Calls for Bangladesh war trials

[Malang]

The CBM's are welcome and indeed useful, however almost every Indian I have talked to refers to the "Pakistani obsession with Kashmir",

It is quite possible.

and how it drives politics in Pakistan.

It is naivety to suggest that Kashmir is all in all of Pak Politics.

That indicates that a particular narrative pertaining to Pakistan has taken root in India,

It is possible but not because of propaganda. Most Indians as I have said are generally ignorant about Kashmir issue and they see Pak harping over kashmir as an obsession since many our unaware of the background.
A superficial study of Kashmir may actually make them apologetic about it and a thorough study will most likely make them believe Kashmir is Indian. Even then I have also said before that Kashmir is actually a fight b/w Ideological differences that led to partition hence I don't see any of the country making concessions..

wherein Pakistan really has no reson de etre but to perpetually hate India and the Kashmir cause drives this hate.

Refer to above, if such was the case you wouldn't have so many Pakistanis being appreciated and accepted?
A section of the people may feel but generally people also realise that dirty Politics is played in both country.

What this sort of narrative does is that it completely obviates all sense of Pakistanis existing to develop a viable, prosperous economic State - and argues that Pakistan's existence is based on "hate and territorial expansionism".

Again this is unfounded, as I have said before the popularity of Pak products, general acceptance that Pak was richer, more modern etc. pre-90's at least and a host of other things.
Indians realise that Pak was doing better than them and somewhere in the middle derailed.

An important topic, but if you analyze it in more depth, how do you think it actually drives politics? The only thing political parties promise on kashmir is (jingoistic version) "we will free kashmir", but then if every party promises that, how can the Kashmir issue drive the political process?

Kashmir rallies are pretty big from the news emanating from Pak...
I have never heard Kashmir issue ever being raised in elections in India and Mr. Zardari's statements that we will set Kashmir aside was pretty unexpected IMO unless the issue was at the core.

I don't think I have ever heard of an Indian PM newly in power saying something about Kashmir and this news item being widely published and reacted to(both by the public and media)

The parties that do take extremely nationalistic and anti-India positions on Kashmir continue to do poorly in the elections.

So there are parties that do that, so yes it is an election/support/votebase plank... whether successful or not is not the question ...

Kashmir does drive our relationship with India, Pakistanis would like to see the issue resolved before full fledged normalization, but even here there is no singular position adopted by everyone.

It would be safe to assume that a majority would like Kashmir to be part of Pakistan a la AZK style isn't it?

The business, arts, culture community would like normalization regardless, and even the average Pakistani might say that normalization in various spheres is a good idea, without Kashmir being resolved.

I wouldn't be surprised with this and this along the expected lines..

The positions taken by Pakistanis on Kashmir, and its level of importance to them, are too fluid to characterize it as a "make or break issue" in Pakistan.

Who said it is a make or break issue but then who knows? Even economy, military etc. cannot be ascertained to be make or break issues..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

MALANG:

Kashmir rallies are pretty big from the news emanating from Pak...
I have never heard Kashmir issue ever being raised in elections in India and Mr. Zardari's statements that we will set Kashmir aside was pretty unexpected IMO unless the issue was at the core.

I don't think I have ever heard of an Indian PM newly in power saying something about Kashmir and this news item being widely published and reacted to(both by the public and media)

What does a large Kashmir rally have to do with anything?
Western nations have huge Tibet rallies, or Darfur rallies, that doesn't mean the policies of those nations are entirely driven by Tibet or Darfur, though how the governments of those nations conduct their relationship with Sudan and China might come under pressure.

Pakistanis consider the people of the region to be desirous of being a part of Pakistan, that India has violated UNSC resolutions and denied the people of Kashmir the right to make that choice, and is militarily occupying the region and committing atrocities (no need to argue these points, just trying to present the situation as Pakistanis view it) - so it would make sense for Pakistanis to express support for those they consider, for all intents and purposes, "fellow Pakistanis" under occupation, but like Tibet and Darfur, that doesn't mean it drives policy (other than towards India) or elections.

Arguably Kashmir is the dominant factor a factor as it pertains to Pakistan's relationship with India. The PML-N made claims during the election that it wanted to revert to the demand for UN resolutions to be implemented, while BB declared that she wanted to move beyond that. The PPP still won a majority of the seats.

You could also make parallels with the populist sentiment surrounding the "War on Terror" in the US. Candidates that say they won't "fight terror" will find support hard to come by, but as long as the candidates commit to what is considered a "moral position" on fighting terror, they can argue for different approaches to it, and the Public will be happy that an important issue won't be compromised on.

It is possible but not because of propaganda. Most Indians as I have said are generally ignorant about Kashmir issue and they see Pak harping over kashmir as an obsession since many our unaware of the background.
A superficial study of Kashmir may actually make them apologetic about it and a thorough study will most likely make them believe Kashmir is Indian. Even then I have also said before that Kashmir is actually a fight b/w Ideological differences that led to partition hence I don't see any of the country making concessions..

If most Indians are ignorant about the Kashmir issue, then they will believe whatever the official commentators have to say, and it is there (in the media etc.) that this narrative develops. Call it propaganda, misinformation, ignorance or whatever, but to me, a Pakistani, the negativity is quite obvious while interacting with most Indians and viewing Indian media.

Perhaps the view the Pakistan is "Kashmir centric" develops from the influence of the territorial dispute on our relationship with India. Since other interactions, trade, culture etc. are limited, Indians only view us through the prism of our foreign policy via vis India.

When you read the blogs of Indians who travel to Pakistan, the experiences, and complete change of thought they express with respect to Pakistan is quite enlightening, in terms of how distorted the view in India about Pakistan is. I am sure the same occurs when Pakistanis visit India.

 

[Malang]

MALANG:
What does a large Kashmir rally have to do with anything?
Western nations have huge Tibet rallies, or Darfur rallies, that doesn't mean the policies of those nations are entirely driven by Tibet or Darfur, though how the governments of those nations conduct their relationship with Sudan and China might come under pressure.

those are not rallies by political parties...

Pakistanis consider the people of the region to be desirous of being a part of Pakistan, that India has violated UNSC resolutions and denied the people of Kashmir the right to make that choice, and is militarily occupying the region and committing atrocities (no need to argue these points, just trying to present the situation as Pakistanis view it) - so it would make sense for Pakistanis to express support for those they consider, for all intents and purposes, "fellow Pakistanis" under occupation, but like Tibet and Darfur, that doesn't mean it drives policy (other than towards India) or elections.

Most western nations do not view Tibetans as their own.. nor do they routinely hold political rallies as regards to Tibets.. those rallies are by pro-Tibetan groups in those countries...

Arguably Kashmir is the dominant factor a factor as it pertains to Pakistan's relationship with India. The PML-N made claims during the election that it wanted to revert to the demand for UN resolutions to be implemented, while BB declared that she wanted to move beyond that. The PPP still won a majority of the seats.

PPP won because of sympathy wave .... IMO if BB would've been alive things would've been vastly different from what it is at present..
Though there can also be an argument she was killed for side-stepping Kashmir...

You could also make parallels with the populist sentiment surrounding the "War on Terror" in the US. Candidates that say they won't "fight terror" will find support hard to come by, but as long as the candidates commit to what is considered a "moral position" on fighting terror, they can argue for different approaches to it, and the Public will be happy that an important issue won't be compromised on.

WOT/Kashmir/Tibet are all different IMO.

If most Indians are ignorant about the Kashmir issue, then they will believe whatever the official commentators have to say, and it is there (in the media etc.) that this narrative develops. Call it propaganda, misinformation, ignorance or whatever, but to me, a Pakistani, the negativity is quite obvious while interacting with most Indians and viewing Indian media.

AM, if a person is ignorant about Kashmir it is of his own accord, He will rather skip news on Kashmir than read news on it... as I said it is not an important matter hence most do not concern themselves with it..
An avg Pakistani will be better (mis)informed about Kashmir because of importance of the subject...
and the news like slain ACP Rajbir Singh of Delhi's suspicious encounter of Kashmiris, Fake encounters in Kashmir and Protest pictures are actually doing a disservice to the Indian establishment..
For eg. 3 Kashmiri news item were featured on the front pages in the last week-10 days..
1. Questions sorrounding encounter of 3 kashmiri (terrorits) by Late Rajbir Singh a few years back
2. Fake encounters by Army Men
3. A Kashmiri Muslim promoted to Maj Gen with the following quote
" With the elevation of Brigadier Mohammad Amin Naik to the post of Major General, Kashmiris, who have historically felt alienated from the mainstream, would now have one grievance less. "

Now all these 3 newsitem are IMO detrimental to the Indian POV...

Perhaps the view the Pakistan is "Kashmir centric" develops from the influence of the territorial dispute on our relationship with India. Since other interactions, trade, culture etc. are limited, Indians only view us through the prism of our foreign policy via vis India.

I don't believe so.. an avg Indian if he is unaware of what is happening in Indian Kashmir usually would be even more ignorant of what is happening in Pakistan..
Most of the people are actually having a sympathetic view of Pakistan post-suicide bombings...

When you read the blogs of Indians who travel to Pakistan, the experiences, and complete change of thought they express with respect to Pakistan is quite enlightening, in terms of how distorted the view in India about Pakistan is.

Distorted is a strong word, I would say unawareness has a lot of role to play.. For eg, a view of an Indian as regards to Lebanon or Israel would be a wartorn place but people who go there are shocked out of their wits...
Even people from different parts of India are shocked to see what goes around in other areas.. so this is more a case of being unaware than propaganda/misrepresentation...

I am sure the same occurs when Pakistanis visit India.

Possible, but Indians are generally losing the hospitable and cultural touch at the altar of prosperity...
(for eg: if you say you are an out of towner and sit with a cabbie who may belong to your religion for eg even, chances are he will rip you off... )

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

those are not rallies by political parties...

Most western nations do not view Tibetans as their own.. nor do they routinely hold political rallies as regards to Tibets.. those rallies are by pro-Tibetan groups in those countries...

WOT/Kashmir/Tibet are all different IMO.

Politics is acted out a little differently in our part of the world, but pro-Darfur. pro_Tibet, Pro-Israel legislators do make appearances at some of them. Now if Western nations had the sort of adversarial relationship that India and Pakistan do, you wouldn't see the parties missing out on point scoring by hosting these rallies.

The point is that "rallies" occur, and people participate because it is something they care about, Darfur, kashmir, Tibet, Israel whatever - and participation does not equate "overwhelming obsession".

PPP won because of sympathy wave .... IMO if BB would've been alive things would've been vastly different from what it is at present..
Though there can also be an argument she was killed for side-stepping Kashmir...

Almost all the polls before her assassination indicated that the PPP would win the elections by a large margin. Some analysts were actually surprised that the PPP didn't get more seats.

"killed for sidestepping Kashmir" - thats sort of the "negativity" I was referring to. For some reason its hard for you to accept that Kashmir really has a minor impact on the local Pakistani political dynamic, save for our relationship with India.

BB could have been killed for many reasons, I find the most obvious one to be the most believable - Mehsud threatened to greet her with Suicide bombs, and he did. The Pakistani authorities, CIA and Scotland yard all agreed on that conclusion.

AM, if a person is ignorant about Kashmir it is of his own accord, He will rather skip news on Kashmir than read news on it... as I said it is not an important matter hence most do not concern themselves with it..
An avg Pakistani will be better (mis)informed about Kashmir because of importance of the subject...
and the news like slain ACP Rajbir Singh of Delhi's suspicious encounter of Kashmiris, Fake encounters in Kashmir and Protest pictures are actually doing a disservice to the Indian establishment..
For eg. 3 Kashmiri news item were featured on the front pages in the last week-10 days..
1. Questions sorrounding encounter of 3 kashmiri (terrorits) by Late Rajbir Singh a few years back
2. Fake encounters by Army Men
3. A Kashmiri Muslim promoted to Maj Gen with the following quote
" With the elevation of Brigadier Mohammad Amin Naik to the post of Major General, Kashmiris, who have historically felt alienated from the mainstream, would now have one grievance less. "

Now all these 3 newsitem are IMO detrimental to the Indian POV...

I don't believe so.. an avg Indian if he is unaware of what is happening in Indian Kashmir usually would be even more ignorant of what is happening in Pakistan..
Most of the people are actually having a sympathetic view of Pakistan post-suicide bombings...

Distorted is a strong word, I would say unawareness has a lot of role to play.. For eg, a view of an Indian as regards to Lebanon or Israel would be a wartorn place but people who go there are shocked out of their wits...
Even people from different parts of India are shocked to see what goes around in other areas.. so this is more a case of being unaware than propaganda/misrepresentation...

There is a uniformity in the views about Pakistan that comes across from most Indian/pro Indian posters, individuals and media. Your initial comments, that started this exchange, fall right in that category, as do those of most Indians I come across at school or elsewhere.

If this is out of simple ignorance, then it has to be one heck of a coincidence that the "ignorance" results in almost identical views. The particular "Indian narrative" about Pakistan is driven by the media, possibly in conjunction with commentators sympathetic to the Indian military establishment, or those who take cues from them. If not that, then it seems a heavy concentration of these so called "experts" and commentators (who do not have the excuse of being "uninformed") are prejudiced and anti-Pakistan to the extreme.

For the "average Indian" its not about "skipping news on kashmir", its absorbing the often vitriol laced presentation of Pakistan on print and electronic media.

Possible, but Indians are generally losing the hospitable and cultural touch at the altar of prosperity...
(for eg: if you say you are an out of towner and sit with a cabbie who may belong to your religion for eg even, chances are he will rip you off... )

happens everywhere....

 

[Malang]

The point is that "rallies" occur, and people participate because it is something they care about, Darfur, kashmir, Tibet, Israel whatever - and participation does not equate "overwhelming obsession".

Politics in our parts of the world is different.. Public Rallies are carried out usually for matters of grave/pressing concerns. but lets leave it aside..

AM I am not necessarily accusing an average Pakistani of being hateful etc. but it is with a little sense of pity that I view Masses being brainwashed in the name of religion (esp the one which emphasizes on Brotherhood...)

Kashmir will be a lifelong issue to me.. unless people of both sides actually normalize relationship.. since I view it as a fight b/w those who believe in Jinnah and those who don't..

Indians are no saints but neither are they the satanic devils that Pakistani media will have me believe..

Almost all the polls before her assassination indicated that the PPP would win the elections by a large margin. Some analysts were actually surprised that the PPP didn't get more seats.

I was not aware of this..

"killed for sidestepping Kashmir" - thats sort of the "negativity" I was referring to.

it is possibility of thousands of possibilities you have misconstrued the post..

For some reason its hard for you to accept that Kashmir really has a minor impact on the local Pakistani political dynamic, save for our relationship with India.

Minor impact at Local pakistani political dynamic? possibly.. but still it plays a part can Pakistani govt say..

You see the support Kashmir evokes in terms of money, aid, donation, freedom fighters/terrorists etc is reflective of the importance of kashmir... is it because of propaganda or genuine concern? I couldn't be bothered..

BB could have been killed for many reasons, I find the most obvious one to be the most believable - Mehsud threatened to greet her with Suicide bombs, and he did. The Pakistani authorities, CIA and Scotland yard all agreed on that conclusion.

I think it is one of those mysteries a la 9/11

There is a uniformity in the views about Pakistan that comes across from most Indian/pro Indian posters, individuals and media. Your initial comments, that started this exchange, fall right in that category, as do those of most Indians I come across at school or elsewhere.

school? do you have Indians studying in Pak?

AM there is a uniformity in the views of Pakistanis about India as well.. Whether it is because of bad blood? possibly..

My main grouse is involvement of the muslim card.. if Pakistan has territorial ambition fine, if it feels Kashmir is thiers fine but to bring in muslim mistreatment etc. doesn't go down well with the Indians as I see it..

If this is out of simple ignorance, then it has to be one heck of a coincidence that the "ignorance" results in almost identical views. The particular "Indian narrative" about Pakistan is driven by the media, possibly in conjunction with commentators sympathetic to the Indian military establishment, or those who take cues from them. If not that, then it seems a heavy concentration of these so called "experts" and commentators (who do not have the excuse of being "uninformed") are prejudiced and anti-Pakistan to the extreme.

You portray India as an authoritarian state..
as I said you will always see some Indians esp the educated ones in big cities who don't mind giving Kashmir to Pakistan and who are apologetic about it.. is it because of media? Yes...

in a defence forum, I don't think you will find a less than nationalistic subcontinental.. but if you talk to a common man things will be different..

If you come on and argue/debate with me with a Pakistani stance, I would by default have to adopt an Indian stance!!

You will rarely find Indians on this forum deriding their country, achievements

For the "average Indian" its not about "skipping news on kashmir", its absorbing the often vitriol laced presentation of Pakistan on print and electronic media.

You are being pessimistic AM... Though Pakistan(govt/military/clerics) will largely always be viewed skeptically by Indians.. it is the history but at least in India things are changing rapidly..

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

AM,

I don't want to get into debate with you since I have always found that you post with due deference to facts.

However, you may like to check the provision of the UNSC declaration and then substantiate if India did violate the UN Resolutions!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

I don't want to get into debate with you since I have always found that you post with due deference to facts.

However, you may like to check the provision of the UNSC declaration and then substantiate if India did violate the UN Resolutions!

Salim, I understand what you are saying, and I understand that India's position on the issue is different, which is why I clarified to Malang that what I was posting was my take on how Pakistanis view the issue, not what may or may not be factually correct - hence my disclaimer that he did not have to argue those points.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM I am not necessarily accusing an average Pakistani of being hateful etc. but it is with a little sense of pity that I view Masses being brainwashed in the name of religion (esp the one which emphasizes on Brotherhood...)

That is a different issue, and I would argue is not linked to what the government does or does not promote, but how people interpret religion and how it is shaping their view of the world.

Currently, due to various factors, the narrative of "Muslim brotherhood" is quite popular, and exhorted by many, without due consideration of very many issues that negate the entire argument - but this is for a different discussion. I just want to state that I do not consider "Muslim brotherhood" to be something the State promotes, it has everything to do with the evolution of Muslim thought under the influence of regional and international dynamics.

Kashmir will be a lifelong issue to me.. unless people of both sides actually normalize relationship.. since I view it as a fight b/w those who believe in Jinnah and those who don't..

Well of course - its a territorial dispute between Pakistan (most Pakistanis believe in Jinnah) and India (Most Indians probably don't Indians don't like him).

But the lack of belief in Jinnah is also an indirect insult and slap in the face for Pakistanis (and Bangladeshis) - because by refusing to acknowledge his argument, that the overwhelming majority of the residents of both current Pakistan and Bangladesh strongly agreed with, you insult our right to choose our destiny and you insult our decision to do so and you implicitly argue that the our Independence was flawed. That is why I have a hard time believing some Indians who say that they have accepted Pakistan - they haven't.

Funnily enough, the only individual whose sincerity I do not doubt towards Pakistan's sovereignty and prosperity, is Salim, a retired Indian Army Officer (and one very close Tamil Indian friend).

Indians are no saints but neither are they the satanic devils that Pakistani media will have me believe..

Sure - Pakistanis have strong doubts over whether India has ever accepted our right to exist, and has always worked to weaken and destroy us. One could argue that sentiment is simply the flip side to the "Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir and promoting terrorism in India" views in India.

Only continued dialog and interaction, without hankering for "unified cricket teams" (you have no idea how much it irritates me when Indians bring that up - what a great team we would have!"), will reduce distrust and suspicion.

it is possibility of thousands of possibilities you have misconstrued the post..

I think it is one of those mysteries a la 9/11

I apologize if I misconstrued the post.

I was looking at it in the context of the "obsessed with Kashmir" argument.

I am not a big fan of those conspiracy theories.

Minor impact at Local pakistani political dynamic? possibly.. but still it plays a part can Pakistani govt say..

You see the support Kashmir evokes in terms of money, aid, donation, freedom fighters/terrorists etc is reflective of the importance of kashmir... is it because of propaganda or genuine concern? I couldn't be bothered..

It does play a part in how the government deals with India, thats pretty much it. Overall, in the absence of a resolution and move towards comprehensive peace with India, one could argue that Kashmir influences both nations military programs. Thats pretty much it.

school? do you have Indians studying in Pak?

Thats why we are petitioning Webby to have a second "location flag" option, or a second location.

Doing my undergrad at University in the US, and I really shouldn't be on here since I have exams...

AM there is a uniformity in the views of Pakistanis about India as well.. Whether it is because of bad blood? possibly..

Sure - I tried to address this above.

My main grouse is involvement of the muslim card.. if Pakistan has territorial ambition fine, if it feels Kashmir is thiers fine but to bring in muslim mistreatment etc. doesn't go down well with the Indians as I see it..

Again - the injection of Islam is not something the state has control over. That is how a lot of people view the issue, and it fits in with the "persecution of Muslims" narrative that is in vogue nowadays. Look at the amount of support that Palestine has in nations (like Pakistan) that have nothing to do with the Palestinians and the Israelis. Why are we picking sides?

Like it or not, religion is part of the dynamic, but it would not be were it not for the fact that the territory is disputed in the first place.

You portray India as an authoritarian state..
as I said you will always see some Indians esp the educated ones in big cities who don't mind giving Kashmir to Pakistan and who are apologetic about it.. is it because of media? Yes...

in a defence forum, I don't think you will find a less than nationalistic subcontinental.. but if you talk to a common man things will be different..

If you come on and argue/debate with me with a Pakistani stance, I would by default have to adopt an Indian stance!!

You will rarely find Indians on this forum deriding their country, achievements

You are being pessimistic AM... Though Pakistan(govt/military/clerics) will largely always be viewed skeptically by Indians.. it is the history but at least in India things are changing rapidly..

I will agree with you that my opinions expressed above are pessimistic, they are formed from the majority of "anti Pakistan sentiment I see expressed when perusing the media and commentators and posters online (and in a few cases, in personal interactions with Indians, though not by any means the majority. But people tend to not express themselves openly face to face), and I hope that you are correct about the nature of change taking place in India. Let me assure you that the same change is taking place in Pakistan as well, where people would like to believe that India is not harboring secret plans to first destroy and then integrate Pakistan - but to really cross the threshold the governments of the two nations have to start taking steps towards normalization.

 

[Flintlock]

Funnily enough, the only individual whose sincerity I do not doubt towards Pakistan's sovereignty and prosperity, is Salim, a retired Indian Army Officer (and one very close Tamil Indian friend).

Even I support Jinnah in this. I too believe in the two nation theory.

However, my reasons are practical rather than religious.

 

[Flintlock]

I will agree with you that my opinions expressed above are pessimistic, they are formed from the majority of "anti Pakistan sentiment I see expressed when perusing the media and commentators and posters online (and in a few cases, in personal interactions with Indians, though not by any means the majority. But people tend to not express themselves openly face to face), and I hope that you are correct about the nature of change taking place in India. Let me assure you that the same change is taking place in Pakistan as well, where people would like to believe that India is not harboring secret plans to first destroy and then integrate Pakistan - but to really cross the threshold the governments of the two nations have to start taking steps towards normalization.

Agno, It'll be good to remember that this being a defence forum, you tend to get ultra-nationalistic/ jingoistic crowd here.

 

[Malang]

That is a different issue, and I would argue is not linked to what the government does or does not promote, but how people interpret religion and how it is shaping their view of the world.

People's interpretation of Islam(and other beliefs) would be reflected in the workings of a (an Islamic) country (where the followers are a majority or a source of power or the govt has popular support)

Currently, due to various factors, the narrative of "Muslim brotherhood" is quite popular, and exhorted by many, without due consideration of very many issues that negate the entire argument - but this is for a different discussion. I just want to state that I do not consider "Muslim brotherhood" to be something the State promotes, it has everything to do with the evolution of Muslim thought under the influence of regional and international dynamics.

I was talking about Islam's emphasis on Brotherhood /Fraternity/ Peace/ Morality rather than a debate on Ummah...

Well of course - its a territorial dispute between Pakistan (most Pakistanis believe in Jinnah) and India (Most Indians probably don't Indians don't like him).

Whether Jinnah is liked or not or whether you believe in him or not is not important ... what has been done has been done.. what use is of crying over spilt milk?
Though on the other hand inspite of having a different ideology Bhagat Singh is almost as respected as Gandhi in India..

But the lack of belief in Jinnah is also an indirect insult and slap in the face for Pakistanis (and Bangladeshis) - because by refusing to acknowledge his argument, that the overwhelming majority of the residents of both current Pakistan and Bangladesh strongly agreed with, you insult our right to choose our destiny and you insult our decision to do so and you implicitly argue that the our Independence was flawed.

Lack of belief in Jinnah's ideology is not an insult to him..
(for eg Atheists don't have belief in ideologies of (other organised) religions, this I believe doesn't tantamount to insult) Pakistan's present ideology of being a neo-theocratic state with lesser rights for non muslims implies that they feel non muslims (all over) to be beneath them?

The issue here is not whether I believe in your ideology but you to have faith in your ideology.. instead of deriding others I would rather strengthen my own beliefs..

Another thing I would like to add is that Jinnah didn't want to create enmity/hostility b/w India and Pak as I understand.. His ideology is much maligned and abused by not only Indians but also Pakistanis... and which to some extent is understandable because of the nature and history..

That is why I have a hard time believing some Indians who say that they have accepted Pakistan - they haven't.

China-Taiwan is a classic example of non-acceptance.. not India-Pak..
(If I am not wrong most people on either side would like to believe they have no common origins, or ethnic links etc... is that good or bad I can't really fathom...)

Funnily enough, the only individual whose sincerity I do not doubt towards Pakistan's sovereignty and prosperity, is Salim, a retired Indian Army Officer (and one very close Tamil Indian friend).

The acriminous relationship b/w India and Pak will not allow a majority of Indians and Pakistanis to view each other in a very friendly light.. but to suggest that Indians believe in nuking Pak, or taking over their lands etc. is false and to also suggest that Indians would cheer on(or not feel envious of) a richer and stronger than India Pak is again IMO false...

Having said all of the above, I am confident that at the academic, mass media, govt, military and other upper echleon levels of India, many at least now would like to see a stable, prosperous Pakistan.. I don't see them operating in any other way.. unless they are sadists/masochists..
and somehow I still don't see the Pakistani top establishment (pre-democracy days, I am still cautious abt the present govt) thinking along the lines of seeing a prosperous and stable India..

I also believe when Pak was doing well (better than India) in the decades 50s, 60s and 70s where was this India who was trying to destabilize Pakistan even at the height of cold war such religious fervour over Kashmir, or the notion that India is trying to destabilize Pak was non-existent.. now that India is doing well why would they try to destabilize Pak which would cause further problems for India??

Sure - Pakistanis have strong doubts over whether India has ever accepted our right to exist, and has always worked to weaken and destroy us. One could argue that sentiment is simply the flip side to the "Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir and promoting terrorism in India" views in India.

I can also argue that these statements are circulated by Pakistan to strengthen belief in Jinnah's 2 nation theory (the part which says Hindus and Muslims can't coexist together in one nation)..

Only continued dialog and interaction, without hankering for "unified cricket teams" (you have no idea how much it irritates me when Indians bring that up - what a great team we would have!"), will reduce distrust and suspicion.

AM p2p is good but to me is futile till both Govts don't actually pursue and desire normalization.. and I don't see any of the govt at the moment to act as the bigger man..

It does play a part in how the government deals with India, thats pretty much it. Overall, in the absence of a resolution and move towards comprehensive peace with India, one could argue that Kashmir influences both nations military programs. Thats pretty much it.

Kashmir is a contentious issue, The past 60 years both nations have developed enough firepower to thwart any misadventures and both are powerful enough to not yield to superpowers and neither is anyone willing to give the other, the land it controls...
GoI would like to see nothing more other than accepting LOC as international borders..( If I am not mistaken Vajyapayee was even willing to give some land to Pak but was rebuffed by the then COAS.. I am not sure what would happen in Pak if LOC is made intl. Border? or if a tract of land is gifted?)...
But harping over Kashmir to me is detrimental to both..

Thats why we are petitioning Webby to have a second "location flag" option, or a second location.
Doing my undergrad at University in the US, and I really shouldn't be on here since I have exams...

Great.. you sound much older than you are (but wise nonetheless)..

Again - the injection of Islam is not something the state has control over. That is how a lot of people view the issue, and it fits in with the "persecution of Muslims" narrative that is in vogue nowadays. Look at the amount of support that Palestine has in nations (like Pakistan) that have nothing to do with the Palestinians and the Israelis. Why are we picking sides?

In such situations the state ought to butt in, the shortsighted govt may actually encourage such beliefs to persist but later they always come to haunt. Snowball effect is always underestimated.

Like it or not, religion is part of the dynamic, but it would not be were it not for the fact that the territory is disputed in the first place.

Pre-1990's If I am correct religion was not much of a issue in Kashmir as it is now

I will agree with you that my opinions expressed above are pessimistic, they are the majority of what I see when perusing the media and commentators and posters online, and I hope that you are correct about the nature of change taking place in India.

AM I don't believe a majority of Indians nor the GoI was ""ever" in favour of disintegrating Pakistan..
Could you give me any reason as to why India would pursue such a course of action?

Let me assure you that the same change is taking place in Pakistan as well, where people would like to believe that India is not harboring secret plans to first destroy and then integrate Pakistan -

ex-ISI chiefs incl Gul and Nasir have explicitly declared the proxy war to bleed India as I have said before to me it is unfathomable as to why India pursue a similar ideology as ISI or would purposely stoke separatist movements in Pakistan at the moment?(Stoke because they are not created by India and have real causes)...
One positive development of this proxy war that can be harnessed by India is to use it to foster unity within the country..

but to really cross the threshold the governments of the two nations have to start taking steps towards normalization.

absolutely..

 

[Malang]

Even I support Jinnah in this. I too believe in the two nation theory.

However, my reasons are practical rather than religious.

??? like what reasons ???

 

[Flintlock]

could you give some reasons?

Well, as you know, Islam isn't merely a religion. It is a complete administrative and political setup that takes care of all the aspects of a person's life, from religion, to governance, from marriage to business.
Obviously, due to the infallibility of the quran, it becomes very difficult to bring about change in anything.
Everything ranging from clothes to loans have islamic laws pertaining to them, which are, as I said, tough to change.

As as result, it is difficult for an Islamic country to adopt an alternative political system like democracy or communism. Some countries have managed to do it, like Turkey for example, by keeping Islam on a very short leash.
Pakistan has managed to do it (periodically) by having a largely moderate population.
It is also difficult for an Islamic country to allow other religions to co-exist, because Islam tends to be exclusivist, and not accomodative. This is true even for Christianity and Communism.

In such circumstances, I think that having a large muslim majority region within India would have led to instability, and eventually fragmentation. All of India's energy would have been spent in keeping itself together.

Even today, Western parts of Pakistan are not fully integrated, inspite of having a common religion. It would be impossible to control these areas if they were told that their lives were being governed by hindus (or if they perceived it that way).

This can be clearly seen in Kashmir, where a radical fringe had the dramatic effect of alienating the kashmiris from "hindu" India, even though the largely moderate kashmiris were pro-India for a long time.

I have made several generalizations obviously, but I think amount of accuracy is sufficient.

 

[Malang]

Well, as you know, Islam isn't merely a religion. It is a complete administrative and political setup that takes care of all the aspects of a person's life, from religion, to governance, from marriage to business.
Obviously, due to the infallibility of the quran, it becomes very difficult to bring about change in anything.
Everything ranging from clothes to loans have islamic laws pertaining to them, which are, as I said, tough to change.

Instead of merely relying on literal translation of Quran it is imperative to understand the underlying meaning of Quranic injunctions..
For eg Women wearing Burkha.. it is understood a woman must cover herself and maintain chastity lifelong...
Praying 5 times a day.. implies one must always remember God..
etc. etc.

Hinduism then is much more of a setup than Islam but it is not imperative for a Hindu to follow Hindu laws (Manusmriti elucidates Hindu laws and optimistically only a handful in India live according to it)..It is generally accepted now amongst Hindus to follow theological beliefs or beliefs that one identifies with...

if Quran is treated as a setup revealed by God then so must the new setup (aka secularism and democracy else all powerful God would have annihilated all else..)

As as result, it is difficult for an Islamic country to adopt an alternative political system like democracy or communism. Some countries have managed to do it, like Turkey for example, by keeping Islam on a very short leash.
Pakistan has managed to do it (periodically) by having a largely moderate population.
It is also difficult for an Islamic country to allow other religions to co-exist, because Islam tends to be exclusivist, and not accomodative. This is true even for Christianity and Communism.

if Islam promotes all this I beg to differ, it is the misinterpretation of Islam that is the cause of all the mess..

In such circumstances, I think that having a large muslim majority region within India would have led to instability, and eventually fragmentation. All of India's energy would have been spent in keeping itself together.

Today India is home to one of the world's largest Muslim population which has attained pre-partition levels percentage wise.
Is India in fear of disintegrating? This is an escapist policy which is very unIndian like..

Even today, Western parts of Pakistan are not fully integrated, inspite of having a common religion. It would be impossible to control these areas if they were told that their lives were being governed by hindus (or if they perceived it that way).

Then this is failure of Pakistaniyat/Jinnah's ideology etc. rather than completely because of Islam

This can be clearly seen in Kashmir, where a radical fringe had the dramatic effect of alienating the kashmiris from "hindu" India, even though the largely moderate kashmiris were pro-India for a long time.

Gradually Kashmiris are turning pro-India (levels of pre-90s) but the only problem here is refusal of GoI to act proactively and shortsighted Kashmiri politicians..
There are lots of problems here if you want I can elaborate..

I have made several generalizations obviously, but I think amount of accuracy is sufficient.

..

 

[Flintlock]

Instead of merely relying on literal translation of Quran it is imperative to understand the underlying meaning of Quranic injunctions..
For eg Women wearing Burkha.. it is understood a woman must cover herself and maintain chastity lifelong...
Praying 5 times a day.. implies one must always remember God..
etc. etc.

Obviously, every religion depends on how its interepreted. That's besides the point.

An orthodox islamic theologian will never accept democracy or multiculturalism or plurality.

All attempts to reconcile Islam with other religions have been done by changing the nature of Islam itself, like Akbar's Din-i-Ilahi for example.

Hinduism then is much more of a setup than Islam but it is not imperative for a Hindu to follow Hindu laws (Manusmriti elucidates Hindu laws and optimistically only a handful in India live according to it)..It is generally accepted now amongst Hindus to follow theological beliefs or beliefs that one identifies with...

Hinduism is too diverse to be defined by any set of rules.
It is highly debatable what percentage of the Hindu population ever followed the Manusmriti word for word.

The reason why India is a democracy, is because Hinduism doesn't offer us a parallel form of government that can be successful to any degree.

Remember, in Hinduism, the guy who interprets religious books (the priest) has no political power. He sits on the banks of the ganges, or in a temple, and minds his own business.

In India, the temples are government property. They cannot be used for political purposes, and I have never seen a pujari make speeches.

In contrast, the guy who interprets the quran is entitled to enforce his political views.

if Quran is treated as a setup revealed by God then so must the new setup (aka secularism and democracy else all powerful God would have annihilated all else..)

Well, that is not how muslims see it.
For them, anything on earth which disagrees with the quran is either a "test from god" or "work of satan".

if Islam promotes all this I beg to differ, it is the misinterpretation of Islam that is the cause of all the mess..

As I said, every religion is an interpretation of itself. It doesn't matter what is the true Islam and what the interpretation is.
What matters is the islam that is currently considered to be "pure" or "true".

Today India is home to one of the world's largest Muslim population which has attained pre-partition levels percentage wise.
Is India in fear of disintegrating? This is an escapist policy which is very unIndian like..

Muslims are a minority in India. Therfore, they don't have enough influence to change the laws of the land, and are too widely dispersed to form a separate country (barring kashmir).

I may come across as rather pessimistic. but considering the attitude of most muslim MPs and MLAs today, I am quite sure that Indian democracy would cease to exist if their leader had their way.

Then this is failure of Pakistaniyat/Jinnah's ideology etc. rather than completely because of Islam

It isn't. It is a result of the nature of these "tribal" societies, which are totally opposed to what they consider as foreign domination.

Gradually Kashmiris are turning pro-India (levels of pre-90s) but the only problem here is refusal of GoI to act proactively and shortsighted Kashmiri politicians..
There are lots of problems here if you want I can elaborate..

I don't agree that bad governance is the reason for kashmiri separatism.
Most Indian state governments are equally bad, if not worse. The governments of Bihar and UP are so much worse, I wonder how these states haven't revolted till now.

Andhra Pradesh is in the middle of a Maoist rebellion that is 10 times worse than Kashmir, yet the population is pro-India.

The clinching reason that Kashmir is anti-India is that they are majority muslim. Bad governance just intensifies the problem, thats all.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not anti-Islam or pro-Hinduism or anything of that sort. These are just the facts as I understand them.