Kashmiris concerned by plans for Hindu satellite cities

[Thirdfront]

The correct heading should be kashmiri muslims concerned about return of kashmiri hindus.. reason? bigotry off-course. They want kashmiri pundits to remain in midst of muslims so that it is easy to slaughter them/intimidate them as required...

 

[manlion]

Not just the forces, the post-settlers after 1947, and for this reason only article 370 was raised, because In PÖK migrants have settled, but in Kashmir article 370 did not allow any migrant to settle. This means India is ready for the plebiscite, Pakistan is not!

It was Sheikh Abdullah, who persuaded Nehru to give special status to J&K under article 370, as Pakistan had occupied 1/3 of JK, and the pending UN plebiscite.

Ayyangar the drafter of Article 370

Ayyangar argued that for a variety of reasons Kashmir, unlike other princely states, was not yet ripe for integration. India had been at war with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir and while there was a ceasefire, the conditions were still “unusual and abnormal.” Part of the State’s territory was in the hands of “rebels and enemies.”

Understanding Article 370 - The Hindu

Similar articles of Protection do exist for states like e.g AP, HP , Nagaland and Andaman & Nicobar

however it is only for the state of Jammu and Kashmir that the accession of the state to India is still a matter of dispute between India and Pakistan still on the agenda of the UN Security Council and where the Government of India vide 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord committed itself to keeping the relationship between the Union and Jammu and Kashmir State within the ambit of this article .
The 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord mentions that ” The State of Jammu and Kashmir which is a constituent unit of the Union of India, shall, in its relation with the Union, continue to be governed by Article 370 of the Constitution of India ”

.

I really wonder where do you manage to get your facts from. Must be some secret underground archives which no one else in the world has access of till now.

By the way, how do you roll around here in spite of being asked again and again, without displaying your flags for years?

not falling into the trap, no nasty pests at my door

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I was rather taken aback to read this very nuanced and insightful analysis of the entire Hindu-Muslim discourse before partition, which was succeeded by the India-Pakistan discourse after partition, as well as by a Hindu-Muslim discourse within India. In a nutshell, I agree; this is what we have been exploring in insaniyat, and, except for our resident Hindutva supporter, who is beginning to irritate me, and our newest member, a very young right-wing liberal, it seems to be the consensus position as follows:

• The Muslim community's professional and socially aspirant leadership, which had taken over the Muslim League from the feudal elements that had established it originally, sought parity, not equality of individual franchise, with other Indians, primarily with the Hindu community.
  • This is what Yassir Latif Hamdani refers to, on PTH and other fora, as the consociationalism approach, which might have worked then;
• When the parity within a united India argument, articulated by Azad first, then taken up by the British Cabinet Mission, accepted by both Jinnah and Nehru, was rejected by Nehru, there was no possible implementation left but parity as between two sovereign states;
• The discourse between two sovereign states cannot be conducted by one state accusing the other of having been created as an unequal entity, but presently aspiring to a false equality;
• The discourse must necessarily be of reciprocal benefit, leading to a firm foundation for mutual assurance of security, the sequence being determined by the logic that a mutual assurance of security is unlikely given the perception on both sides that the other was not reconciled to the legal and constitutional obligations of partition into two equal, sovereign entities;
  • Given that elements in Indian society are either not convinced about the need or the present-day utility of a partitioned British India, or about the possibility of reconciled and normal relations with the state of Pakistan, and given that elements in Pakistani society both see Pakistan as a stake-holder in Muslim affairs throughout south Asia, and are unconvinced about the possibility of reconciled and normal relations with the state of India, it is necessary to create conditions where the dialogue between sovereign and equal states supersedes the dialogue between violently opposed partisans.

I have not had time to do more than skim through your post, but was astonished to read it. A detailed reply will not be possible before mid-July, due to my travels and logistical and Internet connection difficulties. If there is no objection, I would like to cross-post both the original post and my laboured response to insaniyat.

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.



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.

You can quote the Ranbir Code, which is the predecessor of all law in the former complete princely state of J&K. Unless it has been specifically over-ridden by an act of legislation, the provisions of the Ranbir code will continue to apply there as it is here. It is this code that specifies that no one not a born Kashmiri may own property in Kashmir.

I think most of the tribesmen moved back to waziristan after the raid ended in a fiasco. They were there for the loot, not to settle down. I think u might be confusing them with the pashtuns who settled in Gilgit and Baltistan. They may have actually moved there from the border that area shares with afghanistan

Precisely correct (I have not seen the post to which this is a reply). The tribesmen moved back; they were hired for the duration, I understand from demobbed British Indian Army servicemen.

Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob Khan is my elder uncle's very close friend. He is no Pakhtun. Both sets of parents are Phari speaking AJK natives from Rawalakot.

President AJ&K Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob Khan

You have a few people who have the name "Khan" after their first names which throws people off e.g. boxer Amir "Khan".

I think you are talking about Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (Kashmir war 1948) who yes might have been an ethnic Pakhtun and a Sadozai also known as "Sudhans". But culturally he wasn't if that makes sense. This tribe is scattered throughout Pakistan and is very small. They are concentrated in Pooch but have again been there for centuries. But there is another theory that suggests that they are in fact Rajputs!

History of Sudhan Tribe - SUDHAN GALI

He just happened to be there at the right time and right place. We also have "Gujars" and other "Rajputs" who have been here for centuries. But that doesn't make them any less native.

There are Hindu Sudans. My friend, a gunner who shifted to aviation, and was originally from Peshawar, is one such.

 

[Bang Galore]

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.

You seriously need to write more. While our perspectives may not match (since what we see depends on where we see it from), it helps to see another viewpoint that for the most part, we are unable to get.

The best course of action for India might be to improve relations with Pakistan, and for borders to go soft, and have tourism etc.. .

Do you agree with the general principles of the Musharraf-MMS proposition then? If yes, what do you think is the chance that such a solution would be acceptable to most Pakistanis & do you think it is actually implementable (soft borders would necessarily require a lower fear of terror acts -chicken & egg position maybe)

 

[Joe Shearer]

While I was writing my brief response to @Chak Bamu, I was wishing that @Bang Galore would intervene!

Happy coincidence.

Please read my post.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Any Buddhist left in land of pure? But last time when i checked, minorities reduced to 2% from 20% since independence of land of pure Where percentage of minorities increased in India.

No matter how successful the plans are going to be, I am just loving this thread

Now, let's hear what the Abdullah brigade has, to say!!!

We had just forgotten that two can play this game. Thanks to NaMo for bringing India back into the game. Hope it isn't too late, though!!!

 

[amitkriit]

I wish to see a Hindu-majority Kashmir Valley during my lifetime. Seems like my wish has been granted. This is the only glue which binds India.

Kashmriyat is a hogwash, the whole fight is religious in nature.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

dumb mulla fucks are really ignorant about their own case. Baglihar and Krishanganga dams on Chenab and neelum rivers also are run on rivers dams still guess what India did that Pakistan went to court citing that India can accelerate or declarate or even block these rivers. India is building major resorvoir which can strore 120,000,000 cubic meter water on one of the tributry of Indus river in Ladakh along with 11 more such projects are planned on various rivers.

First, they need to make up their mind: are the dams run-of-the river or not? When India was saying that they are run-of-the river dams, they went ahead to The Hague and got an egg on their face. If they are, as acknowledged by fanboys here, why did they even need to approach the International courts?

 

[Screambowl]

It was Sheikh Abdullah, who persuaded Nehru to give special status to J&K under article 370, as Pakistan had occupied 1/3 of JK, and the pending UN plebiscite.

Ayyangar the drafter of Article 370

Understanding Article 370 - The Hindu

Similar articles of Protection do exist for states like e.g AP, HP , Nagaland and Andaman & Nicobar

the article had its own value till a time period , but when insurgency in kashmir started, it started losing its value.
there is no such article, in pakistan constitution which probhits entry of any non kashmiri to settle. This is what I wanted to know, which takes India to a debate where India can ask UN to revoke UN resolution, because Pakistan is not willing to abide the 1st ever condition of Plebiscite. And therefore article 370 must also be revoked.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Screambowl

1. Is it your impression that Article 370 forbids the ownership of property in Kashmir to non-Kashmiris?
2. Was Article 370 introduced due to the UN Resolution?
3. Are you aware that settling of outsiders is forbidden in Pakistani law?

@Chak Bamu

You were right in suggesting I ignore the thread; it is too full of testosterone to be interesting. Perhaps you should expand your laconic post to a more appropriate length, as @Contrarian and @Bang Galore have both suggested or hinted. But in a separate thread, please; there are too many fanboys here with no knowledge or information to be worth staying on the thread.

 

[manlion]

the article had its own value till a time period , but when insurgency in kashmir started, it started losing its value.
there is no such article, in pakistan constitution which probhits entry of any non kashmiri to settle. This is what I wanted to know, which takes India to a debate where India can ask UN to revoke UN resolution, because Pakistan is not willing to abide the 1st ever condition of Plebiscite. And therefore article 370 must also be revoked.

Article 370 was stipulated for various reasons one of which a compromise on the plebiscite , if India is to revoke Article 370 than its only fair to conduct a plebiscite. Since plebiscite is not possible and “Kashmir problem " has not been "satisfactorily resolved", there is no question of A 370 aberration

 

[amitkriit]

King Hari Singh of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

These are the real kashmiris who were butchered and driven out of their own state because they were Hindus and some smaller groups were Buddhist and Sikh.

They existed long before your region was even populated.

The current muslim ones you see are infiltrators who using common language and muslim religion married and settled here over the last 6 decades.

And the reason we support Israel over you lot is EXACTLY because you lot support Pakistanis against our people in our country.

"They" don't even respect the local language and culture. Kashmiri language has been replaced with Urdu.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Tshering22

I am used to your egregious lying, but this one is preposterous.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Hindu Kashmirs are also Kashmiris. Lets not forget that. But I wouldn't be surprised India will flood Kashmir with non Kashmiri Hindus along to change the demographics.

 

[Tshering22]

Hindu Kashmirs are also Kashmiris. Lets not forget that. But I wouldn't be surprised India will flood Kashmir with non Kashmiri Hindus along to change the demographics.

In any country, one is free to travel anywhere. Like if you are in London, you should be allowed to go to Aberdeen or Edinburgh without restrictions.

Technically, we were too lenient with the violent lunatics there. Time to cut them the slack. If I can travel to any state and live in any state in the country, so should be the reverse case. That's what makes a country, a single entity.