>it is only becuse of some sinister move by The Indian State to communalize the issue and therefore
So it is the fault of the Indian state? Communalize an already communal issue? Interesting! The purge of the pundits happened too recent in memory to take such arguments at face value. The pundits were expelled literally at gun point by the JKLF and its cohorts. The messages wafted from the loudspeakers in the valley during those momentous days were clearly of a communal nature. There is no point in denying the underlying communal nature of the Kashmiri issue. Of course, the Indian state failed in its duty to protect them first, and in providing them any succor after they were expelled. All parties, from the 'secular-progressive', to the 'Hindu nationalists' are equally culpable in the betrayal of the pundits. >This is the reason why it is being repeatedly said about the need to go beyond the *Sare jagah se accha..Hindustan hamara..* type nationalism and patriotism, Nationalism or not, it is the failure of the Indian political and intellectual class to project the moral superiority of Indian democracy over the Sharia-theocracy of the separatists and their sponsors that has brought the situation to this pass. Our own hesitation and half-heartedness gave the impression to the world that we are the culpable party, and allowed Pakistan to occupy the moral high ground. The bottom line is, our approach to the Kashmir issue should be rooted in pragmatism. Specifically, we should devote our energy to emphasize these: - a rebuttal of the 'azadi' argument. The question of self-determination arises only if the population in question suffers from inferior rights or secession enhances the existing freedoms. None of these are true for Kashmir. - if we allow Kashmir to secede, we are opening a can of worms. At the geopolitical level, an independent Kashmir in all probability will become another rogue state, a client of Pakistan (if Pakistan chooses not to swallow it altogether, that is), dominated by jihadi elements. Kashmir would be a morale boosting victory for the global jihadi movement, with global implications. The implications for India are even more sinister: we are opening the floodgates of secession here. If Kashmir goes, why should other states stay? Why should the rich states remain in the union and pay for the upkeep of the BiMARU states? Why not Gujarat secede, declare a Hindu theocracy and expel the Muslims too, a la the Kashmiris ( that sounds really sinister, does it?) If the nation is partitioned on religious line once more, who has the moral right to oppose the RSS if it decides to implement the 'final solution'? Best regards, Murali. PS: If you have read Vettoor Raman Nair's travelogue, പുരി മുതല് നാസിക്ക് വരെ , you will come across his visit to a Kashmiri Pandit family. This was in the early 50's. From the conversation Vettoor had with the head of the family, it is clear that the communal nature of the separatism was very well understood by the people back then. Incidentally, Mr Kaul opined that if a plebiscite was held and Kasmir decided to go, that would be the end of Indian secularism - we would lose our moral right to oppose communal organizations like the Hindu Mahasabha, according to him. Mr Kaul was a staunch supporter of the National Conference. On 10/14/07, Venugopalan K M <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
