Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[pagans]

IMO there has to be 2 set of referrendums

Referendum 1: Pakistan vs India = Winner 1

Referendum 2: Winner 1 vs Azaadi (independence)

By process of elimination we will have a solution.

I would be okay with it. It's fair and we can all move on, hopefully getting a Kashmiri visa won't be that hard for us Pakistanis and Indians even if they go for Azadi.

Stage 3 : Pakistan attacks and annex Kashmir. End of 'azadi' ,'freedom' etc.......

 

[Awesome]

They cant be compared dude. One is a raving mad war monger while the other is a well known author and activist known the world over. And she isn't asking for war or more violence. If at all she makes a strong case for peace.

Its good to be patriotic but you should let your emotions take a break once in a while. It will allow you to step back and look at things through a balanced perspective.

I completely agree. There is no comparison between the class of Arundhati Roy and that, well, "analyst" Zaid Hamid.

I think she's wrongfully quoted for just one book, Indians need to broaden their perspectives and read ALL her books to figure out what she's all about.

There's nothing anti-Indian about her, she wants change within India for its benefit. I've just started reading her book, Listening to Grasshoppers: Field notes on democracy. She's someone a few years ahead of a lot of us normal folks in her thought process. It will be India's loss and Pakistan's gain if they chalk her off as anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani. We wouldn't mind having her as our citizen if thats what you're offering .

 

[TaimiKhan]

Stage 3 : Pakistan attacks and annex Kashmir. End of 'azadi' ,'freedom' etc.......

That is the Indian way, not Pakistani way.

 

[Fireurimagination]

The thing with her is she goes overboard with everything, probably is way too emotional or way too anti-India. Sometimes people have to understand territorial integrity of India or for that matter of fact any country is more important than what is right/wrong? anything and everything

 

[Awesome]

The thing with her is she goes overboard with everything, probably is way too emotional or way too anti-India. Sometimes people have to understand territorial integrity of India or for that matter of fact any country is more important than what is right/wrong? anything and everything

Haha, she's commented on just that, I quote her from Listening to the Grasshoppers:

"Today, words like 'Pressgress' and 'Development' have become interchangeable with economic 'Reforms', Deregulation and Privatization. 'Freedom' has come to mean 'choice'. It has less to do with human spirit than with different brands of deodorant. 'Market' no longer means a place where you go to buy provisions. The 'Market' is a de-territorialized space where faceless corporations do business, including buying and selling 'futures'. 'Justice' has come to mean 'human rights' (and of those, as they say, 'a few will do'). This theft of language, this technique of usurping words and deploying them like weapons, of using them to mask intent and to mean exactly the opposite of what they have traditionally mean, has been one of the most brilliant strategic victories of the Tsars of the new dispensation. It has allowed them to marginalize their detractors, deprive them of a language in which to voice their critique and dismiss them as being 'anti-progress', 'anti-development', 'anti-reform' and of course 'anti-national' - negativists of the worst sort. Talk about saving a river or protecting a forest and they say, 'Don't you believe in Progress?' To people whose land is being submerged by dam reservoirs and whose homes are being bulldozed they say, 'Do you have an alternative development model?' To those who believe that a government is duty bound to provide people with basic education, healthcare and social security, they say, 'You're against the Market'. And who except a cretin could be against the Market?

To reclaim these stolen words requires explanations that are too tedious for a world with a short attention span, and too expensive in an era when Free Speech has become unaffordable for the poor. This language heist may prove to be the keystone of our undoing.

Ah, language heist of Indians. I've been saying this for as long as I started about forumming. Indians always use very weird terminology. 'Secularism' is being nice to a Muslim. Communalism is when two different religions start fighting. So much so that it was also noted on this wikipedia article (It wasn't me who wrote it there):

Communalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you start talk about the plight of Indian Muslims, you are given examples of Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Amir Khan, Abdul Kalam.

It's like there's a machinery in India that has prepared Indians to have answer for everything wrong they are doing, without providing a solution for anything. When things get tough, they change the meaning of the words they don't like and spin that question back at you.

Kashmir - We have a piece of paper saying its ours
You went to the UN about Kashmir - Nehru was stupid, we don't like Nehru anymore
You are bound by UN resolutions - Pakistan already broke the resolutions by not withdrawing unilaterally
But the resolution was for minimizing troops not elimination - We don't care Kashmir is ours, na na na na boo boo

I long ago gave up on seriously considering talks would resolve the Kashmir issue when I realized we're both not even talking the same language. It's like talking to a machine, an IVR with pre-programmed responses.

Arundhati Roy captures the worlds attention because she aims to revocabularize Indians so they may be able to talk with the goal to talk and not to respond.

 

[Patriot]

Indian Version of Asma Jahanger, Ayesha Siddiqa and other sellouts.

 

[ek_indian]

Indian Version of Asma Jahanger, Ayesha Siddiqa and other sellouts.

I agree with you except the "sellout" part....

 

[Nemesis]

There is some truth in the assertions that the Indian state has wronged the Kashmiri populace. There is a lot of justifiable anger. Rigged elections and human rights abuses are not the way a nation is supposed to treat a section of its population. Not to forget the treatment handed out to minorities in Kashmir. That is not to say that one agrees with Arundhati Roy's conclusion . The Kashmiri issue is too complicated to be painted in the brush of "Evil Indian state = Oppressed Kashmiri's" - which is the conclusion which she seems to draw.

I agree with Roby, there are a lot of parallels between Kashmir and Punjab. I think his posts are accurate in reading the dilemma the valley faces.

I completely agree. There is no comparison between the class of Arundhati Roy and that, well, "analyst" Zaid Hamid.

I think she's wrongfully quoted for just one book, Indians need to broaden their perspectives and read ALL her books to figure out what she's all about.

There's nothing anti-Indian about her, she wants change within India for its benefit. I've just started reading her book, Listening to Grasshoppers: Field notes on democracy. She's someone a few years ahead of a lot of us normal folks in her thought process. It will be India's loss and Pakistan's gain if they chalk her off as anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani. We wouldn't mind having her as our citizen if thats what you're offering .

No, we'll keep her thanks. While i may not agree with a lot of her conclusions, you are completely correct in saying that she is ahead a lot of people in her thought processes. India needs people like Arundhati Roy to become a more humane society. Harsh critics of society whose only aim is to better the conditions of the majority, are an absolute in any society. Without people like her, the world would be a lesser place.

 

[Hulk]

I have no way of finding out how many people are anti Indian in Kashmir. If I take what Arundhati say's then it seems like almost everyone wants Azadi.

If this is the case then we should definitely consider to find a solution. Area of Jammu and Ladhak should annex to India and let the valley go to Pakistan.
Independent Kashmir is not an option.

One of the other reason why GOI does not go that route is because that will trigger for similar demands elsewhere, Assam and other NE region, then it will lead to worse situations.

I am not for keeping Kashmir with us, if these people do not want to be with us.

If solving this will lead to better relationship with Pakistan and does not lead to problems in other state. Then I will go for it, having good relationship with Pakistan is worth a lot to me.

 

[Awesome]

I have no way of finding out how many people are anti Indian in Kashmir. If I take what Arundhati say's then it seems like almost everyone wants Azadi.

If this is the case then we should definitely consider to find a solution. Area of Jammu and Ladhak should annex to India and let the valley go to Pakistan.
Independent Kashmir is not an option.

One of the other reason why GOI does not go that route is because that will trigger for similar demands elsewhere, Assam and other NE region, then it will lead to worse situations.

I am not for keeping Kashmir with us, if these people do not want to be with us.

If solving this will lead to better relationship with Pakistan and does not lead to problems in other state. Then I will go for it, having good relationship with Pakistan is worth a lot to me.

Annexation formulas are not agreeable to Kashmiris. I think Independence option is best. The thing is Kashmir in the hands of the other is not agreeable to Pakistan and India however a free nation might not bruise anyone's ego, lets face it, 50% of the Kashmir problem is all ego.

India's issue of a freedom demands from other states is an internal matter of India's and neither Pakistan nor Kashmiris would want that to be another hurdle in the Kashmir talks. For that matter, there are theoretical freedom demands in every province of Pakistan as well (including Punjab). Heck even cities like Karachi have some freedom demands in some corner of the population in Pakistan.

I don't foresee them becoming any serious problem for Pakistan if Kashmir goes free. Some of the richest families of Punjab are Kashmiris. Nawaz Sharif, the 2nd or 3rd richest person in Pakistan is a Kashmiri. That is the sort of power they wield over Pakistan and are truly an integral community, they form a big chunk of Punjab's elite class. If the Kashmiris want freedom, these forces would make sure that Pakistan does not have a problem with it and consequently since we'll be super cooperative I see the Kashmiris looking up to us as an allied nation.

I in fact prefer to demand first a free Kashmir solution then a Pakistani Kashmir. I want to demand something that is gettable, something that is the right thing to do and something that doesn't leave the Indians feeling bad when they walk off the negotiating table.

 

[rastor]

Annexation formulas are not agreeable to Kashmiris. I think Independence option is best. The thing is Kashmir in the hands of the other is not agreeable to Pakistan and India however a free nation might not bruise anyone's ego, lets face it, 50% of the Kashmir problem is all ego.

India's issue of a freedom demands from other states is an internal matter of India's and neither Pakistan nor Kashmiris would want that to be another hurdle in the Kashmir talks. For that matter, there are theoretical freedom demands in every province of Pakistan as well (including Punjab). Heck even cities like Karachi have some freedom demands in some corner of the population in Pakistan.

I don't foresee them becoming any serious problem for Pakistan if Kashmir goes free. Some of the richest families of Punjab are Kashmiris. Nawaz Sharif, the 2nd or 3rd richest person in Pakistan is a Kashmiri. That is the sort of power they wield over Pakistan and are truly an integral community, they form a big chunk of Punjab's elite class. If the Kashmiris want freedom, these forces would make sure that Pakistan does not have a problem with it and consequently since we'll be super cooperative I see the Kashmiris looking up to us as an allied nation.

I in fact prefer to demand first a free Kashmir solution then a Pakistani Kashmir. I want to demand something that is gettable, something that is the right thing to do and something that doesn't leave the Indians feeling bad when they walk off the negotiating table.

You just don't get it do you? This conflict has long since ceased to be about kashmiri azadi.

''He bowed down his head to the Almighty, and then he got shot,'' Mr. Farooq said.

Mr. Ahmad was Mr. Farooq's cousin, but akin to his uncle. He was a retired civil servant, but his passion was politics. He had struggled for Kashmiri independence for decades, first alongside Mr. Farooq's father, Maulvi Mohammed Farooq, then, after his assassination in 1990, alongside his son.

But Mr. Ahmad was not enough of a public figure to make him a target in his own right. Rather, the killing appears to have been a message to the young Mr. Farooq, who this year transgressed -- at least in hard-liners' eyes -- by going to New Delhi to open a dialogue with India.

Violence in Kashmir Invades a Most Sacred Space - NYTimes.com

So much for pak standing for Kashmir Azadi.

Any moralistic stand has long since been replaced by self-interest for both India & Pakistan.

India & Pakistan keep throwing men at this meat-grinder but the sustenance of it demands so much more from pakistan. Its affecting you more than us. The best hope is the rise of a stable middle class to power in pakistan that sees the situation as it is and makes a decision on what is best for pakistan citizens rather than vain nationalistic ego. More so on pakistan as they would be facing an policy-making apparatus in India that is too ossified to see beyond territory or ideology.

Both nations need to make compromises but the way things have turned out pakistn may have to bear more than it would like to. Policies & actions have consequences & both bharat & pakistan would face the repercussions for keeping this conflict on the boil.

 

[Khajur]

Believe me it is not that simple. Brainwashing as we call it can only happen if there is "material" ready for it. Youth in Kashmir were never poor nor were they all uneducated.

I dont pretend to know the inside out of the situation in Kashmir really well, but I views are on the basis of personal experiences. Visits to Kashmir and long chats over tea with Kashmiri friends both in Delhi and Canada.

I don't intend to espouse the cause of any of the people or groups that took up arms against the state. All I want to convey is that things run deeper than they seem

I understan that there are deeper reasons for alianation be it kashmir,punjab,north east or say marathis aganist Bhaiya of UP/Bihar etc etc the list just goes on and on .

U have to accept that its always far easier to create division among people for pity interest than bring them together for a greater cause.

I'm not a patriotic guy when it comes to injustice ,justice cant be granted in proxy war zone.

I'm sure one can take up human right issues in punjab only because there is this process of reconciliation at the ground level and same thing has to happen in kashmir for normalisation its resolution.Now its a ongoing battle that india just cant loose pakistan for its own survival .

If we go by Arundhati Roy's suggestions and start honoring every little emotion of azadi conceled in the hearts and mind of ppl living in all corners of india on very valid reasons(i'm sure we all can find to some reason or other not stay as one nation) then as once Sadar Patel said india would become Pagalstan.That would be the greatest injustice to every one including the ones demanding azadi.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Haha, she's commented on just that, I quote her from Listening to the Grasshoppers:



Ah, language heist of Indians. I've been saying this for as long as I started about forumming. Indians always use very weird terminology. 'Secularism' is being nice to a Muslim. Communalism is when two different religions start fighting. So much so that it was also noted on this wikipedia article (It wasn't me who wrote it there):

Communalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you start talk about the plight of Indian Muslims, you are given examples of Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Amir Khan, Abdul Kalam.

It's like there's a machinery in India that has prepared Indians to have answer for everything wrong they are doing, without providing a solution for anything. When things get tough, they change the meaning of the words they don't like and spin that question back at you.

Kashmir - We have a piece of paper saying its ours
You went to the UN about Kashmir - Nehru was stupid, we don't like Nehru anymore
You are bound by UN resolutions - Pakistan already broke the resolutions by not withdrawing unilaterally
But the resolution was for minimizing troops not elimination - We don't care Kashmir is ours, na na na na boo boo

I long ago gave up on seriously considering talks would resolve the Kashmir issue when I realized we're both not even talking the same language. It's like talking to a machine, an IVR with pre-programmed responses.

Arundhati Roy captures the worlds attention because she aims to revocabularize Indians so they may be able to talk with the goal to talk and not to respond.

We don't live in a fairy land where everything in hunky dory, Secularism in India doesn't mean every Hindu in India is in love with every Muslim and vice versa heck there are Hindus who hate fellow Hindus forget about Muslims. We are the most diversified country on the Planet (nothing even comes close) and by every standard we are doing great. Coming back to Kashmir, it's more of an emotional issue rather than a practical one, what azadi are they not getting in India? It's not very hard to fool people with religious, regional or other such emotional issues, you get daily such examples in Pakistan, don't you?

There was similar terror movements in other parts of India (Punjab, Assam), what happened to them? Did everybody one fine day said, no, no now we want to live in India? It's not the normal citizen who want violence and disturbance in their day to day life, it some people with vested interests, all a common man wants is a good, peaceful and progressive life

And going by your and Arundhati roy's logic, Pakistan should provide freedom to Pakistani Kashmir, Baluchistan, China should leave Tibet, Russia should leave Chechnya and countless more but as I understand 'Change is the only thing that doesn't change'

 

[Valiant_Soul]

We don't live in a fairy land where everything in hunky dory, Secularism in India doesn't mean every Hindu in India is in love with every Muslim and vice versa heck there are Hindus who hate fellow Hindus forget about Muslims. We are the most diversified country on the Planet (nothing even comes close) and by every standard we are doing great. Coming back to Kashmir, it's more of an emotional issue rather than a practical one, what azadi are they not getting in India? It's not very hard to fool people with religious, regional or other such emotional issues, you get daily such examples in Pakistan, don't you?

There was similar terror movements in other parts of India (Punjab, Assam), what happened to them? Did everybody one fine day said, no, no now we want to live in India? It's not the normal citizen who want violence and disturbance in their day to day life, it some people with vested interests, all a common man wants is a good, peaceful and progressive life

And going by your and Arundhati roy's logic, Pakistan should provide freedom to Pakistani Kashmir, Baluchistan, China should leave Tibet, Russia should leave Chechnya and countless more but as I understand 'Change is the only thing that doesn't change'

Very rightly put! Arundhati Roy needs to develop some sense that Kashmir is not only about Kashmiris, but the whole of India. If the whole of India is willing to let go Kashmir, only then there is a possibility. The most basic thing she needs to understand is that no country can put at stake its territorial integrity. That is an absolute no. So she should focus on helping Kashmiris if she wants and not derive publicity by fake emotional attachment.

India on the other hand is making all efforts to properly administer and develop the region of Kashmir so that people there can prosper, as all Indians wish to see a prosperous Kashmir.

 

[hembo]

China retreats, shepherds back
Arun Joshi, Hindustan Times
Jammu, January 16, 2010

Indian shepherds are back in the Shakgung pasturelands along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) from where they had been driven out by Chinese troops last winter.

The strategically important area near Demchok, 300 km east of Leh, is back in Indian hands.

More than 300 families of grazers have reached the pasture, which is 25-30 km long and 3-13 km broad, with 30,000 livestock — mostly Pashmina goats, yaks and horses — and pitched their tents for more than two weeks, after the Indian army convinced its Chinese counterpart to withdraw.

“Our shepherds are there and there have been no problems so far,” Chering Dorjay, chief executive councillor of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Devel-opment Council, told Hindustan Times over the phone from Leh.

In December 2008, Chinese troops had assaulted the Indian shepherds.

The troops burnt their provisions, uprooted their tents and told them not to return. More recently, Chinese army had, last month, stopped Indian authorities from constructing a road in Demchok under NREGA.

The Indus is considered the LAC in the area. Over the years, the river has changed course, pushing into India, by 500-1,500 metres every year, thus allowing the Chinese side to claim large swathes of territory on its side of the river.

But this time, the Indian side convinced the Chinese — at a series of border management meetings — to recognise the original course of the river.

“The incident of December 2008 was strongly raised and repeatedly asserted during the flag meetings held in January 2009,” said Brig. G. Murali of the Northern Command.