• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Pity the nation

Status
Not open for further replies.
RVR said:
Sri Sangom Sir,

I beg to differ from your assessment. Please read the following news item

India is trying to underplay Obama's visit - Rediff.com News

I think the present visit of American president to India is not creating any hype at ground level and whatever little hype is there, it is only in the media.

America may want India to be its obedient servant, but I don't think India will accept it.

Whatever said, we have to live with China and cannot confront China as per the wishes of the Americans. I think India is pursuing its own foreign policies based on its own self interest and none of the foreign powers can influence us just like that. Earlier we were totally aligned with Soviet Russia and we were treated as anti-American. Now we are having friendly relations with both Russia & America and probably it gives the impression that we are close to America.

America wants us more than India's necessity to associate us with America. We didn't participate in the Iraq war and we are following our own policy on Afghanistan. We are always suspicious of USA when it supplies arms to Pakistan.

Even the nuclear liability bill which was enacted by Parliament recently has tough conditions which American companies are finding it difficult to accept.

US presses for changes in India's nuke liability law

I think the opposition in India will not allow the ruling party to tilt in favour of USA completely.

However we have to improve our relationship with USA on a continuous basis since both follow democratic principles.

All the best
Click to expand...

Dear Shri RVR,

India may not be giving much publicity for President Obama's visit. But surely India makes a big noise to convince the gullible public about its independence and what not, but faithfully does what US wants it to do.

Please see
The Hindu : Front Page : India signs nuclear liability treaty

Now, no legal suit can be made against any US firm or govt. in regard to any nuclear liability. If other nations are involved, there will be a repeat of the Bhopal tragedy, that is what it looks like, at least to me.
 
someone cited punjab here. i think, in punjab, the local public support was wanting, if i am not mistaken. there was plenty of money coming from overseas sikhs in canada & U.K. who get taken away by and large with the romantic concept of khalistan.

i don't know how much local muslim support for india exists now. even during nehru's time, when things were much better communal wise, nehru would not risk a plesbiscite in kashmir.

the main arguement for kashmir by separatists is that per norms of the partition, countries were divided per majority population of that time. even berubari in assam, due to large muslim bengalis, went to the then east pakistan, after a plebiscite.

hyderabad, though a nizam ruled kingdom, was incorporated into india, though the nizam would have liked otherwise. the same went for junagadh in gujarat, anotheer border area in the rann of kutch.

politics realities of today bloodshed emotional investments & above all concept of national integrity, makes it very difficult today for most of us to consider even a plebiscite.

the indian army is between a rock and hard stone - they cannot fight a conventional battle, and face the same situation that israel faces ie stone throwing teenagers and abusive women. there is potential for huge long term damage on both the body and mind front. i do not know how much post discharge support is there for the soldier. i suspect 'not much'.

it is frankly difficult to predict how this will end. it is draining our resources, but we can easily afford to fight for a long time. it is pakistan that we need to be concerned about. it is an unstable country, with nuclear weapons, and God knows, that all it takes is one crazy fellow to steal a bomb and detonate it. you can find 'how to' in the internet. there are enough crazies in pakistan to blow up the whole world several times.

a long time ago, mao tse tung, told the world that he was not afraid of nuclear war. because statistic wise, the majority of the survivors would be chinese. this was the time during the 50s, 60s when chinese had no population control and encouraged large families. i sometimes wonder, if the mindset of pakistan is just that - let us throw a few bombs around and the survivors would be muslims.

to stretch a little further, i do not see the in indian papers, the level of killings in iraq, afghanistan or even in pakistan on a daily basis. my gut feeling is that between these three countries about 1000 people are killed every week, if not more. we do not want such to spread in india, though homegrown maoists might just oblige us.

i have hope in the present manmohan/sonia leadership. much as i may disagree with them on many issues, they have no stomach for a war, due to their backgrounds. in fact, when in power, even the BJP barring kargil where it was forced, played the military hand very deftly. nowadays, unless it is complete obileteration, like bosnia, it is easy to start a war, and difficult to close it. look at chechnya - can anyone imagine any such happening in the old soviet union?

in uighur, china is doing is the usual chauvinist conquer through colonialization. the han chinese are a majority in tibet. soon they will also in uighur. even with honest one person one vote, the chinese will win. as long as beijing has the heart to defend such acts. time alone will tell.

whatever it is, the indian soldier needs everyone's support. he is doing a job assigned to him, with his hands tied, no open enemy, his life on the line every day and probably thankless politicians behind his back. on that point, i think we should all be unanimous.

no one has yet come up with a fool proof device to defeat a well organized locally supported guerilla war - except the british who defeated the malay communists in the 1950s. but then with the british, they are a warrior class defined only by themselves.

thank you.

thank you.
 
RVR said:
Indian and Chinese Prime Ministers have met today and Chinese Prime Minister is visiting India in Dec 2010

India, China to try and bury differences - Hindustan Times

It is really an exciting news for all the Indians.

Let us hope that both India and China resolve their differences and work together for the betterment of its people.

All the best
Click to expand...
Dear RVR,

Hu Jintao goes out in 2012, barely two years from now. Xi Jinping will be deciding matters more in the meantime, I think. Most probably, we will have one more round of "hindi chini bhai bhai" followed by an aggression. How soon is the only question!

 
RVR said:
Indian and Chinese Prime Ministers have met today and Chinese Prime Minister is visiting India in Dec 2010
Click to expand...

USA or China have a foreign policy objective when it deals with India.
For USA, its mostly about getting access for its companies and a larger foothold in Asia to counter China.
For china, its about trading and extending the influence.
They both played this game in Pakistan and see it as a losing stock. Now they want another place to play.

India should also understand what its objectives are in these relationship and exercise it. When we look at the stand we take in WTO, its encouraging other times it looks like we are getting played or clueless.

------

Pakistan also has an objective and they try to play it through Kashmir or other terror attacks. Do we have the common sense to understand that or get played like Roy was is the question.

In foreign policy there are no enemies or friends, Its only the interest that counts.

thanks,
 
Last edited:
Greetings!

Please consider this as my response to all the comments directed to me.

Arundhati Roy and free speech
It seems the congress government is going to ignore this issue at the present juncture. Even though I welcome this development, it is disappointing to see that the home ministry initially gave a go ahead to Delhi police to file a case. It is the police that seems to have hesitated pointing out the negative fall out from such a case considering the upcoming Obama visit -- doing the right thing for wrong reasons, is that not supposed to be the greatest of sins (T.S.Elliot?)?

But, a more troubling revelation to me is the ease with which standing is granted to politicians to file these cases against Roy. Some BJP busybody in Ranchi has filed a case and it has been taken cognizance of. Another case has been filed in Hariyana. Madya Pradesh CM wants Roy and Geelani to be tried for treason. All this is reminiscent of the trouble Kushbu, and to a lesser extent Suhashini, had to endure for speaking her mind.

The mere fact that such an obvious and straight forward political speech -- there was no ambiguity for a court to step in and sort out -- risks possible criminal charges, filed by the most powerful authorities of the nation, is enough to put a chill on the free speech of scores of aspiring social and political activists. This may be a good thing in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, but in India? This must be cause for concern for all small "d" democrats. Even those disagreeing with Roy must stand with her in protecting right of free speech.

Also, whether Roy writes another novel or not is for her to decide. In the meantime, if she wishes to use her fame to promote causes that mean something to her, that is her right. Her consistent stand against the misuse of establishment power and her steadfast support of the truly trodden over, endear her to people whom not many care about. The flip side is, the establishment and those who benefit from the present order, like to cut her down in every way possible. Those who criticize her never address the concerns she raises. They always talk only about her the person, a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

Anyway, echoing Roy, I really pity the nation in which free speech is a political issue. I pity the nation with a judiciary that allows cases involving serious charges that could result in life in prison, such as sedition, to be filed by political opponents, so easily.

Kashmir
The very fact that there is something called Article 370 shows that Kashmir is not like other states of India such as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, or UP. BJP was in power for a full 5 years and never could repeal it. So, just claiming Kashmir is an integral part of India like all other states is only wishful rhetoric.

The bloodshed during partition is totally unrelated to the status of Kashmir. When people cite relatives having died during partition violence have to show why that makes Kashmir an integral part of India.

The suffering of Kashmiris of all stripes is all too real, nothing theoretical. The story of the suffering of a Kashmiri Pandit traveling to the west is no more real than that of millions of other Kashmirs who cannot get out, and continue to suffer everyday, under an occupation army of more than 500,000.

As many people have already pointed out, Pakistan and India will never settle this issue on their own. Way too much emotion is packed into it. Some even want a free hand, don't ask, don't tell, freedom to the army for a few weeks, then we can kill our way to settling the issue -- thankfully, these kinds of ideas don't get any traction.

Kashmir is a matter of honor between India and Pakistan. More than getting the whole of Kashmir, not letting the other have it is more important. To ensure this, neither country is interested in the peace and happiness of real, ordinary Kashmiris. If this baby was brought before King Solomon, both women wouldn't mind having the baby cut into two halves. Sadly, it is already been cut and has been bleeding for 60 years, and both women refuse to put the two halves together again because each loath to let the other have the whole thing.

Left to their own devices, India and Pakistan will never settle this issue in a bilateral way. At this juncture, only international community can solve this issue. It is not impossible. A truly independent commission can be formed consisting of counties like Brazil, South Africa, Norway, and with the backing of the UN, Kashmir can become an independent country with security guarantee from the international community. This is not possible in the absence of inspired leadership from India. Under the current environment, the proverbial hell may freeze over before this happens.

regards ...
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I went through the video interview of Sow. Roy. She makes statements without any factual basis or at best says only what is half true. She says, for example that the uprising is 'leaderless' and spontaneous. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the Kashmir issue:

A 2001 report "Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency" of US think tank RAND Corporation noted that "the nature of the Kashmir conflict has been transformed from what was originally a secular, locally based struggle (conducted via the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front - JKLF) to one that is now largely carried out by foreign militants and rationalized in pan-Islamic religious terms." Most of the militant organizations are composed of foreign mercenaries mostly from the Pakistani Punjab[unreliable source?] [10] In 2010 with the support of its intelligence agencies Pakistan has been once again 'boosting' Kashmir militants and recruitment of 'martyrs' in Pakistani state of Punjab has increased.[11][12]

She obviously leaves this out in her interview, instead focusing only on the admitted Indian excesses. Who is intellectually bankrupt?

Secondly, your statement that the Kashmiris can not go anywhere else is wrong. They are free to go elsewhere in India - there is a big group of these folks in Chennai. The Pandits were hounded out. The restriction is about others in India settling up there.

Again from the Wikipedia article:
The Freedom in the World 2006 report categorized the Indian-administered Kashmir as "partly free", and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well as the country of Pakistan "not free".[131] India claims that contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India

Granted, some opinion polls show that a majority want independence, though I suspect that this comes from how they are being treated. But this can change, if their lives improve.

Without the sacrifices made by everyone in this issue, irrespective of their numbers or caste, no complete solution can be found. No one denies the suffering of the Kashmiri people. The first thing to do is for the so called 'intellectuals' who peddle their ideas on the world stage to give the whole picture. Like the Palestinian issue, a wrong picture is portrayed, without the whole picture, to suit one's ideology. This is why Sow. Roy's ideas are all theoretical.

Free speech should be promoted. But not when that free speech becomes dangerous when a live conflict is going on, with the possible result of fanning the flames that may be the cause of the fellow countrymen's lives. Along with 'Free speech' comes responsibility. This is why every country in the world carries on it's law books certain things about sedition.

Lastly, this is an internal matter to India and Pakistan. UN or any other country has no business interfering with this issue. It is totally within India's sovereignty to pacify the valley as long as they not employ any international laws. By the way, do you honestly think that Pakistan will let go of POK voluntarily?

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

The two issues that I am concerned about in this thread are (i) Arundhati's right of free spech, not whether one agrees with her speech or not, and (ii) whether Kashmir is an integral part of India or not.

I am sorry to say, you did not address either of these two questions.

On the question of "'Free speech' comes responsibility", yes, I noted this in my very first post. Free speech is not an absolute right. The state has a duty to place reasonable restrictions on such things as directly inciting violence (like Sharon Angle, the senate candidate from Nevada advocating second amendment remedies, i.e. remedies that involve guns) or causing immediate disorder/pandemonium that may result in injury to person or property. To accomplish these goals you don't need sedition laws. Sedition laws invariably serve despots like the erstwhile colonial British administrations the world over, Zia of Pakistan, Mubarak of Egypt, et. al. What a company Indian ruling elites keep!!?

On intellectual bankruptcy, you seem to imply Roy is the one who is intellectually bankrupt because she did not talk about all sides. This is patently unfair. On the one hand you have Arundhati who is an activist trying to persuade public opinion. On the other hand we have political operatives who are out to attack her personally. My comparison is between these two people. Between these two, who is intellectually bankrupt is obvious. However, you seem to want to compare her to an academic who has an obligation to remain impartial. Such a comparison is patently unfair. Arundhati has no obligation to present both sides. All that is expected is whether her argument is valid or not. I myself find her intellectually very very persuasive.

I freely admit, I love Wikipedia. I refer to it all the time to get a thumbnail sketch about anything I don't know nothing or next to nothing about. But I never would like to cite it as my authoritative source for any position I argue in favor of.

The question about Kashmir is not whether foreign forces are involved in the violence. I am sure they are. But, the question is whether it is an integral part of India as the other states. The answer to that question is given by the mere existence of Article 370 even after 5 years of BJP rule. BJP, who hate Article 370, could not repeal it. That clearly shows Kashmir is a special case.

You say Kashmir is an internal matter between India and Pakistan. Kashmiris don't accept this view. When British colonial power ended in India they partitioned greater India into India and Pakistan and required all the princely states to choose one or the other. That is the extent of legal weight for the binary choice given to the Kashmiri people. There is no moral weight for that choice. Why not a third option, independence for Kashmir?

India agreed for a plebiscite in the UN. This means, as a matter of principle, India agreed to let the Kashmiris decide. There may be many reasons why this plebiscite is not held yet. But, India cannot simply change its mind and unilaterally claim it is an integral part of India. If they did, that would be illegal under international law. Ultimately, the international community has an obligation to hold India to the promise it made to UN, and negotiate towards a plebiscite. For these reasons this is not a simple bilateral issue just between India and Paksitan, there is a third party involved, the Kashmiri people.

Cheers!
 
Dear Professor Ji,
My response in 'blue' below:
Nara said:
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

The two issues that I am concerned about in this thread are (i) Arundhati's right of free spech, not whether one agrees with her speech or not, and (ii) whether Kashmir is an integral part of India or not.

I am sorry to say, you did not address either of these two questions.
I thought I did, but glad to have the chance to clarify further.

On the question of "'Free speech' comes responsibility", yes, I noted this in my very first post. Free speech is not an absolute right. The state has a duty to place reasonable restrictions on such things as directly inciting violence (like Sharon Angle, the senate candidate from Nevada advocating second amendment remedies, i.e. remedies that involve guns) or causing immediate disorder/pandemonium that may result in injury to person or property. To accomplish these goals you don't need sedition laws. Sedition laws invariably serve despots like the erstwhile colonial British administrations the world over, Zia of Pakistan, Mubarak of Egypt, et. al. What a company Indian ruling elites keep!!?
Every nation has every right to pass laws according to their internal conditions. If India has laws on her books about sedition and if it covers her speech as inciting violence and saying things that are not true about the state (Kashmir is not an Indian state), then I don't think that you and I can pass any judgement on it. This is not an academic exercise. What she said can easily be termed as sedition (Definition:1. speech or behaviour directed against the peace of a state
2. (Law) an offence that tends to undermine the authority of a state
3. (Law) an incitement to public disorder
4. Archaic revolt)
By saying that Kashmir is not part of India and should be independent, she clearly conforms to the first three definitions above.


On intellectual bankruptcy, you seem to imply Roy is the one who is intellectually bankrupt because she did not talk about all sides. This is patently unfair. On the one hand you have Arundhati who is an activist trying to persuade public opinion. On the other hand we have political operatives who are out to attack her personally. My comparison is between these two people. Between these two, who is intellectually bankrupt is obvious. However, you seem to want to compare her to an academic who has an obligation to remain impartial. Such a comparison is patently unfair. Arundhati has no obligation to present both sides. All that is expected is whether her argument is valid or not. I myself find her intellectually very very persuasive.
An 'intellectual is one who impassionately thinks through ALL the issues involved and with the gift given by God, arrives at an opinion that has wisdom based on facts. Instead she uses illogical sappy thinking to analyse using wrong information (deliberately?) The one sided analysis and conclusion is done by a 'hack' as you described someone else. She is a hack. If she is intellectually very, very persuasive to you, then, what can I say?

I freely admit, I love Wikipedia. I refer to it all the time to get a thumbnail sketch about anything I don't know nothing or next to nothing about. But I never would like to cite it as my authoritative source for any position I argue in favor of.
Okay, then, instead of generalizing this, how about putting up your reasons for disagreeing with the Wiki info I have posted above. This type of blanket dismissal is not proper, as Wiki has citation standards to base the statements on. This way, you tend to subtly dismiss my argument as not based on solid grounds - Professor, you know all the tricks!
The question about Kashmir is not whether foreign forces are involved in the violence. I am sure they are. But, the question is whether it is an integral part of India as the other states. The answer to that question is given by the mere existence of Article 370 even after 5 years of BJP rule. BJP, who hate Article 370, could not repeal it. That clearly shows Kashmir is a special case.
Article 370 was inserted in to constitution NOT BECAUSE either India or Kashmir thought that Kashmir was not a part of India - it was an agreement between Nehru and Abdullah to give Kashmir special incentives TEMPORARILY, while Kashmir passed their State Constitution affirming that THEY ARE AN INTEGRAL PART of INDIA. State of Kashmir's status as an Indian state is enshrined in both constitutions. Please read the following speech by one Justice Gupta:
Kashmir is integral part of India : Gupta

Please do not confuse 370 with the issue of Kashmir's status as a state of India.

You say Kashmir is an internal matter between India and Pakistan. Kashmiris don't accept this view. When British colonial power ended in India they partitioned greater India into India and Pakistan and required all the princely states to choose one or the other. That is the extent of legal weight for the binary choice given to the Kashmiri people. There is no moral weight for that choice. Why not a third option, independence for Kashmir?

Plebiscite was not 'imposed' by UN. Both India and Pakistan agreed by themselves on this: UN resolution 47 says:
Noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite,
Please note that this is a Chapter VI resolution - non enforceable with no mandatory sanctions. Nehru Ji asked for the plebiscite, because he wanted Pakistan out and was confident that his friend Abdullah will deliver whole of Kashmir through a plebiscite. This obviously was the right thing to do, looking back. But the first condition for this to happen, Pakistan should remove itself from POK. Because the resolution is not enforceable, they never left.

India agreed for a plebiscite in the UN. This means, as a matter of principle, India agreed to let the Kashmiris decide. There may be many reasons why this plebiscite is not held yet. But, India cannot simply change its mind and unilaterally claim it is an integral part of India. If they did, that would be illegal under international law. Ultimately, the international community has an obligation to hold India to the promise it made to UN, and negotiate towards a plebiscite. For these reasons this is not a simple bilateral issue just between India and Paksitan, there is a third party involved, the Kashmiri people.
Sorry, Kashmir IS an integral part of India. Please read this:
Kashmir not UN business, asserts Tharoor

I fully agree with Tharoor Ji. UN has no business poking in to sovereign countries' matters. In my opinion, if India went about it half way wrong, Pakistan has lost any moral high road by invading and occupying Kashmir. And they have conceded part of that illegally occupied land to China!

So, I don't know where you and Sow. Roy come off saying that the international community should be involved!




Cheers!
Click to expand...

Regards,
KRS
 
dear Shri KRS, greetings!

KRS said:
Every nation has every right to pass laws according to their internal conditions
Click to expand...
Yes, every state can browbeat a majority to pass any legislation they want, the Patriot Act passed by the US congress and the TADA act passed by the Indian parliament are examples. But, a majority is not always right. This is why we have constitution. Liberal democracies are about rule of law and due process first and foremost, then only comes majority rule. Sedition laws are invariably used to muzzle free speech, by tyrants. To the extent the Indian establishment uses sedition law to silence political speech it is acting in the great tradition of tyrants like Mubarak and the Saudi royal family.

his way, you tend to subtly dismiss my argument as not based on solid grounds - Professor, you know all the tricks! ....
Article 370 was inserted in to constitution NOT BECAUSE either I

[...]

Please do not confuse 370 with the issue of Kashmir's status as a state of India.
Click to expand...
Sorry Shri KRS, you have to come up with a better argument than Wikipedia to claim kashmir is like any other state in the Indian union. Whatever the motivation may be, there is no denying Article 370 is part of the Indan constitution. No other state enjoys this exception. So, to that extent, Kashmir is not an integral part of India in the same sense as all other states. Why else we have article 370 only for Kashmir? I submit to you sir, I am not the one who is confused.

Plebiscite was not 'imposed' by UN. Both India and Pakistan agreed by themselves on this:
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what India agreed to, on its own accord. India did not agree for a plebiscite for Tamil Nadu, not for UP, or for any other state, only for Kashmir. Does this not tell us that India agreed that Kashmir is a special case, not like any of the other states?

I fully agree with Tharoor Ji. UN has
Click to expand...
You may agree with Tharoor all you like, but he is not the final arbiter of the status of Kashmir. He is not even any kind of arbiter of what happens in his own supposed back yard, Kerala.

if India went about it half way wrong, Pakistan has lost any moral high road by invading and occupying Kashmir. And they have conceded part of that illegally occupied land to China!

So, I don't know where you and Sow. Roy come off saying that the international community should be involved!
Click to expand...
Neither Arundhati nor I want Pakistan to take over Kashmir. If India is bad, IMO, Pakistan is worse. Arundhati is talking about Azadi Kashmir, not POK to encompass all of Kashmir. This can happen only if India takes an enlightened approach. Pakistan can't make it happen, only India can. If India is willing to compromise, an international consensus can be built that Pakistan cannot oppose.

regards ...
 
Dear Professor,
My comments in 'blue':
Nara said:
dear Shri KRS, greetings!

Yes, every state can browbeat a majority to pass any legislation they want, the Patriot Act passed by the US congress and the TADA act passed by the Indian parliament are examples. But, a majority is not always right. This is why we have constitution. Liberal democracies are about rule of law and due process first and foremost, then only comes majority rule. Sedition laws are invariably used to muzzle free speech, by tyrants. To the extent the Indian establishment uses sedition law to silence political speech it is acting in the great tradition of tyrants like Mubarak and the Saudi royal family.
Again what you say is absolutely in the realm of theory. Why should a state put up with a 'free speech' by anyone, when it outright, legally owns that state? Do you think China and Pakistan would tolerate anything close to the parallel speeches by their citizens, questioning the ownerships of Tibet and POK, respectively? (By the way both have integrated their parts of Kashmir in to their nationhoods). India lives in a tough neighborhood, and unfortunately this woman has no idea what she is talking about.

You seem to think that a constitution ever lives, where minority rights will forever be protected. People drafted the constitution, giving minorities rights, based on their self interest. If there comes a time, God forbid, where a majority feels that their interests are not heeded to, the minority rights would not matter. Majority will act. This is just human. This is the reality. People strive for idealism, not at the cost of their own existence.

Sorry Shri KRS, you have to come up with a better argument than Wikipedia to claim kashmir is like any other state in the Indian union. Whatever the motivation may be, there is no denying Article 370 is part of the Indan constitution. No other state enjoys this exception. So, to that extent, Kashmir is not an integral part of India in the same sense as all other states. Why else we have article 370 only for Kashmir? I submit to you sir, I am not the one who is confused.
My claims about Kashmir being an integral part of India, did not stem from my posting from Wiki. It was about foreign elements' hand in the so called uprisings. Looks like, you have not even given a cursory glimpse to those.

Do you disagree that article 3 of Kasmir constitution, which legally passed saying that Kashmir has agreed to the accession of Kashmir to India? Do you disagree that the President of India has the power and discretion at any time to abrogate 370?

Yes, this is what India agreed to, on its own accord. India did not agree for a plebiscite for Tamil Nadu, not for UP, or for any other state, only for Kashmir. Does this not tell us that India agreed that Kashmir is a special case, not like any of the other states?
Any other Indian State like TN, is not occupied by a foreign state. As I said, Pandit Nehru Ji, the most famous pacifist and peacemaker agreed to a plebiscite at that time time, believing that the Kashmiris would choose India. And, he was probably correct at that time. But this is all moot now - Pakistan did not withdraw her troops.

You may agree with Tharoor all you like, but he is not the final arbiter of the status of Kashmir. He is not even any kind of arbiter of what happens in his own supposed back yard, Kerala.
Professor, please, please - I cited him because he served in UN and so he knows more about the UN resolutions and the Kashmir issues. Why do you diminish him? See, who is calling names?

Neither Arundhati nor I want Pakistan to take over Kashmir. If India is bad, IMO, Pakistan is worse. Arundhati is talking about Azadi Kashmir, not POK to encompass all of Kashmir. This can happen only if India takes an enlightened approach. Pakistan can't make it happen, only India can. If India is willing to compromise, an international consensus can be built that Pakistan cannot oppose.
So, beat up India, because she is a democracy, is it? I have not heard a single argument from you that establishes that Kashmir is not part of India. Instead you have all these 'what if' theoretical propositions. India's security is at risk in that part of the world, as evidenced by the not long ago incident called 'Kargil'? To me it does not make sense when countries like Pakistan and China have no benign motives and you and Sow Roy are asking India to b magnanimous to give in to the proxy war there. To me this is neither logical, practical, or correct. This is exactly a Pollyanna attitude that promotes evil in the world. Sorry.

regards ...
Click to expand...

Regards,
KRS
 
Last edited:
When Pakistan signed Simla Agreement in 1972, the UN resolution on Kashmir has become redundant.

There is no point in bring UN resolution on Kashmir again and again.

All the best
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

Can you elaborate on this? How does India has become, 'sadly' I might add, the 'obedient servant' of the US? In what respect?
sangom said:
Shri tbs,

Sadly India is now "your obedient servant" of US. So we need not even dream anything of this sort to happen!
Click to expand...

Regards,
KRS
 
Shri.Nara,
For the one who does not have faith / trust, the idol of god is just an idol and he cannot see God in it at all. For a person who does not feel that he is citizen of a nation, the nation is merely a piece of land and for him boundaries between countries do not matter. You are more for "Free Speech" of a lady whose conviction is to work against the nation. If I have a choice between Free Speech and sovereignity/integrity of a nation, the nation is first for me. Please do not expect that the BJP party will ignore the nation's interest and will work for Free speech of anti-nationals. Congress party has inclination to do this and I found your appreciation of the party.
According to you, Kashmir was never an Integral part of India - Let it be. Kashmir was never a part of Pakistan too. If you are an adovcate for independent Kashmir, then you wish perennial trouble for India. India has lost enough of blood and wealth to retain Kashmir within and to keep it away from greedy eyes. Even if such expenses become more than now, there is no question of conceeding to seccessionists.
 
KRS said:
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

Can you elaborate on this? How does India has become, 'sadly' I might add, the 'obedient servant' of the US? In what respect?


Regards,
KRS
Click to expand...
Shri KRS,

The conclusion that the Sonia-Manmohan government is eager to please the US interests at any cost arises mainly from the Indo-US nuclear deal and how the Indian Government has gone about it till now.

The past pronouncements in Parliament about how India would maintain its independence to negotiate, in regard to the nuclear deal, that a repeat of the Bhopal tragedy in which Union Carbide went scot-free will not be allowed in any case, etc., ultimately India has signed on the dotted line. Despite all that is still told for public consumption here about the safety and compensation clauses in the Indian legislation, I am of the view that if some accident happens (God forbid it!) the US suppliers cannot be proceeded against because US has signed the CSC itself with a caveat that US suppliers will be not involved.

It may be recalled that the Manmohan govt. had, at one stage, even tried its best to block the Indian Parliament from scrutinizing the deal, claiming secrecy and privilege. And a majority for passing it was obtained by resorting to very unethical methods. To me there is no need for any more evidence to show that India under the present Govt. is either being secretly blackmailed to comply or the Indian govt. is over-eager to please US at any cost.

The latest position may be seen in Several lacunae remain in `subservient` liability bill: Sinha

Thus the lives of Indians have been sacrificed, for some unexplained reason, to help the US suppliers who have unused parts and want to make money by pushing it on to some pliant country. The original plea of Manmohan govt. about the energy gap etc., was doubted by many persons here.

Again US does not want India to use the Uranium but to surrender it to US. Who else but a factotum will agree to do such unenviable job of running the reactors, taking upon itself all the dangers, and then supply the Uranium for increasing US' own nuclear arsenal?
There are many conjectures floating around as to why this is happening but these are not relevant.

In my opinion President Obama does not consider India as a necessary ally to balance China in Asia. He seems to feel that direct dealings with China will be a better way. For example he has accepted China's role in Pakistan. Now China wants to be a party in the Kashmir dispute. China is saying Kashmir is not Indian territory by issuing stapled visas to Kashmiris. Perhaps it will be difficult for Obama to antagonise China on this issue. Hence, India is some how helping US on the terms set by it and this is what is viewed as subservience.
Please also see page 5 specially of-

Are we going to fight Pakistan or any other country along with the US - Rediff.com News

This article reflects the truth I feel.
 
Nara said:
Folks, here is an example of intellectual bankruptcy -- attacking the person in every which way you can is an indication of lack of sustainable arguments.

Cheers!
Click to expand...


Arundhathi Roy is supporting naxalites/maoists who are killing innocent civilians.

India police say Maoists sabotage train | Reuters

Arundhathi Roy is supporting those who committed genocide on more than four lakh Kashmiri Pandits.

Islamic Terrorism and Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits


In-spite of all the above Government of India is not taking any action against her because they know very well that she wants to get cheap publicity.

Sundarlal Bahugana fought the Tehri Dam issue and subsequently he worked in the rehabilitation of affected people.

Sunderlal Bahuguna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medha Patkar fought Narmada dam issue with full sincerity to help the affected people and subsequently involved herself in the rehabilitation work.

Medha Patkar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Entire nation knows that Arundhathi Roy didn't participate in the subsequent rehabilitation work on both Tehri and Narmada Dam issues and only gained publicity stunt in the initial stages.

Any way I expect only this sort of reaction from the gentleman who has shed crocodile tears for the daliths in the past and got exposed in the Kizhavenmani incident of burning 44 daliths alive.

I don't require any certificate from this gentleman about my intellectual bankruptcy.

All the best
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

I have only couple of comments.

I do think the rights guaranteed in the constitution of a country must be protected for all, especially the rights of the minority. That is a mark of mature liberal society. If a time comes when a majority wants to take away such liberties, it has to follow the law and amend the constitution. Until that time, the law of the land must be followed.

Also, IMO, a country that takes away legitimate minority rights is not a liberal democracy, it is just a mobocracy, of course that is just the Pollyanna in me talking.


KRS said:
This is exactly a Pollyanna attitude that promotes evil in the world. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I am sorry too, that you have to resort to this :(.

regards ....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sangom said:
Dear RVR,

Hu Jintao goes out in 2012, barely two years from now. Xi Jinping will be deciding matters more in the meantime, I think. Most probably, we will have one more round of "hindi chini bhai bhai" followed by an aggression. How soon is the only question!
Click to expand...

Let us hope that both India and China sorts out border problem once for all in the best interest of both the countries.

India, China for 'practical solution' to border row: PM - The Times of India

During Vajpayee regime, China recognised Indian accession of Sikkim by opening a trade route through Sikkim

Trade Routes: China's 'Ancient Tea-Horse Road' in Historical Perspective

Let us hope the issue of Arunachal Pradesh is sorted out once for all in the future and there is no border dispute between both the countries.

All the best
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top