Kashmiris concerned by plans for Hindu satellite cities

[Chak Bamu]

In place of "The best course of action for India might be to improve relations with Pakistan" you will be more correct if you said "The best course of action forPakistan might be to improve relations with India" but first you will have to bell your "Pak Army" cat! I don't think they would be interested. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War: C. Christine Fair: 9780199892709: Amazon.com: Books


If your meaning of dignity is that you want Kashmir, then forget it. Never will it happen.

To follow a problem's complexity one often has to step back a bit. If you have read the book, you would understand that she addresses Pakistan Army's world-view from 1947 and places it in context of two-nation theory. But the thing is that Army is not in a closed loop. It is renewed in every generation, and that is how the mind-set goes through a change. The important thing therefore is the society at large, not the army itself.

Pakistan's raison-d-etre shall never go away. Army would never forsake the relevance of its founding principle. The mistrust among Pakistanis of 'Hindu Baniya' shall linger for a long time to come. What we can do is to take off the edge in our mutual discourse. For an attempt to do that both sides must understand each other.

In its essence, Pakistan was a reaction to the manifestations of Hindu psyche, which in itself was a reaction to history. Pakistan took shape ideologically in 1930s, particularly the latter part. You would find the relevance of my point in that period's history. In any case Muslim majority areas saw no point in being part of Bharat Mata. Mother India as an idea did not appeal to us, because we thought of it as a canard. The idea of Pakistan took root because of mitrust. I hope you are catching my drift here.

I am going beyond Dr. Fair's book and its premise. Pakistan Army is not a problem. It is Pakistan's obsession with survival that makes us the way we are.

You have never heard of Irshad Ahmad Haqqani. He was a very influential intellectual from city of Kasur in Pakistan's Punjab. He had a leftist bent, and an Islamist past. Though his political ideas did not mean much to me, him being educated in United India, his perspective was of immense importance to me. He could analyze things from a more 'neutral' perspective for having a multi-faceted approach. I will not go into detail of hows and whys of my last statement. But what I want to convey to you is that the gist of his views on Pakistan-India relations was that "India could not provide leadership" because "Hindus failed to act like a bigger, more responsible, group" (because of their own historical experience). This view will sting you, I know; but when I really think in the back-ground of my experience, reading, and perspective, I can not find much wrong with this view.

Having said the above, I hope you can understand that Pakistan's stance today is the product of very complicated historical processes. It is as much a victim as a problem. Our relations are not dependent upon how much India is able to push Pakistan - it would be a fail approach. Our relations are dependent upon how much we are able to understand each other and willing to accommodate.

If our respective statesmen start today with this approach, it would take two decades to bring about a change in thinking and approach and the results. In this, I do not see Kashmir as anything central. It is an unnecessary complication.

I do not know to what extent any of PDF Indians will agree with me - I have had to condense a lot in just a few sentences and left a great deal unsaid. But as well as I can see, this is the best way forward.

@Joe Shearer, sir I hope for you to give your perspective on this post of mine - never mind the thread though.

 

[KingMamba]

It is RESETTLEMENT and It is justified, the way pakistan justified migration of Punjabis into PÖK.

There are no Punjabis in AJK or Gilgit my uncle tried to purchase a place in AJK and they told him no lol because he was non Kashmiri. Meanwhile there have been Hindu and Sikh Punjabis in IOK since partition.

 

[Chak Bamu]

It is RESETTLEMENT and It is justified, the way pakistan justified migration of Punjabis into PÖK.

There has not been any migration of Punjabis to Kashmir. Outsiders can not buy property there. If any wealthy Punjabi wishes to enjoy the next best thing to Kashmir, he buys property in Murree.

 

[Contrarian]

Anyway back to topic if Indians think non Muslim Kashmiris will be happy with Indians flooding Kashmir with non Kashmiris they are mistaken even the dogras support the article in question. As for return of the pandits every group is Ok with that but other outsiders will be opposed.

The dogras and non Muslims have by and large realized now that unless they shed their inhibitions, they will be left with nothing in the end.

Its either take kashmir by using demography or be left with nothing. You will see most non Muslims supporting scrapping A370 now.

Only the Muslims will have a problem with it.

To follow a problem's complexity one often has to step back a bit. If you have read the book, you would understand that she addresses Pakistan Army's world-view from 1947 and places it in context of two-nation theory. But the thing is that Army is not in a closed loop. It is renewed in every generation, and that is how the mind-set goes through a change. The important thing therefore is the society at large, not the army itself.

Pakistan's raison-d-etre shall never go away. Army would never forsake the relevance of its founding principle. The mistrust among Pakistanis of 'Hindu Baniya' shall linger for a long time to come. What we can do is to take off the edge in our mutual discourse. For an attempt to do that both sides must understand each other.

In its essence, Pakistan was a reaction to the manifestations of Hindu psyche, which in itself was a reaction to history. Pakistan took shape ideologically in 1930s, particularly the latter part. You would find the relevance of my point in that period's history. In any case Muslim majority areas saw no point in being part of Bharat Mata. Mother India as an idea did not appeal to us, because we thought of it as a canard. The idea of Pakistan took root because of mitrust. I hope you are catching my drift here.

I am going beyond Dr. Fair's book and its premise. Pakistan Army is not a problem. It is Pakistan's obsession with survival that makes us the way we are.

You have never heard of Irshad Ahmad Haqqani. He was a very influential intellectual from city of Kasur in Pakistan's Punjab. He had a leftist bent, and an Islamist past. Though his political ideas did not mean much to me, him being educated in United India, his perspective was of immense importance to me. He could analyze things from a more 'neutral' perspective for having a multi-faceted approach. I will not go into detail of hows and whys of my last statement. But what I want to convey to you is that the gist of his views on Pakistan-India relations was that "India could not provide leadership" because "Hindus failed to act like a bigger, more responsible, group" (because of their own historical experience). This view will sting you, I know; but when I really think in the back-ground of my experience, reading, and perspective, I can not find much wrong with this view.

Having said the above, I hope you can understand that Pakistan's stance today is the product of very complicated historical processes. It is as much a victim as a problem. Our relations are not dependent upon how much India is able to push Pakistan - it would be a fail approach. Our relations are dependent upon how much we are able to understand each other and willing to accommodate.

If our respective statesmen start today with this approach, it would take two decades to bring about a change in thinking and approach and the results. In this, I do not see Kashmir as anything central. It is an unnecessary complication.

I do not know to what extent any of PDF Indians will agree with me - I have had to condense a lot in just a few sentences and left a great deal unsaid. But as well as I can see, this is the best way forward.

@Joe Shearer, sir I hope for you to give your perspective on this post of mine - never mind the thread though.

Fascinating view. I see the base as very logical. I would like to read more if you can spare the time to write in detail.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Fascinating view. I see the base as very logical. I would like to read more if you can spare the time to write in detail.

My friend you are asking me to write a book. Most of the sentences you find fascinating are chapters in themselves. But i assure you there is a lot condensed in here. I will try and see if I can write something decent and open a thread.

 

[Screambowl]

There has not been any migration of Punjabis to Kashmir. Outsiders can not buy property there. If any wealthy Punjabi wishes to enjoy the next best thing to Kashmir, he buys property in Murree.

Can you please tell us any article from Pakistani Aiyeen thats quotes outsiders are not Allowed.

There are no Punjabis in AJK or Gilgit my uncle tried to purchase a place in AJK and they told him no lol because he was non Kashmiri. Meanwhile there have been Hindu and Sikh Punjabis in IOK since partition.

After partition only the law has been enforced in India thats why. Meanwhile my friend here, he was born in Lahore, but now he lives in Mirpur and has a house there because his family migrated to Mirpur in 1982. How is that possible?

 

[Contrarian]

My friend you are asking me to write a book. Most of the sentences you find fascinating are chapters in themselves. But i assure you there is a lot condensed in here. I will try and see if I can write something decent and open a thread.

Why not start writing your book online on PDF.
Keep writing the chapters here, you will keep getting feedback and review chapter by chapter.

When its done, you can get it published.

You will have atleast one reader. Your post intrigued me.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Which factors exactly makes the average Pakistani believe that India is out "break Pakistan" ? I always read on this forum that the average Pakistani believes that peace with India can only be achieved if India hands over Kashmir to Pakistan. My Pakistani friends here in Africa say that frankly, they don't care about Kashmir since Pakistan has enough on its plate. This issue always confuses me

This is the historical fear. The gist of THE problem in South Asia. In my view Kashmir is a nuisance, not a central problem. Pakistanis have been conditioned to think that Pakistan is incomplete without Kashmir. There is an element of truth in there, but it is a misleading approach. Had Kashmiris wished to be part of Pakistan, Kashmir would have been a part of Pakistan. In any case this is a distraction. The central problem is the mistrust between Hindus and Muslims. I know that this is a simplistic statement on the face of it, but there it is in the nude.

Can you please tell us any article from Pakistani Aiyeen thats quotes outsiders are not Allowed.



After partition only the law has been enforced in India thats why. Meanwhile my friend here, he was born in Lahore, but now he lives in Mirpur and has a house there because his family migrated to Mirpur in 1982. How is that possible?

I can not quote any article. This is just common knowledge.

Your friend probably is an ethnic Kashmiri and had family there. I can live in Kashmir if I wanted to, I just would not be domiciled there. I would not be able to buy property either. Just as you can stay there to live, but not own property.

 

[ChennaiDude]

well hopefully th kashmiris will do a uprising and during that chaos pakistan can sneak of few pakistanis in there with weapons.

Nothing new...its been going on as you mentioned above.....just a small change nowadays..the uprising from the Indian Kashmiri side has gone down drastically...as far as Pakistani state actors..keep sending them...and we will keep burying them.

 

[qamar1990]

Nothing new...its been going on as you mentioned above.....just a small change nowadays..the uprising from the Indian Kashmiri side has gone down drastically...as far as Pakistani state actors..keep sending them...and we will keep burying them.

lol, why would we send anybody to kashmir? we will go when the kashmiris want our help.
when a few more college students get beaten up for cheering for pakistan.

 

[Screambowl]

Your friend probably is an ethnic Kashmiri and had family there. I can live in Kashmir if I wanted to, I just would not be domiciled there. I would not be able to buy property either. Just as you can stay there to live, but not own property.

The article is more important and he has his land in Mirpur. No, what I wanted to say that, those people who invaded Kashmir in 1947, they have remained there and must be called back, in counter Indian Army was deployed.

 

[k_arura]

To follow a problem's complexity one often has to step back a bit. If you have read the book, you would understand that she addresses Pakistan Army's world-view from 1947 and places it in context of two-nation theory. But the thing is that Army is not in a closed loop. It is renewed in every generation, and that is how the mind-set goes through a change. The important thing therefore is the society at large, not the army itself.

Pakistan's raison-d-etre shall never go away. Army would never forsake the relevance of its founding principle. The mistrust among Pakistanis of 'Hindu Baniya' shall linger for a long time to come. What we can do is to take off the edge in our mutual discourse. For an attempt to do that both sides must understand each other.

In its essence, Pakistan was a reaction to the manifestations of Hindu psyche, which in itself was a reaction to history. Pakistan took shape ideologically in 1930s, particularly the latter part. You would find the relevance of my point in that period's history. In any case Muslim majority areas saw no point in being part of Bharat Mata. Mother India as an idea did not appeal to us, because we thought of it as a canard. The idea of Pakistan took root because of mitrust. I hope you are catching my drift here.

I am going beyond Dr. Fair's book and its premise. Pakistan Army is not a problem. It is Pakistan's obsession with survival that makes us the way we are.

You have never heard of Irshad Ahmad Haqqani. He was a very influential intellectual from city of Kasur in Pakistan's Punjab. He had a leftist bent, and an Islamist past. Though his political ideas did not mean much to me, him being educated in United India, his perspective was of immense importance to me. He could analyze things from a more 'neutral' perspective for having a multi-faceted approach. I will not go into detail of hows and whys of my last statement. But what I want to convey to you is that the gist of his views on Pakistan-India relations was that "India could not provide leadership" because "Hindus failed to act like a bigger, more responsible, group" (because of their own historical experience). This view will sting you, I know; but when I really think in the back-ground of my experience, reading, and perspective, I can not find much wrong with this view.

Having said the above, I hope you can understand that Pakistan's stance today is the product of very complicated historical processes. It is as much a victim as a problem. Our relations are not dependent upon how much India is able to push Pakistan - it would be a fail approach. Our relations are dependent upon how much we are able to understand each other and willing to accommodate.

If our respective statesmen start today with this approach, it would take two decades to bring about a change in thinking and approach and the results. In this, I do not see Kashmir as anything central. It is an unnecessary complication.

I do not know to what extent any of PDF Indians will agree with me - I have had to condense a lot in just a few sentences and left a great deal unsaid. But as well as I can see, this is the best way forward.

@Joe Shearer, sir I hope for you to give your perspective on this post of mine - never mind the thread though.

Actually I agree to quite an extent with your analysis although I would pose another qn to you as to why other minorities did not feel the same way as the muslims did. And why is it even today that muslims feel this way vis-a-vis other "majorities." IOW, it is not just a Hindu problem but a muslim one as well. The muslims certainly did not feel that they were ruling majority Hindus and so they should simply handover power to Hindus! So deep in their hearts they knew the atrocities they had committed on Hindus and that now the situation could reverse and although Hindus were not capable of those kinds of atrocities (read the history on what your mughals did to the Sikh gurus. Go visit any Gurudwara and yo will see the pictures). So the Muslims rightly would have felt "guilty" and afraid of historical "revenge." That revenge most likely would not have occurred with Nehru at the helm and Gandhi alongwith. But that can lead to endless debates.

But one thing I can assure you of. If Paks are nurturing any hidden ambition of grabbing J&K from India or starting some ghazwa-e-hind - Ghazwa-e-hind - When Pakistan will conquer india then they need reeducate themselves that it WONT happen.

 

[Chak Bamu]

The article is more important and he has his land in Mirpur. No, what I wanted to say that, those people who invaded Kashmir in 1947, they have remained there and must be called back, in counter Indian Army was deployed.

Man your idea are all in a twirl. Who told you that those people are still there? Gee, use some sense. Pakistan and India both have similar issue about Kashmir. It stands to reason that their approach would be similar too. Why would it not? The only difference is that Kashmiris on Pakistan's side have not stood up in revolt or anything like that because they feel better accommodated. Kashmiris in IOK are a bit different I guess. But the more you repeat stuff about Punjabis buying up Kashmir, the more you open yourself to ridicule.

Actually I agree to quite an extent with your analysis although I would pose another qn to you as to why other minorities did not feel the same way as the muslims did. And why is it even today that muslims feel this way vis-a-vis other "majorities." IOW, it is not just a Hindu problem but a muslim one as well. The muslims certainly did not feel that they were ruling majority Hindus and so they should simply handover power to Hindus! So deep in their hearts they knew the atrocities they had committed on Hindus and that now the situation could reverse and although Hindus were not capable of those kinds of atrocities (read the history on what your mughals did to the Sikh gurus. Go visit any Gurudwara and yo will see the pictures). So the Muslims rightly would have felt "guilty" and afraid of historical "revenge." That revenge most likely would not have occurred with Nehru at the helm and Gandhi alongwith. But that can lead to endless debates.

But one thing I can assure you of. If Paks are nurturing any hidden ambition of grabbing J&K from India or starting some ghazwa-e-hind - Ghazwa-e-hind - When Pakistan will conquer india then they need reeducate themselves that it WONT happen.

I shall disregard irrelevant parts of your post and come straight to point of concern. It takes two hands to clap. Our situation vis-a-vis one another is not strictly a Hindu OR a Muslim problem.

The stuff about guilt and all is just a distraction. You are reading your interpretation of history into it. It is not necessarily correct or relevant. Mughal policies were practically secular in nature - had to be for them to continue their rule. Their problems with Sikh Gurus were because of perceived aspirations and interference, starting from beginning of Jahangir's rule when his son revolted and solicited Sikh Guru's help. It was NOT a religious quarrel, at least not so from Mughal perspective.

 

[KingMamba]

@Screambowl either you are lying or he is of kashmiri origin or he is a Potohari. Potoharis overlap between AJK and North Punjab so they are considered Punjabi in Punjab and Kashmiri in AJK.

 

[suresh1773]

The Muslims in kashmir know the fate of muslims in places like Gujraat, hence the fight is on to keep Kashmir Muslim
The fight for kashmir will be stepped up, and article 370 will be defended but hindu's will never be allowed back into kashmir
Assam and Bengal will be muslims states before that happens

First of all more people have been killed in Pakistan due to Sectarian,Ethnic & Political voilence.I openly challenge u on that.The TTP alone has killed more then 30,000 ppl apart form the HEAVIEST DAMAGE TO property & infrastructure.The recent airport attack in Karachi.What about the Hazaras,shias & Ahmedias .In Karachi several Shias professionals like Doctors, Engineers, Buisnessmen, Lawyers have been killed in cold blooded manner.