What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
India appear to be under great pressure, the UN itself has expressed growing concern -
Maybe Hindus can claim a "loving history" with Sikhs (Ask Indira Gandhi) -

But reasonable observers will agree that an anonomoujs letter, feeding fears, particularly when Sikhs are little involved in the suppression in captive Kashmir, seems "contrived" - a little too convenient.

But, you don't have to be persuaded, it's nothing you need to get tied up knots about.
 
Thanks Arihant for post number 126. I was unaware of this, it was eye opener. People who have threatened minorities like that cannot claim to be innocent. No matter what the cost is and casualty we should never leave Kashmir. These guys will make it Afghanistan and then we will have to face that to.
I lost all sympathy for Kashmiri's their behaviour is inhuman and like Taliban.
 
Thanks Arihant for post number 126. I was unaware of this, it was eye opener. People who have threatened minorities like that cannot claim to be innocent. No matter what the cost is and casualty we should never leave Kashmir. These guys will make it Afghanistan and then we will have to face that to.
I lost all sympathy for Kashmiri's their behaviour is inhuman and like Taliban.

Sorry but labeling this to Kashmiri is wrong. All things in 1990's started Pakistani Terrorist openly advertised all the things in the paper and masjid. I would not call it fault of Kashmiris. Same thing happen in Babri Masjid, a act of few VHP gave damn our own tolerance but still stand firm that what ever happen was wrong.

And about what I posted is publicly known but it never appeared more in Media because it was against Minority and who cares all things pundits about. I also came to know about this issue when I was in Kashmir few months ago and met one family who were once farmer (hindu) are now doing job of shoe rubbing. I was there and listen his full story and got known about all those facts. Tried to got on Internet and found almost everything what he told. I can say I found even more drastic.

As far as my concerns are there, I never see Indian Media doing fair job to minority. Our Gurus (who always walk rather than riding anything) are being killed by plot through accidents but still we don't throw stones or so because this is against our own religion. We will fight the judicial with the honesty rather than doing act of cowardly throwing stones.
 
Plz let me intrupt............UN chief never issued any statement

I don't recall make any statement about the UN chief - But certainoly Pakistani origin men and women, do make statements on behalf of the UN.

BTW, that's a painitng -- in other words, seems to me you are willing to resort to less than intellectual honesty - which tells me that something about the issue is rather dear to you - You are not by any chance the "anonomous author" of the "anonomous letter" are you?
 
I don't recall make any statement about the UN chief - But certainoly Pakistani origin men and women, do make statements on behalf of the UN.

BTW, that's a painitng -- in other words, seems to me you are willing to resort to less than intellectual honesty - which tells me that something about the issue is rather dear to you - You are not by any chance the "anonomous author" of the "anonomous letter" are you?
What do you want to say ? Be clear, the above quoted text looks incoherent.
 
I have not changed my mind .
It appears that you haven't been able to make up your mind, if its UN that gives the right, or is it morality. Remember the original query was how did Kashmiris earn their right to self determination. That continues to remain unanswered.
On the contarary I think UN resolutions represent international affirmation of our Right of self determination .
That is a deliberate, but convenient, misinterpretation of UN resolutions regarding Kashmir. If you carefully read the resolution of 13th August, 1947, which both the countries had accepted and formed the cornerstone for every subsequent resolutions, then you will come across Part III of the resolution which states:

‘The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.’

It is not an affirmation of Kashmiri’s right to self-determination, but only recognition by the international community of how both the countries wished to resolve their own dispute. By no stretch of the most fertile mind can this be construed as international community’s affirmation of Kashmiri’s right to self-determination. If instead of plebiscite, India and Pakistan had decided to settle it over a game of Polo, even that would have been vetted by UN.
Infact RSD is based on principle that every nation has the right to freely decide on its sovereignty and international political status without external compulsion or outside interference.
Yes, but only in case of colonialism.

Hence UN resolutions represent the implicit acceptance of Kashmiri Nationhood by International community.
Nothing can be further from the truth. UN resolutions make it very much explicit that Kashmiris are a part of either Indian or Pakistani nationhood. There is no such thing as ‘Kashmiri Nationhood’ and hence, thanks to Pakistan, independence is not an option as per UN resolutions.
 
Who Is Asking The Sikhs In Kashmir To Convert? By Farzana Versey

20 August, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Has anyone asked this crucial question? Before it can be voiced in cogent terms, the government ’swings into action’ to protect the Sikhs. Let us not forget that the Congress party had done no such protecting of the community in the capital city and the rest of the country in 1984. Those who were indicted and held responsible for the carnage managed to hold important portfolios and stay in power for years. People are still waiting for compensation.

Therefore, the central government’s prompt action – and it is rather surprising that not only does it come from the home minister, but also the finance minister and the external affairs minister – reveals that it has found a new ruse to deal with the people’s movement in the Valley.

Unlike the Kashmiri Pandits who were systematically made to ‘flee’ by vested interests, the Sikhs are not an extremely wealthy or powerful group and decided to stay back. As the largest minority group comprising 60,000 people, they faced problems just as the other locals did. Now there is news that they have received letters asking them to join the protest or convert to Islam. Some of these letters state: “When you are enjoying the joys here, why can’t you share the grief and sorrow of Kashmiris as well? We know you are afraid of bullets. Hold protests inside gurudwaras or leave Kashmir.’’

In these notes there is no mention of conversion. There is a call for joining forces and fighting in their own religious places. The coordinator of the All Party Sikh Coordination Committee (ASCC), Jagmohan Singh Raina, said, “Our community members have received unsigned letters at various places. Some letters have asked Sikhs to embrace Islam.’’

He said his people would not leave and much rather fight the “evil designs’’. It must be noted that these are unsigned letters. Whose evil designs are these? If members of the community do decide to convert, will it not alert the authorities? Will their converting to Islam not become an even greater hindrance to the civilian war taking place?

Why did Raina choose to appeal to separatist organisations like the JKLF, the Hurriyat and rather incongruously the ***-based United Jihad Council to ensure peace and amity? Why did he and his organisation not address the issue to the chief minister Omar Abdullah?

The issue reached Parliament and, as reports say, the government “held out an assurance that Sikhs had nothing to fear in Kashmir in the wake of reported threats to the minority community from militants to convert to Islam or leave the Valley”. There is no mention of the letters that asked them to join the protest movement. The NDA members, always on the lookout for such ‘communal’ concerns, had to be placated; Chidambaram told them, “nobody will be allowed to harm the Sikh community”.

Indeed, the community ought to be protected but this verbal heroism is senseless when the local population is being harmed everyday. Has there been such immediate sympathy expressed for the ongoing war and killings of civilians and security personnel? A shoe thrown at Omar Abdullah gets more mileage than the street protests.

Pranab Mukherjee became magnanimous: "Not only Muslims of Kashmir but the whole of India would rise as one to stand by the Sikh community.” When was the last time the whole of India stood as one to stand by a community, and how could it when the establishment orchestrates such harm?Has anybody informed the whole of India about where those letters have come from? Why did the Sikh representative in Kashmir talk to the militant groups? Why was the *** organisation informed? Assuming these threats are coming from the Pakistani side, why would they be interested in “peace and amity”? It just does not sound right.

While Syed Ali Shah Geelani has called these letters fake and had on an earlier occasion dramatically stated that the Sikhs could not be forced to join the protests and harming them would be like inflicting a wound on his body, it conveys the impression that his body has a great deal of importance. And if the JKLF and the Hurriyat do have a say in every such matter, then it begs the query as to what is the status of an elected government in the state?

It is a known fact that when militant groups send out threats, they like to flash their credentials. Since this is an upsurge from the ground level, it would be presumed that the locals are sending those letters. This is damaging to them as well as to what they have held important all along – the coexistence with minorities. This is reminiscent of the planted fliers posted on walls during the exodus of Pandits.

This time both the central and state governments do not know how to deal with the uprising in the Valley. Omar Abdullah can only give assurances when he knows well that there is nothing he can do because there is nothing he has done to salvage the situation. The separatist organisations are also riding on the wave rather than taking responsibility for it.

Instead of assurances in Parliament and smart talk, the government should find out where the mischief is taking place and the origin of those letters. The Sikhs who have received them should file FIRs in the police station. That will be the first step towards getting the government involved rather than the government just standing from afar and issuing homilies.

There is far more here then appears evident and the shoe could point in any direction. It’s time for the establishment to talk on its feet.

Farzana Versey is a Mumbai-based author-columnist. She can be reached at kaaghaz.kalam@gmail.com

Who Is Asking The Sikhs In Kashmir To Convert? By Farzana Versey
 
It appears that you haven't been able to make up your mind, if its UN that gives the right, or is it morality. Remember the original query was how did Kashmiris earn their right to self determination. That continues to remain unanswered.
It is both a moral and promised right, by the UN and India herself. India, in invading and occupying Jungadh and Hyderabad (the former after the ruler had acceded to Pakistan) chose herself to argue that the plebiscites India conducted in those territories on her own legitimized the annexation of those territories.

Therefore, India has herself made clear the legal and moral validity of self-determination through her actions and commitments.
That is a deliberate, but convenient, misinterpretation of UN resolutions regarding Kashmir. If you carefully read the resolution of 13th August, 1947, which both the countries had accepted and formed the cornerstone for every subsequent resolutions, then you will come across Part III of the resolution which states:

‘The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.’

It is not an affirmation of Kashmiri’s right to self-determination, but only recognition by the international community of how both the countries wished to resolve their own dispute. By no stretch of the most fertile mind can this be construed as international community’s affirmation of Kashmiri’s right to self-determination. If instead of plebiscite, India and Pakistan had decided to settle it over a game of Polo, even that would have been vetted by UN.
The UN millenium declaration endorses, 'the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation.' That in conjunction with the UN resolutions, and India's own actions and commitments with respect to J&K, Junagadh and Hyderabad, provides an affirmation of the Kashmiri 'Right to self-determination'.
Yes, but only in case of colonialism.
And foreign occupation.
 
That u can very well try and ur the most welcome to do so..after all we also want to finish this issue once and for all ;)

But dont raise the bogey of UNSC resolutions,plebiscite..etc.

Fine......Just as long as you dont "raise the bogey" of cross border terrorism,pak based militants ect.
 
Agno i said previoulsy...we suceeded in Junagadh,Hyderabad...u failed in a similar objective in Kashmir.

How can u blame India for ur in-efficiency??:undecided:

And the UNSC resolutions are NON-BINDING-RESOLUTIONS.

All United Nations General Assembly resolutions that are not about matters internal to the UN (such as the structure of the UN or the creation of UN agencies) are inherently and explicitly (in the UN Charter) non-binding.
Non-binding resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It is both a moral and promised right, by the UN and India herself. India, in invading and occupying Jungadh and Hyderabad (the former after the ruler had acceded to Pakistan) chose herself to argue that the plebiscites India conducted in those territories on her own legitimized the annexation of those territories.

Therefore, India has herself made clear the legal and moral validity of self-determination through her actions and commitments.

The UN millenium declaration endorses, 'the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation.' That in conjunction with the UN resolutions, and India's own actions and commitments with respect to J&K, Junagadh and Hyderabad, provides an affirmation of the Kashmiri 'Right to self-determination'.

And foreign occupation.
There are no 'moral' or 'promised right'. As per the deal you too were supposed to wthdraw your forces. We didn't see you do that did we?

The Nawabs of Junagarh and the nizams of hyderabad were irrelevant thorns in the process of history and stumbling blocks to a vision of greater India. What did the Nizam of Hyderabad have to offer? NOTHING.

I'm NOT being racist when I make the following point- it's the truth: He was
Stingy (he used to collect wads and wads of currency and stack them in sacks), dirty (never used to take a bath) and Lazy- the people of India can't cut deals with people like him- Our destiny is far too serious an affair. He has NO RIGHT to rule anyway. He was not democratically elected, he was just a continuing vestige of a midieval system that had managed to survive into the modern world. We just corrected that anamoly. Before your rule, you need to deserve to rule. And the kings and princes we took out were people who didn't. The family of patiala, on the other hand, took this idea seriously and so we have people like Amarinder Singh still ruling punjab AFTER securing the mandate of his people through an election.
 
It is both a moral and promised right, by the UN and India herself. India, in invading and occupying Jungadh and Hyderabad (the former after the ruler had acceded to Pakistan) chose herself to argue that the plebiscites India conducted in those territories on her own legitimized the annexation of those territories.

Therefore, India has herself made clear the legal and moral validity of self-determination through her actions and commitments.

The UN millenium declaration endorses, 'the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation.' That in conjunction with the UN resolutions, and India's own actions and commitments with respect to J&K, Junagadh and Hyderabad, provides an affirmation of the Kashmiri 'Right to self-determination'.

And foreign occupation.


Lets not go into the nuances and minute details of the UN resolution as both sides can find enough clauses to support their respective stands with convinience.

Tell me one thing - Is not the demand of Kashmiris for independence in conflict with the UN resolutions which do not grant independence as an option.??

I also ought to remind everyone that the Indepencence option was dropped at the behest of Pakistan.

So with such a basic conflict of interests how can any one move forward.?
 
to hindustan:

fix your internal insurgencies, so that when Kashmir DOES get independence from hindustan -- there will be no need to worry about further mutinies and insurrections within -whether it's ethnic bengalis or tamils or even the communist naxals

Ethinic Bengalis - are you talking about India or Pakistan?

Tamils - I dont know what to say to this :hitwall:.I am a Tamil and above that a proud Indian.

Naxals - Serioulsy they are a bigger threat to Pakistan than the democratically elected soft government.So pray the naxals dont come to rule Delhi.



It is a SHAME:

--that Sri Nagar, one of the paradises of the subcontinent, is unfortunatly bleeding

--that there is presence of (unwelcomed) occupational forces which are 700,000 in number; making it the most militirised place in the world

as a result, our Kashmiri people are living in an open prison


--that in order to get a medicine and other essential in occupied Kashmir, one has to pass through manned checkpoints where he/she is stopped no matter if they are young or old; and asked ****** questions and if they (occupational forces) wishes they can take a person away for interrogation for a mere suspicion (negates the whole ''integral'' and ''democratic'' nonsense)

Nothing but propaganda in which not even an iota is the ground reality.

--that tiny pandit minority in Kashmir ditched the land overnight by the intructions of then Governor (and for purely economic reasons) and then hindustanys will talk about ''pandit genocide'' ... total garbage, negligible propaganda

This post was posted by another member Arihant in other thread.For your reading and then decide if they left for economic reasons.

T
Let me remind you one of those slogan by seperatist in the early 1990.

Kashmir me rehna hain to Allah-o-Akbar Kehna Hai

Some of the tapped slogans repeatedly spoken out by separatist.

On the night of January 19, all mosques in the valley began to broadcast from the loudspeakers that are used normally for prayer calls, a taped message which ran non- stop twenty four hours for three consecutive days:

The marauders played dire warnings from mosques which pierced each nerve of anybody with a Hindu name. As the sun turned pale, the exhortations became louder, and three taped slogans repeatedly played their terror: 'Kashmir mei agar rehna hai, Allah-O-Akbar kehna hai' (If you want to stay in Kashmir, you have to say Allah is great); 'Yahan kya chalega, Nizam-e-Mustafa' (What do we want here? Rule of Shariah); 'Asi gachchi Pakistan, Batao roas te Batanev san' (We want Pakistan along with Hindu women, but without their men).

Kashmir kya banega - Pakistan (What will Kashmir be - Pakistan)

Battav - ya raliv, ya chaliv, natte galiv (Hindus/Pandits, either convert, leave, or get killed).

Zalimo O, Kafiro, Kashmir hamara chhod do (Ye cruel Kafirs (infidels) vacate our Kashmir)

Arise ye, fearless Momins (What will have sway here - Prophet's governance)

For Russia has lost the race,
Now the sword hangs on India's neck
Now it is Kashmir's turn.

Islam hamara maksad hai
Kuran hamara dastur hai
Jehad hamara rasta hai.

(Islam is our destination
Koran is our constitution
Jehad is our way.)

Hamein kya chahye, Nizame Mustafa
Kashmere main kya chalaiga, Nizame Mustafa
Hindustan mein kya chalaiga, Nizame Mustafa


(What do we need - Prophet's governance. What will
have sway in Kashmir - Prophet's governance.
What will have sway in India - Prophet's governance.

Ganga-Jamuna mein aag lagayenge

(We will destroy Ganga and Yamuna)

1. Headlines from local newspaper "Alsafa", Srinagar on April 14, 1990: "Kashmiri Pandits responsible for duress against Muslims should leave the valley within two days."

2. Press release of Hizbul Mujahideen faction of Kashmiri terrorists published in the morning edition of Urdu daily "Aftab" on 1/4/1990. The headlines proclaimed: "The aim of present struggle is the supremacy of Islam in Kashmir, in all walks of life and nothing else. Anyone who puts any hurdle in our way will be annihilated."

3. Hand bill found pasted on the doors of Kashmiri Hindu Homes and the streets of Srinagar by Allah Tigers, yet another terrorist outfit: "Awake and arise Muslims, Run Away Infidels, Jihad is ahead."

So, surely they want Kashmir to become Muslim State in Pakistan. India will never tolerate any type such act which would lead a secular state in to another Pakistan type act of 1947.
 
Last edited:
Nothing happened to the NLI - speculative death tolls from various figures looking to score political points do not pass for actual casualty figures.

Is it.?

Kargil War, India vs. Pakistan
1999/7/6 CNN: 1,100
Ploughshares 2000, citing
US State Department
Indian soldiers: 524
Pakistani soldiers: 696 (early, partial)
InterPress Service: > 2,000 troops k

Link -point#119



Most credible reports place Pakistani casualties at a few hundred - given Indian forces were at a disadvantage trying to regain the heights Indian casualties would be many times higher given equal quality of training and motivation on both sides. You simply cannot overlook the basic constraints facing an offensive force trying to retake higher ground (and this ground was very high and very remote).

please share your credible sources.
 
There are no 'moral' or 'promised right'. As per the deal you too were supposed to wthdraw your forces. We didn't see you do that did we?
Read the UNSC resolutions thread, and the excerpt posted above by RamGorur:
"upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured."​
Consultations were entered into, various plans were proposed by the various commissions, and India rejected them. There was no unilateral obligation upon Pakistan to withdraw its troops - had there been, then there would have been no need for the various UN commissions that tried to arrive at demilitarization and plebiscite proposals.
The Nawabs of Junagarh and the nizams of hyderabad were irrelevant thorns in the process of history and stumbling blocks to a vision of greater India. What did the Nizam of Hyderabad have to offer? NOTHING.
That is irrelevant to the legal and moral case, with regards to self-determination, that India herself established and advocated in invading, occupying and annexing the three territories, through her commitments and actions, as explained in my last post.
I'm NOT being racist when I make the following point- it's the truth: He was
Stingy (he used to collect wads and wads of currency and stack them in sacks), dirty (never used to take a bath) and Lazy- the people of India can't cut deals with people like him- Our destiny is far too serious an affair. He has NO RIGHT to rule anyway. He was not democratically elected, he was just a continuing vestige of a midieval system that had managed to survive into the modern world. We just corrected that anamoly. Before your rule, you need to deserve to rule. And the kings and princes we took out were people who didn't. The family of patiala, on the other hand, took this idea seriously and so we have people like Amarinder Singh still ruling punjab AFTER securing the mandate of his people through an election.
Aside from my previous paragraph on why this argument is irrelevant in the context of self-determination, please also look into the history of the dictator Maharajah's rule in J&K, and his extremely discriminatory treatment of his Muslim subjects, and how that discrimination sparked a revolt in Kashmir before any Tribal invasion from Pakistan took place.

Given that your argument of 'he had no right to rule since he was not democratically elected' seeks to imply that neither accession to Pakistan by the Nawab of Junagadh nor the desire to remain independent by the rule of Hyderabad, have any validity, then so to does the accession of the dictator Maharajah of J&K not have any validity, which brings us back to the principle and means used by India herself in legitimizing the annexation of Junagadh and Hyderabad - self-determination for the people of these States, who were ruled by brutal tyrants.

And 'self-determination' for the people of J&K has not yet been implemented.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom