater differences - much more than on the issue of Islamism - is of course the attitude towards the "Hindu". Whereas Congress does everything possible to bash the "Hindu" in the name of bashing "Hindutva", BJP does not bash the Hindu. Congress is ready to paint "Hindu" as the greater threat to "India" by painting Hindu "terror" as the real threat, while the BJP has not done it.

Bashing 'Hindutva' does not equal bashing 'the Hindu'. And IMHO 'Hindu terror' may indeed end up being a bigger threat than SIMI or Pak-based terror organisations because it has a vastly bigger cheer-leading squad. Well goody gumdrops, whaddya know... were already swerving off the topic. We can resume on a more appropriate thread if you'll lead the way.

(2) All Kashmiris will be enraged at the Indian national flag. Now that is a curious claim. I think anyone who has to justify this will ultimately land up in claiming Kashmiris as non-Indians, as anti-Indians, as anti-Indians because all Indians are anti-Muslims, as anti-Indians because all Indians are Hindus - or various combinations of all four.

Its a claim that's yet to made.

[Viv S]

Viv S wrote
Would you care to elaborate? How did you gather that impression from my post?

Well the Tibetan integration failed because Tibetans have a consciousness of separate ethnicity, and there is little "Han Chinese" roots discernable within Tibetans even culturally. Because you chose the Tibetan example for failure of integration by ethnicity claims to predict the same for Kashmiris - I thought logically one can only do so if Kashmiris are thought similarly as a homogeneous distinct "ethnicity" like the Tibetans.

They are a different ethnicity as are the Tamils, Assamese and Oriya. Having closer roots amongst each other than 'Han Chinese - Tibetans' do, does not preclude them from opposing an influx of migrants.

The second part of my question was based on as to why you think the Kashmiris must resent any Indian's moving around them who call themselves "Indians". That can only happen if you think Kashmiris think of themselves as belonging to a mythic homogeneous "Kashmiri" identity which has no components in common with and more importantly most components antagonistic to that of "Indians".

I have not said or implied 'the Kashmiris must resent any Indian's moving around them who call themselves "Indians"'. If you review my post you'll see as much.

[brihaspati]

^^If Kashmiri "ethnicity" is so overriding - then how come the KP were not deemed part of that ethnicity! Ethnicity is not determined by religion, and genetically KP's and KM's are very very closely related.

[SwamyG]

Bashing 'Hindutva' does not equal bashing 'the Hindu'. And IMHO 'Hindu terror' may indeed end up being a bigger threat than SIMI or Pak-based terror organisations because it has a vastly bigger cheer-leading squad. Well goody gumdrops, whaddya know... were already swerving off the topic. We can resume on a more appropriate thread if you'll lead the way.

Classic. Since you bring this here anyway.....why don't you lead the way by listing why you think so? You did it either here, or can write in the off-topic thread.

[Viv S]

^^If Kashmiri "ethnicity" is so overriding - then how come the KP were not deemed part of that ethnicity! Ethnicity is not determined by religion, and genetically KP's and KM's are very very closely related.

The Kashmiri Pandit issue seems to be an escape valve. Sure go ahead include them. If tomorrow all of them were repatriated to their native towns and villages and given their previous possessions, its still a stretch to suggest all of them would welcome an influx of migrants. Also, since they'll still comprise of about 5% of the population, it wouldn't change the scenario.

[Viv S]

Bashing 'Hindutva' does not equal bashing 'the Hindu'. And IMHO 'Hindu terror' may indeed end up being a bigger threat than SIMI or Pak-based terror organisations because it has a vastly bigger cheer-leading squad. Well goody gumdrops, whaddya know... were already swerving off the topic. We can resume on a more appropriate thread if you'll lead the way.

Classic. Since you bring this here anyway.....why don't you lead the way by listing why you think so? You did it either here, or can write in the off-topic thread.

Seeing as I did not bring the Hindu-Hindutva-Islam-Islamism-terror-Congress-BJP-RSS-hate-love-cold pizza and coke- line to the thread, I have no intention of scouting for another thread to continue that debate.

Refer :- 'Congress is ready to paint "Hindu" as the greater threat to "India" by painting Hindu "terror" as the real threat, while the BJP has not done it.'

[SwamyG]

They are a different ethnicity as are the Tamils, Assamese and Oriya. Having closer roots amongst each other than 'Han Chinese - Tibetans' do, does not preclude them from opposing an influx of migrants.

From wiki.

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2] [3]

Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness. Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are called ethnogenesis.

As a tamilian, while I do share common heritage with other tamilians - language and culture; I share common heritage with all Indians as well - religion, race, culture, language, history, arts, science ityadi.

Of course you will find a tamilian who thinks other wise....probably in this very thread

[SwamyG]

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.

[JwalaMukhi]

Little different tack on INC v/s BJP. NO it is not INC v/s BJP in the last few pages. It is merely closet Islamophiles (secret admirers of Islamism under the guise of secular, liberal, INC) coming out and revealing their colours. Their khujli is principally with hindu nationalists (under the guise of BJP bashing).

Anything that helps bashing of that is worthy of admiration amongst these closet Islamophiles. Islamism atleast is direct and honest to the point, to say they have khujli with hindus. OTOH the islamophiles use the shoulders of islamism and fire. Good showing though... Being anti-hindu secular/liberal is fashionable for the season.

One worthy even went to describe some hindus as (wahabi hindus ) because the descriptive adjective that all he could muster was and had to be derived from arabia. Bet the next time it will be written right to left and spelled as "hindus wahabi" to be read per arabian rules.

[Theo_Fidel]

Wasn't Kashmir a center of Buddhism at one time? As well as Shaivism its own distinct blend.

Remember reading about it during the Kanishka period.

[somnath]

IIRC we had a HT poll during the stone throwing days which showed that about 60% of the the Kashmir valley respondents supported some form of non-Indian political solution

There have been 3 surveys that I remember over the years. The first was done by Outlook magazine in its inaugural issue..And the last one was the Chatham House survey that got published recently (there was a third - I forget when/by whom)...Almost all of them confirm that the Kashmir valley (which is the Kashmiri Muslim) voice would prefer a "non India" solution, even though (quite surprisingly, or not so!) the numbers looking for a "merger into Pak" is relatively small..

So here is the situation:

1. KMs dont like us. Ceterus paribus condition, probably wont change in a long time.
2. We cant let go of Kashmir, for the obvious reasons.
3. There is an internal security dimension to the issue - needs to be managed.
4. Kashmir cannot define India's agenda with the rest of the world - has been our policy for the better part of the last 15 years...
5. Cannot let the world's discussion on Af in any way pass through K...

So what has been our responses (across govts over the same time period)?

1. Fence the border, saturate the area with troops - pull insurgency levels down to a bare minimum...SATP data shows that the military strategy has paid off in the last 5-6 years, with casualty levels at all time lows in 2010..aided of course by Pakistan's own problems..
2. Try to bring the political temperature down through elections etc..Give the sullen KMs less exuse to pick up stones or guns and al alterantive pipe to vent their spleen...Again something that has been somewhat of a success...
3. Drive Kashmir to irrelevance - again, things have moved in that direction...UNSC taking Kashmir off as an issue, none of the world powers really pontificating on Kashmir etc etc...
4. At a legal-political level, dilute the Art 370 to enhnace integration - "dilution by stealth" if you will...Soemthing that has been done successfully over the years...

So what should be our next steps? Provoke and bring along another round of intifada? Another round of clashes, inevitably leading to police firings, deaths? Or to continue with more of the above three?

A few more years of status quo wil enable the govt to seriously look at diluting Art 370 (on the issue of proerty owndership)even further...Maybe start with Jammu and Ladakh, then on to Kashmir...It will make sense only when the security situation in Kashmir to be good enough for people to WANT to migrate..Currently most people will baulk, including the pandits..

Instead of a slow, deliberate strategy of irrelvance of the issue, if we keep the pot boiling forever, the chances of us getting scalded will be a constant threat...

This isnt about party politics, BJP understood this pretty well while in govt........

[Kamboja]

Those who are taking a legalistic/'pragmatic' view of the flag hoisting yatra seem to me to be missing the power of symbolism involved here.

The most important facts for the mass of the people (as evidenced by the popularity of the yatra among the common people, not in the English language media or among the DIE) are that this is a territory that is claimed by another country, with a history of violence and separatism; in the very recent past the FLAG of the separatists was raised in this specific public space; with that act (and others like it that have happened at rallies and protests in the valley) that space has been 'claimed' by the separatists.

No self-respecting nation can allow this sort of demonstration to stand without a symbolic reclamation of that space; a statement of unity and defiance in the face of the separatists. That is exactly what a hoisting of the tricolour by free citizens of India in that same public space will achieve.

If you cannot see the power of the symbols involved here then I wonder if perhaps you don't understand politics, psychology or history. It is not true that raising the flag in Lal Chowk will not 'change anything', it would be a very profound act. Politics is not all deal-making and negotiation and compromise. History is filled with acts of symbolism like the raising of flags in significant locations.

If you cannot see why preventing a political party from raising a flag on the Republic Day goes beyond law and order, then you probably don’t understand why OBL and AQ chose to target the WTC in NYC in the USA on September 11th. After all, the economic damage from the attacks was miniscule in the grand scheme of the American economy, and from the law and order perspective only a few thousand lives were lost, a drop in the ocean – still a tragedy of course, but not causing any lasting hurt to America or even to New York City. Yet 9/11 traumatized the nation and galvanized it into two wars that continue to this day with hundreds of thousands of resultant deaths, and hugely changed geopolitics since. Global politics in our era is divided into 'pre-9/11' and 'post-9/11'. All from one relatively minor, but hugely symbolic act.

That is the power of symbolism, and raising the national flag in a zone claimed by another on a commemorative occasion is another such symbolic moment. Try to see past law and order and petty politics and recognize that.

[Theo_Fidel]

Somnath,

They need to get that Railway in there. Ordinary Kashmiri's need to travel and see India. Once they start vacationing in Goa like the rest of us this conversation will be over..

Now about that Railway, was it 2017 or 2023 completion again. It was supposed to be 2009 finish.

[Yagnasri]

Even Afghanisthan was a buddist center. (Remember Baniyan Buddas.) But who cares about the past in Islamic thought. Anythign not Islamic is evil and all the period before Islam is dark period. It is just like remniding Indian Muslims that their hinduness. They don't give a damn. So called Kashmiriat is now only a lip service and still being propagated by the some useful idiots opposed this march. For decades Wahabi money is comming in like anything into all the countries including India and no matter what you say now about the culture civilisation etc it is not going to make any difforence to the brainwashed people.

[somnath]

Somnath,

They need to get that Railway in there. Ordinary Kashmiri's need to travel and see India. Once they start vacationing in Goa like the rest of us this conversation will be over..

Now about that Railway, was it 2017 or 2023 completion again. It was supposed to be 2009 finish.

It will help, but frankly dont think its a game changer..With internet, rserved seats in unis like DU, Shah Faisal et al, it would be surprising if KMs have any "dark illusions" about India...Its a bit like Tibet - as much money as China throws into Tibet, the Tibetans will never be "chinese"..But the money, and a host of other things will keep pushing Tibet into irrelevance...

So called Kashmiriat is now only a lip service and still being propagated by the some useful idiots opposed this march

100% - kahmiriyt is pure bunkum now, if it ever existed..

[ShauryaT]

This isnt about party politics, BJP understood this pretty well while in govt........

Yes, they did. They also got the policy right, while in government namely:

1. To stop treating KM with kid gloves
2. Provide the Kashmiris with real democratic choices, which I believe paved the way for future higher rates of participation by the population in elections and an increasing focus on bread and butter issues, rather than their perceived subjugation
3. Deal with Pakistan in a manner that has a material effect on the security situation of the state. It is the deft policy management of the BJP, which increased the stakes against TSP, resulting in a meaningful reduction in the political violence rates in Kashmir, since 2002.

In hindsight, one can argue, they did not do enough, more, quicker, etc but few can argue with the basic policies enacted and the results thereof.

Article 370, unfortunately was one area where they compromised in order to gain power. Purists may not like this bargain, at a practical level, they did what they had to do, to get to power and achieve meaningful results through policy changes and executive leadership.

The question here is, what has the INC done, at a policy and governance level, which will have a meaningful impact towards further stabilizing the Kashmir situation.

[krisna]

No foreign flag is allowed. It is always taken down. Note the others arrested as well.

Reality is different from fiction.
this has happened. A picture is worth 1000 words.
Looking at the picture shows that it took quite sometime- to climb and plant the TSP flag.
If OA/INC was really interested they would have prevented it easily.
talk about self goals.

[ShauryaT]

That is the power of symbolism, and raising the national flag in a zone claimed by another on a commemorative occasion is another such symbolic moment. Try to see past law and order and petty politics and recognize that.

Well said Kamboja. There are many, who want to boil everything down to a net GDP figure not realizing that without security and harmony, which is possible only through integration, this chasing of the GDP figure, will be elusive. Lal Chowk is important as after all, it was from here the Tiranga was first unfurled by JLK in 1948.

[ShauryaT]

.But the money, and a host of other things will keep pushing Tibet into irrelevance...
.

True and you can boil down the host of things in Tibet to one key thing. A demographic change resulting in the subjugation of the local Tibetan population - not assimilation.

India has a far easier job in Kashmir and can be done in a generation or two max.