Autonomy Under Indian Constitution: An Old Pragmatic Approach To Kashmir or a Recipe for Disaster?

[Soumitra]

My hypocrisy? I am genuinely surprised. My style is the most open and transparent. To the extent where it has exposed me to vicious backbiting, among others, from you. Which is one reason for my despising you, with the rest of your crowd. Ill-read and ill-educated, and unable to distinguish between another person's beliefs and his preparing a brief.

I suppose you want me to truckle to your nonsense and resent it because I don't. Too bad.

From this point on, you can say all the things you wanted to say - look up l'esprit d'escalier - without fear of my refuting it. Not unless you call yourself Ranjeet.

Your hypocrisy is that you call us ill read, ill educated sanghis, bhakts etc etc. but you resent us calling you Intellectual?

BTW I am an MBA from a premier institute in Delhi - though not from JNU so you may not consider my institute as a premier institute

As for distinguishing with your belief and preparing a brief I have already clarifed what I had expected

If someone approaches us to draft an appeal for peace we will not use words which are against our conscience just because they appeal to the other side. We will rather not draft such an appeal just to show off our "intellectual" side.

This drafting of the brief shows your hypocrisy. If you cant be true to your belief you shouldnt have taken up the job.

Definition of Hypocrisy - a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:

Your actions of drafting the brief and your beliefs were on opposite sides. this is textbook definition of hypocrisy

 

[Hellfire]

@Joe Shearer Dropped in for a quick word. Have taken up a serious case of self fingering (personally) so busy till 30 Sep hence will post as and when I do find time. Just a quick point: when WAJsal says that they achieved independence by actions of Scouts and Maj Brown (his actions can be easily be negated by as being performed under duress thus rendering no locus standii for the actions of Scouts and his own as being anything but a mutiny against a lawfully recognised authority as per the whole Government of India Act as amended to Indian Independence Act; thus illegal) the most glaring shortfall in his claim is - there was no referendum independently held - a demand by every Kashmiri group since 1900s till date. Hence, the legality of that secession and act itself is at best 'dubious'.

I have yet not engaged him as I need to read up and need time, which, I don't have for the next few months. Hence, my silence on the Gilgit question till date.

However, that whole contention of his, falls flat on this fact (something he may have clarified but I have not chanced upon yet as have not read all of his posts as of yet)

@Soumitra @Stephen Cohen

Your contentions of Article 370 are justified from a point of view of a pure nationalist without getting into the legal ramifications of the said act.

I will reply once I can collate more items. The aim here is to get the Indians back on the facts, something which is lacking here. However, as @Joe Shearer has mentioned, you have to look at two principles:

1. India can not be seen as anything but law abiding internationally over this affair.

2. India itself gave these assurances to J&K and its legal regent in the original Instrument of Accession.

Having said that, when we are putting things here, be rest assured on two facts:

1. The Article 1.1 of Indian constitution is inviolable as per both @Joe Shearer and myself. He has, as I can gather, spent fun days in 1971 kicking the behinds of our friendly neighbours (I may be wrong), and I have had my share of fun trying not to do that in my visit to our own 'heaven on earth' with the a publicised terror theme park for our entertainment. However, I inadvertently did have to enjoy the same with our friendly neighbours stooges.

2. At least in my sojourn in valley, I am sure of one thing, the problem is more about governance as accepted by various people there itself, cutting across age groups and gender than anything to do with Pakistan or anti-India. Even they realise the fact that had they been stone pelting in an orthodox Muslim nation, they would have been dead by now - en masse. What we all are trying here is to understand the various mistakes made by us as Indians, and also to bring out the mistakes of the Kashmiris themselves wherein their own stupidity and downright oafish mentality has made things worse for them. A small example is of Sheikh Abdullah, a guy who could not keep his word a moment after he said it.

He affirmed loyalty to Maharaja from prison, to his lineage and to his throne, refused to join Pakistan and instead supported decision to join India. In 1948-50 he ensured that Maharaja was sent packing by conniving with Indians and then got cozy with Pakistan and then decided he wanted an independent Kashmir. There is a clause wherein the Government of India has to buy land required to discharge its function and state government has to provide the land. He ensured he had amassed significant land holdings by 1950 itself which were then transferred to GoI at a premium in those days itself.

I will be posting data as I can find. Please bear. If you can chip in, do chip in with sources.

Also read the accession of Hyderabad. It is similar to J&K, if India grants status to J&K, so should it to hyderabad.

We will be posting the counter arguments which shall at times affirm your points and at times contradict them. But that is why I started this thread.

@Stephen Cohen Will get into military discussion on geo-strategy subsequently after we cover the political aspects. Your post on the same regarding Article 370, I will consider with you when we reach the situation wherein we have to work out whether a political or military solution. Lets first get all the background facts on table.

My aim remains to put the duplicity of all concerned on the table. Solutions I have plenty - military to what can be termed outright genocide, and all highly doable both politically and militarily. We will come to that point and discuss then.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your hypocrisy is that you call us ill read, ill educated sanghis, bhakts etc etc. but you resent us calling you Intellectual?

BTW I am an MBA from a premier institute in Delhi - though not from JNU so you may not consider my institute as a premier institute

As for distinguishing with your belief and preparing a brief I have already clarifed what I had expected

If someone approaches us to draft an appeal for peace we will not use words which are against our conscience just because they appeal to the other side. We will rather not draft such an appeal just to show off our "intellectual" side.

This drafting of the brief shows your hypocrisy. If you cant be true to your belief you shouldnt have taken up the job.

Definition of Hypocrisy - a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:

Your actions of drafting the brief and your beliefs were on opposite sides. this is textbook definition of hypocrisy

But you are ill-read, ill-educated sanghis, bhakts and the etc., etc., while I have never 'resented' you calling me an intellectual. It amuses me, as if it needs to be said or mentioned; it needs to be said or mentioned only for those who are unsure of themselves or what they represent. I don't.

You assumed it, as somebody with your envy of those whom you know to be better are likely to be. Your MBA impresses me with the truth of the epithets I used; I have always argued that an MBA is a trade qualification, like a fitter or a welder, and not an education. I say that from the position of having got a similar qualification.

Going to the brief, our positions differ so widely that I gave up trying to explain long ago. It isn't worth it. You do not even begin to understand my point of view, and you never will. Your own definition of hypocrisy is precisely what I do not subscribe to, and did not, even then, and in public. Not that those of limited comprehending capacity will make out from the very public conversation that took place what our roles were. I am not even trying to convince you. Just putting this on record for my own satisfaction and to underline my amusement and disdain.

Hypocrisy means to say one thing and mean another, not to say one thing and to make it clear that it represents someone else's point of view. Be at ease, one of the reasons that I have contempt for your thinking is your inability to sense this. The more you argue, the more convincing you get. With every post from you and your lot, I am further convinced. There are, for instance, those snivelling cowards who say one thing in an open post, and go running and say something else to their mentors in your group, sadly without realising that their mentor will expose them. That is hypocrisy, not a barrister's making an argument for someone he represents.

But as I said, my assessment of your lot is a very disparaging one, and nothing you say surprises me. Delhi MBA indeed.

@Soumitra

Meanwhile, ironically, while I have wasted time on you, hellfire has posted one brilliant post after another. He is so far better that I have no problem in saying that this soldier turned scholar is the real goods, compared to two-dimensional plastic-bottomed fakes with whom I have had far too much to do.

Read his posts. You might improve fractionally.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Joe Shearer

Sir did you make any contribution to the Three member
Interlocutors panel set up in 2010

Even now you can write an article in a Mainstream Newspaper or on news sites

Let a wider audience read your views

PDF is a very small group ; Nobody other than PDF members read it

 

[Hellfire]

@Joe Shearer MK Teng was the next author I was going to extract from to clear up Article 370. You already posted the link so will request @Soumitra and @Stephen Cohen to take the trouble to read them to get a fair background of the situation.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Joe Shearer MK Teng was the next author I was going to extract from to clear up Article 370. You already posted the link so will request @Soumitra and @Stephen Cohen to take the trouble to read them to get a fair background of the situation.

Could you please post the link again that you have just written about

 

[Hellfire]

Leaving these technicalities aside let me ask you a simple question. If the central govt through a constitutional amendment with 2/3rd majority in both houses of parliament and the majority in the state legislatures decides to remove Article 370 from the constitution and the president signs the same then who has the locus standi to oppose such a motion?

No one. You a re right on this. But I gave you the guiding principle - India will be loathe to be seen as reneging on its own commitments given as per its own pleasure (remember under Indian Independence Act para3(a) to (b) we didn't need to give any assurances, but we ourselves publicly made a commitment to have a referendum wherein the ruler of the state was of a religion to which the majority subjects did not belong. That means, what we did in Junagadh & Hyderabad - depose the Muslim ruler as majority was Hindu, we committed to follow in J&K yet did not. No one asked us to take such an undertaking or give such assurances. Indeed, history is replete with examples where nation states had to be forged at the tip of the sword or through the barrel of the gun, yet we dithered and did not take either of the course which we had for taking.

@Stephen Cohen Request go through this pdf. It has a good brief on the situation in run upto the framing of Article 370. Will wait for you to complete your perusal of same and then we can continue.

http://ikashmir.net/article370/doc/article370.pdf

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Joe Shearer @hellfire

I have some NEWS for you

The writer Dr M K Teng who Joe Shearer has quoted
is a part of the VIVEKANANDA International foundation

This is a RIGHT wing Pro BJP group
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the post by Joe Shearer

General suggestion: Read M. K. Teng. Some of it is tendentious, but this man of high reputation has produced a work of high reputation.

http://ikashmir.net/article370/doc/article370.pdf

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/autonomy...cipe-for-disaster.440287/page-6#ixzz4FEf9YvWG

 

[Hellfire]

You have not answered my question. It is that WHO has the locus standi to oppose the removal of the article 370?

If it helps, the answer is - no one.

When I say no one, I say so as there is no requirement of the nation today to continue with the perpetuation of Article 370. The only obligation that the nation has, is to protect Article 1.1.

But then the integrity of the nation is brought into question, that of the successive governments who have upheld the validity of the said article irrespective of the gravest of provocations. It is this precise moral obligation of the government to its people - of upholding its promises, that has tailored Indian response till date. If we renege on this without explicit agreement of the people itself, we have the consequences which you have so finely separated in your post.

English was introduced as a link language with the long term aim of introducing Hindi as the major link language as per the constitution itself. The provisions have been in abeyance. Similarly, the Uniform Civil Code, the reservations. At times, it is the moral obligation of the government which over rides the statuettes as enshrined in the Constitution itself.

However, wisdom dictates that Article 370 must be made to go, but Indian governments have successively failed to prepare a cohesive strategy to achieve the same or do the groundwork required. I digress, sorry.

Thanks

@Stephen Cohen am a so called bhakt or sanghi myself. But nowadays that term denotes people who have lost all logic and intellect for reasoning. You see them on the TV and media .. replacing the Italian sycophancy with stupidity of another sorts.

Political ideology has nothing to do with rationale thinking. We need smart voters not blind voters. Smart voters voted for Modi over his administrative skills, blind defend idiots like that sadhvi and that maharaja character.

Suggest can personalisations and ego. @Joe Shearer is an intellect and demolishes everyone purely on their intellectual (or lack thereof) acumen. He has some views which I may not agree with, and I may have some he may not agree with. But then we are a democracy and a nation. Learn what you can from who you can. This forum has plenty of experience and intellect and he is one of them.

Just my two paise worth free advice! Sorry.

PS: Your views are views which are not new, and the process of addressing Article 370 permanently is underway. However, what my aim to engage you in, was that you must be an informed protagonist of the same and it should not remain an ill informed demand. That is all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If it helps, the answer is - no one.

When I say no one, I say so as there is no requirement of the nation today to continue with the perpetuation of Article 370. The only obligation that the nation has, is to protect Article 1.1.

But then the integrity of the nation is brought into question, that of the successive governments who have upheld the validity of the said article irrespective of the gravest of provocations. It is this precise moral obligation of the government to its people - of upholding its promises, that has tailored Indian response till date. If we renege on this without explicit agreement of the people itself, we have the consequences which you have so finely separated in your post.

English was introduced as a link language with the long term aim of introducing Hindi as the major link language as per the constitution itself. The provisions have been in abeyance. Similarly, the Uniform Civil Code, the reservations. At times, it is the moral obligation of the government which over rides the statuettes as enshrined in the Constitution itself.

However, wisdom dictates that Article 370 must be made to go, but Indian governments have successively failed to prepare a cohesive strategy to achieve the same or do the groundwork required. I digress, sorry.

Thanks

@Stephen Cohen am a so called bhakt or sanghi myself. But nowadays that term denotes people who have lost all logic and intellect for reasoning. You see them on the TV and media .. replacing the Italian sycophancy with stupidity of another sorts.

Political ideology has nothing to do with rationale thinking. We need smart voters not blind voters. Smart voters voted for Modi over his administrative skills, blind defend idiots like that sadhvi and that maharaja character.

Suggest can personalisations and ego. @Joe Shearer is an intellect and demolishes everyone purely on their intellectual (or lack thereof) acumen. He has some views which I may not agree with, and I may have some he may not agree with. But then we are a democracy and a nation. Learn what you can from who you can. This forum has plenty of experience and intellect and he is one of them.

Just my two paise worth free advice! Sorry.

PS: Your views are views which are not new, and the process of addressing Article 370 permanently is underway. However, what my aim to engage you in, was that you must be an informed protagonist of the same and it should not remain an ill informed demand. That is all.

I couldn't disagree more with you on some points, and I couldn't admire you more on the way you present them. When I leave the forum, I sincerely hope you take over. Your abominable rightist views can't be helped; at least you understand the value of fact-finding and scrupulous accuracy. I am really impressed, and very, very comforted.

 

[Soumitra]

No one. You a re right on this. But I gave you the guiding principle - India will be loathe to be seen as reneging on its own commitments given as per its own pleasure (remember under Indian Independence Act para3(a) to (b) we didn't need to give any assurances, but we ourselves publicly made a commitment to have a referendum wherein the ruler of the state was of a religion to which the majority subjects did not belong. That means, what we did in Junagadh & Hyderabad - depose the Muslim ruler as majority was Hindu, we committed to follow in J&K yet did not. No one asked us to take such an undertaking or give such assurances. Indeed, history is replete with examples where nation states had to be forged at the tip of the sword or through the barrel of the gun, yet we dithered and did not take either of the course which we had for taking.

There was no referendum in either Junagadh or hyderabad. there is no article 370 in junagadh or hyderabad. they do not have any special status. So why should there be a referendum in Kashmir? Why should there be any special status in Kashmir?

If it helps, the answer is - no one.

When I say no one, I say so as there is no requirement of the nation today to continue with the perpetuation of Article 370. The only obligation that the nation has, is to protect Article 1.1.

But then the integrity of the nation is brought into question, that of the successive governments who have upheld the validity of the said article irrespective of the gravest of provocations. It is this precise moral obligation of the government to its people - of upholding its promises, that has tailored Indian response till date.

Like I already said we have no legal obligation only moral obligation to uphold that Article. I am a nationalist. I will any day hold nationalism over moral obligations. If it serves my national interest I will vote for the removal of the Article.

 

[Levina]

Am collating all information in a chronological order so that all members can understand what transpired till date.

For the average Kashmiri, it is a fight for 'azadi'

I wonder how did you conclude this?
Merely because a few scenes from the valley get telecasted repeatedly on your Television?
The majority of "average" kashmiris that I know are living outside Kashmir in the hope of returning back to the valley some day.
I'm sure many would remember that Kashmir used to be a peaceful and prosperous state till the late 80's, the call for azadi is a very recent development, and its nothing but the result of manipulation of innocent kashmiris by the politicians (within J&K) and separatists alike.

@Levina as our own policies have allowed an environment wherein the complete and gradual integration of the state as not taken place.

How do you expect a gradual integration of Kashmir with the mainland when the laws are different for them?
Fine. Their king was promised something "meaty" and they (kashmiris) have reaped the benefit of it for long now. Its time we integrated them like we 'integrated" Hyderabad.
Do not blame me for dealing this issue through an ultra nationalist prism. My opinion was formed over the years when i saw incumbent governments getting to no practical solution in Kashmir issue.
I do NOT think any solution is possible till we bring some radical changes in the way the government in Kashmir functions.
I've observed that at most times, Kashmiris tend to respond to empathy from Central leaders more positively than many in Tamil Nadu or Kerala might. Prime Minister Vajpayee remains a particular favorite.
If the NDA government is smart enough they should pull this off well.

So how is @Joe Shearer wrong, as you quoted earlier?

I'm not here to prove anyone wrong.But i find it very hard to digest when an Indian sympathizes with a terrorist, who if alive would have attacked my country and its unity, and would have loved to see it splinter.

A truly stupid argument.

Agreed.
I may be dilettante on this subject but i do not see actions of visionaries like your's having achieved any tangible results so far. Ergo, its time you allowed a younger generation to take charge.

Can you leave me alone? I hate talking to people with whom I have nothing in common.

What you've told @Soumitra is exactly what i wanted to tell you.
Can you please me leave me alone?
Get this clear Mr.Joe Shearer, I've lost whatever lil respect i had for you after your lewd comment. Cant stand you anymore. You were the last person i expected to humiliate me the way you did.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I wonder how did you conclude this?
Merely because a few scenes from the valley get telecasted repeatedly on your Television?
The majority of "average" kashmiris that I know are living outside Kashmir in the hope of returning back to the valley some day.
I'm sure many would remember that Kashmir used to be a peaceful and prosperous state till the late 80's, the call for azadi is a very recent development, and its nothing but the result of manipulation of innocent kashmiris by the politicians (within J&K) and separatists alike.

How do you expect a gradual integration of Kashmir with the mainland when the laws are different for them?
Fine. Their king was promised something "meaty" and they (kashmiris) have reaped the benefit of it for long now. Its time we integrated them like we 'integrated" Hyderabad.
Do not blame me for dealing this issue through an ultra nationalist prism. My opinion was formed over the years when i saw incumbent governments getting to no practical solution in Kashmir issue.
I do NOT think any solution is possible till we bring some radical changes in the way the government in Kashmir functions.
I've observed that at most times, Kashmiris tend to respond to empathy from Central leaders more positively than many in Tamil Nadu or Kerala might. Prime Minister Vajpayee remains a particular favorite.
If the NDA government is smart enough they should pull this off well.

I'm not here to prove anyone wrong.But i find it very hard to digest when an Indian sympathizes with a terrorist, who if alive would have attacked my country and its unity, and would have loved to see it splinter.

I am sick of saying this over and over again, and it seems like addressing a stone column. There was no personal sympathy involved in drafting that appeal, not with terrorists.

Agreed.
I may be dilettante on this subject but i do not see actions of visionaries like your's having achieved any tangible results so far. Ergo, its time you allowed a younger generation to take charge.

Visionaries or not, our point of view has never been used on the ground, so saying that it achieved no tangible results is again nonsense. What was done was to implement the clouded and indeterminate thoughts of random bureaucrats who came, served their terms and went away. So where were 'our' actions or visions implemented? And how does this non-existent implementation amount to a failure leading to a vacuum leading to an opportunity for a younger generation to take charge?

What you've told @Soumitra is exactly what i wanted to tell you.
Can you please me leave me alone?
Get this clear Mr.Joe Shearer, I've lost whatever lil respect i had for you after your lewd comment. Cant stand you anymore. You were the last person i expected to humiliate me the way you did.

Three things: I deal with expressed opinion. You stop expressing an opinion that in my view has an adverse impact on my country, and whether I have your good housekeeping seal of approval or not, you - and the world at large - will hear about it. You will be left alone the moment you leave the topic alone.

Second, there was no lewd comment. It is exactly the same as your conclusion about a draft for a third party reflecting my views. Study the comment I made closely, and you will see that there was nothing lewd or derogatory about it, other than in your own mind.

Third, I never sought your respect. Nobody puts a person on an ignore list if there is any desire to gain that person's respect. Unfortunately, in everything you say or do, there is an unacceptable agenda at work, which makes it impossible to find common ground. And it is expressed in ways and manners where there can not even be respect for the other person. As happened when four of you chose to distort my actions and interpret it according to your own prejudices.

So stop commenting on my posts and on subjects where I am engaged.

 

[Levina]

I am sick of saying this over and over again, and it seems like addressing a stone column. There was no personal sympathy involved in drafting that appeal, not with terrorists.

Second, there was no lewd comment. It is exactly the same as your conclusion about a draft for a third party reflecting my views. Study the comment I made closely, and you will see that there was nothing lewd or derogatory about it, other than in your own mind.

Third, I never sought your respect. Nobody puts a person on an ignore list if there is any desire to gain that person's respect. Unfortunately, in everything you say or do, there is an unacceptable agenda at work, which makes it impossible to find common ground. And it is expressed in ways and manners where there can not even be respect for the other person. As happened when four of you chose to distort my actions and interpret it according to your own prejudices.

If I know you well, an apology is the last thing one should expect. Thanks for proving me right.

Not interested in deviating this thread.

 

[Kabira]

Radical solution to Kashmir-
1 Remove article 370
2 Give incentives for indians from other parts to start business and settle down in the valley.
3 Make kashmir economically dependent on the rest of India.
4 use settlements to dilute the presence of radical muslims and Pakistan / ISIS sympathisers

I can't see this working because no one will want to settle down in valley in this climate anyway.

Radical solution number 5, genocide of Kashmiris. You basically wanted to say this.