J & K news and discussion

[Sanku]

We were mostly Buddhist at one point as well. And before that Animist, some groups of which still survive, well at least the maternal genes do .

Oh I see, so its not BJP these guys hate. They hate Hindu's themselves.

I knew this was the case with Chacha and his bustards but it seems those loath Hindu is a essential trait of all those who share that ideology.

[amit]

<del>

either you point out the post(s) you have a problem with by reporting it or give it a rest.
mods do not have infinite leisure to look for every half-hidden meaning in your post and then correct the thread. your approach is certainly not helping.
either way, this random meghnad like digs has to stop.
Rahul.

[abhishek_sharma]

Oh I see, so its not BJP these guys hate. They hate Hindu's themselves.

I knew this was the case with Chacha and his bustards but it seems those loath Hindu is a essential trait of all those who share that ideology.

I guess somnath was right about the number of DIEs.

[abhishek_sharma]

What is going on is an interesting version of the more pure ganging up on the less pure for daring to dissent from the majority point of view.

I don't think anyone is ganging up against anyone. It is just the distribution of opinion.

What is more interesting is that by using terms like "more pure" and "less pure", you are comparing it to Paki society. Is that correct?

[amit]

What is going on is an interesting version of the more pure ganging up on the less pure for daring to dissent from the majority point of view.

I don't think anyone is ganging up against anyone. It is just the distribution of opinion.

What is more interesting is that by using terms like "more pure" and "less pure", you are comparing it to Paki society. Is that correct?

Is calling a fellow Indian who is patriotic enough to spend time on BRF a Randi just because you don't agree with his POV on one particular issue, correct Abhishek? I think it's time you guys stepped back and reflected on this point.

[Sri]

Pick up any socio-economic variable - compare numbers between 1990, 2000, 2010..Juxtapose the same numbers from the other developing nations...You will get your answer..

I thought you will ask me to "read more", "study more" and "go to the library". This is pretty good too. Great job! Another addition to your long list of "distinguished arguments".

My problem with debating here too. Everyone asks us to go back to school. On other note, I was watching 'Gandhi' yesterday. I loved the scene when a British officer stops Gandhi from entering Champaran at a railway station.

British officer: Who are you?
MK: Gandhi, Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi.
BO: You can't enter. Get back in the train and go back.
MK: I refuse to do that.
BO: In that case, I'll be forced to arrest you.
MK: At what charge?
BO.... thnks for a while....
BO: I don't want any trouble here.
MK: I am an Indian traveling in India. I don't see any reason for trouble.
BO stands aside.

[Yayavar]

It is a serious question -- separatists who burnt the national flag were given security and those who wanted to hoist the flag were beaten and arrested-- shows the divisive nature of the govt. also communal ben

....
Consider that stuff by Sushma Swaraj. Jail for people trying to hoist the "dhwaj" and Security for people burning the tri color. Where did we hear it earlier ?.

Is it true? If so why is it rhetoric?

btw, plese explain the editorial you quoted. My questions are in an earlier comment.

"Kar Sevak ke liye goli , aur Atankvadi ke like Biryani!" Just look back to see how far that line took the BJP electorally or otherwise.

Again it was true at the time. The militants were fed Biryani (I remember the general derision that provoked) and escaped (from Hazratbal) and there were 300 or so sevaks killed in police firing. That is horrible. Even if one considers the BJP's use of the comparison wrong, the comparison was valid..right? In any case how is it linked to the flag? This time there is no religion in the mix from BJP.

.....Rao learnt from the Golden Temple action where the army was sent in (which had terrible and serious long term consequences, the effects and wounds took around 25 years to heal and many would argue can never heal for those who suffered,

It had an effect but there was 10 years of violence prior to that - dont you remember busses waylaid and passengers shot by the folks occcupying the temple. So do not mix issues.

Again what is the relevance to flying the flag?

esp the lack of justice for the Sikh victims of the 1984 riots) and handled a similar situation well and tactfully. No Kashmiri Muslim blames the GOI for that incident! It is not even a memory now. It was a far better thing to do than send the army in and have Golden Temple like consequences. What does the BJP do ? Act responsibly ?. No sir, just like now, we got wild rhetoric back then too.

How is this relevant. All acts described above - good or bad - are by congress of yesteryears.

BJP may not be right in anything else. Remove BJP from the picture entirely, but please explain what is the issue wrt the flag hoisting at the clock-tower in lal chow.

Maybe if you explain the editorial form 'THe Hindu' that matched your views it will become clear. TIA.

[abhishek_sharma]

Is calling a fellow Indian who is patriotic enough to spend time on BRF a Randi just because you don't agree with his POV on one particular issue, correct Abhishek? I think it's time you guys stepped back and reflected on this point.

Fair point. It sounds bad. You know name-calling has been done by both sides. People have also used words like "nutters", "loonies", "lumpen" for the other side. So I guess both sides need to introspect.

[sum]

400% agree with marten. Just repeating my earlier Q related to the comment by Marten-ji. Any Chankian on this board could kindly answer it:

But, what is the justification for thrashing and snatching the flag( only to throw it inside a police jeep like it was some rag) from the 4 people who finally reached Lal Chowk and tried to put up a tricolour?Would these 4 people also have caused a riot/ "hurt the KM sensitivities" if the tricolour would have been hoisted for 2 minutes there?

Please don't bring up " Even separatists were not allowed" since Hoisting tricolour != hoisting Paki flag on "supposed Indian territory" ( per GoI logic) . Why should the hoisting of the two flags be equated to justify both not being allowed?

[chandrasekaran]

Is calling a fellow Indian who is patriotic enough to spend time on BRF a Randi just because you don't agree with his POV on one particular issue, correct Abhishek? I think it's time you guys stepped back and reflected on this point.

Though this was a question directed to Abhishek, couldn't stop myself from responding.
If reading and posting on BRF is a good enough reason for one to qualify as patriotic, then carrying the Indian
flag on the eve of republic is equally good enough reason. Why should that person be construed as a trouble
monger so as to receive thrashing from the police ? Pls. step back and reflect on this point too

[amit]

If the person withdraws the epithet, would you sit back and consider why it was wrong not to have allwoed the hoisting of the flag on Indian soil? All the nonsense about KMs being riled was shown as wrong, wasn't it?

You're completely blind to the reasoning. Forget the BJP (I don't subscribe to all their views); just tell me as an Indian why it is wrong for any Indian to hoist the Indian flag on Indian soil. How can we justify the suggestions that Rajasthanis must not hoist the flag in Maharashtra (or an equally secessive idea that Assamese should not raise the flag in Nagaland or the Kannadiga in TN). That is pure unadulterated tripe.

Marten,

I have to repeat this again. I haven't made any comment either for or against the yatra, so I don't think there's much for me to reflect on.

But just for record I think that the flag should have flown on Lal Chowk yesterday. At the same time I don't think that one needed to bring folks from all over India in yatra to do something which local residents of Srinagar should have been mobilised for. Surely it's not BJP's case that there are not enough patriotic Indians in Srinagar to raise the flag since it has been claimed it was not a party specific event but show of patriotism?

In short I think both the Congress/NC and BJP mishandled the situation. I fail to see why something similar to what happened in 1992 when the then Congress government flew in MM Joshi for the flag hoisting could not have been done. Sushma Swaraj or Arun Jaietly or even some chosen BJP workers could have been airlifted to Srinagar.

That would have both sent a message to whomever it was intended to and at the same time ensured that the whole world understood that as far as policy on Kashmir is concerned India was united.

Bottomline, I think both parties mishandled the situation.

[Arjun]

I find it interesting that the Liberal Cosmopolitans on this thread have no problems over the fact that folks who don't agree with the POV on this particular issue are being called Randis (I'm sure everyone here, including the Mods, knows enough Hindi to know the meaning of this nice little word).

Agree with you....Don't approve of the acronym - RANDE maybe but not RANDI

Yet their cosmopolitanism gets into a twist when it is implied that the whole yatra was political opportunism (nothing wrong in that for a political party, let me add) wrapped in the cloak of Nationalism.

Because what you say still does not provide a good reason for banning the Yatra. You are admitting there is nothing wrong in a political party using non-sectarian symbolism for political opportunism - so why ban a fundamental right?

What is going on is an interesting version of the more pure ganging up on the less pure for daring to dissent from the majority point of view. RIP, the Argumentative Indian.

You bring up a good point. I believe there is an interesting analogy between BR and Kashmir that can be drawn.

1) The government believes Kashmir's population will be 'provoked' by the flag-hoisting, and therefore BANS the flag-hoisting rather than protect the fundamental right of the pro-hoisters.
2) I presume you admit that the vast majority on BR is nationalist and therefore is PRO-flag hoisting. Some provocateurs who shall remain nameless persist in coming into BR and provoke the nationalists by claiming that the flag-hoisting BAN was correct.

If you say that what the government did was right in situation 1) above, shouldn't you logically agree to the proposition that, by analogy, the provocateurs on BR should be banned, rather than having their posting rights be protected?

Let me know if I am missing something out here.

[vina]

On issues of foreign policy, like dems and reps in US, all parties in India must unite, even if a particular party may derive mileage at a given point in time.

Err. Kashmir is not foreign policy! It comes very much under the Ministry of Home Affairs! Where there will be total unity and should be had is in EXTERNAL interference in Kashmir. How we deal and handle Indian citizens in Kashmir is a matter of debate and detail and normal political process, and yes that includes those who are opposed to Indian rule as well. It cannot be any other way.

In taking on the Kashmiri Muslim sepratist dogs and their followers, every party in India must be unite

This is precisely the problem with the march that was foiled and the uber nationalist types. Kashmir Muslims are NOT foreigners even if they happen to be "separatist dogs" and cannot be treated as you would treat a citizen of say Pakistan /US/UK/ whatever.

Our service chiefs rightly pointed that out when the clamor was to use the full might of the Indian armed forces (including choppers and artillery and what not) against the Maoists! That kind of force is reserved for use in a foreign territory and foreign country under conditions of war. Not against your own citizens (even putative) . Even in the worst days of militancy in the valley we didn't use that kind of force. That is exactly what separates us from Pakiland (air attacks to get rid of Bugti), Syrian, Iraq and other totalitarian states without a democratic polity. That is the fundamental lesson we have to learn from the Golden Temple /Op Bluestar experience.

So please, stop treating all Kashmiri muslims ,including the separatists as "foreigners" . The record of the Indian state against insurgencies and insurrections has been commendable. We were able to douse it in the N.E, including very intractable ones (the latest one on it's way out is in Assam from the look of it) and also in Punjab.

Yes, there is a time when the guns are talking, the response has to be with the gun.But when the guns are silent, it is time to talk .. Assam, Nagaland, Manipur etc. etc. etc. That is the way to lasting peace. The guns have been silent in Kashmir now for a while. So let us talk and talk in good faith and give it time.

Theo has the right idea. Get the railway links in, get the people int the valley mobile, let them move about. You are talking about a historically geographically isolated and repressed population, that has all the signs of an isolated group , fearful of the wider world and modernity and the changes and everything, that went through rapid social changes, the works and fundamentally fearful of it's identity and place in the larger scheme of things.

Growing up as a child I had never met an Assamese in Banglore (the first person I saw from the N.E was at the Madrassa, someone from Tripura)!. This time, there was a fine arts festival in the apt complex I live in , there were performances from all over the country and there is a family from Assam and the lady of the family got together a couple of her neighbors ( A Kannadiga, Marathi, Tamil) and she put together a smashing Bihu dance, the first time I saw one performed to traditional Assamese music!

The only ethnic Kashmiris I see integrated like that are the Kashmiri Pandits (a couple of them in my 'hood) . Get the KMs in as well and let them see and experience for themselves what this country is all about (and I dont mean the KM political /other elite, but ordinary mango/middle class KM) and talk, this thing will resolve itself, despite the damnest the Pakis try doing (in anycase, I wouldn't worry about them. They are in a death spiral and in all probability look like getting their 72s within a decade or two at most and there will be no Pakiland for the Gilani Stiffs to be hosting the Paki flag anywhere !).

[somnath]

Many liberal cosmopolitans, as well as those who are staunchly against political dynasties and feudalism, are anti-INC today. I certainly count myself in that description - and Rajaji would most likely have as well.

Rajaji was as vituperative as any other in his later days against Nehru and Congress..I cant find Rajaji's letters to Nehru on Kashmir online (they are referenced in lots of places - Ram Guha's India after Independence comes immediately to the mind)..Anyhow, passages here..

http://www.allbusiness.com/public-admin ... 291-1.html

But, to the surprise of his followers, he now strongly favored Nehru's initiative in releasing Abdullah. He deplored the threats to put the sheikh back in jail and found it fortunate that "the Prime Minister may be ill but he preserves his balance, and has evidently refused to take any foolish step and degrade India." The freeing of Abdullah, argued Rajaji, should be a prelude to allowing "the people of Kashmir [to] exercise their human right to rule themselves as well as they can." In words that ring as true in 2004 as they did in 1964, Rajaji asked, "Are we to yield to the fanatical emotions of our anti-Pakistan groups? Is there any hope for India or for Pakistan, if we go on hating each other, suspecting each other, burrowing and building up armaments against each other

Rajaji chose not to write to Nehru, perhaps because he was too proud, or because he feared a rebuff. But he did write to LaI Bahadur Shastri, urging that Kashmir be given some kind of automonous status. As he saw it, "self-determination for Kashmir is as far as we are concerned a lesser issue than the aim of reducing Indo-Pak jealousy." He thought that "the idea that if we 'let Kashmir go,' we shall be encouraging secessions everywhere is thoroughly baseless.... I hope you and Jawaharlal] i will be guided by Providence and bring this great opportunity to a good result."15

Rajagopalachari's reply was more interesting still. It gave more flesh to the "Rajaji formula," while putting Nehru's predicament in proper perspective:

Asking Ayub Khan to give a commitment in advance about Azad Kashmir now will break up the whole scheme. He will not and cannot give it. He is in a worse situation than Nehru in regard to public pressures and emotional bondage.... Any plan should therefore leave the prizes of war to be left untouched.... Probably the best procedure is for Sheikh to concentrate on the valley leaving Jammu as a counterpoise to Azad Kashmir, to be presumed to be integrated to India without question.

This reduced shape of the problem is good enough, if solved as we desire, to bring about an improvement in the Indo-Pakistan relationship. And being of reduced size, would be a fitting subject for UN trusteeship partial or complete

And surely Rajaji wont yield to anyone on his "patriotism"? Enough to be categorised as DIE/RAPE or whatever else?

[sum]

That would have both sent a message to whomever it was intended to and at the same time ensured that the whole world understood that as far as policy on Kashmir is concerned India was united.

Well, finally the elephant is out in the open. So, basically now the opposite message has been sent out loud and clear to all and sundry.

Flags of either nations cannot be flown without causing "hurt sensitivities" and joint control/Aazadi is the option left?

[Sri]

If you say that what the government did was right in situation 1) above, shouldn't you logically agree to the proposition that, by analogy, the provocateurs on BR should be banned, rather than having their posting rights be protected?

Let me know if I am missing something out here.

Arjun, good point, but thats exactly why we should let them post. Thought BR is no democracy and admin's words are absolute, but for sake of principle let's not deny their posting rights.

[habal]

proof that RAPE lives in cuckooland . . even those who claim to be 'grassroots' politicians.

posted from eulogy to taseer. here

Secondly, the plight of the flood victims consumed him day and night. From the moment the floods hit Pakistan, till the day he died he was actively campaigning to better their lot. He was utterly taken aback by the poverty he witnessed when he personally drove hundreds of miles to the flood affected areas of south Punjab. He never got over the fact that one woman whom he handed an envelope of money to simply looked at its content and put it aside because she could not recognise the Rs 1000 notes. He told this story over and over again to all who would listen, because he could not believe that such poverty could exist in his Pakistan.

[Virupaksha]

One party tried to do its democratic rights. Its top leaders, i.e. opposition leaders of India were arrested twice over. They were deported out of an Indian state. Its supporters in a crude display of power were sent back in a fashion which shouts banana republic. Its cadres who were trying to fly the national flag were arrested and reports suggest were brutally beaten.

Yet through all this, I didnt see them commit even 1 violent, anti-democratic act? And you call them "mishandled"

Is this some sort of == which people have to resort? This hypocrisy is stinking.

[Arjun]

If you say that what the government did was right in situation 1) above, shouldn't you logically agree to the proposition that, by analogy, the provocateurs on BR should be banned, rather than having their posting rights be protected?

Let me know if I am missing something out here.

Arjun, good point, but thats exactly why we should let them post. Thought BR is no democracy and admin's words are absolute, but for sake of principle let's not deny their posting rights.

Why should we be concerned about the posting rights of those who are not concerned about the fundamental rights of Indian citizens? We are using their same logic back on them....shall we say 'hoisted' on their own petard ?!

[amit]

2) I presume you admit that the vast majority on BR is nationalist and therefore is PRO-flag hoisting. Some provocateurs who shall remain nameless persist in coming into BR and provoke the nationalists by claiming that the flag-hoisting BAN was correct.

If you say that what the government did was right in situation 1) above, shouldn't you logically agree to the proposition that, by analogy, the provocateurs on BR should be banned, rather than having their posting rights be protected?

Let me know if I am missing something out here.

Arjun,

Why are you presuming that those who are saying the flag hoisting ban was correct are not nationalists? While not going into the pro or anti arguments, how does being on one side of such an argument guarantee being nationalist and being on the other side ensure not being nationalist?

How can you judge the Nationalism of a poster on the basis of one issue? I'm sure you read the threads and forums on BRF. And I'm sure you'd be aware of the great contribution some of these "anti-national" posters give, to further the idea of India.

My problem is that over the years I've seen great heated debates on various issues, like for example the nuclear deal debate. However, even though everything save fist fights happened nobody questioned the patriotism or pro-India feelings of others.

That's why I find it rather odd that adjectives like Randi and anti-national flow in this thread which, to be frank is much milder than the kind of fights that were witnessed in the other threads.

JMT

[Sri]

Why should we be concerned about the posting rights of those who are not concerned about the fundamental rights of Indian citizens?

Oh no Arjun Ji, I am not 'concerned' about their rights... Just a matter of principle 'Treat others the way you would like the to treat you.' (Saw 'Gandhi' Yesterday )

[vera_k]

What you suggest then is "why believe any of the judiciary or polity... indeed any of India's systems." Is that your intent?

Unfortunately . Seems most have been compromised under the Congress=India rubric.

[amit]

Why should we be concerned about the posting rights of those who are not concerned about the fundamental rights of Indian citizens? We are using their same logic back on them....shall we say 'hoisted' on their own petard ?!

Why don't you guys serve a petition to ban all these ***** posters!

[Sanku]

There is no need to listen to all quarters, we dont need Shalya sarath.

There are fundamentals which do need discussion. Points on which sides are taken.

People have taken their sides, for the nation or for the dynasty.

It is clear to see.

I will call traitors as traitors, I don't care for their sensitivities. If you lie; deliberately misquoting facts of history etc and use that to deny the fundamentals of Indian state -- you are a traitor.

If such people want to flatter themselves as thinking they are patriots, then India can well do without such patriots. They are more damaging than open enemies.

[Sri]

^^^

because we love you man!!! misguided you may be but you are a bharatwasi onlee.

Gloating already?

[Arjun]

Arjun,

Why are you presuming that those who are saying the flag hoisting ban was correct are not nationalists? While not going into the pro or anti arguments, how does being on one side of such an argument guarantee being nationalist and being on the other side ensure not being nationalist?

How can you judge the Nationalism of a poster on the basis of one issue? I'm sure you read the threads and forums on BRF. And I'm sure you'd be aware of the great contribution some of these "anti-national" posters give, to further the idea of India.

Well, first point is that the logic of my argument stands even if you don't call the PRO-flag hoisters nationalists. You could say that the majority on BR is pro-flag hoisting; and that a handful of folks are 'provoking' the feelings of the vast majority on BR and therefore - applying the same logic that the ANTI-flag hositers are using - the provocateurs should be banned.

Second point - Typically nationalists are bothered about the country's symbols and believe that the symbols stand above partisanship and the right to proudly display these symbols should not be barred. At least that is the term as I generally understand it - if you prefer to define it differently I am fine. Point is it still does not detract from the main thrust of my argument.

[amit]

^^^

because we love you man!!! misguided you may be but you are a bharatwasi onlee.

Gloating already?

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

[Sanku]

Why should we be concerned about the posting rights of those who are not concerned about the fundamental rights of Indian citizens?

Oh no Arjun Ji, I am not 'concerned' about their rights... Just a matter of principle 'Treat others the way you would like the to treat you.' (Saw 'Gandhi' Yesterday )

That is a good philosophy, one I believe in myself.

However I would like to be treated with utter contempt if I put dynastic loyalties over nations basic foundation.

[arnab]

Ok Gentlemen, How many of you want to sign up for marching with the Indian flag inside the Akal Takht on the anniversary of Operation Bluestar (a failed secceionist movement just like South Carolina)? You will be exercising your 'fundamental right to hoist a flag' in any public place. Or does this outpouring of patriotism come about only with respect to KMs?

[abhishek_sharma]

I haven't made any comment either for or against the yatra, so I don't think there's much for me to reflect on.

But just for record I think that the flag should have flow on Lal Chowk yesterday.

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

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

And this issue is more important that just "a point of view". Whether you support Laloo or Nitish, Mayawati or Mulayam, Jaya Amma or Karunanidhi-- I can live with it. But if people do == between BJP and Yasin Malik (as this govt has done) --sorry, it is a different ballgame then. These epithets are bad, but remember not everyone can be a Gandhi and turn the other cheek. Moreover, turning the other cheek may not be the best policy.

[Arjun]

Why should we be concerned about the posting rights of those who are not concerned about the fundamental rights of Indian citizens? We are using their same logic back on them....shall we say 'hoisted' on their own petard ?!

Why don't you guys serve a petition to ban all these ***** posters!

My primary intent is NOT really to ban the posters ( and I don't include you among the provocatory ones), but to make them understand that their OWN LOGIC calls for their own selves to be banned. Let me see how they refute the logic.

[Rahul M]

Ok Gentlemen, How many of you want to sign up for marching with the Indian flag inside the Akal Takht on the anniversary of Operation Bluestar (a failed secceionist movement just like South Carolina)? You will be exercising your 'fundamental right to hoist a flag' in any public place. Or does this outpouring of patriotism come about only with respect to KMs?

op bluestar : sikh sensitivity :: republic day : KM sensitivity

how exactly ?

[amit]

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

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

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

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

[Sidhant]

Only fools play with fire, the wise ones are the fire fighters.

Sorry. Among the only things that distinguished humans from our closest relatives , the Chimps was the ability to tame and use fire. Being mortally afraid of fire and running away is what only animal do and not humans.

The ones who know how to use and tame fire know when to set a blaze and when to prevent one from happening. The pyromaniacs in this case, who seem hell bent on setting Kashmir on fire were the marchers whose sought to cloak their ulterior sectarian agendas in the national flag and pretend outrage and obfuscation when no one bought their agenda or their make believe alibis for their reasons to march.

How true sir, even if we have to see our own flag burned down, all izz well in the name of taming the fire . And by the way, when did you saw fire fighters running away from the fire ? I dare say that they are more courageous and equipped when it comes to taming and finally stampeding the blaze. Isnt it the pastime of one particular set of people to try taming a small flame instead of stamping it in its infancy and finally when it becomes a blaze then start blame gaming of who light it and who is fueling it and then running and begging to fire fighters to come and set it off.

Anyways have we really tamed the fire in last 20 yrs? I saw how much it had been domesticated during 2008. Today people are afraid of hoisting even the national flag for the fear of the fury of fire you are so jingoistically talking of taming. So keep humoring yourself that one day it will get tamed despite of all the foreign fuel and combustibles (separatists and pseculars). I pray that you are right and we are able to tame it by just bending backwards more and more.

[Rahul M]

.......

what exactly is this RANDI business ? is it an acronym or what ?
whatever it is, the next person to use it is going to get warned.

[arnab]

how exactly ?

alienation - whether we like it or not. That only can be righted with integration (by removing 370). Symbolic methods are employed by ones who are defeated.

[Rahul M]

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

[abhishek_sharma]

what exactly is this R**** business ? is it an acronym or what ?
whatever it is, the next person to use it is going to get warned.

RANDE stands for Rich Anglophone Narcissistic Desi Elite

The last letter was changed to I for Idiots.

[nagesh]

Ditto,Sanku..

[somnath]

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

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