6 ms·

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 justi

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.

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.