Sad shameful situation - student from India stalking white woman, why is this a pattern.

[Chute]

@ThunderCat @VCheng @Joe Shearer et al.

Perhaps we should move this conversation to somewhere more appropriate (its strayed from original sordid one considerably and its probably best to let this one whither away from the shoutbox), we might grab better participants that way as well.

Maybe this one: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/aman-ka-tamasha.766905/

But I'm open to any other suggestions. Just quote and reply there etc.

We can get into what a nation vs state etc is in the end. I have some views to share on it later....and maybe some other related topics too.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Couldn't have said it better myself, but like you, I take no pleasure in this sad state of affairs, made more hurtful by how utterly unnecessary it is, truth be told. Sigh.



Really? So USA is not a nation, and neither is India. And so many others. Eh?




So even if that is true, it clearly does not prevent states from doing well for their people, so why would such a distinction even be relevant? Whatever happened to diversity being strength?

That is precisely the issue.

Is a nation any more useful than a state? What is the object of forming a political entity, and what are the implications of it being either a state or a nation?

We don't exactly agree but don't exactly disagree.

More or less.

You know your fundamentals, but the way you have used it puzzles me. Things that puzzle me make me uncomfortable.

Perhaps we will talk again. If I live that long.

@ThunderCat @VCheng @Joe Shearer et al.

Perhaps we should move this conversation to somewhere more appropriate (its strayed from original sordid one considerably and its probably best to let this one whither away from the shoutbox), we might grab better participants that way as well.

Maybe this one: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/aman-ka-tamasha.766905/

But I'm open to any other suggestions. Just quote and reply there etc.

We can get into what a nation vs state etc is in the end. I have some views to share on it later....and maybe some other related topics too.

By all means.

 

[ThunderCat]

@ThunderCat @VCheng @Joe Shearer et al.

Perhaps we should move this conversation to somewhere more appropriate (its strayed from original sordid one considerably and its probably best to let this one whither away from the shoutbox), we might grab better participants that way as well.

Maybe this one: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/aman-ka-tamasha.766905/

But I'm open to any other suggestions. Just quote and reply there etc.

We can get into what a nation vs state etc is in the end. I have some views to share on it later....and maybe some other related topics too.

I don't know if such threads are for me. I know i've been in debates in the past but don't know if I have the energy to do it every time.

As for this thread, I am more or less done.

 

[Bilal9]

The girl didn't have an ounce of interest in him. I hope this insufferable creep was deported back to India.

He is just a creep, Indian or not.

I'd have said the same thing if he was from Bangladesh.

Really? So USA is not a nation, and neither is India. And so many others. Eh?

You can include the Russians in that milieu as well.

However the Japanese, Koreans and us Bangladeshis are rather largely homogenous - and thus could claim nationhood.

There are people outside of Bangladesh who have roots in our land too - like @Joe Shearer dada. Am I right dada?

 

[hatehs]

It is a never-ceasing source of wonder to me that no Pakistani, living or dead, sees the contradiction between hating the Dogras, and insisting that their methodical acquisition of culturally and linguistically diverse territories into one realm (with the exception of Gilgit-Baltistan) should be adhered to, when demanding a solution for 'Kashmir'.

The Dogras are despised for their treatment of the inhabitants, not the manner in which they went about making territorial acquisitions. And the one thing shared by all these culturally and linguistically diverse territories at the time was support for Pakistan and opposition to the Dogras, which is why they all ended up rising up against his rule to join Pakistan.

When fanboys go hysterical about demanding a common solution to the former princely state of Jammu & Kashmir (not Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir)

Even Jammu isn't that much different to the rest of the Kashmir. It has a Muslim-Hindu split (though it had a slight Muslim majority before partition). It should have been on the cards for the same referendum conducted everywhere else across India.

this refugee from a linguistically, politically and administratively homogenous state that paid no attention to religion until literally dragged into doing so in 1905, can only smile.

Kashmiris (both ethnic Kashmiris and Paharis, Gujjars, etc) didn't have the luxury of living in the post-identarian world of pre-1905 Bengal.

Should I go on? Let me know.

I'm aware of the story but interested in your interpretation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The Dogras are despised for their treatment of the inhabitants, not the manner in which they went about making territorial acquisitions. And the one thing shared by all these culturally and linguistically diverse territories at the time was support for Pakistan and opposition to the Dogras, which is why they all ended up rising up against his rule to join Pakistan.

Not entirely true.

The most prevalent urban legend is that the Vale was also pro-Pakistan at the outset. It was not. Of the others, Poonch, that is west Jammu, was, and formed the core of Azad Kashmir. Gilgit was always alienated, and it had nothing to do with Dogra treatment of their inhabitants, as the Dogras never ruled there anyway.

It boils down to the Azad Kashmir region only.

Even Jammu isn't that much different to the rest of the Kashmir. It has a Muslim-Hindu split (though it had a slight Muslim majority before partition). It should have been on the cards for the same referendum conducted everywhere else across India.

Nowhere was there a referendum conducted, anywhere in India, other than in the two provinces scheduled for partition, Bengal and Punjab, and also the NWFP.

What are you referring to, when you write about a referendum conducted everywhere else across India?

The amount of misinformation floating around in the minds of Pakistanis is phenomenal.

Kashmiris (both ethnic Kashmiris and Paharis, Gujjars, etc) didn't have the luxury of living in the post-identarian world of pre-1905 Bengal.

Perhaps, but contrary to the overheated imaginings of the present-day Pakistani, Kashmiris were not in favour of Pakistan; only the Sudans and the Mirpuris were. The Paharis actively fought against the invading tribals in some areas, the Gujjars were informing on Pakistani infiltrators even as late as 1965.

The Koshur-speaking Kashmiri had nothing to do with Pakistan as long as Sk Abdullah remained in power, thereafter, under Farooq and Omar, and even Mehbooba Mufti.

 

[hatehs]

The most prevalent urban legend is that the Vale was also pro-Pakistan at the outset. It was not. Of the others, Poonch, that is west Jammu, was, and formed the core of Azad Kashmir. Gilgit was always alienated, and it had nothing to do with Dogra treatment of their inhabitants, as the Dogras never ruled there anyway.

It was, it's just that the loyalties of Kashmiris in the valley were divided between Pakistan and Sheikh Abdullah, who had been their voice for decades. The Sheikh Abdullah loyalists strong-armed the rest of the valley into submission.

Gilgit was always alienated, and it had nothing to do with Dogra treatment of their inhabitants, as the Dogras never ruled there anyway.

They didn't need to be under their rule to be alienated by their policies against Muslims. Word got around. Muslim Punjabis led a sustained public campaign against Dogra rule in Kashmir for decades based on the word of exile Kashmiris.

What are you referring to, when you write about a referendum conducted everywhere else across India?

It's just a poor choice of words, I was referring to Punjab and Bengal since Jammu roughly shared the same demographic split.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm aware of the story but interested in your interpretation.

Very simply put, they had agreed that Bengal should remain undivided, and should form a third Dominion. Jinnah, exasperated at this very late development, told them to do what they wanted. At this point of time, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, actively involved in politics, and a former member of a coalition government along with the Krishak Praja Party of Sher-e-Bangal Fazlul Huq Sahib, got to know of these not very secret talks and discussions and raised an alarm.

Nehru and Patel shot down any such plan,

The demographics of western Bengal and the rest of Bengal was curiously different. In western Bengal, there was a strong set of mid-level social figures, the Mahishyas, or Kaivartas, who had for a brief period, between the mediaeval Pala and Sen kingdoms, held power on their own. These farmers and fishermen were accustomed to dominate the countryside, in spite of the Zamindari structure imposed artificially on top by the British. As a result, they, with the Hindu gentry that were concentrated in the towns in the west as they were in the east, were able to prove themselves to be in the majority. A decision was taken to poll the elected representatives (there was no referendum), and go by their voting.

And that is how Bengal was partitioned.

The Sheikh Abdullah loyalists strong-armed the rest of the valley into submission.

What strong-arming was there? Not even a single act of violence occurred. It was only in Muzaffarabad that the National Conference reverted to the older communal name of the Muslim Conference.

On the other hand, Maqbool Sherwani diverted the tribals for two days in Baramula, and paid a vicious price; he was crucified.

There was no violence in the Vale, and the strong-arm tactics are extrapolations by Pakistani commentators unreconciled to the idea that any single Kashmiri might not want to yearn for Pakistan.

They didn't need to be under their rule to be alienated by their policies against Muslims. Word got around. Muslim Punjabis led a sustained public campaign against Dogra rule in Kashmir for decades based on the word of exile Kashmiris.

Please look it up.

Muslim Punjabis were almost totally absent in Gilgit, and the first one was deputed after the mutiny, empowered to take charge in the name of Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It's just a poor choice of words, I was referring to Punjab and Bengal since Jammu roughly shared the same demographic split.

There were no choices in any princely state, except post-facto in Junagadh and in Hyderabad.

The point is that if the situation with regard to withdrawal of suzerainty was not to be honoured, then the rest of the legislative arrangement, including, specifically, the severing of portions of the Crown Colony by the Act, would be invalid.

Pakistan sought to be on both sides of the argument. She sought the divide where it applied, in the provinces of the British India colony, and she sought the accession of the princes. Jodhpur was approached, Bhopal was anxious to join, but could not, because of the principal of proximity to the Dominion. Ironically, Chitral, that went overboard in her support for Pakistan, and helped to besiege Skardu, Kargil and Leh, was herself overthrown by Pakistan. Kalat was similarly intimidated and brow-beaten into submission. India had nothing to do with Kalat.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There are people outside of Bangladesh who have roots in our land too - like @Joe Shearer dada. Am I right dada?

I am still eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship.

Believe me with every Sanghi outrage I suffer a fresh wave of temptation.

The saving grace is that I live in a very civilised city, with only a handful of despised Sanghis to spoil things, but with an honorable an decent mix of people. When I take the bus from the Dargah into town, I do not stand more than one or two stops. Someone or the other among the hijab-wearing matrons bullies her small daughter into giving up her seat for me, and I have to be very stern with them to shut them up and let the poor child alone.

 

[Bilal9]

@Joe Shearer dada you should definitely write a detailed treatise on the partition history of the subcontinent. And count me in 100% to help you to get your Bangladesh citizenship someday - if you wish.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer dada you should definitely write a detailed treatise on the partition history of the subcontinent. And count me in 100% to help you to get your Bangladesh citizenship someday - if you wish.

মনে থাকে যেন। এমনি বলে দিয়ে কেটে পড়লে চলবে না !

 

[Bilal9]

মনে থাকে যেন। এমনি বলে দিয়ে কেটে পড়লে চলবে না !

থাকবে দাদা থাকবে। কেটে পড়বো না।

 

[Joe Shearer]

you should definitely write a detailed treatise on the partition history of the subcontinent.

Oh, that's been written, brilliantly well.

It is The Great Partition, by Yasmin Khan.

Yasmin Khan is a very well known historian from St. Peter's and then from St. Antony's College, Oxford, and has lived in Delhi. She was a lecturer at Edinburgh University, where my daughter and son-in-law teach now, and she is a heavyweight, with a British Academy Post-Doctoral Fellowship. She is teaching at the University of London now.

Read her book.

It is profoundly saddening, but profoundly moving. We must NEVER forget.

I live in a very civilised city, with only a handful of despised Sanghis to spoil things, but with an honorable an decent mix of people.

I take this opportunity to invite all of you to come to Hyderabad if ever you can. It is guaranteed that you will love the city and the people. Come after May and until March. Until February, just to be safe.

 

[hatehs]

What strong-arming was there? Not even a single act of violence occurred. It was only in Muzaffarabad that the National Conference reverted to the older communal name of the Muslim Conference.

It's mentioned in Prem Nath Bazaz' account of Kashmir during partition in his book "Inside Kashmir". There were targeted arrests of political leaders and measures to prevent any pro-Pakistani political activity.

There was no violence in the Vale, and the strong-arm tactics are extrapolations by Pakistani commentators unreconciled to the idea that any single Kashmiri might not want to yearn for Pakistan.

We're aware, we have pro-independence nationalists in AJK too. But the reality is that the majority of the valley was pro-Pakistan on the eve of partition.

Muslim Punjabis were almost totally absent in Gilgit, and the first one was deputed after the mutiny, empowered to take charge in the name of Pakistan.

No, I referenced Muslim Punjab as an example of how the word against the Dogra got around.

Pakistan sought to be on both sides of the argument. She sought the divide where it applied, in the provinces of the British India colony, and she sought the accession of the princes. Jodhpur was approached, Bhopal was anxious to join, but could not, because of the principal of proximity to the Dominion. Ironically, Chitral, that went overboard in her support for Pakistan, and helped to besiege Skardu, Kargil and Leh, was herself overthrown by Pakistan. Kalat was similarly intimidated and brow-beaten into submission. India had nothing to do with Kalat.

Pakistan sought to ensure it was in the best possible position it could be in after partition. I don't see this as something to be ashamed about on my end. Also, I'm not here to cast moral judgements on India for not handing over Kashmir.