Some controversial thoughts on Remembrance Day & Kashmir

For our Serbian Comrade, Milan.

Britain of course is Ground Zero for Remembrance Day.

I find it a bit tiresome as to how both World Wars are constantly spun as being for “freedom.”

It’s a bit like how Mel Gibson retconned history in the Patriot so that a slave was fighting for the Americans as opposed to the British.

1.5mm Indians fought for the Empire in WW1 and after that war, as well as WW2, we were still subjects (slaves) of a foreign king.

It doesn’t matter that the British Empire was, by and larger, more benevolent than other Empires of its ilk but Freedom is Freedom. WW1 & WW2 weren’t fought in my name (my grandfather was a medic-doctor on the Burmese in the Second War) and while I respect the observation; I suspect it’s near hysterical commemorations.

Thankfully I can express these thoughts on BP since we have space here for privacy and nuance. However when I moonlight as a “Social Justice Ghazi” I notice the almost persistent humble brag of WASP civilisation.

History is always written by the conquerors especially English history. It’s probably a reflection of my deeply colonised mind that I can only read, write and think deeply in the English language; I’m short of any other perspective.

These thoughts sit squarely on this play I saw last night “the Djinns of Eidgah.” It’s about Kashmir and it was extraordinarily powerful. Incidentally it was written by a Bengali Hindu (Abhishek Majumdar) and the script was sterling.

I was surprised by how anti/India it was and of course as I saw the play my part-Pakistani blood, always latent always poisonous, was steaming in solidarity with my Kashmiri kin-folk.

There were some extraordinarily powerful scenes but having a blond girl play an Indian soldier and exclaim she is “Marathi” stretched incredulity. Another part was where the Arab actor (playing a Kashmiri youth) was pronouncing the lead “Bilal’s name in an Arabic rather than desi accent.

Kashmir of course is the Palestine of the Sub-continent. The Kashmiris are an arrogant, attractive and resilient people and their conflict is the zeitgeist that tends to overshadow other perhaps even equally worthy causes (Tamils, NorthEasterners, Baluch etc).

As a counter-factual if Kashmir had been joined to Pakistan (as it should have been) would there even have been a whisp out of that region today? I suspect not because the Muslims of Kashmir would have melded into Pakistan without trace or incident.

These are slightly unvarnished thoughts and I’m sympathetic that India can’t “retreat” from Kashmir without a huge loss of face. But it’s increasingly clear that Pakistan is a peripheral player in the India-Kashmir dynamics; the local Kashmiris are themselves in revolt.

The play “plays” on the tendency of the Kashmiris to refer to the Indians as “Indians.” The fact that India is seen as an entirely separate entity to Kashmir reflects that Freedom is a difficult quality to define and sometimes so is nationhood.

1+

74 thoughts on “Some controversial thoughts on Remembrance Day & Kashmir”

  1. I’d even challenge the idea that the British empire was non-trivially more benevolent than others. The one-drop rule and racial apartheid seemed more enshrined in the anglo-saxon view. Even the ardent catholicism of the iberians acknowledged the humanity of other races and accommodated them into their extended families. The anglo legacy has some advantageous externalities of course, such as familiarity with english and better immunity to totalitarian ideologies perhaps, much of which is incidental to later developments and not an outcome of intentional benevolence. Btw, subcontinentals were never full citizens of the British empire, whereas in Goa and Pondicherry, natives enjoyed representation and on occasion rose to eminent positions in government like Francisco Luis Gomes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Lu%C3%ADs_Gomes

    0
    1. Yes I agree – Britain (and the Allies) have never really “atoned” for Empire.

      In fact there is a very subtle feeling of gratitude that we are meant to feel.

      This is an extraordinarily controversial question (and I have no answers) but for coloured how different were either side on either War?

      In fact the Japanese were liberators (?) and the Nazis didn’t seem to extend their genocidal instincts to black and brown populations.

      I know I’m wading into difficult waters here but it would nice to get knowledgeable responses..

      0
      1. The Japanese were definitely not liberators. Bitterness over Imperial Japan is one of the few things that unites all of East and Southeast Asia.

        0
      2. About 100000 Indians, mostly Tamils, were worked to death by the Japanese making the infamous railway track on River Kwai. While British pows there have been made heroes especially in films, the Indian dead don’t even have a memorial.

        Many Tamils in Burma fled the advancing Japanese troops under miserable conditions. When I was in Madras Christian college, the department librarian told me of the atrocities he witnessed. When the Japanese troops wanted blood presumably for their injured, they used to get random people, put a tube in their body and connect it to a pump. The body will be lifeless in a few seconds.
        The Japanese co prosperity sphere was just Orwellian talk.

        0
          1. Japan’s war crimes are less well known/talked about because the US was the only Allied power that had any real say in their occupation, and we didn’t have the same kind of grudge toward them that the rest of the occupying powers in Europe had towards Germany. Easier to let bygones be bygones, and quickly rehabilitate them as a loyal ally against communism.

            Moreover, the people the Japanese killed were overwhelmingly Asian, and not white Europeans of an ethnicity that was just then being accepted into the ranks of WASPdom. And nowadays, the Japanese are automatically classified as part of the global PoC alliance of the oppressed, so woke white people feel better getting angsty over Hiroshima than over Nanjing or Unit 731.

            0
  2. Alternately Had India integrated kashmir through migration of everyone else into kashmir, it wouldnt be a problem. It is the liberal m*st*rb*t**y fantasy logic of both having accepted partition based on religion and also intend to have a similar religious block be part of their country just so to say, their liberal secular ideology topples religious nationality. It is that arrogance which has led to much suffering. Even the chinese solution now seems less violent.

    Moral of the story: even grandiose liberal dogmas can lead to harm

    0
      1. There were two ways of carrying out Gazwa-e-Hind as thought by muslim leadership at that time. One was Jinnah/nawab/Sultan school of thought who wanted an vanguard islamic state to achieve their goal and the second camp of intellectuals like maulana Abul kalam Azad, first ‘Education minister’ of India who thought it could as well be achieved in united India through electoral politics and under a secular constitution. Even some Indian muslims today acknowledge this fact.

        Partition violence was initiated by muslim parties such as muslim league, Jamaat and deobandis who just like gandhi and nehru were first cooperating with the British. Wahhabis, communists and Hindu nationalists were the ones who sincerely fought the British. Still wahabis were in agreement with other muslim parties when it come to islamic ideology and humiliating kafirs. Gandhi, Nehru were just mute spectators to the havoc unleashed by muslim parties which was later resisted only by Hindu organisations like RSS and Hindu Mahasabha.

        Only pro-United India, genuine secular muslims were Bacha khan of NWFP and his khudai Khidmatgar who are still remembered by Hindus today for their supreme sacrifice in service of the nation.

        So people should move beyond blaming gandhi, nehru, jinnah, british, RSS, Pakistan for everything and sincerely look for the root causes of this age-old conflict.

        0
      2. Partition is best thing to happen to India Eternally thankful to Jinnah. It’s just sad that other steps to have a less blood letting were not completed. This coupled with India,s rhetoric of “our lost brethern” has resulted in unsatisfied populace in either end

        0
        1. Partition was a victory for the idea that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, which is obviously patently false. In any case, the logic of Partition fell apart in 1971 when the Bangladeshis decided to go their own way despite being just as Muslim as the (West) Pakistanis.

          I would say Partition happened because of the inability of the stakeholders to find a political compromise. However, now it is a fact and the best that can be done is to hope that India and Pakistan can treat each other as reasonably normal neighbors in the future. There is no need to love each other, but we don’t need to be each other’s existential enemies either.

          1+
          1. This statement “Partition was a victory for the idea that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together” was never ever made; in South India, Maharashtra, UP, Bihar, WB, etc, Muslims live next to Hindus. There was no large scale migration from South India, and even Maharashtra to Pakistan. It was the idea that that a Muslim minority cannot live with a Hindu majority in a popular democracy; and this is yet to be proved.

            However, the Muslim idea of Pakistan was comingled with Urdu, and Khaki. It would be more easier for Islam under Christian or Hindu majority than the other way. While this unpalatable, this is an outcome, especially in northwest India. The same may not be universally true, as example, in south east Asia.

            0
          2. Vijay,

            Partition was based on the Two Nation Theory, which held that Hindus and Muslims were two different “nations” and inherently could not live together. This is where all the rhetoric about “our heroes are their villains” came in. Obviously, this is a false theory but Partition represents the victory of such an idea.

            0
          3. That there was no large scale migration of Muslims from the south is beside the point. Even in north India, 90% did not goto Pakistan. The Madras Muslim League was solidly behind Jinnah in demanding partition knowing fully well hardly any SI Muslims would goto Pakistan. Height of irresponsible politics.

            0
        2. Its tempting to think that further partitioning would have been even more advantageous. The size of a state shouldn’t exceed the quality of men available to lead it.

          0
          1. One partition for the desert cultists is enough.

            Cultists must consider it their good luck that the followers of the Dhamma don’t covet their land. Dhamma Sadhu!

            Regards
            Jagvinder Jagnesh

            #DhammaFTW

            5+
      3. Without any skin in the game I don’t have strong opinions on the matter, but I always thought partition was an unfortunate turn of history until reading Naipaul. He made the point that if India had stayed united, it’s politics would have been dominated by Hindu vs. Muslim tension for the rest of its history.

        Two groups that both think they have an exclusive right to rule can’t coexist in the same country. Otherwise, all politics will only ever be power politics. Think about what’s happening in the US today, but as a permanent situation.

        0
        1. Be4 47, H-M issues were sorted by cane charges by local police station. Now it has become a nuclear rivalry. To that extent Partition is regressive
          In a democratic undivided India Hindu nationalists, Muslim supremacists, Secular nationalists, Regional Identity movements would have found a modicum of political collaboration. Partition happened due to amplifying and ramping up one particular issue ie Hindu Muslim differences. That sharpness would quickly have dissolved in a few years.

          0
  3. “that tends to overshadow other perhaps even equally worthy causes (Tamils”

    I see this discussion about Tamils in several Pakistani essays. The Tamils of Tamilnadu are entirely different and divorced from Eelam Tamils, and the Dravidian parties are so far away from separation, that I need to correct this.

    The problems of Tamilnadu and Tamilians are that, economically, politically, and socially, we are a very risk-averse people. Intrinsically, it is understood that we process cotton, coal and raw materials from the north and sell it as cars, clothes and goods. However, this is a state of managers and workers, and limited entrepreneurs. This is too of Kannadigas and Telugu people also. However, this allows them to be rational and religious, provincial and cosmopolitant, and independent. If India were to be more economically integrate with ASEAN and Asia, the TamilNadu and Bangalore will survive, but not Punjab. There is no interest in conflict with India, as Tamils are quite OK with the dual identity of Tamil and Indian.
    Your arguments of conflict with Indian identity is more appropriate in the north eastern states, and increasingly in tribal belt.

    4+
      1. No need to apologetic, every community in India feels they are OK, the others are the trouble makers, conveniently forgetting their own past, when they acted the same way. Its astonishing how quickly we forget the past when its suits us.

        0
    1. Don’t underestimate the entrepreneurism among Tamils. It is well spread among many castes and districts. It may not be cutting edge technology or big industry entrepreneurism, it is mostly smaller manufacturing businesses.

      0
  4. Welcome Kashmiris back into Dhamma. In fact, pradhan mantari ji is funding my visit to kashmir to start where kumarajiva left. The desert cult will bring nothing but misery. Turan and Kashmir will unite in the Sangha once again.

    9+
  5. What makes Kashmir different from the other cases you mention (Northeast, Balochistan) is that it is a disputed territory between two nation-states. The conflict in India’s Northeast is internal to India, just as the Baloch insurgency is internal to Pakistan. However, what makes Kashmir a complicated issue is that parts of the former princely state are controlled by two different countries while each claims the entire entity.

    I disagree a bit with your comment that Kashmir should automatically have been joined to Pakistan. That was not how it was supposed to work with the princely states. Once the British left, the princely states technically became sovereign and it was up to the ruler to decide whether to accede to India or Pakistan. Most of the cases were straightforward, but Kashmir was one which could have gone either way. If religious demographics were kept in mind, Hari Singh should have chosen Pakistan but as a Hindu Dogra there was no reason for him to be inclined to do so. This whole issue wouldn’t have arisen if Kashmir had been part of British India proper. Then it would obviously have gone to Pakistan purely for demographic reasons. There is also the fact that India followed different rules in different places. A referendum was conducted in Junagadh, for example, while one has yet to be held in Kashmir.

    I agree completely with your observation that even if Pakistan were to accept the status quo, Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley would continue their struggle against India. Too much blood has been spilled to back down now. You are also right that there is a historic sense of being separate from India and having been conquered by the Mughals and subsequently ruled by Afghans, Dogras etc. Finally, I don’t think many Kashmiris are necessarily pro-Pakistan as much as they are anti-India. Many of them would probably prefer for both countries to leave them alone.

    0
  6. “Pakistan is a peripheral player in the India-Kashmir dynamics; the local Kashmiris are …
    ..”
    It is a serious ovetsight of the underhand tactics of the Pakistani army in fomenting trouble in Kashmir valley – sending jihadists into the valley and getting ordinary people caught up as collateral damage. It is the same strategy of Pakistan in Afghanistan only with less bombs for the moment.

    0
    1. No one is denying the role that Pakistan has played in Kashmir. However, after 30 years of atrocities committed by the Indian Army, the freedom struggle will not end even if Pakistan gives up its claim to the territory. Delhi will eventually have to sort it out with Srinagar.

      Kashmiri Muslims have been unhappy ever since 1947. Gradually taking away whatever autonomy they were promised under Article 370 is not a winning strategy. Even the so-called “mainstream” or pro-India Kashmiri parties want a return to the pre-1953 situation.

      0
  7. Mentioning Kashmir in the same breath as Remembrance Day is living in cloud cuckoo land. WW1 caused about 25 million casualties apart from the sweeping away of 4 empires. Kashmir, hahaha
    Have some proportion.

    1+
  8. Samuel Huntington.

    https://apholt.com/2016/05/28/samuel-huntingtons-bloody-borders-revisited/

    “Islamic Wars vs. Religious Wars Involving All Other Religions Historically

    In thinking about this, a recent story that caught my attention has to do with the claims of the editors of the Encyclopedia of Wars, by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod. They document 1763 historic wars of which they identify only 123 (7%) as primarily religiously motivated, for which casualty estimates account for less than 2% of all people ever killed in warfare. While their analysis has been cited as a powerful rebuttal to those who cite religion as the main cause of conflict, an interesting side note to Phillips and Axelrod’s categorization of the wars was that of the 7% of all historic wars that they designate as primarily religious, 54% of them involved Islam. So according to their analysis, Muslims have been involved in more religious wars than all other historic religions combined (see graph- Islam 3.8% vs. non-Islam 3.2%).”

    0
  9. I dont see whats controversial here. Economic migrants to a Western country, materially satisfied, now want cultural capital by hook or by crook, rather than waiting for it to form over generations. Pakistanis supporting Kashmiri separatism.

    Dont see anything radical here.

    1+
      1. Yes, a fictional play. Not child sexual grooming or bombing trains.

        There is a world of difference between creative fiction and acting it out in reality.

        Follow the majjhima nikaya (the middle path) bro 🙂

        3+
  10. Thanks Zack,

    Just to make a correction in presented figures. They are probably of English origin and they know often to manipulate them. For example, they hide the existence of the conclager Jasenovac where during the WW2 Croats killed 700.000 Serbs plus almost the same number in other 100 places.

    The right percentages in WW1 are – Serbia lost 30% of total population, including 53% of male population killed (plus 9% crippled, without legs/arms = 62%).

    1+
  11. I saw this play in 2013 when it premiered at the Royal Court in Sloane Square, an experimental theatre run by a lady of Jewish-American heritage (OBE), whose son was a close colleague of mine at the time.

    I was meant to meet the director (Majumdar) and provide inputs on the story, but couldn’t due to unforeseen personal reasons. Nonetheless I got free front-row tickets to watch it. Assuming the script hasn’t been updated since, it is creative drama animated by moral relativism and consequentialism of its central characters.

    3+
    1. Thank the Lord ur not a theatre reviewer; this is like the driest review I have ever read.

      If you are into London theatre; u should join the LDAM society. It’s a best club for theatre (if I say so myself).

      The Royal Court do some good stuff; the last time I went there was for a North Korean triptych..

      1+
      1. It is the “best” I have to say about it, and I have saved the worst. Hence the dryness. This is not the right forum for a full review of the play – at least by me. So nothing more to add.

        3+
  12. ” It’s about Kashmir and it was extraordinarily powerful. Incidentally it was written by a Bengali Hindu (Abhishek Majumdar) and the script was sterling.

    I was surprised by how anti/India it was ”

    Its not that strange, from a surname you can mostly guess what the politics of the person is depending on their caste/ethnicity/religion. It had been true for longest time, but in polarized time people have started choosing sides and are openly out. Just scan thought bengali journalists articles in indian papers and you will get the idea. Its like when a black or a muslim is asked about Trump, you mostly know what the answer might be.

    “As a counter-factual if Kashmir had been joined to Pakistan (as it should have been) would there even have been a whisp out of that region today? ”

    Well it depends upon whether Jammu,Ladakh would have been part of it or not. If yes apart from Dogras no one would have really found much space in rest of India, during the migration to India. We forget that majority of sikh/hindus and bengalis migrate to the Indian half of their own state, There would not be a state which would have accepted Jammu/Ladakh folks. Refugee from Pakistan even today dont have many rights in Indian Kashmir today. They are still fighting which the Kashmir Govt is blocking, similar situation would have risen. If the Jammu Ladkahi would have stayed then its a different ball game all together and I dont think there would not be a whisp there.

    “But it’s increasingly clear that Pakistan is a peripheral player in the India-Kashmir dynamics; the local Kashmiris are themselves in revolt. The play “plays” on the tendency of the Kashmiris to refer to the Indians as “Indians.””

    I think you underestimate the Indians. Lot of the intellectual elite thinks majority Indians dont really know whats its army does in Kashmir. That if only Indians can be shown the truth (through plays, articles and movies), it would shame them and it will wake the conscience of these “non violent” people. LOL.
    Indians know exactly what the Kashmiris think of them and have made their peace with it. In many ways many Indians would want even “tougher” steps. Thankfully the Govt is bound by certain international laws and stuff.

    P.S : Many things have been said about the partition in comments. To be honest i see some hope where Indians ,in last 70 years, have at least graduated from “Muslims didnt vote for Pakistan” (which is what we are taught in history books and still a lot of Indians believe this) to “Yes , they might have voted but see they didnt leave , so its all good….”. I feel it will take another 70 years for the 2nd delusion to end.

    0
    1. @Saurav

      “To be honest i see some hope where Indians ,in last 70 years, have at least graduated from “Muslims didnt vote for Pakistan” (which is what we are taught in history books and still a lot of Indians believe this) to “Yes , they might have voted but see they didnt leave , so its all good….”. I feel it will take another 70 years for the 2nd delusion to end.”

      Both the delusions you mention above are propagated by Indian liberals to further a secular ‘all-encompassing’ idea of India on which we may base our modern state. I believe most of them mean well and they atleast have an end-state in mind which should prevent large scale violence and unrest. They know fully well that these are lies and delusion but they keep at it because they feel this can be inculcated into people and one day this is what most people will start feeling. That their plans may have been stymied by Indian Muslims’ intransigence and bigotry is another matter.

      On the other hand is the currently politically powerful Sangh Parivar and the Hindu Right Wing outlook which wants Indian Muslims to unequivocally agree that their ancestors were Hindu, Hinduism is the religion on which our very idea of India depends on and that it must have the pride of place in our current social and cultural life. They also would want Muslims to agree to the sins of the past. eg. Iconoclasm of Muslim rulers, destruction of temples, mass rape, slaughter and forced conversions. Also the refusal of most Muslims to agree to any secular idea of India and hold on their Muslim identity as their primary identity during the Independence movement. The end result of this in the minds of right-wing is that certain reparations must be made to the Hindus. e.g relocation of mosques in Ayodhya, Varanasi and Mathura and rebuilding of the temples which were there originally. Secondly Indian Muslims must (as Omar bhai says) Hinduize their culture and align themselves to modern Hindu project as firm allies.

      Now when you call out Indian liberals for their delusions about Muslims, what viewpoint do you have in mind, and what end-result are you hoping for? Do you agree to the Right Wing’s idea of India and would want to see it come into existence? Or do you have some other end-state in mind, one which takes cognizance of these delusions but recommends different measures for the future.

      3+
      1. Without truth there is no reconciliation. What does it say about our elite who lies just because they think they know the best for their country and countrymen? Also have the same people even acknowledged that they have lied all these years, i dont think so. They still go on and on about “Ganga Jamuni” tehzeeb et al.

        ” Hinduism is the religion on which our very idea of India depends on and that it must have the pride of place in our current social and cultural life.”

        Hinduism is the religion on which the “current” idea of India does depend. All the shortcomings and whatever few achievements India has its because India is a hindu majority counrty. A muslim majority India will have its own set of issues and achievements, So on and so forth. Its not a value judgement. What you think as supposedly “Indian” culture is dominated by Hindu religion, for better or for worse. Just like Bollywood is dominated by North Indian culture. Culture and Religion are intertwined that way. Is Yoga a hindu thing or a Indian thing? Is Ganpathi festival a hindu thing or a marathi thing? Is Onam a hindu thing or a Mallu thing?

        Look across the border , Pakistan has stopped celebrating Baisakhi, lohri etc? Why? Isn;t it a punjabi thing? But since they are divorced from the religion they no longer think of its as important. And that’s their right. An non hindu majority India would too see all this supposedly “Indian” culture things as Yoga etc as non Indian. And again it would have been their right. Not all history is Bangladesh history. If i may , i would suggest reading “India: A Sacred Geography’ by Daina eck.

        ” They also would want Muslims to agree to the sins of the past. eg. Iconoclasm of Muslim rulers, destruction of temples, mass rape, slaughter and forced conversions. ”

        First of all do muslims/hindu elite/cosmopolitan elite even agree that this things have happened. I see no sign of it. What i see is doubling down on either end. We dont even agree on the “truth” so forget about “agreeing” part.

        “Now when you call out Indian liberals for their delusions about Muslims, what viewpoint do you have in mind, and what end-result are you hoping for? Do you agree to the Right Wing’s idea of India and would want to see it come into existence? Or do you have some other end-state in mind, one which takes cognizance of these delusions but recommends different measures for the future.”

        It depends on who you are asking. Does the person value “liberalism” over “democratic norms” or vice versa. To me India should be what the democratically elected representatives want even if it ends up on illiberalism. To me their is no end state, since India has too many problems to really have a fully functioning state in terms of caste/ relegion/class issue. They will always remain in Secular or Hindutva Utopia.

        1+
    2. 1)Predicting a person’s politics based on their surname or ethnicity is a bit reductive, don’t you think?

      2) In 1947, the whole of the Maharaja’s kingdom was Muslim-majority, including Jammu Province. According to Wikipedia:
      ” In the last census of British India in 1941, the total population of Kashmir and Jammu (which as a result of the second world war, was estimated from the 1931 census) was 3,945,000. Of these, the total Muslim population was 2,997,000 (75.97%), the Hindu population was 808,000 (20.48%), and the Sikh 55,000 (1.39%).[77]”
      There would thus have been no reason to separate Jammu and Ladakh from the Valley. If J&K had been part of British India, all of it would have gone to Pakistan. The Dogras and Pandits would certainly have been upset, due to their losing their privileges, but in the absence of any military conflict in the region, there is no reason that the population would not accept being Pakistani. Even on the Indian side, the situation may have been very different if the Indian Army had not committed atrocities over the past 3 decades.

      3) I feel most Indians don’t think a lot about Kashmir or at least not beyond a territorial lens. If many Kashmiris are anti-India, many Indians also think of all Kashmiri Muslims as “terrorists” and Islamic fundamentalists. Such polarization is of course not going to help solve the issue.

      4) On the Partition: Muslims as a whole didn’t vote for Pakistan. The number of Indians who had the franchise in 1946 was relatively small. It is true that the Muslims who had the vote voted overwhelmingly for the Muslim League, largely on the basis of the Pakistan idea. However, no one in 1946 knew that Pakistan entailed Partition.

      If you think “Muslims voted but they didn’t leave” is a delusion, I am curious as to what your suggested solution to Partition would have been. Surely you are not suggesting a complete population exchange based on religion?

      0
      1. If Pakistan wants Kashmir (the Muslim majority Kashmir valley and certain areas in Jammu), it should be willing to accept a full population exchange as another left over legacy of the partition and be willing to take in all the current Muslim population in India. Ofcourse the miniscule Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh minority in Pakistan would then come over to India.

        This sounds like a fair and honorable deal to me. If Pakistan were to include this into its demands the international community would perhaps pay more attention to it since it would not look like a self-serving land grab as it does now.

        0
          1. “But then I think Kutch, Thar should be thrown into it; to accommodate the 140mm..”

            Lol. Bro it was good Jinnah was the one negotiation on Pakistan behalf and not you. You would have settled that extra pops in desert or what?

            0
        1. Population exchange based on religion is ethnic cleansing which is disgusting and against international laws. Have we not learned from 1947 and 1971?

          In any case, the Kashmir issue is not about Pakistan but about the Kashmiris. It is Kashmiri Muslims with whom India will eventually have to reach an accord. The reality is that borders are not changing. AJK and G-B will stay with Pakistan and “J&K” will stay with India. Even if Pakistan accepted the LOC as a permanent border tomorrow, Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley will not give up their struggle. Delhi will have to negotiate with them at some point.

          0
          1. Jaggu,

            I’m breaking my rule of not responding to you just this once. I realize that you are now parodying a Hindu nationalist just as you were earlier parodying an Islamist. However, I find you calling Islam a “desert cult” rather offensive. Also, suggesting that Kashmiri Muslims will be force converted out of Islam is frankly disgusting and not at all funny.

            0
          2. Kabir

            Sangha is Buddhist. There are few Buddhists left in India.

            Second, why is mass conversion out of Islam disgusting? conversions, forced or otherwise, have happened in the subcontinent from whatever existed before Hinduism to Hinduism to Jainism and Buddhism, back to Hinduism and Islam. Why should history stay still for Islam? Is it the “sui generis” exception? Are you not aware that geography from Kashmir to Kabul was Buddhist for at least 500 years?

            0
          3. Kabir bro

            I dont recall u throwing your toys out of the pram at my erstwhile use of “bandits”. Double standards much?

            Since you broke something, I will too. Wind. In your general direction. Inhale 🙂

            [lets rip a fartillade…*]

            Bye
            Jaggu Daddy

            * that’s a week worth of ambarsari chholay

            #KashmirBanaygaSangha
            #DesertCultistsBackOff

            6+
          4. Jaggu has totally flipped. From Islamist to Hindutvavadi.

            I’m not going to dignify this nonsense with a response anymore.

            Vijay,
            Forced conversions from any religion to any other religion are disgusting. I’m not making some kind of exception for Islam.

            0
          5. Aryaputra hero of Turin Jagguji, thanks for being so sharing with all of us. Thanks for sharing your wind [Apana . . . one of the five Vayus or Pranas]. Love you Ji!

            Jagguji, why flip? Why choose one? Why can’t you be a brave and true son of Turin and Arya? Why can’t you be many different types of muslim while also being Buddhist? You can be many things, nothing and everything as you desire. Or lion of Turin.

            Zach, why does someone need to flip? Why cant someone be many things, religions, theisms at once? Isn’t this the teachings of Báb and Bahá’u’lláh?

            0
          6. Why all this sucking up to Jaggu? You two deserve each other.

            For the last time, you cannot be a Muslim and some other religion at the same time. That is not how Islam (and other Abrahamic religions) work.

            0
          7. Crypto-Islamist Kabir bro givin lectures on dignity now. So predictable. Lolol..

            I ain’t no hindu and the only vadi I like is kashmir vadi which will follow the Dhamma again, like I have reverted of my own volition, and there’s not a thing pak pak desert cultooz can do about it.

            A #Ladakhi nunoo a day
            keeps desert cultists away 🙂

            Your desert cultoo talibani bros destroyed Lord Buddha in Bamyan. #NeverForget

            #DhammaSadhu
            #DhammaMitraJaggu

            4+
          8. Oh please, I am the furthest thing from an “Islamist”.

            You can like the Kashmir Valley all you want, but it belongs to Kashmiris. And most of them have no intention of leaving Islam, which is a major part of their identity.

            Back to ignoring you.

            0
        2. ” it should be willing to accept a full population exchange as another left over legacy of the partition ”

          Why wasn’t it an “acceptable” solution in 47? What makes it acceptable now? If India gives up Kashmir it would be still be secular democracy, just like it was in 47. I see nothing has changed so why throw in population transfer today and not then?

          This would mean population transfer was also a fair and honorable deal in 47 too.

          0
          1. “””
            Why wasn’t it an “acceptable” solution in 47? What makes it acceptable now? If India gives up Kashmir it would be still be secular democracy, just like it was in 47. I see nothing has changed so why throw in population transfer today and not then?

            This would mean population transfer was also a fair and honorable deal in 47 too.
            “””

            From a Hindu right point of view if we were going to have a partition in 1947 where one religion was seceding from the rest, it definitely should have resulted in a full population transfer. In 1947 there was no Hindu right view which was taken seriously. The leadership of Hindus in 1947 was extremely secular minded who followed through on their beliefs and did not force any Muslims out of India in the areas they controlled. (Only in Punjab were the resident Muslims completely forced out by Sikhs).

            However it can be said that the cost of individuals giving more importance to their personal ideals than to the benefit of the whole community has added a severe handicap to independent India. Once partition was decided upon Nehru and Patel should have insisted on a full population transfer as was done in Turkey and Greece. India would still have been secular since it contained other minorities than Muslims but once Muslims were getting a country of their own they should have been made to follow through on the consequences of their decisions.

            1+
          2. “Muslims were getting a country of their own”– Yes, because all Muslims were a monolith and they all wanted Pakistan. Newsflash, there were many Muslims who were against the idea of Pakistan, including some prominent ulema. Why should those Muslims who were against Pakistan be forced out of their own country due to other people’s decisions?

            You cannot throw out your largest religious minority and still claim to be a secular country. What you are advocating would have made India into a Hindu Pakistan. Thankfully, Pandit Nehru had enough decency not to let that happen.

            I’m always amazed at how the Hindutva folks hate Pakistan so much and yet on some level they want India to become exactly like Pakistan– a majoritarian religious state which is hell for minorities.

            0
          3. >However it can be said that the cost of individuals giving more importance to their personal ideals than to the benefit of the whole community has added a severe handicap to independent India

            Can you give an example of this in action? How this community you’re talking about has seriously handicapped and kept India behind?

            1+
      2. Kabir

        “Predicting a person’s politics based on their surname or ethnicity is a bit reductive, don’t you think?’

        Is it fullproof no, but can you get a general idea. I would say yes. If there is a Baluch/Pathan/Mohajir voice (specially if overseas) i would say it would be bit more critical of Pakistan state than lets say a Punjabi voice. Similarly if its a Bengali/South Indian voice i would guess it would be critical of the current regime. Similar if its a dalit,muslim voice. All politics is first and foremost about representation, and since the current regime lacks voices of this ethnicity/castes it would be educated guess.

        2) “The Dogras and Pandits would certainly have been upset, due to their losing their privileges, but in the absence of any military conflict in the region, there is no reason that the population would not accept being Pakistani.”

        I think they would not be in Jammu/Ladakh in the first place to really “accept” . Thats the point, with no state of their if they had migrated to India , they would have faced issues. Similar to how sindhi lower class hindu refugees are facing issues in Rajasthan now. Its different for Punjabis/Bengalis who had half a state to go to. And if they would have remained be rest assured that sizeable non muslim population would been pain is Pakistan’ ass regardless of conflict.

        I would not comment on 4 because we are far too away to really agree on anything on that. Its same talking point Indian liberals make. Just for record, a small percentage of hindus (just like muslims) too had voting power. Some one could make the argument that the majority hindus actually didn’t vote for Congress but only the small minority did. That would make the Constitutional assembly of 47 undemocratic then. Funny why no one makes that argument.

        You can read Ambedkar when long before 47 had argued for population transfer just like Turkey/Greece model. So its no Hindutva guy saying it.

        1+
        1. Obviously, since the franchise was limited, the majority of Hindus did not vote for Congress. The majority of Hindus who were eligible to vote voted for Congress. Partition was decided by the British and the leaders of the two parties without actually consulting most of the populace. If people had known that the creation of Pakistan would entail ethnic cleansing, they would perhaps not have been so gung-ho about it.

          Just because Ambedkar said something doesn’t make it right. The population transfer between Greece and Turkey was shameful. Ethnic cleansing is never justified and any argument defending it is frankly disgusting.

          0
  13. “Second, why is mass conversion out of Islam disgusting? conversions, forced or otherwise, have happened in the subcontinent from whatever existed before Hinduism to Hinduism to Jainism and Buddhism, back to Hinduism and Islam. Why should history stay still for Islam? Is it the “sui generis” exception? Are you not aware that geography from Kashmir to Kabul was Buddhist for at least 500 years?”

    Vijay, conversion isn’t an eastern thing. People rarely convert to one theism or philosophy. Rather multiplicity is worshiped. People usually interact with multiple theisms, philosophies, cultures and technologies. No one needs to choose. And few in practice choose.

    For example Hinduism contains within it many different theisms, philosophies, cultures, technologies and different methods of science. People are not one thing, but many things and not defined by things.

    In other words a Hindu might draw from Chaarvaaka and Zen (subset of Mahayana, subset of Buddism, subset of Hinduism) and Ajivika but be uninterested in the rest. Another Hindu might be drawn to Theravada, Samkhya, Yoga (applied Samkhya), and Yogachara (a type of Yoga taught by Sakyamuni Gautama Buddha), but be less interested in the rest. Another Hindu can disagree with the Prabhupada Hare Krishna subset of the Achintya-Bheda-Abheda subset of the Uttara Mimaamsa subset of the Purva Mimaamsa subset of Hinduism.

    Hinduism is a continuum of many, many things across many axis. Individuals choose to enjoy or participate in some but not all the intersections of these many things accross many axis.

    Think of a 12 dimensional grid with 1,000 philosophies. There are 1,000 to the twelfth power combinations. [For simplicity the number of religions someone is part of are limited to twelve.]

    The idea of choosing or identifying with one or only a few things is Abrahamic. Eastern philosophy is the opposite of that.

    ” Also, suggesting that Kashmiri Muslims will be force converted out of Islam is frankly disgusting and not at all funny.”
    What is wrong with Kashmiri muslims having the freedom to be many different sects at once? To be part of say 10 different Islamic streams and 10 different non Islamic streams simultaneously? This is how Kashmiri muslims functioned for centuries.

    At the center of Kashmir culture was a syncretic Sharada culture Trika Kashmiri Shaivism mixture with Vajrapani Mahayana Buddhism mixture with Sufi Sunni Islam mixture with Sufi Irfan twelverism mixture with Sufi Irfan sixerism.

    Often they had Guru Shishya relationships with each other and a shared lineage. In other words a Trika had a Sufi disciple who had a Vajrapani Mahayana Buddhist disciple who had a Sufi disciple who had a Trike disciple. Plus people had multiple Gurus, mentors and guides from many different religions and lineages.

    Many great Kashmiris were tripple hatted simultaneously as great Trika Kashmiri Shaivites, Sufis, and Vajrapani Mahayana Buddhists. The 80 Maha Siddhas of Mahayana Buddhism (of which Vajrapani is a subset) are dual hatted as great Siddhas or Naths of Shaivism. Some of the great Sufi masters were regarded as Mahayana Buddhist and Trika masters too.

    One of the founders of Kashmiri Sufism (Sheikh Noor ud-Din Wali, also called Sheikh Noor ud-Din Noorani (Urdu: شیخ نُورالدین نُورانی‬‎), also known as Sheikh ul-Alam) was himself a disciple of:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalleshwari

    Why do Kashmiri muslims have to choose? Why can’t they be many things at once? Until 1947 many Kashmiris were. They had a large Trika minority (subset of Shaivism, subset of the Uttara Mimaamsa subset of the Purva Mimaamsa subset of Hinduism), large Mahayana Buddhist minority (subset of Hinduism), large Sufi Sunni minority, large twelver Irfan Sufi minority. Now almost all or many of the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Sufis, twelvers have fled. Kashmir is much worse off without them. Their returning with enrich Kashmir. Why don’t Kashmiris deserve freedom of art and thought?

    0
    1. You are either a Muslim or not. Saying the Kalima requires you to believe that there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Prophet. So no, it is not possible to be Muslim and some type of Hindu at the same time.

      Kashmiri Muslims are entitled to make their own choices. Suggesting that they will be force converted out of Islam is beyond the pale.

      I’m done here. I don’t have time to keep rehashing the same things over and over.

      0
      1. Kabir there is only one God.

        God is mystery. That which cannot be named. The not nothing but “no” “thing”. The Tao. God is the unknown. Voila all Hindus and Taoists are triple hatted Hindu Taoist muslims. Are we good?

        Oh yeah the Mohammed pbuh bit. Yup, Mohammed is a master similar to many others and we accept Mohammed as a prophet. [Very easy for Hindus and Taoists to do; because most already think Mohammed pbuh is a prophet.]

        Are we good now?

        “Suggesting that they will be force converted out of Islam is beyond the pale.” Who is suggesting this? I think Kashmiris need freedom of art, thought and speech and religion. The freedom to be many things at once.

        Kabir, why were the Kashmiri Hindus deported from Kashmir after 1947? Is there a way to bring them back to Kashmir? Many of my closest friends are Kashmiri Hindus.

        How to bring the Sufis and Shiites back to Kashmir?

        0
        1. We are not “good”. You betray a lack of understanding of Islam. I don’t have time to educate you on this. You are entitled to your bizarre views but they do not match reality.

          The Kashmiri Pandits were exiled because the majority population sees them as agents of India and abetters of the Occupation. Some people say that their departure was part of Jagmohan’s plan to get them out of the way so that the Muslim population could be harshly dealt with. I can’t speak to the truth of that claim.

          Unfortunately, a nationalist conflict has taken on a religious color. A solution has to be found that includes non-Muslim Kashmiris as stakeholders. However, Israeli-style settlements for Pandits are rightly unacceptable to Kashmiri Muslims.

          0
          1. Yes I don’t know anything about well, anything . . . Islam included. 🙂

            When I have read the Koran, Hadiths and Islamic scripture I do so from my own ethnocentric and ethno-cultural perspective.

            “The Kashmiri Pandits were exiled because the majority population sees them as agents of India and abetters of the Occupation. Some people say that their departure was part of Jagmohan’s plan to get them out of the way so that the Muslim population could be harshly dealt with. I can’t speak to the truth of that claim.”

            Wow! I am speechless. Hindu Kashmiris who have lived in Kashmir for more than five thousand years (more than four thousand years if someone believes in Aryan invasion theory) are agents and abbetters of occupation. Wow. Is this why Buddhists, Shiites, Sufis were attacked? Is this why Osama Bin Laden with the help of the Pakistani Army murdered thousands of Shiites in Gilgit Kashmir in 1988?

            “Unfortunately, a nationalist conflict has taken on a religious color. A solution has to be found that includes non-Muslim Kashmiris as stakeholders.”

            “However, Israeli-style settlements for Pandits are rightly unacceptable to Kashmiri Muslims.”
            I have no idea what this means. Does anyone other than Kabir have any idea what this means?

            0
          2. We are not talking about 5000 years. Your question referred to 1947 and my answer referred to the same date. Post Partition, the Pandits were seen as being on India’s side. Pre-Partition, they also disporportionately benifited from the Dogra regime, at the expense of the majority population. Some people hold a grudge.

            For the record, I don’t support displacement of any group. But such things happen in religious and nationalist conflicts.

            Kashmiri Muslims are worried that Israeli style settlements for Pandits are a technique used by India to slowly change the Muslim character of the Valley. This may be paranoid, but that is the fear.

            0
  14. Jaggu:
    “Sangha will rise again in India. You can stay in desert cultoo land and watch for free 🙂 Lollz”

    Awesome!

    #Stan in the Hood

    Dhammo is rising in California too! New age = Dhammo.
    Dhammo rocks!

    0

Comments are closed.