Anupam Kher shares disturbing pic on Kashmiri Pandits and Twitterati’s outraged

[Joe Shearer]

I read a lot of Kashmir related threads and news both on this forum and all over the internet, I have found many posters cheering when stone throwers or protesters are shot dead and ask for more blood of these people. Granted, stone throwing and rioting are crimes, but not crimes that are worthy of death and definitely not an excuse to call for genocide of a people demanding a basic human fundamental recognized by the U.N i.e. the right to self determination.

But I do now feel this thread is perhaps not the best place to air my grievances, the attempted genocide of the Pandits does deserve the right to be highlighted, so once again I do apologise if any Kashmiri Pandit is reading this and finds my post insensitive.

Sir, I just read a decent man's response to an utterly indecent situation. Such cheering is completely abhorrent. Instead, the most that is possible to be said, that remains in good taste, is that wilful breaches of the law will be punished, but with minimal required use of force, and the utmost care taken not to promote disproportionate injury or collateral damage. It also needs to be mentioned that there have been cases of fearful or nervous over-reactions by the law enforcement personnel that need correction and atonement.

As for the issue of the Kashmiri pandits and their tragic fate, several points arise in connection with this particular thread. I seek your permission to mention these without any intention of diluting your post and its gravamen.

1. There is a great deal of wholly pointless violence taking place in Kashmir now. At this point, it is paramount that all sections come together and seek a stop to this. There will be time to discuss all grievances and strive for settlement once the killing and maiming stops, including the killing and maiming of security personnel.
2. This is not the time for 'whataboutery', "People are dying in Kashmir today.' 'Well, what about people who died in Kashmir yesterday?' There is an infinite train of cause and effect that goes back to Adam and Eve, and this kind of thinking contributes nothing to solving things.
3. Anupam Kher is a self-appointed representative of Pandit opinion, and from time to time, indulges in extreme expressions of what he believes is their point of view. From time to time, I have mentioned an appeal to all parties in Kashmir; this was signed by a mixed set of people of all religious confessions. Leaders of the Kashmiri Pandit community were among them. When the actions of Mr. Kher are mentioned in their presence, the immediate response of such people is a grim, disapproving silence.
4. You may be sure that the grievances of the Kashmiri Pandit community will be brought up and all efforts made to set right the grave injustice done to them. It is just that this is not an appropriate moment to rake that up.
5. Your own views on these matters have been presented with such restraint and sensitivity that none will find them objectionable or insensitive, except for those seeking a casus belli, and such people need not engage our attention.

Thank you once again for clarifying your views so patiently and calmly.

Joe have you gathered anything on economic development in kashmir ?

Yes, indeed, I have, but I would like to present it as a post, separate and by itself, and am writing it up. There have been unexpected demands on my time, after your reminder yesterday, which is why things are going slowly.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I accidentally hit "post" before I completed typing. Please re-read my post, I edited it. I don't support an independent Kashmir. I support a vote for Kashmir to decide what country it wants to join, just as other states did in the 1940s. If they choose India, I will respect their decision (although I suspect they won't).

Actually this needs correction:

1. None of the 562 or 563 princely states were decided on the basis of the people's decision. Mountbatten ensured a referendum in at least one case in line with his declared policies in the case of ambiguously placed states (ruler and subject not in agreement). Nehru went along with this, more or less enthusiastically.
2. The three exceptions were to have been Kashmir and Hyderabad (as a package deal, suggested to Jinnah, but rejected by him), and, after the fact, Junagadh.
3. There was a 'popular' referendum in the NWFP - I have my own views on that, but Pakistani members and I have fought division-level battles over that, so let the armistice on that topic continue;
4. There was a vote by the legislature in Bengal.

I don't know of any else.

People who do not kill other people are not terrorists. That's my point. The 23,000 civilians I mentioned fall into this category. I'm not talking about people like Burhan Wanti.

A very good point.

Go ahead and weight the demographics of J&K to 1948 levels. It will not make a difference. The Kashmir Valley was less than 10% Muslim at the time of partition. Possibly less than 5%.

Actually, more than 90% Muslim! Please check Snedden; he has the best reconstruction of demographics of that period.

I was surprised - and, may I admit, mildly amused - at your statement. That being true would imply that the 10% of Muslims then have swollen to 95% now, and that is around 6.9 million. By extrapolation, considering that 90% of the occupants then have vanished, they would have represented 6.9 million x 9 = 62.1 million today. Instead, they are less than 350,000 (the total number of Kashmiri Pandits was estimated to have been that, at the peak), and probably close to 100,000. An endangered species, like the Parsis.