Why there cant be independence for Kashmir
habshi
muslim majority . The rest , Jammu , Ladakh etc.which form 90% have a
Hindu or Buddhist majority .
rediff.com
Pakistanis talk of a plebiscite while others talk of
converting the Line of Control into an international border between
India and Pakistan. One can bicker across the table forever, but in
the long journey to find a common solution, it is imperative that one
of the most absurd solutions to the Kashmir problem be eliminated --
that of independence.
Most democrats in the world draw a fine line between people who
deserve independence and people who exploit democracy for their whims
and personal benefit. As an American citizen, I will use the example
of the United States circa 1776.
At that time the injustices suffered by the American colonists were
insurmountable and independence was justified as a political and
economic necessity. Politically, the colonists were an oppressed lot.
They were subjected to the draconian stamp and molasses acts, were
taxed heavily by King George III, and had no representation in
Parliament. The mercantilist policies slapped upon the colonies
brutally suppressed the economic potential of the New World, which was
the crux of England's stepmotherly treatment of her territories.
Now, if one believes the stream of rhetoric emanating from [Jammu &
Kashmir Liberation Front chief] Yasin Malik, one could justify
independence for Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds discussed vis-a-vis
the American Revolution. But let us distinguish fact from fiction
regarding the political and economic dilemmas of Kashmir.
First, Kashmiris are granted representation in both the Indian
Parliament and the state assembly. If one is constitutionally a strict
constructionist, one can even argue that Kashmiris are legally not
obliged to pay income tax. Thus, Kashmiris are granted representation
without taxation by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, a
privilege that most upper-class families in America would love to
enjoy, but cannot realise.
Another tenet of genuine freedom movements is the struggle to
establish fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, press, and
assembly. The fact in Jammu and Kashmir is that any civilian can walk
in Zainakadal or Maisuma shouting azaadi with no major complaint from
the security forces. If the reader does not find credibility in my
words, I encourage him/her to book a flight to Srinagar and try the
experiment.
Further, there is a plethora of anti-India newspapers that operate out
of Srinagar with the Indian government doing nothing more than
grumbling. These include Greater Kashmir, Kashmir Observer and Alsafa.
On the contrary, most Kashmiri journalists agree that a large part of
the pressure on their papers comes from the militants rather than the
security forces.
Alas, there is the disturbing question of religion. Pakistanis have
argued time and time again that Muslims are treated like second-class
citizens in India. To those who argue such a line, I ask one pertinent
question -- why didn't the Gujarat riots spread into every state and
town in India? If Hindus were such communal and narrow-minded
individuals, why would we elect Muslim MPs, allow Muslims to practice
polygamy free from the law, have separate civil codes, or allow
Muslims to ascend to the highest offices in the country such as that
of the President or chief justice of India? Since when is a President
or a Supreme Court justice a second-class citizen?
The fact remains that there are more Muslims in India than across the
border, and Kashmiri Muslims can go to the mosque anytime they wish,
perform namaaz with no bother from the security forces, and raise
their children as Muslims in a Hindu-majority country. If conditions
were such that they were prevented from practising Islam, that would
be a different matter. But most democrats will agree that there is
more freedom of religion in India than anywhere else in the
subcontinent. Thus, where is the need to establish an independent
state on the grounds of religion?
Seeing Yasin Malik or Shabir Shah thunder about "freedom" for the
"oppressed" Kashmiri Muslims fails to move even a single nerve in my
body. When Kashmiris are given a separate constitution and separate
flag, when they enjoy the full benefit of the rights granted under the
Indian Constitution, like freedom of speech, religion, press, and
assembly, when they enjoy relief from taxes and the sole right to own
property in their state, I laugh at their meagre complaints of
"oppression".
If anyone sympathises with the so-called freedom movement, I strongly
urge them to visit the Mishriwala refugee camp in Jammu, whose
residents have been deprived of freedom by the very persons who are
demanding it. Real freedom fighters bear the names of Madison,
Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Gandhi, Patel and Azad
(Maulana Abul Kalam). Even trying to draw a parallel between these
great leaders and the likes of Yasin Malik and his cohorts in the
Hurriyat Conference is an insult to the principles of democracy and
freedom.
Guest Columns
nkdatta8839
The Horizon
30th October, 1998
Self-determination Isn't Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi
Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of
our times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to
verbalize his compassion and concern for fellow human beings.
But the political arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use
the word in a way that is a travesty of the lofty principles
that had animated President Wilson and is a cruel mockery of
human rights. No one can possibly be left in doubt about this
once he witnesses the plight of the quarter million Kashmiri
Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral home in the face
of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking self-determination
for the Muslims in Kashmir.
The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave
the word "self-determination" into their righteous chants in a
clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal
of turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed
Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination
of "their" people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of
others.
Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses
its sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching
orders for the rest. Ofcourse, people don't leave their homes
voluntarily. They have to be persuaded. That means killing them
untill everybody gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of
1947 in Jinnah's Pakistan is an example of self-determaination of
this evil variety. Pakistan lived upto its name by becoming a
"cleansed land" within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is
taking a leaf out of Jinnah's book. Self-righteous chanters of
"self-determination" with direct Pakistani assistance seem well
on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and
Kashmir.
Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could
be: "If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed
statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security
and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to
achieve."
Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation
of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for
whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like
Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person's
self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour's extinction.
Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists
from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.
Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted
"secession" to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must
summon the courage to confront those that chant "self-determination"
in heedless pursuit of Jinnah's evil ideology of religious apartheid.
MAJ
"habshi" <hab...@anony.com> wrote in message
news:3e1eb3f8...@news.clara.net...