This young man was part of a crowd protesting a killing by CRPF men -- another young man, Rafiq, whom they beat so badly on June 12 that he died in hospital on Saturday night (June 19). In fact it was Rafiq's funeral that turned into the protest in which Javaid was shot and killed.
In turn, Rafiq was beaten during a wave of protests in Srinagar that erupted out of the funeral procession of still another young man, Tufail. Tufail was killed by a teargas shell fired by security personnel on June 11.
Tufail is killed by our security forces. During his funeral procession and the accompanying protests, Rafiq is beaten by our security forces and dies some days later. During his funeral procession and the accompanying protests, Javaid is shot dead by our security forces.
Not for the first time, and undoubtedly not for the last, I ask myself: what on earth is going on in Kashmir?
(Some reports: Javaid, Rafiq/Tufail, Tufail).
One answer to that last question is here: thousands of Kashmiri Pandits travelled to Kashmir to pray at the Kheer Bhavani temple there on Saturday.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a close Pandit friend on returning from one of my trips to Srinagar a few years ago.
"Next time you go," he said, "why don't you stay at my brother's hotel?"
I was surprised, because the last time I had heard of the brother, he was a bank executive in Bombay.
"Right, but last year he decided to go back and run this hotel. He just felt like the time had come for Pandits to try to return."
And he's OK? I asked.
"He's fine! He could use a little business, which is why I'm telling you to go. But he feels completely at home there."
I haven't returned to Srinagar since, so I haven't managed to give the man some business. But his determination, and now this Kheer Bhavani news, encourages me no end. This is what will eventually defeat the terrorists, the naysayers, the hate-mongers.
So maybe it is time I went to that hotel.
78 comments:
Clever( or excessively partial) of D'Souza to name the Kashmiri Moslems by their first names, while merely referring to the Kashmiri Pandits as an anonymous mass who may be returning to the valley.
At least give them the same courtesy as your favourite Moslems by saying "Rajiv Dhar or Sunil Kaul( or whomever) are returning to the Kashmir valley after being driven out years ago"
Now do you see, anonymous on the Canadian visa post? Please take a look at the sarcastic tone of the above comment by this joker.
This is what he has been doing ever since I had that slip and posted a couple of comments anonymously by mistake. He uses my name to make these sarcastic comments with a tenor I would never use.
There's a way of ending this silliness( though I'm sure the fake Chandru K has some deep seated reason for writing the way he does).
In my direct e-mails to Dilip D'Souza last year, what was the question he kept asking me in those exchanges?
CKFC
"There's a way of ending this silliness"
who do you think gives a damn, actually? give us a break!
anonymous (from the Canadian visa post).
"who do you think gives a damn, actually? give us a break!"
Tell that to the character who keeps impersonating me, and mocking my postings. And some "Anonymous" did comment on this real-fake silliness.
Any assessment of the goings on in Kashmir should primarily focus on the nature of the movement there, not on whether some CRPF officer beats up a howling Moslem youth in Srinagar, or another howling youth in Baramulla. Rest assured that there is nothing peaceful and benign about these young men who are on the receiving end of the CRPF's discipline.
What is the character of this movement the Kashmiris of the valley have been waging for 20 years? Is it progressive i.e is it premised on, and envisioning more, not less, freedom, democracy, secularism, openness and tolerance than what exists presently? Nothing in the movement indicates any such thing. It's a fanatically intolerant cause, that seeks to set up a monolithic Islamic state.
Is is at least anti-colonial? That's only if you accept the idea of India being a colonial power. But the sine qua non of colonialism is first and foremost, a master race/subject race dichotomy that is more or less permanent. Nothing like this exists in Kashmir. Indians are not the master race, and Kashmiris are not the untermensch, the sub-human inferior. The other major feature of colonialism is again, a more-or-less permanent unequal economic relationship between the 'metropolitan' power and the peripheral colony. Where the colony is super-exploited for its cheap labour, raw materials and captive market by the colonial power, to extract super-profits, thus constantly enriching the metropolitan force, and impoverishing or impeding the colony. This can hardly be said to be transpiring in the Kashmir-India dynamic.
We can also discount settler state colonialism a la the West Bank/Gaza strip, Han Chinese in Tibet, or the early European settlers in North America and South America. India has not colonised Kashmir with settlers.
Suppression of language and culture too, has never been an issue in Kashmir either, the way it has been for the Tibetans, Ukranians and Kurds in their respective environments.
So really, that leaves us with religious hatred mixed with ethno-chauvinism as a basis for everything we've seen in the last 20 odd years. To put it bluntly, there is really no issue in Kashmir except for "Them thar Kashmiris pray to Allah, while them Hindus in New Delhi like pray to some god called Ram, y'know".
India should not and will not bow to such a movement and ideology.
The above Chandru K, I strongly feel is the real one.
I found the comment very logical.
I just have one genuine unresolved doubt in my mind - why are suicide & self-harm wrong? By physically stopping another individual from inflicting self-harm, are we encroaching upon their autonomy, are we being entirely ethical? Can their sanity be always measured vis-a-vis our state of mind?
Ketan, the answer is "yes", when the question of national sovereignty and ideology arises, and when there is the added complication of a very composite character of Kashmir. It is really only in the valley where there is a problem. Jammu and Ladakh, comprising by far the majority of the area of the state, are well disposed and well integrated into India. Even in the valley, you can find significant numbers of people, who are sympathetic to the idea of India- the Abdullah family being the most striking. So apart from bowing to an obnoxious ideology and gratuitous violence, India would be abandoning far too many people if it were to let Kashmir go. It would also be seen a victory for the Islamists, the last thing the world needs.
So really, that leaves us with religious hatred mixed with ethno-chauvinism as a basis for everything we've seen in the last 20 odd years
Far too easily explained away Chandru. Maybe there is also the fact that the govt has established an unsympathetic, uncurtailed militia that is violating human rights on massive scale which apologists like you and a majority of Indians choose to turn a blind eye to
"Far too easily explained away Chandru. Maybe there is also the fact that the govt has established an unsympathetic, uncurtailed militia that is violating human rights.."
But surely, this can't be the basis of the movement that has been going on for *20 years* now and counting. There has to be something a little more visionary, elevated and progressive, rather than just a reactive/reactionary response to real or perceived human rights violations. Bearing in mind that the Islamist-militant separatists have been brutally violating human rights from the beginning.
It's hard for anyone in the world too look at a movement like Kashmir separatism and think that is some uplifting struggle by an oppressed people against a totalitarian, dictatorial, colonial force trying to suppress their noble impulses.
Yeah. Lets withdraw CRPF, Army and other Paramilitary forces. Why waste money & persons on something that is surely our wrong deeds.
Heck, lets ask Pakistan to take control since they unlike us do not believe in ground forces. They just bomb or let some one else bomb whatever they find as hostile.
The real point one (the blogger) has to ask is WHY, why the heck is most riots in Kashmir. North East has more forces than here, why not there. Is every citizen of India better off than the Kashmiris that we don't come onto the street and riot every other day?
Baby V: thanks for link, your request fulfilled.
Ketan, you call that logical? Three killings of young men in quick succession are waved away as "some CRPF officer beats up a howling Moslem youth in Srinagar, or another howling youth in Baramulla", (note the careful omission of their *deaths*) and you say that's "logical"?
What about the first comment on this page, about first names -- that's logical to you as well?
Besides, are all the CK comments on this page by the same person? One or two appear to be disowning the others and each other.
Is every citizen of India better off than the Kashmiris that we don't come onto the street and riot every other day?
The "real question" might be just slightly different than what you ask. Over the last few years, we've seen citizens coming onto the street and violence erupting in: Rajasthan, Delhi, Manipur, AP, TN, Karnataka, Maharashtra ... and I haven't even mentioned the entire Naxalite belt.
So the real question might just be: why are so many people all over India so disturbed that they come out on the street and protest and risk being shot or beaten up? And since they are, what question(s) does that raise about this country itself?
"Besides, are all the CK comments on this page by the same person?"
All except the second one, making some sarcastic comment about visas, and zero content about the subject at hand, which is Kashmir.
The 3 major points I have made about Kashmir in this blog, and in other forums, whether under my name or another name, is that 1) the Kashmir movement is not progressive and visionary, unlike the Indian independence movement and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. It is not striving for more freedom, democracy, pluralism and secularism in the context of an environment where all these qualities are denied 2) It is not even anti-colonial, since Kashmir is not a colony of India, and India is not a colonial power. So references to Bhagat Singh have no equivalence or relevance. For colonialism to exist, there has to be a master race-subject race dichotomy, as in European colonialism in Asia and Africa, and a super-exploitative economic relationship between the metropolitan power and the colony. This was unambiguous with the British, French, Portuguese and Dutch in their respective colonies. Other features of colonialism are a settler state policy( definitely absent in Kashmir) which changes the demographics of the targeted area, and linguistic/cultural suppression. Again, not even remote issues in Kashmir, at any time in the last 60 years.
The faker is clever indeed. He claims my own arguments as his in his comment immediately above, and disowns his own comment that's the second on this page!
For the record, my comments on this page are June 21 9:02pm (the first), June 21 10:55pm (the third, note it was a challenge to which the faker has not responded), June 22 6:16pm and June 22 7:18pm.
All the other Chandru K comments are fake. Note especially his clever one of June 23 9:21am, in which he responds to another commenter as if in continuation of the previous comment. Clever! But such an obvious fake, look at the tone. And more to the point, it was done at a time when I'm usually asleep here in Canada -- the only "am" comment that's a fake, which is a dead giveaway.
Let's go kashmir?
How do we know whether everyone in this blog including the owner, is not Chandru K? Perhaps Ketan, Baby V, Rahul, Gurpreet, Suresh, Nakul, D'Souza himself, are all epithets of Chandru K. Life and this very continuum as we know it, may revolve around Chandru K.
Seriously, why not just respond to ideas within a given message, and refrain from all this real-fake Chandru K idiocy.
Dear Dcubed
May be this characterizes the kinds of arguments opposing your POV.
"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell (h/t Glenn Greenwald)
To Chandru K -
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/23/delusions/index.html
Baby V
Baby V
and ofcourse:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
But the idea of India as a colony, a jewel in Britain's imperial crown, was an unambiguous idea throughout those long years of British rule. There was no question of social equality between the rulers and the ruled, which was a precondition( duh) of India being ruled by Britain in the first place.
There was also a grossly unequal economic relationship, with India largely supplying raw materials, cheap labour and a captive market for the British.
There's no philosophy or ideology of Kashmir being an imperial possession of India, nor any fixed master race/subject race dichotomy.
Then there is of course the whole question of the *nature* of the Kashmir movement itself, and whether this movement is one that should be allowed to 'win', or even can win, and what the implications of such a 'win' are for India, the region and the world.
This Chandru k and mini-chandru faker are just too much to handle. I am going to scream or call the blog centurion.
i can only repeat what i said way up on this page. "who do you think gives a damn", ie about chandru k vs fake chandru k, one ck's painful attempts to show he's not the other fake ck, and now his attempt to draw in everyone else.
orwel said it correct. everything ive read from ck here drips of his inability to see things right before his rose-tinted glasses.
Actually, for the two Anons, I did give a simple solution for this silly problem: respond to the ideas within a given posting. Now, it is yourselves that are getting long-winded on this real-fake CK stuff.
Complete links seem to get broken. The link to Greenwald works better this way:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
Click on the title:
Right-wing self-delusion
Another nugget from the greenwald article is Bush on apology. I've never been a great fan of apology
- esp uncoupled to any redress
- esp for somebody else's doings
- esp as belatedly as is happening now (38 yrs after Londonderry, 25 yrs after Kanishka etc.)
but it does stand out in comparison to this attitude:
[George Bush:] "I will never apologize for the United States of America, I don't care what the facts are."
Bush said that in response to being asked his reaction to the fact that a U.S. Naval warship had just blown an Iranian passenger jet out of the sky, killing all 300 civilians people aboard.
thanks,
Jai
please follow your own advice, chandru. half the time you are busy pointing out that your comments are not by you. half the remainder, you taunt people. i would like to read a discussion of the contents of the post. which is rarely what you do in your comments.
Dilip,
Citizens erupting in violence and what it say about us:
Over the past few years groups of us have reliably and predictably rioted over anything under the sun, from police atrocities to freedom to cartoons drawn 10000km away to books to paintings to statements by some movie stars.
The first thing this says, to me at least, is that we can apparently get away with it. The chances of getting beaten up are small and getting shot is micro I guess. As a mob we get to do the beating, and in parts of India, the shooting /bombing as well. The ratios work in "our" favor.
The second is that we are thin-skinned and maybe getting worse at it. We have deference and respect to some traditions in our cultural DNA and cannot handle provocation by others.
The third is that we buy easily into a victim mentality and that appears to neatly drive a justification/ explanation for you guessed it, more violence. I suspect more of us more easily believe that "THEY are out to get us/wont let us come up/whatever"
This last one bears more analysis and will be quite OT for this post. The feeling is IMO founded largely on the person you know best ie. yourself- the projections onto "them" are emotions you actually feel in *you*.
thanks,
Jai
"please follow your own advice, chandru. half the time you are busy pointing out that your comments are not by you. half the remainder, you"
Can you point to some of your more trenchant observations, particularly Kashmir. I have made a number of points on Kashmir i.e that Kashmir is not a colony of India hence no question of freedom struggle; and that the nature of this putative freedom struggle itself, is not one that is moving toward more freedom, secularism and pluralism. Rather, far less.
"Chandru K - you must be having some Moslem friends to know so much about them."
The few Moslem friends, more like friendly acquaintances, I have, are not people I engage in political discussions with. Though rest assured, that if the time or occasion calls for it, I will not be found wanting.
What I do find intriguing is the tendency of many non-Moslems particularly Christians and hard secular Hindus, to leap to the defense of Moslems at the slightest opportunity, often even before Moslems themselves do. For what motive is not entirely clear. It could be self-hatred, an adversarial approach toward the climate of the day(which favours taking action against Islamists), a desire to show off one's 'secular' credentials to like-minded people, or sheer ignorance and stupidity. It could even be, in a few instances, a disillusionment with one's own community or society, and a belief that the Moslems/Islamists have all the answers to the pressing issues and problems of our times. One hopes that is not a popularly held position.
"..more like friendly acquaintances.."
Chandru K - it is easy to see why the Christians leap to the defense. They are a minority in India. Perhaps the hard secular Hindu's feel themselves to be in a minority as well. It is only the non-minorities, such as yourself, who can truly understand Moslems for what they are, through a few friendly Moslem acquaintances.
With an arsenal of words at your disposal, backed by the non-minority Hindus, could you be triggering the very response in the minorities that you so marvel at? Maybe you should initiate the political discussion with your remaining Moslem acquaintances so you can set them straight. Or perhaps you could learn a thing or two to achieve your own goals.
What insecurity, if I may ask, drives you to fear the Christians and the hard secular Hindus and their love of Moslems? Why does it matter so much to you? What is the source of your fear? You are among friendly acquaintances, so speak freely and clearly.
What is the source of your fear?
Easy. I am afraid that this great civilization will be soon (in historical terms) ground to dust under the jackboots of the Islamo-fascists and the Christians. This is why I keep pointing out the dangers of what is happening in Kashmir. I believe they are readying in that state to overrun the rest of India and wipe out a peaceful and tolerant religion that has existed in harmony with the world for six thousand years.
Hindus have everything to fear from the Christians and Moslems. If I may be frank, those Hindus who do not feel this fear are probably not real Hindus to begin with.
Rest assured that when this time comes, I will do my best to return to India from Canada to do my bit.
Rest assured ... I will do my best to return to India from Canada to do my bit.
Sounds familiar. Sounds like I've heard this same language from this same source for oh, about a decade now. I'm resting assured all right.
Yes, yes Chandru K - based on your explanation it is clear that Hindus are a minority in the world of Christianity and Islam and could be under threat of coming under jackboots. Hinduism is, after all, only the third-largest religion in the world with an 80% representation in India.
With the sharpest minds and ablest hands like yourself in Canada, is it a wonder that the Hindu world-minority in India is, as you say, afraid of the world-majority? In fact, as you know, the strength is not in numbers but in strategy. The world economy is not dominated by a highly-populated country. It seems imperative to me that in fact the time HAS come, and if you do not immediately set course for India to do your bit, there could be, as you say, grave consequences. Can you reconcile and comment on your rabid patriotism, deep-seated fear and lack of action?
"Yes, yes Chandru K - based on your explanation it is clear that Hindus are a minority in the world of Christianity and Islam and could be under threat of coming under jackboots."
But it's not just Hinduism, dynamic and varied as it is, that's under threat from the Islamists and the more aggressive Christian missionaries/evangelists.
It's the atmosphere that India has fostered and upheld, where one is free to belong to a religion or a non-religion like atheism and agnosticism. That freedom would positively disappear under any kind of Islamic dispensation or preeminence. In Punjab, it would have vanished under a Khalistani regime. In the Northeast, it would end or be massively suppressed under the antediluvian "Kingdom of Christ" advocates.
"...India has fostered...".
Yes -- this is true -- I am truly impressed by your hard secular views and your desire to preserve the secular nature of India. It is not that you object to Hindus freely being converted to Islam or Christianity - this is fine with you, in fact an expression of the secular nature of India -- it is that you argue the converse should also be allowed freely and will not be so under a non-secular regime. What about Hindu-Moslem intermarriage? You celebrate this as well I am sure. This too would vanish in non-secular environment. I agree with you in all the important cases! The only thing I dont understand is why, unless you are sending funds to India from Canada, do you continue to live there.
Jai C
I think you got that wrong.
Its not about apology. Its about trying for war crimes and serious violations. and "acountability" as he calls it.
Glenn Greenwald is not a CNN anchor/Times of India oped columnist to be satisfied with an apology. He is a serious writer on legal matters.
Also - that article has NOTHING to do with asking for an apology. I am not sure how you got that message from it. That article is his identification of a serious flaw in the analysis and thought process of people in America who identify as "Right wing" or "Conservative" or even "Libertarian"
Most of his work these days, in fact, has NOTHING to do with apology (as he has mentioned clearly) He is one of the rare, shrill and articulate voices in America who are pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama's apologists and are formidable critics of Obama administration.
He has - as have many others - successfully proven that Obama administration, in spite of the rubbish, delusional and misdirected 'propaganda' in the media, is nothing but a continuation of the Bush administration (2nd term). Moreover, he has also argued very convincingly that it is exactly what Obama wants.
His argument conforms to the following:
Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Politics
- Thomas Ferguson.
Baby V
Jai C
But Hang On, you never said that about Greenwald's article
Never mind then...
Baby V
Jai C
Actually sorry for missing the humor in "esp for someone else's doings" referring to Bush's actions.
so an apology...ah! apology again.
and an apology to dcubed for clearly trashing his comment space.
Baby V
re. my comment Jun25 10.08
Looks like people are having trouble separating what I said from what Greewald said and what Bush said. The following demarc may help:
[Jai C start]-------
Another nugget from the greenwald article is Bush on apology. I've never been a great fan of apology
- esp uncoupled to any redress
- esp for somebody else's doings
- esp as belatedly as is happening now (38 yrs after Londonderry, 25 yrs after Kanishka etc.)
but it does stand out in comparison to this attitude:
------[end Jai C]
[Greenwald, the first line is q. Bush]------
[George Bush:] "I will never apologize for the United States of America, I don't care what the facts are."
Bush said that in response to being asked his reaction to the fact that a U.S. Naval warship had just blown an Iranian passenger jet out of the sky, killing all 300 civilians people aboard.
------[end Greenwald]
Is any of this on topic anymore?
The person closest to topic seems to be (surprisingly) one of the many Chandrus... at Jun22 6:16
thanks,
Jai
Thanks for that, Jai. Yes, I am almost never at a loss to explain, when the subject comes up, that Kashmir is not the British Raj of India; it is not the West Bank and Gaza Strip; it is not northern Sri Lanka; it is not Tibet, it is not Northern or Southern Ireland. Other than the fact of a violent movement taking place, Kashmir shares none of the characteristics of those other struggles, and one should add that Tibet has not been violent, for some reason that political and social scientists should explain- since they have ready explanations, if not justifications, for Kashmir.
If you think about it, there's nothing quite like Kashmir in history, where an extremely violent movement developed, without all the usual reasons for such violence.
Chandru K: You fell silent when I extended the secular nature of India to you, in my previous note.
Regarding Kashmir - can you compare and contrast the insurgencies in NE India (7 sisters) with the Kashmir situation? Should India agree to separate nations there? Are those "British Raj", "Gaza" etc equivalents?
I can add that breaking off a small piece of a country to form a small, new country is alike to a teenager running away from home. The small country ends up being exploited by the world in the worst possible ways.
Jai C
That is correct.
But, why lose an opportunity to spit out some more propaganda when you can easily and deliberately misrepresent someone's comments and use that as an excuse to get in to another session of message spreading and essentially showing off, is what I thought.
I did admit my wrong doing at June 27, 2010 9:40 AM
Baby V, forgot to say, thanks for the Orwell/salon stuff. I like that characterization of nationalists who don't see resemblances. Explains a lot. On this page as well.
D'Souza
In your Christianity induced protest against our great Hindu India you forgot to mention that its not just the Muslims and Christians that are Anti-India.
These Hindu warkaris are also Anti India and Anti Hindu (which is obviously one and the same isn't it?).
These Hindu Warkari terrorists were protesting against a good company Dow Chemicals, a uniquely benevolent company in its magnanimity compelled by its Christian virtue trying to develop India and these Hindu Warkari - far left radicals destroyed property and were violent against their own government.
Did you mutter "Bho__" Don't even go there. Union Carbide is a completely different company from Dow Chemicals.
http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org/downloads/Sakaal%20Times%20article%20on%20Dow_2.pdf
Baby V
"Chandru K: You fell silent when I extended the secular nature of India to you, in my previous note."
There is definitely a danger to secularism from Islamists, the Pakistani military, and the 'Kingdom of Christ' advocates in the North East of India. As for conversion, in theory it should be fine, provided there is no enticement or coercion involved i.e that it springs from a deep seated conviction. But Indians do have a legitimate concern about the very anti-Indic and anti-secular character of the people and groups performing the conversions, because they( the groups) have no commitment to secularism and pluralism; they would prefer monolithic states strictly following Islam or Christianity. The desired product of these conversions would positively be anti-agnostic, anti-atheist and anti-Hindu/Indic. That is the danger.
Separatism is not something good or uplifting, unless there is a real justification for it. India's system accommodates rather than suppresses all the different languages and communities that exist in the subcontinent. And they all live within a free country and democracy. Again, the separatists themselves are not striving for states that are more free, open, democratic and pluralistic than the one they want to separate from. That's why their struggles are not legitimate.
Guys,
the meat of this topic is contained here (IMO): Free to Choose India
http://dcubed.blogspot.com/2008/05/its-been-year-yes.html
Do read it.
Differing with the articles thrust, I feel that Kashmiris (or any Xis in general) may choose for reasons of affinity or bond or debt, to go with a demonstrably less free option:
"a fractious, fragile country with a history of regular lapses into military dictatorship; a poster-boy for the dangers of [] religious nationalism" [Dilip]
or more likely to be free of both.
The basis for the second option is maybe culutral or ethnic nationalism; an identity that can be formed for most any of our states, in some large states possibly 2-3 such.
It necessarily involves "separateness" and the legitimation of such a feeling and it is permissible to think of such a divorce as a failure of the India project.
The task is to convince ourselves as a nation that this is not so.
Chandru:
I'm probably the closest to trying to understand your PoV than sling labels around. But I would like "Indian" to be an option by *choice* not force.
Kashmir is a boundary case in every sense, I dont see why N.Ireland is not an appropriate analogy.
I believe there are other models considered (Andorra for one) but I'm guessing you are going with strict Kashmir==India.
I am okay with whatever model can bring peace and closure including any of the above. I do note our friendly neighbors efforts to ensure that some options fail that "peacefulness" test.
But if youve been reading the Dilip-Beena dialogue you realize that the agitation will soon become a civil society movement with peaceful agitation.
thanks,
Jai
PS: 1. Sorry for the long comment.
2. AM, it was a simple clarification attempted in my last comment with no huge aspersions on propaganda or whatever.
3. Dilip's article above may mark the debut of "trust but verify" on this blog that I keep nagging him with in the Indo-Pak threads. I havent seen much "verify" discussed thereafter, its more "trust" :-)
Chandru:
You make it really difficult to try and get your PoV. Do you wish your comments to self-destruct?
Whats with this "howling M youth" "kingdom of Christ" etc.
rgds,
Jai
I have no regrets about using those terms. For the record, let me state it clearly: Soldiers in Kashmir are doing great service against an always complaining and whining population (so I said "howling") that is entirely Muslim. And there are very very few Christians who don't go on about the great superiority of their church and religion, at the same time insulting Hinduism, which is why I said "Kingdom of Christ".
The fake Chandru K is at it again. I did not write the previous comment.
Jai, with due respect I am not as interested in getting you to understand my point of view as in calling a spade a spade. The Muslims and Christians in this country (I say "this" meaning India, I hope you understand, though of course I live in Canada) are intent on abusing and insulting Hindus. This is why they must be called and pulled up.
My mistake, I wrote the previous comment but with an inadvertent slip I forgot to use my name.
Jai: But how far do you go to legitimize the supposed ethno-nationalism in Kashmir and parts of the Northeast? The movements there have been horrendously violent, something you would expect when people are really, really oppressed and have no avenue to express their feelings. But that's not the motive for the violence at all. It's to destabilise the area, to inflict damage on India, to consolidate their own supporters and isolate or embarrass the moderates or non-separatists. This can't be called 'legitimate'; the result of this struggle will not be something enlightened, or superior to what exists presently, and this is my central position. Not only that, it is not at all clear that these movements have massive popular support, with the possible exception of agitation in the Kashmir valley( not Jammu or Ladakh). And this agitation is often geared to getting more from the government; at other times it does have a markedly separatist character.
The word "howling" underlines the anti-progressive nature of these causes. If the youth in question were thinking: the environment in which we live is not as free, open, pluralistic and democratic as we want it to be, and were lashing out at the symbols of the obstruction of those values and the institutions that go along with them, they would be far more sympathetic, though violence can't be glorified. But what they are fighting for is something ugly, narrow and unenlightened.
The "Kingdom of Christ" remark was rather sweeping, but there is no doubt that in at least 3 states( not Assam), the role of the Church has been dubious at best. The converts they have obtained are in fact pushing for a greater role for Christianity, and are known to intimidate and persecute those Nagas, Tripuris and Mizos who resist conversion.
"that's not the motive for the violence at all."
how do you know, chandru? youve ever been to those places? talked to people there? how are you able to say so surely what is or isnt their motive?
(yes, same anon from canadian visa discussion)
btw will the real chandru pl stand up?? which one am i having a discussion with? i'm afraid i will put this post up and suddenly chandru will say he didnt make the above remark.
Please! Isn't it obvious I didn't write the above comment?
Sorry, I submitted that without finishing.
Isn't it obvious that the comment by "Chandru K" above (June 29, 2010 419PM) is not by me, the real Chandru K? Look at the sly tone the fake man adopts. My fundamental reason for "howling" is, as I said earlier, the way the population of Kashmir - now largely Muslim - keeps complaining and whining about the treatment they get from India. Why should they complain? They are the country's most pampered people and they don't even deserve it! That's why I referred to "howling Muslims", not the namby-pamby rubbish that the fake Chandru K is trying to get at. (What's "anti-progressive" anyway?)
And what does he mean by "dubious at best"? Lets face it, the violence in the northeast is the fault primarily of the church. There's nothing "dubious" here. They are seeking to eradicate Hinduism from this country and establish their Kingdom. Period.
"btw will the real chandru pl stand up?? which one am i having a discussion with?"
The one at June 29th 419 pm. It's a good thing that the imitator is doing this only for me; imagine the chaos if everyone were being mocked or imitated. That's why I said earlier, respond to the arguments, and ignore the silliness.
My reasoning is this: India is already an open, democratic, pluralistic and secular society and country. So these separatist movements, to be legitimate should be struggling to enhance and elevate those values and institutions, not merely be reactive by stating "We worship Allah, while you pray to Ram", or "We have different facial features in Nagaland" or "We pray to Jesus, not Ram".
Movements in the 20th and 21st centuries should be more enlightened and progressive. Something like "We are dissatisfied with the level of freedom, openness, democracy, secularism and pluralism while being part of India, and we want to create a new state or country, where these qualities will be enhanced, and will serve as an inspiration to other countries, including the one we are struggling to free ourselves from".
In the spirit of tolerant religions let us celebrate the multiple Chandru K s. You choose the Chandru K who appears real to you - or you can become one! What do you say, anonymous soldier of Canadian visa? Fight Chandru K with Chandru K!
We must continue to fight the wars against the (howling) moghul invaders, the partition of India battle even today.
Surely you can recognise my comments. This is the real Chandru K. I live in Canada as my skills are needed -- otherwise I would be in India like a shot. If you believe a word of what I write you must all be smoking thin cigarettes.
"btw will the real chandru pl stand up?? which one am i having a discussion with?"
The one at June 29th, 419pm. It's a good thing that only I am being mimicked or impersonated; imagine the confusion and chaos if everyone( including Jai, Nikhil,Ketan et al were).
To repeat: these movements are utterly reactive, ethno-centric or religiously separatist based. There's no elevated or visionary quality in them. Nothing in the movements which says "We are discontent with the level of freedom, democracy, secularism, openness and pluralism in our states as part of India, and we want to create a new state or country where these features will be more enhanced, so that they are an inspiration to other people and countries, including the one we are disengaging from"
India is not being opposed by something greater than itself as far as *spirit*, *values* and *institutions* go. Rather, by entities far lesser. This is what makes these movements- Kashmir, Nagalim, Khalistan, so disreputable, unworthy and obnoxious.
"This is what makes these movements- Kashmir, Nagalim, Khalistan, so disreputable, unworthy and obnoxious."
These sound more like mean-spirited animus-laced comments from a narrow-minded conservative than those from a statesman of the world's largest democracy. I see no sign of the "inspiration to other people and countries" that you speak of. Why do you so fault others for your own type of views? I agree that your approach is not conducive to progress. If you want change, start with your own thinking and then extend to others.
"These sound more like mean-spirited animus-laced comments from a narrow-minded conservative than those from a statesman of the world's largest democracy."
I'm not a statesman of the world's most populous democracy; just an observer, commentator and musing individual, though yes, sometimes I do like to mix it up.
To repeat, there is nothing elevated and visionary in those movements( to take one example, name me one elevated quality of that whole Khalistan insurgency in the 80's). They are just narrow, bigoted, reactive and reactionary anti-India causes. The only result of such movements will be what India wants to prevent in its neighbourhood: fanatic, narrow minded, monolithic, insecure, ethnocentric states.
chandru's labels for every "movement" he does not like are reminiscent of churchill's labels for india's independence struggle and its leaders. "half men", he called them, iirc. 1947 showed churchill his place. i hope chandru wil not be shown his in the same way. its what happens when all you can find to say is "narrow, bigoted, reactive and reactionary".
Yes, we do not want Narendra Modis and Thackerays at ALL the borders. No doubt Chandru K is opposed to both these causes espoused by these two ungentlemen.
Chandru K -- I can tell there are a lot of causes you oppose and belittle. What cause do you support? In which state, on what border, and which country? Saying "I support India" doesn't cut it -- that will be hiding behind your motherland's skirts. Let us hear you.
"churchill's labels for india's independence struggle and its leaders."
False comparison, and I've said why earlier. India is not a colonial power. India's independence movement was an excellent example of a struggle whose values and spirit were above those of the entity against which India was freeing itself from. Ending colonial rule, princely rule, ending or curbing zamindarism, having a vision to develop the country, and doing all this with an inclusive multifarious nationalism is very different from the travesties of freedom movement we've been seing in Kashmir, Nagaland and Punjab in the 80's.
"Chandru K -- I can tell there are a lot of causes you oppose and belittle. What cause do you support"
Definitely the anti-colonial movements of the last century in Africa and Asia. These were all progressive struggles against outmoded, discredited, racist forms of governance and ideology. Unfortunately, I'm not old enough to have been around to have supported them. The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa is still fresh and rememberable, and that certainly was progressive, and very necessary. Keeping the colonial and apartheid systems indefinitely would have been a regressive stance.
"Definitely the anti-colonial movements of the last century in Africa and Asia."
Well it is easy to support stuff in hindsight. What about current movements that you support, where the outcomes and world opinions are as yet uncertain? Would you have been anti-Nazi in 1940?
Name a couple of current causes you support and contrast them with the 7-sisters and Kashmir if possible, ie, how they are visionary.
That's just it; there are hardly any visionary, elevated political movements in our times. There are progressive minded people who have demonstrations and programmes regarding the environment, child labour, controlling the power of corporations and/or government, championing the rights of marginalised groups. But no overarching progressive political movement like India's independence struggle or the anti-apartheid cause. Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and North Korea are three prime candidates for such a progressive movement.
"Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and North Korea are three prime candidates for such a progressive movement."
Chandru K - yes -- what about improving the lot of Moslems in Gujrat? Last I heard they were an oppressed and fearful lot. Nearer to home and something close to your homeland. Does your heart not go out to them? Do you support them?
Why go to North Korea, Saudi Arabia etc like the overreaching colonial powers, past and present?
Moslems in Gujarat? Are you out of your mind? What do they need? Like in the rest of India, they are a pampered, cossetted lot who are harrassing Hindus (as in Godhra). For the record, they don't need anything done for them. On the contrary, they should be stopped from harrassing innocent Hindus. That's a progressive movement worth supporting.
"Moslems in Gujarat? Are you out of your mind? "
Chandru K: Quite so. As I suspected, your lofty thoughts do not extend to your own back yard. Korea yes, Gujrat, no. Your bigoted and visceral response displays clearly the seat of your vision - the opposite end from your cerebral processor.
Why go to North Korea, Saudi Arabia etc
Maybe because these countries, together with Myanmar, are dictatorships in need of progressive change toward freedom, pluralism and democracy. That's what I meant by overarching political movement.
For the record, the postings about the progressive anti-colonial movements, and the mention of North Korea, Saudi and Myanmar being in need of similar movements, are indeed mine. I said nothing about Gujarat, or whether Moslems there are pampered or are bothering Hindus.
Right -- those are from the evil Chandru K. Reminds me of a book by Stevenson, RL. The strange case of Chandru K and Chandru K.
Be that as it may, I think this topic is now closed -- and Dr. Jekyll you may wish to change your Anonymous Hide to something else.
Chandru K: I am assigning you this cause to work on. Come back to this forum with your plan. After you are done, you can start preaching to North Korea and others outside your borders.
Even the most advanced, literate democracies in the world have problems. Of course, India, being poor, overpopulated, semi-feudal at the lower levels, is going to have incidents like that.
The idea of India is to evolve and develop within the context of a free, pluralistic, open system and society. The process may be in some cases, even tougher than a regimented, monolithic, self-glorifying, top-down, do or die system like North Korea.
But it's still the more mature and civilised way.
Chandru K: So this is your plan? "Of course, India, being poor, overpopulated, semi-feudal at the lower levels, is going to have incidents like that".
You are part of the problem my man, you need to start being part of the solution! Finding excuses for "poor, overpopulated, semi-feudal" India doesn't reflect any of your grand words and visions. You are just pontificating without persevering. You HAVE no plan. RIP.
We are discussing issues here, not advocating activism, though anyone is of course free to do that. I fail to see what the contradiction is between acknowledging that a country like India has many problems, while simultaneously recognising that democracy, freedom and pluralism is the best way to go about dealing with those matters.
The references to North Korea, Saudi, Myanmar etc was to suggest that they are all much more in need of a progressive *political* movement, than the insurgent racked areas of Kashmir, Assam and Manipur.
"they are all much more in need of a progressive *political* movement, than the insurgent racked areas of Kashmir, Assam and Manipur."
you have, no doubt in my mind, been to those insurgent racked areas and checked for yourself? you are not just saying this things from far-off Kanada??
or are you going to disown this comment which you do with such finesse?
I do know, as does everyone, that Kashmir, Manipur and Assam are all democracies, within a larger democracy. There is freedom of speech, movement, association and religious/cultural expression. There are far more of these qualities in Kashmir,Assam and Manipur, than there are in Saudi, North Korea and Myanmar. Yes, it is true there is one freedom that is not granted- the freedom to secede. But that is quite sensible and rational. In everything else, the Indian states tower above those authoritarian, regimented lands. Yet, there is hardly any insurgency worth the name in those countries. This is what is so baffling.
A very cowardly post by Mr D'Souza. Very typical of 'secularists' & assorted commie clowns. A half-clever attempt at disinformation would perhaps be the most appropriate description of this disingenuous blog post.
I mean, a casual reader, who has a very superficial knowledge of Kashmir's situation and its history over the past 20 years may very well be forgiven for concluding from this post, that Muslims are being subject to brutalities while Hindus are safe & even prospering in the Valley; whereas, the reality is almost opposite.
The separatists' calls for azaadi for Kasmir are hardly secular; there is a strong & clear Islamic dimension to it as evidenced in the following slogan of the separatists: "Azaadi ka matlab kya? La ilaha illa Allah". Clearly there is no place for Kashmiri Pandits(& other non-Muslims) in the separatists' vision of an azaad Kashmir!
Mr D'Souza if you think that indulging in disinformation & smear-campaings will serve your agenda(Whatever it may be, its clear that it is certainly not in India's interest or in the interest of human-rights for that matter; for you are very clearly trying to "manufacture outrage"), then Im amused 'coz such methods will only reveal you to be a cheap publicity seeker & an amateurish one at that. The people who matter are hardly going to take you seriously. Ans yes, in case your goal is a Booker or any of the other politically-motivated prizes, then you need take to leanr from the undisputed czarina of ur ilk; a delightful, nut-case that goes by the name of Arundhati Suzanne Roy!!!! Wonder why always hides the "Suzanne" part of her name!!!
Post a Comment