Oh Joe, if only you had given it more thought. Each question hits on a particular issue
I have taken a while to reply because of my surprise on reading your post. It really seems that we are talking past each other!
1. Non violent demand for independence - Majority of those in the valley dont see themselves at part of India, the same way India did not see itself as a part of British Empire. There is certain merit in that - while they extra rights not afforded to other states, they also loose certain liberties and that too more often. Now we had debated before on the size of the grouping where I had myself put exactly the same point just in context of Lajpat Nagar wanting to be independent.
The fact remains there are no set geographical or numerical lines along which demand for independence is justifiable.
The fact is that you are confusing the liberty to seek freedom with the fact of achieving freedom.
There is no point in going into the merit or lack of merit of current disaffection with the Union of India on the part of some Kashmiris. That was not the point of my answer at all. The point was whether or not they like being in India, whether or not they want to be Pakistani at the end of the day, or part of a Muslim-identity nation, whether or not they want to be independent of both Pakistan and India, whether or not those of us who differ are right, and this disaffection is transient and mutable, whichever of these is correct, or whichever cocktail is correct at this point of time, and whichever else may be correct at a later point of time,
- THEIR RIGHT TO ASK FOR FREEDOM IS IMMUTABLE.
- THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION AND TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS FREELY
- YOU, OR I, REFUSE THEM, OR ANY OTHER INDIAN DENY THEM THIS RIGHT AT THE RISK OF ENDANGERING THE FOUNDATION OF THE INDIAN STATE.
There is NOTHING binary about this.
This is NOT negotiable.
It is NOT for you or those who agree with you to decide that you will or will not permit any Indian citizen to express their feelings; it is THEIR right under the Constitution, and we are a country ONLY because of the Constitution.
Try to get that on board. YOU and I are NOT doing the Kashmiri a favour by telling him or her that they may think and say what they like.
Their lawlessness and stone-throwing and violence is something altogether different, and their freedom to say or to write that they want to be independent is not affected by that; that is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, and the procedure laid down to enforce that Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code. Even a criminal does not lose his or her rights under the Constitution.
What on earth were you thinking when you wrote that? Are you completely deranged?
I repeat to those who protest - there struggle is no different from other freedom fighters who are lionized throughout the world. While we at power may deign to rubbish them or deflect by offering more goodies thus alleviating the sense of alienation in the end it is upto them to decide what do they want. In any case the current response though lesser in degree can be framed by propagandists to be comparable to Pakistan's in BD. In politics perception is often the reality and what we perceive varies greatly from what Kashmiris perceive.
This passage above is plain blather and has nothing relevant. Just blather.
2. Sharia - Let us face the reality of Islamic world and Islamic society in subcontinent in particular. Outside of liberal dens and urban centers, women are inconsequential. Same can be said about Hindus too but we are not discussing them. Visit any village in UP and finding a woman with an opinion on Sharia is harder than tracing bigfoot.
Singularly stupid argument - I am sorry, and I do not want to hurt your feelings, but the argument is stupid.
Are you planning to bring back Suttee next?
I will waste none of my time or spend any effort to explain why you are wrong; it is only necessary to say that a deformation of society is not a justification for preserving that deformation, or for withholding the justice that is inherent in the Constitution from being availed of by those who wish to avail of it. If you were right, there would be no Muslim women working actively against the oral Triple Talaq.
Stupid. Period.
3. Beef - Again bear in mind that perception is often the reality when you rebut my argument: How would Muslim's feel if we start defacing Kuran?
There are specific laws governing this, the consumption of beef. And as long as these are law, citizens have to abide by them. Where there is no law banning production of beef for the table, or selling it, or preparing it, Indians can do precisely what they like about it. I don't have to cite the Constitution here, only the example of Dubai, where pork is freely available in supermarkets frequented by non-Muslims.
Regarding Muslims and the defacement of the Kuran, unlike Pakistan, where mobs lynch people for suspected defacement of the Kuran, which is a habit taken from the Jews, who preserved every written piece of paper because it might be that the writing included passages from the Pentateuch, in India, people are liable to prosecution. Not to murder by mob action. There is a section which deals with blasphemy, a section that I personally wish had been deleted by amendment to the Constitution, but which has NOT been deleted.
Cow is the equivalent of holy object/being in minds of many Hindus.
And it is not in the minds of many other Hindus. Who are you to insist on thrusting your sentiments on all Hindus?
Since we don't allow defacing Quran in India due to the little law about hurting religious sentiment we similarly dont allow killing of cow or consumtion or sale thereof in many parts of India but not all.
Because there are specific laws, not because of any effort to bring about any ridiculous equation of the prejudices of different religious beliefs.
How is burning or defacing a book is banned but not killing of a similarly significant being?
Very simple. Where the law bans burning or defacing a book, any book, any scripture, on the grounds that it may hurt the sentiments of the people professing the religion of which that book is an integral scriptural part, burning or defacing a book is a crime.
Where the law bans production of beef, production of beef is banned, but not selling or preparation or consumption of beef. And similarly for selling, and for preparation, and for consumption; there is no blanket ban, only specific bans and only legal as bans in the states where such laws have been passed.
Try to get this straight: it is the Constitution that decides what is law and what is not, what is legal and what is illegal. Not you, not I, not any mob in the street.
The point is that we protect minority rights and sentiments be it in Kashmir or Haryana. However when Majority and minority rights directly conflict as in the case of beef consumption in Kashmir where in majority insists on it as opposed to no one sane insisting on burning Quran in Haryana we have problem. By virtue of democratic principles majority should prevail.
No.
Minorities are specifically protected in properly organised democracies. There is no majoritarianism inherent in democracy, otherwise they would lack safeguards for the minorities.
The point i am trying to make which is not exclusive to the above three points but all the same indicated by them is that in Kashmiri mind the demands are legitimate and denial of these demands allows them to claim detachment from the republic of India on the basis of infringement of their rights.
Yes. And no.
It allows them to claim a desire for detachment.
It DOES NOT allow them to claim detachment.
There is a difference. Spend time to understand it.
In such a scenario choice india faces is binary.
BALLS.
India's choices are not restricted due to any section of citizen exercising their freedom of speech. That is a nightmare for the closet fascist, which many Hindu majoritarians tend to be. Mainly because they lack self-confidence.
Best Wishes. And many happy returns of the day.
