What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
and what about your GoP which insisted that 'independence' be excluded as an option in any referendum if it were ever to take place.
What does that have to do with my post or your claims of 'integrity of India' which I refuted? Try addressing the arguments made first.

For rest of your post, since this is not the appropriate thread, I suggest you check my posts on the 'future of kashmir' thread on the last few pages.
I'll check them out, but my point made here stands.
AM, why do I always have to keep repeating myself.

Why do you guys behave as if you are 'doodh ke dhule' and we are evils.

Truth is, you are as much at fault as we are, if not more.

Accept it buddy, hamam mein sab nange hain. Nobody is a saint here.

Don't be emotional mate. It never helps while solving problems, be them of mathematics or foreign policy.
I'm sorry, but India refused every single proposal for demilitarization and plebiscite put forward by the various UN appointed commissions - the intransigence was obviously on your side, and it is your side that withdrew from the commitment made to the Kashmiri people, international community and to Pakistan, that the dispute would be resolved through plebiscite.

These arguments, including the one that so clearly illustrates Indian hypocrisy and double standards between Muslims and Hindus, in occupying Hindu Junagadh and annexing it through plebiscite while denying the same to Muslims in J&K, are factual arguments, not emotions.

The emotional arguments here are the tripe about 'shedding blood, and not thinking twice about killing and dying over Indian integrity', when that integrity is based on hypocrisy, double standards, deceit and broken commitments to the Kashmiris and the international community.
 
An inclusiveness enforced by outsiders at gunpoint is not much of an idea.

Absolutely - the Kashmiris were promised they would have the choice to determine whether or not they wanted to enter into a compact of nationhood with India or not (as India did with the people of Junagadh, despite the ruler of the State acceding to Pakistan), and India violated that commitment to the Kashmiris and the international community.

Nations are not, as the author argues, built by superfluous claims constructed on the edifice of some religio-cultural myth of a motherland encompassing specific geographical points, but by the people inhabiting those lands determining of their own volition that they wish to be a part of a nation.

India, in denying the Kashmirs their promised right of self-determination, continues to deny them the right to decide on Indian nationhood, and instead force them to accept it.
 
An inclusiveness enforced by outsiders at gunpoint is not much of an idea.


Forced on both sides of the borders not just one. The recent poll had indicated that the dominant demand is Independence (~45%) on both sides of the border not just Indian Kashmir, which both nations have refused to give by their agreement in the UNSC, the guilt is on both sides, not just India.
 
The idea of India while remarkable will fail due to its inherent nature of dual identity. One regional and one national. Eventually people will be forced to choose sides when higher developed states called the lower ones liability and the lowers ones retaliate with accusations of encroachment.

The concept of regional 'identity' is the indulgence of the privileged. Most in that class have been sold on the idea of 'Unity in Diversity' and the rising nationalism in India. Politicians use it for regional vote banks, but are rarely successful in convincing the majority. India was also sensible in not imposing Hindi as a national language, to make everyone feel equal in this nation. Besides, all state governments try to reaffirm the concept - "First you are an Indian, then you are a whatever"

Dual identities can exist even beyond regional considerations. There is the religious/sectarian identity which can turn ugly pretty fast. Then there is the idea of ethnic identity. All these are prevalent in almost all the countries.
 
Beautifully poignant

He can write that sitting in his ac office because that bsf guy is the one who face the shots. You should give him a gun and put in the middle of bullets to see how he distinguish a boy in the crowd coming to kill you then.
 
Give me a break ... No one is taking a 11 year old boy in protest i think you are also agree with me

But those terrorist using women and kids as their shield so that they fire bullets to Indian arm forces and in response when Police fire bullets so those innocent women and kids got killed and terrorist can make profit of their dead just like this issue

What a low level techtics ... sham on them
:tdown:

Now you give me a break for calling protesters terrorist... wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So for you the entire Kashmiri male population is terrorist nowi have made my point to my NONE Indian members ..... Now I totally support Free Kashmire from Indian ruthless control....:pakistan::usflag::china:
 
Now you give me a break for calling protesters terrorist... wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So for you the entire Kashmiri male population is terrorist nowi have made my point to my NONE Indian members ..... Now I totally support Free Kashmire from Indian ruthless control....:pakistan::usflag::china:

wats wrong with his statement.who says to take kids with them n use them as shield.if they get killed then they start to protest .it has been advised by govt several times.do 11 yr old kid know abt anything ?
 
wats wrong with his statement.who says to take kids with them n use them as shield.if they get killed then they start to protest .it has been advised by govt several times.do 11 yr old kid know abt anything ?

bro calling protesters terrorist! i do have problem with that any human will!
 
Absolutely - the Kashmiris were promised they would have the choice to determine whether or not they wanted to enter into a compact of nationhood with India or not (as India did with the people of Junagadh, despite the ruler of the State acceding to Pakistan), and India violated that commitment to the Kashmiris and the international community.

Nations are not, as the author argues, built by superfluous claims constructed on the edifice of some religio-cultural myth of a motherland encompassing specific geographical points, but by the people inhabiting those lands determining of their own volition that they wish to be a part of a nation.

India, in denying the Kashmirs their promised right of self-determination, continues to deny them the right to decide on Indian nationhood, and instead force them to accept it.

you attacked Kashmir first, then we went for Junagarh.so,basically you gave us idea 'to attack princely states if they are not with you'.
 
You just gotta give them some time..the idealogy of motherland failed miserably with the soviets when their booming economic progress had some brakes slammed on to it. Economy is the backbone of all political and social movements and once their explosive growth phase reaches a dead end..we might be in for real surprise..remember the Pakistan peace and tranquality of 60-70s exploded into jehadi fundamentalism once the economic growth ran into hard wall.

you attacked Kashmir first, then we went for Junagarh.so,basically you gave us idea 'to attack princely states if they are not with you'.

Another distortion by your akhand bharti historians?? Are bhartis angels that they cant commit a sin and everthing has to have an escape goat?? Remember the british moron who commanded Pakistani army refused to obey Mr Jinnah upon news of Indian invasion of Kashmir hence we had to prop up some quick resistance by tribal fighters.

The soviets once thought of them as invincible nation of equality but that daydream came to a shameful halt. Indian politics are much remiscent of soviet idealogy.
 
Some watering down of legal protection to the armed forces. A partial pullout of security forces. Some conciliatory language. Release of some stone-throwers and militants who have served their term. Some economic package.
With relative calm in Kashmir and separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani subtly climbing down from his rigid position of more than 50 years, these are some concessions Delhi could announce, perhaps as early as this week, discarding its own long-held, do-nothing policy.
“If we harbour any hopes of saving the situation in Kashmir, the window of opportunity is small; the time to do something is now,” a highly-placed source acquainted with internal government discussions told Hindustan Times. “Geelani has made some moderate noises, and this may be best chance to move forward with him.”
Geelani (81), now the pre-eminent political figure on the Kashmir street, denied back-channel discussions with Delhi but reiterated to HT: “I want to make it clear we do not oppose talks and Prime Minister Man-mohan Singh must officially call for talks.” But Geelani did meet unofficial, or track II, emissaries in August, where he first outlined his subtle new stand.
“Even he (Geelani) believes with some minuses and pluses something can be achieved,” said an expert involved in the dialogue with Geelani.
On Wednesday, after meeting Home Minister P. Chidambaram — who is heading quiet discussions on Kashmir — Chief Minister Omar Abdullah emphasised the need for political concessions to calm the anger on the streets.
These moves gained momentum after Geelani on Tuesday appeared more moderate than he has ever been since he was first arrested in 1962, not demanding an acceptance of self-determination as a precondition to talks or insist on Pakistan’s involvement.
On Thursday, conscious of the fine balancing act he is playing, Geelani appeared to harden a bit when he said: “Once talks starts, it (sic) has to be trilateral, including New Delhi, Islamabad and real representatives of the sentiments of Kashmir.”
Geelani is under pressure in the Valley to encourage a return to normalcy, with even the hardline Jamat-e-Islami appealing to him that education should not suffer.
Yet, on the streets, the young people who have mobilised via Facebook and word of mouth insist the protests cannot stop after the death of 65 people, mostly teenagers and men in their 20s. Their continuing rage is visible all over the Internet.
Once on the fringes of the separatist movement, Geelani has emerged as the face of the so-called Kashmir intifada since it began two-and-a-half months ago with the death of 17-year-old Tufail Matoo, a cycle of violence that rattled Delhi.
“This is one of the worst bouts of alienation we’ve seen, but this could be our best chance of a shot at actually working on a settlement, instead of stalling as we often have,” said the government source.
Analysts said Geelani is trying to offer a face saver to everyone, the separatists and the government.
“Geelani saab is single-handedly managing the agitation; most of his associates are behind bars, the moderates are silent, even the mainstream political parties seem to be following what he is saying,” said Gul Wani, a political scientist with the University of Kashmir. “He knows what Kashmir and Kashmiri people are going through. Many delegations are meeting him, he has also met members of civil society and understands the difficulties of people as well.”
Like many others, Wani believes confidence-building measures are “achievable”. He said those could include demilitarisation and “an assurance that no killings will take place”.
“Even the government agrees that militancy has been rolled back. So what is the need of the military in civilian areas?” said Wani. “If some sort of demilitarisation happens it can restore that sense of freedom among the masses.”
(with Toufiq Rashid)

Hectic moves on for J&K breakthrough - Hindustan Times
 
Another distortion by your akhand bharti historians?? Are bhartis angels that they cant commit a sin and everthing has to have an escape goat?? Remember the british moron who commanded Pakistani army refused to obey Mr Jinnah upon news of Indian invasion of Kashmir hence we had to prop up some quick resistance by tribal fighters.

The soviets once thought of them as invincible nation of equality but that daydream came to a shameful halt. Indian politics are much remiscent of soviet idealogy.

Akhand Bharti historians seem to be doing pretty well. They have even taken over Her Majesty's BBC since it says the same

The first Indo-Pakistani war started after armed tribesmen from Pakistan's north-west frontier province invaded Kashmir in October 1947. Besieged both by a revolt in his state and by the invasion, the Maharaja requested armed assistance from the government of India. In return he acceded to India, handing over powers of defence, communication and foreign affairs.
BBC NEWS | India Pakistan | Timeline

Remember the british moron who commanded Pakistani army refused to obey Mr Jinnah upon news of Indian invasion of Kashmir hence we had to prop up some quick resistance by tribal fighters.


The British moron was FM Auchinleck, Supreme Commander of both Indian and Pakistani forces who refused Jinnah's apparently illegitimate bid to start a war over Kashmir.
 
Back
Top Bottom