National Readership Study 2006

The recent study estimates that approximately 222 million in India read newspapers, dailies and magazines. I am happy to hear that there are so many readers in India. And the average time spent is 39 minutes a day- which is quite good again.

The only sad aspect of this survey is that the highest read English daily is Times of India.

When I returned to India three years ago, I subscribed to Times of India because everyone else was doing it. Man! It was such a horrible experience. I was appalled at the level of ribaldry, gossip and trash they were covering. There wasn’t an iota of serious journalism. Every day I would just throw the paper away in frustration. I switched to The Hindu upon my dad’s advice. It brought sanity back into my life. Now, I look forward to newspaper everyday and relish reading their news and analysis. I think The Hindu is one of the top 5 reasons why I like India. It is such a great read. The editorial is worth every sentence. Taking the cue, I started to subscribe to The Frontline- another excellent magazine. They release one every fortnigh and I enjoy reading each of their articles taking my own sweet time.

So, if

An apple a day keeps the doctor away;

Times of India everyday keeps sanity away!

Why I continue drinking colas?

Of the three parties involved in the recent ‘cola controversy’- cola companies, Indian Government and the Government Organization CSE, I trust cola companies.

▪ Indian government is neither accountable nor responsible. It gets voted into power in spite of failed promises and major corruption scandals. Indian people vote back the most corrupt and ineffective leaders which include rapists, murderers and kidnappers.

▪ A government organization like CSE is neither accountable nor responsible. Their jobs are secure (and usually for-a-lifetime). No single person takes accountability and usually the onus of ownership is passed around never stopping at any one in particular.

▪ Cola companies (like Coca-Cola and Pepsi) on the other hand have to make sure their customers are satisfied. If the customer is not satisfied, the company goes bust. Therefore they keep all checks and balances to ensure the drink is safe and satisfying.

If I can’t drink the drinks from these companies what else do I drink? Almost all drinks are owned by these two companies (Pepsi and Coca-Cola) including branded water bottles. The water from unbranded ones cannot be trusted. The water from Cauvery through water filters may contain more harmful things than mere pesticides. I get sick each time I drink anything other than bottled water. Did any one test the water that I get from the daily delivery boy at office, or the water that comes out of my Eureka Forbes filter, or the water given at the Chaat place? The results of those, I am sure, would be 1000 times worse compared to cola results.

Kashmir IV: Legal Conflict

There are too many legal issues regarding Kashmir conflict- one can argue forever, and it looks like no pragmatic solution can ever be reached if one were to stick to the legal documents and legal issues. The emotions and sentiments run very high amongst Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris; and a debate or a discussion on Kashmir at any level, whether it is UN or a bilateral summit, in a coffee shop or a group debate on TV, turns very passionate and the rhetoric is usually very irrational. Let’s look at some of the arguments here:

A. India considers Kashmir to be an 'integral part' of India, as accepted, ratified and proclaimed by the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir in 1956 and as signed in Kashmir Accord in 1974.

B. BUT, Pakistan considers Kashmir to be 'disputed territory' as inferred from UN resolution of 1948 and as endorsed in Simla Accord of 1972. Pakistan still demands for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir.

C. BUT, Maharajah Hari Singh, King of Jammu & Kashmir regions, signed a treaty of accession to India in 1947, thereby becoming a part of Indian Union.

D. BUT, he did so in the extreme conditions which were considered special circumstances. A normalcy was to be restored and then a decision had to be made on this accession which never happened.

E. IN ADDITION, Jawaharlal Nehru and Lord Mountbatten promised that they would conduct a plebiscite once the situation becomes normal.

F. BUT, for that to take place, Pakistan had to move back its troops from the regions it occupied in 1947 war and that never happened.

G. INSTEAD, a Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir took a decision to accede to India in 1952. This is NOT the plebiscite UN envisioned.

H. BUT, that had many clauses including maintaining the autonomous nature of that state.

I. MOREOVER, Pakistan expressed its desire to carry out UN resolution, but the details of implementation never went any further than the discussion tables- mainly because India never wanted to hold that plebiscite fearing loss of whole state to Pakistan.

Present Situation:

A. Pakistan has NOW a desire to hold that plebiscite, and is ready to take any measure for that (including troop withdrawal) only if India takes proper steps to show that India is ready to do the same.

B. BUT, India is clearly aware that such a scenario is awkward for India. It is very clear from the mass opinion, that India would lose the state of Jammu & Kashmir.

C. AND, it doesn't make sense for India to lose the regions of Jammu and Ladakh, which are not interested in any separate country. India has to fulfill its duty towards those people.

D. AND, India believes that UN resolution of 1948 is old and has no place now in the new set of scenarios, especially when so many other new treaties have been signed which make it irrelevant.

E. BUT, Pakistan abhors abandonment of UN resolutions on this issue and it believes the root cause can be solved only by implementing that first resolution.

F. BUT, India believes, with enough evidence to back it up, that Pakistan has meddled way too much in the affairs of Kashmir, and has induced many of its own people into this region illegally, and hence a plebiscite in such a scenario is not acceptable because it would not show the true intent of the people.

G. BUT, Pakistan believes that such a scenario had evolved because of unfulfilled promises, and hence India has to take blame for it. India cannot ignore the freedom movement being fought over there.

H. BUT, India believes that, if not for Pakistan's involvement, Kashmiri would have loved to be with India, as they did for the prior 40 years (before 1989), and if ever they are fighting for independence now, its because of Pakistan's involvement.

I. BUT, Pakistan believes that it is an indigenous movement, spearheaded by Kashmiri Muslims whose innate desire is to attain freedom from India. They believe it is an incomplete story from partition. And if are foreign mercenaries, it is only because Kashmiris want them.

Demographics issue:

A. Kashmiri Moslems contend that Kashmir belongs to them and hence they have a right to decide where they want to be- with Pakistan or with India or be Independent.

B. BUT, Kashmiri Pandits, who comprised around 10% in 1989 have migrated out of Kashmir valley because an Islamic Insurgency had crept in which threatened their very lives.

C. Given the situation no practical solution can be devised to bring back Kashmiri Pandits to Kashmir Valley (same as no Indian Hindu can be brought back to their homeland in pre-Independence Pakistan)

Kashmir – Demographics in Detail

Kashmir Valley (including India and Pakistan regions) has 6.3 Million population of which 97% are Muslim. The Indian side of Kashmir Valley has 95% Muslim.

According to 1991 Census, the population of Jammu & Kashmir is 11.6 Million. An additional 1.5 Million refugees were in Pakistan (not Azad Kashmir) and 0.5 Million were living other parts of the world. Of this 11.6 Million living in Jammu & Kashmir, 7.3 Million (63%) were living in Indian side of Kashmir while 4.3 million (37%) were in Pakistan controlled Kashmir. The religious composition of Indian Administered Jammu & Kashmir is Muslims 64%, Non Muslims 36%.

The details are given below:

Kashmir valley: (3.80 million) Muslims 95% Non-Muslims 5%
Poonch, Rajori & Doda: (1.18 million) Muslims 65% Non-Muslims 35%
Jammu, Kathua,Udhampur: (2.16 million) Muslims 10% Non-Muslims 90%
Leh District: (0.08 million) Muslims 5% Non-Muslims 85%
Kargil District: (0.08 million) Muslims 8% Non-Muslims 12%

The religious Composition of Pakistan controlled Kashmir is Muslims 100%
Azad Kashmir: (2.50 million) Muslims: 100%
Gilgit, Baltistan: (0.70 million) Muslims: 100%

Kashmiris elsewhere: 1.1 million

Kashmir III: Is it an integral part of India?

To take up a topic like this is equivalent to sitting in one of the meetings that take place between Indian and Pakistan delegations! Irony is that two enemies decide the fate of a third party - Kashmiris!

I see that many Indians believe as if it is a word of God that Kashmir is an 'integral part' of India, and they never question what it actually means. On the other side, Pakistanis believe that Kashmir is a ‘disputed territory’, even though it has been 60 years since Partition. And Kashmiris want to be left alone.

Isn't Kashmir an 'integral part' of India?

Yes, it is- as ratified by the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir in 1956. "The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India" and it goes onto say that "The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State."

And that's how we get that beautiful map with which we are all familiar with- which includes POK, Northern Regions and Aksai Chin, though Indian troops never put a foot there in the history of Independent India!

But, there is more to it than what is passed by a constituent Assembly. The whole debate stems from the differences in opinion between Pakistan and India, on what is legal- should people of Kashmir decide, or can the constituent assembly make a decision? While the plebiscite (or people’s opinion) was important to India when it annexed both Hyderabad and Junagarh by ignoring the opinion of their leader (the King), how come exactly the opposite logic is applied when it comes to Kashmir?

To know the history and its convolutions better I am taking the reader through some of the events that transpired in the history of Kashmir.

1947- Kashmir accedes to India- with some conditions, the prominent one being that a plebiscite should be held once the normalcy is restored.

Whether the normalcy is restored is a question of debate: India argues that since the demographics changed after the invasion, it is not in a position to hold a plebiscite. According to India, to bring such a normalcy now, in 2006, is completely out of question because the demographics have changed irrevocably. The situation of 1947 can never be attained. India blames Pakistan for this change in demographics due to its incursion in 1947; and after 1989, it blames Pakistan-sponsored Kashmir militancy for the forced migration of Pandits which altered the demographics further.

The argument of Pakistan- and also voiced by present day Kashmiri Muslims is this:
While Pakistan was ready to hold a plebiscite soon after the ceasefire of 1949, India never agreed to it- instead it used a Constituent Assembly to ratify a constitution which made Kashmir
an integral part of India- which is NOT a plebiscite. If the demographics did change in 1989, it’s mainly because India didn't carry out the promises made in 1947, and also because of bad policies of India (like manipulating local elections). If they (Pakistan) could accept its wrong polices in Bangladesh and let it go, though reluctantly- after fighting a major war, why can't India accept its wrong policies and let Kashmir go? According to Pakistan and Kashmiri Muslims, India should take blame for what happened in Kashmir that led to migration of Pandits in 1989, and for the militancy in Kashmir. According to them militancy is nothing is nothing but a freedom struggle which has its origins in 1947. And India should still carry out plebiscite- now, better late than never, so that no further damage happens to Kashmir.

1948- India and Pakistan go to war over Kashmir. They agree to a ceasefire and the mutually agreed ceasefire line (of 1948) is now called LOC (Line of Control).

1952- Constituent Assembly of Kashmir accepted the accession to India, and formed a 'Sovereign state' of Jammu & Kashmir within the Indian Union.

Now, what does that mean? It is unlike any other accession any where in India. This
is unique in many ways. No other accession has been considered 'sovereign'. This word has many legal implications- it actually means they have their own decision making powers, and is practically a country in itself. The state of J&K had its own head of state (a President), called Sadar-i-Riyasat, and a Prime Minister while other states had Governors and Chief Ministers.

The state of J&K had autonomous powers unlike any other state in India. India controlled ONLY the following three things in Kashmir- Defense, External Affairs, and Communications. (Indians cannot go and settle in Kashmir- later enshrined in Article 370 of Indian Constitution). Now, that is something quite unique, right? I mean- no taxes for India, no police from India, and no settlers from India. Do we have any other equivalent state in India like that? NO! But yes, there is a country called Bhutan which has a similar arrangement with India. Bhutan is a sovereign country ruled by a King but India controls Bhutanese Defense, External affairs and Communications. Do we ever think that Bhutan is a part of India? Not Really!

1956- Kashmir prepared its own constitution- called Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir which made Kashmir an integral part of India. But Kashmir retained its autonomous powers for a long time (till 1974)

1965- India and Pakistan go to war over Kashmir second time. Both India and Pakistan agree to a UN resolution and maintain LOC (Line of Control).

1971- Third war between India and Pakistan. India has a decisive victory and it liberates Bangladesh.

1972- Simla Accord signed between Pakistan and India.

This is the document to which Indians refer to as a sacred document when it comes to respecting Line of Control (as seen in during Kargil war). At the same time this document is completely ignored by India when it comes to another statement in the same accord- "Both Governments agree that ..., the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for ..., a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir ..."

The implicit meaning of this statement is what Pakistan is most obsessed about and this is what pains them the most- that the issue of Kashmir has ‘not been resolved’- and hence they
label it as a 'disputed region' as agreed by India and Pakistan in this accord. This accord gives Pakistan a role to play in Kashmir issue- this is where they agree to work ‘bilaterally’ rather than use any international forum. They also agree to respect LOC till the issue is resolved. Why did India include Pakistan into Kashmir affairs especially when it just had secured a decisive victory against Pakistan to liberate Bangladesh (December, 1971)?

1974- Kashmir Accord signed between Kashmir and India.

Now, things get interesting! In 1974, only after the third war with Pakistan, did Indian Government under Indira Gandhi, decide to make this accession a legal entity (as a ‘constituent’ unit) through Kashmir Accord. And how did she do it? She first incarcerated Sheikh Abdullah, and then released him to make him sign an accord called ‘Kashmir Accord’, which strips Kashmir of all its autonomous powers. But Kashmir still enjoyed Article 370 (which doesn't allow settlers in Kashmir). So, in one way, she goes onto make Kashmir an integral and ‘constituent’ unit of India without any autonomous powers but retains Article 370 which still gives this state special privileges compared to most other states.

So, India signed Simla Accord in 1972, then did a volte face to sign another document called Kashmir Accord in 1974, thus overriding Simla Accord in some respect, with no participation from Pakistan. Kashmir Accord states- "the State of Jammu and Kashmir which is a constituent unit of the Union of India...". And how did India do this? It led a leader sign an accord under coercion, seeking no mandate from people!

After that it’s all history- we Indians know Kashmir as constituent and integral part of India. And to help all those who want to fight for Kashmir to the finish, here's another one:

1994- India passes a Parliament Resolution on Kashmir- "The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;"

Kashmir II: History Timeline

(A small overview of Kashmir's history - compiled from various sources).

▪ According to tradition, Kashmir was originally inhabited by Hindus.

▪ In 14th Century, A Muslim king replaced the last Hindu King. His family ruled for another 200 years.

▪ 1586 AD, Akbar annexed Kashmir to his vast empire.

▪ In 18th Century (1752-1819), Kashmir became part of Afghanistan under Durrani.

▪ In 1819, Ranjit Singh conquered Kashmir and made it a part of Sikh Empire.

▪ In 1846, British took over Punjab and sold Kashmir to Ghulab Singh. British gave Kashmir a status of Independent princely kingdom. Ghulab Singh conquered Ladakh.

▪ 1931, Hari Singh suppressed a rebellion from Moslems (80% Muslims in the whole Kingdom).

▪ 1932, Sheik Abdullah formed J&K Muslim Conference later called National Conference.

▪ 1947, Partition of India, Hari Singh chose to be Independent. But upon invasion by tribal forces from Pakistan, Hari Singh acceded to India for security and protection. In turn, he was promised a plebiscite when situation comes to normal.

▪ 1947-49, First Indo-Pak war over Kashmir. Cease fire declared which divided that Kingdom in to two sections- one under Pakistan occupation, another under Indian rule. The Cease fire line later became Line of Control (LOC) with some minor alterations.

▪ 1956-57, Jammu & Kashmir became a state of Indian Union. It was a decision taken by the Constituent Assembly of the state.

▪ 1965, Second Indo-Pak war over Kashmir. Tashkent Agreement signed.

▪ 1971, Third Indo-Pak war over Bangladesh civil war. LOC established. Simla Agreement signed.

▪ 1972, India and Pakistan sign Simla Accord – agree to resolve Kashmir through ‘bilateral negotiations’

▪ 1987, A blatant rigging gets National Conference victory in Assembly elections. MUF (Muslim United Front) leaders and supporters arrested.

▪ 1989, Islamic uprising leads to Hindu Pandit migration out of Kashmir valley.

▪ 1990s, militancy on the rise in Kashmir. Hindus are targeted. Army is deployed to suppress militancy.

▪ 1999, Kargil War.

Other Sites: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

Kashmir I: Separate State?

My Perspective

The history of Kashmir is fraught with lies, deception, aggression, conflicts, riots, unfulfilled promises and misrule. One can squabble over them for years and still not come up with a solution to end the killings of innocent lives- those of civilians and those of security personnel. No pragmatic solution can ever envision a Kashmir Pandit migrating back to Kashmir Valley. Such a dream will always remain a dream. Can there be a practical plan that allows Hindus in India to repossess the lands they have left in Pakistan during time of Independence? Instead one should start looking for practical solutions for Kashmir Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits.

The uprising is seen only in the Kashmir Valley under Indian Administration while POK (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir- also called as Azad Kashmir) is relatively calm, and I can dare say it is peaceful. The other regions of this state- Jammu and Ladakh have been relatively peaceful as well. The present demographics of Kashmir (not Jammu and Ladakh) predominantly consist of one faith and their unanimous aspirations for independence are entwined with roots in this particular faith. India cannot hold a piece of land in its territory when its people have no will or desire to be with India, work with India, or work for India. India has been a strong proponent and supporter of many Independence movements of many nations in the post-colonial era. India even went to war against Pakistan to create a new nation called Bangladesh to secure liberty and freedom to a section of people fighting against oppression based on linguistic and regional differences. With such record of upholding the aspirations of people to be free, India cannot look away from the real problem of Kashmir- that it is a freedom struggle of certain section of people who form the majority in that region.

Approximately half a million Indian troops actively take part in suppression of terrorism in Kashmir Valley – where around 4 million people live (in Indian Administered Kashmir Valley). That’s a ratio of 1 soldier for every 8 civilians. That’s like living in Mumbai with 3 million troops holding sophisticated military weapons. British ruled India with far less number of troops. If one were to describe this scenario, and if I were not Indian, I would be appalled at the kind of military strength we are using to rule that piece of land (we are definitely not ruling the people). Agreed, the movement is now carried out mostly by foreign mercenaries, ailing from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and so many Middle East countries. But they also include indigenous Kashmiri Muslims. Though it started off as a Kashmiri movement, it has certainly been hijacked by foreign mercenaries who fight the cause under the pretext of Jihad- a holy war, against Indian Administration. Though Kashmiri people resent Pakistani involvement they hate Indian Rule so much so that they are ready to tolerate the foreign involvement, and actually support them overtly and covertly.

I believe that India can address the aspirations of Kashmiri Muslims who have been fighting a war against Indian Administration for nearly two decades now by creating a separate state of Kashmir. 

Kashmir Valley Region on either side of LOC:

My proposition is based on the belief that as Indians we don’t want to coerce and force certain section of people by suppressing their aspirations to live as an independent nation. The concept of a nation is an idea. When a certain majority of people of a region believes in an idea of statehood a nation is formed. It may be forged with a constitution, cemented with a government, protected with an army, and run with legislature, judiciary and executive. But at the heart of this nation are the people, their aspirations and their notions of freedom. We may tend to believe that a nation is more than an idea and start killing people trying to promote our belief system over others. Its time we reflect- Are we the oppressors? Are we the same Indians who promoted freedom for so many nations in Asia and Africa ending the colonial rule from this world? Can we be mature enough to realize that boundaries of nations change with time and that we should be willing to accept the harsh realities instead of fighting it with weapons and soldiers? We are a nation because we all believe in it. Every other state in India is part of India because they want to be with India. They are not coerced and forced with huge armies. India is India because we all want to be part of India. If everyone in this country does not want to be in India, I don’t think the idea of India will be valid anymore. We have to realize that people of Kashmir Valley do not share our notions of statehood. We should not be forcing our notions onto them with continued occupation. 

I believe that India should announce the steps leading to independence and full autonomous status to Kashmir. By doing this, we save ourselves lot of trouble (of administering that region with huge armies) and satisfy the aspirations of Kashmiri people. May be we can then tell ourselves that we acted as a mature adult who did not kill the child just because the kid who is now grown up wanted to leave home. Instead, we can tell ourselves that we suppressed our false ego and prestige to deal with situation quite maturely. I laid out some of the possible steps. I am not an administrator, but I tried to give out some of the plausible steps.

Probable Conditions:

• Independent Kashmir CANNOT join India or Pakistan for a period of 15 years.
• Kashmir has to form its own constituent assembly through fair elections within the first 12 months after Independence.
• India will protect the borders of Kashmir for the first 3 years.
• Kashmir has to raise its own army and border force within the first 3 years.
• Kashmir and India have to pay compensation to the migrated Kashmir Pandits through a period of next 25 years.

Good to have but not necessary conditions:

• Kashmir will allow Indian visitors without Visa just like Nepal (or Bhutan).
• Kashmiri nationals to visit, study and work in India just like Nepalese.
• POK/Azad Kashmir is also let go by Pakistan to join this new nation.

I am on my way to Hell!

I will reiterate my favorite quote here: 

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality. Alighieri Dante

The last few weeks when Israel was bombing the smithereens out of Lebanon I was quiet. It is one of the biggest crises happening in our world and I was busy with my work. In fact, the whole of India was quiet about it. No official comment, no decrying protest, no denouncement. Looking at the opinions that are written at various newspapers- from columnists to newsreaders, and looking at various blogs and interviews on TV it is clear that our opinion is divided on this issue.

 

What happened to us? Once, we were champions of Palestine cause during Indira Gandhi times. Indira Gandhi and Yasser Arafat were such pals that they used to refer to each other as ‘brother-sister’. When I was growing up, we had many Palestine students studying with us on government-sponsored programs. During the time of Nehru, India was a champion of Independence movements worldwide. We set the trend for breaking up the colonial era and went about rallying for the cause of many such movements worldwide. We were looked upon as the leaders and moral authorities on this subject. What went wrong? How did we change from being the champions of the downtrodden and poor countries fighting for their land and freedom to being on the side of the oppressors?

What happened by which we began to see ourselves closely associating with Israel, with US, and Great Britain? What changed our mindset that our population condones the recent bombardment of Lebanon? What makes us support the war on Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought we were great friends with Afghanistan during the times of Mohammad Najibullah.

The more I think about it the more I realize what the reason is! In one word, its

KASHMIR

Because of Kashmir, Pakistan is an enemy. Because of Kashmir, Muslim is a terrorist. Because of Kashmir, India is an oppressor. Because of Kashmir India has lost its moral position to defend and support a freedom movement. 

How can I be proud of my country when it puts half a million army in a small piece of land to rule over a few million people – only with the aim and idea to coerce them into accepting our rule over them? Weren’t we those champions of freedom movements across the world? 

Our position on Kashmir has made us hypocrites. Our position on Kashmir puts us in a dilemma. We don’t know whether we should be happy to see those Muslim nations cower in fear because they are housing terrorists, or whether we should protest the bombardment because innocent people are dying everyday. We are so focused on our local problem (with Kashmir and Pakistan) that we are not able to see the big picture. How are Chandrasekar Azad and Bhagat Singh national heroes while Yasser Arafat and Kashmiri Muslims fighting and killing for their freedom vile terrorists? We are no longer sure what our stand should be. This is clearly seen on various media forums where in one guy supports Israel action on Lebanon while another decries it. We conveniently stay silent on official forums because we have now transformed into the same people whom we fought against- the oppressor!

There are many in India who want us to be victims – just like US is, just like Britain is and just like Israel is. They want these countries to sympathize with us. They want to tell these countries, “See! This was the same problem we have been facing!” When Israel bombs Lebanon there are many who want India to do the same to Pakistan. “Let’s bomb the terrorist shelters in Pakistan!” they say. They idolize Israel because they think it has the balls to do something that India can only dream of but can never execute.

 

Our stupid Indian media journalists who mimic everything western sensationalize every news item, starting from a dirty-MMS to a kid-being-rescued-from-a-well, from bomb-blasts-in-Mumbai to a rape-victim-in -hinterlands. They want to highlight our travails to gain sympathy from the newly found Western friends. To get their attention and equate our miseries with theirs, they go on to name our bomb blasts as '7/11'. Now tell me something, when did we start writing our dates month-first-date-next? "If US has 9/11, we have 7/11"- that is what our journalists want to say. An innocent Indian kid asks- “Dad why is it 7/11? Shouldn’t it be 11/7 in India?” The dad answers – “Son, we like to copy everything which is western. It’s like calling our film industry ‘Bollywood’ copying ‘Hollywood’. Do you get it?”

We want to ape the colonial masters, build an empire, and make up for everything that we lost when were ruled by them. In the process we annex Kashmir by some crafty means and hold on to the land (and its people) by ruthless force. The situation is not much different in North-east either.

How can I be proud of my nation which does not know where it should stand on such a crisis? How can I be proud of my nation which holds onto a piece of land by force while the entire population of that land hates our rule and regime? The hottest places in Hell are being reserved for me and my countrymen. I am just getting ready for that! That's all!