Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Kashmir wants freedom

On a daily basis, people are dying in Kashmir.  These are ordinary people, civilians, young men, students, and boys.  These are not dreaded terrorists or militants.  These are not Pakistani infiltrators.  They are Kashmiri people living Kashmir.  And they are being shot dead by Indian armed forces, whose guns are bullets are paid for by my taxes. 

Yesterday, more than 15 Kashmiris were killed by Indian security forces taking the toll to 85 since June 2010.  The people came out defying curfew in almost all parts of Kashmir Valley, in Srinagar, Baramulla, Sopore, Anantnag, Pampore, Charar-e-Sharif, Budgam, Pulwama.  The message is clear.  Kashmiris seek freedom.  Freedom from Indians.

Indians are still thinking in half measures.  Some people believe that giving better jobs will solve this problem.  Others think that talking to Kashmiris will solve the problem.  Talking to them nicely is a first step.  What shall we do after that?  Talking nicely alone won’t help.  There have to be actions, concrete actions.  What are they?


Time for half measures is over.  We need to take a bold decision.  And unfortunately, that decision involves trifurcating the state, giving more autonomy to Kashmir, and may be complete freedom to Kashmir.

Some commenters have asked if majority of Kashmir wants freedom or if it is only small section of people.  Since we do not have referendum, we cannot say it with confidence.  For example, for many months Andhras kept saying that only few people in Telangana seek separate state whereas most Telanganas know that they want a separate state.   One Andhra politician went on to say that 83% of Telanganas want to remain in united state.  Telanganas completely disbelieve it and know that it is a blatant lie.  However many Andhras believed such statements for a long time.  That’s why they always thought that the current agitation is creation of few politicians.

Something similar is happening to Kashmir Muslims.  The people living there know what they want.  People outside the region have false perceptions.  The media which is mostly Indian wants to project an image which suggests that there are some people in the valley who want to be with India.  However, we can still infer lot of information from the available opinion polls. It’s easy to discredit them or punch holes.  But if you really want to understand the signs are out there.

 From Reuters 2007:

Nearly 90 percent of people living in Indian Kashmir's summer capital want their troubled and divided state to become an independent country, according to a poll in an Indian newspaper on Monday.
87% of people questioned in Srinagar have no allegiance to either side.  Only 3% percent of the mainly Muslim inhabitants of the city think Kashmir should become part of Pakistan, and 7% prefer Indian rule.
But down in Jammu, the state's mainly Hindu winter capital in the plains to the south, 95% think Kashmir should be part of India.

                87% in Kashmir Valley seek Independence.

84% in Kashmir Valley do NOT feel that a solution to the Kashmir problem exists within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
91% in Kashmir Valley do NOT want to be with India, with 72% seeking independence, and 19% seeking merger with Pakistan.

43% of entire J&K including POK favored independence.  [Note that this includes other regions like Jammu and Ladakh].

[Source for Image: THE HINDU]

111 comments:

  1. I like your general concept of freedom. It is the treatment of freedom of minority with equal dignity as that of majority majority. I agree with you on freedom for Kashmir, but how about Kashmiri pundits? I am equally pathetic about Godhra Muslims as I am pathetic to Kashmiri pundits.
    If Kashmir is liberated – it could take one of the two possible courses:
    1- Independent Muslim country.
    2- Merger with Pakistan.
    In both the cases, the plight of minority Hindus is imaginable. Is there any solution for that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Noam Chomsky.....Recall Orwell’s observations on the “indifference to reality” of the “nationalist,” who “not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but ... has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
    ( how patriotic Indians fell about Kashmiris getting killed.)

    History looks very different from the wrong end of the guns.( this partly accounts to the behaviour of mainstream Indians)

    government is not country so when a soldier who is sent to shoot people in Kashmir is saying he is fighting for country he is not, he is fighting for the corrupt govt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a child of the 80s. As if the horror of growing up with puffy hair, polka dots, padded shoulders, punk rock, Wham!, Madonna, Mithun-da and Bappi Lahiri was not enough, I had to deal with the additional burden of being a Kashmiri.

    But what does that even mean? 'Let Us Understand,' as my NCERT maths textbook used to say.

    We call ourselves Kashmiris because we can't say 'Jammu and Kashmiris' without sounding silly. Also, we speak Kashmiri. So that's our identity.

    I am now 28. Even today, each time I have to fill a form asking for my 'nationality', I hesitate before eventually writing 'Indian'. That's about 20 years of hesitating over the same point, because yes, even at 8, I knew something was rotten in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

    No one in Kashmir drills their children with 'Azaadi' mantras and anti-establishment behaviour. Somewhere between infancy and childhood, I had picked up unwittingly on what most of my family and people felt. Just like that it was part of me.

    I am from the Doda district of Jammu and Kashmir. Growing up I constantly felt the strong anti-India sentiment running throughout the region. India was personified in its heartless governance and its troops — far too many in civilian areas and in our daily lives for us to understand. I began to notice how my people were treated by the 'outsiders', the men in uniform, the army/CRPF/BSF/what-have-you. I saw family members, men especially, being picked on all the time. Women being subject to very unwelcome attention that we didn't like. There was a dark, dark period of disappearances, crackdowns, curfews, torture, deaths and misery.

    In these years I also saw the havoc wreaked by violent militants, mostly non-Kashmiris, whose scare tactics terrified naïve villagers (already bullied by troops) across the region. My house was burned down, relatives killed by these bearded mercenaries desecrating Islam and undermining the Kashmiri struggle in one blow.

    And the Kashmiri Pandit exodus — what a shameful tragedy. India and Pakistan played a huge, unforgivable part in this horrific episode as did those Kashmiris (Muslims and Pandits) who supported communalising the movement, either actively or under threat or coercion. All in all, it was a miserable time. Simultaneous with the misery though, there was a building anger. And I am a net result of that generation of anger.

    I was born and brought up in Dubai. We had a lot of family there as well as other Kashmiris, so it was a very typical Kashmiri upbringing. After Kashmir and Dubai, I have spent a major part of my life in Bangalore, studying, working, growing up and becoming the person I am today. My friends are all Indians, some from army families. They all respect that I have a different opinion from theirs.

    And where do I stand? I love India for its amazing history, culture, languages, geographies, colours, festivals, music, movies and even its accents — but this is the lovable face of India that it shows to its own people, not the India we see in Kashmir. No one respects India's freedom movement more than Kashmiris. What irks us is that while your Bhagat Singh is a 'shaheed' (martyr), while Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is a fierce nationalist, Kashmiris are to be typecast as violent troublemakers and written off for the same ideals and aspiration.

    (Sabbah Haji is based in Doda City and works with schools in Jammu and Kashmir. This is her idea of what it is to be a young Kashmiri.)

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/Are-we-ready-to-let-Kashmir-be/Article1-599030.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's the thing: I don't think of myself as an Indian. Or a Pakistani. It's as simple as that. You can't make me feel Indian. Pakistan can't make me feel Pakistani. It's what we call the bottom line — most Kashmiris really believe we are not part of either India or Pakistan. That is what the 'freedom movement' in Kashmir is all about. Everyone has heard stories of how Indian tourists in Kashmir are often asked by the locals, "Aap Hindustan se hain?" ("You from India?") Not in anger or anything, just a simple question, like they may ask foreign tourists, "Aap England se hain?" ("Are you from England?")

    Unlike the previous generation which took to guns, which fell for the easiest trick in the book — religious divide — this generation is different. We are educated, we have seen more, read more and certainly learnt from the blunders of the past.

    The Kashmiri Muslim-Kashmiri Pandit animosity has to end. India has to pull out its troops and do away with AFSPA, DAA and other exploitative laws. The security forces have to be made accountable for the scale of human tragedy they have unleashed in J&K for all these years.

    As to the Pakistan angle, my knowledge of Pakistan is merely bookish, with the exception of what I know of it from Pakistani friends growing up, or watching PTV and their excellent telly dramas. I have never been to Pakistan though I'd love to visit. I love their cricket team, which, looking at their form today is laughable. But really, that's about it. That's the extent of our attachment to Pakistan.

    One last point: The only place most Kashmiris can naturally come out to for studying or working is mainland India. So please don't make us justify that if we are so against India why do we come here. It's the same as asking me why I have an Indian passport. If there was an alternative I would probably take it. There isn't.

    Let it be understood that Kashmir's anti-India stance is not an automatic alignment with Pakistan. Please don't broadside the Kashmiri movement by throwing the accusation, "Pakistani!" in our faces. We do not accept it. A few might, but a few don't matter. And majority wins. This is where a referendum comes in. Give us our plebiscite, the one we were promised under the ruling of the United Nations. It's got something to do with the idea of 'democracy', an idea Indians are very proud of. Self-determination is what we want. Then let the chips fall where they may.


    (Sabbah Haji is based in Doda City and works with schools in Jammu and Kashmir. This is her idea of what it is to be a young Kashmiri.)

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/Are-we-ready-to-let-Kashmir-be/Article1-599030.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ms Haji,

    Its still not clear what you intend to convey. So Kashmir is not a part of India according to Kashmiris. So you drive out the Pandits and then say 'majority' dont want to be part of India. Good. People from North east also don't want to be part of India. Goans also dont want to be part of India.

    Kashmir cannot be an independent nation. It has to be a part of either India or Pakistan. It was always a part of the larger Indian sub-continent. What was Kashmir before the Invadors came to India?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aditya,

    How did Omar Abdullah get elected?
    Why are Kashmiris participating in the elections?

    Why are policemen shooting at Naxals?

    Somehow you appear to me like the misguided, brainwashed erstwhile RSU members.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @POK
    "Kashmir cannot be an independent nation"

    Why not?

    "It was always a part of the larger Indian sub-continent"

    So was Bangladesh

    India is commiting the same mistake in Kashmir valley what Pakistan did in Bangladesh

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://social.ndtv.com/tssudhir

    bhayya sujai.why dont write soemthing about this NDTV idiots ranting about Telangna.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "bhayya sujai.why dont write soemthing about this NDTV idiots ranting about Telangna."
    Why do you want Sujai to write,can't you do it yourself? Is Sujai a spokesman for T?Don't u have individuality?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Here's the thing: I don't think of myself as an Indian. Or a Pakistani. It's as simple as that. You can't make me feel Indian. Pakistan can't make me feel Pakistani. It's what we call the bottom line — most Kashmiris really believe we are not part of either India or Pakistan. That is what the 'freedom movement' in Kashmir is all about. Everyone has heard stories of how Indian tourists in Kashmir are often asked by the locals, "Aap Hindustan se hain?" ("You from India?") Not in anger or anything, just a simple question, like they may ask foreign tourists, "Aap England se hain?" ("Are you from England?") "

    Here's a nugget.Kashmir is just like Telangana.Even in Telangana we do the same.Maybe Telangana is ripe for showdown.

    ReplyDelete
  11. " I have spent a major part of my life in Bangalore, studying, working, growing up and becoming the person I am today. My friends are all Indians, some from army families. They all respect that I have a different opinion from theirs. "
    Who ever the reference is to.You spend your time in Bangalore and working and you have the audacity of calling your friends Indians.If you are bloody so fed up with India please take your life elsewhere.You can seek refuge status in some 'free' country. If your friends respect your opinions they are morons too. The Kashmir would prosper if that lousy 371 is scrapped.Why should they be any different from rest of India. The instrument of accession was signed and it stands.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Q: What's your view on the recent developments in Kashmir?

    A:Let me answer at length. I think the original mistake in relation to Jammu and Kashmir was committed immediately after Independence. Since then, Jammu and Kashmir is part of the unfinished agenda of Pakistan. The issue has emanated from Partition.

    Pakistan will never be reconciled with J&K's identity as an integral part of India . I think, India made three errors in 1947. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel handled the integration of India, except J&K. The same policy should have applied to J&K. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru handled the process of integrating J&K. His capacity was never questioned but he was a victim of his own mindset.

    Two, by accepting the proposal for a plebiscite and by going to United Nations, he allowed the J&K issue to be internationalised. Thirdly, by giving separate status also known as special status to J&K, Nehru prevented the psychological merger of J&K with the rest of India.

    History must make a correct judgement on Nehruvian policy regarding J&K. The journey of last 63 years has taken them from a separate state to separatism. The political and constitutional link between the state and the rest of country has been weakened.

    Unless we accept this harsh reality that -- the Nehruvian vision was faulty -- we can't prevent ourselves from making further errors. It has gone towards separatism due to wrong Indian vision at that time.

    Q:How do you view the demand for autonomy and azaadi?

    A:There are three set of demands. First is the National Conference version which wants autonomy plus pre-1953 status. If it is translated in simple language, they want a separate constitution, separate prime minister, separate supreme court and separate
    election commission. They don't want the jurisdiction of India's Supreme Court and Election Commission to be extended to the state. Second, the Peoples Democratic Party wants self-rule. The PDP wants to go beyond the National Conference. They want so
    much autonomy that it's just short of independence. They even seek applicability of dual currency in the Valley. The third group is the separatists who talk of azaadi.

    Now, in different shades the same Nehruvian mystique has been advanced that dilutes the political and constitutional link of J&K with India.

    Now, what are the lessons we learnt out of it? During Independence when they created the demand for plebiscite and you (Nehru's government) created a special status, you had a faint hope that, 'may be, azaadi is a distant dream'. Since this is a weak government at the Centre, the separatists think this government can be pushed. They think 'a distant dream' is realisable. They are saying it's realisable. If by pelting stones you can achieve autonomy, then the distance between autonomy and azaadi is just a stone's throw away.

    I have always seen a similarity of the issue with Stafford Cripps's mission in 1942. When Cripps offered dominion status under British rule, people criticised it but Gandhiji mockingly said that it's a post-dated cheque for Independence. I think unless the
    characters involved in the issue understand that this Nehruvian mindset has to go, things can't move rightly.

    Forget it, azaadi is an impossibility -- no state of India can dream of it. The government should work for the further integration of J&K. Should you work for integration of the state or should you further dilute its integration? I think the current situation is a combination of Nehru's faulty mindset and the fact that the Congress doesn't have the statesmanship to stand up and say that the Nehruvian vision was faulty. Today, in this old vision has entered the pseudo-secular concept that if you keep the link between J&K and India weak, then India is secular and if you fully integrate J&K into India then that act is not secular.

    (Jaitley, in an exclusive interview with rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Imagine if the Taliban give up arms and come on streets with only stones and demand law of shria to be implemented in Afghanistan. (Which would include cutting of hands and legs for stealing. death by stoning for adultery etc.) Will you support it just because major part of the population wants it? Kashmir does not belong to Kashimri muslims. Historically and culturally it has been am important part of India (read AL Basham's Wonder that was India or Romaila thapers's A History of India: Volume 1) But unfortunately from past 50 years politically it has been under a muslim majority government which has always viewed India as a Hindu state). We have made a mistake of dividing this country once in 1947 by creating a Theocratic state of Pakistan we should never repeate that mistake.
    Above all you should never forget that Sikhs wanted a khalistan but punjab is a prosperous state today. Yes it takes time and sometimes blood but a gretter good does exist.
    And to fully understand the problem I would recommend you too read following two links:
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/samar/A-night-without-end/Article1-582422.aspx

    speech/confession by Deputy Chief Minister Muzaffar Hussain Baig

    http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamCurrentAffairs_1.aspx?ArticleID=3117

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Sabbah Haji : "What irks us is that while your Bhagat Singh is a 'shaheed' (martyr), while Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is a fierce nationalist, Kashmiris are to be typecast as violent troublemakers and written off for the same ideals and aspiration."

    Subhash or Bhagat faught for the country against communal hipocracy spread by Fundamentalist right wing hindus and muslims. But Kashimiri muslims are hardcore fundamentalists (Incase you did not read the links I posted please do, also check up on the protests caused by alleged Quran burning)Unlike Subhash or Bhagat they don't want to unite the nation; they are self absorbed and want to create a an Islamic Republic by breaking this country.
    And the beauty of whole kahimir sepratist movement is that it is done under the Garb of Kashmiriyat. And how exactly Kashmiriyat exists without the inclusion of the rest of the country is beyond intelligence and rational.

    And please tell me where all this should stop. First we create a country based upon religion based divions (again create considering pakistanis already created), then region, then caste, then scoico-economic groups perhaps?
    How about an Independent Kashmir + khalistan + dalitstan + greater Nagaland + Tamil republic + etc. etc.
    There are always gazillion reasons to divide a country based on meaningless political agendas.
    The solution is not another nation!

    ReplyDelete
  15. As much as I agree with Ms.Haji, I worry that if we let go of Kashmir, the rogue elements in Pakistanan & Afghanistan will take over and therefore have very easy access to India.

    And someone here said we made a mistake of creating Pakistan, I'd say good riddance. We are a forward moving country and definitely don't need an additional burden.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ghalib:

    Imagine if the Taliban give up arms and come on streets with only stones and demand law of shria to be implemented in Afghanistan. (Which would include cutting of hands and legs for stealing. death by stoning for adultery etc.) Will you support it just because major part of the population wants it?

    Look, we are not talking about what kind of law they want to implement in Kashmir. May be, it will become Islamic state, may be it won’t. There are many Islamic countries on the planet already. There will be one more. May be Kashmir will become moderate. Who knows? Did every country that got rid of the colonial masters become successful secular democracies? Not really. Many new nations ended up as autocratic, communist, and Islamic. Out of British rule, India became a secular democracy, Pakistan became Islamic while Burma became autocratic. Is the type of future government a prerequisite to give freedoms? Not really.

    Kashmir does not belong to Kashimri muslims. Historically and culturally it has been am important part of India

    Does Afghanistan belong to India because some of Indian ruled that region? Does Pakistan and Bangladesh belong to India because some of the Indian kings ruled that region? And why should Tamil Nadu be part of India because no king who ruled New Delhi ruled Tamil Nadu?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous:

    As much as I agree with Ms.Haji, I worry that if we let go of Kashmir, the rogue elements in Pakistanan & Afghanistan will take over and therefore have very easy access to India.

    What easy access are you talking? Will Pakistan have easy access to India from Lahore through Amritsar or will it have easy access from Srinagar to Jammu? Look at the terrain and ask yourself which will be easier access?

    And also look at access Bangladesh has with India. Did that stop India from allowing East Pakistan?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ghalib:

    “One Man's Freedom Fighter is Another Man's Terrorist”, said someone.

    Bhagat Singh was a terrorist to British but a freedom fighter to us. So, is the same true of Kashmiris who fight for their freedom. They may be terrorists to us, but they are freedom fighters to Kashmiris. So, what does that make of us? British?

    Subhash or Bhagat faught for the country against communal hipocracy spread by Fundamentalist right wing hindus and muslims. But Kashimiri muslims are hardcore fundamentalists (Incase you did not read the links I posted please do, also check up on the protests caused by alleged Quran burning)

    So, we are now going into the personal ideologies to decide which terrorist/freedom fighter is better than the other? If that is case, Bhagat Singh et al believe in communist ideology which is nowadays called Maoism. Is Maoism better than Islamic fundamentalism? Don’t know. May be, maybe not. But does that mean we are now going to measure our freedom fighters differently compared to Kashmiri freedom fighters?

    Unlike Subhash or Bhagat they don't want to unite the nation; they are self absorbed and want to create a an Islamic Republic by breaking this country.

    Well, Subhash and Bhagat want to break out of the British Empire, which meant creating a new country for ourselves. The same is true of Kashmiris who want to break out of India so that they create a new country for themselves. I see similarities, not differences.

    And the beauty of whole kahimir sepratist movement is that it is done under the Garb of Kashmiriyat. And how exactly Kashmiriyat exists without the inclusion of the rest of the country is beyond intelligence and rational.

    Well, looks like your intelligence and rational requires a boost. Kashmiriyat exists independent of India. You don’t need Indianness to define Kashmiriyat. The same is true of Bengalis. Bengalis exists independent of India. They don’t need to be part of India to define themselves (for example, Bangladesh).

    And please tell me where all this should stop. First we create a country based upon religion based divions (again create considering pakistanis already created), then region, then caste, then scoico-economic groups perhaps?

    There is not stop to history. Are you expecting history to stop? Take a look at the map of any country, it kept on changing. If you ran the map of the world on a fast frame mode, you will see continuous change in the maps of the world. Nations evolve, take birth, die, grow, and shrink. Even the land on the planet doesn’t seem to be constant, it keeps changing shape.

    Look at the political map of India. It has undergone so many changes over the last two thousand years. It has never been constant. It shrank, it grew, it got deformed, it had holes everywhere, it unified, got divided. Only thing that has been constant was the change. We could be a mature nation if we embrace the inevitable changes instead of fighting them all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Q: What's your view on the recent developments in Kashmir?

    A:Let me answer at length. I think the original mistake in relation to Jammu and Kashmir was committed immediately after Independence. Since then, Jammu and Kashmir is part of the unfinished agenda of Pakistan. The issue has emanated from Partition.

    Pakistan will never be reconciled with J&K's identity as an integral part of India . I think, India made three errors in 1947. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel handled the integration of India, except J&K. The same policy should have applied to J&K. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru handled the process of integrating J&K. His capacity was never questioned but he was a victim of his own mindset.

    Two, by accepting the proposal for a plebiscite and by going to United Nations, he allowed the J&K issue to be internationalised. Thirdly, by giving separate status also known as special status to J&K, Nehru prevented the psychological merger of J&K with the rest of India.

    History must make a correct judgement on Nehruvian policy regarding J&K. The journey of last 63 years has taken them from a separate state to separatism. The political and constitutional link between the state and the rest of country has been weakened.

    Unless we accept this harsh reality that -- the Nehruvian vision was faulty -- we can't prevent ourselves from making further errors. It has gone towards separatism due to wrong Indian vision at that time.

    Q:How do you view the demand for autonomy and azaadi?

    A:There are three set of demands. First is the National Conference version which wants autonomy plus pre-1953 status. If it is translated in simple language, they want a separate constitution, separate prime minister, separate supreme court and separate
    election commission. They don't want the jurisdiction of India's Supreme Court and Election Commission to be extended to the state. Second, the Peoples Democratic Party wants self-rule. The PDP wants to go beyond the National Conference. They want so
    much autonomy that it's just short of independence. They even seek applicability of dual currency in the Valley. The third group is the separatists who talk of azaadi.

    Now, in different shades the same Nehruvian mystique has been advanced that dilutes the political and constitutional link of J&K with India.

    Now, what are the lessons we learnt out of it? During Independence when they created the demand for plebiscite and you (Nehru's government) created a special status, you had a faint hope that, 'may be, azaadi is a distant dream'. Since this is a weak government at the Centre, the separatists think this government can be pushed. They think 'a distant dream' is realisable. They are saying it's realisable. If by pelting stones you can achieve autonomy, then the distance between autonomy and azaadi is just a stone's throw away.

    I have always seen a similarity of the issue with Stafford Cripps's mission in 1942. When Cripps offered dominion status under British rule, people criticised it but Gandhiji mockingly said that it's a post-dated cheque for Independence. I think unless the
    characters involved in the issue understand that this Nehruvian mindset has to go, things can't move rightly.

    Forget it, azaadi is an impossibility -- no state of India can dream of it. The government should work for the further integration of J&K. Should you work for integration of the state or should you further dilute its integration? I think the current situation is a combination of Nehru's faulty mindset and the fact that the Congress doesn't have the statesmanship to stand up and say that the Nehruvian vision was faulty. Today, in this old vision has entered the pseudo-secular concept that if you keep the link between J&K and India weak, then India is secular and if you fully integrate J&K into India then that act is not secular.

    (Jaitley, in an exclusive interview with rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt)

    ReplyDelete
  20. My aim to raise taliban question was not to ask what will become of Kahmir. (my bad, should have used different example)
    Lets say all the Jats (majority of people in Harayana, hypothetically speaking) want same-gotra/same-village marriges to be declared illegal in harayna. In such a case you my friend being an Independent observer by your common sense and judgment would support it or go against. And add to that the Jats are as aggetated as kashmiris.
    Will you say- “what the heck let the Jats have what they want” Because a) majority wants it b) they are doing voilent aggetations and inturn CRPF is killing them.
    A discion is not based upon mobs view it is accompinied by raional and thought.

    As for Tamil nadu and rest of the south you have asked very pertinent question, which I think bothers most of the south indians. The problem is with our education system which teaches us a north baised nationalistic identity. (vey unfortunate)
    There is no king in the history who has ruled the Entir nation to its breath, which in simpleton language is India from the Himalaya to the southern seas. (except british and maurya, the first king of india, which only existed in theory prior to these guy)

    I don’t understand why we define India by who sits in Delhi. India is ruled by different empiers and dynsties in different combination throughout the history.
    Maurya Empire = whole india (which by the language of an historian includes pakistan +bangladesh) + afganistan – a little portion of Tamilnadu and kerala (but this little portion was a tributrty to maurya’s
    Rashtrakuta Empire = karnataka + some of tamilnadu + some of kerla + Maharashtra + MP
    Chola = most of south + orissa + WB + north east of india
    Sātavāhana Empire = AP +Maharashtra + MP + Some of Bihar
    List goes on…..

    Does Afghanistan belong to India because some of Indian ruled that region?
    --No it does not they were never a part of, either historically or politically defined india
    Does Pakistan and Bangladesh belong to India because some of the Indian kings ruled that region?
    ----historically yes even today, To say our ancestors from mohen-jodaro were pakistanis cause those cities are in pakistan would be …. A litlle stupid
    ---politically it did till 60 years ago but no more. (should we repeat the buffoonery NO)

    And why should Tamil Nadu be part of India because no king who ruled New Delhi ruled Tamil Nadu?
    --------Dude??? I have already answered this question (you are free to verify on wikipedia or the books I suggested before) And plese don’t act like India belongs to north indians or people who live in delhi.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ghalib:

    Lets say all the Jats (majority of people in Harayana, hypothetically speaking) want same-gotra/same-village marriges to be declared illegal in harayna. In such a case you my friend being an Independent observer by your common sense and judgment would support it or go against.

    You are mixing two things here. If Jats were to fight for a separate country based on certain perceived notions of persecution based in identity and if they are in majority in the region seeking a separate country, I may indeed support it.

    But if Jats, after forming that country, go about killing people because they happen to be from the same village, then I would criticize it. Criticizing them is different from denying them the freedom to form their own country.

    When you seek a separate country, you are not necessarily saying I will kill people if they marry within the same gotra. They are two independent things.

    Because a) majority wants it b)

    I discuss this at:
    When majority is not right
    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-majority-is-not-right.html

    Does Afghanistan belong to India because some of Indian ruled that region?
    --No it does not they were never a part of, either historically or politically defined india


    I am not sure if you would consider Maurya Empire Indian or not. If you do, here is a snippet from Wiki:

    The Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE). To the west, it reached beyond modern Pakistan, annexing Balochistan and much of what is now Afghanistan, including the modern Herat and Kandahar provinces.

    Does that mean we should lay claim to Afghanistan, the way we lay claim to Kashmir?

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1947:

    but how about Kashmiri pundits?

    Assume India does not create new and independent Kashmir and imagine it maintains the status quo, ruling that place with Army and bullets to keep the locals in check as it has done in the last twenty years. In that situation, would Pundits go back and live in Kashmir? Not really.

    I am not sure if creating a small haven for Pundits in the valley in the current situation is practically feasible.

    Now assume India does create a new and independent Kashmir. Kashmiri Pundits form a minority in the Kashmir Valley. It is up to the new and independent Kashmir to see how it wants to accommodate Kashmir Pundits. But the question remains: would Kashmiri Pundits move back to Kashmir if it is separated from India? I believe the new generation of Pundits who have made India their home may be reluctant to go and live in new Kashmir whereas some the older generations may think of living in new and independent Kashmir.

    So, it actually looks like there is more likelihood for Kashmiri Pundits to move back to Kashmir only in new and independent Kashmir than in the present Kashmir.

    What does it mean for Pundits? I believe it is a responsibility of India to absorb them and accommodate them the way they have absorbed so many Hindus migrating from the current Pakistan and Bangladesh during Partition. Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis, and so many other Hindus from these regions live in India now. India could compensate Pundits for the loss of property in Kashmir.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Q:What's your view on the recent developments in Kashmir?

    A:Let me answer at length. I think the original mistake in relation to Jammu and Kashmir was committed immediately after Independence. Since then, Jammu and Kashmir
    is part of the unfinished agenda of Pakistan. The issue has emanated from Partition.

    Pakistan will never be reconciled with J&K's identity as an integral part of India . I think, India made three errors in 1947. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel handled the integration of India, except J&K. The same policy should have applied to J&K. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru handled the process of integrating J&K. His capacity was never questioned but he was a victim of his own mindset.

    Two, by accepting the proposal for a plebiscite and by going to United Nations, he allowed the J&K issue to be internationalised. Thirdly, by giving separate status
    also known as special status to J&K, Nehru prevented the psychological merger of J&K
    with the rest of India.

    History must make a correct judgement on Nehruvian policy regarding J&K. The journey
    of last 63 years has taken them from a separate state to separatism. The political
    and constitutional link between the state and the rest of country has been weakened.

    Unless we accept this harsh reality that -- the Nehruvian vision was faulty -- we can't prevent ourselves from making further errors. It has gone towards separatism due to wrong Indian vision at that time.


    (Jaitley, in an exclusive interview with rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt)

    http://news.rediff.com/interview/2010/sep/09/interview-with-arun-jaitley-on-kashmir-issue.htm

    ReplyDelete
  26. Q:How do you view the demand for autonomy and azaadi?

    A:There are three set of demands. First is the National Conference version which wants autonomy plus pre-1953 status. If it is translated in simple language, they want a separate constitution, separate prime minister, separate supreme court and separate election commission. They don't want the jurisdiction of India's Supreme Court and Election Commission to be extended to the state. Second, the Peoples
    Democratic Party wants self-rule. The PDP wants to go beyond the National Conference. They want so much autonomy that it's just short of independence. They even seek applicability of dual currency in the Valley. The third group is the
    separatists who talk of azaadi.

    Now, in different shades the same Nehruvian mystique has been advanced that dilutes the political and constitutional link of J&K with India.

    Now, what are the lessons we learnt out of it? During Independence when they created
    the demand for plebiscite and you (Nehru's government) created a special status, you had a faint hope that, 'may be, azaadi is a distant dream'. Since this is a weak government at the Centre, the separatists think this government can be pushed. They think 'a distant dream' is realisable. They are saying it's realisable. If by
    pelting stones you can achieve autonomy, then the distance between autonomy and azaadi is just a stone's throw away.

    I have always seen a similarity of the issue with Stafford Cripps's mission in 1942. When Cripps offered dominion status under British rule, people criticised it but Gandhiji mockingly said that it's a post-dated cheque for Independence. I think unless the characters involved in the issue understand that this Nehruvian mindset has to go, things can't move rightly.

    Forget it, azaadi is an impossibility -- no state of India can dream of it. The government should work for the further integration of J&K. Should you work for integration of the state or should you further dilute its integration? I think the current situation is a combination of Nehru's faulty mindset and the fact that the Congress doesn't have the statesmanship to stand up and say that the Nehruvian
    vision was faulty. Today, in this old vision has entered the pseudo-secular concept that if you keep the link between J&K and India weak, then India is secular and if
    you fully integrate J&K into India then that act is not secular.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Q:What is the solution in the given situation?

    A:There is a two-fold solution. You must strengthen the security environment and you must allow normal political activities. If you dilute the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, if you say let the army presence be withdrawn from there, if you demand that policemen who are putting their life in the firing line should face inquiries, if you want to weaken the border so that infiltration should be legitimised and if you agree to return the cantonment land, then you are giving a signal to the separatists that you can be a push-over. Then, with some more pushes, they would start believing that they can reach their ultimate goal. This is completely unacceptable situation from the Indian point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Q:This sounds fine but why don't you see the ground reality in the Valley? India is living in a globalised world. More than 60 deaths can never be accepted. The over-emphasis on security is at the base of today's problem and here you are advocating more security measures.

    A:You will have to change the agenda in the environment where you are living. One, in this world no country negotiates its territory. The era of changing geographical boundaries is over. The (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee regime didn't have the majority to make several constitutional changes. But, one important factor which was a contribution of the Vajpayee regime, was that we stopped he internationalisation of the issue of J&K. We substituted it with cross-border terrorism. Nobody talked about 'Kashmir' in New Delhi . (The Pakistan) President Pervez Musharraf tried it in Agra and the talks failed. Your question speaks volumes of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Kashmir policy. This question means that we are afraid of world opinion and Kashmir is once again internationalised and nobody is talking about cross-border terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bhagat Singh was a terrorist to British but a freedom fighter to us……

    British did not give us free and fair elections? Did they?
    They did not spend 90,000 crore a year on us in loss? Did they
    If you really think kashmir is colony to India, then probably you are really clueless.
    I am not against agitation. I am against so called Independence because it is not the solution. The solution is to end AFSPA not just in kashmir but from our constitution.

    So, we are now going into the personal ideologies to decide which terrorist/freedom fighter is better than the other……….

    First of all it is not a freedom struggle… Kashmiri youth thinks they are fighting against a Hindu state. If you think India is a religiously biased Hindu state, then that’s your personal view And I can’t agree with it. Secondly yes sir it does boil down to Ideologies, that’s why I support naxals in Bihar but I don’t support Kashmir separatists. Every person who wants to create a rule according to his ideology is not a freedom fighter. OR ELSE, Taliban is a freedom fighter, heck man,,,ram sena is a freedom fighters movement THEY WANT TO CREATE A HINDU STATE TO SAVE US FROM TRECHOROUS SECULER STATE

    Well, Subhash and Bhagat want to break out of the British Empire, which meant creating a new country for ourselves………….

    Good point but are we like british? Are we doing an illegal occupation, if I go by your definition biharis are doing an illegal occupation in Maharashtra by staying in slums in Mumbai.

    Well, looks like your intelligence and rational requires a boost…….

    No sir it does not, ideologies of Bangladesh and Pakistan are a hoax. Bangli Identity requires existence of India I could explain you what robindranath thakur and bakimchndra wrote about bengali identity but it can’t be put in a paragraph. Unfortunately you will have read books for that not just magazines or newspaper. In short think of bengali identity to exist without the presence of Indian classical music , Indian literature, and Indian mythologies Indian religious movements such as , Jainism, Buddhism and you will find Bengali identity in wanting. (same applies to kashmiryat, and punjabiyat as well). As for Bangladesh, yes sir yes Bangladesh suffers from severe identity crisis.

    There is not stop to history. Are you expecting history to stop……………

    Well said my friend but you are forgetting that the maps of the world changed not because of people but because of kings and rulers and because of their greed and follies. The modern world is stable because of Democracy and in case of Kashmir the vote is of kashimri muslim v/s rest of the INDIA irrescpective of religion or region. Question is my dear child where do you stand?  The world is not gonna change the way it used to, after all thats the whole point of progress for humanity and society. To UNITE not break up in name of religion. But I guess your goal is to support anyone who shouts I want freedom even if he doesn’t know what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Q:This sounds fine but why don't you see the ground reality in the Valley? India is living in a globalised world. More than 60 deaths can never be accepted. The over-emphasis on security is at the base of today's problem and here you are advocating more security measures.

    A:You will have to change the agenda in the environment where you are living. One, in this world no country negotiates its territory. The era of changing geographical boundaries is over. The (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee regime didn't have the majority to make several constitutional changes. But, one important factor which was a contribution of the Vajpayee regime, was that we stopped he internationalisation of the issue of J&K. We substituted it with cross-border terrorism. Nobody talked about 'Kashmir' in New Delhi . (The Pakistan) President Pervez Musharraf tried it in Agra and the talks failed. Your question speaks volumes of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Kashmir policy. This question means that we are afraid of world opinion and Kashmir is once again internationalised and nobody is talking about cross-border terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Q:This sounds fine but why don't you see the ground reality in the Valley? India is living in a globalised world. More than 60 deaths can never be accepted. The over-emphasis on security is at the base of today's problem and here you are advocating more security measures.

    A:You will have to change the agenda in the environment where you are living. One, in this world no country negotiates its territory. The era of changing geographical boundaries is over. The (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee regime didn't have the majority to make several constitutional changes. But, one important factor which was a contribution of the Vajpayee regime, was that we stopped he internationalisation of the issue of J&K. We substituted it with cross-border terrorism. Nobody talked about 'Kashmir' in New Delhi . (The Pakistan) President Pervez Musharraf tried it in Agra and the talks failed. Your question speaks volumes of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Kashmir policy. This question means that we are afraid of world opinion and Kashmir is once again internationalised and nobody is talking about cross-border terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sujai,
    The interview of Arun Jaitley which appeared in rediff raises some serious points:

    1.If by pelting stones you can achieve autonomy, then the distance between autonomy and azaadi is just a stone's throw away.

    2.Can the tension be diluted if article 370 is withdrawn?

    3.azaadi is an impossibility -- no state of India can dream of it. .... Should you work for integration of the state or should you further dilute its integration?

    4. If you dilute the AFSPA.... then you are giving a signal to the separatists that you can be a push-over. Then, with some more pushes, they would start believing that they can reach their ultimate goal. This is completely unacceptable situation from the Indian point of view.

    5. in this world no country negotiates its territory. The era of changing geographical boundaries is over.

    6.we are afraid of world opinion and Kashmir is once again internationalised

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bhagat Singh was a terrorist to British but a freedom fighter to us……

    British did not give us free and fair elections? Did they?
    They did not spend 90,000 crore a year on us in loss? Did they
    If you really think kashmir is colony to India, then probably you are really clueless.
    I am not against agitation. I am against so called Independence because it is not the solution. The solution is to end AFSPA not just in kashmir but from our constitution.

    So, we are now going into the personal ideologies to decide which terrorist/freedom fighter is better than the other……….

    First of all it is not a freedom struggle… Kashmiri youth thinks they are fighting against a Hindu state. If you think India is a religiously biased Hindu state, then that’s your personal view And I can’t agree with it. Secondly yes sir it does boil down to Ideologies, that’s why I support naxals in Bihar but I don’t support Kashmir separatists. Every person who wants to create a rule according to his ideology is not a freedom fighter. OR ELSE, Taliban is a freedom fighter, heck man,,,ram sena is a freedom fighters movement THEY WANT TO CREATE A HINDU STATE TO SAVE US FROM TRECHOROUS SECULER STATE

    Well, Subhash and Bhagat want to break out of the British Empire, which meant creating a new country for ourselves………….

    Good point but are we like british? Are we doing an illegal occupation, if I go by your definition biharis are doing an illegal occupation in Maharashtra by staying in slums in Mumbai.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well, looks like your intelligence and rational requires a boost…….

    No sir it does not, ideologies of Bangladesh and Pakistan are a hoax. Bangli Identity requires existence of India I could explain you what robindranath thakur and bakimchndra wrote about bengali identity but it can’t be put in a paragraph. Unfortunately you will have read books for that not just magazines or newspaper. In short think of bengali identity to exist without the presence of Indian classical music , Indian literature, and Indian mythologies Indian religious movements such as , Jainism, Buddhism and you will find Bengali identity in wanting. (same applies to kashmiryat, and punjabiyat as well). As for Bangladesh, yes sir yes Bangladesh suffers from severe identity crisis.

    There is not stop to history. Are you expecting history to stop……………

    Well said my friend but you are forgetting that the maps of the world changed not because of people but because of kings and rulers and because of their greed and follies. The modern world is stable because of Democracy and in case of Kashmir the vote is of kashimri muslim v/s rest of the INDIA irrescpective of religion or region. Question is my dear child where do you stand?  The world is not gonna change the way it used to, after all thats the whole point of progress for humanity and society. To UNITE not break up in name of religion. But I guess your goal is to support anyone who shouts I want freedom even if he doesn’t know what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ghalib:

    No sir it does not, ideologies of Bangladesh and Pakistan are a hoax.

    Well, then hoax is a good enough reason for existence of so many countries. Would Pakistan and Bangladesh cease to exist if we were to theoretically prove that their ideologies are a hoax? Is that a good enough reason, ‘your ideology is hoax’, to deny a nation its freedom? Should we go and occupy these countries or dismantle them because we have proved their ideology to be a hoax?

    In short think of bengali identity to exist without the presence of Indian classical music , Indian literature, and Indian mythologies Indian religious movements such as , Jainism, Buddhism and you will find Bengali identity in wanting. (same applies to kashmiryat, and punjabiyat as well). As for Bangladesh, yes sir yes Bangladesh suffers from severe identity crisis.

    What about Luxembourg? What about Belgium, What about East Europe? Estonia, Latvia, Georgia? Monaco? What identity supports them without having to depend on other nations or civilizations? What about USA which derived so much Europe? What about South America? Where they speak European languages?

    Are you saying that these nations do not have a right to exist because they have linked histories and borrowed identities? Should every country be like India?

    The modern world is stable because of Democracy…

    And yet more than 50% of the nations are not democratic. And yet, we see creation of new countries – Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, East Timor, Djibouti, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Slovakia,…

    When did the world stop changing?

    and in case of Kashmir the vote is of kashimri muslim v/s rest of the INDIA irrescpective of religion or region.

    That way no country would get formed. There wouldn’t have been Pakistan, there wouldn’t have been East Timor. There wouldn’t have been Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, East Timor, Djibouti, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Slovakia,…

    Referendum, as recognized by UN, does not take into account ‘rest of the country’ to determine independence to a region. It is common sense.

    If we were to go with your logic, a majority would suppress minority forever.

    The world is not gonna change the way it used to, after all thats the whole point of progress for humanity and society.

    The whole point of progress of humanity and society doesn’t preclude change. In fact, it encourages it. More freedom to its people, and if that means creating new nations, so be it. And if you see the trend, that’s what happened exactly, creation of new nations.

    But I guess your goal is to support anyone who shouts I want freedom even if he doesn’t know what it means.

    It would be arrogance on my part to assume that other people don’t know what freedom is. Every human knows what freedom is. Indians knew what freedom was even though the British characterized us as uncivilized. Nelson Mandela knew freedom though he was African. People of East Timor know freedom. People of Djibouti know freedom too.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ghalib:

    British did not give us free and fair elections? Did they?

    Yes they did. They though those elections were free and fair. But we didn’t think they were. The ruler could think that they are holding free and fair elections. To know if they are indeed free and fair you should ask the ruled. You should ask Kashmiris and know if they think they were free and fair elections. There are some opinions available on this. You could take a look at them.
    [Indian leaders held office after getting elected during British rule.]
    They did not spend 90,000 crore a year on us in loss? Did they

    British spent more money than that to conquer lands and occupy them. 90,000 crore a year is being spent by India to keep continuing occupying Kashmir. This is not for benefit of Kashmiris but against their benefit.

    If you really think kashmir is colony to India, then probably you are really clueless.

    That does answer anything. Kashmiris think they are a colony to India, the way Indians thought they were colony to British.

    I am not against agitation. I am against so called Independence because it is not the solution.

    Well, if the agitation is for the Independence then you have to honor it. It is for Kashmiris to decide whether it is the solution or not. It was for Indians to decide if Independence was the solution. British tried various methods of giving us partial freedoms. That didn’t satisfy us. We wanted complete freedom.

    The solution is to end AFSPA not just in kashmir but from our constitution.

    That’s a first step. I would welcome it if it happens.

    First of all it is not a freedom struggle…

    It is for Kashmiris to decide if it is a freedom struggle or not. How can the ruler decide for the ruled if their fight is for the freedom?

    that’s why I support naxals in Bihar but I don’t support Kashmir separatists.

    Well, when it is for freedom, ideologies take a back seat – for me.

    Good point but are we like british?

    We don’t think we are like British. But Kashmiris think we are like British. You have to ask a woman if she is sexually harassed. If you ask men, they would all say that they don’t harass a woman. To know if indeed sexual harassment happened, you have to ask the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sujai,
    The interview of Arun Jaitley which appeared in rediff raises some serious points:

    1.If by pelting stones you can achieve autonomy, then the distance between autonomy and azaadi is just a stone's throw away.

    2.Can the tension be diluted if article 370 is withdrawn?

    3.azaadi is an impossibility -- no state of India can dream of it. .... Should you work for integration of the state or should you further dilute its integration?

    4. If you dilute the AFSPA.... then you are giving a signal to the separatists that you can be a push-over. Then, with some more pushes, they would start believing that they can reach their ultimate goal. This is completely unacceptable situation from the Indian point of view.

    5. in this world no country negotiates its territory. The era of changing geographical boundaries is over.

    6.we are afraid of world opinion and Kashmir is once again internationalised

    ReplyDelete
  38. UnitedIndia:

    1.If by pelting stones you can achieve autonomy, then the distance between autonomy and azaadi is just a stone's throw away.

    I didn’t understand this. Really.

    2.Can the tension be diluted if article 370 is withdrawn?

    I don’t think so. We are beyond all such measures. Those things will not bring Kashmiris closer to us. Were Indians happy with small measures of freedom Indians got from British?

    3.azaadi is an impossibility -- no state of India can dream of it. .... Should you work for integration of the state or should you further dilute its integration?

    Nothing is impossible. For a long time it looked like breaking British Empire was an impossibility. But eventually the impossibility happened. Freedom is not something that is prerogative of certain privileged. It has to be universal. Integration does not mean holding onto someone in your country at a gunpoint. That completely negates the very idea on which India got independence.

    4. If you dilute the AFSPA.... then you are giving a signal to the separatists that you can be a push-over. Then, with some more pushes, they would start believing that they can reach their ultimate goal. This is completely unacceptable situation from the Indian point of view.

    Well, in the whole process we are forgetting who we are. We are humans, who try to be humane. We are a nation borne out of lofty principles. We defended every freedom movement on this planet. So what went wrong? How did we become the very masters we toppled? Why are we talking this language? This is a language of imperialists. We don’t think we are imperialists. Then why such a language? Separatists are people with genuine aspirations. We need to learn to listen to them. We will become a mature nation then. Most probably we will anticipate disheartenment and take measures before each state wants to separate. We should not bully our states into submission. We should make them happy so that they continue to be in India.

    5. in this world no country negotiates its territory. The era of changing geographical boundaries is over.

    That’s wrong understanding of history. In the last 50 years, nearly 50 countries got created from existing ones. Each new country gets formed on territory that was part of another country before. Take a look at examples of countries formed in my comment above.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sujai, you have gone mad.

    Do you realize how many freedom movements they are in this region? It stretches from tibet to balochistan to nagalim.

    There are numerable ethic groups all around us who do not get along. All of them want their own country. Do you realize that this could start a domino effect? Telangana is within india so it doesn't matter on the whole but on a grand level, what your asking for is balkanization of the entire sub-continent.

    Partition of india-pakistan was already a mistake. The world looks at pakistanis as indians. It is just indians and the pakistanis who distinguish between each others. The world thinks india has ignored a part of it's own race by dividing it's own continent. Pakistan has been in peril since it's creation. Who's fault is that? They are our people. What do the british have to do with it? They are our own race and both countries are building nukes to exterminate each other.

    Even if the majority in kashmir want freedom, they do not necessarily become right. An independent kashmir will get it's ass kicked around by pakistan and china as it is happening to balochistan and tibet. Does kashmir have an army? An economy? Is the world obliged to provide security and financial assistance to kashmir?

    Sometimes short-term adharma is required for betterment of long-term dharma and vice versa.

    You are not an amateur. Use your fu@king head and think for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I guess we will have to agree to disagree with each other:)

    Your perception of world being a happy place is where, every person is allowed to define his identity even if stems from religious or regional prejudices (By which logic even NAZIS where right in what they did). By which even a nation can be subjugated.
    Where as I am a hard core believer of secular tolerant society which is not form on Theocratic principles.
    And whether you like it or not this so called freedom struggle is nothing more then Islamic fundamentalist crap. But as you have already said that makes no difference to your opinion and you consider the cause of freedom struggle to be secondary. And you only hold the mere fact that somebody wants a freedom to be primary objective worth attention there is no point in arguing with you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This blog is a work of a twisted mind. Even the Muslims in India don't entertain the idea of Kashmir separating from India. There has to be some political adjustment and populist schemes to wean the Muslims away from terrorism.
    Our great friend Sujai is silent on the Muslims in Telangana how they are subjected to brutalities .
    He says that his taxes are used in killing youth in Kashmir. A valid point. But how come he is silent on how my taxes are being wasted in Telangana. There is no administration every day we hear only about stone pelting. Now the bunch of Telangana elite want to celebrate the so called Liberation Day. They want to celebrate the triumph of Indian Army over the innocent Muslims and rake up the old wounds.
    There has to be an amicable solution to Kashmir issue.Change the govt there.Give jobs.the majority are just like the other Indian Muslims,misguided by hate mongers.Even in Hyderabad these clown head are wiping the passions to misguide the youth and derive some vicarious visceral pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @POK

    Yes the "kashmiris" voted and trusted Indian democracy , but we betrayed them squandering all their good will,coming to exodus of Pandits i have a simple question How come a large population of "sikhs" manage to leave unmolested in Kashmir if all the kashmiris are communalists, i think Pandits if they truely loved their motherland "Kashmir" could have chose to stay and fight back but they made a choice to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Sabbah Haji

    I have read a book in my 9th class some kind of book with historical pictures, There was a photo about rioting after bhagat singhs hanging and it refered to Bhagat Singh as a " Hindu Terrorist". So some people may call a person "terrorist" others may call the same person "freedom fighter" depends on ur narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  44. When “Andhrites” say Telengana didn’t suffer any injustice, It's not that people are lying. It's worse than that. It's internalized. You really believe the falsehoods you're producing. Like a well-run totalitarian society, or a well-run religious faith where people don't lie when they say there are miracles. They believe it. And people aren't lying when they say “Kalisi Untey Kaladhu Sukham”. It's just sort of driven into them that you don't question it even though the counter-evidence is right in your face.
    The powerful and privileged regard history as bunk. The victims do not have that luxury. Even if “andhra settlers” prefer to live in a comfortable state of denial, telenganites are well aware that for over half a century, that andhra’s are plundering the people of telengana.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I am not able to find a link between Kashmiris and Telanganites. How are their struggles related ?Are they fighting for a common goal? I am not understanding why citizens of same country are called as settlers ?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sujai you are such a sinner.how dare you talk against India.not only that,why do you have so much love for Kashmiris,explain please.Did you ever go there??

    you are a desadrohi

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sujai,

    Why should the Sikhs be denied their Khalistan.


    I am sorry to say this, but you are very naive in understanding human nature across the world. Please don't think the Kashmir issue is a simple one of Kashmiris wanting a separate nation. It has very deep inter - national, racial, religious subterfuge.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Aditya,

    The advocates are fighting today against the 'injustice' meted out to them in filling the posts of Govt Pleaders, Asst Pleaders and Standing Counsels.

    Now here are the statistics released by Geeta reddy. I am sure these can be easily verified by simply veryfying the actual people.

    Govt Pleaders: 18 out of 39 are from T

    Asst pleaders: 33 out of 72
    Standing counsels: 26 out of 59 filled so far.

    So what are the advocates fighting for?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jobanputra:
    I am not able to find a link between Kashmiris and Telanganites. How are their struggles related ?Are they fighting for a common goal?

    There is no link between Kashmiris and Telangana people. Their struggles are not related. They are not fighting for a common goal.

    I am not understanding why citizens of same country are called as settlers ?

    You can call people who have a started to live in a different land, 'outsiders', 'settlers', 'migrants' or 'settlers'. Or there could be any other term. That land could be within India, outside India, within your state or outside your state, within your region, or outside your region.

    We refer to people from outside the country as foreigners or immigrants.

    Such terms may not have negative connotations in normal situations but could take on a negative characterizations when people are pitted against each others.

    During a discussion, we tend to say, 'I am not from here'. That word 'here' is relative. It could mean I am not from Bangalore, not from Karnataka, not from India. It all depends on the context you are talking.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ghalib:

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree with each other:)

    Yes, lets agree to disagree.

    Your perception of world being a happy place is where, every person is allowed to define his identity even if stems from religious or regional prejudices (By which logic even NAZIS where right in what they did).

    Yes, I believe that freedom is paramount. Ideology is secondary. Without freedom, ideology has not meaning. When you refer to Nazis, please understand that you once again equating two different things. Germans who had Nazis amongst them and sympathized with Nazis became a free country even after WWII. They were not denied their freedom because they were Nazis. Only those Nazis who were culpable were indicted and punished according to the existing laws. Entire German nation was not put behind the bars, nor were they denied their freedoms. Allied forces did not occupy Germany to subjugate them even though they produced Nazis and many war crimes. They allowed Germans to have their freedoms but went about prosecuting only the criminals amongst those Germans.

    When we deny Kashmiris their freedom for their ideology we are not the same. We are holding the entire group for ransom by denying their freedoms on the pretext of differences over ideology.

    Where as I am a hard core believer of secular tolerant society which is not form on Theocratic principles.

    I am not sure if you would be interested, but I have my some views on secularism at:

    Religion Blinds
    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/religion-blinds.html

    Secularism Redefined
    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/secularism-redefined_19.html

    Secularism Redefined II
    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/secularism-redefined-ii_22.html

    Fighting fundamentalism with fundamentalism
    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/fighting-fundamentalism-with.html

    Secularism and Religious Identities I
    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/secularism-and-religious-identities-i.html

    Secularism and Religious Identities II
    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/secularism-and-religious-identities-ii.html

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sujai,

    In the context of Telangana/and the outcries of 'settlers leave', 'settlers grabbed our lands'

    What about children/grandchildren of these 'settlers' ? What about the children of people from Telangana, but who live in US/Bangalore - what are they called ?

    Who is qualified to call someone a settler and ask them to leave ? Is there a benchmark ?

    Being born in Telangana ? X years of living in Telangana ? Y generations of forefathers born/living in Telangana ? A Telangana culture test ?

    Before you say those who are not assimilated in our culture continue to be called 'settlers' - please note that cultures are not static - They evolve with the influx of people from outside, and with people who traveled elsewhere and bring with them new elements of culture ?

    -GlobalCitizen

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous:

    Even the Muslims in India don't entertain the idea of Kashmir separating from India.

    Why should only fellow Muslims fight for Muslims? Can’t Hindus fight for Kashmiris?

    Our great friend Sujai is silent on the Muslims in Telangana how they are subjected to brutalities .

    Can you suggest some methods to overcome this problem? I would be interested in hearing your views.

    But how come he is silent on how my taxes are being wasted in Telangana.

    Did I say someone is ‘wasting’ my taxes? Or did I say someone is using my tax money ‘to kill innocent people’? There is a difference between the two.

    Now the bunch of Telangana elite want to celebrate the so called Liberation Day. They want to celebrate the triumph of Indian Army over the innocent Muslims and rake up the old wounds.

    And there are bunch of Telangana elite opposing it. They would rather not call it ‘Liberation Day’.

    There has to be an amicable solution to Kashmir issue.

    What is amicable to Indians need not be amicable to Kashmiris.

    Change the govt there.

    We have done that too many times, so many times that Kashmiris lost faith in New Delhi.

    the majority are just like the other Indian Muslims,misguided by hate mongers. Even in Hyderabad these clown head are wiping the passions to misguide the youth and derive some vicarious visceral pleasure.

    I am not able to understand you. On one side you say: Our great friend Sujai is silent on the Muslims in Telangana how they are subjected to brutalities

    And then you say: the majority are just like the other Indian Muslims, misguided by hate mongers

    ReplyDelete
  53. GlobalCitizen:

    As I said earlier, certain terms are regularly used, ‘migrants’, ‘immigrants’, ‘outsiders’, ‘non-locals’, ‘settlers’, ‘foreigners’, ‘aliens’, ‘non-native’, etc. Sometimes these terms may take on negative characterization, as in those cases when people are pitted against each other. If the word ‘settler’ is no longer used, people would catch onto something else, but the meaning would still remain the same, ‘you are not from here’.

    There is a legal definition for a resident. But then people continue to look at different groups by their identities. Many Tamils live in Karnataka, but they are not called Kannadiga. They are still called Tamils. They have all the legal rights as any other Kannadiga, but they are identified differently.

    The current problem rises from changing the definitions of who can be called a resident. Earlier the time required to become a resident was 15 years and then it got changed to 3 years (I think), thereby making it easier from people of another region to get jobs in your region.

    Also, there were many malpractices, where people of Andhra region easily got the fake local certificates because there were Andhra officers in Telangana who freely distributed those passes with state government being a silent spectator.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anuj:

    Do you realize that this could start a domino effect?

    We have had many domino effects before. The people living in the countries which are free now would never regret the creation of their nations. They would not go back to being united with their erstwhile nations (there are minor exceptions).

    The first domino effect happened after WWI, when many nations got created in the Middle east after Ottoman Empire fell. The second happened after WWII, with end of colonial rule in Asia and Africa resulting in creation many nations across the world. That’s when India got created. Another happened after end of Cold War, when Soviet Union broke up, and later Europe created many nations.

    Sometimes it may result in domino effect. Sometimes it doesn’t. When East Timor was created out of Indonesia, the rest of Indonesia did not break up. It is still single nation. It depends on the drivers for such a breakup. Sometimes the rest of the nation can unite on the grievance or common problem. I believe that India is quite strong and vibrant and I don’t see a threat to its balkanization. I cannot think any state ready to secede from India except Northeast.

    Partition of india-pakistan was already a mistake.

    As Indian you may think it is a mistake. A Pakistani or Bangladeshi would not think that way.

    Even if the majority in kashmir want freedom, they do not necessarily become right.

    Freedom does not deal with what is right. Freedom is not measured as right or wrong. What they do with their freedom can be measured, but not the freedom by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  55. " They are still called Tamils. They have all the legal rights as any other Kannadiga, but they are identified differently. "
    But guys like you never believe such a thing exists right. That is the double standard. How can they have some 'legal right' while in Telangana people belonging to their own state are considered settlers and looters.
    "
    Also, there were many malpractices, where people of Andhra region easily got the fake local certificates because there were Andhra officers in Telangana who freely distributed those passes with state government being a silent spectator."
    Sujai ,I used to believe that though you appear a perfect ignoramus playing up to your biased mind I thought you had some insight into how things work.The above line exemplifies your knowledge or lack of it.
    Its not ask if somebody sits under a tree clutching the blank certificates and stamps them to the delight of Andhra folks in their favor.
    1.1 If he/she has studied in an Educational Institution or Educational Institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination as the case may be.

    1.2 Where, during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years in which he/she appeared, or first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination, he/she has not studied in any educational institutions, if he/she resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination in which he/she appeared, or first appeared, as the case may be.

    2. A candidate who is not regarded as local candidate under clause (1.1) above in relation to any local area shall

    2.1 If he/she studied in the educational institutions in the state for a period of not less than seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination as the case may be, be regarded as a local candidate in relation to

    i. Such local area where he/she studied for the maximum period out of period of seven years.

    ReplyDelete
  56. A person belongs to a local area (not Region mind you) if the above rules are met. The constitution doesn't allow for reservations to jobs or education based on Birth place, the reservations are applicable only on basis of where one studies.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous:

    Its not ask if somebody sits under a tree clutching the blank certificates and stamps them to the delight of Andhra folks in their favor.

    Read upon the agitation of ‘Gair Mulki Go back’.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sabbah Haji,

    What is your opinion about the protests in kashmir when the govt wanted to build facilities for the Amarnath pilgrims on 40 acres of land.

    And your opinion about the buildings, subsidy and other facilities created by the AP govt for those going to Haj.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Most stupid argumet given by you is since throughout the history new countries have been formed therefore it should continue.
    Thoughtout history women have been raped by men, but that logic does not point to the fact that it should continue to happen or we should support it?
    And yes breaking my country into pieces is rape of my nation.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous:
    Most stupid argumet given by you is since throughout the history new countries have been formed therefore it should continue.

    I didn't say that it SHOULD continue.

    To an assertion by a commenter that era of creating new countries is over, I said that evolution of nation is a continuous process.

    You have to seem my statements in the context, and hopefully you will understand them - avoiding you and me the trouble of making explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @POK

    So from now we should believe statistics given by politicians.
    Gheeta reddy gave wrong statistics thats why the agitation intensified.
    Ur arguments are similar to right wing nut jobs in US who cry about "welfarequeens" and "immigrants".

    ReplyDelete
  62. Sujai
    1.Times of India, Hindustan Times and many comments on this blog have raised a serious question: If we allow Kashmir to become a separate nation, then what? Kashmir has no Army, no economy of its own. Pakistan may take over it. At least Lashkar-e-taiba, Taliban and other terrorist groups will definitely make it their base. What will stop Srinagar to turn into another Kabul or Baghdad?
    We can't have another Iraq or Afganishtan in our backyard, can we?

    2.Khalistan is also a freedom movement.What's your take on it ?

    ReplyDelete
  63. UnitedIndian:

    If we allow Kashmir to become a separate nation, then what? Kashmir has no Army, no economy of its own. Pakistan may take over it.

    There are many ways of working this. Nepal has a small army. It cannot stand up to China or India if they decide to invade it. Bhutan has no army. And yet it remains an independent nation.

    If Pakistan wants to take over it, India could still intervene if it has a treaty with Kashmir.

    That's the only way small nations survive. Otherwise they would be overrun.

    At least Lashkar-e-taiba, Taliban and other terrorist groups will definitely make it their base. What will stop Srinagar to turn into another Kabul or Baghdad?

    That’s a speculation. There is a good reason to believe that once Kashmir is formed, there is no need for Kashmiris to rely on LeT or Taliban and hence the region will not be a haven for these foreign elements. Right now, Kashmiris tolerate the presence of these foreign elements only because they are united in their ire against India. Once Kashmir is formed, they will not have a united cause.

    2.Khalistan is also a freedom movement.What's your take on it ?

    Khalitan WAS a freedom movement. The fact that it became WAS is a good indication that even at the height of the movement, it was not a popular movement, but confined to certain sections only. Their affirmation of faith in Indian Constitution is now a good sign that India can tackle domestic problems with maturity. That is the belief I have in India which makes me say that we will not break up as a nation just because we let go of Kashmir.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sujai is not a fool or stupid or a moron. he is highly skilled and intelligentas we all know.
    Unfortunately, because he has to support a T state, he is being compelled to take stances on other issues like Kashmir etc. in the best interest of keeping these debates separate I think we should no interconnect them in our arguments.

    Let us debate these issues separately without linking them. Maybe Sujai should refrain from creating posts on these two subjects in sequence.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Khalistan WAS.....

    Kashmir may also become WAS in a few years. Why not?

    Aditya.....Please develop your own thinking on issues. Why do you keep referring to Noam Chomsky for everything. God gave you an equally smart brain. Don't become like the RSU guys who did things because that is what Marx or Kondapalli Seetharamiah wrote.

    The world is full of crooks. Adhibhatla Kailsam was a revolutionary who gave away his 400 acres to the Govt to join the Naxals. Right?.... How many talk about the fact that by doing so he saved the family from loosing the balance 1200 acres of his Ajjada Agraharam?

    ReplyDelete
  66. POK:

    Unfortunately, because he has to support a T state, he is being compelled to take stances on other issues like Kashmir etc. in the best interest of keeping these debates separate I think we should no interconnect them in our arguments.

    Don’t talk about subjects that you don’t know anything about.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Why Sujai,

    How is the Khalistan demand different from a Kashmir.

    ReplyDelete
  68. POK:

    How is the Khalistan demand different from a Kashmir.

    I cannot spoonfeed you. Please tell me why they are similar.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Sujai,

    You are the one who says they are different. We are eager to know how?

    To us lesser mortals, both are demands by a state in India to be an independent country.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @ POK
    How is the Khalistan demand different from a Kashmir.

    Nuvokka " charithra Heenudivi" , India did not give any "special status" to Khalistan or sign any "treaties" with them like they did in "Kashmir". U mortal Dumbass read some history before u make "godly" arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Aditya,

    Thank you. nice to meet people like you with your great communication skills. suggest you read things before commenting on them.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Sujai said...
    POK:
    What about Northeast?


    It raises more questions
    What about gorkha land?
    What about Dravidian movement few decades ago?
    Why Goa, Sikkim, Pondycherry merged with India?
    Is India a land grabber like Seemeandhra pettubadi darulu?
    ...
    goes on forever....
    What about Hyderabad as UT?
    Shall we have plebisite for this?

    ReplyDelete
  73. 1. Suppose the husband leaves his wife at her house immediately after marriage. He doesn't visit her in 10 years.Will it be of any surprise if the wife refuses to accept the man as her husband, doesn't feel any attachment, and demands a divorce?
    Something similar is happening in Kashmir valley. The new generation doesn't feel any love for India,they don't even feel Indian(as Ms.Haji stated in her article), and hence are demanding independence.
    Isn't the reason obvious? How many Gujratis, Marathis, Sikhs,Tamils or Bengali will you find in Srinagar?No wonder the Kashmiri kids and youth feel Kashmir is a separate country and demands it!
    Article 370 is creating a psychological barrier. It has stopped J&K from being integrated with India. It should be revoked.

    2.Suppose your hand(Kashmir) is wounded. First you apply a band-aid(Article 370).The wound keeps on deteriorating. Will you amputate your hand(grant independence) or treat it?

    3.Its wrong to compare this struggle with Indian freedom movement. India was a colony of British Empire -they were our rulers. Kashmiris, just like Tamils and Assamese and Gujratis, are and have always been Indians.And they have elected a Kashmiri as their CM. How can there be Freedom when there is no Bondage?

    4.Similarly Kashmir and Telengana are NOT same. Equating complexity of creation of a state of Telengana(which I totally support) with creation of a nation of Kashmir(which I totally oppose) is like equating treatment of headache with treatment of tumor, moreover, when there is no tumor in the first place.(That reminds me, was it Hillary Clinton who said Pakistan has become an "international migraine"?)

    5.The situation is not as bad as Pakistan-East Pakistan(Bangladesh) of 1971. Bangladesh was oppressed(like Telengana).Even states of USA have demanded independence. Where is the oppression in Kashmir? The presence of military is the classic chicken and egg problem. Should there be peace first or should the army leave first. I don’t think our soldiers get some sadistic pleasure in shooting Kashmiri kids and youths.

    6.Just because the Kashmiris deny it doesn't take way the fact that India has helped them. And occasionally they have also responded positively. The internationally praised free and fair elections of 2008 are proof of that.If majority of Kashmir valley wanted separation why were the elections a sucess?(You didn’t write any blog on that) What a shame that we frittered away that opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  74. 7.I don't know if Pakistan regrets partition as we do. But the seed of all current problem of Pakistan lies in Partition->hate India(because of J&K)->more hate because of Bangladesh(Musharraf and all current generals of ISI got commissioned around 1971)->finally creating the Frankenstein’s monster called terrorism which is now devouring its creator. All this could have been avoided if we had rejected Jinnah's demand.

    It is true that Indian government has misunderstood Kashmir. Even this new delegation leaving will listen Half, understand Quarter, think Zero, and react with Double force. But stupidities of a few lazy imbeciles shouldn’t lead us to commit an act which we regret till Infinity.

    If we let Kashmir go, the probability of headache snowballing into tumor is much more than the probability of headache vanishing. If history teaches us anything, we simply can't afford that risk ( Its not a Q of "national honor").

    8. Some random thoughts:
    a)Remove AFSPA from most places, keep it only where it is absolutely necessary.
    b)Remove Article 370.
    c)Provide Kashmiris with reservation for the next 30 years.If Gujjars and Jats can get reservation, why can't Kashmiris .
    d)Develop infrastructure which directly benefits the Kashmiris-schools,colleges,hospitals, maybe even IIT and IIM etc
    e)Many such effective suggestions are floating on the net,if only the government was open enough to consider them and active enough to implement them.

    If jews&Germans and whites&blacks can live harmoniously why can't Indians&Kashmiris?

    ReplyDelete
  75. I dont understand how their freedom is being hampered in any way.The only reason may be they want an Islamic nation.
    Im all for uniting people and cultures not for dividing them.
    If you look at History of splitting of nations into smaller nations you should not ignore the history of prevention of splitting of nations.
    I am talking about the American civil war- which was waged to prevent the breaking away of the southern slave states.

    ReplyDelete
  76. UnitedIndian:

    2.Suppose your hand(Kashmir) is wounded. First you apply a band-aid(Article 370).The wound keeps on deteriorating. Will you amputate your hand(grant independence) or treat it?

    Depends. There are cases where an affected hand is amputated so that it does not affect the rest of the body. But that analogy may not be the best. Because when the hand is amputated, it does not have a life on its own. Here Kashmir would like to have a life on its own. A better analogy would be that a son doesn’t want to live in a joint family. It is too simplistic to look at a country, especially a complex and eclectic collection of regions such as India, as a living human being. Does it mean it has an expiry date?

    The best analogy is to look at nations as evolving administrative units. That will help us in solving Kashmir more maturely.

    Kashmiris, just like Tamils and Assamese and Gujratis, are and have always been Indians.

    If you want to get into technicalities like that, you may discover that Kashmiris were NOT just like Tamils, Assamese or Gujaratis? Kashmiris had their own Prime Minister and own constitution, did Tamils, Assamese, Gujartis have one?

    And they have elected a Kashmiri as their CM. How can there be Freedom when there is no Bondage?

    Telanganas seek freedom though there is no bondage. It is simplistic argument to think that only slaves seek freedom. Estonia, Lithuania sought freedom even though they were not exactly the slaves. A region could see freedom from an administrative unit because it feels it is not represented well. That freedom could come various forms – as a new district, new state, or new country, or protections or safeguards.

    4.Similarly Kashmir and Telengana are NOT same. Equating complexity of creation of a state of Telengana(which I totally support) with creation of a nation of Kashmir(which I totally oppose)

    Why should one ‘totally support’ creation of a state, but ‘totally oppose’ creation of new nation?

    The presence of military is the classic chicken and egg problem. Should there be peace first or should the army leave first.

    It depends on how you want to look at it. Sometimes peace is achieved only when the oppressor or the ruler leaves, and till then the people continue to agitate.

    I don’t think our soldiers get some sadistic pleasure in shooting Kashmiri kids and youths.

    Well, then we could say that about any occupying army. But then reality is different.

    Just because the Kashmiris deny it doesn't take way the fact that India has helped them. And occasionally they have also responded positively. The internationally praised free and fair elections of 2008 are proof of that.

    Then the following is true too. Just because Indians deny it doesn’t take away the fact that British helped Indians. And Indians have occasionally responded positively. British held free and fair elections in 1937 and 1945 (or 46), and leaders like Nehru, Patel, etc, contested, won, and held offices.

    If majority of Kashmir valley wanted separation why were the elections a sucess?

    If majority of Indians wanted freedom why were the elections under British rule a success?

    ReplyDelete
  77. UnitedIndian:

    7.I don't know if Pakistan regrets partition as we do.

    They don’t. They hail the occasion as a great success and achievement. In fact, they continue to believe that life of Muslims in India is quite miserable and pathetic.

    All this could have been avoided if we had rejected Jinnah's demand.

    Or if India had not annexed Kashmir.

    If we let Kashmir go, the probability of headache snowballing into tumor is much more than the probability of headache vanishing.

    As long as we continue to treat India as a living being, we run into such situations where we will never be able to solve any problem politically.

    If jews&Germans and whites&blacks can live harmoniously why can't Indians&Kashmiris?

    There are hundred other examples, where the new countries would not go back to join the parent country. If everyone could live harmoniously with every other group then there would be only one country on the planet.

    Would East Timor like to be part of Indonesia?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Well said @UnitedIndian.

    I really like your point on Article 370. I feel it was real blunder.
    It prevented movment of people from both sides and there was never trust between people.

    Another point I would like to add one point.
    There are some sections in J&K that want to be with India, obviously Hindus want it.
    In such case how can somebody say it is wish of Kashmiri people?
    In 2008 separatist groups sould had participated elections.
    Had they got majority, they could have pressed for independence.
    How can be wishes of few people can be treated as wish of all people?


    There will always be a valid reason demanding any kind of separation, starting with divorce to splitting of nations.
    But it is not necessarily acceptable to all stake holders involved.

    People like Sujai want to enjoy ice-beds in heaven instead of hot plates in hell.
    But they fail to see multiple facets of problems.

    Kashimiris may want Islamic state but hate-India campagin was instigated and abetted by Pakistan.
    Given a chance they will align with Pakistan. In return Kashimiris will also be part of larger terror network.
    China which alleged to be already in PoK will also utilize the opportunity.

    How India should protect itself?

    In undereveloped countries lack of opportunity generates frustration.
    It can be used very easily to generate emotional issues.

    The so-called intellectual neo-liberals see Human Right voilations in everything and take sides.
    Today Indian muslims are dropping unjustifiable practices like 'Talak Talak Talak'.
    But these liberals are abetting all kinds of separations in the name of individual wishes and human rights.

    BTW, there is a common point between Kashimir and Telangana. Failure of integration.
    In first case Article 370 that prevented integration.
    In second case lack of interest.
    Kosta Seema people willingly moved to Telangana.
    But Telanganites want other regions to invite them.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Prabhakar:

    I really like your point on Article 370. I feel it was real blunder.

    Many Andhras think that Gentlemen’s Agreement was a blunder. But they don’t realize this that without that agreement Telangana wouldn’t have agreed to merge with Andhra State to form Andhra Pradesh. So, in retrospect these agreement may look like blunders, but you have to go read histories to understand why those agreements have come in place. Article 370 is not the key agreement between Kashmir and India. There were many other agreements that were broken.

    There are some sections in J&K that want to be with India, obviously Hindus want it.
    In such case how can somebody say it is wish of Kashmiri people?


    When we talk of Kashmir, we talk only of Kashmir valley. I am not referring to other regions of Jammu & Kashmir. I don’t think you have read the related posts on this topic on this blog.

    In 2008 separatist groups sould had participated elections.
    Had they got majority, they could have pressed for independence.


    What happened in the past when political parties pressed for more independence? Please read Kashmir’s history.

    How India should protect itself?

    The way it protects itself on the plains of Punjab and Bengal.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @Sujai...

    Depends. ....Here Kashmir would like to have a life on its own....
    However great an intellectual one cannot assert on somebody else's behalf.
    There was never a plebicite/referrendum conducted (I agree fault of Indian government).
    Will Pakistan encourage a debate for referrendum that includes PoK also?
    Are separatists ready for other sides also present the case of integration?
    Will they respect wishes of people who want to be with India.

    By and large you argue as if you are correct and knowledged above par.
    It is same case with Telangana. You talk about 4 crores Telangana people.
    But you say 50 lakh odd settlers are villains. You ignore wishes MIM repersenting 12% population of Telanagana.
    You do not even consider wishes of 80 Lakh Hyderabadis population that includes lkahs of people from various parts of the country.

    But you assert about wishes of Kashimiri people 1500 Km away from you.


    The best analogy is to look at nations as evolving administrative units. That will help us in solving Kashmir more maturely.
    Yest another arrogant usage of 'the best analogy'.


    If you want to get into technicalities like that, you may discover that Kashmiris were NOT just like Tamils, Assamese or Gujaratis? Kashmiris had their own Prime Minister and own constitution, did Tamils, Assamese, Gujartis have one?
    Silly counter arguments.
    500 odd princily states in India were independent before integration. Needless to say Hyderabad state being larget. You the great historian also should be knowing Tripura and Sikkim. For that matter Indian union itself is bogus grabbing each and every piece of land left behind by Europeans. Goa, Pondycherry etc. Lakshadweep and Andaman were developed by British. To my knowledge there was nothing 'Indian' about them. Then why India included them. North east another pain. Historically and religiously they have very little to do with India. They why did India include them?


    Telanganas seek freedom though there is no bondage. It is simplistic argument to think that only slaves seek freedom. ...
    It is even more simplistic to use word freedom at your convience. It will be foolish of me to tell you definitions. Yet I request you to see the link.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom


    Why should one ‘totally support’ creation of a state, but ‘totally oppose’ creation of new nation?
    Well UnitedIndian too wants ice-beds in heaven rather than hot plates. So he takes sides one or the other. Is rationale to take a stand is important?

    Well, then we could say that about any occupying army. But then reality is different.
    What is reality? Do you have durbhini of Nepali maaantrikudu(patalabharavi)?
    Army is meant to fight. Army excesses are never acceptable but unfortunately uncontrollable.
    Being well informed, you must have heard the high-handedness of contonments in cities (recently a youth was killed in Vizag by Navy).
    Should we consider them as oppressing freedom of locals?


    Then the following is true too. Just because Indians deny it doesn’t take away ...
    Yet another counter argument for the sake of argument.
    I suggest you read Raavi Narayana Reddy' speech to understand situation in 1941.
    http://www.2shared.com/document/mma_BwWM/nizamrastaastama021857mbp.html



    They don’t. They hail the occasion as a great success and achievement.
    Can't you understand how Pakistan is controlled by Taliban, Terrorists and anti-India elements?
    But I can understand your empathy with them being yet another hate-monger.

    ReplyDelete
  81. What happened in the past when political parties pressed for more independence? Please read Kashmir’s history.

    Do not drift from freedom to more independence.
    Please show me a single resolution in Kashmir assmebly that demanded freedom.

    Anyway, you intellectuals will be cryptic. But expect we mortals to be explcit. Here is my stand. The Indian government and congress party in particular handled the Kashmir in very clumsy way.
    OK do not pounce on me. We both are equally blamable for acts or our givernment (as you say in case of Andhras).
    But simply giving away for some fault is too much of poetic justice.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Prabhakar:

    Will they respect wishes of people who want to be with India.

    It will be based on how India goes about tackling this. If India trifurcates the state before talking about freedom to Kashmir then the wishes of those people who want to be with India can be easily satisfied.

    By and large you argue as if you are correct and knowledged above par.

    Look, I didn’t come to your blog and put my views on it. You came to my blog and wrote something to which I answered. If you don’t want to be answered do let me know. I would not waste my time.

    You ignore wishes MIM repersenting 12% population of Telanagana.

    We don’t want to ignore the wishes of MIM. They could go ahead and carve out their old city into a new state.

    You do not even consider wishes of 80 Lakh Hyderabadis population that includes lkahs of people from various parts of the country.

    I think I wrote elaborately on the topic of cities and why the immigrants should not wean away the cities from the regions. But that does not mean I will not support Rayalaseema if they want to break away. If things don’t work out and North Telangana wants to separate I wouldn’t oppose it. I may even support it. I believe that ‘immigrants flooding Bangalore and then weaning it away from Karnataka’ does not make sense. That would deter states from building cities and inviting immigrants. That’s my opinion. There are hundreds of commenters who do not agree with me on this. You are one new one.

    recently a youth was killed in Vizag by Navy). Should we consider them as oppressing freedom of locals?

    We want to be able to prosecute that Navy person without ASFSA protecting him.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Prabhakar:

    Do not drift from freedom to more independence.
    Please show me a single resolution in Kashmir assmebly that demanded freedom.


    I said, 'more independence'. May be I should have said more autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "If you don't like change the channel using your remote."
    Yet another evasive talk of neo-liberals. Say you own a house and gather a group of people and spread good or bad among them. I do not have any right to question you. But you are conducting hate-campaign against a section and this material is accessible to everybody. You know very well the impact of it on common reader like me.
    Since you are interested in anologies I would like to compare your blog to that of Boforce case.
    After 1977 indian political system was de-stablized on Bofors case.
    What happened in the end? Rajiv Gandhi exonerated posthumously not a single person was punished.
    I do not care whether there was corruption are not or who gained and who lost. But the effect on Indian was bad.
    All this was due to blowing things out of proportion and sowing doubt and hatred in common man's mind.


    Just becuase you 'own' this blog you cannot shun your social responsibility.
    Had you printed and circulated the same opinion in Telangana things could have been different.
    But you chose to blame an entire group in front of the world.
    This will leave a dark spot in history of Telugus.
    Who will bother even if you change your opinion about Andhras at later point of time?

    ReplyDelete
  85. "If you don't like change the channel using your remote."
    Yet another evasive talk of neo-liberals. Say you own a house and gather a group of people and spread good or bad among them. I do not have any right to question you. But you are conducting hate-campaign against a section and this material is accessible to everybody. You know very well the impact of it on common reader like me.
    Since you are interested in anologies I would like to compare your blog to that of Boforce case.
    After 1977 indian political system was de-stablized on Bofors case.
    What happened in the end? Rajiv Gandhi exonerated posthumously not a single person was punished.
    I do not care whether there was corruption are not or who gained and who lost. But the effect on Indian was bad.
    All this was due to blowing things out of proportion and sowing doubt and hatred in common man's mind.


    Just becuase you 'own' this blog you cannot shun your social responsibility.
    Had you printed and circulated the same opinion in Telangana things could have been different.
    But you chose to blame an entire group in front of the world.
    This will leave a dark spot in history of Telugus.
    Who will bother even if you change your opinion about Andhras at later point of time?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Prabhakar:

    Just becuase you 'own' this blog you cannot shun your social responsibility… But you chose to blame an entire group in front of the world. This will leave a dark spot in history of Telugus. Who will bother even if you change your opinion about Andhras at later point of time?

    Good to hear of ‘social responsibility’ for the first time from an Andhra commenter. Let’s start with that. As I said earlier, we are ready to abandon our struggle for separate state provided you take the steps towards reconciliation. What are those steps from your side? I would like to hear them. What would you like to do to impress upon Telanganas to continue staying in the united state?

    Nobody from Seemandhra had the courage to admit their guilt so far. How can we talk about reconciliation if you do not even admit the wrongs that have happened in this state? I wrote this in “Telangana XIII: Let’s stay United!” at http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/telangana-xiii-lets-stay-united.html

    How come no steps were taken up by Andhras to restore the confidence of Telangana? Why doesn’t a single leader or commenter from Andhra ever talk of implementing GO 610 as a first step towards reconciliation? Why don’t they go ahead and give the funds for irrigation projects in Telangana? Instead of taking steps towards reconciliation, Andhras are bent on speeding up the projects in Andhra before the state gets divided? How will such steps restore confidence?

    We have every right to express our anger against all Andhras because they stand united today behind their elected leaders in their opposition to the formation of Telangana.

    You think it is a hate-campaign, whereas I think it is a campaign of social responsibility. There is no greater fight than fight for your own people. It’s a shame if someone from Telangana does not stand up today to fight for his people. It’s like not participating in India’s freedom struggle against British. When we went about telling the Indians how British have wronged us, I would call it awareness campaign, a campaign to let your people know why we are in this position, why we don’t get our water, why we are ridiculed, why we have lost our jobs, why we are made to feel inferior. And in the process if we have to give details of who are the oppressors, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. If someone is fighting for the rights of Black people, it is hard to describe what the injustices are without referring to the Whites.

    While we are expressing anger against Andhras, are you keeping mum? Aren’t you consistently describing us as lazy, drunkards, unemployed, speaking a lowly and bastardized language? Those words are also out there for the world to see. I am completely OK with that. You do your campaign on maligning us, our movement, and our leaders, while we will continue to expose the injustices done to Telangana.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Have you read"ARMY IS NOT THE ENEMY" by M J Akbar and "MUMBAI IS MARGINALIZING MUSLIMS" by Shobhaa De in todays Times Of India?(They are not related)

    ReplyDelete
  88. 1.Dalits were(and continue to be)oppressed in India, much more than muslims, and present day Kashmir valley muslims.Ambedkar could have asked for a DALITSTAN, which would have made much more sense than a Pakistan. Most of the upper caste hindus would probably have agreed. But he opted for reservation. In the long run who proved to be more wise-Ambedkar, or Jinnah? Who do you think have hope of a brighter future-Pakistanis, or Indian dalits? Also, if today Mayavati
    demands a Dalitstan, will she get any support.OTOH, there is a high chance that she may become PM, something unthinkable hundred years ago.

    Same with Manmohan Singh. As Khushwant singh remarked, who would have thought that after 1984 massacre of Sikhs and the bloody Khalistani movement we will have a Sikh as our PM

    Similarly if blacks had demanded and got a separate country, would USA have got Obama?

    Even deep, historical wounds can be cured.Short-term disadvantages lead to long-term gains .

    Alas, Kashmir doesn't have an Ambedkar, a Mandela, or a Martin Luther King Jr.

    2.I don't think you have paid enough attention to the possible danger of independent Kashmir.What will stop north-east to demand a separate country five years from now if Kashmir is creahted. What will stop Maoists from creating their own country near Nepal border a decade from now. Did Advani thought that his Rath Yatra would lead to Babri demolition->Bombay riots->1993 Bomb blasts and finally 2002 Gujrat riots? Independent Kashmir, in all possiblity, will open a Pandora's box.

    3."We want to be able to prosecute that Navy person without ASFSA protecting him."

    The 101 deaths in the last 100 were caused by Kashmiri Police and CRPF, not by army.

    If Delhi demilitarises, makes its street manners humane, repeals oppressive laws, that will definitely be a beginning

    "A region could see freedom from an administrative unit because it feels it is not represented well. That freedom could come various forms – as a new district, new state, or new country, or protections or safeguards."

    So there are always options-for example reservation for Kashmiri muslims can be a possible solution for representation.

    4. I am posting parts of comments of Chidambaram and Vir Sanghvi which appeared in today's HT-so that readers can get a view of the government and the media.

    You are beginning to sound like Jinnah. Why do you keep on insisting that separation is the ONLY solution?

    ReplyDelete
  89. 1.Dalits were(and continue to be)oppressed in India, much more than muslims, and present day Kashmir valley muslims. Ambedkar could have asked for a DALITSTAN, which would have made much more sense than a Pakistan. Most of the upper caste hindus would probably have agreed. But he opted for reservation. In the long run who proved to be more wise-Ambedkar, or Jinnah? Who do you think have hope of a brighter future-Pakistanis, or Indian dalits? Also, if today Mayavati demands a Dalitstan, will she get any support? OTOH, there is a high chance that she may become PM, something unthinkable hundred years ago.
    Same with Manmohan Singh. As Khushwant singh remarked, who would have thought that after 1984 massacre of Sikhs and the bloody Khalistani movement we will have a Sikh as our PM
    Similarly if blacks had demanded and got a separate country, would USA have got Obama?
    Even deep, historical wounds can be cured.Short-term disadvantages lead to long-term gains.
    Alas, Kashmir doesn't have an Ambedkar, a Mandela, or a Martin Luther King Jr.
    2.I don't think you have paid enough attention to the possible danger of independent Kashmir.What will stop north-east to demand a separate country five years from now if Kashmir is created? What will stop Maoists from creating their own country near Nepal border a decade from now? Did Advani thought that his Rath Yatra would lead to Babri demolition->Bombay riots->1993 Bomb blasts and finally 2002 Gujrat riots? Independent Kashmir, in all possiblity, will open a Pandora's box.
    3."We want to be able to prosecute that Navy person without ASFSA protecting him."
    The 101 deaths in the last 100 days were caused by Kashmiri Police and CRPF, not by army.
    If Delhi demilitarises, makes its street manners humane, repeals oppressive laws, that will definitely be a beginning
    "A region could see freedom from an administrative unit because it feels it is not represented well. That freedom could come various forms – as a new district, new state, or new country, or protections or safeguards."
    So there are always options-for example reservation for Kashmiri muslims can be a possible solution for representation.
    4. I am posting parts of comments of Chidambaram and Vir Sanghvi which appeared in today's HT-so that readers can get a view of the government and the media.
    You are beginning to sound like Jinnah. Why do you keep on insisting that separation is the ONLY solution?

    ReplyDelete
  90. 1.My message to Kashmir’s youth: Be part of the India story. Your future is secure in India. You can build a vibrant and prosperous Jammu and Kashmir, as a part of India.

    2.Over the years, several promises have been made to the people of J&K and we should act on those promises. Based on the agreements and accords of 1952 (Delhi Agreement), 1975 (Sheikh-Indira Accord), 1986 (Rajiv-Farooq Accord) we must address these promises.

    3.Any promises made based on 1952, 1975 and 1986 agreements can be considered. The plebiscite is history. Much has changed since. We have to look at things as they are now, not rake up the past, if we are to move ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  91. UnitedIndian:

    Ambedkar could have asked for a DALITSTAN,

    There was a very good reason why Ambedkar did not ask for Dalitstan. He was a smart man. He knew the exact reasons why Pakistan was a practical feasibility but not a Dalitstan. When Pakistan was created, it was already very well known that there were certain geographical areas where Muslims were in great majority. So, when the idea of Pakistan was becoming a realistic idea, most leaders knew which geographical areas they would be. Muslim League members won in those areas and hence were known as Muslims bastions. Geographical separation was the key.

    One could not have done the same for Dalits. That’s why Ambedkar did not ask for Dalitstan. If we realize one day that women are discriminated against, no sensible person would ask for womenistan.

    What will stop north-east to demand a separate country five years from now if Kashmir is created?

    What is happening in Northeast is independent of events unfolding in Kashmir. The demands for separate nations already exist in Northeast for quite long time now. And our current policies will decide the fate, and I think it is obvious in which direction we are leading.

    What will stop Maoists from creating their own country near Nepal border a decade from now?

    Nothing stops from anyone from creating a new nation out of India. It is up to the current set of Indians how they are going to treat each of its people. Only discontented, distraught, disillusioned people would seek freedom from a modern secular democracy. We have to routinely check ourselves whether we are doing a good job. For example, we continue to completely neglect the Northeast even now. It is a ticking time bomb. Let’s not express surprise when it comes losing Northeast.

    ReplyDelete
  92. 1.Why do the Kashmiris hate us so much? What harm have we ever done them?

    2.We recognize that it must be hell to live with a constant military presence in a state where citizens are subject to random police checks and where curfew is a regular occurrence. Though few of us say this openly very often, most of us are intensely embarrassed by the stories of human rights abuses and the allegations about the use of excessive force by soldiers. Some of these allegations may be fabricated. But equally, some of them must be true. And for every human rights abuse, every Indian must hang his head in shame. This is not the Indian way. And this is not what our country is about.


    3.But equally, most of us would argue that the military presence is a response to a violent insurrection against the Indian state. Till 1989, Kashmir did not have such a strong military presence. The army went in only after the violence increased, after key leaders were assassinated, after kidnappings became a regular occurrence, after jihadis thronged to Kashmir from across the border and after arson became an acceptable form of political protest. Violence begets violence. If you declare war on the Indian state, the state is not going to roll over and let you tickle its stomach. It is obliged to fight back and to assert both its authority and the rule of law.

    4.Most Indians would love to see the army withdrawn from Kashmir. Indian soldiers have no particular desire to lay their lives on the line and India has many other uses for the hundreds of crores we spend on police in Kashmir. But each time we talk of reducing the army presence or of amending AFSPA, the violence actually seems to increase. There is no evidence that a reduction in the military presence will be greeted by a similar reduction in the level of militant violence.

    5.Further, we argue, Kashmiris have the same democratic rights as other Indians. Even if you accept that elections were rigged in the past, that has not been true for several years. The PDP government was legitimately elected and so is the current National Conference regime. Moreover, Kashmiris have many rights (through Article 370) that Indians who reside in other parts of the country do not have.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @sujai
    sometime back i read an article in am magazine wich states that the money generated in kashmir is not even sufficient to pay even 50% of the state govt employees salary, leave alone developmental activites.
    rest comes from central govt funds in which tax payers like u and me have a share.
    in lasy 20 yrs, govt of INdia has given more than rs 1 laksh crores to j&k.
    isnt it unfair that the people who are the beneficiaries from the income of rest of India want to seperate from that country

    ReplyDelete
  94. 6. a)Who in his right mind would want union with today’s troubled Pakistan? Who wouldn’t prefer India’s success story to the Pakistani saga of national collapse? Nor does Pakistan have any record of treating its non-Punjabi minorities well. Bangladesh seceded after the Pakistani army launched genocide. The Baluchs were massacred by the same army. And POK is hardly a shining advertisement for the virtues of Pakistani citizenship.

    b)Some Kashmiris say they want independence from both India and Pakistan. But it is staggeringly obvious that an independent state of Kashmir, with no industry to speak of, would last for 15 minutes without subsidies from India or Pakistan. Worse still, such a state would probably be run according to strict Shariat law, denying rights to women and offering safe haven to the world’s jehadis. You would have to be very naive to believe that the US or any great power would support the creation of such a state.

    (Yes Sujai, you will probably counter it with your Churchill-on –India logic. But a)Churchill was British .Do you think Chidmbaram and Manmohan Singh belong in the same category? b)Churchill was responsible for death of 3 million Indians in Bengal famine during 2nd WW, as a new book claims. Whereas)

    7.Except for the army presence the average Kashmiri has the same deal as every other Indian except perhaps that the Indian state spends more money on him. Per capita expenditure on each Kashmiri is vastly greater than Delhi’s per capita expenditure on, say, the average Bihari.

    8.So, why then are Kashmiris destroying their future in a mad and pointless insurrection? …we suspect that it might have to do with religion….clearly, religion matters more to the separatists than anything else. The state has three parts, all of which get the same deal from the Centre. But it is only in the Valley, which is nearly all Muslim (after the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits) that secession finds many takers. This single-minded pursuit of an Islamic future sets Kashmiri separatists apart from Indian Muslims who have accepted a secular polity and feel no particular kinship with their Kashmiri brethren’s political demands.

    9.Kashmiri secessionism flows from an Islamist ideology…many of us are now so fed up that we would be happy to be rid of the Kashmiri separatists and their problems but for our fears for the future of Indian secularism.

    10.At some level, we wonder if this would not be a Second Partition and we are afraid of what Kashmir’s secession would mean for India’s thriving Muslim minority.

    11.A desire to protect Indian secularism … allows the separatists to tell the world that India is full of chauvinist Hindus who send their armies to attack Kashmiri Muslims and hang on to a country that is not theirs.

    12.It is an old lie. It is a variation of the same untruth that the Muslim League spread in the run-up to Partition. Indian secularism survived that lie. And I have no doubt that however much the Kashmiri separatists may caricature our position now, both India and its secularism will eventually triumph again.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous:

    in lasy 20 yrs, govt of INdia has given more than rs 1 laksh crores to j&k.
    isnt it unfair that the people who are the beneficiaries from the income of rest of India want to seperate from that country


    If Kashmiris agree not take this money, would India let them go? Is it that Kashmiris ask for this money? Or does India spend this money to continue its occupation?

    Can USA tell Iraq that it is being unfair when they ask USA to quit Iraq just because USA spends billions of dollars in Iraq? Do you know that Britain held onto many of its colonies by financing it? They were spending more money in these colonies than what they were getting. Doesn’t China spend more money in Tibet than it actually receives? So why does Tibet still strive for freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  96. @Sujai...


    What would you like to do to impress upon Telanganas to continue staying in the united state?

    Why Telanganas should be impressed upon?
    Also which Telanganites? Erstwhile doras? Amaraveerulu? Mandkrishna Madiga? Gaddar like relics of sayudha poratam?

    In case you have doubts, let me clarify my stand.
    For me separate state is wish of some people. Note some people. Not all 4 crores. I already gave cases of MIM and settlers.
    I do not care whether it is fullfilled or not.

    But I am against blaming others and hate-campaign.
    Central government declared Telangana state and it should be formed.
    Now the matter is between Telangana and Central government.
    There are few selfish people against it. Its your burden to take your prize your home.
    If center fails you becuase of its own priorities, you should fight with them.

    But people like you, KCR, Jeevan reddy etc should not get away after bad mouthing others with unsubstantiated allegations.
    There will be hell lot of implications of these during division of state.
    No! do not jump I am not talking of voilence. It is about division of assets and liabilities.



    Nobody from Seemandhra had the courage to admit their guilt so far.How can we talk about reconciliation if you do not even admit the wrongs that have happened in this state?

    Sheer arrogance.
    Which 3rd party jury declared Seemandhra as guilty? You and your leaders coneceive some notions in your mind. Keep spreading them as voilations, dopidi blah blah...
    Seemandhra have to admit it as guilt?
    Chidambaram declared separate state on the grounds of wish of people. Not on the account of discrimination.


    Who wants reconcilliation?
    Whom should Seemandhra talk to for reconcilliation?
    Who is representing the movement in Telangana?
    You call every politician from the region 'drohi'. A Congress leader is a Telanganavaadi only if he/shes agitates along with TRS, like Gutta, Yaskhi, Vivek joining Etela.
    You want all TDP leaders join KCR. You say Geetha reddy is not Telangana because she married seema reddy.
    KU students heckle Madakrishna maadiga.
    Gaddar says he wants 'praja telengana' not 'dorala telangana'
    The latest is KCR himself turning 'Drohi'.
    Telangana lawyers want apology from him for his stand on settlers.

    Eversince KCR reopened the movement no prominent person/leader took a proper stand on Nizam and Sayudha poratam.
    One calls 17th Sepmtember is liberaration day, one calls integration. KCR says Nizam's rule is golden era. At the sametime he claims legacy of Komaram Bheem and amaraveerulu.
    If Nizams' rule was golden era what should a person revolting on a peaceful, progressive ruler? Amara veerudu?
    Prof. Jayashankar says everything was fine with Nizam's.
    If so why Sri. Ravi Naarayana reddy said farmers and poor were suffering badly in Hyderabad state in 1941?
    Gaddar says millitary action has undone Sayudha poratam by returning lands to Doras.
    Ghanta chakrapani thinks millitary action on Nizam was not correct.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @Sujai..
    contd...

    So who has comprehensive understanding of Telangana and represent it?
    Is it hundereds of JACs, including multiple JACs of all JACs?

    BTW, Have Doras ever admitted thier guilt of atrocities against lower sections? Did they ever apologize?
    (Do not jump and say it is past, we all know 'vetti' practiced in Telangana in as late as 1985 nearly forty years after liberation)
    Did Nizam did the same for communal voilences?
    Did Indian government punish Razkars for the atrocities committed by them?


    We have every right to express our anger against all Andhras ....

    What about oppressions of Telanganas by Doras and Nizams?
    You want to take the blame for this? How they should be retributed? Throw them out of Telangana?
    Do not escape saying no Doras. Your 'ramulamma' made money from many Dora based movies.

    Do not talk of rights. Rights always come with responsibility. You may be angry with anyhing.
    There should be valid reasons when you are angry with somebody and bad mouthing him/her.
    Proove your charges. The onus of proof is with you.
    Do not throw bunch of lies written by Prof. Jayashankar, Sreedhar deshpande and KCR.
    Get it validated by a third party, court, central governement or any other sensible entity.
    In absense of such 3rd party validation your accusations are nothing but hallucinations.



    It’s a shame if someone from Telangana does not stand up today to fight for his people. It’s like not participating in India’s freedom struggle against British.

    Did everybody from Telangana was behind Komaram Bheem when he fought against Nizam's atrocities?
    Your idelogue Prof. Jayashankar underplays the Sayudha poratam as revolt against Feudal system and limited to few districts.
    Then why you clamour that chakali ellamma etc were not recognized by AP as freedom fighters?


    Aren’t you consistently describing us as lazy, drunkards, unemployed, speaking a lowly and bastardized language?

    Few words from your gr8 leader KCR to Lagadapati yesterday on ABN channel.
    "evaro chillra mundakodukulu anna matalu pattukuni bobbalu pedatarenduku.."
    He also says clashes at high court and insulting a judge are due to hightened temperments.
    But when it comes to your case you call it consistent and orchestrated.
    I do not like examples to describe a problem. But my own experiences in this are worth mentioning.
    About 15 years ago I was regular smoker but I stopped drinking for own reasons.
    In a party my boss from Telangana asked me to drink and I refused. Showing my Telanganite collegue he said "in Telangana we drink a lot but we do not smoke".
    I am not taking of insult but opinion of a learned Telangana on thier drinking habit. BTW, incidentally my collegue smokes too.
    One of my Telangana aunts (by marriage to my settler uncle) also thinks Telanganas are less studious.
    Of course whether you accept it or not, these are my personal experiences only. I am no way intend to prove them.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Contd...

    So who has comprehensive understanding of Telangana and represent it?
    Is it hundereds of JACs, including multiple JACs of all JACs?

    BTW, Have Doras ever admitted thier guilt of atrocities against lower sections? Did they ever apologize?
    (Do not jump and say it is past, we all know 'vetti' practiced in Telangana in as late as 1985 nearly forty years after liberation)
    Did Nizam did the same for communal voilences?
    Did Indian government punish Razkars for the atrocities committed by them?


    We have every right to express our anger against all Andhras ....

    What about oppressions of Telanganas by Doras and Nizams?
    You want to take the blame for this? How they should be retributed? Throw them out of Telangana?
    Do not escape saying no Doras. Your 'ramulamma' made money from many Dora based movies.

    Do not talk of rights. Rights always come with responsibility. You may be angry with anyhing.
    There should be valid reasons when you are angry with somebody and bad mouthing him/her.
    Proove your charges. The onus of proof is with you.
    Do not throw bunch of lies written by Prof. Jayashankar, Sreedhar deshpande and KCR.
    Get it validated by a third party, court, central governement or any other sensible entity.
    In absense of such 3rd party validation your accusations are nothing but hallucinations.



    It’s a shame if someone from Telangana does not stand up today to fight for his people. It’s like not participating in India’s freedom struggle against British.

    Did everybody from Telangana was behind Komaram Bheem when he fought against Nizam's atrocities?
    Your idelogue Prof. Jayashankar underplays the Sayudha poratam as revolt against Feudal system and limited to few districts.
    Then why you clamour that chakali ellamma etc were not recognized by AP as freedom fighters?


    Aren’t you consistently describing us as lazy, drunkards, unemployed, speaking a lowly and bastardized language?

    Few words from your gr8 leader KCR to Lagadapati yesterday on ABN channel.
    "evaro chillra mundakodukulu anna matalu pattukuni bobbalu pedatarenduku.."
    He also says clashes at high court and insulting a judge are due to hightened temperments.
    But when it comes to your case you call it consistent and orchestrated.
    I do not like examples to describe a problem. But my own experiences in this are worth mentioning.
    About 15 years ago I was regular smoker but I stopped drinking for own reasons.
    In a party my boss from Telangana asked me to drink and I refused. Showing my Telanganite collegue he said "in Telangana we drink a lot but we do not smoke".
    I am not taking of insult but opinion of a learned Telangana on thier drinking habit. BTW, incidentally my collegue smokes too.
    One of my Telangana aunts (by marriage to my settler uncle) also thinks Telanganas are less studious.
    Of course whether you accept it or not, these are my personal experiences only. I am no way intend to prove them.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Contd...

    So who has comprehensive understanding of Telangana and represent it?
    Is it hundereds of JACs, including multiple JACs of all JACs?

    BTW, Have Doras ever admitted thier guilt of atrocities against lower sections? Did they ever apologize?
    (Do not jump and say it is past, we all know 'vetti' practiced in Telangana in as late as 1985 nearly forty years after liberation)
    Did Nizam did the same for communal voilences?
    Did Indian government punish Razkars for the atrocities committed by them?


    We have every right to express our anger against all Andhras ....

    What about oppressions of Telanganas by Doras and Nizams?
    You want to take the blame for this? How they should be retributed? Throw them out of Telangana?
    Do not escape saying no Doras. Your 'ramulamma' made money from many Dora based movies.

    Do not talk of rights. Rights always come with responsibility. You may be angry with anyhing.
    There should be valid reasons when you are angry with somebody and bad mouthing him/her.
    Proove your charges. The onus of proof is with you.
    Do not throw bunch of lies written by Prof. Jayashankar, Sreedhar deshpande and KCR.
    Get it validated by a third party, court, central governement or any other sensible entity.
    In absense of such 3rd party validation your accusations are nothing but hallucinations.



    It’s a shame if someone from Telangana does not stand up today to fight for his people. It’s like not participating in India’s freedom struggle against British.

    Did everybody from Telangana was behind Komaram Bheem when he fought against Nizam's atrocities?
    Your idelogue Prof. Jayashankar underplays the Sayudha poratam as revolt against Feudal system and limited to few districts.
    Then why you clamour that chakali ellamma etc were not recognized by AP as freedom fighters?


    Aren’t you consistently describing us as lazy, drunkards, unemployed, speaking a lowly and bastardized language?

    Few words from your gr8 leader KCR to Lagadapati yesterday on ABN channel.
    "evaro chillra mundakodukulu anna matalu pattukuni bobbalu pedatarenduku.."
    He also says clashes at high court and insulting a judge are due to hightened temperments.
    But when it comes to your case you call it consistent and orchestrated.
    I do not like examples to describe a problem. But my own experiences in this are worth mentioning.
    About 15 years ago I was regular smoker but I stopped drinking for own reasons.
    In a party my boss from Telangana asked me to drink and I refused. Showing my Telanganite collegue he said "in Telangana we drink a lot but we do not smoke".
    I am not taking of insult but opinion of a learned Telangana on thier drinking habit. BTW, incidentally my collegue smokes too.
    One of my Telangana aunts (by marriage to my settler uncle) also thinks Telanganas are less studious.
    Of course whether you accept it or not, these are my personal experiences only. I am no way intend to prove them.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Prabhakar:

    Why Telanganas should be impressed upon?

    Because we believe we are aggrieved party.

    In case you have doubts, let me clarify my stand. For me separate state is wish of some people.

    According to me, my stand is that separate state is wish of majority of the people in Telangana. What you discuss are exceptions constitution a minority.

    But I am against blaming others and hate-campaign.

    Expressing anger does not translate into hate-campaign. Awareness campaign leads to blaming certain groups. Like there is no way of creating awareness of discrimination towards Blacks without blaming the Whites.

    Central government declared Telangana state and it should be formed.
    Now the matter is between Telangana and Central government.


    Ah, good. We wish it was that straighforward. Our democracy doesn’t work the way it should work. Seemandhras impress upon Central Government which indirectly affects us.

    But people like you, KCR, Jeevan reddy etc should not get away after bad mouthing others with unsubstantiated allegations.

    We believe they are substantiated evidences. There is nothing wrong in discussing them. It will allow Telangana people not to do the same to their own people. In Germany, Nazism is studied so that it is not repeated again. Nobody dissuades from it saying, ‘Oh! let’s not badmouth anyone’.

    Sheer arrogance.

    Exactly. That’s what Telanganas are fighting. ;-)

    Which 3rd party jury declared Seemandhra as guilty?

    Which third party jury declared American Whites guilty?

    Chidambaram declared separate state on the grounds of wish of people. Not on the account of discrimination.

    That’s because in India, we never admit discrimination. Even when giving out reservations for lower castes, we never say it is because of discrimination.

    Who wants reconcilliation?
    Whom should Seemandhra talk to for reconcilliation?


    They can address their letters to Telangana people. It’s very easy to do it. They can have a press release in major magazines. People will understand. When Pope apologizes for the crimes of the past, he does not address anyone in particular, but to the entire group.

    Prabhakar, you need to do some homework on history, read a bit, instead of just typing away. Its exhaustive to teach you like as if you are 3rd grader.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Prabhakar:

    So who has comprehensive understanding of Telangana and represent it?
    Is it hundereds of JACs, including multiple JACs of all JACs?


    That’s the beauty of Telangana Movement. I feel extremely happy that it is a people’s movement. I am hoping that JACs continue to stay even after formation of Telangana. It will set a trend to make Indian democracy vibrant.

    BTW, Have Doras ever admitted thier guilt of atrocities against lower sections? Did they ever apologize?

    They did not. I ask them to apologize. There are posts on this topic on this blog. Thankfully we got reservations. But apology is still pending.

    What about oppressions of Telanganas by Doras and Nizams?

    We would like to take care of Doras too! First Telangana.

    Proove your charges. The onus of proof is with you.

    We did. You refuse to look at it. If not for legal system in India on the matters of corporate functioning, Satyam would have gone scot free. I still think he may walk scot free.

    Did everybody from Telangana was behind Komaram Bheem when he fought against Nizam's atrocities?.

    You are getting a big boring. I may have to stop answering your comments. Did everyone rally behind Mangal Pandey? If they did, we would have got rid of British in 1857 itself. It took 90 years to get people united and rally on one cause. Bengalis, Punjabis, Madrasis fought the Indians in 1857 on behalf of British.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Sujai,

    I too agree it is quiet boring.

    This debate requires 3rd party opinion. You claim you proven the charges.
    There are many commentors asked you for proofs. You simply ignored them or pointed to other topics .

    In another blog you posed the following question
    "If I do provide examples, would you support Telangana Movement?"
    Few other commentor accepted you challenge. But you did not come up with any examples. You sure know people do not persist on that. Even if they, you would say I have already covered in so and so. Or simply start a new blog to drift to another topic.
    Simple trick to stay in debate on false fact without proving anything.

    In fact I saw the same by KCR on ABN. He said that in 2005 in his first media conference Manmohan said Telnagana would be formed soon.
    For this Lagadapati expressed doubt and aksed date etc. KCR said he had tapes of it and would send it to Lagadapati tomorrow.
    Lagapati offered to go right away to KCR's house. Then KCR said no need to come and he could get it from Radhakrishna (of ABN).
    That's it! The topic is over.

    What will be the end effect? Viewers from Telangana believe that Manmohan actually declared separate state and Lagadapati opposes it.

    Of course for last 6 years I am watching these tricks by UPA and YSR twisting the facts to suit them.
    After continously doing it they lost the basic discrention between right and wrong.
    When there is failure, all that they do is dismiss it or divert discussion to blame BJP.

    Situation would not be much different for Telangana people with Sujais and KCRs are bulding thier society on foundations of falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  103. @Sujai,

    I have sincere and personal advise for you.
    You are very knowledged, skilful writer. Like a multi-dimensional enterprise database and multi Ghz processor.
    Yet your capabalities are not unlimited. Also time is an important factor.
    So better stick to Telangana topic and keep writing as many lies as your skewed processor generates.
    Trying to expand beyond your scope may damage your primary interests.
    There is a danger of loosing support from similar separatists.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Prabhakar:

    So better stick to Telangana topic and keep writing as many lies as your skewed processor generates.
    Trying to expand beyond your scope may damage your primary interests.


    I have sincere and personal advise for you.

    You don’t get it do you?

    Telangana is not my primary interest. Telangana happens to be one of my many interests. There are blogs out there dedicated only for Telangana, with a single focus on Telangana. You should spend time there instead of visiting this blog. Your advice will be taken well there.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Prabhakar:

    There are many commentors asked you for proofs. You simply ignored them or pointed to other topics .

    That's because we are tired. We had a heated discussion in Feb-March where thousands of comment were posted on some articles on this blog, with many contributors (like sravan) giving painstaking evidences.

    I don't want to get into that once again each time a new set of commenters show up. You are free to go through them on this blog or many other blogs out there.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Sujai

    That's because we are tired. We had a heated discussion in Feb-...

    You are at same trick.
    You submitted articulations of Prof. Jayashankar, KCR etc.
    You demand those be accpted as proof.
    Two most important things I observed in all Telangana discussions are Water 'dopidi' and Jobs.
    For first one your criterion was Catchment area. Who set it? Prof. Jayashankar. Everybody has to accept it.
    For Jobs main source of information is Girglani commission report. But not a single copy of it posted anywhere despite repeated requests. Moreover we are told to go and get it ourselves. You accuse us but put onus of proof also on us.

    Anyways, I am not trying to reform you and see the reailty. The fact is that you know reality yet you abet hatred.
    I read and write in your blog not for money or pleasure. I hope to save at least a few people from becoming victims of hatred.
    For first

    ReplyDelete
  107. Sujai

    When Pope apologizes for the crimes of the past,

    You brought up intresting topic.
    Apologizing for past mistakes os favorite stuff for neo-liberals like you.
    You people say it good way of reconcilliation.
    But the reality is getting away from punishment even after committing a crime.
    In ancient days haughty and arrogant people used to commit suicide when cornred with reality.
    Later western world developed this trick of apologizing. In the 11th hour of getting caught criminals get elightenment and apologize.
    We have great example in our great Ms. Sacrifice.
    It took her few words to apologize for sikhs roits after hw mother-in-law death. Everybody appreciated her and Congress continues to get votes in Delhi.
    But all accused in roits, both dead and alive are given clean chit and even ministries.

    Coming back to Seemandhra guilt. Even if there is truth in this, we can wait another 4 centuries to consider and apologize like popoe did to galelio.

    ReplyDelete
  108. We would like to take care of Doras too! First Telangana.

    Doras offenses are older than (your perceived) crimes of Andhras. First make them apologize to fellow Telanganas.
    Who is coming in your way way to start a movement against local offenders? Seemandhra stoppin you here too? :-) :-)

    Charity beings at home.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Whether people accept it or not Kashmir is a part of India only on map, half of it already being occupied by Pakistan.One might wonder to know that most of the infiltrations occur from this place posing a serious threat to security of India.So,what happens if Kashmir is separated ?.Clearly Kashmir doesn't have enough military force to stop terrorists from entering its state.Finally it will become a hub for terrorists,and India will loose its crown(Kashmir).

    ReplyDelete
  110. Pls do not compare the issue of Kashmir with Telangana.The people of telangana have suffered being in a united state of AP, but the J&K people are given more benefits. For ex: while filling any 'application form' related to Central government, there will be an option asking whether the candidate is from J&K or not. This implies that more privilege is given to them. J&K will be safe as long as it is in India. If that state is liberated, there is a dangerous threat to it from its neighbouring country pakistan. The Indian army is protecting that state from falling into the hands of Pakistan and militants. If J&k is liberated then worst thing that is going to happen is that it will be forcibly captured by pakistan and killing all the non-muslims in that area, (the case which happened in Pakistan after its formation). Therefor it is safe in Indian rule.

    ReplyDelete

Dear Commenters:
Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.