Discredited Interlocutors likely to pander to separatists
by Hari Om on 16 Sep 2011 28 Comments

“The interlocutors are discussing their proposals by taking into account ‘Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India in 1947, the 1952 Delhi Agreement, Sheikh-Indira accord of 1975 and Achievable Nationhood of People’s Conference chairman Sajjad Gani Lone. Obviously, all legal documents defining the Centre-State relations would be taken into account’. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir and the 1952 Agreement are the two most crucial legal documents on the issue.”

 

Who has made these suggestions? None other than interlocutors Dileep Padgaonkar and Radha Kumar, who were only recently severely criticized by a section of the media and patriotic Indians for their participation in the ISI-Ghulam Nabi Fai / Abdul Majeed Tramboo-sponsored anti-India seminars on Jammu & Kashmir in Washington D.C. and Brussels.

 

They expressed these views a week ago while reacting to a newspaper report that they might suggest pre-1953 position as a solution to the “Kashmir problem”. It is an altogether different story that these interlocutors are so shameless and thick-skinned that they continue to believe in views which, if accepted, would unsettle the settled in the state and accord legitimacy to the politics of secession, based on religion.

 

Acceptance of their views would automatically entail consolidation of the Kashmiri leadership’s hegemony over the unwilling and nationalist Jammu and Ladakh, as well as direct encouragement to the anti-India forces operating in different parts of the country, including the North East, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and so on. It appears that the formulations of the discredited interlocutors are getting support from certain elements in the political establishment, including Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram and others of his ilk. How else could Padgaonkar and Kumar express views which negate the Constitution of India and seek to reestablish a Kashmir Republic within the Indian Republic?

 

Padgaonkar and Kumar say that “they are discussing their proposals by taking into account Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India in 1947, the 1952 Delhi Agreement, Sheikh-Indira Accord of 1975 and Achievable Nationhood of People’s Conference chairman Sajjad Gani Lone”. This clearly indicates that they are basically depending upon the suggestions of and documents prepared by the Kashmiri leadership as well as certain ‘agreements’ which do not actually exist or which were implemented years back.

 

Take the Instrument of Accession: The Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947. The document signed by him was identical to that signed by 560-odd princely states, which had been prepared by the State Department of the Government of India. Under the Indian Independence Act of 1947, the princes alone had the authority to take a decision on the political future of their respective states. Besides, the Independence Act had nowhere suggested that the princes could remain independent of India and Pakistan. The Independence Act gave only two options: join the Indian Dominion or Pakistani Dominion taking into account the state’s contiguity.

 

The decision of Maharaja Hari Singh to join the Indian Dominion was as per the constitutional law on the subject and his decision was final and irrevocable. Hence, the issue of accession cannot be reopened by anyone, not even by the Prime Minister of India. Any attempt on the part of the Prime Minister or any other authority in the country would only provoke explosions of portentous dimensions in the country and result in the collapse of the Union Government. The Indian nation is not prepared to accept any such non-sense.

 

True, the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh said that the jurisdiction of the Indian Dominion over Jammu & Kashmir would be limited to defence, foreign affairs and communication. But this was true of all princely states that acceded to India; Jammu & Kashmir was no exception. The process of constitutional integration took place only after the Indian Constitution was framed and implemented in January 1950. Jammu & Kashmir, like all other princely states, was also brought under the jurisdiction of several Central laws.

 

The only difference was that Central laws were extended to the state with the concurrence of or on the demand of the state government. This methodology had been suggested by Article 370 of the Constitution, which accorded a special status to Jammu & Kashmir. This was an Article bad in law and spirit, and had been adopted by the Constituent Assembly much to chagrin of the Indian nation. The then Congress government had adopted this controversial, even separatist, Article to please Sheikh Abdullah of the Kashmir-based and essentially anti-Jammu and anti-Ladakh National Conference. However, Article 370 nowhere suggested that the Kashmiri leadership would have the power to review the issue of accession or obtain a dispensation outside the Indian Constitution.

 

Interlocutors Padgaonkar and Kumar emphatically say that the so-called 1952 Delhi Agreement, like the Instrument of Accession, is very “crucial”. But where is the Delhi Agreement? There exists no such agreement as the 1952 Delhi Agreement. They, like the misleading NC leaders, describe the incomplete negotiations between Nehru and Sheikh as “Delhi Agreement”. Agreement is something that is signed between the parties. There is nothing in the Parliament records and the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly records that remotely suggest that Nehru and Sheikh had signed a particular agreement.

 

What happened in 1952? Sheikh Abdullah challenged the Indian State. He revolted and used all kinds of invectives against the nation, expressing extreme views in RS Pura, Jammu. This threatening stance made Nehru summon Sheikh to Delhi and the result was negotiations on Centre-state relations. Both Nehru and Sheikh read out an identical statement in this regard in Parliament and the State Legislative Assembly, respectively. The negotiations remained inclusive as several issues needed further discussion.

 

There was, for example, no agreement on fundamental rights, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, nomenclature of the head of the state and head of the government and so on. And before they could reach a final understanding, the situation in the state turned extremely dangerous as Sheikh started hobnobbing with the United State and conspiring against India with a view to setting up a Switzerland-type independent Kashmir. It was in these circumstances that Nehru had him dismissed and arrested on August 9, 1953.

 

The interlocutors are probably unaware that in the early 1990s this writer had made a pledge that “he would write against New Delhi and in favour of the NC if the NC could oblige this writer by supplying to him a signed copy of the Delhi Agreement”. This commitment was made in the presence of all ministers, including Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, as also in the presence of all NC MLAs, MLCs and party ideologues, including M.Y. Taing, in Srinagar, at a two-day-long seminar on autonomy. The then Director Information (now Member of Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission) K.B. Jandial and Devendra Singh Rana, Political Advisor to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, were present. No one accepted the challenge.

 

Initially, Farooq Abdullah wanted to respond, but suddenly he changed his mind. Ultimately, Abdul Rahim Rather, present Finance Minister, came on the dais and acknowledged, “we agree with Prof Hari Om that there exists no signed agreement and that what actually happened in 1952 was that both Nehru and the Sheikh had made identical statements about the nature of negotiations which had taken place between the two leaders”.

 

Now this should clinch the issue and expose the ignorance-is-bliss of Padgaonkar and Kumar. They must immediately stop referring to the non-existent “Delhi Agreement” as their inaccurate and unwarranted statements are creating confusion among the people. They should realize that all their statements are based on heresy alone, and that their suggestions are strengthening public belief that they are dishonest and may undermine the Indian Constitution in a desperate bid to placate those whose single-point agenda is to ensure segregation of the state from the political and constitutional organization of India, create in the state a system of government as it exists in Islamic countries, and enslave the unwilling people of Jammu province and Ladakh region.

 

Padgaonkar and Radha would like to take into account the 1975 Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdullah Accord while preparing a roadmap for Jammu & Kashmir – one that would settle the so-called Kashmir issue on a permanent basis.

 

Obviously they know nothing about the implementation of the said Accord. The accord inter alia envisaged transfer of power from the Congress to Sheikh Abdullah and empowered the Sheikh to review the Central laws extended to the state after August 9, 1953 to find if any Central law had eroded the autonomy granted to the state under Article 370, subject to certain conditions, including the condition that the process of constitutional integration with India initiated between 1953 and 1974 shall not be reversed and that the nomenclature of the head of state (Governor) and head of government (Chief Minister) shall not be changed. The conditions were unambiguous. The Sheikh, who was dying for power, accepted all conditions, without any exception.

 

As the Accord envisaged transfer of power from Congress to Sheikh Abdullah, Indira Gandhi made the Sheikh chief minister in February 1975. He was not a member of the legislative assembly or legislative council at that time. Moreover, his dissolved Plebiscite Front did not have a single legislator in the state legislature. The Sheikh had dissolved his Plebiscite Front and revived the National Conference for the sake of personal power and profit.

 

After recapturing power to the chagrin of the local Congress leadership, Sheikh appointed a three-member high power cabinet sub-committee to examine the Central laws and suggest withdrawal of laws which the committee may consider harmful for the state and its people. Initially the committee was headed by his close associate and then revenue minister Afzal Beg. But as relations between Sheikh and Beg, who was the main architect of the Accord, became strained, Sheikh threw Beg out of the party and the government. Beg was replaced by then Deputy Chief Minister D.D. Thakur. Other members of the committee were cabinet ministers G.M Shah, who also happened to be Sheikh’s son-in-law, and G.M. Kochak.

 

The three-member cabinet sub-committee produced two contradictory reports. One from Thakur said “the needles of the clock could not be turned back as the extension of the Central laws had benefited the state and its people.” The other report was from Shah and Kochak. It suggested wholesale withdrawal of Central laws saying, “extension of the Central laws had eroded the autonomy the state used to enjoy before August 1953”.

 

The interlocutors would be shocked to know that Sheikh had accepted the Thakur report in full and rejected outright the second report. Sheikh Abdullah not only accepted Thakur’s recommendations, but allowed New Delhi to bring the state under the ambit of more Central laws.

 

When his son, Dr Farooq Abdullah, became Chief Minister in 1982, he too allowed New Delhi to extend more Central laws to the state. And Farooq Abdullah was the first Chief Minister to adopt and ruthlessly implement TADA. At least 18 new Central laws were implemented in the state during the regimes of the Sheikh and his son.

 

This is the story of the 1975 Accord – it was implemented in letter and spirit in 1975. Do the interlocutors want to re-implement the already implemented Accord?

 

The real question is: How could the interlocutors suggest a revisit to 1975? Don’t they know that the National Conference is already in the driver’s seat in Jammu & Kashmir with Congress content with its eternal role as B-team of the former? The interlocutors must understand that Congress has no role to play in the state except to religiously follow the NC diktat.

 

Still, the insistence of Padgaonkar and Kumar to study and take into account the basics of the Instrument of Accession, the so-called Delhi Agreement and the 1975 Accord, can be explained as background study. But one feels aghast when they announce they would also study Kashmiri separatist Sajjad Gani Lone’s book Achievable Nationhood. This is an out-and-out anti-India book. This crosses all limits by giving legitimacy to Lone and what he advocated in his book of December 2006; the interlocutors have exposed themselves and their credentials, which were already doubtful.

 

It may be appropriate to quote from page No. 147 of the book, to inform concerned citizens about what Lone stands for:

 

-       “The word sentiment and aspirations have become a byword to define the concept of eternal political salvation for the people of Jammu & Kashmir. Sentiment embodies the concept of right to self-determination and the aspirations for an independent homeland (read independence from India). The average psyche in Jammu & Kashmir is obsessed with a sentiment wherein the political aspirations are not in consonance with their present political arrangement (read Accession of the State to India). The mindset seems to be conditioned to refuse the finality of the present political arrangement”.

 

-       “Sentiment is not a unanimous concept in Jammu & Kashmir. There is a variance. The majority (read Kashmiri Sunnis who constitute only 22 per cent of the state’s population as all others, barring few disgruntled and communal elements, are for India) sentiment in Jammu & Kashmir is for an independent homeland. Adherents of ideology of accession to Pakistan and accession to India represent the minority strands of the sentiment.”

 

-       “Despite the apparent lack of scope for the realization of the majority sentiment, it is essential to explicitly state the prevalent majority sentiment of independent homeland. The majority sentiment should be the reference point for the solution (read imposition of the separatist and communal will of the all-powerful, exceptionally prosperous and well entrenched Kashmiri Sunnis on the unwilling people of Jammu and Ladakh and other communities like the displaced Kashmiri Hindus, Shiite Muslims, Gujjar and Bakerwal Muslims and several other religious and ethnic minorities in the state). If we want to cater to the sentiment partly or wholly, acknowledging the majority sentiment and reflecting the variance in the sentiment would be a part of the process. It is important to understand that the success of the solution lies not only in solution reflecting the majority sentiment but also how explicitly the solution is perceived as reflecting the majority sentiment.”

 

It is hardly necessary to explain the implications of what Sajjad has written. Suffice it to say that Sajjad is as communal as any other Kashmiri leader, and he wants another communal partition to satisfy his communal urges. His whole concept is based on the pernicious two-nation theory and his only wish is to create a homeland in which Kashmiri Sunnis would be the chief determinants and all others irrelevant and unworthy of any consideration whatever.

 

Do the interlocutors really wish to take into account these outrageous, divisive and communal suggestions? If one goes by what they told The Hindustan Times a week ago, then, yes, one can say that the interlocutors might go beyond the Indian Constitution to satisfy the Kashmiri leaders and their separatist urges.

 

One thing is certain. The interlocutors would provoke explosions in Jammu and Ladakh if they come out with a report suggesting weakening of ties between the State and New Delhi and imposing the will of Kashmiri Sunnis on other groups.

 

The interlocutors would do well to take these realities into account and abandon the path they are currently treading. This is the best course for them. This should also be conveyed to Dr Manmohan Singh and his cabinet colleagues who are also muddying the waters in the state by entrusting the discredited Dilip Padgaonkar and Radha Kumar with the responsibility of finding a solution to the so-called Kashmir problem.

 

The problem is only in the imagination of those who refuse to settle down as good citizens. There should be on Open Door Exit Policy for them.

 

The author is former Chair Professor, Maharaja Gulab Singh Chair, University of Jammu, Jammu, & former member Indian Council of Historical Research 

User Comments Post a Comment
Professor sahib,once again you are saying things that makes makes you look in the range of mediocrity (which makes some readers angry here).The Indian claim (which you are referring to) of the agreement of accession is full of deceit,Inaccuracy of Indian claim of accession can be judged from the top-secret letter addressed to British Government by Mr Alexander Symon, UK High Commissioner to India. In this letter, he briefly described the events until 4.00 P.M on October 1947, as; ten Indian aircrafts loaded with arms and troops were despatched to Kashmir from New Delhi on the morning of 27 October 1947. Until 4 P.M of 27 October 1947, Mr V.P. Menon has not reported from Jammu, which mean accession documents were either not signed or signed by Hari Singh on 27 October 1947, and there were only rumours of Kashmir accession to Indian Union without any confirmation.Indian antagonistic approach can be imagined from the fact that Kashmiri Administration had requested for a Standstill Agreement with both India and Pakistan. Pakistan, however, accepted this offer but India owing to its pre-planned evil designs did not accept it. Instead of accepting it, India started interference in state’s affair through leaders like Sheikh Abdullah. Finally, they paved the way for illegal interference in the state’s affair through military invasion by her forces in October 1947.From July to October 1947, with the connivance of Indian leaders like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Patel, and V.P Menon, three Kashmiri Prime Ministers were changed one after the other. Pandit Kak, the State’s Prime Minister, was indeed favouring state’s accession to Pakistan or to keep it independent. He was a strong opponent of states accession to India, in spite of being a Hindu Pandit. Mahajan, who replaced Pandit Kak as new Prime Minister was a non-Kashmiri. He was a Judge of East Punjab High Court and has been the member of Radcliff Award, and hence a party to giving away the Muslim majority areas of Gurdaspur to India. He was very close to the top Indian leadership. To get him appointed as a Prime Minister of the state was through a planned strategy to force Maharaja from all around for surrendering to Indian Union.In the light of the above-mentioned facts it can be very conveniently said that the Indian claim over the state of Jammu and Kashmir is completely illegitimate and unsubstantiated. India is negating its own commitment with Kashmiris, Pakistan and world community. Indian leadership should realize this and adopt a realistic approach for the solution of this outstanding issue as a goodwill gesture. Let UNO settle it under its auspices through plebiscite as per its resolutions.
observer
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
Kashmir is not negotiable. Put this UPA backed anti-national interlocutors behind bars. Enough.
Pratap Mohanty
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
Kashmir "never " was negotiable...........why don't you get this?
observer
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
Observer -- is the Islamic world happy with the way UN is settling things in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan -- earlier Indonesia, Bosnia, Sudan? You will be SLAVES of the white christian world forever if you don't get out of the box...
Mrityunjaya
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
I am curious to know the authority for observer's claim of RC Kak "favouring state’s accession to Pakistan". Readers will do well to recall the recent Wikileaks exposure of Kashmiri leaders themselves noting that "Kashmir is a money game". The "interlocutors" are neither independent observers nor working for charity - even the official compensation to them for their report is very generous. It is unsurprising they are giving their patrons value for that money.
Krishen Kak
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India. Now that both India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons potential, the possibility of a third war between them over Kashmir, which may involve the use of nuclear weapons, cannot be ruled out.. Such an intervention is urgently required to put an end to Indian atrocities in Occupied Kashmir and prepare the ground for the implementation of UN resolutions, which call for the holding of a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Cause of the Kashmir dispute :-
India’s forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 is the main cause of the dispute. India claims to have ‘signed’ a controversial document, the Instrument of Accession, on 26 October 1947 with the Maharaja of Kashmir, in which the Maharaja obtained India’s military help against popular insurgency. The people of Kashmir and Pakistan do not accept the Indian claim. There are doubts about the very existence of the Instrument of Accession. The United Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. Except India, the entire world community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian subcontinent was partitioned by the British in 1947 justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: the State had majority Muslim population, and it not only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan but also had essential economic linkages with the territories constituting Pakistan.
Nehru’s betrayal :-
India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a pledge to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the resolutions. The sole criteria to settle the issue, he said, would be the “wishes of the Kashmir people”. A pledge that Prime Minister Nehru started violating soon after the UN resolutions were passed. The Article 370, which gave ‘special status’ to ‘Jammu and Kashmir’, was inserted in the Indian constitution. The ‘Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly’ was created on 5 November 1951. Prime minister Nehru also signed the Delhi Agreement with the then ‘ruler’ of the disputed State, Sheikh Abdullah, which incorporated Article 370. In 1957, the disputed State was incorporated into the Indian Union under a new Constitution. This was done in direct contravention of resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP and the conditions of the controversial Instrument of Accession. The puppet ‘State’ government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed rushed through the constitutional provision and the people of Kashmir were not consulted.
In 1965, India and Pakistan once again went to war over Kashmir. A cease-fire was established in September 1965. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bhadur Shastri and Pakistani president Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Declaration on 1 January 1966. They resolved to try to end the dispute by peaceful means. Although Kashmir was not the cause of 1971 war between the two countries, a limited war did occur on the Kashmir front in December 1971. The 1971 war was followed by the signing of the Simla Accord, under which India and Pakistan are obliged to resolve the dispute through bilateral talks. Until the early 1997, India never bothered to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan even bilaterally. But soon after the talks, India backtracked from the agreement, the same way as Prime Minister Nehru had done back in the 1950s by violating his own pledge regarding the implementation of UN resolutions seeking Kashmir settlement according to, as Mr. Nehru himself described, “the wishes of the Kashmiri people.” To crush the Kashmiri freedom movement, India has employed various means of state terrorism, including a number of draconian laws, massive counter-insurgency operations, and other oppressive measures. The draconian laws, besides several others, include the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), 1990; the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (amended in 1990); and the Jammu & Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, 1990.
These resolutions recommend demilitarization of Kashmir (through withdrawal of all outside forces), followed immediately by a plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the future status of Kashmir. The intervention of the international community is all the more necessary, given the consistent Indian opposition to both bilateral and multilateral options to settle the Kashmir issue. Such an intervention is also urgently required to stop the ever-growing Indian brutalities against the innocent Muslim people of Kashmir, who have been long denied their just right to self-determination.
Averting a Nuclear Disaster:-
If the world community failed to realize the gravity of the Kashmir problem now, there is the very likelihood of Kashmir once again becoming the cause of another war between India and Pakistan. And, since both the countries have acquired overt nuclear weapons potential, and since India led by Hindu nationalists has clearly shown its aggressive intentions towards Kashmir after declaring itself a nuclear state, a third India-Pakistan war over Kashmir is a possibility, a war that may result in a South Asian nuclear catastrophe. The world community, therefore, has all the reasons for settling Kashmir, the core unresolved political dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi.
Like many other international disputes, the Kashmir issue remained a victim of world power politics during the Cold War period. When the dispute was first brought to the UN, the Security Council, with a firm backing of the United Sates, stressed the settlement of the issue through plebiscite. Initially, the Soviet Union did not dissent from it. Later, however, because of its ideological rivalry with the United States, it blocked every Resolution of the UN Security Council calling for implementation of the settlement plan. In the post-Cold War period—when cooperation not conflict is the fast emerging norm of international politics, a factor that has helped resolve some other regional disputes—the absence of any credible international mediation on Kashmir contradicts the very spirit of the times. An India-Pakistan nuclear war over Kashmir? Or a settlement of the Kashmir issue, which may eventually pave the way for setting up a credible global nuclear arms control and non-proliferation regimes? The choice is with the world community, especially the principal players of the international system.
khan Sahib
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
Padgaonkar was essentially working for district-level newspapers before the Slimes of India tossed him a bone: Editorship of the Slimes.
His main attributes at that time were moderate " intellectual" pretensions, a pliant outlook and poor English.
Gurdjieff was probably the first to write about journalists a 100 years ago: he characterized them as unreliable, pretentious scum.
What are qualifications of their ilk, on public display today, in all the English TV channels and English newspapers? Just flip channels to watch Marathi or Hindi debates: they are so much more civilized, better informed and expansive.
seadog4227
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
The writer par-excellence on JNK was Arvind Lavakare: everypoint raised by the jihadi scum visiting this site was effectively rebutted and their lies exposed. Some of his articles are still available on rediff.com but the main site, cifjkindia.org, unfortunately, is no longer available.
seadog4227
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
Kashmir has belonged to India since ancient times. Readers will do well to read a historical records from the book titled 'Ran Tarangini', containing the history of Kashmir for last 4000 years.
Kashmir was never an international issue during british rule. It was Mr. Nehru (so-called Bharat Bhagya-vidhata), who under the 'guidance' of Mr. Mountbatten made it unnecessarily an international issue by taking it to UN.
However, we Indians know in out heart, that Kashmir belongs to India. Govt of India should appoint interlocutors, whi will look into rehabilitating about 4 lacks kashmiri Pandits back in the valley, who were kicked out from their native place, in independent India and are currently living refugee life.
Jyoti Jape
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
Citing legaity and reality to the Islamists who want to steal J&K from India by hook or by crook is truly like trying to straighten a dog's tail. Padgaonkar and Radha Kumar have sold their intellect and souls to those Kashmiris who want to snatch J&K from India. However, those ignorant of facts should note that the famous UN Resolution of April 21, 1948 had said that the plebiscite in J&K was to take place only after fulfilment of certain conditions. One of these was as follows:
1. Quote "The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:
(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State" Unquote

Because Pakistan has not complied with that UN condition for half a century, no plebsicite was possible. In sheer disgust, the UN itself declared, a few years ago that the Kasmir issue had ceased to exist in the UN.\ agenda.
Arvind Lavakare
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
For 60+ years we have all heard the rhetoric that Kashmir is an integral part of India–yet six decades later, hoisting the Indian flag on government buildings in Kashmir is tantamount to igniting the Chanars on fire. Even the puppet Chief Minister who is a STOOGE of Congress (and has no following in Kashmir) told BJP not to hoist the Indian flags on government buildings in Kashmir.The BJP was bent upon putting the flags up–probably tired of watching the entire valley put of Pakistani flags on August 14th (Pakistan‘s independence day) and black flags on August 15th (India’s independence Day).Shouldn't these events be enough to open the eyes of all those who still are in denial or are they waiting for an Armageddon?
observer
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
It is not Indians but the Paki jihadi 'observer' and his ilk that are in denial. Let alone Kashmir, does he and other jihadis not know that Pakistan itself is nothing but occupied India which we are duty-bound to liberate sooner or later? The Hindu civilization, the world's oldest and greatest, was born on the banks of the river Sindhu (not Indus, please). So this river has to flow through united India, today or tomorrow. Even Afghanistan (called Gandhara in the Mahabharatham) is part of India.
Indira Oorath
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
Sooner India gives back Kashmir to the original owners i.e. Pakistan better the chance for India to survive as a country. The talk of occupied India which we are duty-bound to liberate sooner or later is a bad joke. You claim the Hindu civilization, the world's oldest and greatest, was born on the banks of the river Sindhu. The Muslims ruled your glorious India for 1000 years gave you new improved religion, culture & showed you to cover your naked bodies with clothes. India should give itself back to the Pakistani Muslims “the original owners” & stop dreaming about your Akund Bharat.
Khan Sahib
September 16, 2011
Report Abuse
The original owners of the Indian sub-continent are the Hindus, not the Muslims who are descendants of Arab desert raiders. Don't worry about India's survival, just take care of Pakistan which split once in 1971 and is set to split again sooner or later, thanks to the jihadis whose bombs are going off every alternate day. The Muslims never ruled India, they only occupied some parts of India. I have read the Koran. We all know your 'culture'. Did Hindus walk around naked before the unspeakable fiends invaded their sacred land? Don't you know, jihadi, that Hindu India weaved the finest of cottons and silks and exported them all over the world when your ancestors went around in sheepskins? Whom are you trying to fool except yourself? So, stop thinking about taking Kashmir by force or fraud. You may lose even what little you have now.
Indira Oorath
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
According to historians the arab world was last peaceful 1400 years ago and later the whole world is under turmoil as well . Who could be blamed for it ? Any guess ?
athreya
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
India-An Artificial Federation:
For your information Ms. Oorath
India was never one country but a patchwork of
alliances, deceitful conspiracies, shifting loyalties,
loose associations, and constant rebellions against the
center. Even the mighty Mughal armies could not
control the entire territory: If they quelled a rebellion
in the West, trouble would start brewing in the East; if
they crushed an aggressive potentate in the North, the
South would be in revolt.

Today history is being repeated. India inebriated by a
meager success on economic and diplomatic level is
blind to the real self-portrait of caste-infested penury
leading towards Balkanization.

India as a single country is a misnomer and history
proves this assertion. Many think of India as a
monolith state. In actual fact, there were more than
570 independent states before
Lord Clive entered Calcutta. Even during the
Company Raj (Plassy to War of Independence) the
East India Company controlled a small portion of the
territory (1176-1857). When the Crown formally took
over South Asia after the Company had almost lost the
War of Independence (Great Indian Mutiny), it
controlled only about 40% of the region. The rest of
the area was ruled by princes, potentates, rajas, kings,
badshahs—who possessed varying degrees of
sovereignty and independence. Some of the larger
states were very independent; for example,
Hyderabad was a country by itself, and Bhopal and
Kashmir were also not ruled by Delhi.

The British conquered various kingdoms in the Indian
subcontinent one by one. Then, for ease in
administering (ruling) the conquered territories, the
British set up an administrative unit called India. A
country or administrative unit called India (or by any
other name), comprising of the current territories of
India, never existed in all known history before the
British conquest and consolidation.

India, as a country, by any name, never existed before
the British colonial rule, despite the oft-repeated false
propaganda of the long history about the unity of
India.
Now once again most of the Indian states, which were
once ruled over by different rulers, want to be
independent; this has resulted in over 100
insurgencies going on in India. The nations in East
Punjab, Kashmir, the Seven Sister states of the
Northeast, the Naxalites and Nagaland do not want to
be part of India. Chennai and Tamil Nadu are more
concerned with the Tamilian brothers of Sri Lanka
and of Bangalore. The Seven Sister states of the
Northeast consider themselves as colonies under the
military rule of Delhi, and guerilla war is going on in
all of them. Kashmir has been in turmoil for 25 years,
crying for freedom or better autonomy, and in many
central states the Maoist-Naxalite, guerilla wars have
been going on for decades.
khan Sahib
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
""The Muslims never ruled India""......wow!that's a new one for me.My dear, just step out in your balcony and look up to your city's sky line (for that matter any Indian city),the minarets and 5 times call for prayers should tell you something,if that is still not satisfying your curiosity then just drive around in your city you will find scores of monuments that will tell you who has been there,and did that!
observer
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
The Muslim occupation of India faced innumerable rebellions all over the country by the brave Sikhs of Punjab, the Dogras of Jammu, the Rajputs of Rajasthan, the Marathas of Maharashtra, the Vijayanagar kingdom and numerous other Hindu rulers as a result of which the decrepit and cruel Mughal rule collapsed in the 18the century. Don't teach us history, jihadi. Maharajah Ranjit Singh of Punjab even conquered wretched Afghanistan.
As for Muslim monuments, I never saw a single one in my native Kerala!
Indira Oorath
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
Kashmir is a Hindu state since time immemorial. It was invaded by Muslim invaders and occupied by them. Hindu raja was king of Kashmir till its merger with India in 1948 when he signed deed of accession. So where does any contradiction arise. Even if it was a Muslim majority it does not allow them any right to ask for freedom as India is the 2nd Muslim majority country in world and Kashmir is not only J&K.Jammu is also part of it which is Hindu majority and Laddakh and leh are buddhist majority areas.. They were never neglected and all these years see proper election to the state and it is integrated with Indian federation. But Pakistan based terrorists and ISI are trying to secede Kashmir from India. they want to break India into pieces as they want to avenge their secession of Bangladesh. Also china is a partner in their conspiracy. It is provoking them with all the arms supplies and nuclear help. it is the duty of Indian govt to declare emergency in kashmir,arrest all the secessionists,hurriyats and criminals, close the borders with pok and pak.handover the areas under “disturbed areas act” to army and allow normal life. there is no soft option. We have to remove a nail by a nail. We cannot get what our pm declares that talk will endure, but what would be agenda of that talk when they declare that they donot want to talk beyond their demand of azadi. Let the govt forget about talk and enforce internal emergency in Kashmir. What plebiscite these Pakistanis talk about? It is simply a talk of madness.
When the state has conducted several elections from 1948 every five year to assembly and parliament and they vote for their own govt, why there is any contradiction and predicament. The people had accepted India as their home land except a few anti India and Pakistan sponsored terrorists and isi agents. We have seen the hospitality of Kashmir people when we goes to that part of the country and also the yatra to amarnath.but these people brainwashed by Pakistani jihad elements never understand that all is not well in Pakistan and their demand for inclusion with Pakistan is dangerous for them.india is one democratic country and it is working for the betterment of teh people in kashmir.but the same forces who want to balkanize India sowed the seeds of hatred in the minds of some youths and kids. Kids are being paid to throw stones to forces. They want that they would equal in targeting Indian forces as the Palestine forces targeting Israel forces and it is called intifada. So it is nothing but one dangerous game in which the poor and innocents are being grinded. We hope the sane voice of all party team would culminate a new era of happiness and intelligence among the residents of Kashmir .if it would fail then it would be too traumatic for them and also the govt may not be able to salvage the situation and army may be handed over the full control with emergency and blockades.
muslimbhagawat
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
Kashmir is an integral part of India and sooner or later the occupied part will be liberated. The fantasy of the Muslim fundamentalists and fanatics is never going to be reality and this is irrespective of any idiotic interlocutor group.
Kishore
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
Thanks Mr. Arvind Lavakare, for clarifying the conditions stipulated in UN resolution of 1948.

I would also like to thank Indira Oorath for persistent arguments in support of hindu community.
Jyoti Jape
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
Kashmir is Pakistani territory. Manvadar is Pakistani territory and Junagarh is Pakistani territory. Half of Kashmir has been liberated, but the other half is still occupied. Manvadar and Junagarh is still occupied and not to forget the illegal occupation of the Independent state of Hyderabad!There has been a lot of activity on discussing Kashmir. However there has been little progress.Most Pakistanis know that Kashmir and Junagarh is Pakistani territory. There is a huge contraversy on the Article of Accession. Recently the grand daughter of Shaikh Abdullah described the AOA as "provisional". Many Pakistanis and world historians have gone further and do not accept the notion that any such document exists.Kashmiri Letter of Accession has never been shown to Pakistan or the UN, is lost, as if it "ever" existed. Kashmiris have lost 60,000+ lives (the mass graves which are being found) are just few examples of the for ”tehrik e ilhaq e Pakistan“. Ladakh now is a Muslim majority area. Why dodn’t you go there? The people of Srinagar are under occupation, under threat of rape, killing, and forced deportation. How can a person with a knife on his/her head be able to tell the truth? They are not free to say what they want to Indian newspapers. Taking a poll in occupied Paris (by German Nazis,now just change the names/places) would have shown similar results.According to the “1946 Act of Independence”, the more than 500 states had only two choices, either join India or join Pakistan. There was no third choice. Hyderabad tried to exercise the third choice, and faced Indian Police action and elimination. Manavadar and Junagarh acceded to Pakistan, but Indian forces occupied them. No matter how hard India tries to put up this smoke and mirror gimmicks it can never suppress the Kashmiri ambition to become Pakistan.........period!It is only delaying the inevitable.
observer
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
The Kashmir issue is merely an excuse for Pakistan to continue its jihad against civilized Hindu-majority India. Even if this Kashmir dispute was not there, Paki jihad would have continued. Only, the excuse would be different. The civilized world must call Pakistan's bluff. That is imperative today because Pakistan has become the world's fulcrum of terror inspired by the Arab desert religion.
Indira Oorath
September 17, 2011
Report Abuse
Islamist observer should Google this : Dengue alarm: Pakistan begs for Indian medicine .
cynical observer
September 18, 2011
Report Abuse
OK,lets settle the Kashmir issue first according to the wishes of Kashmiri people then we will see if your argument holds ground or not.
observer
September 18, 2011
Report Abuse
It appears the editors here have chosen the path of Bhishma after choosing to delete my comment highlighting the disgusting language employed by the lecherous observer towards ms. Oorath in the preceding article by merely editing it out with more jihadi drivel...for shame. The editors would do well to remember that Bhishma was on the wrong side of the mahayudh instead of permitting more nonsensical ranting about junagadh--a Hindu majority state like Hyderabad. If observer had any brains, he would realize that Pakistan itself broke the gentleman's agreement when it accepted junagadhs accession. According to the gentleman's agreement, where accession contradicts majority, a plebiscite must take place. So if pakistanis were really people of principle, they would have asked for plebiscites there as well, but they did not. So how humorous that these fools bray about the vey principles they themselves have broken...no wonder they are the world's MOST despised people...
Nagabhatta I
September 18, 2011
Report Abuse
I wonder why some lines of my original post on 17 Sept, have been deleted. When the editor seems to have no problem with the blatantly false, fictional, fanatical and even offending gibberish routinely pushed by the likes of one Observer ( even a respectable writer like Ms Indira Oorath was not spared!), what is the problem with my lines? Of course the editor’s decision is final. But doesn’t it smack of the same pseudo secular mindset that writers of this forum often criticize?
Kishore
September 18, 2011
Report Abuse
I would expect the Editor to do justice to Kishore's complain. I read his
original "comment" last night. It had nothing offensive to deserve editorial intervention. Thanks.
Pratap Mohanty
September 18, 2011
Report Abuse