Sir, thank you for the kind words. But I have the pleasure of learning from you and from those you have referred me to Yes, disagreement will be there, but for me, your counter point may be a valid and an information for me to analyse and learn from. I actually have no view on things when I interact. Because then I will close myself to learning.
Ah where are you headed? Not soon surely? We will have that discussion hopefully before I leave this city over a cup of coffee that I had said earlier.
As for the underlined and bold portion, you have been reading my half assed posts, and am sure you can pretty much assess me. I have been called a bhakt and a sanghi here by our friends of neighbourhood ... so I am tickled as such to rub it in. Actually couldn't care less on stupidities being professed by idiots across the board nowadays. personally, I like the Chinese form of governance, but then that is my view.
Am sure being an atheist like you and actually being apolitical besides being hammered to be as such, the only bhakt I am is to the nation and the only 'sanghi' I am is to the same organisation you have probably been in ...
. Anyways, enough of digressing, shall we continue?Regards
Exactly, Read the history of annexation of Junagadh. The Instrument of accession was already signed by the ruler in favor of Pakistan categorically and legally under provisions of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. We simply invaded and the popular sentiment was with India and no one could do much about it.
Extrapolate to Hyderabad and why forget Goa? Goa - the Portuguese simply refused to hold a referendum even when General Humberto Delgado the presidential candidate of Portugal in 1957, asked for it to be held.
Look what we did?
I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of Indian positions. Had India claimed suzerainty over all the territories of the erstwhile Princely state of J&K and been very sure about its claim after the signing of Instrument of Accession, India would not have left Gilgit-Baltistan-Mirpur-Muzafarrabad-Nager-Hunza-Chitral in the hands of Pakistanis. The military offensive would not have been stopped.
Can you explain why it was stopped? It is too easy to say Nehru was stupid. If indeed he was, so was Patel and the whole of India. Nehru was in no way a stupid man, he managed to become the President of Congress even when he lost to SC Bose and the PM of India after loosing to VB Patel ... that is an astute politician.
There is both a legal and a moral obligation as a Nation State to uphold those laws which the national constitution framing committee made after due consultations with all concerned. There is no Act or Article and indeed Schedule or Part of the Constitution that becomes a negotiable instrument just because it may not fit with either of our views. The day you allow a nation state to over ride one aspect, you allow the nation state to erode its own credibility and begin the process of unwinding the nation.
Why, indeed, do you think that the present government has not taken this step? Because people do realise that once this step is taken, it is a matter of time before the nation starts unwinding.
Now let us see the consequence of abolition of Article 370 without the groundwork and due support of the people of J&K (and that includes the displaced Pandits). A probability of mass insurrection. What do you propose should India do to confront that? How do you propose that India justify its stance of making India a secular nation in 1947 rejecting and protesting the two nation theory and thus leaving Pakistan struggling to justify the demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims after breaking up India citing inability to peacefully co-exist? Till date, all the actions Pakistan has taken, be it initiation of war, or pursuing a nuclear policy at severe costs to its socio-economic prosperity or even its acts in J&K, have been to assure its own population and the rest of the world (and itself) of the righteousness of the demand for a separate homeland, and try and reconcile its existence to something other than ego. Why would you want to give legitimacy to a state born out of breaking up India and promoting hatred for all?
Additionally, how do you propose we deal with the insurrection that shall engulf Kashmir? What means do you propose to use to control the fallout?
I really would like your inputs on these.
For bold part - by running through the streets and vales there for sometime, and not being loved for it
Ah I get the confusion. My mistake in not saying what I wanted to clearly. Out of the whole population in Kashmir, the majority are only bothered about the governance. I think I have mentioned it already earlier. Out of the remaining, the majority want azadi, not to be with Pakistan.
Precisely. That is what I have been saying - you need a political solution. The politicians have had the nation.
How you integrate J&K? Well, finally the GoI has understood the problem and the process will bear fruits in another decade or two. Lets leave it at that for now.
You know, apart from my own experience there, I have all the reasons to hate anyone who picks up a gun against India in the valley having lost few relatives there. I have seen better men and women also, die for this stupidity that exists in Kashmir. However, at the end of the day, the responsibility lies with the politicians, and through them with the citizens of India. All i am saying is, this needs a political resolution. The Indian Army respects the men who have taken up arms against it in valley, because they have died for their cause. You can not imagine the frustration of a solider when he is ordered to fight people who he is told are his own people. He does not understand why he has to protect them and also be detested and at times killed by the same people he secures and protects.
I really do not know how to explain it to you, you will only understand it if you have served a tour there, in the built up area, where the same person looks after you on one day and treats you like an honoured guest and friend as you roam in civil clothes and the next day when you put on an uniform is after your life. and the day after again protects you risking his life when you are back in the civil dress. The Kashmiris are not fighting India Levina, they are fighting the miserable life and governance they have there. The separatists have simply latched onto a popular discontent against a pseudo-democracy, failing government machinery and rampant corruption, and the attitude of our politicians has not helped either.
My aim was to highlight mutual mistakes and stupidities of indians and kashmiris at the inception .. that is all
