Under hardline Islam (Iran and the Taleban) its rich men
that get their pick of young girls (I mean really young).
Some years ago in Iran they hanged a 16 year old girl for so-called immoral activity (she was raped), her rapist got a few lashes.

I think hardline Islam appeals to rich men they get the women of the poor men as their wives. The poor man then becomes a Mujahadeen and hopes to get his reward in heaven. Its all a manipulation for money and sex.
The Mujahadeen ends up becoming a murderer and rapist-
like the Pakistan army in Bangladesh.
Why doesn’t Pakistan invite Bangladesh to join Pakistan?
India cannot get in the way here,surely? Bangladesh is an
independant country.

Secular India however imperfect aims to be secular and modern. I think its unfair to say as Ghos does that Brahmins are the root of all evil. I blame Manu he claimed that caste was fixed at birth which contradicts the gita.

Stop calling everyone as kashmiris..Its only Hindu pundits who are kashmiris. All others who are anti-Indian are pakistanis.

Muslim protestors in Kashmir is nothing different from LTTE in srilanka or Al-quida in Afganistan at their early stages. We already have a example set by these countries on how to handle when rebellions unwind..Why should I not call Kasmir a integral part of Hindustan ??Do fighting muslims in Kashmir know what the name kashmir stands for ??

Nilamata Purana: Ka means “water” and Shimir means “to desiccate”. Hence, Kashmir stands for “a land desiccated from water”.

The Nilamata Purana gives the name Kashmira to the Valley considering it to be an embodiment of Uma.

In the Rajatarangini, a history of Kashmir written by Kalhana in the 12th century, it is stated that the valley of Kashmir was formerly a lake. This was drained by the great rishi or sage, Kashyapa, by cutting the gap in the hills at Baramulla (Varaha-mula). When Kashmir had been drained, Kashyapa asked Brahmans to settle there.

The name of Kashyapa is by history and tradition connected with the draining of the lake, and the chief town or collection of dwellings in the valley was called Kashyapa-pura.

Its not the indepandence they want..please understand, these people can never live peacefully, they pick up other religion as their first choice to fight, if not available they fight among them selves like now in pakistan. below are facts on Amarnath :

The biggest lie being circulated - Amarnath was discovered by Malik’s – The Muslim Shepherd Family.

The shrine is cover 5,000 years old and forms an important part of ancient Hindu mythology

The reference to Amarnath can be seen in the Nilamata Purana (v.1324).

The pilgrimage to the holy cave has been described with full topographical details in the Bhringish Samhita and the Amarnatha Mahatmya, both ancient texts said to have been composed even earlier.

References to Amarnath, known have also been made in historical chronicles like the Rajatarangini.

Several Western travellers’ accounts also leave no doubt about the fact that the holy cave has been known to people for centuries.

“The lake of dazzling whiteness [resembling] a sea of milk (Sheshnag), which he created [for himself as residence] on a far off mountain, is to the present day seen by the people on the pilgrimage to Amareshwara.”(Rajatarangini, Book I v. 267.Translation: M. A. Stein).

Rajatarangini (Book II v. 138): Kalhana says that King Samdhimat Aryaraja (34 BCE-17CE) used to spend “the most delightful Kashmir summer” in worshiping a linga formed of snow “in the regions above the forests”.

Chronicle of Kashmir, a sequel to Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, Jonaraja relates that that Sultan Zainu’l-abidin (1420-1470) paid a visit to the sacred tirtha of Amarnath while constructing a canal on the left bank of the river Lidder (vv.1232-1234).

The great Sikh Guru Arjan Dev granted land in Amritsar for the ceremonial departure of Chari, the holy mace of Lord Shiva which marks the beginning of the Yatra to the Holy Cave

Speaking of advantages Muslims enjoy in India :
There are multiple Haj Terminus and 16 embarkation points in the country
The Haj subsidy in 2006 was Rs.348 crore
The muslim pilgrim to Jeddah pays Rs.12,000 for a return ticket. The actual cost of the ticket is Rs. 46,000. The difference is funded by the Union Government
The Indian government has a Haj Office in the Indian Consulate in Jeddah, runs a hospital in Mecca and dispensaries in Mecca and Madinah, and sends doctors, nurses and para-medical staff to run these medical establishments during the pilgrimage
In addition, the Government has sanctioned eight ambulances and medicines for pilgrims who fall ill.
Though Jammu & Kashmir is one of the less-populated States in the country, it sent the fifth biggest contingent of pilgrims for Haj in 2006.
The Congress Government in Andhra Pradesh has taken this policy of minorityism a step further and announced subsidy for Christians who wish to visit Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus.

The Double standards in Indian policy :

However in India, Hindu pilgrims to the Amarnath Shrine do not qualify for grant of a few acres of land along the yatra route for provision of basic amenities.

The population of the Hindus may be 100 crore. But in India, Hindu pilgrims are not entitled to even 100 acres

The Kashmiri politicians claim that by allocating land to the Sri Amarnath Shrine Board, the State Government has harmed the cause of ‘Kashmiriyat’. What happened to the Kashmiriyat when hundreds of Hindus and Sikhs were killed in Valley and millions of Hindus and Sikhs were forced to leave the valley?

The whole world is aware of how Hindus were driven out of the Valley. Yet, we have this disgusting spectacle of politicians like Mr Omar Abdullah from the Valley stating publicly on television channels that they oppose the transfer of 100 acres to the Sri Amarnath Shrine Board because they fear that through the transfer of these few acres of land “the demographic character of Kashmir is being altered”.

Lastly :

If we lose this battle, we will lose the country to Islamic forces
Support the movement. Forward this presentation to all your friends and people you know.
Water , electricity , media , SMS all blocked in Jammu from 34 days as of 3rd August.
Minority Hindu refugees and locals dragged from homes and beaten mercilessly by Muslim fundamentalist Police force of JK.
Kuldeep Dogra who sacrificed his life not by killing others but by consuming VISH in front of Police against Land transfer was followed by arrest of 1500 people, Injuring of 700,seriously injured 475, 5 killed in Police Firing.

Myself is resident of Jammu and its very sad that nobody is addressing the real problem.First of all the current issue of Amarnath land has nothing to do with problem of Kashmir. It is just a token of all the the anger and dis-satisfaction over the treatment of Jammu people by Indian Government. Actually Jammu people and their wishes, their needs and their problems were never taken seriously by the Indian Government. From the last 60 years these people are suffering secondary status in their own state and they are standing for their rights and dignity and values like real democracy and secularism. And moreover the wish of only a few Kashmiri muslims can not considered as the wish of whole J&K. J&K is not the personal property of Kashmiri Muslim, it is equally owned by Dogras, Kashmiri Pandits, Sikhs and muslims living in Jammu.We cannot surrender to the demands made my separatist forces if we want to sand united. Today they are demanding tomorrow some other state will also demand. Think this way also………

Why go on debating. No countries other than Indian would tolerate what is happening in Kashmir. Look at how the Chinese protect their countries, look at how the Russians in Gerogia. I am sorry but the way India handles the Kashmir situation suggests they are one emasculated lot. No country in the world would tolerate 400,000 original inhabitants of Kashmir, the Pandits living there before there was a religion called Islam, become refugees in their own country. Until these 400,000 people regain their lands, there can be no justice.

With regard to Sandeep’s post, I do understand his arguments and there is some logic in that. I’m no supporter of the two nation theory. Despite all the religious and linguistic differences, the people of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have a shared history. And it is this shared political and cultural history that truly defines our nationhood. Jinnah’s argument that Muslims would be persecuted in an undivided India was, in my opinion, entirely unfounded. When you consider the total number of Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, you can see that there are around 900 million Hindus in India, around 150 million Muslims in India, 150 million Muslims in Pakistan and another 150 million Muslims in Bangladesh. So, totally, there would be a total of 450 million Muslims versus 900 million Hindus. 450 million Muslims is not what I would call a persecuted minority. It is simply too huge. Even though the total population at the time of independence was much lesser, I believe there was more or less a similar proportion of people in these communities. The partition was more of a product of the tug-of-war between the Congress and the Muslim League for share in power.

Moreover, according to historical records, what Jinnah wanted was not an Islamic state (as it is now) for Muslims in India, but more of a secular state with Muslim majority (like what India is now, that is, a secular state with Hindu majority). His speech in the Pakistani Constituent Assembly bears testimony to this fact.

Excerpts from his speech:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

“Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

The complete text of the speech can be found here : “http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legis lation/constituent_address_11aug1947.htm l”

A glance through many articles published in the “Dawn” newspaper (incidentally founded by Jinnah himself) shows that there are many in Pakistan who still debate whether Jinnah really wanted Pakistan to become an Islamic state, as it is now. I read the internet edition of “Dawn” (http://dawn.com/) often to understand the Pakistani perspective of these issues. I have seen that the press in Pakistan is surprisingly free (as free as the Indian press, at least), and it is mostly critical of the authorities and the legacy of many of Pakistan’s leaders (especially Zia-ul-Haq). But I admit that there are still many conservative elements in Pakistan who see everything Indian as undesirable. This has been the result of six decades of enmity and misinformation perpetrated by the authorities. The reports of incidents like the Ayodhya issue and the Gujarat riots of 2002 haven’t helped either. In fact, most Pakistanis now feel that Jinnah’s decision was correct, and that had they chosen to stay in India, they would have suffered a similar fate like the Muslims in Gujarat. Well, it is not entirely correct to point fingers at just the Pakistanis for this perception. We have more or less the same kind of Sangh Parivar extremists on our side of the border as well who have done more harm than good to the image of Hinduism.

But I do have a feeling that if there were no Kashmir issue, there wouldn’t have been so much of enmity between India and Pakistan, and that in due course relations would have normalized to such an extent that free trade and travel would have been possible between the two countries. Direct people-to-people contacts are a wonderful remedy in resolving such differences. The image that we have of Pakistanis in general is that of gun-trotting religious fundamentalists and the general Pakistani perception of Indians is one of Trishul wielding oppressors. Both perceptions are as ridiculous as the earlier Western perception of India as the land of snake-charmers.

But there is no point in crying over spilled milk. The partition is a reality and there is no chance of that being reversed any time soon. We need to respect the decision a people took over a land that they inhabited. All we can hope for is an eventual normalization of relations between the two countries. The partition was a great tragedy that could have been avoided if the leaders on both sides had shown a little more maturity, statesmanship and spirit of mutual accommodation. I would love to live in an India that would stretch from Bengal to Balochistan, because that is the real extent of India. Both Indians and Pakistanis lost more than people’s lives through partition. Many of India’s cultural and historical heritage now lie in Pakistan. The sites of the Indus Valley civilization, remains of the ancient university of Takshashila (Taxila) are now in Pakistan. Likewise, the Pakistanis have lost bulk of their Mughal heritage like the Taj Mahal to India. England and France were bitter rivals through most of their history, not the least because of the religious differences (Protestant vs Catholic). Are they at each other’s throat because of that now? Europeans have matured a lot since then. They have recognized that national boundaries are artificial ones created by mistrust. And they took a bold decision to form a Union despite all their linguistic differences and tumultuous history. I hope that Indians and Pakistanis too will one day recognize this and show a little more maturity in their relationships.

But the core issue in Kashmir is this: Do we have the moral right to deny the aspirations of a people if they do not wish to remain with us? Remember, we did not seek their permission when Kashmir was incorporated to India. Sandeep has asked another relevant question here. Does this mean that the same right must be given to the north-eastern states or other states who seek it? As far as the north-eastern states are concerned, these areas were never historically part of India. Assam might have been to an extent, but still was the easternmost outpost in a political sense. There were a few cultural influences. But that is all. It was the British who added these areas to British India and Independent India merely inherited them. They too have reasons to feel that they are not part of the Indian mainstream. They are of Mongoloid descent and speak Mongoloid languages, not Aryan or Dravidian. They feel that they are being routinely insulted and ridiculed by people from the Indian mainland (being called “Chinkies” by many of us) if they come to other parts of India for their livelihood.

Then what defines the mainstream or core India then? The core of India is what stretches from Himachal Pradesh and Punjab in the North to Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the South, Gujarat and Rajasthan in the West to Bihar and West Bengal in the East. People in these regions share strong cultural and historical links and have strong enough bonds to feel that they belong to one nation. I would have liked to include the regions of Pakistan too in this list, but our mistakes have resulted in history taking an unfortunate course. If you would ask for my opinion, I think North-Eastern regions (and Kashmir) should have been given a special status in the Union (like a Protectorate or Mandate) and a plebiscite conducted later on in these regions to decide their future. Instead, it was the act of forcefully assimilating these regions as states into the Union that has resulted in these tragedies.

But I do not think independence is something that is plausible for the northeastern states now. I think they know this all too well. If they do become independent, they wouldn’t be able to unite to form a single nation, considering the hostilities (tribal or otherwise) between these regions (like what exists between Manipur and Nagaland now). If they go separate ways, these small states would be unable to survive on their own, being sandwiched between India and Burma. From what I could understand about the reactions of these people to the concept of Indianness, I could see that they are far more enthusiastic than Kashmiris to remain with India if they are given the respect they deserve from the people of the mainland. I think an appropriate solution for these regions would be to create a separate council to administer these regions with greater autonomy and bring more industrial investments in these areas, so that they can live with self respect in this country rather than having to live like refugees here.

The overwhelming presence of our military in these areas and their behaviour to the locals is another problem. I still remember the photo that came in papers when Manipuri women protested in nude against the routine rape incidents perpetrated by our military. If these women are forced to bare themselves in front of the world to make their voices heard, we can imagine the scale of the problem created by our jawans. (Well, military in conflict zones are generally not known for their compassionate attitude considering the pressures they are in. So, this is not an isolated problem as well.) Or, consider the instance of the “Rage Boy” (Shakeel Bhat) in Kashmir who has been ridiculed over and over in Western and Indian press as a typical Islamic fundamentalist. I have seen many blogs and forums where unspeakable abuses have been showered on him by the Indian “patriots”. But, has anyone taken an effort to understand why he is at the forefront of the anti-India protests in Kashmir? During a raid on Shakeel’s home after the Kashmiri insurgency began, Indian police threw his sister Shareefa out of an upstairs window; she broke her spine and died from her injuries four years later. (Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-492864/The-surprising-truth-Rage -Boy-Americas-hated-poster-boy-Islamic-r adicalism.html) If this is really true, the Indian government owes him a big apology. Maybe he is illiterate and brainwashed. Still, does that justify what our troops did to him and his family? If your sister, brother or parents had suffered a similar fate, wouldn’t you react? Or would you keep chanting “Kashmir is an integral part of India and the Indian military are my friends and protectors” and remain a “law abiding citizen”?

I have no reasons to disbelieve that there are many, many like him in Kashmir and North-East who had to endure these because of our troops “fighting and dying to protect our national integrity”. (Or is integrity at any human cost is justifiable in a democracy? ) Only that can explain the level of their disillusionment with India.

Regarding Sandeep’s observations on the meaning of independence, what I feel is this: the first and foremost right on a land rests with its people. I have seen comments like “if Kashmir goes, how will Hindus go to Amaranath?”. Kashmir exists not for the sake of some Hindu pilgrims who goes to a cave to pray, it exists for the sake of a people who had been inhabiting this land for many hundreds of years. This is a basic principle that humans need to abide by. If you say that India’s actions on Kashmir is correct, so was Britain’s actions on India. Period. Both cases illustrate a situation where a people was subjugated against their will by outsiders using military force. The British too were perpetrating the belief (like us) that what they were doing were for the good of the Indian people (”White man’s burden”). I do not see any basic differences between the two cases.

All these finally boil down to the attitude of people like us who are comfortably sitting in our homes and passing judgement like God on a people fighting for their right to live with dignity and freedom.

I know that I would be accused of treason and cowardice by many of you for expressing these ideas. I have outlined what I felt to be the morally correct stand that India needs to adopt on the Kashmir issue. And I know that I am powerless to effect such a sea-change in the entrenched attitude of the Indian masses. But this is what I request everyone to think about for a moment:

1) Is it morally correct for us to subjugate a people who desire independence, against their will using military force in the name of national integrity?

2) Is it morally correct for us to decide what is right and what is wrong for a people, in a step-motherly fashion, and force that decision down their throats against their will?

If the answer for the above two questions are “Yes”, well, go ahead with what we are doing to them now.

If the answer is “No”, stop this now, let them choose their destiny, and leave them in peace.

Reading the media I find some of the BJP remarks to be imflamatory and irresponsible. A lot of their leaders seeming to be acting out of rage. Anyone from India got any insight into this?

The Indian army has a tough job as it is, hunting terrorist that infiltrate from Pakistan, they are acting tough.

Congress it seems are more responsible, they look for
a political situation.

I beleive India should persue also an economic solution.
A high speed rail link to srinagar from Delhi will make trade easier and enable the LOC to be a major trading post with Pakistan and China. This will boost the local and national economy.

Regarding my earlier post above, I think the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India is also, at the best, dubious. The agreement at the time of partition was that the fate of the princely states will be decided by their rulers. Additionally, the princely states would not be given a choice to join a country with which they did not have a contiguous border with. The rulers of Junagadh and Hyderabad were Muslim, but their subjects were overwhelmingly Hindu. Since they did not share a contiguous border with Pakistan, the rulers preferred independence. But India annexed the two regions as the people in these states revolted against their rulers. Nobody (not even Pakistan) questions that now, because that was the logical thing to do. The fate of a people must be decided by them, not their rulers. The Dogra king of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was in favour of independence, but was forced to sign the instrument of accession as the Indian government refused to defend him against the tribal invasion from Pakistan unless Kashmir joins India. India promised the King and Sheikh Abdullah (the leader of the main political party in Kashmir, the National Conference) that Kashmir would be given a special status in the Indian union with a large degree of autonomy (Article 370 of the Indian Constitution). Without a plebiscite being conducted, we cannot argue that this was in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. In any case, the Indian government never implemented Article 370 in its true spirit and started to rig the election results in the state so that only parties loyal to India would come to power there. This gave rise to a widespread feeling among Kashmiris that the Indian government was betraying them. It was such an incident of rigging that sparked the revolt in the late 1980s in the valley that runs unabated even now. (Even though there were definitely Pakistani insurgents involved in this, we cannot deny the fact that the original outbreak was largely spontaneous and of local origin). Also, when the Kashmir issue was brought to the UN in 1948, India promised that it would hold a plebiscite in Kashmir once the region annexed by Pakistan is given back. Although we can make a lame excuse that the plebiscite cannot be done until these preconditions are met, we still cannot ignore the fact the we are staking claim to a region without the approval of the vast majority of its inhabitants.

Also, I do not think that granting greater autonomy to Kashmir through Article 370 is a solution to this issue either. Why do we need a state which has its own (possibly draconian) laws and where Indian laws has no relevance? Do we need a state where we cannot visit freely or buy land and enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution? No. It wouldn’t be a good idea at all to have two classes of states in India. In the future, other states would demand similar powers, which would be a really BAD development.

In short, a plebiscite is the only way out. What I have written here would definitely appear unpatriotic to many. But, we cannot ignore a truth just because it is appears inconvenient to us.

The alienation of the Kashmiri people is a reality that we have to face. We do see demonstrations everywhere in India. People might chant slogans against a state government or the union government, a particular government policy or a political party, a person or a community.. pretty much about everything. But do these people ever chant slogans against the country? Do they ever burn our national flag? NEVER. Whatever grievances they might hold, they have no reason to do so, because they consider themselves INDIAN despite all the regional and linguistic differences. But such incidents happen in the Kashmir valley almost on a daily basis. Why? The answer is simple. Kashmiris do not consider themselves to be INDIAN. Period. They consider Indians as outsiders and our troops as occupiers. Then what business do we have their land? For whom are our troops dying for? Whom are they trying to protect? If Kashmiris do not want to be with us, why are we wasting so much of our scarce resources (human and material) in their name? Aren’t we doing the same thing to Kashmiris that the British did to us?

Rather than repeatedly chanting that “Kashmir is an integral part of India” time and again like religious fundamentalists (it is beginning to sound more and more hollow, as if trying to say that “Earth is still the center of the Universe”), lets be brave and face the facts. The European colonists never wanted to grant independence to their colonies. But they HAD to open their eyes to the reality that they cannot rule a people for eternity without their good will. People must have the right to decide their future, and they should be given the opportunity to do so. That is the essential principle of freedom and democracy, the ideals that we swear by. How can we deny this to a people and still say that we are democratic? We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite 60 years ago. Forget about the so called pre-conditions (like PoK needs to be included etc etc..), which we still claim is necessary for this. Lets do it in the regions in our control. Divide J&K into three - Hindu dominated regions of Jammu, Muslim dominated regions of Kashmir valley and Buddhist dominated regions of Ladakh. (Even Pakistan wouldn’t want Jammu and Ladakh. They know really well what they’ll have to deal with if they do so..) Lets call in the UN and other neutral international observers to conduct the plebiscite so that nobody can dispute its result (or point their fingers at us after this), and pull back our troops from these regions so that neutral UN peace keepers can maintain law and order.

In all probabilties, Jammu and Ladakh would vote to remain with India and become Union Territories. (The people in these regions have made this demand many times already). Kashmir would either vote for independence or join Pakistan. The international community (including Pakistan) and Kashmiris themselves will have to accept this result. Indian troops can reoccupy Jammu and Ladakh and induct them into the Union once again. Kashmiris can do whatever they like after this point. Its not our concern anymore. Even if there will ever be allegations of foul play from across the border on this issue again, the international community will have no choice but to stand by us.

If we do not do this anytime soon, we would lose all moral credibility as a democracy. For instance, what right do we have to raise voice against Chinese occupation of Tibet if we are doing more or less the same thing in Kashmir?

Detractors to this approach might argue that conducting a plebiscite in Kashmir would result in the disintegration of the country. This is downright ridiculous. Is a remote state in the North the only glue that keeps this country together? Have we no sense of nationhood? Don’t we have anything in common that binds us together? Will the people of Punjab or Kerala or Bengal stop considering themselves INDIAN if Kashmir leaves the union? If the bond between us are so weak as these people say, this nation has no right to exist after all.

Of course, the only other option will be to shut our eyes to the reality and hang on to this status quo. We may continue to send our soldiers to their death, trying to “protect” a people who are “not so enthusiastic” to be called as INDIAN.

So many mistakes (that were easily avoidable) were committed during the Nehruvian era. We are still paying the price for that. The reason that no Indian government or party is willing to consider a plebiscite is because they fear that it will invite the wrath of the public and adversely affect their future electoral prospects. But if the public opinion in India can be turned in favour of a plebiscite, they will be forced to do it.

Our country is not losing its “head” through this plebiscite. We are merely getting rid of a “tumour in its head” that has been ailing it for so long. If we are destined to part with Kashmir, lets do so in a civilized manner rather than make an unceremonious exit in the near future.

Losing Kashmir will only mean losing what is at best only a liability on the nation. Instead what we would gain in the process will not just be the more fruitful use of our human and material resources, but the good will and respect of the world community as well.

I am aghast by the thinking that Kashmiris have a right to vote on their self-determination. No other state has the right to do that.If they get the right to do that either they will join Pakistan or vote for an independent state. The are already protected by an illegal clause in the Indian constitution to keep the state a Muslim Majority.
The what will happen to original inhabitants the Kashmiri Pandits, the same as what happend to my ancestors from Sialkot, convert, get killed or leave for India. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. If anyone does not like living in a secular India, they are more than welcome to leave for greener pastures.