Led Zeppelin - Kashmir

By the way, were Pakistan and India united under British rule?  And if so, how did that work?

Well,

That didn't go well too. You know what they say "If you can't beat them. Join them." The British took over everything and Muslims and Hindus had no choice to join together and start the "Revolution of Independence" against the British which was successful and after about a hundred year the British decided to leave.

But before the partition Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (The founder of Pakistan) proposed to live together with the Hindus and Mr. Nehru presented his report known as the "Nehru Report" to the British how the rule should be transferred to the people of Subcontinent. That report was an attempt to serve Hindu predominance over Muslims. Mr. Jinnah presented his famous 14 points which fairly secured the interests of Muslims but it didn't go well with the Hindus and thus it became clear that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and can't coexist. This lead to converting of the "Revolution of Independence" into "Revolution of Independence with The two Nation Theory"

History true but boring.

Thanks Sajid!

Although it is true that history can be boring, it is very interesting when it provides the context for current political issues!

SalD.

It is interesting how one is called a demagogue, if one just expresses oneself with logic and clarity.  Ah well, c'est la vie .... I guess I can't fight against everything.

Just like a little knowledge is dangerous, a little history is also dangerous. So, let us correct the history first.

Kashmir is a delicate issue. During the British rule, this territory was sold for 7.5 million rupees (app US$166 at that time) to a Sikh Gulab Singh. Tell me how would an entire Muslim nation feel if it was agreed initially at the time of partition of South Asian Subcontinent that all Muslim majority areas will become Pakistan but Gulab Singh fled to India and asked for the armed forces to take over the Muslim majority Kashmir. Ever since Indians ramble that Kashmir is "Their" property.

The bit about Gulab Singh is correct .... the British did "sell" the Kingdom of Kashmir to Gulab Singh for his help and his army in helping defeat the previous king of Kashmir. But, it was similar to what the British did in Afganistan and many other princely states in India. Appoint a quisling to govern the state in their name and just collect the taxes. This was not unique to Kashmir. Less than 30% of undividived India was governed directly by the British. The rest were governed by princes, appointed by her majesty! So Kashmir was not unique in that sense. This is the first point.

Second, at independence, ALL the princely states were given the choice of remaining independent, joining India or joining Pakistan. The king of Kashmir (not Gulab Singh, btw) decided to remain independent. India and Pakistan signed a standstill agreement that neither would try to change this status by any means. However, in June 1948 Pashtun tribals from neigbouring province of NWFP in Pakistan started crossing the border. Fighting broke out between the KASHMIRI army and these irregulars. The King received news that the Pakistani army were following the tribals (this is disputed by Pakistan) and thought that his army would lose the battle to these tribals. So he appealed for help to Nehru. His plan was to use the Indian army to defeat the irregular army, but remain independent. however, Nehru's home minister Sardar Patel refused to allow Nehru to send help (btw, Nehru was a kashmiri) unless the king acceded to India. This the king did (which Pakistan claims was under duress). A big contingent of the Indian army was then airlifted to Srinagar, which beat back the tribals, to what is the current LOC (line of control) [Interesting sidenote here: When India was airlifting troops to Srinagar, Pakistan wanted its Airforce to bomb the airport and also do the same. The English officers commanding the air force, however, refused. This led Pakistan to say that Mountbatten got Britain to side with Nehru in this conflict]. Nehru, being the idealist that he was, then promised a referendum to the people of Kashmir, under UN auspices, provided the kingdom was returned to status quo. Neither Pakistan nor India ever withdrew their armies from Kashmir, rendering the referendum infructuous (at least, in my opinion).

What is forgotten by some, though, is that Sheikh Abdullah, leader of National Conference, who was the most popular mass leader in Kashmir wanted Kashmir to join SECULAR India, and not theocratic Pakistan (many historians believe this was the reason for the tribal incursion). Between India's independence and the breakup of Kashmir, the Sheikh led a satyagraha (peaceful movement) against the King demanding democracy and an union with India (this is document fact by historians). Even after the breakup, the Sheikh, who was democratically elected the chief minister of Kashmir for decades, tried to integrate Kashmir with India as far as he could. It was truly unfortunate that he was not fully trusted by some of PM Indira Gandhi's (daughter of Nehru) colleagues. The "so-called fight for independence" only started after the death of Sheikh Abdullah and the splintering of his National Conference party. Indian politicans have also been guilty of step motherly treatment to Kashmir. Although, the militants got a lot of external support, the initial cause was local anger at the complete lack of development in the eighties, for which Delhi can blame no one but itself. If Delhi had poured in quarter of the money pre-1989 for development, that it did post-1989 to fight the militants, it may never have had to fight them in the first place.

[Sidenote: this is not history as taught in Indian schools. In fact, many of my fellow country men will take me to task for some of my statements above. This based on a lot of reading that I have done - books on Kashmir, written by Indian, Pakistani and independent historians. Hopefully, some will now accept I am no jingoistic, sabre-rattler!]

Before the British rule, the Subcontinent was ruled by Muslim Kings known as the Mughals. It is quite likely that being ruled by them for hundreds of years, the Hindus developed a sort of jealousy and at the time of departure of the British, the Hindus tried their level best to prevent the partition and requested the transfer of entire rule to the majority Hindus. Of course that couldn't happen since Muslim and Hindu lifestyle and religion is poles apart and couldn't coexist (which was the main reason of the fall of the Mughal empire as the Hindus acted as a Hippocrates and led in the invasion of the British).

Sajid, you are so funny. The mughals were invaders from Central Asia (nomadic, warrior tribes who were converted to Islam a few hundred years before), and conquered North India between 1350-1420. They then lost out to the English in 1700. For the thousands of years before 1350, native rulers (read Hindu or whatever) ruled the Indian river plains between Indus on one side and the Brahmaputra on the other. During this period, great universites flourished, which attracted people from all over the world. This is not to say that the Mughal rulers were barbaric, although their roots were certainly less enlightened! Under kings like Akbar and Jehangir, the arts and sciences continued to flourish, and hindus were not persecuted. This changed with the 10th Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb, who was a zealot and tried to foist a theocratic, islamic state upon multi-cultural India. People revolted and the mughal empire started disintegrating. This is what allowed the English a foothold in India. The fact that Aurangzeb's army and treasury were dissipated by fighting Hindu rebels, who would not live in a theocratic state. One of these rebels, Shivaji, then went on to establish a large empire himself. Another point for would be historians, the whole of India has never been governed from Delhi, until the British. Prior to that, southern India typically was previously governed by the Chola kings of Tamil nadu, Shivaji and his Maratha kings of Maharashtra, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, etc. So, the concept of India is actually, relatively new.

Anyway, so when India was fighting for freedom from the British, it was to establish a secular India. But, this was not acceptable to the Muslim league, as it felt it would never get a fair share of power in an undivided India. So, they first wanted electoral seats to be created on the basis of community. When this was rejected by the Congress, they pressed for partition. But, here is the supreme irony of the partition. More muslims chose to live on in secular, republican India (and still do) than in theocratic Pakistan (India, btw, has the second largest muslim population in the world, after Indonesia). And, this is why Kashmir is so important to Pakistan. If muslim majority Kashmir chooses to be in peace with India, then that undermines the basis for creating Pakistan.

 

Now even with Pakistan in existence, the Hindus still have the same hatred and jealousy which I'm afraid you can see reflecting in all these posts.

Heck, no, we are not jealous and we do not hate you. We would just like to be left alone to develop our country.

Unfortunately these terrorists are termed "Islamic Extremists" which they are not and they are doing totally opposite of what God has revealed to the Holy Prophet. Which means they have nothing to do with religion.

Ok, I believe you. These terrorists are no part of your peaceful Islamic culture. Then, how is it that, your religious leaders never denounce these people in public, from a pulpit or issue a fatwa. After all, these terrorists are profaning the religion they hold sacred. And, they have been mighty quick to issue fatwas on more trivial issues in the past. This is what really puzzles me.

but Washinton DC is the capitol of the US and not some annexed territory.

How about the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, which were annexed by the USA (bet many did not know this)?

When do you guys plan to return them to Mexico?

Bias is a many-hued thing, Andy .... you should be careful when you use the word against others.

Think about the problems that could be solved with the money that is wasted on military budgets. Yet, here we have people blindly saying rah, rah, let's kick their butts!

I read somewhere that in the last 2000 years of human history, there have been only 32 years when a war has not been fought somewhere in the world.

Human nature?

If you said someone was trying to cut Delhi out of India it would make a much better comparison than saying Kashmir, which is an annexed area that has never been given the opportunity determine their own future.

You won't understand the Indian position (or the Pakistani one, for that matter) until you study how the modern countries of India and Pakistan were created out of British India and the princely states. You should read up on that first.

By the way, were Pakistan and India united under British rule?  And if so, how did that work?

Ummm, Sally, there were no Pakistan and India under British rule. There was only a british india. But, I guess you meant hindus and muslims.

I differ a bit with Sajid on this, based on what I have read, and what my parents and grand parents have told me. I guess it also depens on where you lived in British India.

Muslims and hindus lived cheek by jowl in most areas, and many festivals used to be celebrated commonly (this still is the case in many parts of India). Since, the muslims had been converted by the Mughal invaders, and came off a common stock as hindus, many customs, names and behaviour were common too. In Bengal (which was also partitioned), the first identity of anyone was that he/she was a Bengali, a very distinctive Indian, rather than a hindu or a muslim. And, I believe this was true else where too, although the degrees may have differed.

I think the real divide started in 1930, when the British (allegedly) asked the Muslim League (which was started shortly before) why they were supporting the Indian Congress in their demand for freedom. And, what freedom could muslims expect in hindu majority India. Jinnah, who Gandhi used to call his right hand man and who was a closer associate of Gandhi than Nehru, initially pooh poohed this. But, over a period of time, I guess the poison did its work. Also, there were leaders within Muslim League who did not want to share power with the Congress, as they thought they would have to play second fiddle (the Congress had been in existence much longer than the ML) to the latter's experience. Then, there were those who wanted to establish a theocratic state.

However, it is again ironic that Jinnah, who was an atheist, led the foundation of a state based on religion. Mahatma Gandhi, until the very last, fought against the idea of partition. To the extent, that he said Jinnah should be the first Prime Minister of free India. But, he failed to carry Nehru and Patel on this. His colleagues said that he died of heartbreak, long before he was shot dead by a hindu fanatic.

The real ill-will between the two states arose after the actual partition. The largest exchange of populations, anywhere in the world at anytime, happened in Punjab (both Indian and Pakistani), as people left everything they owned and crossed over to their "own" country. The frustration and anger led to large scale riots and killings on both sides. This led to such a bitterness in that generation, which has been passed on in diluted versions to succeeding generations.

[Interesting side note here: The quote is attributed to Mountbatten, but may be apocryphal "We had 50,000 army men in Punjab, yet, hundreds of thousands died in riots, we had one man in Bengal, and no one died" Such was the power of that one man, Gandhi!]

Poirot

Poirot,
         A fatwa is issued when you can't find a solution to a problem that is directly quoted in the Holy Quran or mentioned in the Holy Prophet's teachings. Like terrorism.

The US Muslim Scholars have issued a fatwa after 9/11 and thus stands valid.

Thus it is not correct to say that the Muslim scholars or Priests are doing nothing to condemn terrorism. At local mosques we hardly discuss worldly issues and focus entirely on religious teachings which does not include recipes of making bombs and their practical exercises

You won't understand the Indian position (or the Pakistani one, for that matter) until you study how the modern countries of India and Pakistan were created out of British India and the princely states. You should read up on that first.

Again there is the glaring omission that the Kashmiris have never been given the opportunity for self-determination. You have often mentioned how one must stand up and speak against injustice, but you refuse to accept that these people have the same basic rights. Anyway you look at it, this is injustice.

And to address another issue. I won't defend what happened in the US where the entire country was stolen from the indigenous people. The doctrine of manifest destiny is completely repugnant. Is might makes right the policy by which we also should guide the future? Hmmmm...next.

Is war human nature?

I read somewhere that in the last 2000 years of human history, there have been only 32 years when a war has not been fought somewhere in the world.

Human nature?

Well, it is a "theory" tossed around by those who wish to justify and glorify warfare but I, for one, do not buy it. There are too many incidences of primitive people living without warfare to believe it has anything to do with human nature. In fact, if it were, I would expect us all to be engaged in mini wars all the time. The rule of law would mean nothing and we would have chaos if the nature of humanity was to be violent struggle. This theory may play out well in wargaming and among the military but ask yourself if you ever wished to be part of a war. And I don't mean sending someone off to fight. I mean actually battling an enemy yourself. Why, even my president who has been described as having "balls" made damn sure he avoided being personally involved in a war, as did his vice president and secretary of defense, along with most members of his adminsitration. (I'm not sure I want to describe any of them as having balls. More like gall, but there isn't a man or woman among them who would ever fight their own battle). There are many reasons wars are fought and greed for wealth and power are predominant, but I will never buy that it is human nature to engage in armed conflict. If I had such a low view of humanity I would never bother to be involved in anything that would help what must be a hopeless, worthless humanity. Maybe a few of you can be pleased that I do not feel that way and instead have given of myself to help others in life. I do not believe that when Jesus said "turn the other cheek" that he believed that humanity's nature was to be violent. I do believe that violence is learned and not nature. I've seen raising my own children that refraining from violence against children by parents results in children who do not hit their parents, as I see so many kids do. As they grow older and are exposed to violence in their lives, this may change to some degree but if your children are not exposed to violence when very young, they do not resort to it out of any instinct.

I choose to think for myself and not let others plant ideas in my head. Just because it sounds good does not make it true. Yes, we have a world where wars are constantly brewing but show me any war that is the result of the masses wanting to go to war without provocation by their own leaders. It just doesn't happen that way. It is the result of those who have no moral center and are willing to cause the deaths of many, including their own people, in order to achieve their own selfish goals.

Forgive me for having some faith in humanity.

How about the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, which were annexed by the USA (bet many did not know this)?

When do you guys plan to return them to Mexico?

Bias is a many-hued thing, Andy .... you should be careful when you use the word against others.

Excuse me? What bias? I said Vazirani's musings were comical, not biased.

And while you're at it, asking countries when they will give back, ask Mexico when they will also give their land back to the Native Americans. The Europeans stole the Americas and will be keeping it. Unlike with India, where they eventually had to give it up. Maybe from that perspective your part of the world has been just a bit more fortunate.

Much has been said about the deal that brought Kashmir into India but that deal was contingent on the never held referendum. Imagine if that referendum had been held. There might be no Kashmir problem today. Now it would be a huge problem logistically to even hold one in Kashmir, leading me to agree that maybe a referendum should be put to the people of both India and Pakistan and simply ask "is it all worth it?" Unfortunately, with the fear and hatred that has been planted by the multiple wars between the two, it might result in those people saying yes, as people often do as they vote against their own good. War may not be human nature but reacting instinctively to fear is.

Are we still going on about this song...Cant we just get over it and done with..I am not in the mood of reading and reading over and over again about this..Its only a song for crying out loud..

I have had enough..I would also think that some have had enough too..

Enough said

Take care all
Smurf

Sorry I didn't post a reply to Poirot's post completely last night and just answered one little query. I have other important things to tend to rather than engage in an endless mortal kombat which could continue till The Trumpet blows. I was getting late for the night's prayer and last night was a special one for us Muslims.

Anyway, Gulab Singh or any other king(Hari Singh or whatever) didn't do what the majority of population (Muslim) wanted and fled to India.

Speaking of Sheikh Abdullah and especially his son Farooq Abdullah who is a puppet of India; has no intention represent the interests of Muslims in Kashmir.

I have a lot to say about "So called" Muslims such as King Akbar as they were the worst thing that happened to Islam.

  This thread is getting real old really fast. Neither your rambling will solve the Kashmir issue nor my defend will remove the label of terrorist from Muslims unless the persons responsible do something about it.

Believe me; I never want to reply to this conflicting issue or politics in this helpful forum as it is a fruitless and endless debate and not the place to discuss it. I only replied on Andy's request.

Smurfette you are right we will continue to go in circles if this thread is not stopped. Poirot, can't you find anything else creative to do like fly a kite or something?

I have a lot to say about "So called" Muslims such as King Akbar as they were the worst thing that happened to Islam.
.
.
.
.
Poirot, can't you find anything else creative to do like fly a kite or something?

That first statement explains a lot  ... now I know where you come from, and what your "thinking" is all about.

It was surely a waste of my time trying to have a constructive dialogue with you.

Smurfett
      you are  right(LOL) tell them  

Smurfett

Wel if you are bored or fed up reading this segment, then please dont read it.. ..

but I guess you will not understand the history behind these two countries of the sub-continent and why we are so passionate about it.

People in the west live in a kind of Legoland and niether  are they well versed with the various problems that we face on a daily basis.

And yes, we are here to talk about thalassaemia.. but how long can one keep on discussing about what your SF level is, or what are you doing about and so on and so forth..dont we all need a diversion at times?

This is a General chatter forum, and I think, we, as intelligent people can have  healthy dialogues between us from time to time on any subject and not take things personally.

We should respect ones intensive knowledge  or reading on a subject - a subject which has in recent times taken gigantic proportions and it is no more a matter of these two countries but for the world at large. And I think all young people of the world should be concerned.

In fact, Pirots postings do give all of you a deep insight into India's political history and I am sure which many of you were not even aware of.. Internet links are not always the best providers of actual facts.. one has to live and experience a lot of things.
 
And when majority of the Americans still cannot even point out where Iraq is on a simple map..  ...
how can they understand what we are fighting for ?

So please, do not take things personally and make matters worse.. nobody here is out to get anyone or defame anyone..  and  at times topics such as this do make very very interesting reading.

shikha