Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 26th, 2016, 08:20 AM   #51

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,838

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Thank you. I have been asked to not discuss Kashmir because it is off topic, but from you say it is on topic because the problem is not between all Muslims and Hindus, but a particular pocket of agitation, right? Then it must be asked what is different here? Why these people and not all others?

I understand at least part of the problem is the agreement that only Muslims can buy property in this area, and this prevents important social interaction from happening, right? Now, this is not exactly a Muslim and Hindu problem, but a political one, right?

In the US we have such territories where only members of a tribe have land rights or members of a particular religion live. The Amish are such a religious group and they live very differently from all the rest of us. Somehow it is possible for this to happen without it being a problem. But that is not the case if the religious group is accumulating weapons. A religious group that was accumulating weapons in Waco Texas, and was put under siege by US military force. That military action took a lot of lives, and the life the leader, and we have not heard of them since.

It is interesting to think about such things when thinking of the situation in India. What can be tolerated and what can not be tolerated? Where is the line between religion and politics?
Kashmir has so many ethnic groups practicing various religions. The problem is confined with Kashmiri speaking Sunni Muslims of Kashmir valley. Over the years Kashmiri Muslims had been pampered so much compared to other non-Kashmiri speaking people of the state like Dogras(Hindus), Pahadis(Muslims) or Ladakhis(Buddhist and Muslims), Shina(Muslims) or Gujjar-Bakarwals(Muslims) or Kashmiri Pandits(Hindus). Off course media will show you disturbances in Srinagar or Baramulla but won't show you peace in Muslim majority Doda, Kargil, Rajouri, Poonch or the Hindu majority Jammu city or Buddhist majority Leh . Many foreigners even don't know that 33% population are Hindus in Kashmir.
Devdas is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 26th, 2016, 08:21 AM   #52

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 1,064

Most of them must have been let off by now. The Kashmiri demand for referendum is not justified. They agreed to accession on their term. Pakistan did not follow the UN recommendations that Pakistani army should vacate Kashmir. They too do not have any right to ask for referendum now. But Pakistan cannot forget loosing Bangladesh.

For the last 15 years, Kashmir elections have been observed by international bodies. Elections there are not engineered. There have been many Parliamentary, legislature and Panchayat (local bodies) elections.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; December 26th, 2016 at 08:24 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old December 26th, 2016, 08:24 AM   #53

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,630
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by janjumanju123 View Post
ISI didn't made Indian government rig Kashmiri election in 1989 which triggered insurgency. They may have supported them like Indians supported Mukhtibani of Bangladesh.

Pakistan is ready for referendum since 1948 in Azad Kashmir and Gilget if India also do the same. But only under the watch of UN.
You know that's false. The terms of the UN resolution were fairly simple. Pakistan was to vacate, since it was the aggressor, and only then could a referendum take place under the supervision of UN observers and Indian forces providing security. Pakistan refused to vacate. The referendum story ends here. Today a referendum is irrelevant given the significant demographic changes over time, spread of islamist extremism, and the long history of terrorism and inter-nation conflict. But for Pakistan to claim its ready for a referendum under the UN is a red herring and frankly an often used but obvious attempt to divert discussions whenever they start gaining momentum (the other is to orchestrate a terrorist attack) since it was Pakistan which refused to adhere to the requirements of the resolutions.

The story of the resolution is clear cut. Pay attention to history instead of propaganda. Don't believe me? Look up the resolution document yourself if you want, or look up the various non-Indians who have established the falsity of Pakistan's position. Christine Fair for instance, in that famous video where she schooled a Pakistani fullbright scholar on the subject.
tornada is offline  
Old December 26th, 2016, 08:29 AM   #54

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,838

Quote:
Originally Posted by janjumanju123 View Post
ISI didn't made Indian government rig Kashmiri election in 1989 which triggered insurgency. They may have supported them like Indians supported Mukhtibani of Bangladesh.

Pakistan is ready for referendum since 1948 in Azad Kashmir and Gilget if India also do the same. But only under the watch of UN.
Pakistan want referendum without following any terms specified in UN resolution of 1948. Kashmir is the golden egg laying chicken for Pakistan Army to keep Pakistan's civilian government always under their toe.
Devdas is offline  
Old December 26th, 2016, 09:02 AM   #55
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,163
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Yes, this is a political problem. When the Pakistani army and muslim 'kabailies' (ruffins and tribals instigated by Pakistan army with promise to loot and rape) from Pakistan were attacking Kashmir, the princely government of Kashmir and their elected representatives requested India for help. India said that unless they do not sign the letter of accession, India will not help them. The elected representatives asked for special treatment for Kashmir, to which the Indian government agreed. We have not renegaded the agreement (though we can do that easily, but India is not known for renegading its obligations). Now technically, the Kashmiris have no right to ask for secession.

There is no line. There is no politics without religion in India.Muslims have all the civil rights in India that a Hindu has. Of course, criminal law is not based on Shariah, the Muslim law.
Whoo! I see a serious social problem. Civilized people just do not loot and rape. Something is really wrong if people have a religion that makes such unacceptable behavior okay. How can that be?

The best words I know for a problem like that are the ones that introduce the constitution of the United States.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is the number one reason for all political unions. The Hebrews didn't exactly like uniting and giving up independence and personal power, but they were forced to unite by the warring conditions of our past. Kashmir needed to unite with a stronger force for its protection and negotiated for its sovereignty, right? I am not sure I got all the facts right, but is Kashmir like a sovereign state? Our constitution had to be carefully worked out to protect state sovereignty and at the same protect our equality so we could move from state to state and establish homes and businesses.

Article IV section 2 says "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privilages and immunities of citizens in the several states." I have not given much thought to that part of the agreement because we just take our safety and liberties for granted, but now I can see this freedom to move from state to state is also what gives us unity. We interact with each other and have legally protected equality.

We still struggle with notions of inequality and privilege, but we can fall back on our constitution and on the philosophy that brought us to democracy. I think our philosophical history is important to our understanding of liberty and justice, and making religion secondary to politics.
athena is offline  
Old December 26th, 2016, 09:36 AM   #56

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 15,001

The word "nation" has to do with one's ancestors.

See, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...&search=Nation

So, nothing about anyone's thoughts on the subject of the Almighty.

So, yes and no.
Lucius is online now  
Old December 26th, 2016, 09:37 AM   #57
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,163
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
Kashmir has so many ethnic groups practicing various religions. The problem is confined with Kashmiri speaking Sunni Muslims of Kashmir valley. Over the years Kashmiri Muslims had been pampered so much compared to other non-Kashmiri speaking people of the state like Dogras(Hindus), Pahadis(Muslims) or Ladakhis(Buddhist and Muslims), Shina(Muslims) or Gujjar-Bakarwals(Muslims) or Kashmiri Pandits(Hindus). Off course media will show you disturbances in Srinagar or Baramulla but won't show you peace in Muslim majority Doda, Kargil, Rajouri, Poonch or the Hindu majority Jammu city or Buddhist majority Leh . Many foreigners even don't know that 33% population are Hindus in Kashmir.
What you said is why I am so confused. However, in a different forum, someone who seemed to want to teach us of Krishna was one of the most offensive people I have ever come across so I thought maybe Hindus have their offensive fundamentalist too?

I may be wrong, but I think religious fundamentalism is the result of a poor education? The education issue makes economics an issue. Where humans tend to have the worst problems, that seems to be where poverty is a severe problem? However, even the poorest of poor manage to teach a religion, and if the religion teaches God/Allah has favorite people and takes care of them, and the will of the people becomes confused with the will of God/Allah there is going to be a problem. I think commerce and education are the cure, but that requires resources and time, and people killing people, demands an immediate solution.

Is it at all possible to make politics, rule by reason, come first and religion come second? Don't all the holy books restrict warfare and teach tolerance? Would increased media coverage of those restrictions make a difference? The Christian bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy, and Christians have a very bloody past. But somehow it became possible to convince them Christianity means democracy and rule by reason.
athena is offline  
Old December 27th, 2016, 08:27 AM   #58
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
The word "nation" has to do with one's ancestors.

See, Online Etymology Dictionary

So, nothing about anyone's thoughts on the subject of the Almighty.

So, yes and no.
Interesting.
Rajeev is offline  
Old December 28th, 2016, 02:56 AM   #59

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 1,064

At least in India, Hindus and Muslims are not two nations. This may not be valid for Pakistan.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old December 28th, 2016, 05:08 AM   #60

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,838

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
At least in India, Hindus and Muslims are not two nations. This may not be valid for Pakistan.
Majority of Pakistanis see Mohajirs as foreigners aka Indians instead being the part of their Muslim nation.
Devdas is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
hindus, muslims, nations



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ghurids were not Hindus Azad67 Asian History 51 December 22nd, 2016 04:04 AM
Why Kashmiri Hindus look distinctly different from Kashmiri muslims? Azad67 Asian History 24 May 6th, 2016 04:02 PM
Is the United Nations just as big of a fail as the League of Nations Was? PinkPanter456 General History 49 April 10th, 2013 04:42 AM
Hindus Fought in Karbala! Jhangora War and Military History 4 December 8th, 2012 08:49 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.