Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Arjunm

Madhuri Katti

Madhuri Katti — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Good insightful post!

In globalised world, geographic boundaries no longer define strength of a country. Territorial disputes not only lead to conflicts but ruins life of people caught in the cross-fire and also drains economy.

Hats off to Malaysia to have taken a brave and painful decision and allowed Singapore to be independent!

The decision about Kashmir should have been taken long time back, now its become far too complicated!

Arjun

Arjun — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Madhuri I think we fool ourselves by saying that things have become far more complicated. Everything is complicated or maybe nothing is; but even if it is we can’t take away somebody right to self determine on that pretext.

I remember a similar argument by Winston Churchill who wanted to colonize India till year 2000 as things were complicated.

I really hope that by taking this step of allowing Kashmiri people to self determine we show to the world that we have arrived upto the standards of democracy and human rights.

Madhuri Katti

Madhuri Katti — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Frankly speaking, Arjun, i think we haven’t yet arrived ”upto the standards of democracy and human rights” for taking such a step.

A democracy with bunch of corrupt and greedy politicians becomes a weak system incapabe of such a righteous act.

Our dirty politics and dirtier politics of Pakistan has made Kashmir issue more complicated.

I agree with your viewpoint. We must work towards a solution even if it means allowing self-determination. But I doubt whether it’ll be a peaceful process that will restore peace and normalcy.

Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Madhuri, I agree that until we have corrupt politicians we really can’t have true democracy.

But I still would be feel that at least educated people like you and me should stop supporting wrong ideas. Maybe that is what we are here to do. To discuss and make the right point more prevalent. By doing so we would take away the power of politicians to fool innocent public over the idea of ”nationalism” and all that.

We may be not be upto it,but by pretending and following so.. we will surely be there. What do you say?

Madhuri Katti

Madhuri Katti — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I agree, if we don’t do something constructive then even ’nationalism’ remains an empty jingoistic idea...

In the interest of the nation and people of Kashmir we should demand a long lasting solution and peace, even if it means holding an referendum!

Once again,Arjun, congrats for putting up such a comparative article...there is no point in holding on to boundaries at the cost of people’s life and peace...hope more people demand an end to J&K crisis...

Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks Madhuri,

You have really made my day. Making somebody agree with your ideas is really a great achievement.

Writing this much has proved to be fruitful.

Thanks.

Andy

Andy — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

There is no parallel between Kashmir and Singapore. The geopolitical situations of both Malaysia and India were vastly different during the time of Kashmir’s accession to India and Singapore’s expulsion from Malaysia. Without taking that into consideration, making a general observation like this is rubbish.

Arjun

Arjun — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I am sorry Andy if I have hurt you any way. i would like to apologize if you think I have made unrelated comparison.

But I don’t care whether there is analogy of parallelism between kashmir and Singapore. I just know that we need to allow Kashmiri people to self determine as Britishers allowed us. Come on ... Britishers could also have said that our Kings have given them the right over land.

I just don’t know why do you see greatness of a country through its size.

Ramesh Balam

Ramesh Balam — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Your knowledge of history and intrepretations of solutions thereon appears to be cockeyed.

Assam, Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, West Bengal, Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Punjab, Gujrat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and many other linguistic states have nothing in common with each other or rest of India. Seen with their blinkered eyes, they don’t want to remain under Delhi’s refugee rule.

With your logic, every one who doesn’t want to live with you, must be granted independence. Does that solve their problems or does that create further problems for you? Look at the history before you embark to change the geography and you will know the answer.

Arjun

Arjun — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Sir, Let me ask you a question. Why do you think we should have got freedom from Britishers? or why should Britishers gave us freedom to self-determine.

Secondly my knowledge of history tells me that the present form of India which we have is only because of Britishers. Had they not ruled us for their interest they would have never united such a country.

Thirdly giving independence is no wrong. For me they won’t create problems. For me democracy is freedom to decide. And further, I believe in humans so whole world is one place. At least, as Madhuri pointed out in first comment, globalization has made boundaries redundant.

Fourthly Logic can’t be of mine own. it is something which appeals. And it is not a problem living with me or somebody else, it is a right over which we call ourselves to be civilized.

And please boundaries don’t change geography. For your clarification, and correct me if i am wrong, geography is natural, boundaries are artificial.

Ramesh Balam

Ramesh Balam — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

One of the reason of our attaining Independence is that the Britishers could no more rule us.

Your history is recent. Long before that, India had one emperor and many kings. That was so, when the Mughals came and it continued throughout their rule when Britishers took over.

Whatever appeals and appears popular may be wrong. Fate of the nation is not decided on sentiments alone.

If boundaries are redundant then the whole debate and demands for freedom are exercise in futility.

Arjun

Arjun — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Interesting points!

By making boundaries redundant the world has become a place where you type on computer made from chips from China, software from Europe and technology from Japan. Some if Kashmir is independent it won’t impact as I can still go there on a visa.

Keeping Kashmir under India would really prove that boundaries are not redundant as we are ready to sacrifice life and money over some boundary.

But keeping a tag on some land as India is really popular argument, especially in a country where it is seen as crown or head.

My ’recent’ history tells me that emperor and King are synonymous except that emperor is taken by a king who is unmatched or whose territory is really wide. I think you are confusing with governor and king.

I really hope that India is not that weak that its fate is dependent upon Kashmir.

And ruling any country is very easy. You just need to keep shooting any dissent. Had it not been the civilized nature of Britishers who even after winning the World War II ousted Churchill, and bought in power the Labor party who was in favor of giving independence. I really hope that Britishers should have thought like you, then they must have not lost half the Africa and other Asian countries.

And maybe being a civilian we are allowed to have sentiments, and have thoughts over those sentiments. Because we get sentimental about something as it appeals to us.

And we discard something which appeal and appear popular with argument, not on the basis that they may be wrong.

Ramesh Balam

Ramesh Balam — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You have your point, I have said my say.

Arjun

Arjun — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Your ”say”, my ”point”....

That is equality :)

Vijay

Vijay — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Arjun,the situation there is quite different than Malaysia and Singapore.First think about the Hindu Pandit families.As per as Kasmir problem is concerned upto 1984 it was the most peacefull state of India.

Arjun

Arjun — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Vijay, do you know it were the Kashmiri Pandits who for the first time raised the slogan of independence. They in 1984 constituted 2 percent of the population and had 90 percent of the important government positions. Gaining Independence was best for them as they could have very easily became rulers.

And how does it matter whether it was a peaceful till 1984 or not ? We rigged elections there. We put Sheikh Abdullak behind bars as he wanted independence for Kashmir.

It is very easy to resort to those part of history which support our arguments.

I Want you to forget about history and think as of today.

As a principle of democracy should not we allow people to self-determine?

Ramesh Balam

Ramesh Balam — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

UN resolution envisages that people of united J&K (including Pak occupied Kashmir)would decide whether they will remain with India or Pakistan. They don’t have the option of Independence. For exercising the available option, Pakistan has to vacate the occupied territory, clear the illegal settlers and be ready for election as per the voter’s list as on 26 October 1947.

Pakistan knew then that the majority will vote against it. So, it prolonged the problem.

Notwithstanding, the finality of Maharaja Hari Singh’s option; which is final and binding as per international law and conventions.

People of Kashmir have voted their representatives in legislature and Indian parliament in all elections. That is a fact.

You have your opinion. So have others.

Rest of India may have in them something called nationalism; which appears to be lacking somewhere in some people.

Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Great facts..

UN resolution is interesting as India represented Kashmir. Secondly since when have we started caring so much about UN?

Thirdly, I don’t know why, and you should tell me if you know the answer, that why even after winning two wars against Pakistan we have failed to get the area which we claim to be ours. I don’t have any concrete evidence but my logic tells me that because it is in the interest of India of not doing so. It is not only Pakistan which is worried, it is both countries; as it is burning issue in both the places and used occasionally by politicians to rouse emotions in ”nationalist” people.

Maharaja Hari Singh! I find it similar to the way how Britishers captured India. Only give help to any King, who is in desperate need, on the grounds that his territory will come to Britishers if he get no heir. Isn’t that what Britishers did, do correct me if I am wrong as my history is ”recent”.

Nationalism without logic is really dangerous. Even Hitler succeeded in raising that nationalism. I really hope that kind of nationalism keeps on lacking in most of Indians. Because the day majority stopped hearing criticism, our democratic system will stop functioning.

Ramesh Balam

Ramesh Balam — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Our democratic system allows airing of divergent views.

I am not aware of any instance when we have gone against UN resolutions. Perhaps you may enlighten us if we have.

No one how so ever powerful in India can cede any territory to any other country without the sanction of the parliament of India. The present and future parliamentarians are bound by unanimous resolutions passed on Kashmir.

You may have your views.

Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Mr. Balam, it is not about ceding territory, because of course like you, our politicians are law abiding. They are so law-abiding that they keep on claiming a land, but don’t do anything to get that, even after winning a war against that country.

And secondly do you really think that politicians would be caring so much about a land, whose terrain you must be well-acquainted with; as you have served in the army.

What unanimous resolution? that they have a different parliamentary system under article 370(1)? or that India is only supposed to have control over security, telecommunications, etc....

”I say with all respect to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion...”

”We have fought the good fight about Kashmir on the field of battle... (and) ...in many a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that State of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately - I say this with all deference to this Parliament - the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir; neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else,” Jawaharlal N ehru said in the Lok Sabha on June 26 and August 7, 1952.

- Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 18, p. 418 and

I agree with you, that I am not a blind patriotic. I have been taught that a mistake should be pointed out, why not whosoever has made it.

Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Here’s a link which you may find interesting. But it is written by a Muslim in Hindu. :)

Ramesh Balam

Ramesh Balam — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I have pointed our the problems likely to occur if your proposal is to be debated seriously.

Arjun

Arjun — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

There are problems even in discussing the issue ? It is really a touchy issue...

Anyway I think I am being stubborn about it and am not able to help it. So it would be great if you no more waste your energy in trying to persuade a stubborn like me...

Ramesh Balam

Ramesh Balam — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t think you are stubborn. Also, I am not persuading you for anything. If such impression has got created, that is erroneous. You have written an article in which you have given your views. I have commented upon it. Thats all. I think that’s fair. Hoswever, your tone appears to be restrictive; I said appears to be. Hence, I ignored it.

Michael C

Michael C — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

”Britishers”!! LOVE that word. I didn’t know that we British were called that in your country!!!

Just to say that, as a Britisher, I have always been aware of the barely contained ideological conflict going on in your country and those around it, without really finding out more, because we don’t get much news on it here in Europe. Your article though (and others, opposing your point of view, here at Instablogs) have kindled an interest in this (seemingly VERY) complex issue for me. Thanks very much and I have the impression that I’m going to learn stuff on your page....

Michael C

Arjun

Arjun — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I am grateful that you really liked it. And sorry if as a Briton, you are forced to hear the word ”Britishers”. We are more acquainted with it that Briton.

And I really don’t think that it is that much ideological, but just like how much opposition was there about Ireland and Scotland among Britons. If that was ideological that it surely is.

But it is not that much division as it was in France about Algeria.

Anyway I hope you find all the information you are looking for, especially the ideological ones

:)

Michael C

Michael C — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

No problem about ”Britishers”. Just liked the word, that’s all....

Ireland and Scotland? Do you have the rest of your life free lol? Because that’s how complicated it is.

You are right about the word ”ideological”. Is it all religious then? territorial? Historical? A mix of all three and others? I would be grateful for your point of view.

(Oh, and can I ask you to remember that I do not feel guilty for my forefathers’ mistakes, even if I am quite prepared to recognise them. I am NOT a self-flagellating-catholic-for-eternity-type. None of that was my fault and I’m not going to pay for it now. I just want to understand people’s points of view, without polemics).

As concerns the French and Algeria, I am not French, but having lived here a long time, and thus knowing more than just external ’theories’, I have my own idea, if you would like to read it.

Whereas the British didn’t really have much choice concerning the legitimate independence movement in your country (in a couple of words; too far, bankrupt economy, and a bit of good sense by some, despite the ruling military), in Algeria it was different.

The French had just suffered a humiliating war, and, because Algeria was just on the other side of a short stretch of water, they (disastrously of course) decided that putting down the ’rebellion’ would be a good and quick and easy way of

a) putting the country back on the world map, and

b) reassuring French opinion that France was ’doin’ ok!’.

They were horribly wrong of course.........and they have been suffering for this last-gasp attempt at colonial glory ever since.....

Have a good day Arjun,

Michael C

Arjun

Arjun — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Hey great opinion.

Firstly, I can’t assure you about polemics. Everything is always against somebody :)

Secondly I think your said reasons must be further points forcing Britons to continue colonizing India, but I believe that their choosing Labor Party over Churchill must be a deliberate choice, especially after getting a glimpse of what it means to live as a colony.

Algeria was really different case, but still people choosing to be jingoistic over being liberal or humane is a shame. Similarly here in India, people are ”nationalist” or ”patriotic” about Kashmir. Sadly it also being adjacent to India has been its mistake.

But we are really waiting for Stare and similar intelligentsia to come and evoke the human side of Indians. But it will be difficult as most Indians don’t like getting criticized or hearing a different viewpoint.

So I will put Kashmir to be a territorial issue two decades back, which has become a religious one.

Indians Muslims confusingly support or oppose Kashmir. Hindus see it as attempt of Pakistan, an Islamic country, to take over revered place of Hindus; which in reality was not 30-40 years ago.

So things are complex, and people’s oblivious attitude is shocking.

They say that Pakistan is funding terrorism, which it may be doing; but still they won’t see that majority don’t want to be with India. And it is really difficult to talk about it with a common Indian, who is full of his opinions about country being great by being as large as it can be.

So a lot of changes are needed before we can really develop int o a functioning democracy, where criticism can be accepted by common man.

Anyway will be having a good night ... :)

Dipti

Dipti — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The proposition of self-determination for Kashmiris is a very complicated..

You cannot just propose something so irrationa without ensuring that the method of resolving the Kashmir issue is fair.

Futhermore, I totallly agree with the ealier posters that your post is utter gibbrish! there is absolutely no comparision between Singapore and Kashmir..The political sutuation of both was different...!

Arjun

Arjun — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Deepti first of all thanks for comment...

Secondly .. I really don’t know why you find it irrational...

as i have mentioned in the post .. i think it is the most rational thing as a democratic nation for India to tke such measure...

And retorting to your point that there is no comparison .. i agree.. but as the saying goes that a river is never same ..as the water keeps on flowing down.... but still we keep on seeing it as the same river , don’t we?...

Similarly all i am saying is that as the first principle of democracy the people should have the right to decide.... and the people who think no country has done so... the example of your country is the best ... which was made against the ruler of the country...

and recently it has been done in Ireland, Scotland.... and all have known to exist happily with the new arrangement.

Of course my nation has taught me that everybdy is entitled to have his own opinions... but for sure i will love to discuss.. if you ever think myself worthy of putting any rational point..

Dipti

Dipti — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Ok I thought an ellaboration on why I think a plebiscite/referandum is irrational is as follows:

1) Kashmir is divided into three parts Muslim majority Kashmir valley, Hindu majority Jammu and Buddhist majority ladakh and leh..If a muslim majority(who make up the overall majority of Kashmir) population were asked where they want to stay ..their answer will probably be a free kashmir or Pakistan..But would this be really what the buddhist and hindu parts would want?There has to be a method whereby the three parts get a separate right to determine their fates..Moreoever stratigically speaking it would never be advicable for Kashmir to choose independence(just like the other princely states didn’t)...Because after so many years of turmoil and the fact that they are in such close proximity to India and Pakistan...Chaos has become perinial in kashmir...

2) In 1950 when the idea of a plebiscite was dropped by India it was done so because the Pakistan had not pulled out their militancy from the Kashmir valley...It is hard to determine who is a ”real kashmiri” in a place filled with infilteration.Furthermore it is only fair for India to expect a millitant free Kashmir before any such proceedings go on.

3)For such proceedings to go on you need a fair third party to ensure that elections go on in a fair and smooth manner...WHo could the third party be? USA??? Dont you think this would be the same hari singh episode all over again? where USA would support Indian politics because of it’s fear of the rising Chinese economy? UN? Well UN has tried it’s luck in Kashmir and the security council of UN is made of the Big five who are more likely to support India than Pakistan(for obv economic reasons)..

Dude, it all sounds good to philosophise that people need self-determination..The truth is : The world is not that simple...!For all you know you don’t have that right either...

Arjun

Arjun — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Most of what you have said is correct, but still should a ordinary Kashmiri should be deprived from his most fundamental right of deciding his own future on this basis?

Plebiscite idea came way before Kashmir issue. A pricely state, of Junagadh, has decided to go with Pakistan and had signed the accession. It was hindu majority ruled by Muslim King, and on this basis Patel sent the army and said that people will decide by refrendum/plebiscite that where they will go.

So Nehru had to say same thing for Kashmir which was Muslim majority and ruled by Hindu King.

And Plebiscite idea was dropped in 1948 in UN.

UN has been there but has not been allowed to do any investigations. Even the recent rally in Kashmir where more than a million people came together was to UN office to see what’s happening.

And militants are against the outer aggression, not against the people of state. DO check about militancy.

And again, even if what I am sayig is wrong i still feel as a democracy we should allow them to decide as Britishers allowed us Indians.

Arjun

Arjun — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I forget to answer about demography problem..

Nobody has said that Muslims are not going to allow them to survive... and we can allow them another option to decide if we are so worried.

About the sustainability of state, they can easliy sustain.. and if they face any problem they can decide for themsleves.. but it shoudl be they who are deciding .. not us .. who have nothing to lose.. except more an issue of ideals.. or patriotism..

what do you say ?

Dipti

Dipti — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I agree that they should be allowed to dtermine for themselves...

All I wanted to ask is : Just how ezactly do you propose so..?

Dipti

Dipti — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I agree that they should be allowed to dtermine for themselves...

All I wanted to ask is : Just how ezactly do you propose so..?

Dipti

Dipti — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Well,you aren’t exactly sticking to the point,but, I don’t agree that militancy is not against the people...

The Hindu pandits in the Kashmir valley had to evacute on the orders of the mullahs of the mosques...Atorcities are commited against them by these militancy...

And there is ample scholarly evidence to porve that the ”insurgency” in 1948,which porvoked Hari singh’s signature on the intrument of accession and the current mlitancy recieves high degree of support from the pakistani military and pakistani mosques...Infact groups like islamist groups like lakshar-e-toiba are very much a part of the All hurayat conference (under which such separatist groups operate)..

I will not deny the Indian tyranny on the region...I will not say that the indian millitary are innocent defenders..They are equally beastly with anyone who voices their opinions against the Indian stream of thought

All I am tryoing to say is that there are too many forces in Kashmir and kashmiris are pulled in many different direction...For the real ”will of the poeple” actually to gain any seeming attention in the politics of the Indian subcontinent

Dipti

Dipti — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

In my opinion your post is highly theoritical with little grounding on reality..Election inKashmir is not an easy porceeding...

Politics of the world is way to complicated to let it work that simplistically

Anyhoo...

Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I will agree with you that i am seeing it too simplistically. But I just feel to solve problems we may need to break it into simple small problems, so that they can be tackled.

And i also feel that once India allow Kashmir to decide for itself, Kashmir will stop seeing India as aggressor, and will lead to a more peaceful solution, why not what it may be

It is more like in my childhood i could anything if i have chosen it, but if anyone else has chosen that even chocolate didn’t tasted good. Maybe we never leave such thinking. what do u say ?

Dipti

Dipti — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Nope i don’t think your analogy has no relation with the Indian, Pakistani or Kashmiri perspective on Kashmir...

I think it would be proper analogy if you were stubborn child who held on to a chocolate even if it belonged to somoeone else..

And the basic problem is that the millitants, Pak govt and INdian govt deal with Kashmir in a very ”Real estate” manner..It’s a people problem...

And if this approach doesn’t change nothing will

A

Arjun

Arjun — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

have you been taught in America ? because double negative in India and UK is seen as positive... :-)

Anyway jokes apart... now again you are saying Kashmir doesn’t belong to Kashmiri’s ? And here i totally disagree with you.. Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris...

And yeah the problem is ”real estate ” problem, very well put ......

and by relinqushing its power on it.. India can help ....everybody...

but of course we both are entitled to our opinions.