Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141516
Results 226 to 228 of 228

Thread: The Kashmir Problem

  1. #226
    Regular ghatotkacha's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Oct 08
    Toronto, Canada
    An Open Letter to Yasin Malik (Founder of JKLF)

    A very interesting read ... some excerpts ...

    You claim to have taken to Gandhian methods and claim that the movement for "azadi" in Kashmir is non violent —all on the grounds that some years ago you gave up the gun. Dear friend Yasin, you gave up the gun after you were arrested and jailed, not while you were on the outside, fighting. You never gave up supporting and defending those who continued using the gun. In the November 7 meeting, you declared openly that you are proud of having been the first one to take up the gun for the cause of Kashmir. When a young Kashmiri Pandit commented: "You may have given up the gun but that does not mean Kashmiri Muslims gave up the gun. The Hizbul Mujahiddin is also comprised of Kashmiri youth." Your response was: Since the Indian government did not hand over "azadi" to the "non-violent" JKLF, and since human rights organizations in India failed to persuade the Indian government to do so, Hizbul Mujahaddin are justified in taking up the gun. Yasin bhai, a true commitment to non-violence should not be so conditional and fragile. Gandhi did not say: "Give India independence or else I will unleash terrorist brigades on you." That was Jinnah’s method, not Gandhi’s.
    For example, when you asked me to intervene on behalf of some of your colleagues held in detention centres who you claimed and seemed to me to be innocent, I did so without hesitation. I even succeeded on some occasions in helping get them released—your verbal assurance that they were not involved in any terrorist crimes was an important consideration in my efforts. Do you think you could get such relief for your colleagues if they had been arrested on account of suspected terrorist links in England—a nation you so ardently admire— or in the US—the country you had put most faith in to help you gain "Azadi"?
    Now ... this is the most interesting part ... we see what "azadi" really means to the Kashmiri separatists ..
    In the November 7 meeting, you expressed your annoyance over the fact that representatives from Ladakh, Jammu, Poonch, and Rajouri had been invited. You dismissed their presence with open contempt saying: " Is this a mohalla meeting that we have gathered all these people to discuss local affairs?" This attitude of assuming that it is only Kashmiri Muslims of the Valley— and that too of a certain political persuasion— who ought to have the right to determine the future of the entire state of J&K has created huge fault lines and murderously hostile camps in the State.

    No one organization has the right to be the sole spokesperson of the Kashmiri people. The strong voices opposing your politics in Jammu, Ladakh and even within Kashmir have to be given their due importance.

    While you expected human rights organizations in India to help you secure "Azadi"—you have allowed the concept to remain so fuzzy that I have not yet understood what concretely you mean by it. I have spent hours trying to persuade you to work out the concrete modalities of your plank of "Azadi" and explain to us how your Azadi will be any different from the bloody 1947 Partition of India. What will be the fate of minorities in your 'Azad' Kashmir? What happens to the rights of those in Kashmir, Jammu, Rajouri, Poonch, Leh and Kargil and those in the Valley who do not wish to secede from India and do not want to live in your mythical Azad Kashmir? I never got anything resembling an answer. It also makes me very uneasy that the JKLF does not even have a constitution, leave alone any democratic machinery for managing its affairs.
    It was a very revealing moment, Yasin, when you told me after one of your visits to Pakistan which I quote from memory:

    "I have now realized the great difference between the human rights activists in India and Pakistan. The Indian activists mostly come from ordinary middle class families so they are small minded. The Pakistani human rights activists are mostly from aristocratic families—daughters of generals and wealthy land owning aristocrats. Therefore, they are large hearted and have a broader vision."

    You have been understandably impressed by their pampering and hospitality extended to you. But you would do well to remember, many of them pamper you because you are a thorn in the flesh of the Indian establishment. They do not pamper their home grown secessionists--the Baluchis, the Pakhtoons and Sindhis, who wish to break away from Pakistan, as they do you.

    You would also do well to remember that the aristocratic elite of Pakistan has done a poor job of defending their own democracy. They have also done a poor job of resisting the growing influence of the Taliban over their polity and civil society. Pakistan Administered Kashmir has a much poorer track record of democracy than the Kashmir you inhabit. The diverse ethnic groups and regions in Pakistan have far fewer rights than minority communities and regions have in India. No matter how well they treat you personally, the aristocratic elite of Pakistan are unlikely to deliver the "azadi" you are seeking.

  2. #227
    New Member MrigKash's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 09
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    Then can you tell me why Pakistan is independent from India?Can you tell me what's the standard of Land division between India and Pakistan?Do the Kashmir problem will exist if UK Clearly stated it belong to India or Pakistan?Yes,it's wrong to advice us to separate on the basis of religion and ethnicity,but it's meaningles to the Kashmir problem。
    Did or did not the UK recognise J&K's accession to the Indian Union?

    Anyone who has the correct info, please elaborate.
    Schluß und Tschüß

    Amicitia Typicus

  3. #228
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Quote Originally Posted by MrigKash View Post
    Did or did not the UK recognise J&K's accession to the Indian Union?

    Anyone who has the correct info, please elaborate.
    USSR and now russia of the major powers clearly state that kashmir is an integral part of india.

    nowadays the western powers refer it as a "dispute" and avoid aoffending either party. however previously they have tried to pressure india into negotiations (like in the early 60's) as a sop for their then ally pakistan.

    Nehru was not happy with the stand of the western powers at all after he took the issue to UN.he found that far from being a genuine international forum, the big powers were using it for their own agenda. that's when he started changing his stand on the plesbicite.

    the western powers were allied with pakistan during most of the cold war era.

    Do the Kashmir problem will exist if UK Clearly stated it belong to India or Pakistan?
    the international law is by the vienna convention.not by the british.
    however the criteria for partition as drawn by the british pending agreement with both parties.

    but it was not easy going because of the hostility and bitterness between the 2 sides.

    British india had two major units-
    1 provinces directly controlled by the british.
    2 princely states ruled by maharajas and nawabs over whom the british had suzerainty.

    The accession of the provinces to india or pakistan settled down eventually despite some controversies.

    the princely states were asked to join india or pakistan by the ruler's consent keeping in mind factors like geographical contiguity.

    Many of the maharajas or nawabs were greedy and wanted to keep their fiefdom.but they were beaten down either by india or pakistan to join.

    the last major controversy arose over three of the princely states- junagadh,hyderabad and kashmir

    On junagadh, india didn't accept saying the teenaged nawab was initimidated into joining pakistan.

    on kashmir, pakistan copied the charge saying the reverse.however the initial action was taken by pakistan which sent in marauding tribesmen to snatch the valley.The last viceroy of india,mountbatten told the indian leadership they can send in indian troops into kashmir only if the maharaja accedes to india.

    the maharaja who vacillating all along even dreaming of indepence, finally acceded to india.

    by international law, an intrument of accession is valid instrument for accession to nation state..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts