Pakistan, Kashmir, etc...

[jayakris]

Another report, from two activists - Nandini Sundar, professor at Delhi Univ and advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan - Kashmiris are resisting government ‘through satyagraha’, says fact-finding report
The people are into civil disobedience, by shutting down their own shops and not sending kids to school. Let them suit themselves. No surprise. Almost every single person wants Azadi, says these two activists. Totally what I would expect. But totally irrelevant as well. They are not getting it. The article 370 that India wrote for them, is gone. They can ask for Pakistan to withdraw from POK, and then ask for a referendum done by India as per UN resolutions. Actually I would still consider it (with a 10 year delay, like I proposed in this thread back in 2008), but if they are Pakistan-lovers who want azadi while Pakistan sits in POK, tough luck. Stay in India, drop your arrogance that you deserve something more, and live your life like everybody else in India. I am not in any mood to give Kashmiris anything more than what Punjabis, Malayalis and others got, just because they are Muslims.

[Omkara]

Another report, from two activists - Nandini Sundar, professor at Delhi Univ and advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan - Kashmiris are resisting government ‘through satyagraha’, says fact-finding report
The people are into civil disobedience, by shutting down their own shops and not sending kids to school. Let them suit themselves. No surprise. Almost every single person wants Azadi, says these two activists. Totally what I would expect. But totally irrelevant as well. They are not getting it. The article 370 that India wrote for them, is gone. They can ask for Pakistan to withdraw from POK, and then ask for a referendum done by India as per UN resolutions. Actually I would still consider it (with a 10 year delay, like I proposed in this thread back in 2008), but if they are Pakistan-lovers who want azadi while Pakistan sits in POK, tough luck. Stay in India, drop your arrogance that you deserve something more, and live your life like everybody else in India. I am not in any mood to give Kashmiris anything more than what Punjabis, Malayalis and others got, just because they are Muslims.

Well said. They get what every one else does. Come to Bihar to see plight of people. It's better now. It used to be worse. Kashmiris are way richer than average Indian. If they want they can get a way better life just like that

[Atithee]

Anyone who feels Kashmiris—for whom India has depleted its resources and human blood like no one else—deserve to be treated with a special status while enjoying full privileges of other Indian citizens is delusional. The sooner they and Kashmiris join the Indian mainstream, the better they’ll be. I can’t understand how an “azad” Kashmir will survive economically. Or, how long our two neighbors will let them say “azad.” Or, prosper as a part of Pakistan. Are the locals blinded by their didactic beliefs or they have not been allowed to think on their own by the Abdullahs, Muftis, Lones, and their well wishers in the peace loving neighbor? I say call the plebiscite bluff and hold it. India is in a win-win situation. But, it has to be for all of Kashmir not just the Indian one. Too bad that the Chinese portion is probably ceded forever.

[Sin Hombre]

Any such plebiscite should include Kashmiri pandits and their families who were forced to flee in the 80s and 90s.

That said, India will never do it and for good reason (China will never see Aksai chin and POK is a lost cause).

[Atithee]

Any such plebiscite should include Kashmiri pandits and their families who were forced to flee in the 80s and 90s.

That said, India will never do it and for good reason (China will never see Aksai chin and POK is a lost cause).

Agree. Sad that the lost territories are lost forever. But, I’m not too sad because these are largely political issues; these areas aren’t something special as that with mineral resources etc. I’m just happy that we asserted our official position after years of pussyfooting. The situation in Hong Kong and that with Uighurs couldn’t have happened at a better time for us.

[Sin Hombre]

The situation in Hong Kong and that with Uighurs couldn’t have happened at a better time for us.

I am fairly sure we timed it so.

China was(is) in a mess, and so are UK who have often been one of our biggest detractors on this issue with Brexit.

Quite Machiavellian to use that timing.

[prasen9]

Any such plebiscite should include Kashmiri pandits and their families who were forced to flee in the 80s and 90s.

That said, India will never do it and for good reason (China will never see Aksai chin and POK is a lost cause).

Agree. Sad that the lost territories are lost forever. But, I’m not too sad because these are largely political issues; these areas aren’t something special as that with mineral resources etc. I’m just happy that we asserted our official position after years of pussyfooting. The situation in Hong Kong and that with Uighurs couldn’t have happened at a better time for us.

I believe in self-determination and freedom. There is no point wasting our money holding territory using the army. I am in favor of autonomy for Kashmir but I also support dividing the state into three parts because they are distinct and I fully support the rights of any Indian to buy land there.

Violence seems to be down and protests seem to be down. Violence in Kashmir These are good. I would want the army to be focused on stopping infiltration to the maximum extent while facilitating the improvement for the lives of all residents of Kashmir. I would also want any army person to be held to highest standards of behavior and prosecuted to remove the bad apples.

[prasen9]

Sad that the lost territories are lost forever.

I think we disagree on this fundamental point. I do not feel that it is my land anyway. It is the Kashmiris' land. Yes, including the Pandits, etc. Let them do whatever they want to do. Let us take care of those who want to be in India. Run a plebiscite giving all of them votes and if they want to be out get rid of them. Work on improving Jammu and Ladakh and the rest of India who want to be in. There is no point keeping a festering area under control forever and keeping on fighting people who do not want to be there.

[Sin Hombre]

Sad that the lost territories are lost forever.

I think we disagree on this fundamental point. I do not feel that it is my land anyway. It is the Kashmiris' land. Yes, including the Pandits, etc. Let them do whatever they want to do. Let us take care of those who want to be in India. Run a plebiscite giving all of them votes and if they want to be out get rid of them. Work on improving Jammu and Ladakh and the rest of India who want to be in. There is no point keeping a festering area under control forever and keeping on fighting people who do not want to be there.

Why is it the Kashmiris land? How far back in history do we need to go to define who a Kashmiri is?

[prasen9]

Why is it the Kashmiris land?

Because it is Kashmir. Kashmir is for Kashmiris as every other place is for their people.

How far back in history do we need to go to define who a Kashmiri is?

I do not know. But, a reasonable number of generations would be fine with me to correct for the ethnic cleansing. At any rate, India may not want to go too far back because the concept of India did not exist. Kashmir existed way before something called "india" existed.

My principle is that I own my house (assuming I own it). My view is unit centric. I am part of my family. My family is part of its neighborhood. My neighborhood is part of my city or town. My city or town is part of my state. My state is part of my country. My country is part of the continent. Etc. So, I am a Bengali before I am an Indian. Etc. It is a very logical sequence of progression. Thus, Kashmiris are Kashmiris first. Just like Bengal is the Bengali's land. Kashmir is the Kashmiris' land and Gujarat is the Gujaratis'. Very simple. I love my family. Then, I love my neighborhood. Then, I love my city. Etc. My love decreases as the distance grows. Pretty logical, imho.

These jingoistic nationalists have caused the Holocaust and wars. Useless.

[jayakris]

Kashmir existed way before something called "india" existed.

Huh? What do you mean? If you are talking about the word "India", you are right. But this was a single land, which was known through history, going back to 3 or 4 millennia or more, as one land. And it *always* included the Kashmir area. I doubt anybody talked about a land called Kashmir, say 2500 years ago. Check with the Romans or those before them. Everybody knew that there was a land of a certain unique kind of people with certain kind of unique languages and cultures when you got near or across the Indus river from the west or north, or across the Himalayas in the east. All the foreigners had their own names for the land that extended all the way south to TN and east to Bangla, that is all (regardless of how many different kings the land had). The Kashmir area was always part of that land, and was known so. It was well across the Indus river. People may have had doubts about Afghanistan, Balochistan, Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh or Tibet, but there were never a question about which land Kashmir was part of. Just like Tuscanny was always part of the Roman land, Kashmir was always part of India that they called with various names abroad, but known as "Bharat" in our literature.

I think your point was less about Kashmir but more about the concept of India being something artificial. See why you are called an anti-national?

[prasen9]

But the land was never an integrated "country". My knowledge is that it was more like Europe. There were lots of princely states. The concept of India (as opposed to Bharat) as a *single* nation only came about maybe earliest when the British conquered India or more accurately in 1947 because even along with British India there were pockets of independent or semi-independent princely states.

Anyway, this is orthogonal. My principle is sort of libertarian. Push as much liberty down to the people as much as you can with the minimum amount of central power. I do not want a government to tell me what to do unless absolutely required. So, I want Kashmir to be given as much autonomy possible under the Indian nation.

I also support the Catalan movement. I want a country called Kurdistan. I want Iraq to be split up into a Shia and a Sunni country (they fight too much, imho). Etc. If anyone wants to be free, let the people decide. But don't allow cleansing of ethnic minorities to manipulate plebiscites. My only condition is that it should not be pockets. Geographically contiguous areas. You cannot have a city with 50 houses being an independent nation scattered all over the city. So, perhaps I do not support the Nizam of Hyderabad trying to make it an independent country.

I don't mind being called anti-national. I am more pro-state before pro-nation, pro-district before pro-state, etc.

[RohitG]

Boundaries keep changing every century or 2. This land was divided in princely states but also was united at different points of history. A large chunk of subcontinent was under British (the max), before that you had Marathas, Mughals, Delhi Sultanate, Chandragupta Maurya etc. Same logic is applicable to any country.. some centuries ago, maps of USA, China, European nations, Middle Eastern nations etc. were different too.

A video from YouTube usually appears here. Please contact an administrator.

A video from YouTube usually appears here. Please contact an administrator.

[jayakris]

But the land was never an integrated "country". My knowledge is that it was more like Europe. There were lots of princely states. The concept of India (as opposed to Bharat) as a *single* nation only came about maybe earliest when the British conquered India or more accurately in 1947 because even along with British India there were pockets of independent or semi-independent princely states.

That is where you are (in my view) mistaken. The Europeans were never considered one group of people with similar characteristics (and language/culture systems) like Indians even in pre-historic times, from say 2500+ years back. The Greeks, Romans, Turks etc felt they were different people, as different across them as they were with the people in the Indian or Chinese lands they had heard of. But the people to the east of Indus river in our subcontinent always considered themselves less different across themselves than they were different from foreigners. This was all despite who the Indian kings were, and where their ruling-area boundaries were. If you did a genetic test, you will find the same conclusion too by the way. Then and now. The Indian race is an Indian race with more in common, despite the differences in languages (but that also having roots in two languages systems that developed in our own land) and culture/religious practices (again, less differences across them than with people outside of our subcontinental land).

Your attempt to stretch your logical thinking in what you want to be an unbiased manner, to convince yourself that Indians were never really one group of people, is the problem. No need to do that. We were, and still are, a group of people who need to be in one country. Well Pakistan should've been part of the area, but sadly aren't.

Unlike you said, the concept of India was there way before (millennia before) 1947 or the British conquering India. Check Chinese literature from 2000 years ago, and you will find them considering India as a single land. And their understanding of the boundaries of it were no different than what the British thought in 1750 or 1947... Same with what Alexander "the Lame" thought. That too with a maximum +- of a couple of hundred kms here and there, probably! Cross Indus river from the north and west, or Himalayas and Airawathy river from the east, and it was a unique land. Much more well-defined a land and country than say China or Europe was.

In fact, one can make an argument that there never was a country in the whole world with borders and culture as well defined (and understood to be so) for as long a period of 3 or more millennia, as India-Pakistan-Bangladesh is. What was "Bharat" to us.

[prasen9]

Same logic is applicable to any country.. some centuries ago, maps of USA, China, European nations, Middle Eastern nations etc. were different too.

Precisely my point. There is no country that has some rigid strict boundaries that have never changed. So this idea that the land, say Crimea is Ukrainian is stupid. That area has more than 50% Russians. Whatever was the history does not matter. More people there now want to be part of Russia. Let them be. Similarly Kashmir. Get a free and fair plebiscite with all Pandits and Kashmiri residents now vote and move on. Heck, throw in anyone who has more than 50% Kashmiri DNA that can be conclusively shown to be part of East Kashmir and can prove it via a test or can show that their ancestors resided there using documents, and/or who wants to live in Kashmir now and give them a vote. Irrespective of what China and Pakistan do with their part of Kashmir. If we give them a vote and they stay, then the problem will be largely solved. If they move out, so be it. Let them be gone. Let us focus on uplifting people who want to stay. Countries' boundaries have always changed and will always change. No point arguing whose land it was or is.

Jay's point is harder to argue. I do agree with lots of it. So, if I have to pick holes, I have to do research . For later.