8 ms·

Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark. The change is not like demonetisation rather a well thought and long-held demand of the

Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark. The change is not like demonetisation rather a well thought and long-held demand of the present government. It has been there in the election manifesto since they started publishing election manifesto. The new york times is entitled to its view on how India's elected government ought to run the country but that does not mean the government is going to forgo one of THE demands of the party founders. The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is bad in any environment. I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley? Edit: "Intorelent Minority" comes from Taleb's essay/book on the skin in the game here is the link here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

owaislone 7y ago
Here come the apologists. How can such a step be justified when the 12 million people did not vote for the said election manifesto? It's like saying UK is justified in annexing all of Ireland because people in England voted for it.
- tech_dreamer 7y ago
  If you are not aware please read the following article to get a complete picture - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
  - iamshs 7y ago
    Oh god, Wikipedia has been taken over. Just look at the language and sources. All actions by India have been sugar coated with flowery language. Governor’s rule and Marshall Law is written as, “This allowed Governor Jagmohan to rule directly”. Not mentioning the fact that he dismissed a democratically elected government on a ruse.
  - owaislone 7y ago
    The whole world knows about this. I'm not sure how this is a reply to what I said. Also, https://scroll.in/latest/933560/j-k-group-of-kashmiri-pandits-dogras-sikhs-call-centres-decision-undemocratic-unconstitutional https://scroll.in/latest/933560/j-k-group-of-kashmiri-pandit...
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      I think Prem Nath Bazaz' daughters were out protesting in Delhi too
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    How about the part where in 1986 75% of preprofessional admits, government jobs, etc were going to the minority community? Isn’t that a failure of government at some level? Do you expect that to persist in a democracy or that India should defend that setup? None of this is to be construed as an attack on KPs.
  - statguy 7y ago
    A more brutal and widespread ethnic cleansing, which India conveniently likes to brush under the carpet, was that of Muslims from the Jammu in 1947. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      Mehr Chand Mahajan quoted in that article went on to Supreme Court of India. 370 allowed 100K of those refugees to be rehabilitated. When there was the possibility of more returning in 1980s, Indira Gandhi showed up and accused NC of bringing in 'anti-nationals'. But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary.
      - eklavya 7y ago
        "But please, Modi bhakts", treat differing opinions with a bit of tolerance and respect, shall we?
        selimthegrim 7y ago
        Taking a page from Indira Gandhi and calling Muslim refugees anti national (preventing rehabilitation) is not worthy of respect
      - sbmthakur 7y ago
        > But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary. Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again. Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  Be careful: this is the exact same line of reasoning the alt-right uses to conclude ethnostates. Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
  - owaislone 7y ago
    I think you misunderstood my comment or I failed to explain what I was trying to say. My point was that any nation state unilaterally revoking the autonomy of a region is undemocratic unless the people of that region vote for it. Imagine the Spanish military marching into Catalonia, shutting down all means of communication, arresting most Catalan politicians, lawyers and activists, and then unilaterally dismantling the Catalan parliament and constitution, just because people in Madrid felt so. I can't imagine anyone on HN trying to justify such a hypothetical event. I don't understand how anyone can justify this.
    - squirrelicus 7y ago
      Let's see, a challenge! Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states. But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it. But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities. The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.
owaislone 7y ago
> I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley? As long as a peaceful referendum is not held that lets the people of the region decide their own future?
- kobiguru 7y ago
  To know more about the referendum read this -- See what Para 5 says. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1171 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1...
  - owaislone 7y ago
    Is this the official position of Indian Government right now? I don't think so. When was the last time India said they are eager or even open to holding a plebiscite if Pakistan military vacated it's part of Kashmir? AFAIR, India has always said Kashmir is it's internal matter and integral part and they proved it by literally annexing it 10 days ago. So no, Indian Government does not believe in paragraph five at all or any of the UN resolutions passed on Kashmir. If it did, instead of unilaterally "deleting" the Kashmiri parliament and constitution, it would have held talks with Pakistan about how to hold the referendum. Also, if you cite UN sources then you must also agree with the reports about human rights violations in Kashmir by the UN and organizations like Amnesty International, right? If so, then you shouldn't be justifying what is happening right now but opposing it as that is the position of the UN. Otherwise you are just selectively citing things that re-affirm your point of view.
    - la12 7y ago
      Can you just answer one question? Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers? If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself. If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation. And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.
iamshs 7y ago
‘Intolerant minority’ Bigoted thoughts do come out eventually. Minorities always need to be taught a lesson in World’s largest democracy.
- kobiguru 7y ago
  here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- wwice 7y ago
  In Indian Kashmir the minorities were Hindus. They were kicked out by the Islamists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus Terrorist organizations like ISIS, JEM and ISI took over and now the talk of independence has been missing for a long time. It is all about Islam.
  - iamshs 7y ago
    Rebuttal of this propaganda by a noted academic who is a Kashmiri Hindu herself. https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/1161484737409687553 https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/11614847374096...
    - wwice 7y ago
      You can Cherry pick this one and ignore the million others stating the truth. See here - https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo
      - iamshs 7y ago
        Well that sure educates me a lot about Kashmir.
      - selimthegrim 7y ago
owaislone 7y ago
> Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark. To prevent what exactly? Political dissent? Why can't people in Kashmir right now talk to each other over phone? Why can't they call their loved ones outside the region? Why isn't anyone else allowed to contact them? Why are lawyers, professors and activists being jailed? Why are some people not being allowed to leave the country? Why can't Indian politicians visit the region without being detained and sent back? What exactly is all this preventing?
- kobiguru 7y ago
  Okay, let's say they lift the ban here is how things will transpire. First, Pakistan's ISPR would start a massive disinformation campaign aided by the separatist who lost all their influence with the present government but has a great following among the Kashmiri Youth. Then there would immense violence with many dead while the "leaders" and there loved ones stay in a five-star hotel in Delhi. To prevent a loss of life they had to do it. But it's slowly being downgraded and the curfew is absent in all but 4 districts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Edit: I agree with you, that it is bad for people to have no communication channel.
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
    C'mon, stop bringing Pakistan into this. India has mismanaged Kashmir so badly that the majority of the population wants to leave India -- and not to join Pakistan, mind you, but to be independent.
    - iamshs 7y ago
      Pakistan is a big part of problem here by supporting militants and terrorists. Material, money and training support. Let’s not absolve Pakistan here. They invaded independent Kashmir in 1947 and Kashmir had to let go its independence to get support from India against Pakistan’s war.
      - nashashmi 7y ago
abhchand 7y ago
> The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for This is a poor view of how areas should be funded. Governments are responsible for common welfare of a people, not to be run as a business that expects kickbacks and profit or returns on investment.
- kbad1000 7y ago
  The fact is general population never received the money sent from Central government. Many have vested interests in autonomy of Kashmir, one of which are the elite three political families. They are the ones who have sucked all of that money.

owaislone 7y ago

Here come the apologists. How can such a step be justified when the 12 million people did not vote for the said election manifesto? It's like saying UK is justified in annexing all of Ireland because people in England voted for it.

tech_dreamer 7y ago
If you are not aware please read the following article to get a complete picture - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
- iamshs 7y ago
  Oh god, Wikipedia has been taken over. Just look at the language and sources. All actions by India have been sugar coated with flowery language. Governor’s rule and Marshall Law is written as, “This allowed Governor Jagmohan to rule directly”. Not mentioning the fact that he dismissed a democratically elected government on a ruse.
- owaislone 7y ago
  The whole world knows about this. I'm not sure how this is a reply to what I said. Also, https://scroll.in/latest/933560/j-k-group-of-kashmiri-pandits-dogras-sikhs-call-centres-decision-undemocratic-unconstitutional https://scroll.in/latest/933560/j-k-group-of-kashmiri-pandit...
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    I think Prem Nath Bazaz' daughters were out protesting in Delhi too
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  How about the part where in 1986 75% of preprofessional admits, government jobs, etc were going to the minority community? Isn’t that a failure of government at some level? Do you expect that to persist in a democracy or that India should defend that setup? None of this is to be construed as an attack on KPs.
- statguy 7y ago
  A more brutal and widespread ethnic cleansing, which India conveniently likes to brush under the carpet, was that of Muslims from the Jammu in 1947. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    Mehr Chand Mahajan quoted in that article went on to Supreme Court of India. 370 allowed 100K of those refugees to be rehabilitated. When there was the possibility of more returning in 1980s, Indira Gandhi showed up and accused NC of bringing in 'anti-nationals'. But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary.
    - eklavya 7y ago
      "But please, Modi bhakts", treat differing opinions with a bit of tolerance and respect, shall we?
      - selimthegrim 7y ago
        Taking a page from Indira Gandhi and calling Muslim refugees anti national (preventing rehabilitation) is not worthy of respect
    - sbmthakur 7y ago
      > But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary. Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again. Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
squirrelicus 7y ago
Be careful: this is the exact same line of reasoning the alt-right uses to conclude ethnostates. Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
- owaislone 7y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment or I failed to explain what I was trying to say. My point was that any nation state unilaterally revoking the autonomy of a region is undemocratic unless the people of that region vote for it. Imagine the Spanish military marching into Catalonia, shutting down all means of communication, arresting most Catalan politicians, lawyers and activists, and then unilaterally dismantling the Catalan parliament and constitution, just because people in Madrid felt so. I can't imagine anyone on HN trying to justify such a hypothetical event. I don't understand how anyone can justify this.
  - squirrelicus 7y ago
    Let's see, a challenge! Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states. But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it. But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities. The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.

owaislone 7y ago

> I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley? As long as a peaceful referendum is not held that lets the people of the region decide their own future?

kobiguru 7y ago
To know more about the referendum read this -- See what Para 5 says. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1171 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1...
- owaislone 7y ago
  Is this the official position of Indian Government right now? I don't think so. When was the last time India said they are eager or even open to holding a plebiscite if Pakistan military vacated it's part of Kashmir? AFAIR, India has always said Kashmir is it's internal matter and integral part and they proved it by literally annexing it 10 days ago. So no, Indian Government does not believe in paragraph five at all or any of the UN resolutions passed on Kashmir. If it did, instead of unilaterally "deleting" the Kashmiri parliament and constitution, it would have held talks with Pakistan about how to hold the referendum. Also, if you cite UN sources then you must also agree with the reports about human rights violations in Kashmir by the UN and organizations like Amnesty International, right? If so, then you shouldn't be justifying what is happening right now but opposing it as that is the position of the UN. Otherwise you are just selectively citing things that re-affirm your point of view.
  - la12 7y ago
    Can you just answer one question? Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers? If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself. If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation. And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.

iamshs 7y ago

‘Intolerant minority’ Bigoted thoughts do come out eventually. Minorities always need to be taught a lesson in World’s largest democracy.

kobiguru 7y ago
here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
wwice 7y ago
In Indian Kashmir the minorities were Hindus. They were kicked out by the Islamists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus Terrorist organizations like ISIS, JEM and ISI took over and now the talk of independence has been missing for a long time. It is all about Islam.
- iamshs 7y ago
  Rebuttal of this propaganda by a noted academic who is a Kashmiri Hindu herself. https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/1161484737409687553 https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/11614847374096...
  - wwice 7y ago
    You can Cherry pick this one and ignore the million others stating the truth. See here - https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo
    - iamshs 7y ago
      Well that sure educates me a lot about Kashmir.
    - selimthegrim 7y ago

owaislone 7y ago

> Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark. To prevent what exactly? Political dissent? Why can't people in Kashmir right now talk to each other over phone? Why can't they call their loved ones outside the region? Why isn't anyone else allowed to contact them? Why are lawyers, professors and activists being jailed? Why are some people not being allowed to leave the country? Why can't Indian politicians visit the region without being detained and sent back? What exactly is all this preventing?

kobiguru 7y ago
Okay, let's say they lift the ban here is how things will transpire. First, Pakistan's ISPR would start a massive disinformation campaign aided by the separatist who lost all their influence with the present government but has a great following among the Kashmiri Youth. Then there would immense violence with many dead while the "leaders" and there loved ones stay in a five-star hotel in Delhi. To prevent a loss of life they had to do it. But it's slowly being downgraded and the curfew is absent in all but 4 districts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Edit: I agree with you, that it is bad for people to have no communication channel.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  C'mon, stop bringing Pakistan into this. India has mismanaged Kashmir so badly that the majority of the population wants to leave India -- and not to join Pakistan, mind you, but to be independent.
  - iamshs 7y ago
    Pakistan is a big part of problem here by supporting militants and terrorists. Material, money and training support. Let’s not absolve Pakistan here. They invaded independent Kashmir in 1947 and Kashmir had to let go its independence to get support from India against Pakistan’s war.
    - nashashmi 7y ago

abhchand 7y ago

> The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for This is a poor view of how areas should be funded. Governments are responsible for common welfare of a people, not to be run as a business that expects kickbacks and profit or returns on investment.

kbad1000 7y ago
The fact is general population never received the money sent from Central government. Many have vested interests in autonomy of Kashmir, one of which are the elite three political families. They are the ones who have sucked all of that money.