India invaded Kashmir? Seriously, Prof Chomsky!
Is someone ghostwriting for Prof Chomsky or has the wise professor chosen to ignore facts?
Thanks to Amitabh (and Rachna) for alerting me to this statement from a recent article by Prof Chomsky. Writing in “War, Peace and Obama’s Nobel“, Prof Chomsky says (emphasis added):
Iran hasn’t invaded another country for hundreds of years—unlike the United States, Israel and India (which occupies Kashmir, brutally).
As Rachna mentioned in her email,”Someone well known is lying. He is Noam Chomsky and he has lied about India and the lie is huge”.
Nothing more needs to be said…but if I can be impertinent enough for a moment, can I point the Professor to these slides and this link for more background?
Curiously, in an article that is ostensibly about war and threats to global peace…
The threat from Iran is minuscule. If Iran had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and prepared to use them, the country would be vaporized.
…the threat from Pakistan finds no mention at all.
Image courtesy: John Soares
Somewhat Related: Barbarians at the Gate*
And what about Nadir Shah :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah
Or, by hundreds Chomsky means as many as “2.5” hundreds? Anyway the very fact that commies in Kerala keep inviting him is reason enough to ignore everything he says.
I have just managed to read the entire article. For a man like Chomsky who has dedicated his life to “anarchist politics” it is in- excusable that he has chosen to write the particlarly offensive sentence. One would have hope for something better than this from some one exposed to- and grown up from anti-semitism and who has been so much respected for his anarchist politics. Perhaps his writings on Vietman is the point beyond which we should stop taking him seriously anyway.
There is also a comment on this remark already in the seven remarks that have so far been made.
Shantanu, how about posting all the comments that come on this thread on your site to be linked eventualy to that page? He needs to know that his credibility is at serious risk from a country that has played a huge part in his rise to his popularity….
Well spotted and well done Amitabh and Rachna.
Best
Ashutosh
It should come as no surprise since Chomsky is a hard Leftist who likes authoratian ideologies and dislikes freedom for anyone except himself. he is agreat logician, but logic deserts him once outside mathematics.
=>
“It should come as no surprise since Chomsky is a hard Leftist who likes authoratian ideologies ..”
=>
Not to detract from this serious faux pas by Prof. Chomsky, he has described himself as more of an anarchist, which is not quite an authoritarian ideology, as best as I understand it.
And authoritarianism occurs at either end of the political spectrum. Eg. Cuba (left), and Myanmar or Chile (right).
What’s so wrong with Chomsky’s comment about Kashmir? The repression in Kashmir especially in the 90’s is well known, more than 40,000 people have been killed since militants started a separatist revolt in 1989. Human rights groups put the toll at about 60,000 dead or missing. Here’s a recent report: http://www.france24.com/en/20100106-2010-twenty-years-after-kashmir-massacre
Anon, Ashutosh, Sh Rajaram and Kaffir: Thanks for sharing your thoughts..
***
@ Ashutosh: I will see if I can extract some comments here…
***
@ Antoine: I have not see you here before, so welcome….A few quick points:
1] We are talking INVASION here, in case you missed the title of the post.
2] Pl dont quote me Human Rights groups…the same groups that are conspicuously silent on the plight of Kashmiri Hindus who I doubt you have heard of.
3] Your own link mentions a figure of 5000 dead or missing but what is conveniently forgets to mention is that the vast number of these dead or missing are terrorists who have crossed over to Pakistan and back and have been subsequently killed in encounters.
4] And no one talks about the hundreds of innocents who have died in terrorist attacks (not killed by Indian Army) who are conveniently lumped under “victims of Indian brutality”. As a matter of fact, India is the worst victim of terrorism after Iraq – and this has been so for the last 2-3 years.. See this link https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/21/india-still-forgotten-terror-victim/
5] Pl have a look at this link, to understand the other side of the picture: http://www.kashmir-information.com/Atrocities/index.html
@ Antoine’s comment at 5 above.
Where would you place the “basque nationalism” mainly in spain and partly in France apropos the Kashmir issue. Atleast in the Basque case there is no external stimulant like the Infiltrators in Kashmir.
Similar is the case of Ireland.
rgds/sridhar
I am sure that this “Antoine” chap is a Paki in disguise. He has stolen and disguised himself as a european to spout some nonsense.
@ B Shantanu:
Thank you for the welcome message :).
1) Didn’t miss the title, and when looking up the definition of “invasion” it seems Chomsky was right in using that term. Isn’t what started the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947?
2) Not sure where else to find info about these type of issues. I got the numbers from this report: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=487ca21996&skip=0&query=Freedom%20in%20the%20World%202008-kashmir
And in regards to Kashmiri Indus, you are right, they don’t make the news much. Although I found this report: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6a8254&skip=0&query=Kashmiri%20Hindus
3) Frankly I’m not sure what the 5,000 represents.
4) True, it seems terrorists under Pakistani influence have taken over the Kashmir independance movement.
5) Thanks for the link. Quick question, why is India not holding a referendum on the issue of independence in order to solve this issue once and for all?
@sridhar krishna:
I’m not sure what you mean “by place the basque nationalism”. Personally I feel both governments (Spain and France) should listen to the people’s grievances and let them run for elections.
And no I’m not a Pakistani disguise under a French first name. Although if I were from Pakistan, I have to admit your “Paki” reference would seem a little offensive. Also, what do you mean by “non sense”?
@ antoine.
1. what i meant was the kashmiris and the basques are on equal footing. if you name one you name the other.
2. referundum not feasible in the atmosphere which pakistan has been vitiating ever since their “tribal assault” in 1947. The legal stand on the UN resolution also is that the ground level control has to revert back to pre pak and chinese occupation.
3. there has been human rights violations in Kashmir – may be more or as much as others – Nellie massacre in Assam, Sikh massacre post Indira’s deaths. But then Freedom from India is not a viable proposition when rest of india has been funding 90% of kashmir’s expenses in the last sixty years. in this regard the only credible proposition was that India should fund “Free Kashmir” for some time!
4. as for your last comments – kindly note they were made by “Augusto Pinochet” not me.
Cheers!!!
Sridhar
Sorry about the mistaken identity with Pinochet 😉
So in regards to the topic of this post, I still fail to see how Chomsky’s comment was that far off from reality on the ground?
@ Antoine: Hurried response (with a request that if you wish to discuss this in depth, it would be helpful to read the history of the region and the troubles in Kashmir)
1. Kashmir (like Pakistan before 1947) has always been part of India. Would you EVER say USA “invaded” California?
2. In your comment #5, you mentioned “repression” – which is why I referred you to the title. “Repression” is NOT “Invasion” (note that this does *not* mean that I am agreeing with your position re. repression)
3. The “war” of 1947 was a retaliation by Indian forces against armed tribals, irregulars and troops of the Pakistani Army who invaded Kashmir from Pakistan’s side of the border. It is Pakistan that invaded Kashmir in 1947 – and continues to occupy large part of it – euphemistically referred to as “Azad Kashmir” (Independent Kashmir) which is a joke because the territory is controlled by Islamabad.
4. “Not sure where else to find info about these type of issues” If you would have merely clicked on the links I have provided in the article (in the sentence “Nothing more needs to be said…”, you may have discovered more information.
5. Please understand that the Kashmir independence movement is a non-starter – just as a “New York” independence movement would be.
6. Re. “why is India not holding a referendum on the issue of independence in order to solve this issue once and for all?” pl. check the link mentioned in point 4 above.
@B Shantanu:
I ha
1) of course the US invaded California and Texas, this was the reason for the Mexican–American War, which Mexicans called “Invasión estadounidense de México” (American Invasion of Mexico).
When you say “Kashmir (like Pakistan before 1947) has always been part of India.”, I’m missing your point, so should Pakistan be under Indian control since it was part of the British Crown before 1947?
2) 3) You are right the word “repression” does not mean “invasion”. I’m going to quote Wikipedia: “An invasion is a military offensive consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory”.
So again, “invasion” being the point of concern of this thread, it is clear that Pr. Chomsky was right in using that term.
4) 5) I did checked the links you’ve posted, and it was quite interesting to learn the perspective of India on this issue.
Antoine – on your query about why Indian does not hold a referendum on this issue:
It is clear the people voting in the referendum would vote on religious lines. The demography of Kashmir has been altered by terrorists with the help of Pakistan to be Islamic. Hindus have been hounded systematically killed thereby making them to exit forcefully out of J&K. If the demography of 1948 could be restored, referendum would make sense. Referendum after committing genocide against one community thereby reducing the numbers would be a nice joke.
You may ask me for proof on how Hindus were systematicaly targeted. I dont have time to dig it up. But, I have followed the news on Kashmir since late eighties when killings of Hindus began and when the number of fatalities adorned the news papers like a cricket score. So, more than Mr. Chaomsky and new western european intelligentia that shows sudden interest in Kashmir and use their verbal sophistication to twist the issue, we are aware of the facts.
@ Antoine: Re. California, you are right; My mistake…but I am sure you have got the point I was making…(and it is telling that neither you nor Prof Chomsky have talked about the Chinese invasion of Tibet). Besides the mention of Israel makes it clear that Prof Chomsky is referring to modern times/ 20th century, not “history”.
Re points no. 2. and 3: for me (and I suspect for most people) invasion means use of force to enter and take control of “another country“…Please don’t tell me that Prof Chomsky did not mean it in this sense. It may be that we have a fundamental disagreement on the meaning or the sense in which this word was used.
Re points 4 & 5: Thank you. Here are some more links to help you get a little more perspective on the Kashmir issue & the broader context (assuming that you have interest; otherwise feel free to ignore)
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/01/28/india-pakistan-lessons-from-the-ruins-i/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/01/28/india-pakistan-lessons-from-the-ruins-ii/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/08/13/this-was-the-beginning/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/07/12/idiocy-on-kashmir/
@Antoine. You are factually incorrect. At the time of Inidan independence, all the princely states were given the option of joining India or not. The prince in Hyderabad who was a muslim, toyed with the idea of joining Pakistan, but he was basically threatened with the army, then under the orders of Sarder Patel. Thus, one could marginally claim that India threatened “invasion” of Hyderabad.
However, in the case of Kashmir, the Maharaja wanted to be an independent state. When the ragtag Pakistani army and other tribal hoodlums invaded Kashmir, he quickly changed his mind and ceded to India. Only when he did so, did the Indian army go into Kashmir. So technically, the Pakistanis are the invaders.
The idea of the referendum and special status arose because of Nehru’s own quixotic desire to hold on to his homeland-he was a Kashmiri Pandit. Instead of standing up and claiming that the Maharaja ceding of Kashmir (all of it) was the final decision, he ran to the U.N. We all know the U.N. track record on solving armed conflict. Thus the referendum was suggested by the U.N.
As far as holding a referendum now, that is a good idea, provided the Indian government is prepared to do that for all Indians–let all of India decide whether they want to be a part of the Indian state. And while we are at it, how about giving the Hindus, who have faced a thousand years of Islamic terrorism (Jihad), a referundum on whether they want their own nation free of aggressive minoriites who claim to be permanent victims.
Regarding Noam Chomsky, communists who speak from the hallowed portals of universities in democratic countries and pontificate about the oppression of people in other democratic nations should be regarded as what they truly are–a joke.
No doubt, soon our own local commie pomeranians will start yapping and quoting him.
@B Shantanu
I can not tell you what Chomsky meant to say, only what he said. Being a linguistic professor I assume Pr. Chomsky knows the meaning of the word “invasion” which has more to do with an incursion of an army than anything else (eg: Merriam webster, Wikipedia,IHL. Point being saying that Chomsky lied is in itself a lie, unless you wish to nick pick on the definition of a word which can be found in favor of his argument in many sources (as cited before).
I do not wish to argue on a conflict that has been going on for decades, especially since you seem a lot more knowledgeable on the topic than I.
To your other point about the lack of mention of Pakistan when talking about Iran’s nuclear ambition, the article itself mentions both India and Pakistan: “Both India and Pakistan are expanding their nuclear weapons programs. They have twice come dangerously close to nuclear war, and the problems that almost ignited this catastrophe are very much alive.”
If you read or listen to Chomsky you would realize that he mentions Pakistan as much as India or Israel on Nuclear issues (since none of them are part of the NPT).
Hopefully I didn’t offend you while trying to put some perspective on Chomsky’s views. I’m actually quite thankful to you as I’ve learnt a great deal while reading your blog and other links you mentioned.
Appreciate your openness.
@Antoine
After all this discussion, you still seem to be more concerned with different shades of the word “invasion” – while Chomsky’s article is pretty clear about what he meant by invasion (see the words in parenthesis).
The fact is – India never invaded Kashmir. Once the King of Kashmir decided to be with India – Kashmir became a part of the republic of India. Politically – that’s it.[I need not go further into history to show that Kashmir has been an integral part of India all through ages]. Kashmir was rather invaded by Pakistan – not India, and a large portion of Kashmir has been occupied by Pakistan since then. I really don’t understand why he says Kashmir is occupied by India!!!It’s like somebody says that Paris has been brutally occupied by France since the war with Germany during World War -II!!! Does it make any sense?
I don’t think Chomsky is ignorant of the subcontinent’s history of the last 65 years; and hence I feel his statement is clearly a motivated LIE.
@ Antoine: Prof Chomsky is a professor of lingusitics (as far as I remember) rather than English language.
The meaning of invasion is usually understood to be “when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country“.
Yes, Kashmir was indeed invaded – that is not a lie. But it was *not* invaded by India…but by Pakistan (as numerous others have pointed out too)
As for mention of Pakistan, the reference is brief (and in passing)..and completely ignores Pakistan’s record as the epicentre of Jihadi terrorism, its wilful proliferation of nuclear technology and its nurture of Al-Qaeda.
Finally, NO, you certainly did not offend me by sharing a counter-perspective!
You are always welcome here to discuss and debate and I am glad that some of the links I mentioned helped you gain a better understanding of the situation.
By the way, assuming you are French and/or in France, what do you think about the discussion here: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/06/23/sarkozy-burqa/ ?
For some reason my last post didn’t get posted. Hopefully this is not a duplicate.
@Neil
In regards to the meaning of “invasion”, I don’t really feel it matters that much, but to say Chomsky’s comment was a lie is a far stretch especially that Kashmir only became part of India after the Maharaja was forced (by the British Governor-General) to signed the Instrument of Accession. In regards to the occupation term, same thing, the army is in the region aren’t they? Actually the comparison with France during WW2 is somewhat appropriate as the “Gouvernement de Vichy” was the French branch of the Nazis which occupied France during the war, so it does make sense. Although, I believe the case of Kashmir is different since technically they were never able to choose their destiny (Pakistan, India or independance).
@ Shantanu
Here’s a more elaborate view of Chomsky on the India-Pakistan relation
http://www.fpif.org/articles/chomsky_on_india-pakistan_relations
In regards to the Burqua in France, personally I feel it’s a huge mistake that will only help extremists propaganda against the West. You should not tell people what to wear, otherwise nun’s clothes should be forbidden as well. This is a step back for French democracy and liberty.
There is a reason why this website exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky
Pls go through the following site.
http://ikashmir.net/atrocities/1.html
reg case no.3 it is pertinent to note that even afetr nearly 20 years “Yaseen Malik” was recently heckled in delhi accused of this crime.
nancy kaul graphically described the event in 2001 at chennai – not suggested reading for the young and weak at heart.
quote:
Like the killing of a young nurse in her 20s, Sarla Bhatt who was gruesomely raped and then her eyes were gouged out. The gory tale did not end there- her chest was burnt by cigarette butts to make the JKLF insignia. Most of the militant organizations got overt and covert support from the Jamit-e-islami J&K which is not a part of the Jamait-e-Islami Hind.
Tikka Lal Taploo, Justice Bhat and many more prominent Hindus were butchered in broad daylight and barborous death dances were performed around them. Hair was torn and in many cases blood was drunk apart from cutting various body parts of the victim.
unquote
the link is http://www.cifjkindia.org/conf_jan2001/conf_jan2001_011.shtml
rgds/sridhar
@Antoine:
u said
“Kashmir only became part of India after the Maharaja was forced (by the British Governor-General) to signed the Instrument of Accession”
You are wrong. I guess you still haven’t got it. Let me try again
– Kashmir was a part of India before the Partition
– Like all princely states, Kashmir had the option of being with India/Pakistan/Independent
– Hari Singh – the ruler of Kashmir decided to cecede to India. This was triggered by the invasion by Pakisani forces into Kashmir. The Maharaja was NOT forced by British – but by the invading foreigners (Pakistanis) to seek HELP from Indian side, and he felt that to protect his land and people(i.e Kashmiris) from the Pakistani attack, it was best to unite with the parent nation – India rather than being independent.
– Hence Kashmir became a part of India.
– A large part of Kasmir is still occupied by Pakistan by force.
u said:
“In regards to the occupation term, same thing, the army is in the region aren’t they?”
Are u kidding or what?
Army/other state forces need to be deployed in any region of the country which faces threat from outside the borders. Hence the army is there – to protect it’s people from invasions/infiltrations/ islamic jihad carried out and fuleled by the the rogue Pakistan. Army is deployed even in the interior states to counter insurgency – not to forcibly OCCUPY the region. I hope you understand this simple fact.
u said:
“Although, I believe the case of Kashmir is different since technically they were never able to choose their destiny (Pakistan, India or independance).”
– You are Wrong again.Kashmir did choose to be with India, but a part of it is still “brutally occupied ” by Pakistan (PoK)
Regarding the burqua, I am surprised by your response.
u said:
“I feel it’s a huge mistake that will only help extremists propaganda against the West.”
Why do you think so? I feel that forcing women to wear burqa is against liberty of women.We all know that Islam can’t be reformed, so why stop the state from enacting laws to save women from the inhuman traditions of subjugating women in Islam? What alternative do u suggest?
@ Antoine, Neil, All: Kindly continue the discussion on Burqa on this thread: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/06/23/sarkozy-burqa/
@ antoine
you seem reasonably acquainted with the Kashmir issue. A request – could you please give us some link to the report that Baroness Emma Nicholson , Rapporteur of EU produced in 2007.
Cheers!!!!
Sridhar
@Neer
Thanks for the link. It seems this page is made for detractors who are too lazy to read the replies from Chomsky. True these critics exists, do any of them have any merit, sure, did Chomsky reply to them and clarified his thoughts when needed, yes. Don’t get me wrong, not everything Chomsky says or writes has to be taken has truth, actually you should always question what anyone says, it only requires extra research by checking what the authors sources.
@Neil
“Kashmir was a part of India before the Partition”, so was Pakistan, this is not making your argument any stronger.
“the ruler of Kashmir decided to cecede to India.”, we both agree on that, and yes he was forced to ask Mountbatten for help so India’s army could stop the Pakistani invasion. What you fail to mention was the blackmail from the Governor-General who only agreed of the army intervention on the condition that the ruler signed the Instrument of Accession. That’s hardly having a choice, Kashmiri people never had the opportunity to choose their destiny.
@sridhar krishna
Here’s a the official European Parliament link of Emma Nicholson’s report: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5295922
Note that the report criticizes Pakistan for lacking to give Kashmiri people any type of sustain democracy, as well as failing in its commitment to fighting terrorism. The report also deplored documented human rights violations by the armed forces of India.
@Moderator
I will thanks.
=>
“That’s hardly having a choice, Kashmiri people never had the opportunity to choose their destiny.”
=>
We’re talking of 1947 when kings were responsible for making decisions for their people. And Kashmir’s king wasn’t unique in making such a decision on behalf of his people – numerous other kings decided to join India without giving their people an opportunity to “choose their destiny”. So your above point is without merit.
@ Antoine: Re. “I believe the case of Kashmir is different since technically they were never able to choose their destiny”
Pl. look at slides 8-11 from my presentation.
As for “Independence”, it was never an option – not for Kashmir, not for any other state.
Thanks Shantanu for the ppt!! Awesome work. I have a lot to read on your blog. Pakistani sponsored separatists have been doing propaganda based on myths which must be demolished.
@Antoine:
To add to what Shantanu and others have said….
What choices did Kashmir have –
To become separated from India and get devoured and ravaged by Pakistani invaders and lose their land to them OR To remain with the parent nation with complete democratic freedom [Or, ‘Antoine’ – do you want Kashmiris to be ruled according to Sharia – which robs people of all freedom ? – certainly the Kashmiris didn’t want that]Considering the two monsters – Pakistan and China leaving no opportunity to grab Kashmir’s land – it was the natural choice of Kashmiri people to remain with India and enjoy every freedom under the sun.
Hence, your points are incorrect- Kashmiris did have the option to choose their destiny and surely they did choose. All this “azadi” stuff is pakistan sponsered terrorism to destabilize the region by exploiting religion.
Thanks Neil…You are right…The myths must be exposed.
Do also read through some of the other links I have mentioned in comment #15 when you get some time.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
@Neil
Don’t try to guess what I want or not (“do you want Kashmiris to be ruled…”), I understand your trying to undermine my arguments, but stay on the topic.
My main argument was regarding Pr. Chomsky’s sentence which was seen as a lie by the author of this thread. I’ve made my point in regards to the word invasion, if you wish to ignore it and cite other definition of the word, it’s fine by me, just know that they are alternatives, therefore you can’t say Chomsky lied. Finally, regarding the “which occupies Kashmir brutally”, this statement seems to be accurate if you read the Emma Nicholson’s report: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5295922.
I’m not denying that Pakistan was wrong, far from it since they started this awful conflict, but one cannot deny the facts on either sides.
@B Shantanu
In regards to the elected Constituent Assembly of 1951 which ratified the accession of the State to the Union of India on February 6, 1954, the United Nations Security Council stated in its resolution 91 dated March 30, 1951 that it would not consider elections held only in Indian administered Kashmir to be a substitute for a free and impartial plebiscite including the people of the entire state Jammu and Kashmir.
Resolution: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1f338.html
Anyway, I fail to see why Mr. Chomsky’s words where such a lie when there seem to be an international consensus on the matter, although I could see why India feels this way since Pakistan was so wrong to invade in the first place. Unfortunately two wrongs don’t make it right :).
@ Antoine: First you say that Kashmiris have never been able to choose their destiny. When I point you to the election(s), you mention that they are not recognised – recognised by whom?
If the people feel they have been able to choose (and have since then voted multiple times), what locus standi does UN have in this matter today – when it finds itself unable (and unwilling) to implement 60 yr old resolutions?
As for your point re. “Invasion”, I thought we had settled that (my comment #21)?!
Do you not think that Prof Chomsky was being disingenuous when he wrote that sentence?
@Shantanu
I’m only stating what the UN said on a point you mentioned. In regards to “Invasion” you are being unfair, sure post #21 stated “The meaning of invasion is usually understood to be “when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country“.” , but “usually” to whom? To me, an invasion is when an arm force enter a region which is what the IHL says as well and a lot of other sources. Again the point is, using the word invasion is not a lie unless you are not willing to admit other definition of the word exist. Do you at least agree that these definitions exists?
So no, I don’t think he was being disingenuous especially since a source you seem to agree with (Emma Nicholson’s report) states some of the abuses by the Army. Again, I’m not saying Pakistan is right, far from it, but India is not innocent in this conflict as well.
@ Antoine: Words have many meanings. They are usually understood in the sense most people mean it. I understand the meaning in the sense I have mentioned above. It is my belief that most people would infer it in the same way. I do not wish to split hairs.
Human rights violation(s) or “abuses by the Army” do not constitute an invasion. Maintaining troops on the border is not invasion. Jammu & Kashmir is a border state and abuts two of India’s rivals. The army’s presence in the region is therefore normal and expected.
I rest my case.
@Antoine
Regarding “invasion”, I suggest you consult a expert/native speaker of the English language and show him/her Chomsky’s article. That will certainly help you in comprehending the meaning.
@Neil
No need for the patronizing tone, I understand your definition of the word invasion, but you should also agree that you don’t know what Chomsky meant by “invasion” since other definitions of the word exist, to say that he lied is simply misleading. If you were right then you are calling the sources quoted above (Wikipedia, Merriam webster, International Humanitarian Law) liars, if that is your belief, then I must agree with you.
@Shantanu
You are right, maintaining troops in a region is not an invasion, it’s called occupation. At least we agree on one thing Chomsky said.
@ Antoine: Pl dont twist my words to prove your point.
Since when has “maintaining troops on the border” become “occupation”?
@Shantanu
Since always, having 500,000 troops controlling a region [place] is defined as “occupation”.
I used your source the Cambridge dictionary which states:
“when an army or group of people moves into and takes control of a place”
@Antoine
” Since always, having 500,000 troops controlling a region [place] is defined as “occupationâ€.
– Then every nation is occupied by itself – India being no exception.
Plz do try my suggestion(comment# 37), then come back.
@ Antoine: Once again, pl. do not distort what I have written (and meant). I am certain you are not so naive as to not understand what I am saying. The place/region/area that you talk about is part of India. Do you understand this? Not since 1947 – but since historical times.
Once again, I would urge you to read a bit more about the history of Kashmir (the name Kashmir itself comes from the name of an Indian sage).
I am done commenting on this particular point.
Antoine – troops occupying a place in its own country is different from occupying a place in a foreign land. As of now, kashmir is a integral part of India. Therefore, our troops being in kashmir it cannot be called as ‘invading’. India may move troops to West Bengal border sometime to counter threat from Bangladesh… or to rameshwaram to counter threat from LTTE. that would not mean India invaded west bengal or tamil nadu. I am sure you know the essence of our discussion.. we are not discussing English here nor we are trying to streamline english dictionaries… We all know what Chaomsy meant… (though people coudl split hairs on defining the words he used)and the discussion is based on what he meant rather than different meaning that may exist for the words he used.
As an Indian, I have always been curious about one aspect of the Kashmir issue. Maharaja Hari Singh was a Hindu ruler of a muslim majority state. The muslim Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Junagadh ruled hindu majority states. The GoI’s stated political rationale (rightly and democratically so) in ensuring that they joined the Indian Union despite their muslim rulers’ resistance was the democratic imperative of their subjects’ wishes.
However, Kashmir always was and still is a muslim majority region. It has NEVER been a hindu majority region, even with Jammu as part of the Jammu and Kashmir equation (which is probably why the GoI never hedl a pleibiscite there). And yet, the GoI accepted the Maharaja’s accession (agreed to reluctantly and under threat of an ongoing Pakistani invasion). Going by their own logic as illustrated by Hyderabad and Junagadh, what does this represent? Realpolitik? Hypocrisy? Strategic thinking?
I appreciate Kashmir’s strategic importance to India and have family serving there in the army, but does India have a moral right to Kashmir in the FIRST place?
I have never thought we did, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.
@ Krish: Hurried reply. Pl. have a look at the slides that I have linked to in my post. The situation was not comaprable to Hyderabad and Junagadh.
It is the confused morality of the likes of Krish which is worrisome.
Our population is so confused because of the lack of truthfull history and a wipe out of public memory.
Fact of the matter is that in the last 100 years Hindus have been squezed into the landmass called India. Look at past 600 years and the situation is even worse.
How moral was it for us to be kicked out of Afganistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and now J&K?
How moral is it that our space and voice are contracting as we speak within the perimeters of India?
What defines a claim on a landmass? Tomorrow if the population of Muslims increases rapidly in Krishs neighbourhood and the minorities are thrown out of the neighbourhood over 100 years can the Muslims ten claim the land? Irrespective of the historicity and emotional attachment of Hindus to the land – namaste Sharda Devi, Kashmir puravaasini
How moral is it for Muslims to claim large swathes of exclusive land, boot out Hindus and still continue to claim land in India?
How moral was it for China to invade Tibet – genocide the culture and people?
If the claim on territory is determined by demographic growth and ethnic cleansing then I say morality has already lost ground. What use is morality then?
Where the eff are the likes of Antoine and Krish when Hindus are wiped out from The countries west and east of India? How come no one talks of morality then?
I tell you. Eff your incomplete, hypocritical morality. I want to survive. 900 Million Hindus of the world can only call India their home and even there we have the grace (and foolhardiness) to share it with other. At this stage I don;t give a shit abt the moral pontifications of the likes of Noam, Antoine and Krish. They will not shed a tear when enlightened dharmas like Hinduism and Buddhism go extinct (Krish might go extinct or convert). At this stage I will do what it takes to survive. So much Adharma has been perpetuated against us for 1000 years that we no longer need to justufy any actions to the likes of you.
I’d be curious as to which country Antoine is from. Some European country for sure which has raped the rest of the world to enrich itself and fought crusades to prevent Islam from establishing itself in Europe. You’ve got the balls to lecture us.
@M
I am from France and like most European country our wealth came from the atrocities we committed outside of our country. I know my country’s history and how racist it has been and still partially is. But I’m not sure what my country of origin has to do with the morality of terrorizing innocents, France was wrong when it tortured Haiti, Algeria, Vietnam, etc… and the same is true of parts of the Kashmir population which is being abused by Pakistan and India.
Well you did not get my point did you? Understand the history of the region. you cannot look at things at a point in time.
@M
You can not avoid looking at the current situation because of past deeds. Current repression is wrong no matter who’s committing it.
Antoine,
If you have not understood the essence of what I am trying to communicate, it is a moot point.
Let me reiterate – the survival of J&K in India is essential for the survival of indic religions – for many socio political reasons.
Indic religions are the last standing indigenous dharmas in the world. Everything else is being wiped by Christianity or Islam.
All atrocities are bad but right now India is facing massive warfare from Islamic Jihad. We as a nation have to deal with it militarily. We have no choice.
In the meantime before you answer me with “genocide suzie” type of responses spend some time reading the following book.
http://ikashmir.net/exodus/doc/exodus.pdf
on the matter of repression per capita income in J&K is highest in India because of the doles and subsidies from GOI. There is more but I will not waste my time till you educate yourself
Antoine
Unlike what many people believe, racism was the offshoot of european and christian imperial dynamics (there is no separating the two) not the other way around. European people went to other lands and claimed it as their own based on the doctrine of ‘christian discovery’ (in spite of not having any historical connections). This was also the rationale for the demonization and subjugation of the heathen and justification for economic exploitation, social dis-empowerment, co-option or subversion of traditions, and appropriation of resources and knowledge.
European historical grand narrative now states that the christian imperative gave way to ‘enlightened’ ideas. However despite liberal claims of finding colonialism abhorrent – it is surprising how fanatically attached most liberals are to the universality of their claims – even though these doctrines are located and born out of their own european, colonial and primarily christian experience. Liberal narrative obfuscates history, confuses issues, spreads blame and implicitly tries to downplay european colonial legacy.
For example a typically liberal enterprise – the current discourse on racism as color discrimination – is faulty, misleading and incomplete. Racism as a function of skin color arose relatively late in eighteenth century America, aiming to prevent newly converted christian blacks in eighteenth century America from escaping slavery. Yet this is the context in which racism is discussed amongst liberals even today – not the original christian religious context – which marginalizes and demonizes the ‘other’. These ideas about racism are then exported and implied to apply in all people – for example castes in India. Liberalism is a contrarian euro-centric narrative which is nevertheless co-opted into the western narrative framework. From this point of view their reluctance to fully deconstruct the Christian and Islamic impulse to convert and subjugate – is evident.
That brings us back to the topic of discussion. One of the important traits of the liberal / western secular narrative is to claim universality of european historical experience which is then used to spread blame. This is pretty evident in the western commentary on Indian society, culture and politics. This is why Chomsky, yourself and other liberals find automatic equivalence between what america did in iraq or what france did in algeria with what India is doing in Kashmir. The dishonesty, we claim is performed by historical sleight of hand and obfuscation of actual issues, use of skewed academic lenses and outright ignorance. It is alright for europeans ot continue with their beliefs but expecting us to believe, internalize and use european methods and worldviews, to condemn ourselves is to stretch things a bit too far.
American involvement in Iraq started in the 20st century, French involvement in Algeria in the 19th. Rest of India’s relationship with Kashmir (amongst many other Indian geographies) goes back ages – to her earliest literature. This is attested in the Puranas (which western historiographers have condemned to the realms of mythology) and the vedas. Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (Kalhana was a kashmiri prince, pundit and historian) – listing all of Kashmir’s dynasties and Kings going back to before 3000 BC (but going back to just under a thousand years or so according to western historians) – listed extensive connections and interrelationships with the rest of India. Many otherwise pure Kashmiri dynasties (including Kalhana’s own) claim descent from the Indian hinterland. Kashmir has been a fount of Hindu Shaivite and Buddhist religious thought – going really far back into history. Even India’s first prime-minister was a Kashmiri pandit. Hence unlke in the case of america and france there is no historical reason to think of India as an colonial presence in kashmir.
We don’t go out of our way to define other people’s identity for them. Yet we see how westerners – of all persuasions – constantly falling over themselves to define the same for us – be it ideas about our faiths, morality, political constructs, economy, social categories, and political borders of our country. Implicit in Noam Chomsky’s articulation of the problem (and your support of it) are assumed definitions of India, Indianity, regional identity etc, ie what India should be according to westerners rather than what she is. These may have nothing to do with perceptions on the ground. Your own previous postings admit your lack of familiarity with details of the case. kashmiri separatists demand a separate kashmir on the basis of religious identity of Islam. If secessionist demands are granted what rationale allows mainland muslims to continue staying on in India ? What about Kashmir’s Hindus and Buddhists ? What about Jammu and ladakh ? What about those muslims who do not want a separate nation.
Mere sloganeering without understanding these issues is intellectually irresponsible and dishonest. And that is exactly what Noam Chomsky (or his ghostwriter) has been.
Great comment, Rajiv…Thanks…I particularly liked this bit:
Rajiv Chandrans comment should be made a blog write up
@Rajiv Chandran
I actually agree with most of what you have stated above. No outsider should tell natives what to do with their land, and I would never argue otherwise. The problems between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir issue is just that, and it’s up to them to figure it out. Unfortunately your comment is quite off-topic, although a beautifully worded ignoratio elenchi (red herring).
Your main argument in itself is valid but does not address the issue in question whatsoever “Iran hasn’t invaded another country for hundreds of years—unlike the United States, Israel and India (which occupies Kashmir, brutally)” This statement is still factually correct. Iran has not invaded nor occupied anyone in 700 years, while the US, Israel and India have done so (to different degrees) for the past six decades. I understand people in this thread are not willing to hear what “invasion” and more importantly what “occupation” means (IHL being a fairly trusted source on the matter) and would rather use a definition that fit their doctrine, but to dismiss that comment by name-calling Chomsky is “intellectually irresponsible and dishonest”.
@ Antoine at 55 above.
Please refer to your categorical statement (Iran has not invaded or occupied anyone in the last 700 years)
The names “Nader Shah Afsar” or “Ahmad shah Abdali” a.k.a “Ahmad Shah Durrani” make any sense to you.
Ahmad Shah might be an afghan but he was mentored by the persian Nader Shah. Read what they did to Hindus at Delhi, Sikhs and Marathas.
But then that is persia and we are talking of Iran! Iran did not invade or conquer any country as India did!!
Cheers!!!
Sridhar
@sridhar Krishna
I stand corrected, for some reason I thought the Persian were only pushing back invaders, but NÄder ShÄh went a lot further, all the way to Pakistan! Thanks.
@ Antoine
From yr comment am i to understand delhi is in pakisthan. recollect what he did on March 22, 1739.
Nothing to cheer about
@ Antoine: I had decided not to comment on this topic anymore but it occured to me that you may be missing one critical point in this discussion.
Are you aware of a region called Pakistan-occupied Kashmir – euphemistically referred to as Pakistan-administered Kashmir by western agencies/organisations?
Your definition of occupation fits the region of PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) neatly.
I am reproducing Art. 41 with additional details to clarify what I mean:
Art. 41. Territory (Northern Areas and “Azad Kashmir”) is regarded as occupied when, as the consequence of invasion by hostile forces (Pakistan), the State to which it belongs (India) has ceased, in fact, to exercise its ordinary authority therein, and the invading State (Pakistan) is alone in a position to maintain order there.
Do you agree with this interpretation?
You may be tempted to flip this definition to fit Jammu & Kashmir state in India except that India did not invade any part of Kashmir (at any time) and the region presently in India was never part of Pakistan (either de-facto or de-jure) – while Kashmir has been historically, culturally and politically part of India.
P.S. As you know, India sent troops into Kashmir in response to Pakistan’s invasion.
@ Antoine.
Between 1729 and 1736 Nader Shah attacked, invaded and / or subjugated the ottomans, Georgia, Armenis.
In 1738 he conquered Kandhahar conquering the final afghan post (not repelling invaders as you suggest). He used this as an excuse invaded India, defeated the Moghuls and on one day (March 22, 1739) he killed around 20,000 to 30,000 INDIANS. He was secular, the massacred include both Hindus and Muslims.
The loot he carried from India was enough to postpone taxes for 3 years in Persia. In 1740 he invaded Transoxania (current day Uzbek, Tajik and S.W. Kazhak).
With Indian ships he conquered Bahrain and Oman in 1743.
And if you have the time and inclination read the following link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadda_Ghallooghaaraa
Not even Indian text books teach it.
And remember Ahmad Shah at the age of 16 came to India first in the year 1739 with 4000 cavalry as part of Nader Shah’s army. The above mentioned link is the sixth time he invaded India.
Au Revoir!!
@sridhar krishna:
“From yr comment am i to understand delhi is in pakisthan” not at all, I just said he went all the way to Pakistan, did I offend you by not mentioning the Indian conquest when “during the course of one day (March 22) 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were killed by the Persian troops, forcing Mohammad Shah to beg for mercy”. Please don’t try to interpret my comments in such a negative way, I know where Delhi is.
@Shantanu
I always agreed that Pakistan invaded Kashmir, I only disagree with the fact that Kashmir was part of India in the first place. So yes I am very tempted to flip this definition to fit the J&K state :).
The last sentence in my comment should have been:
“…while Kashmir has always been historically, culturally and politically part of India.”
As for your remark: I only disagree with the fact that Kashmir was part of India in the first place please refer to one of your favoured sources: Wikipedia re. History of Kashmir.
And if you are talking about the situation pre-1947 and leading up to the Partition, pl. bear in mind that Jammu & Kashmir was a princely state – only nominally sovereign and very much part of the British Empire in India.
Hindus genocided in J&K both POK & Indian Kashmir
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/10jan27/edit.htm#5
The chill of partition of Indian subcontinent never thaws for the two million Pak Occupied Jammu Kashmir Refugees (POJKR) who escaped the holocaust unleashed by the religious fanatics and Pakistan army in 1947 – now entering to their fourth generation without any humanitarian aid in this post world war II era based on the protection of Human Rights. Labeled as Displaced Persons (DPs) even after 62 of their living in camps in Jammu region of J&K State and other parts of India without any humanitarian aid of India or international agencies, these religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities still have a dream to return to their home land, now, in the control of Pakistan. Govt. of India (GOI) has messed up the status of POJKR or the benefits earmarked for every category of settler with the acronyms like refugees, migrants, displaced persons or the internally displaced persons, but the POJKR settlers are yet get the needful attention of the governments of J&K or the GOI as given to the refugees world over. Once a vibrant ancient tribe of food gatherers and hunters living as aboriginees of the Pothwar plateau with a distinct ethnicity, language and culture are feeling betrayed, discriminated and ignored at all the levels of their political, social, educational, economic and cultural rights in the largest democracy of the world – having no homeland in two nations viz. India and Pakistan.
@Antoine
My earlier submission was intended to show how western categories universalizes categories and appropriates discourse. It is intended to understand how a West (progressives, liberals included) – which is not intellectually open about such basic issues as racism, can be given benefit of doubt to comment on larger issues impinging on questions like what constitutes nationhood, freedom, sovereignty etc (especially when these categories affect other people) . After all these are the issues that come to fore when analyzing statements like ‘India invaded Kashmir’.
We have demonstrated here historical and political reasons for not considering Kashmir as separate from India. We have also demonstrated falsity of claims that Iran never invaded another country in recent history. Your own response has been to contextualize the use of the word and argue for semantic flexibility. Going by your’s (perhaps Chomsky’s) definition of invasion please consider if Iran’s (as also Iraqs and Turkey’s) suppression of Kurds count as invasion. Furthermore does such definitions not find indiscriminate applicability – basque separatists, paris suburbs, Denmark’s muslims, londonistan etc ?
In Chomsky’s article there was no need for India (or Kashmir) to be mentioned – to pursue the rest of his case. However it seems that a biased and ultimately misleading point and generalization was made – apparently to suit an agenda.
We think that Chomsky in spite of being a spokesman of a contrarian discourse in western narrative still belongs to the same co-opted framework. It is natural for that framework to mould his views and his opinions. Even so a person of Chomsky’s stature – if he makes remarks that cannot be justified (or contextualized) – would naturally invite suspicions about intellectual honesty and agenda setting.
The arguments here are a quarrel about categories not a quibble about semantics.
An extract from the Wikipedia about the Franco Persian Alliance and how both the French Emperor Napoleon and the Persian Emperor Fath Ali Shah was keen on collaborating both against Russia and Hindusthan. An interesting Aside – The french general who was involved was “Antoine Gardanne”
Quote:
Claude Matthieu, Count Gardane (January 3, 1766 – 1818) was a French general and diplomat. He entered the army and rose rapidly during the revolutionary wars, becoming captain in 1793.
In May 1799 he distinguished himself by saving a division of the French army which was about to be crushed by the Russians at the battle of Bassignana, and was named at once brigadier-general by Moreau. He incurred Napoleon’s displeasure for an omission of duty shortly before the battle of Marengo (June, 1800), but in 1805 was appointed to be aide-de-camp of the emperor. His chief distinction, however, was to be won in the diplomatic sphere.
In the spring of 1807, when Russia and Prussia were at war with France, and the emperor Alexander I of Russia was also engaged in hostilities with Persia. The court of Teheran sent a mission to the French emperor, then at the castle of Finkenstein in the east of Prussia, with a view to the conclusion of a Franco-Persian alliance. This was signed on 4 May 1807, at that castle; and Napoleon designed Gardane as special envoy for the cementing of that alliance. The secret instructions which he drew up for Gardane, and signed on the 30th of May, are of interest as showing the strong oriental trend of the emperor’s policy.
France was to guarantee the integrity of Persia, to recognize that Georgia (then being invaded by the Russians) belonged to the shah, and was to make all possible efforts for restoring that territory to him. He was also to furnish to the shah arms, officers and workmen, in the number and to the amount demanded by him. Napoleon on his side required Persia to declare war against Great Britain to expel all Britons from her territory, and to come to an understanding with the Afghans with a view to a joint Franco-Perso-Afghan invasion of India.
Gardane, whose family was well known in the Levant, had a long and dangerous journey overland, but was cordially received at Teheran in December 1807. The conclusion of the Franco-Russian treaty at Tilsit in July 1807 rendered the mission abortive. Persia longed only for help against Russia and had no desire, when all hope of that was past, to attack India. The shah, however, promised to expel Britons and to grant to France a commercial treaty. For a time French influence completely replaced that of England at Teheran, and the mission of Sir John Malcolm to that court was not allowed to proceed. Finally, however, Gardane saw that nothing much was to be hoped for in the changed situation of European affairs, and abruptly left the country (April 1809). This conduct was not wholly approved by Napoleon, but he named him count and in 1810 attached him to Marshal Massena’s army in Portugal. There, during the disastrous retreat from Santarem to Almeida, he suffered a check which brought him into disfavour. The rest of his career calls for no notice. He died in 1818.
The report which he sent to Champagny (dated April 23, 1809) on the state of Persia and the prospects of a successful invasion of India is of great interest. He admitted the difficulties of this enterprise, but thought that a force of picked French troops, aided by Persians and Afghans, might under favorable conditions penetrate into India by way of Kandahar, or through Sind, especially if the British were distracted by maritime attacks from Mauritius.
Unquote
A third of world’s jailed journalists are in Iran: Committee to protect journalists http://bit.ly/aOBuy6
@Antoine
The following links will be helpful-
http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=952&Itemid=122
http://www.vigilonline.com/dynamic_includes/downloads/JaKtus-wemk.pdf
@Antoine
Sorry forgot to give the following links – both give a historical perspective of the fact that Kashmir historically belongs to India-
http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=951&Itemid=122
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/hindus_jews_and_jihad_terror_i.html
Pakistan is an artifact that was the result of the incursions and invasions by Turks, Persians and others of that ilk that forcibly brought Islam into the Indian Sub-Continent. Kashmir has been part of the Hindu/Indian History and Culture for centuries before Christ or Mohammed. Pakistan, an upstart, wants itself to be on the same footing as India, thanks to the divide and rule philosophy of the British, which was blindly followed by the US, until 9/11.
Now, that the US and UK have experienced the duplicity of Pakistan in Afghanistan, they have finally realized that India is their real salvation to counter the threat posed by China.
Also, they have now concluded that Pakistan has essentially become a puppet of China, and is creating havoc in Afghanistan to influence the American Public to get the US and others in the West to get out of the Indian sub-continent.
This will create a vacuum in Afghanistan and Pakistan for China to move in from the North!!!
Another glaring example of which side world media is!
http://on.natgeo.com/fM41wQ
In this video by NatGeo on ‘Are you Typical’ entire JK is cut off from the map of India. This is a glaring mistake and should not be tolerated. I dont understand which part of Jammu and Ladakh are being fought over? Even then isnt it only a very small part of Kashmir in question, I remember seeing a very interesting map recently.
Regards
Thanks Vidhya..I spoke on the subject of J&K to a group of Indian professionals yesterday at LSE. I will be uploading the slides soon..One of them has the map of Jammu & Kashmir with the regions clearly demarcated…Stay tuned.
Chomsky is a leftist and like all leftists his heart bleeds for the Muslims, this Antoine clown belongs to the same camp.
Who the hell cares about this or that accession paper.
Kashmir is part of India because it was a Hindu land before Muslim invaders brutally occupied it and converted the population forcibly to Islam.
Those douchebags who talk about independence for Kashmir should put into practice by giving up Bradfordistan or some other area in the West Muslims will demand once they are a majority.
Those Kashmiri’s who don’t like India should leave for Pakistan, a state created by Muslims for Muslims through murder and cleansing of millions of Hindus and Sikhs.
@Gyan
Thanks for the informative links.
@Julian
Your name-calling is really not necessary when giving your opinion.
How can kashmir historically “belong†to India or for that matter Pakistan. Kashmir “belongs†only to Kashmiris.
In any case the political entity we call India today came into being only in 1947. Its a fact that Kashmir was not a settled issue, according to the rules of partition.
Kashmiris were promised a fair referendum at the time of the merger, which to this dayhas been denied to them by one excuse or another.
The fact is that Kashmir is occupied by India by force. If one needs close to a million armed men and women to control a place, then the only word one can use for such a “belonging†is occupation.
And its no surprise that people dont seem to like Prof Chomsky’s comments. When he criticzes “others†then its fine, but not when he criticises us -the “peace loving†nation.
Bobby: Pl read some history and try and understand the basic concept of state and nationnhood before saying things like “Kashmir “belongs” only to Kashmiris“.
For the real background on Kashmir – including the “referendum”, have a look at these slides: Jammu & Kashmir LSE Mar ’11 http://slidesha.re/ew9Gvm
Re. “The fact is that Kashmir is occupied by India by force” – That’s funny. Last I heard there was a certain young man called Omar Abdulah heading the government in Srinagar..and he was elected.
“That’s funny. Last I heard there was a certain young man called Omar Abdulah heading the government in Srinagar..and he was elected.â€
Yeah, just like we had elections in the 1930′s under the British rule.
About Kashmir belonging to Kashmiris, I think its a truism that no organization or country or institution has any right to control or force people to “belong†to that organization or country or institution, or for that matter accept laws framed by them, unless that right is given to them by the mandate of the people.
This is clearly not the case here- If India needs close to a million troops to keep Kashmir with itself then thats clearly Occupation. The mandate was precisely what a referendum would have given, and thats what is being denied to them.
Statements like “Kashmir historically belonged to usâ€, shows an utter contempt of democracy and the right of people to choose for themselves their political future.
Bobby: Good try but I am not getting trapped in this debate..
There are 75+ comments on this post and 60+ articles on this blog on Jammu & Kashmir.
Since you keep harping on “mandate” and “referendum”, it appears to me that you have not bothered to look at the slides mentioned in my comment (let alone the links provided in the posts and other comments)
Your usage of phrases like a “million troops to keep Kashmir” and “Occupation” (with a capitalised “O”!) betray your bias and slant (no mention of the fact that Kashmir borders a *very* hostile neighbour; no mention of the source for the troop numbers; their deployments etc etc).
If you have already made up your mind to believe something, it is going to be hard for anyone to change it. I will stop here.
Shantanu: I did see your slides. The part which I found most amusing was the one titled “possible solutions”. Its amusing because its the kind of solutions that China would want of Tibet.
Nowhere in that list of “solutions” do you even consider what the people of the region that you talk about, want! Your solutions is basically to remove even the little autonomy that Kashmir has, and to swallow the whole land in the name of “Indian Nationalism”. I am pretty sure that there exists your exact counterparts, in China giving similar solutions to the “Tibetan Problem”.
Your “solutions” as indeed your narration of the history of the issue, reveal that for “nationalists” like you, Kashmir is simply “our property”, which others (meaning the people living there) are trying to take away from us.
Unfortunately for you, the Kashmiris do not seem to be content with being treated as a property, or as tenants on a land which basically “belongs to India”.
Coming to your narration of the history of Kashmir, nowhere did you mention that whenever Kashmiri leaders like Sheikh Abdullah showed any signs of not accepting the merger to India, they was arrested.
Nowhere do you mention the disgusting record of the Indian military in the valley , as has been well documented by several Human rights organizations,
– the number of people killed at the hands of the Indian Military, the number of people who have simply dissapeared, and the women raped, children with sling shots being shot dead.
You either do not know that several mass graves have been discovered in the valley, of people who have been kidnapped by the Indian military, or you choose to be silent about it, because they all have to be terrorists of course, by definition.
But of course, Human rights organizations are trust worthy only when they speak against the Chinese and Pakistanis, not when they talk about “we- the peace loving people”.
Dear All: I have been getting a large number of irrelevant comments on this and some other threads for the past few days.
These comments have been deleted.
Irrelevant comments and/or those that do not meaningfully add to the discussion are likely to be deleted without notice…
For those who are new here, please read my comments policy here. Thanks