Standing up to America is usually not a personal risk for a leader in India. Any suggestions of foreign pressure unites India behind who they see as leading them in that fight.
It can be argued that though Nehru messed up Kashmir, Indira had a chance to do precisely what Modi did, immediately after 1971 and before Simla Agreement. This was missed and perhaps, no one had a vision of this possibility. That would have killed the domestic dimension of Kashmir issue at that time itself. That this move by Modi is in the national interest taken at a right time is not the issue but it is also incidentally ticking many other desirable boxes like RSS agenda, BJP manifesto, long pending idea, Ladakh demand for UT status etc. It gives enough fodder for the usual Modi haters to call it a cold blooded murder of democracy, death of federalism and constitutional propriety etc. That national interest basically means protecting Kashmir from separatism and Islamization is rightly pointed out by Makrand. With the obliteration of J&K state, now the only issue to be settled with Pak is how to take over POK. With this momentous decision being successfully executed, now other issues like Ram Mandir, Uniform Civil Code appear to be mundane for this government. With a major political issue now sorted, Modi ought to invest his time in getting economy right. He needs a fresh approach there untied to the past thinking. While poor needs to be supported fully, the environment and infrastructure for business must be able to compete internationally with China. With that aim, he should drive his policies and take economy on the ascending trajectory. That would be the real test for Modi. Similarly, the other major folly of Nehru, border issue with China, must be next on his priority before 2024. With those two blunders out of the way, we can give real ‘mukti’ to Panditji’ s soul and fondly remember ‘Chacha Nehru’ for his positive contribution to India in the field of science and technology, education, setting up modern manufacturing economy etc.
Indira Gandhi was genuinely patriotic (unlike her grandson) and smart (unlike her grandson).
Snake Bhutto begged and fooled her and escaped with the Simla accord.
Very correct summation. Any person without a preconceived bias or prejudice listening to this last night would have appreciated the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation with revised status of the state as a step in the positive direction with only benefits for the people for Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.. Only the usual Modi and BJP haters could have managed to find anything repugnant in it. But they will do that anyway. You cannot wake up a person pretending to be asleep.
What Modi didn’t say but meant – govt’s take-over would end Islamisation of Kashmir” – about time too! Enough of this nonsense going on for past 2-3 decades. India should not and will not tolerate Islamists. Their apologists should get over this! I say that this prospect should be further reduced by assimilation of substantial number of Hindus in Kashmir. India is and will remain a pluralistic society but any separatist tendencies or insurgency in the name of promoting fundamentalism will not be allowed and tolerated. Those that do not agree with that are welcome to move to countries that sponsor such values and lifestyle.
Do you disagree with the current regime’s Hindutva plans?
The author has right to praise Modi. Idolising him is statesman does not gel well. He has kept real speech for political platform in the up coming elections. The decision on diluted 370 had two purpose. One to full fill long cherished dream of RSS. The second is to consolidate majority votes
Indira Gandhi was genuinely patriotic (unlike her grandson) and smart (unlike her grandson).
Snake Bhutto begged and fooled her and escaped with the Simla accord.
There are people, still some people, who always think that Kashmir would have not survived without the help of 3 families. It is the same group, which still thinks Congress will not survive without a person from Nehru clan head that. We call our selves as democracy, the largest, and still continue with pleasing dynasties. The author, even though started with a negative note saying Modi wanted to end Islamisation in Kashmir and he was not apologetic to anything happened. First why would Modi be apologetic to what happened in Kashmir for the past 70 years or even for the decision taken on article 370. Many were debating that we should involve stake holders in discussion. Kashmir had many stake holders. If that would have been successful, why they have not done for the past 70 years. Had Sardar Patel waited for all stake holders to come be part of Mahasabh while integrating 500+ princely states, we will still dealing with 500 + countries within India. No one talk about half a million people driven out of valley. The insurgencies were allowed to exist with local support and the local governments had no will power to take the people under confidence. Instead of educating people, stone pelters were encouraged by getting funds from across the border. Sardar Patel involved initially integrating 500+ princely states and J&K was one of them. Where Nehru was involved and Mount Batten pushed his agenda, the issue went into mess. No congress person ever would want to admit the folles of Nehru for the injustice done to Kashmiris. Common Kashmiris had no say, when J&K was governed by only few families. The common people have become victim of politics played by Pakistan, local politicians, and separatists. What Modi has done is within the legal frame work. If some of the opposition keep crying hoarse, they are only talking the language of Pakistan. No other country ever wanted in interfere in what is called India’s internal affairs.
Instead of wasting precious resources on battling India over Kashmir, they should get over this 70-year old obsession and get down to solving their own serious financial problems.
Finally with the coming peace in Afghanistan and the checkmate with India, maybe, just maybe, the Pakistan army will be cut to size.
Eventually, once the storm blows ever, Kashmir will have open borders with the other Kashmir, and the problem of it being Indian or Pakistan will become irrelevant.
The tragedy is that so many lives have been lost over the years for what is basically a silly problem.
My slender knowledge of the modern history of Kashmir suggests Sheikh Abdullah was a fine person, someone who played an important role in bringing the state to India. Three generations of his family have served as CMs. Dr Farooq Abdullah was a large hearted, colourful personality, with his heart and head in the right place, loyal to India. Omar Abdullah had his baptism by fire in the summer of 2010. He once said, Delhi feels we are not Indian enough; the people of the state feel we are not Kashmiri enough. That underlines the dichotomy or dissonance that has always existed between India and Kashmir. So perhaps we should not rush to discount the contribution the mainstream parties have made to the public life of the state. There are prosperous dynasties in every part of the country. If we try to see unfolding events from the eyes of ordinary Kashmiris, at the moment the future looks a little hazy.
The concept of nation, the state, and sovereignty are not dead yet; on the contrary, these notions are thriving in spite of unions (e.g. The EU) and trade zones. Nations too have egos (libertarians may squirm at this). People are always secondary in these notions unless they rise up to decide what kind of set-up they want in their nation-state (e.g. the Romans and ancient Greeks; the French Revolution; India in 1947 etc). Internal revolutions – independent of religion and those particularly peaceful – are seen as very legitimate means of shaping a nation-state. In the 20th century, treaties (the Treaty of Paris), bilateral agreements (Simla agreement) etc. have aided efforts in shaping a nation-state in the event of a conflict. However, in the past three decade, precisely since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and subsequent Anglo-Saxon-Paki-Saudi led covert warfare in Afghanistan, have given rise to a dangerous, delusional and illegitimate groups that harbour ambitions of expansionism driven by extreme religious ideology (particularly those aiming to revive the grandeur of the Ottoman empire). These groups are more than likely to creep in crevices left unguarded by the nation-state (especially when these have the support of an enemy state). This socio-religious metastasis (e.g. extreme Islamism) has the potential to afflict the existing healthy social set-up. In these circumstances, what should the nation-state do? It is precisely in this context that GOI’s move on J&K is very timely and correct. It is similar to excision of tissues that could be affected by Islamist metastasis. Yes, there may be some after-affects, but if right steps are taken, then healing is likely to happen.
You are being extremely charitable to the Abdullah right from Sheik to Omar. Very frankly Sheikh Abdullah was an astute politician who had grassroot support but all he wanted was to have all cards with him and rule the state for ever.
He was smart enough to realise that he could never get that in Pakistan. So he opted for India nothing wrong with that except he also wanted Islamisation and did not care for people else he would have given adult franchise to all residents of J&K.
Farooq is a debauch corrupt and inept and antinational personality who will speak one thing in Delhi and completely the opposite in India. His inaction at the height of buildup of Kashmir terrorism and exodus and rapes of Hindu Kashmiri speaks volumes about his character.
Let us recognise the wolves in sheep’s clothing.Omar is a product of times zero ground level understanding and support but he is certainly better than his father.All he wants and is capable of is being a part of ruling elite and continue extending the legacy of Abdullahs which has done nothing for the common man of the state
It can be argued that though Nehru messed up Kashmir, Indira had a chance to do precisely what Modi did, immediately after 1971 and before Simla Agreement. This was missed and perhaps, no one had a vision of this possibility. That would have killed the domestic dimension of Kashmir issue at that time itself. That this move by Modi is in the national interest taken at a right time is not the issue but it is also incidentally ticking many other desirable boxes like RSS agenda, BJP manifesto, long pending idea, Ladakh demand for UT status etc. It gives enough fodder for the usual Modi haters to call it a cold blooded murder of democracy, death of federalism and constitutional propriety etc. That national interest basically means protecting Kashmir from separatism and Islamization is rightly pointed out by Makrand. With the obliteration of J&K state, now the only issue to be settled with Pak is how to take over POK. With this momentous decision being successfully executed, now other issues like Ram Mandir, Uniform Civil Code appear to be mundane for this government. With a major political issue now sorted, Modi ought to invest his time in getting economy right. He needs a fresh approach there untied to the past thinking. While poor needs to be supported fully, the environment and infrastructure for business must be able to compete internationally with China. With that aim, he should drive his policies and take economy on the ascending trajectory. That would be the real test for Modi. Similarly, the other major folly of Nehru, border issue with China, must be next on his priority before 2024. With those two blunders out of the way, we can give real ‘mukti’ to Panditji’ s soul and fondly remember ‘Chacha Nehru’ for his positive contribution to India in the field of science and technology, education, setting up modern manufacturing economy etc.
Indira Gandhi was genuinely patriotic (unlike her grandson) and smart (unlike her grandson).
Snake Bhutto begged and fooled her and escaped with the Simla accord.
Very correct summation. Any person without a preconceived bias or prejudice listening to this last night would have appreciated the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation with revised status of the state as a step in the positive direction with only benefits for the people for Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.. Only the usual Modi and BJP haters could have managed to find anything repugnant in it. But they will do that anyway. You cannot wake up a person pretending to be asleep.
What Modi didn’t say but meant – govt’s take-over would end Islamisation of Kashmir” – about time too! Enough of this nonsense going on for past 2-3 decades. India should not and will not tolerate Islamists. Their apologists should get over this! I say that this prospect should be further reduced by assimilation of substantial number of Hindus in Kashmir. India is and will remain a pluralistic society but any separatist tendencies or insurgency in the name of promoting fundamentalism will not be allowed and tolerated. Those that do not agree with that are welcome to move to countries that sponsor such values and lifestyle.
Do you disagree with the current regime’s Hindutva plans?
The author has right to praise Modi. Idolising him is statesman does not gel well. He has kept real speech for political platform in the up coming elections. The decision on diluted 370 had two purpose. One to full fill long cherished dream of RSS. The second is to consolidate majority votes
Indira Gandhi was genuinely patriotic (unlike her grandson) and smart (unlike her grandson).
Snake Bhutto begged and fooled her and escaped with the Simla accord.
There are people, still some people, who always think that Kashmir would have not survived without the help of 3 families. It is the same group, which still thinks Congress will not survive without a person from Nehru clan head that. We call our selves as democracy, the largest, and still continue with pleasing dynasties. The author, even though started with a negative note saying Modi wanted to end Islamisation in Kashmir and he was not apologetic to anything happened. First why would Modi be apologetic to what happened in Kashmir for the past 70 years or even for the decision taken on article 370. Many were debating that we should involve stake holders in discussion. Kashmir had many stake holders. If that would have been successful, why they have not done for the past 70 years. Had Sardar Patel waited for all stake holders to come be part of Mahasabh while integrating 500+ princely states, we will still dealing with 500 + countries within India. No one talk about half a million people driven out of valley. The insurgencies were allowed to exist with local support and the local governments had no will power to take the people under confidence. Instead of educating people, stone pelters were encouraged by getting funds from across the border. Sardar Patel involved initially integrating 500+ princely states and J&K was one of them. Where Nehru was involved and Mount Batten pushed his agenda, the issue went into mess. No congress person ever would want to admit the folles of Nehru for the injustice done to Kashmiris. Common Kashmiris had no say, when J&K was governed by only few families. The common people have become victim of politics played by Pakistan, local politicians, and separatists. What Modi has done is within the legal frame work. If some of the opposition keep crying hoarse, they are only talking the language of Pakistan. No other country ever wanted in interfere in what is called India’s internal affairs.
Pakistan will benefit most from this Modi coup.
Instead of wasting precious resources on battling India over Kashmir, they should get over this 70-year old obsession and get down to solving their own serious financial problems.
Finally with the coming peace in Afghanistan and the checkmate with India, maybe, just maybe, the Pakistan army will be cut to size.
Eventually, once the storm blows ever, Kashmir will have open borders with the other Kashmir, and the problem of it being Indian or Pakistan will become irrelevant.
The tragedy is that so many lives have been lost over the years for what is basically a silly problem.
My slender knowledge of the modern history of Kashmir suggests Sheikh Abdullah was a fine person, someone who played an important role in bringing the state to India. Three generations of his family have served as CMs. Dr Farooq Abdullah was a large hearted, colourful personality, with his heart and head in the right place, loyal to India. Omar Abdullah had his baptism by fire in the summer of 2010. He once said, Delhi feels we are not Indian enough; the people of the state feel we are not Kashmiri enough. That underlines the dichotomy or dissonance that has always existed between India and Kashmir. So perhaps we should not rush to discount the contribution the mainstream parties have made to the public life of the state. There are prosperous dynasties in every part of the country. If we try to see unfolding events from the eyes of ordinary Kashmiris, at the moment the future looks a little hazy.
The concept of nation, the state, and sovereignty are not dead yet; on the contrary, these notions are thriving in spite of unions (e.g. The EU) and trade zones. Nations too have egos (libertarians may squirm at this). People are always secondary in these notions unless they rise up to decide what kind of set-up they want in their nation-state (e.g. the Romans and ancient Greeks; the French Revolution; India in 1947 etc). Internal revolutions – independent of religion and those particularly peaceful – are seen as very legitimate means of shaping a nation-state. In the 20th century, treaties (the Treaty of Paris), bilateral agreements (Simla agreement) etc. have aided efforts in shaping a nation-state in the event of a conflict. However, in the past three decade, precisely since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and subsequent Anglo-Saxon-Paki-Saudi led covert warfare in Afghanistan, have given rise to a dangerous, delusional and illegitimate groups that harbour ambitions of expansionism driven by extreme religious ideology (particularly those aiming to revive the grandeur of the Ottoman empire). These groups are more than likely to creep in crevices left unguarded by the nation-state (especially when these have the support of an enemy state). This socio-religious metastasis (e.g. extreme Islamism) has the potential to afflict the existing healthy social set-up. In these circumstances, what should the nation-state do? It is precisely in this context that GOI’s move on J&K is very timely and correct. It is similar to excision of tissues that could be affected by Islamist metastasis. Yes, there may be some after-affects, but if right steps are taken, then healing is likely to happen.
You are being extremely charitable to the Abdullah right from Sheik to Omar. Very frankly Sheikh Abdullah was an astute politician who had grassroot support but all he wanted was to have all cards with him and rule the state for ever.
He was smart enough to realise that he could never get that in Pakistan. So he opted for India nothing wrong with that except he also wanted Islamisation and did not care for people else he would have given adult franchise to all residents of J&K.
Farooq is a debauch corrupt and inept and antinational personality who will speak one thing in Delhi and completely the opposite in India. His inaction at the height of buildup of Kashmir terrorism and exodus and rapes of Hindu Kashmiri speaks volumes about his character.
Let us recognise the wolves in sheep’s clothing.Omar is a product of times zero ground level understanding and support but he is certainly better than his father.All he wants and is capable of is being a part of ruling elite and continue extending the legacy of Abdullahs which has done nothing for the common man of the state