tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3543929200177417950.post6660924938458029639..comments2013-04-21T03:30:52.521-07:00Comments on Controversial: Elections to wash the "June-Sin"Saptarshi Banerjeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12030955053607089326noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3543929200177417950.post-46146953446987661412010-08-31T07:39:01.861-07:002010-08-31T07:39:01.861-07:00First of all I agree that unwarranted killings and...First of all I agree that unwarranted killings and shootings should be stopped. But it's naive at best (and foolish at worst) to believe that life is as easy as the prima facie representation of facts by EITHER side. But four things first - <br /><br />a) The Prime Minister can't make statements without ascertaining facts. He obviously knew about this and chose to not convey anything until he was clear on all the facts on the ground. This might seem like a stupid thing to do given the deaths and protests in the valley, but his support doesn't just extend to the people, but also the armed forced. He can't make blanket statement blaming people.<br /><br />b)The deaths are a concatenation of a myriad circumstances. The situation is volatile, you can't differentiate between a harmless protester and a suicide bomber/terrorist. Which means, the CRPF/Army/Paramilitary forces are given some lee way. Obviously some people are taking advantage of this and abusing their authority and certainly they should be bought into the purview of justice, but random baying for blood isn't a solution either.<br /><br />c) Kashmir is volatile. They're going to protest no matter what, no thanks to a whole bunch of influences making them do so. They won't stop. If protest are violent, the state will be too. You cant' stop that.<br /><br />d) The solution that the PM proposed is obviously a middle path. There is no other solution that addresses both sides. And since you have no offered any, I'm assuming that you agree with what he said. Sure some people were killed. STOP them from getting killed, don't criticize the idea without reason.<br /><br />Lastly, The question of right to Self Determination of Kashmir is a specious one, especially with respect to independence. A general reading would allow for requirements of statehood to be present before considering nationhood. But I think Self-Determination CAN be had by self-governance and grass-root level participation by the Kashmiris.<br /><br />THAT is the way ahead. And that's EXACTLY what the Prime Minister is doing. I think he's done the best he could in the given situation.Prasad Subramanyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770818323528086505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3543929200177417950.post-10703550206383016682010-08-11T07:30:09.412-07:002010-08-11T07:30:09.412-07:00You have written briefly but incisively. If I may ...You have written briefly but incisively. If I may add my humble bit, the inherent double standards of the Indian government, since independence regarding J&K requires to be revisited, however briefly. India has always upheld self determination by the populace rather than the ruler, and this was what it used in Nizam's Hyderabad, and other princely states where there was a Hindu majority population but a Muslim ruler. In case of J&K, the price that India and to be fair, Mountbatten asked for helping beleaguered Maharaja Hari Singh, in face of "insurgent tribals" (read Pakistani forces disguised as civilians) overrunning the valley, was a signature by Hari Singh on the instrument of accession. There were legal justifications: such as how could India send armed forces into a Princely State if it was not for self defence (of India's own territory) since until the Chinese invasion Nehru's stand was that India will not fight any war of aggression. However this seems specious. 63 years down the line, we are still trying to survive Nehru's and Patel's disastrous decision. Nehru, as was usual with him, had second thoughts. Thus the promise on media to have a UN brokered Plebiscite, which we have always tried to live down ever since. Why?<br />Because we as Indians are aware deep down, that the people of J&K may not like to be Pakistani, bu they do not consider themselves to be Indians either. They are entitled to self determination just as Bangladesh was. Just as those in erstwhile Hyderabad were.<br />India has to face this, and face this without making political brownie points.Madame Sosostrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10649111319123860140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3543929200177417950.post-57899327681540617532010-08-10T12:00:33.497-07:002010-08-10T12:00:33.497-07:00U inspire me Saptarishi :)
Writin about any rando...U inspire me Saptarishi :)<br /><br />Writin about any random topic is easy...such sensitive topic takes a lot more.<br /><br />Valley is a very sensitive yet ignored area, my brother was posted around dat area, rather in a more war prone area, he told me people their have no faith in government, i see no fault of theirs.<br /><br />Neither early elections nor withdrawing the inhumane army would do any good, the next one to be posted wont be angel from heaven.<br /><br />Resurrection of Kashmiri's now i think is not under govt. control, after so much suffrage they have lost trust.<br /><br />Facts are disheartening, & worse is that these facts are in record, many such cases have gone unnoticed. <br /><br />Expecting some "real" course of action by the next govt is like expecting Sun to rise from west.<br /><br />It feels pathetic to be living is such "democracy".Bhargavi Kashyaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05066318393647542316noreply@blogger.com