There has been a new wave of anti-Christian communal violence in Pakistan, with a riot involving as many as 20,000 people in the town of Gojra, west of Lahore.
We normally use the phrase “communal violence” in the Indian context, but reading the particulars of this story in the New York Times, the idea of “communalism” (a particularly South Asian expression of communitarian religious hostility) seems to fit. The recent riots were not on a huge scale — 100 houses belonging to local Christians were burned (compare to 3000 homes of Christians burned in the violence in Orissa last year) — but it’s still frightening and sad.
There is a history of this kind of violence in Pakistan. I don’t know the history in great detail, but Wikipedia has links to several similar incidents in just the past few years. (It often starts with the claim that someone has desecrated the Koran.)
One oddity in the Times coverage was the way they described the size of the Christian community in Pakistan, as comprising “less than five percent of the population.” I gather the number is more like 1.6% — why not simply say, “less than 2%”? Maybe that’s a nitpick.
As a response, the Christian schools in Karachi are on strike for three days. A number of arrests of those involved in the attacks have been made, and President Zardari has strongly condemned them. The Daily Times newspaper has a story with a subheader that the DPO (police chief) in the district has been “booked” as well, but the text of the story actually states that authorities are at this point just thinking about charging him with failing in his duty to keep the peace.
Incidentally, the town of Gojra is in the Toba Tek Singh District of Punjab, an area made famous by Sa’adat Hasan Manto’s story about Partition, “Toba Tek Singh.” Though we’re no longer talking directly about partition, that story about the madness that can sometimes overtake people in the name of religion still feels relevant. Here is a translation of the story, and Professor Fran Pritchett has both the original Urdu and a Devanagari version of the story linked from her site: here.
You can call yourself anything. That doesn’t matter. In fact a citizen of India who chooses to remain in India has every right to demand and criticise to heart’s content and attempt to move the country to commit itself to a variety of causes, non-violently. The very basis of modern India is its goal to successfully complete the transition from being a millennia old nation to the status of a nation state. I am not the first one to say that. Dr.B.R. Ambedkar did. There are some ground rules that have guided India in the years since Independence in its process of assimilation. It will tolerate and negotiate with any number of movements that seek to carve out regional enclaves, but it will be ruthless towards any movement that aims to break the Union. Lincolnesque. Secondly the Indian Union will deal with the regional movements that are not primarily motivated by religious sentiments. Culture in terms of language or lifestyle or even the lay of the land must be the primary motivation. So although the movement for Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland werre driven substantially by foreign Baptist Church provacateurs, the Indian establishment decided to ignore them when it found that there is a substantial cultural element to the aspirations of these Indians. In the case of Punjab and Haryana althugh it may seem they were riven on religious lines, it is not so. The two states continue to share a capital, and the universal nature of Sikhism and the many Bhakti movements in those regions that transcend religious divisions (including some fascinating communities such as the dhoti clad Meos – Muslims of Haryana) ensured that religious sentiments have never been in play. I belong to a state – Tamil Nadu – that hosted vigourous separatist movements during the 1950s until the late great CN Annadurai rejected the idea of secession following the Chinese Aggression in 1962, when he found that the people of Tamil Nadu had no desire to secede and would rather stand with their fellow Indians. In the case of the Kashmir Valley secessionist terrorists, their motivation is entirely religious. Further it is a small group of Sunni Muslims in the Valley who have rejected their Kashmiri heritage – a multireligious one – in favor of a bizarre extremist caricature best typified by the likes of thugs like Asiya Andrabi and her Dukhtaran e Millat, that are driving the secessionist movement. Their goal is to continue the goal of Partition to carve out a fundamentalist Islamic state in the Indian subcontinent. The Valley terrorists are at variance with every other community in state of Jammu & Kashmir – the Pandits whom they butchered and drove out, the Sikhs whom they have butchered and are still driving out, the Buddhists who are thankfully out of reach and the Shias who bear the brunt of the terrorists’ wrath both in Kargil and Gilgit across the LOC. Naturally this is a poisonous movement and cannot be allowed to exist, leave alone succeed. The Valley terrorists also seek to, along the way, wipe out every trace of non-Islamic heritage. That is why the thugs organized a march against the plans to construct a building for the Amarnath Mandir, as they see it as an affront to the fundamentalist character of the Valley. The mainstream Indian opinion maintains that while Partition was a mistake there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost and forever impossible to undo the Partition. But what India will always try to do is to ensure that another Partition never happens and find new ways for its billions to live together in harmony, even if this means reminding its neighbour of the folly of trying to maintain a religiously founded nation-state. As Jairam Ramesh said a few years ago, there may be a clash of civilizations around the world, but there should be never be one within India. Some Pakistanis (most definitely not the likes of Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy) may think that if Pakistan cannot be held together as a religious nation-state or become a secular nation-state, India too should not be allowed to remain in peace. That is a mistaken view and not conducive to the development of a healthy nation.
Thanks Abhishek!
“if a majority of Kashmiris don’t want to be a part of India (not to say they want to be part of Pakistan), what right does India have to keep them forcibly in the union? The same applies to Pakistan or to any other country.”
If tomorrow a majority of Indians decide to kick out all Muslims from India, what would you call them? The majority of Kashmiris you talk about lost the right to secede when they ethnically cleansed Kashmir’s Hindu population in 1989-90, unless they are willing to give slices of Kashmir to the Hindus, Shias and Sikhs. Go ask them.
I don’t like taking topics off thread, but since thats already the case, just wanted to respond to a somewhat related point from the bsf thread, since it was closed before I could post.
amardeep
while i do appreciate your responsiveness to the request, you are right, your posts didn’t address the point i made.
1) i discussed the ongoing bangladeshi govt instituted genocide, the point i made above discussed how post 1971 the population was 15%, and now in the 2000s it is 8%, not the 1971 pakistani army instituted genocide–whose victims included liberal intellectuals among the muslim bangladeshi population (and rural women of all religious backgrounds). There was more of a racist anti Bengali element on the part of the Pakistani army. what is ongoing in bangladesh today is indigenous and institutionalized and focused on one religious community only. these are two completely different events
2) also, the discussion of pakistani courts did not address the point about the catastrophic disappearance of the remaining hindu population post partition (estimated to be 15 percent) and the treatment of women. two different points as well
anyhow, i know you guys have a balancing act that you must take among all south asian nationalities to keep the confidence of your readership, but i do hope you can indeed address these issues in a post simply to raise awareness regarding a critical matter. i do believe it is possible for all of us here to address this in a mature fashion without devolving into hateful recriminations.
also, thank you for the posts on taslima nasrin–truly a sad story. since we’re on the topic of freedom of speech, you should probably also do a post on the attempted web censorship by the present govt in india: http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Internet_censorship_coming_to_India_-nid-57075.html. it was briefly in the mainstream media. i hope that topic can also be fleshed out in a nonpartisan fashion because freedom of speech is the foundation for all other rights…
Sorry for the interruption. Now back to the regularly scheduled program…
Jyotsana (201), I’ve heard this before:”Kashmiri nationalists are only fringe terrorists who want to carve out a fundamentalist Islamic state”. What makes you so sure that they want a fundamentalist state? Maybe, they just want a secular Muslim-majority nation independent of both India and Pakistan, both countries which frankly speaking have treated Kashmiris very badly. The Kashmir valley is under military occupation, and Pakistan has not always taken a principled stand and has hijacked the Kashmiri cause for its own purposes in the past. Please point me to party manifestos stating that the goal for an independent Kashmir is a Shariah-state or whatever before making these accusations which are a typical Indian justfication for oppressing and occupying a people. This rationalization is exactly that of rightist Israelis who refuse to allow for a Palestinian state because it would be a “Hamastan”. What gives you the right to deny a nation its own state? Again, what if the British had come up with some spurious excuse to deny all of us Indians the right to our own state in 1947? Would we have stood for it? NO! Neither will (or should) the Kashmiris. The time will come when their demands for freedom and Azadi will be heard.
Both India and Pakistan owe it to the people of Kashmir to listen to their concerns and treat them as more important than the petty expansionist needs of Delhi and Islamabad. If Kashmir gaining independence means other disenfranchised parts of the Indian union demand independence, then so be it. That is not really the Kashmiris problem.
Kabir – re: 204 – The proof is in the pudding. That they cleansed Kashmir os her entire Hindu population. Have you ever met with a Kashmiri Hindu who had to flee in 1989 or any non Sunni Kashmiri?
Kabir, You’ve normally seemed like a reasonable commenter–the reason that nobody takes “Kashmiri nationalism” seriously is the way it has manifested itself in nasty ethnic-cleansing type attacks on non-fundies.
So would this “independent Kashmir” be willing to grant a separate state to the Hindus in Jammu? The Buddhists? The Shias?
I don’t see how just because more than 50% of people want something that must automatically mean everyone has to sit there and allow their rights to be trampled.
So if fringe Kashmiris are going to claim the right to completely disregard the stability, security, and prosperity of the rest of the subcontinent in the name of Kashmir, why in the hell should the rest of the subcontinent give half a whit about the ambitions of Kashmiris? I’m not seeing any reciprocity here.
Yoga Fire, no one has to sit there and allow their rights to be trampled (except the Muslim Kashmiris who want independence?). What’s wrong with arguing for holding a referendum and then honoring the results of that referendum? If smaller subdistricts of Kashmir want to remain with India that is fine, if the valley wants to be independent it should be allowed to do so. If the majority in the Valley wants to join Pakistan, that is also their right.
I understand that the realities of international diplomacy and geopolitics are different from the ideal world of philosophy, but I don’t see the moral justification for denying a people their right to self-determination just because it makes you personally uncomfortable. On on individual level, this is equivalent to a husband who is in a position of power denying his wife the right to divorce. Would that be acceptable to you?
Rob, I am not justifying ethnic clensing, and I’m sorry if this is not reasonable enough for you, but sometimes good-intentioned movements turn violent and do reprehensible things when their legitimate aspirations are repeatedly denied and stifiled. But the fact that violence has been used doesn’t make the aspiritions of the movement illegitimate. Violence was used by Black Panther type groups during the Civil Rights movement, that didn’t mean that African-Americans should be denied civil rights. The BJP (your own people) have used violence before that doesn’t make them illegitimate as a political party. Same applies to the Kashmiris.
Manpreet, I’ve read blogs by Kashmiris, both Muslim and otherwise, who are passionate about their homeland and aspire to independence from India. There are people who are extremely frustated by the way India (and Pakistan) has treated them and aspire to indendepence. Why do you insist on characterizing this as a fringe group? If this was a fringe feeling why would US spokespeople make statements arguing that any settlement to the Kashmir dispute must respect the rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people as well as of the other parties to the dispute.
Kabir@204: Pakistan and Bangladesh are examples of desi muslim states which separated and claimed independence for the same reasons as Kashmiris, and yet did not become “secular republics” as you expect Kashmir to become. The reforms among desi muslims are almost nil compared to the reforms among the hindus that have been going on for the past few hundred years. As long as mullahs and insidious “scholars” like Zakir Naik have considerable clout among the common muslim population, your hope is a pipe dream.
See what Mr. Naik has to say about allowing other religions in Islamic countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHpd2T7mi5c
jujung, I want Kashmir to become a secular republic (heck, I want Pakistan to become a secular republic), but what matters is not what I want but what the majority wants in whichever country we are talking about. All I want is for democracy to operate and (in Kashmir’s case) for military occupation to end.
I’m not interested in listening to or reading about mullahs, have no interest in them and don’t want to get involved in discussions about religion. I approach all issues from a liberal,democratic, secular point of view. Thanks.
Guess which one is the world in which we live.
The moral justification is that we live in the real world and make do with all the constraints that implies. Kashmir is not going to be a secular republic it is going to be a pawn of hostile powers and will fall under the thrall of mullahs. This might be unpleasant to consider, but that’s what’s going to happen. Ignoring that is like trying to pretend slavery had nothing to do with the American Civil War. It’s not like Kashmiris just woke up one day and decided they don’t “feel Indian.” There are forces at work stoking that sentiment and, beyond that, those who disagree have been systematically purged from the country.
Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner does not make a just system of governance. This is why all functional representative governments style themselves “republics” rather than majoritarian democracies.
This is a load of propagandistic hooey spread by Kashmiri insurgents. The Indian military is there because if they weren’t Kashmir would be taken over by armed brigands and become a crossing-ground for Pakistan-based terrorists. That benefits nobody but aforementioned armed brigands and Pakistan-based terrorists.
There is no basis for comparing the secessionist terrorism of the Kashmir Valley with the Civil Rights movement. The Valley Kashmiri Sunnis are not oppressed minority neither does Jim Crow holdsway. If anything the Valley Sunnis get to impose their version of Jim Crow on the rest of India. While a resident of J&K can work buy property and engage in trade anywhere outside the state, no Indian enjoys the same right within J&K.
jyotsana, that is because Kashmir is not part of India, it is disputed territory. Why can’t you people understand that? This is why Azad Kashmir has its own government, president and PM. Pakistan has not annexed it and made it a province. This may only be a technicality, but it shows that Pakistan considers Kashmir a disputed territory. India considers Kashmir a disputed territory hence Article 370 and taking of the dispute to the UN.
Why doesn’t the Indian government go to the UN and ask it to close its file on Kashmir? Why does the US make statements saying that the aspirations of the Kashmiri people should be respected? Like it or not, there is a dispute which should solved in way that is in the interests of all concerned parties, but especially the people of Kashmir–all of them: Muslim, Hindu, atheist, whatever.
Many claim that it was what Mr Jinnah also wanted. And look at what we are discussing on SM today.
I believe two very popular slogans during the 1989- 1990 were “Kashmir mein agar rehna hai, to Allah ho Akbar kehna hai” and “Yahan kya chalega?- Nizam-e-Mustafa”. Oh!, there was also another one about wanting Pakistan, along with Kashmiri Hindu women, but not their men (It was in Kashmiri). And this was the daughter of the east preaching secularism . Watch her go, starting 0:23, her Oxonian debating pedigree on full display. For those who like theatrics, there is of course the darling of the media, Islamic Rage boy, the new face of the secular Kashmiri liberation movement. As for the cold facts, there were of course the selective killings of Hindus that drove them away from their homes in sheer terror. I really don’t know if they can actually do any more to advertise their secular credentials.
As for comparing Kashmiri secessionist movement with the Indian independence movement, it is beyond ridiculous. You may not believe it now, but the land we call Kashmir has always been where it is now- in India. We did not have to cross oceans to invade and subjugate it. And there is also the minor detail of thousands of years of pre Islamic Indic religious and cultural heritage (the syncretic Sufi Islam was pretty cool too- but that was before the discovery of secularism)
Kabir, Of course, you should realize that the Kashmir situation is like a wet-dream for a Hindutva like me. It’s a bleeding, oozing sore that reminds “us” that communalism is real, and certain forms of coexistence are a myth, a pipe-dream, a veritable “I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.” It’s a living example of the lies to be found in Indian textbooks pushing the Congress agenda. If the one state in India w/ a Muslim majority “just can’t get along,” well, what does that say for the other states, w/ Hindu majorities? >:-/ Does wonders for fundraising ‘mongst us NRI’s as well. . . . So, thanx for the continued activism for a “free Kashmir, and to end Indian miitary occupation.” Keep up the good work!
this thread has gone on bizarre tangents, but this is one of the weirdest reasons for opposing kashmiri independence that i’ve seen. the nation-state construction of india is tenuous. arbitrary lines were drawn by the brits as they galloped back home in hurry. indian “patriots” will oppose secession movements just like nationalists of any ilk. nothing wrong about that pov but it is just that. a point of view. but to try and justify it based on freedom and non-oppression by the majority as some others have done is ridiculous, as is hoping that we should leave in a world from two millenia ago.
Lupus, Kashmir may be geographically part of the Indian subcontinent. But it was not part of British India and it is disputed that it is part of the modern post-1947 state of India. Hari Singh wanted to be independent, it was not inevitable that Kashmir become part of India.
You and those who agree with your political views call it a “secessionist movement”. On the other hand, I and people who share my political views call it an “independence movement”. I suppose we have to agree to disagree. I simply take the principled position that ethnic groups cannot be forced to be part of a country they don’t want to belong to. Either the central government considers their demands and gives them incentives to stay in the union or it lets them go. Forcing them and keeping them under military occupation is not an effective long-term option.
And as I keep reiterating, I don’t support the slogans you have mentioned or the ethnic clensing of Kashmiri Hindus. All movements sometimes do things that are reprehensible out of frustration or despair or whatever. Perhaps part of the reason why the slogan about wanting Pakistan was raised was because Kashmiris were so frustrated with India and they knew saying they wanted Pakistan would really upset Delhi.
So does the “disputed nature” of Kashmir make it ok for Pak to send terorists over the LoC? Ardy is still “slithering away” from that question.
does the disputed nature of balochistan make it ok for india to fund terrorist operations there?
I’m curious as to what criteria a nation-state must meet in order for its borders to not be “tenuous.”
Well I’ll be Jefferson Davis’ uncle! The South will rise again!
Tit-for-tat.
Apparently some of you aren’t quite acquainted with how international relations works. Allow me to furnish you with this handy diagram.
All the high-minded principles in the world don’t mean squat when the enemy is bent upon your destruction.
P.S. The rebels in Balochistan don’t blow up hotels in Lahore. You can thank the ISI funded fellows in the NWFP for that. They stick to guarding their own country and they manage to do so without targeting minorities within for extermination.
Jammu , which you keep conveniently ignoring used to be 80% hindu, Leh and Ladakh is Buddhist.
The J&K govt, derided across the border as puppets, imposed state taxes only in Jammu and Ladakh and Leh and no taxes in the Kashmir Valley (90% Muslim). There are other examples of blatant discrimination.
If this abomination occurs when Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India, just imagine what would happen in an independent country with very heavy Islamic influences of the worst kind.
Pakistanis have little clue of India’s size or diversity. India is not a bigger version of Pakistan. The fact that the majority is overwhemingly Hindu, hides the fact that differences in Hinduism is much larger than those between most religions.
India is a country of a billion people. Jammu & Kashmir has a population of 3-4 million. A rounding error, that can be corrected easily. The oft touted Sunni / Muslim majority can be changed in a matter of months, with no long term ill effects to India.
The fact that it has not happened is a refection of the Indian public’s commitment to secularism and democracy, to the sloth, greed, and callousness of its leaders, and to general inertia and ignorance.
Why does the Valley have to be tied to Jammu? If Jammu wants to be part of India, I have no problem with that. If the Valley wants to be independent or part of Pakistan, what is the moral justification for refusing to consider these options (I know about the compulsions of international diplomacy, geopolitics, and nationalism).
“the disputed nature of Balochistan”. Balochistan is not disputed in the same way that Kashmir is, it is not part of an international dispute. It is constitutionally a part of Pakistan in the same way that Assam is part of India. Yes, there is a Baloch independence/liberation movement. This exists because the Pakistani government has historically worked in the interests of Punjabis and exploited the other provinces, particularly Balochistan. On this issue, I would argue the same thing I have been arguing re: Kashmir. Either the central govt in Pakistan needs to consider the legitimate aspiritions of the Baloch (that they be given the profits from the mineral wealth in their province for example) or we need to let them go. I am consistant. I don’t think that constuitent parts of India have the right to leave the union, but the current borders of Pakistan are sacrosant.
Because your vaunted “independence movement” insists that it be so. . .
So the only grounds for making a dispute valid is for someone on the other side of a border to raise a fuss?
Yoga Fire, that’s not what I meant and you know it (or maybe your analytically challenged). Here in simple terms is the difference between Kashmir and Balochistan. The parties to the dispute in Kashmir are 1)India, 2) Pakistan, 3) the Kashmiris. The parties to the dispute in Balochistan are 1)Pakistan, 2) the Baloch. See the difference? the former is a international dispute, the latter is not.
So the only thing separating the Baloch cause from the Kashmiri one, by your logic, is that India has chosen not to come down in favor of Balochi independence while Pakistan has come down in favor of Kashmiri independence.
In other words, the only distinction is that in one case someone on the other side of a border decided to raise a stink and in the other case they didn’t. I fail to see how this make a lick of difference from a “liberal” perspective that is supposedly more concerned with the welfare of the people in the country rather than the national interests of the nation-states that control them.
India has no locus standi on Baloch independence. It is a internal dispute between the government of Pakistan and one of its constituent parts: the province of Balochistan. In contrast, Kashmir is not simply a state of India. The whole of the former princely state of J and K is disputed territory between two sovereign countries: Pakistan and India. The more accurate comparison would be between Balochistan and Assam.
You are being willfully obtuse because I refuse to believe you’re that stupid or ignorant.
You’re still not getting it. What is the difference here besides the fact that in one case Pakistan made a fuss? Balochistan was part of British India just as Kashmir was. At the time of partition India could have raised a fuss about the fact that the Balochi people weren’t all that keen on partition and it would have been a “disputed territory between two sovereign countries.”
Thus, the only difference is that India opted not to be a dick by stoking tensions with its neighbor over a matter that was settled. Just as it was settled that Kashmir would be part of India when the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir acceded Kashmir to India. Since it was agreed upon by both India and Pakistan before the conflict that they would apportion the disputed Princely States according to the wishes of their rulers, this distinction you are attempting to draw seems irrelevant and does not work towards any meaningful end.
The fact the it would be against the secular ideals of the India state. Does Pakistan feel that the 3 million Kashmiris should be part of Pakistan? Sure — let them go over — there was plenty of land taken over from displaced, Hindus/ Sikhs from Partition.
Does India have the moral duty to protect the rights of its people, even minorities. Yes. And India strives to do so.
On the other hand India has no moral authority to give up lands belonging to the people of whole of India, just on the whim and fancy of a couple of people here and there, just because it may suit them at any given time.
Ok, how about we ignore for a moment what happened in 1947 (leaving aside the issue of how a Hindu maharaja can decide anything for a Muslim-majority population or whether his “accession” to India was really voluntary). Let’s talk about 2009. Kashmir is still disputed between two countries. Balochistan is an internal issue of Pakistan. The stakeholders in the Kashmir dispute are India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris. The stakeholders in Balochistan are the Baloch and the Punjabi-dominated central government. There is a difference, no?
The correct comparison is between Balochistan and Assam, not Balochistan and Kashmir. India has no right to demand Baloch independence. Pakistan has no right to demand Assamese independence. Kashmir is the only international dispute here. All others are internal problems. This doesn’t make them less valid as disputes, but there is a qualitative difference between international and intra-national disputes.
OK–while I confess being subject to the “it takes one to know one” concern, let’s let Kabir have the last word on this Kashmir issue, until there’s actually a post on the topic.
India is a self-defined nation and nationa-state. Its modern borders may have been sketched in part by some foreign power but that is no longer relevant to what India has defined for itself. The current borders of India are as defined by the Constitution of India and according to that there is absolutely no dispute that J&K is a part of India. Anyone’s saying so doesn’t make it a dispute. There’s also another factor in the maintenance of a nation-state’s boundaries, its ability to keep them inviolable and prevent any foreign power from interfering with its internal disputes. In the 1860s when the Civil War raged in the United States no foreign power dared interfere in favour of the Confederacy or harass a weakened Union because the two armies fighting the Civil War were the world’s largest and most powerful. So too as we say jiski lathi uski bains. That is what prevented the possible emergence of a mega US spanning the entire N.American land mass or an expanded British, French or Spanish clony in North America.
Where does one draw a line in your system of considering independence for whoever that demands it? Should we be sympathetic if a tribe decides to call for independence for it’s village(s)….What about a large family deciding on independence for it’s farmhouse? Is there any fixed number or size below which you decide to withdraw sympathy? Should we legally permit independent mobile republics of one (hehe… cracks me up everytime) ? (Besides, the valley is too small, too landlocked and too dependent on it’s neighbours to ever be economically viable)
“The fact that it has not happened is a refection of the Indian public’s commitment to secularism and democracy, to the sloth, greed, and callousness of its leaders, and to general inertia and ignorance.”
Try it. The reaction by the people of Kashmir will be priceless.
“The fact the it would be against the secular ideals of the India state. Does Pakistan feel that the 3 million Kashmiris should be part of Pakistan? Sure — let them go over — there was plenty of land taken over from displaced, Hindus/ Sikhs from Partition”
secular ideas? Plenty of land? All the kingdoms/states that became Pakistan had on overwhelming Muslim population. May you extrapolate the sympathy towards million of Muslims who were killed by Hindus and Sikhs or for you the Muslims ( given your comments towards Muslims before),or those pesky Muslims were creatures deserved to be sent away from their homeland in the name of secularism.
Agreed. This definitely explains the Pakistan reaction to India. Thanks!
Only in the fevered imaginations of Pakistani radicals.
Who got sent away? There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan.
“The current borders of India are as defined by the Constitution of India and according to that there is absolutely no dispute that J&K is a part of India. Anyone’s saying so doesn’t make it a dispute. There’s also another factor in the maintenance of a nation-state’s boundaries,”
Yes, it is disputed even by Indians – Indians brought the J&K issue to the UN and rejected 11 different proposals by the UN. The nation-state called India was only briefly united by the foreign invader – the Mughals and the Buddhist Asokas. It came into existence by various means in 1947 – annexation,threat,mayhem and military operations. So this nation-state didn’t have a natural boundary, it concocted one in the name of its delusional nationalism – at the cost of other people’s freedom and liberty.The existence of 17 and more separatist movements should be an indication of this.
are you disputing indian involvement in balochi insurgency? why is that not a threat to pak sovereignty like kashmir is to india?
“Who got sent away? There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan”
your stat is a bit rusty.They are underrepresented in every field and overrepresented in the prisons.They are the modern day sudhras and dalits of the nation-state called India. And, now the Hindu zealots( the RSS and VHP) are warning about the rise of Muslim population in India.
This is a triumph of India’s liberal culture, our people’s respect for secularism, and the corruption of the politicians (= Congress, of course).
Not just the Hindu zealots, Ardy, everyone, even the Europeans and the Chinese, and umm, the Latins. See, e.g., The Demographic Siege. When you’ve pissed off the Belgians. . . .
Try it?! It has already been tried, in a large part of J&K, and it succeeded. Or did you really think that “Azad” Kashmir had so many Punjabis and Pathan in 1947?
You’re right. Zealots everywhere are a band of brothers. Unfortunately, “Pakistan” is not as catch as Eurabia.
So far we have heard Indians playing the Muslim fundies card as they usually play with. Here one voice from Kashmir, playing with the Hindu state theory – http://bluekashmir.blogspot.com/:
“It is important here to reflect briefly upon the original issue of the Amarnath Yatra to illustrate the point about Indian nationalism as a religious faith in the service of the Hindu empire. Let me not speak of how India’s political elite goaded, duped, threatened, and forced the peoples of different regions of British India and the princely states to merge with India; it was the same process through which Kashmir was annexed. Let me not speak, too, of how most people of the subcontinent that were called “We, the People of India†had virtually no say in the formation of what was called the “Unionâ€. Let me just say that Nehru inherited an empire from the British, and he wanted to consolidate his spoils by making it look like a state. Not for nothing did he stand atop the Red Fort (a symbol of the Mughal empire), on August 16, 1947, with a flag that no longer had Gandhi’s Charkha, but Ashoka’s Chakra (a symbol of the Mauryan empire)—an act to declare continuity with past empires of the subcontinent. Nehru was touted as a secular democrat, but one can find plenty of evidence to show how he gave in to the inexorable march of the Hindu nationalists, many of whom decked his own cabinet. The rebuilding of the Somnath temple, to assuage the feelings of the Hindu nation “for until then they would not think that the real freedom had come†(the words of Vallabhbhai Patel, clearly showing from whom was freedom desired), was just a starter.
Hindu nationalism, which ran amok over, what Ashis Nandy has called “the little cultures of Hinduismâ€, actually came in handy in the drive to turn the empire into a state. Hindu pilgrimages were boosted to this end; new places to worship were found and given nationalistic appeal. Issues like Ram’s birthplace, and in recent times ‘Hanuman’s bridge to Lanka’ (the Sethusamudaram) were made national issues to rally a fictitious nation around fictitious symbols. In short, a sacred geography for Hindus was outlined where it did not exist. India became synonymous with Bharat Mata, the territorial Hindu deity to be worshipped through deshbhakhti. Kashmir, which is called “the secular crown of India†without any hint of shame or irony, was actually imagined as “the crown of Bharat Mataâ€, and only so because the crown of the bejeweled image of Bharat Mata, often juxtaposed against the map of India, was where Kashmir was. Kashmir in the same vein also became the atoot ang (an unbreakable body-part) of the anthropomorphic goddess Mother India.
The Amarnath issue stems from here. By bringing in millions of Hindus from across India, facilitating their travel, increasing the number of pilgrimage months, and trying to create permanent bases for them, the state seeks to firmly place Kashmir within the Hindu imagination, as another point on the sacred map of Bharat Mata. By doing so, Kashmir ceases to be the land of Kashmiris, but becomes an abode of Baba Bole Nath. The consolidation of this vision, along with parallel efforts to invent ancient Kashmiri links to India (read the debates on the Institute of Kashmir Studies), in effect seeks to integrate Kashmir with India in its Hindu sense. What else can explain the comical demand of Jammu Hindus that their lost honour could be regained only if Kashmiri land is given to them (perhaps the entire Kashmir should be given to them in lieu of their lost Dogra honour!), and what else can explain the whole of India, the state and the nation, rallying behind Jammu Hindus?”
@ Rahul
hahaha.You are damn good with sarcasm.
Ardy I don’t really understand why you had to post someone else’s blog entry in full. As you have consistently demonstrated, you are perfectly capable of writing blinkered, irrational, contrived, pseudo historical stuff of a very high grade and excellent entertainment value yourself.
Though the term ‘mini-Pakistan’is quite succinct.
“I don’t really understand why you had to post someone else’s blog entry in full. As you have consistently demonstrated, you are perfectly capable of writing blinkered, irrational, contrived, pseudo historical stuff of a very high grade and excellent entertainment value yourself.”
I posted the most important part of his entry – given the lack of voices when it comes to Kashmir. On contrary to your “blinkered, irrational, contrived, pseudo historical stuff posted by you?:
“Should we be sympathetic if a tribe decides to call for independence for it’s village(s)….What about a large family deciding on independence for it’s farmhouse? Is there any fixed number or size below which you decide to withdraw sympathy? Should we legally permit independent mobile republics of one (hehe… cracks me up everytime) ?”
You are quite right, Ardy, india is a fascist hinudtva state (remember hitler was a vegetarian – essentially a hindu as a recent christian convert explained to me). Kashmir has no connection with hindu or indian culture. There never has been a hindu presence in kashmir, maybe a little buddhism but that was destroyed by the evil brahmins a long time ago. Kashmiri politicians who want “azadi” are secular – by this is meant that they havent yet 100% decided on sharia as the law for the future. Some are holding out for pure wahhabism. They have exterminated their minorities – but thats OK too – after all the Maharaja was hindu and that means all things hindu are evil.