What are your views about the Kashmir issue?

[Tusker]

i live in the world where I can see things beyond nationalism and patriotism. Pandits were forced out and yes some were probably killed in the conflict that ensued. Why they were forced is a matter we only hear about from one side, India's. It would obviously be biased, Like I said, listen to the Kashmiri account and it's completely different. I'm encouraged by your concern about ethnocide, because India will need people like you when it's about to commit the same against Kashmir. That's been my point in this thread. India cannot continue like this against Kashmir, it has far more to lose.

If you think Iam biased towards Pandits you can talk about any minority that has had the misfortune of living amongst a Muslim majority anywhere in the world ... the situation would be the same. Choices are pretty limited if you are in that situation. This is a no-brainer.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

If you think Iam biased towards Pandits you can talk about any minority that has had the misfortune of living amongst a Muslim majority anywhere in the world ... the situation would be the same. Choices are pretty limited if you are in that situation. This is a no-brainer.

That's a loaded question,"misfortune of living with Muslims"? I

n the early days between Kashmiris in the IOK they had ethnic Kashmiri identity. It's the partition that drove the question of religion. So the answer is not too far from Kashmir itself as under Hari Singh's rule there was a Muslim majority, not only did they live with other minorities they were happy to live under non-Muslim rule.

 

[Tusker]

That's a loaded question,"misfortune of living with Muslims"? I

n the early days between Kashmiris in the IOK they had ethnic Kashmiri identity. It's the partition that drove the question of religion. So the answer is not too far from Kashmir itself as under Hari Singh's rule there was a Muslim majority, not only did they live with other minorities they were happy to live under non-Muslim rule.

And the sad fact is that in the last 100 yrs or so the Pandits went from being a prosperous thriving community with significant population and even being rulers to being systematically driven out primarily because of their religion. This is a fact you can't deny.

but this is no different fate which other minorities have had to face elsewhere in the World again a easily verifiable fact.

 

[English August]

This is where our conversation on this topic ends. If you can't differentiate the migration during 1947 and the Kashmir dispute, then you're exactly what you accuse me of, ignorant.

I see. So you describe Indians as Nazis and then you "wholeheartedly agree" with another guy who describes Indians as Nazis and you call your tone conciliatory? Interesting.

Conceptually there is no difference between the situation in 1947 and today. When partition was announced, there were some Muslims who preferred to be in Pak so they went there and there were some Hindus in Pak who preferred India so they came here. In the process several thousand people were butchered. Hopefully this time it can be done in a peaceful manner without any loss of life.

I still don't get it: some people describe Indian security personnel as rapists and butchers. And they feel very happy when Pak wins a cricket match. So why not just pack your bags and go where you won't be butchered and raped? And surely, the Pakistanis, who claim to have a lot of sympathy for the long suffering Kashmiris, would happily welcome these 50 lakh Kashmiris? What am I missing?

 

[ShadabFakhar]

And the sad fact is that in the last 100 yrs or so the Pandits went from being a prosperous thriving community with significant population and even being rulers to being systematically driven out primarily because of their religion. This is a fact you can't deny.

but this is no different fate which other minorities have had to face elsewhere in the World again a easily verifiable fact.

Your 'misfortune of living with muslims' comment shows you have a narrative about Islam and one can interpret many situations to suit that narrative. For example, issues that arise from famine, socio-economic, geopolitical, ethnic divides can have a religious motivation to achieving a solution towards the culmination of such events.

You've given a very vague time-line of the last 100 years, but I'll try to give a shot at answering it. There was a diaspora of less well off Kashmiris before Hari Singh's rule to all parts of Pakistan and India, such that you see Kashmiris in Karachi and Delhi and not surprisingly these cities were and still have a large population of Muslims. If your account is true, then it was Muslims that were less well off and they were driven out due to economic factors well before the Pandits decided to leave. It makes sense that Pandits would thrive under a Hindu ruler.

The pre-partition Pandits under Hari Singh were still a minority who were ruling a Muslim majority state. That community being a minority cannot be blamed on Muslims unless you blame Kashmiri Muslims for converting to Islam. Remember Hari Singh was a Hindu, I fail to see how you can blame Muslims for Hindus being driven out when it was a Hindu in charge of the then 'princely-state'. Do make special note of the socio-economic factors here.

Post-partition obviously had many issues arise from it and still has to this day and the religious element became a prominent theme in the political discourse thereafter.

When all is broken down, you see there's a lot more to it than just 'Muslims driving out minorities'.


As for other minorities elsewhere, Coptic Christians, Yemeni Jews and Muslim Spain are good examples of Muslims living with other minorities. It's unfortunate you have to go beyond mainstream news and history to research these facts.

 

[Tusker]

Your 'misfortune of living with muslims' comment shows you have a narrative about Islam and one can interpret many situations to suit that narrative. For example, issues that arise from famine, socio-economic, geopolitical, ethnic divides can have a religious motivation to achieving a solution towards the culmination of such events.

You've given a very vague time-line of the last 100 years, but I'll try to give a shot at answering it. There was a diaspora of less well off Kashmiris before Hari Singh's rule to all parts of Pakistan and India, such that you see Kashmiris in Karachi and Delhi and not surprisingly these cities were and still have a large population of Muslims. If your account is true, then it was Muslims that were less well off and they were driven out due to economic factors well before the Pandits decided to leave. It makes sense that Pandits would thrive under a Hindu ruler.

The pre-partition Pandits under Hari Singh were still a minority who were ruling a Muslim majority state. That community being a minority cannot be blamed on Muslims unless you blame Kashmiri Muslims for converting to Islam. Remember Hari Singh was a Hindu, I fail to see how you can blame Muslims for Hindus being driven out when it was a Hindu in charge of the then 'princely-state'. Do make special note of the socio-economic factors here.

Post-partition obviously had many issues arise from it and still has to this day and the religious element became a prominent theme in the political discourse thereafter.

When all is broken down, you see there's a lot more to it than just 'Muslims driving out minorities'.


As for other minorities elsewhere, Coptic Christians, Yemeni Jews and Muslim Spain are good examples of Muslims living with other minorities. It's unfortunate you have to go beyond mainstream news and history to research these facts.

I will only comment about the highlighted part because I don't want to be accused of bias.

Here is what a simple Google search reveals about coptic Christians :

Coptic Christians face constant trouble from the Egyptian state — for example, getting permission to build churches is made nearly impossible, they are frequently openly discriminated against or lynched, and the predominantly Muslim Government is subsequently criticised for turning a blind eye to their plight.

link : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634

Jews in Yemen : https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/...defines-life-for-yemens-few-jews.html?mcubz=2

 

[ShadabFakhar]

I see. So you describe Indians as Nazis and then you "wholeheartedly agree" with another guy who describes Indians as Nazis and you call your tone conciliatory? Interesting.

Yet again you choose to comprehend the comments the way you wish to portray it. I haven't described Indians as Nazis and I didn't agree with that aspect of hussain's comment where he didn't even definitively associate Nazism with Indians. This is exactly why I no longer wish to converse with you on this topic because you can't see beyond your own biases.

I unequivocally state that I do not consider Indians Nazis but if the current situation persists then they have every chance of descending into the same madness that turned the Germans into Nazis. This is why I keep repeating that India has far more to lose than a tiny Kashmir who has already lost much. The absence of a moral compass means India will pay a price for it one day.

Conceptually there is no difference between the situation in 1947 and today. When partition was announced, there were some Muslims who preferred to be in Pak so they went there and there were some Hindus in Pak who preferred India so they came here. In the process several thousand people were butchered. Hopefully this time it can be done in a peaceful manner without any loss of life.

See this is where I don't think you either know much about the situation or haven't thought it through. Conceptually? In 1947 there were a variety of concepts, the Indian one, the Pakistani one, the British one and the Hari Singh one, and then lastly the UN one; all of them with their own complexities. Today there is one concept and that is Indian Kashmir be allowed their god-given freedom to choose their own fate or be ruled by India or Pakistan. There's also a reason Nehru called a plebiscite and not 1947 style migration, go research it. There's also a special status given to Kashmir, which will answer your comment of "India owes them nothing". Go research these issues before proposing this fantastical solution of yours. I also agreed with hussain for this very reason, because Indians are letting the hysteria get the better of them and you're making these outrageous comments that are rightly dismissed.

Kashmiris have lived there for centuries, if not millenia, and it is up to them whether they choose to migrate or not. A populist leader can't change old treaties, constitutions or agreements to serve his own selfish purpose, so they will stay put and most likely suffer.

I still don't get it: some people describe Indian security personnel as rapists and butchers. And they feel very happy when Pak wins a cricket match. So why not just pack your bags and go where you won't be butchered and raped? And surely, the Pakistanis, who claim to have a lot of sympathy for the long suffering Kashmiris, would happily welcome these 50 lakh Kashmiris?

That maybe down to them witnessing exra-judicial killings, having to endure torture and seeing their women raped. Cricket is a sport, anyone should be allowed to support any country they choose. Maybe Indians having better control over their troops and not feeling so insecure about who Kashmiris support is probably an easier solution than mass migration(not that this should ever be on the cards in this dispute anyway)



What am I missing?

What I've reference above.

 

[English August]

What I've reference above.

Alright, I'll take your unequivocal statement re. Indians not being Nazis at face value. As far the risk of Indians becoming Nazis in the future, why don't you let us worry about it and you worry about Pak descending into extreme talibanization and bloody hatred for anyone who's not a Sunni, etc.? As you yourself acknowledged, Indian democracy has been growing from strength to strength over the past 70 years and we'll only get better as corruption gets weeded out (look out for election funding reforms from Modi once GST settles down in the coming months). The idea of Indian pluralism is in safe hands, thank you.

I suggest you do not bring up the topic of plebiscite -- it's not going to happen, and in any case first Pak needs to de-militarize from POK (those were the terms of the agreement, you need to do some research yourself). Which again we know is not going to happen, so basically this is a non-starter like it has been for 70 years.

So you have to either think out of the box or maintain status quo. You guys keep complaining about the so called torture by Indian security personnel (in reality they are at the receiving end of violence by the terrorists and stone pelters) so clearly you don't like the status quo. So then do something about it. Come up with new ideas. I came up with mine, but you seem to be dismissive making some vague excuses about people living in that land for centuries / millennia! I wonder what happened to the Hindus who were living in their ancestral property in Lahore before they were brutally and mercilessly kicked out in 1947? Did they not have their god-given right to keep their property? How about the Kashmiri Pandits -- do they not have their god-given rights? As I have asked many times, what should the Indian state worry about these 50L violent jihadi people (basically equivalent of a district / county in the state of UP!) who throw stones on our security forces when it has this other 125 crore people to worry about?

As someone pointed out, they've already been given special rights under article 370 (they can buy property in rest of India, but Indian can't buy in J&K!). What more can anyone do? Why should they do it?

There are a lot of questions and no one's providing any reasonable answers. Think about it.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

I will only comment about the highlighted part because I don't want to be accused of bias.

Here is what a simple Google search reveals about coptic Christians :

Coptic Christians face constant trouble from the Egyptian state — for example, getting permission to build churches is made nearly impossible, they are frequently openly discriminated against or lynched, and the predominantly Muslim Government is subsequently criticised for turning a blind eye to their plight.

link : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634

Jews in Yemen : https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/...defines-life-for-yemens-few-jews.html?mcubz=2

What does this prove? That these Christians have been there for millennia and that they have survived through various Caliphates which is considered a Muslim majority by any definition. If you had said that minorities have been persecuted in the last 60 to 70 years then I would be inclined to agree. You'd also have to note they've lived under secular nation states, i.e., post WW1 there was a transition from the Ottoman Empire to nation states. Going by that logic, secularism is more to blame than Islam, but I don't have agendas so I don't want to generalise it. Nonetheless it's GEOPOLITICS.

Let's break it down further. During the last century the Middle East has seen a seismic shift in its politics and the borders have been dictated to them by the Allied forces. During this period we've seen one of the greatest injustices of our time, Israel. We've also seen an interest for oil at the cost of Saudi Arabia. Why do I mention this? The Yemeni Jews have been accused of supporting Zionism and therefore have been persecuted. Sounds quite similar to the Pandits supporting India theory. GEOPOLITICS

Now I don't know who abc.net.au are but they seem to have a disproportionate amount of IS-related stories and not to forget their irrelevant mention of 'Muslim-majority country in their opening paragraphs when referring to persecutions of Coptic Christians when in fact it was IS who claimed responsibility whose origins are disputed. I have a strong theory about why IS is referred to as such and why terms such as Islamism became mainstream. That's for another thread(we've already derailed this one). So there was an attack on Coptic Christians by IS. IS emerged from the PTSD patients in the illegal Iraq war and the Syrian civil war which can also be classed as the culmination of the Cold War, they also happen to be a funded by we-all-know-who.
GEOPOLITICS

In fact if anywhere you have a majority whether ethnically, religiously or racially then you will have examples of discrimination because human nature is such that people are ******** sometimes. It happens everywhere, but if you choose to highlight it and turn it into an industry as has been done with 'Islamist terrorism' then you're bound to fall prey to the hysteria.

 

[Tusker]

What does this prove? That these Christians have been there for millennia and that they have survived through various Caliphates which is considered a Muslim majority by any definition. If you had said that minorities have been persecuted in the last 60 to 70 years then I would be inclined to agree. You'd also have to note they've lived under secular nation states, i.e., post WW1 there was a transition from the Ottoman Empire to nation states. Going by that logic, secularism is more to blame than Islam, but I don't have agendas so I don't want to generalise it. Nonetheless it's GEOPOLITICS.

Let's break it down further. During the last century the Middle East has seen a seismic shift in its politics and the borders have been dictated to them by the Allied forces. During this period we've seen one of the greatest injustices of our time, Israel. We've also seen an interest for oil at the cost of Saudi Arabia. Why do I mention this? The Yemeni Jews have been accused of supporting Zionism and therefore have been persecuted. Sounds quite similar to the Pandits supporting India theory. GEOPOLITICS

Now I don't know who abc.net.au are but they seem to have a disproportionate amount of IS-related stories and not to forget their irrelevant mention of 'Muslim-majority country in their opening paragraphs when referring to persecutions of Coptic Christians when in fact it was IS who claimed responsibility whose origins are disputed. I have a strong theory about why IS is referred to as such and why terms such as Islamism became mainstream. That's for another thread(we've already derailed this one). So there was an attack on Coptic Christians by IS. IS emerged from the PTSD patients in the illegal Iraq war and the Syrian civil war which can also be classed as the culmination of the Cold War, they also happen to be a funded by we-all-know-who.
GEOPOLITICS

In fact if anywhere you have a majority whether ethnically, religiously or racially then you will have examples of discrimination because human nature is such that people are ******** sometimes. It happens everywhere, but if you choose to highlight it and turn it into an industry as has been done with 'Islamist terrorism' then you're bound to fall prey to the hysteria.

Geopolitics ? Really ?? well lets start from day 1 then ... the Jews in Arab World predate Islam itself. They have been systematically marginalized , persecuted and driven out of that entire region as and when Islam Spread. With no where else to go they finally made a strong hold in what is current day Israel and now they don't take crap from anyone which they learnt the hard way. Now thats the *REAL* face of GEOPOLITICS for you which is essentially just Religion based. You must be joking if you are serious that Islam has been kind to Judaism !!!

Here read more here --> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-treatment-of-jews-in-arab-islamic-countries

As to your claim that Minorities suffer everywhere ... you could not be more wrong. Read up on Parsis in India (Guess who they fled from about 1000 yrs ago !!) or Jews who settled in India in the 1st or 2nd Century AD and still live there without persecution !!!

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Alright, I'll take your unequivocal statement re. Indians not being Nazis at face value. As far the risk of Indians becoming Nazis in the future, why don't you let us worry about it and you worry about Pak descending into extreme talibanization and bloody hatred for anyone who's not a Sunni, etc.?

First of all I'm a Brit way many more times than I am a Pakistani, for the reasons you've mentioned above. I'm not taking sides in this argument, but analysing the current scenario and wanting a fair and peaceful end to this conflict. So please don't associate me with the Talibanisation and sectarian divides. I don't think there's this Talibanisation, because there's the Afghani Taliban who are supposedly pro-Pakistan but limited to the NWFP at most, but most probably limited on the Afghan side of the Durand Line and then there's the Pakistani Taliban with which the Pakistani army is at war.

The problem is I've seen far more Pakistanis criticise various so-called extremist elements in Pakistan than I have Indians 'worrying' about theirs. In fact I see the opposite, an encouragement of extremism in India. I don't want to take any of these worries out of their respective hands anytime soon. No, thank you.


As you yourself acknowledged, Indian democracy has been growing from strength to strength over the past 70 years and we'll only get better as corruption gets weeded out (look out for election funding reforms from Modi once GST settles down in the coming months).

You mistook me and not for the first time, I said it has been uninterrupted not that it's getting stronger. Democracy is only as good as the state the last government leaves it in. To quote Churchill “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” It's not perfect by any means and I think Germany was the worst example of it and Pakistan is the worst advert for it. I believe one of democracy's biggest weakness is populism and is worse yet with a misinformed public. My point yet again is that India is hysterical with pro-Hindutva rhetoric and any views contrary to it are met with an hostility that is increasingly becoming violent.

The idea of Indian pluralism is in safe hands, thank you.

Nope

I suggest you do not bring up the topic of plebiscite -- it's not going to happen, and in any case first Pak needs to de-militarize from POK (those were the terms of the agreement, you need to do some research yourself). Which again we know is not going to happen, so basically this is a non-starter like it has been for 70 years.

I mentioned the plebiscite to emphasise how silly your proposal was, if it was credible and achievable it would have been mentioned by the earlier Indian politicians, it never was and no right-minded Indian will mention it. I agree it will never happen but not for the reasons you mentioned. Oh and it's not considered POK by the inhabitants and people don't get beaten up for flying the Kashmir flag, which they do every so often nor do they get beat up or asked to leave for supporting India.

So you have to either think out of the box or maintain status quo.

I have done and made some statements that would displease some Pakistanis. Read post #186.

You guys keep complaining about the so called torture by Indian security personnel (in reality they are at the receiving end of violence by the terrorists and stone pelters) so clearly you don't like the status quo.

This is quite silly. If you come anywhere near my house with guns I would be fearful and intimidated. I wouldn't throw stones personally, I think it's very level-headed of those Kashmiris to pick up stones and not sharper objects. Your calling a whole region terrorists makes your claim look weaker. There's old women, old men and babies who make up that '50L', whatever that number means anyway, and they're no more terrorists than their counterparts in India.

So then do something about it. Come up with new ideas.

I have done.

I came up with mine, but you seem to be dismissive making some vague excuses about people living in that land for centuries / millennia!

It's not an excuse, it's one of the reasons as to why we feel we belong somewhere, an identity. As mentioned previously it's a lot easier for Indians to get over their insecurities than it is for a whole state to pick up and move.

I wonder what happened to the Hindus who were living in their ancestral property in Lahore before they were brutally and mercilessly kicked out in 1947? Did they not have their god-given right to keep their property?

Absolutely wrong. I don't know the details of how it panned out but they chose to move and should not have done so. If they were in the same position as Kashmiris I'd be looking out for them just as much as I am for Kashmiris. I bet my bottom dollar you'd find a lot more Pakistanis on their side than you do Indians on Kashmir's. I've seen people on this forum criticise Pakistan for the sake of it.{/B]

How about the Kashmiri Pandits -- do they not have their god-given rights?

If you read what I read there are many Kashmiris in the valley who want them to return. I've also wrote a few words in reply to Tusker's posts about that above.

As I have asked many times, what should the Indian state worry about these 50L violent jihadi people (basically equivalent of a district / county in the state of UP!) who throw stones on our security forces when it has this other 125 crore people to worry about?

India doesn't have to worry, give them their freedom and let them do what they want. India chooses to keep them and is worried about its own interests more than it is the Kashmiris. If anything, India is not worrying enough. Jihadis are not bad, I'm a jihadi and do jihad everyday in some form or other. Jihad has many meanings and a violent struggle is only one form out of many.


As someone pointed out, they've already been given special rights under article 370 (they can buy property in rest of India, but Indian can't buy in J&K!). What more can anyone do? Why should they do it?


There are a lot of questions and no one's providing any reasonable answers. Think about it.

I mentioned it and those special rights are in accordance with intentional agreements. You have to do it because it's protected by the constitution and maybe international law, not sure about the latter but seems plausible. The best India can do now is a u-turn on its hostile approach, have a truce, compensate the victims, withdraw some troops from the region and show that you're serious about their welfare. Give it some time, and who knows, they might even get on with you.

 

[English August]

As to your claim that Minorities suffer everywhere ... you could not be more wrong. Read up on Parsis in India (Guess who they fled from about 1000 yrs ago !!) or Jews who settled in India in the 1st or 2nd Century AD and still live there without persecution !!!

Oh, but didn't you know that India is slowly goosestepping towards Nazism?! And Modi's about to order genocide of 200M Muslims that reside there?

 

[Tusker]

Oh, but didn't you know that India is slowly goosestepping towards Nazism?! And Modi's about to order genocide of 200M Muslims that reside there?

I know !! The circular logic works somewhat like this .... Modi = Murderer ( Supreme Court Verdict clearing him does not count) . Indians voted him to power with overwhelming majority there all Indians = Murderers.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Geopolitics ? Really ?? well lets start from day 1 then ... the Jews in Arab World predate Islam itself. They have been systematically marginalized , persecuted and driven out of that entire region as and when Islam Spread.

Except they haven't You yourself witnessed the article of Yemeni Jews. So they haven't been driven out of the region. Countless accounts of the Crusades have suggested they had it better under the Muslims than the Christians, the latter slaughtered every man, woman and child when they conquered Jerusalem and blood was said to have run up one's knees. No point mentioning that if it doesn't tie in with your narrative, right? Also Arabs are semites too, that includes the Jews that converted, which might explain why so many went missing all of a sudden.

With no where else to go they finally made a strong hold in what is current day Israel and now they don't take crap from anyone which they learnt the hard way.

Did they have elsewhere to go or not? Because you say they travelled to India in the 1st to 2nd century AD and Islam came in the 7th century by the way.


Now thats the *REAL* face of GEOPOLITICS for you which is essentially just Religion based. You must be joking if you are serious that Islam has been kind to Judaism !!!

Clarify please

Here read more here --> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-treatment-of-jews-in-arab-islamic-countries

Would you believe me if I cited you a Muslim source? How do you expect me to do the same with a Jewish one? Even so it states "At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death."

Note "changes in the political or social climate" If Islam was the issue, they would never have been there in the first place because according to you they were wiped from the region. It simply goes to show Muslims are humans after all, surprise surprise, and they can succumb to the same societal pressures as everyone else.


As to your claim that Minorities suffer everywhere ... you could not be more wrong. Read up on Parsis in India (Guess who they fled from about 1000 yrs ago !!) or Jews who settled in India in the 1st or 2nd Century AD and still live there without persecution !!!

If the indeed they went to India and were treated well as a minority, why are their numbers recorded in the tens of thousands in the 1940s, they should be in the millions. Something doesn't add up. The same goes witth Parsees, their numbers are so few the story doesn't add up. The 'Jewish government' in Israel are actually Zionists who've hijacked the religion, unfortunately whilst many Jews have fallen victims to their scheming there are also Jews advocating against Israel.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Oh, but didn't you know that India is slowly goosestepping towards Nazism?! And Modi's about to order genocide of 200M Muslims that reside there?

Read the response before you reach for strawmen for your "echo chamber". It's not genocide so much as ethnocide with Kashmir. Honestly, I would love for neither of those things to happen, that's something you're constantly forgetting.

I know !! The circular logic works somewhat like this .... Modi = Murderer ( Supreme Court Verdict clearing him does not count) . Indians voted him to power with overwhelming majority there all Indians = Murderers.

Strawman

 

[Napa]

Goodness!the level of brainwashing,misinformation and clueless-ness that even well educated indians exhibit makes one wonder what the kashmir fantasies of less educated ones that consist the bulk of indian populace.hardly one finds any example im history except may be nazi Germany where the <b>genocide</b> of an unnarmed population can have acquiescence amongst general public,civil society,media and the political class cutting across party lines and ideologies.

Here is a reasonable definition of genocide from Wikipedia "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part."

You have a very funny idea of genocide. Here is the Muslim population in India from 1951 to 2011:



During the same time, the Hindu population in Pakistan has fallen dramatically.

Kashmir used to have a large Pandit community. Now it is almost exclusively Muslim. There is a genocide-in-reverse of Muslims going on in Kashmir.

 

[English August]

I mentioned it and those special rights are in accordance with intentional agreements. You have to do it because it's protected by the constitution and maybe international law, not sure about the latter but seems plausible. The best India can do now is a u-turn on its hostile approach, have a truce, compensate the victims, withdraw some troops from the region and show that you're serious about their welfare. Give it some time, and who knows, they might even get on with you.

Oh, so you're now more of a Brit and less of a Pakistani?! And Pakistanis are now "they"? This always happens. Here in the US I have noticed that when Pak is winning at the cricket my Pakistani colleagues start tom-toming their Pakistani origins. Rest of the time (e.g., when they're caught with OBL in their backyard), they start referring to Pakistan in third-person. I find it both comical and tragic at the same time. OTOH, I never see the Indian immigrants feeling defensive about their origin. Anyway I digress.

So no, we don't need to hear from that racist Churchill on what democracy means. For a civilization that's been all about the concept of Vasudaiv Kutumbkam (the whole world is a family) and a nation founded on the bedrock of Swami Vivekanand and Mahatma Gandhi's principles, we feel very comfortable about our value moorings. I have close friends who happen to be Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and nothing has changed between us over the past 25 years. If I were to notice even 1% hint of self-doubt on either side, we'd know that we have failed as a nation. But that's not about to happen.

You have an interesting take on the Lahori Hindus. Alas, they didn't feel protected (the way Muslims always felt protected in India) so they chose to leave. Turned out to be quite right as the dwindling Hindu population in Pak shows. OTOH, Muslim population in India has grown at a rate faster than the Hindus have. So QED.

And how many times do I need to say that the Kashmiris already have their freedom? Is anyone stopping them from doing whatever they want? Can you point me to a story where India has forcibly asked Kashmiris to stay behind in the hell-hole that is Kashmir today? What more can the Indian govt. do for them? Buy them a business class ticket? The reason the politicians didn't come up with this idea earlier is simply because this is NOT a new idea. As I keep saying, they already have their freedom.

When I left India to come to the US a few years ago, I didn't wait for a letter from the government of India telling me that I was free. I just booked an airline ticket and left. This is what freedom truly means! (Churchill wouldn't have told you this). Some day I might get bored of the life in the US and would consider going back to India. And I'll do so happily. And none of this is any way connected with a piece of land I may or may not own either in India or the US. So why do the Kashmiris care about a small plot of land in Srinagar or Baramulla? Let the rapist Indian scumbags have it. Won't the generous Pakistanis give them the apple orchards on the banks of Jhelum or Chenab?

And BTW, now that I know that you're a Brit pretending to be a Pakistani, 50L means 5 million to you. It's a fairly small number. This will roughly translate to 1 million families. Let's say 50% of the families want to go to Pak (I'm being generous here, I know that Kashmiris' love for Pakistan is way overstated) -- that's just 500K families. Couldn't you find place for 500K families in POK? Seems very doable to me.

 

[Tusker]

If the indeed they went to India and were treated well as a minority, why are their numbers recorded in the tens of thousands in the 1940s, they should be in the millions. Something doesn't add up. The same goes witth Parsees, their numbers are so few the story doesn't add up. The 'Jewish government' in Israel are actually Zionists who've hijacked the religion, unfortunately whilst many Jews have fallen victims to their scheming there are also Jews advocating against Israel.

Because they generally do not marry with the majority populace ... but you quite conveniently ignore the main point i.e minorities being protected and left completely free to practice their religion and culture des[ite being soo tiny in numbers. I suggest your try and find some even remote instances of persecution.

Except they haven't You yourself witnessed the article of Yemeni Jews.

You call that living ? Iam sorry but that is just a pathetic excuse to prove a point. This is like saying well weren't there some Jews who were still living in Germany by WWII ?

Would you believe me if I cited you a Muslim source?

A neutral source will also back my point ... do you really doubt that ? Let me know if you do.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Oh, so you're now more of a Brit and less of a Pakistani?! And Pakistanis are now "they"? This always happens. Here in the US I have noticed that when Pak is winning at the cricket my Pakistani colleagues start tom-toming their Pakistani origins. Rest of the time (e.g., when they're caught with OBL in their backyard), they start referring to Pakistan in third-person. I find it both comical and tragic at the same time. OTOH, I never see the Indian immigrants feeling defensive about their origin. Anyway I digress.

I think it was you that first mentioned winning and losing arguments. There were many relevant points from that post that on which you conveniently failed to reply. An ad-hominem attack is about the surest way to indicate that one is losing an argument.

I was never a Brit or a Pakistani coming into this conversation. I'm a British Pakistani and I never proclaimed I was either or none at the beginning. Yet again your insinuations have got the better of you and now there's confirmation that your previous 'misunderstandings' were quite deliberate. You consider any criticism of India as a pro-Pakistan stance which demonstrates your bipartisan mentality whereas I have tried to maintain impartiality and discussed for purely academic reasons to learn how to end this conflict peacefully.

I joined this forum during the recent CT final and during that time I was questioned by a Scottish colleague on what divides the two countries and not being able to provide a definitive answer I researched the issue which brought me here to discuss some of what I've learnt. I've made it clear when I use 'they', I refer to the people of Pakistan, their government and that other than my genetic and ancestral connection I don't represent Pakistan more than I do Britain.

About your friends in the US, from experience, I'd consider their behaviour to be limited to your social circle and the fact that they've decided to befriend you knowing your disdain for basic human rights. Indians aren't defensive about their origin? Goodness Gracious Me had a sketch solely about Indians for this very reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h-t8vVi0zc.


So no, we don't need to hear from that racist Churchill on what democracy means. For a civilization that's been all about the concept of Vasudaiv Kutumbkam (the whole world is a family) and a nation founded on the bedrock of Swami Vivekanand and Mahatma Gandhi's principles, we feel very comfortable about our value moorings. I have close friends who happen to be Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and nothing has changed between us over the past 25 years. If I were to notice even 1% hint of self-doubt on either side, we'd know that we have failed as a nation. But that's not about to happen.

Churchill may or may not have been racist, but he played a major part in forming what you call India today most probably due to his dislike of the influence of the the Indian Congress. Racist or not, he was a wise old bloke. In fact he pushed for the partitioning of India whilst Clement Attlee's government the final call which was against the latter's previous convictions on the issue. Nonetheless, you still use the word 'democracy' and it's the first I've ever heard of "the whole world is a family" concept. I'd be more inclined to believe you if you'd said "except Pakistan, Kashmir, China and any critic of India's policies". Or maybe you're just used to tumultuous families.


You have an interesting take on the Lahori Hindus. Alas, they didn't feel protected (the way Muslims always felt protected in India) so they chose to leave. Turned out to be quite right as the dwindling Hindu population in Pak shows. OTOH, Muslim population in India has grown at a rate faster than the Hindus have. So QED.

I don't know about what went on in Lahore, but I do know that many spoke of living in peace and harmony with Sikhs and Hindus in general. Post-partition migration didn't necessarily mean driven out due to persecution but about the fear of the unknown with rising religious tensions(two-nation theory) The migration went both ways and it spurred violence in the whole of the region. Indian Muslims like the Kashmiris are beginning to feel uncertain about their future under Modi, hence the constant mentioning of uncertain times ahead,

It's definitely not as simple as people like yourself make it out to be because its independently recognised that evidence is hard to come by due to the exaggerated and unverified accounts similar to the Pandit exodus. Ultimately I want peace and prosperity for all in the region and condemn persecution anywhere whether it comes from minorities or majorities.


And how many times do I need to say that the Kashmiris already have their freedom? Is anyone stopping them from doing whatever they want? Can you point me to a story where India has forcibly asked Kashmiris to stay behind in the hell-hole that is Kashmir today? What more can the Indian govt. do for them? Buy them a business class ticket?

When I left India to come to the US a few years ago, I didn't wait for a letter from the government of India telling me that I was free. I just booked an airline ticket and left. This is what freedom truly means! (Churchill wouldn't have told you this). Some day I might get bored of the life in the US and would consider going back to India. And I'll do so happily. And none of this is any way connected with a piece of land I may or may not own either in India or the US. So why do the Kashmiris care about a small plot of land in Srinagar or Baramulla? Let the rapist Indian scumbags have it. Won't the generous Pakistanis give them the apple orchards on the banks of Jhelum or Chenab?

This is just plain ridiculous. You've just used two paragraphs of rhetoric and hyperbole to state that Kashmiris have the freedom to leave and you have displayed willful ignorance of other freedoms the free-folk wish to exercise. Even when they do decide to exercise their freedom to travel they get this:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...s-rajnath-tells-states/videoshow/58295371.cms

"The reason the politicians didn't come up with this idea earlier is simply because this is NOT a new idea. As I keep saying, they already have their freedom."

[B[You're getting your ideas mixed up in more ways than one. It never was an idea at all that Kashmiris should leave. It'd have been political suicide because the reputable politicians weren't so stupid to forget international law, constitutions and treaties protecting Kashmiri land. Like I say, only under Modi's uber-patriotism are such ideas considered normal and the worst thing is his supporters are proud of it.[/B]

And BTW, now that I know that you're a Brit pretending to be a Pakistani, 50L means 5 million to you. It's a fairly small number. This will roughly translate to 1 million families. Let's say 50% of the families want to go to Pak (I'm being generous here, I know that Kashmiris' love for Pakistan is way overstated) -- that's just 500K families. Couldn't you find place for 500K families in POK? Seems very doable to me.

I've already clarified my position on this, I'm just being myself and proud of what I stand for. You've been petty throughout and your pettiness has reached new heights. I think it's best we end it right here because your points have become quite clear on the subject and you've had to resort to personal attacks to get your point across.

I've stated that India has abandoned reason and morality on the Kashmir issue and extremism is the end result, your argument was mainly about India's growing economy so it didn't matter, like throwing money at a problem has ever solved anything. Then you went on to contradict your statement by saying Kashmir doesn't affect the economy and you're happy with the status quo.

You've generalised by saying Kashmiris are 'terrorists', 'stupid, etc., and want them to leave as if to say that calling them by those labels makes them wrong and yourselves right. Then you've wanted us to believe that India is offering them prosperity and equal opportunity. You have even presupposed as to how I identity myself and what channels I watched, You were wrong on all accounts

Since my time on Pakpassion I've conversed with a few Indians on this topic and the common theme is for India holding on to Kashmir at any cost, including the cost of abandoning a sense morality and reason. I'm not sure about popular opinion but I'm hoping this small sample of fairly educated people is not reflective of India as a whole. It doesn't fill me with hope that uneducated conservatives are usually worse when it comes to bigotry.

My question to the Indians is: If you're not willing to reason with the Kashmiris, why bother discussing this issue at all?

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Because they generally do not marry with the majority populace ... but you quite conveniently ignore the main point i.e minorities being protected and left completely free to practice their religion and culture des[ite being soo tiny in numbers. I suggest your try and find some even remote instances of persecution.

This wasn't the main point because your initial point was about minorities in Muslim lands not this Hindu vs Muslim phallus measuring contest, but I'll address it nonetheless. You've mentioned two points not one; (i)minorities being protected, (ii)free to practice their religion. You can be protected but be asked to practice your religion privately which some would consider a lack of freedom.

Both points were evident in the Jewish article you posted, Jews were protected by Muslim leaders, however, one of the main misconceptions about Islam and Muslims is to forget Muslims are nonhomogeneous and comprise of many sects. Protections under one empire didn't necessarily continue when another one took over . Muslims had empires that fought against each other for land and power. So it's not myself that is picking and choosing events in history to suit my narrative. Sticking to the original thread, Kashmiris, if considered a part of India, are a minority. Their freedom to conduct a referendum is being denied.

It'd also help if you look into Islamic Spain and Muslim sources of information as well.



You call that living ? Iam sorry but that is just a pathetic excuse to prove a point. This is like saying well weren't there some Jews who were still living in Germany by WWII ?




A neutral source will also back my point ... do you really doubt that ? Let me know if you do.

I've already told you the exodus of the Yemeni Jews was more to do with the 1947 partition plan than your Muslim majority argument. Google 'Operation Magic Carpet'. My original point was Muslim rule in Muslim lands is a Muslim majority and Jews lived all around the Middle East, choosing the Muslim Empire that served their interests the best. Yemen was an example because they'd survived centuries under Muslim rule, but only since the 1940s did their 'persecution' become an issue, I've given you a reason as to why that was, but because it's secular and geopolitical you don't want to know of it.

 

[English August]

I've already clarified my position on this, I'm just being myself and proud of what I stand for. You've been petty throughout and your pettiness has reached new heights. I think it's best we end it right here because your points have become quite clear on the subject and you've had to resort to personal attacks to get your point across.

Where exactly did I resort to personal attacks? Or do you get offended if someone calls you a Brit and / or a Pakistani? I have largely stayed on topic.

You're right though, there is no point in continuing this since we've broadly established that you're coming at this from a position of deep-seated and irrational hatred for everything India stands for today. You think India is moving towards majoritarianism (even Nazism?) when the reality on the ground points to exactly opposite. For example % of Muslims in India has gone up over the past 70 years, now down! Hindu-Muslim clashes are at an all-time low. This is the country where free-and-fair elections are conducted at every level from central-govt all the way down to village administration. Facts matter. When I presented facts, you started changing subject.

It's clear not only from this thread but your responses from other threads too (calling Modi a prison warden? really?) that you know nothing about what's going on in India and what values Indian nationhood stands for.

But it's a free world. And in this world people who don't see racism in what Churchill did are preaching morality to a nation of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekanand!

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Where exactly did I resort to personal attacks? Or do you get offended if someone calls you a Brit and / or a Pakistani? I have largely stayed on topic.

Ad hominem. You tried to undermine my motive by attempting to undermine my identity, which you imagined in the first place. I'm not offended, I couldn't care less. You haven't stayed on topic either. You've discussed mostly economy and poverty, even though I only mentioned poverty as a tiny reference something completely irrelevant. Even below you've discussed almost nothing related to this thread

You're right though, there is no point in continuing this since we've broadly established that you're coming at this from a position of deep-seated and irrational hatred for everything India stands for today.

Sorry, I couldn't but laugh at this. I don't hate India at all, I hate the growing intolerance generated mostly by its current leader. I actually admire India for its democracy and recent development. I want peace in the region, read a post where I mentioned solving this issue soon is the best way forward. Yes this is my last post on this, don't bother replying if I were you.

You think India is moving towards majoritarianism (even Nazism?) when the reality on the ground points to exactly opposite. For example % of Muslims in India has gone up over the past 70 years, now down! Hindu-Muslim clashes are at an all-time low.

So what? Are you saying Muslims from around the world are migrating to India? Indian Muslims are having more kids, it's a trend unfortunately more popular amongst poorer Muslims. If anything, using other data analyses, this shows Muslims in India are lagging behind in education and prosperity. Hardly a good advertisement for Kashmiris . Having seen a manifestaton of your wild imagination on this thread, I'd rather not take your word for the Hindu-Muslim stats.

This is the country where free-and-fair elections are conducted at every level from central-govt all the way down to village administration.

Best thing about India, long may it continue.

Facts matter. When I presented facts, you started changing subject.

Unlike yourself, I've addressed your posts paragraph by paragraph, I'd ask you which facts, but no need from hereon in.

It's clear not only from this thread but your responses from other threads too (calling Modi a prison warden? really?) that you know nothing about what's going on in India and what values Indian nationhood stands for.

Glad to know you're keeping a close eye on my posts, hopefully you can learn a thing or two. Netanyahu is a prison warden of the Palestinian prison and Modi for the Kashmiri one. Wasn't referring to India as a whole, but maybe you know something I don't and this has triggered something, who knows...

But it's a free world. And in this world people who don't see racism in what Churchill did are preaching morality to a nation of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekanand!

Didn't say Churchill was a racist or otherwise, go read the posts again. I think later in his life he did resort to bigotry to answer a few points, many people have different views on Churchill. Many don't know this, Churchill in his 20s was a vocal supporter of a Britain open to immigration when the popular opinion was strongly against it. Mahatma Gandhi was weird and who the hell is Vivekanand? This is highly irrelevant when we're actually discussing what India is today whilst it denies Kashmir the freedom express their opinions, let a lone the right to self-determination.

As I've said many times, India is willing to keep Kashmir at any cost. We've all come to see India's materialism, it's the spirituality that once made the region great that is being eroded. Goodbye and Good Luck