On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:54:50 +0530 Juzar Bandukwala wrote:
My dear Sultan Shahin Sahab,
I must congratulate you and Shri Yogi Sikand for highlighting the thoughts of Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The Kashmir leader could cause a huge crisis for the Muslims of India. I am surprised that Arundhatti Roy has failed to see the consequences if Geelani succeeds in his dream of seperating Kashmir from India, and merging it with Pakistan. Syed Geelani does not beleive in secularism and pluralism. But do the Muslims of India have a choice ? A lot of water has flowed down the Jhelum since Nehru promised plebiscite to the people of Kashmir. Tragically all these 63 years India has failed to win over the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir. Today a huge military presence is essential for keeping Kashmir within India. Further Kashmir is a major road block in India's emergence as a world power, in particular the acceptance by Muslim countries.
Please see: India has a secular system, which we Kashmiris can under no condition accept: Syed Ali Shah Geelani http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamInterview_1.aspx?ArticleID=3590
Yet to allow plebiscite , with only an option of India and Pakistan, will lead to a seperation of Kashmir from India. The resultant domestic volcano will be disastrous for Indian Muslims. After all Kashmir is the only Muslim majority state in the Indian Union. Once it goes, the RSS will immediately call for giving up secularism, and declaring India as a Hindu state. The turbulence caused maybe as violent as what happened during partition. Indian Muslims will be doubly orphaned, first by Jinnah and now by Geelani.
The correct approach is to lower the military presence in Kashmir. The average Kashmiri should not see rifles pointing at him, at every nook and corner in the state. This has created a deep insecurity and fear, resulting in hatred against India. We must use our economic strength to pull the people of Kashmir towards us. It should be much easier when Pakistan is viewed as a failed state. Right now. Every educational institute, whether medical, engineering or management, must have a seperate quota for Kashmir. The Government must urge private business to employ Kashmiri graduates. Within Kashmir we must speed up rail connectivity , and even encourage greater trade across the LOC. Most important, we must send our best administrators to Kashmir.
Inshallah in a generation we will have won over the average Kashmiris .
Nehru's policy, viz-a-viz Kashmir is not a part of any logical solution, rather its a part of it's problem. I belong to a family of Gurkha community , who have served the J&K state army. In 1947, when Nehru was busy manuvering and consolidating his Prime Ministership in Delhi, the state army units ( thinned by desertion of muslims) with their limited ammo and ration were fighting a grim battle to save a part of Kashmir that is now a part of India. The Kashmir's air-field was being defended by RSS volunteers led by Shyama Prasad Mukherji. LOC is not the creation of Nehru, it is the creation of patriotic state army units and RSS volunteers in 1947. Who is Nehru to speak about plebisite, Nehru was the main cause of the bloody partition of India. More than 500 princely states were merged in India, J&K followed it afterwards. Very simple , Our part of Kashmir is meant for patriotic Muslims and other communities, those who don't agree must apply for Pakistani citizenship for the sake of their better fundamentalic future.
As for as RSS is concerned, its existence was negligible before 1947 but when Congress accepted the concept of partition and seen doing Bandar-Baant and pursued the policy of appeasement, it grew in size gained a foot-hold in Indian politics. So Nehru was mainly responsible in making RSS, a political force. And if Mr Geelani knows the Nehru Gandhi family secrets, he must not throw Nehruvian secularism in trash.
Godbole says, "If it means anti-Hindu, anti religion atheist Nehruvian Secularism then Gilani would be right."
This is the usual chant of the anti-secular sanghis. Nehru's secularism was true secularism, namely separation of the state and religion. The state is neither for nor against any religion. In the aftermath of the tragic partition, Indian Muslims had to be given reassurance that the sins of partition will not be visited upon them and that their full ciizenship rights will not be jeopardized. Nehru did just that. Hate-spewing RSS could not understand that and considered it an opportunity to besmirch secularism.
Prof J S Bandukwala should be clear on what Indian Secularism means. If it is Sarvadharmasahabhav, as Gandhi, Vinoba and supreme Court interpreted there will be no tragedy for Muslims in India.
If it means anti-Hindu, anti religion atheist Nehruvian Secularism then Gilani would be right.
In 1947, when British India was divided it was on the basis of Religion. That is why Bahwalpur was not put in India against the wishes of the Ruler but according to Muslim majority amongst the population. But in typical hypocratic manner of Nehru India is parroting Secularism as talked about by Nehru. To cloak this denial of religion as a basis of Partition , Minoritism, Secularism was imported by Nehru have gained currency. After 1971, Pakistan could not help prevent birth of Bangladesh. That is the real answer to Gilani and not Secularism.
Indians are happy with Sarvadharmasamabhav which was a guiding principle even in the recent Lucknow judgement. The Vocal English Educated Elite in India are not happy with religion as such and are against the judgement. They are hardly Indians.
Nothing will happen to Muslims living peacefully in India, but Talibanis, Muslim-only will have problems regardless of what Indira Gandhi introduced in the preamble of the Constitution in 1976.
Dr L N Godbole
When Geelani says, "India has a secular system, which we Kashmiris can under no condition accept", he instantly becomes anathema for Indian Muslims. He sees no option for Kashmir except to become a part of Pakistan. Such views cannot be countenanced by Indian Muslims.
Geelani had participated in J&K elections in the past. He had fully cooperated with state and central governments in the past. That prima facie proves that he was willing to work under Indian constitution. His protest is genuine against Army atrocities against innocent civilians that have turned Kashmir into an armed prison.
India has persistently refused to give access to Amnesty International and other Human Rights Watch organizations to record human rights violations in Kashmir.
I am surprised that a human rights activist instead of sympathizing with Kashmiri people's protest, should be, rather is, more apprehensive about the fate of Indian Muslims within India. If Geelani as a leader of the masses, is being discriminated against for his being identified as a 'religious' leader, by the liberals, the liberals must see the ground realities and must vouch for people who can stand up for justice in troubled times --- leaving aside their prejudices on so-called religious grounds. As far as an outsider can figure out, I am sure Geelani is playing for the highest stakes, but may settle for a middle ground.
Comment on Geelani could cause a huge crisis for the Muslims of India: J.S.Bandukwala posted at Facebook by Ghulam Muhammed
You know Lee Jay, these buggers always come up with the formulation of burning the bottoms of us “Mother Indians” by decrying the RSS. Who the hell is seeking to become world power? We want to become national power – a power unto ourselves!!
Kashmiris and Marathis have long history of being rebel to power at Delhi; Old Delhi. During Mughals they were rebels; even today they are, this time to New Delhi. It was highhandedness of Aurangzeb which managed to hold both these places for some time, but soon after he was no more, the rebels managed to wrest out. Today India has a choice of highhandedness by pumping army there, or being soft so as to not let matter go out of control. If today Kashmir goes, tomorrow it would be Maharashtra’s turn, and day after tomorrow Bihar’s.
The way Marathi should have no exclusive right over Maharashtra, Bihari shouldn’t have over Bihar, and so shouldn’t Kashmiris have exclusive right over Kashmir. ‘Son of soil’ concept is a blasphemy for nationalism. Concept of nationalism itself is a blasphemy for Internationalism. Let me say Indians shouldn’t have exclusive right over India. When Bahu from Italy rules Delhi, Kashmiris have to forfeit Kashmir, and so must Marathi surrender Maharashtra. No Geelani, No Thakrey, no ‘son’ of soil, only ‘bahu Son-ia’.
In reverse order of logic- no Sonia, yes Thackeray, yes Geelani, Jai Maharashtra, Azad Kashmir. Now the point is you cannot have everything of your choice, and this is the rule number one. India has to stay content with the rebels and continue to pay for crushing them. Aurangzeb spent 25 years of his 50 year tenure to crush Marathis and couldn’t settle the matter, Kashmiris have to keep struggling for Kashmir something like that, else Swaraj won’t happen. Now Kashmiris don’t have anyone as remarkable as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and perhaps cannot even have as majority of India believes, then that means Kashmiris may not be able to have their ‘Azadi/Swaraj as their janmsiddh adhikar’, and India will continue to have the rebellion without any conclusion to it.
Else, bring in an Aurangzeb, replace Gandhi at New Delhi, and see whether Shivaji gets born or not? History repeats itself uncannily. This new Shivaji too will create havoc by guerrilla warfare- hit and run, in today’s parlance -‘terrorism’ and the biggest of standing army will stay standing or at best beating about the bush/beating chest. So the safest is to not bring in Aurangzeb, let Gandhi continue at New Delhi, prevent Shivaji from rebirth, keep spending on Army to just balance the rebellion, and never to agree with son of ‘soil concept’, rather agree for ‘Videshi’. No Geelani, No Thackeray. Go soft, for Akhand Bharat. Jai Hind. No Logic for Jai Maharashtra or Jai Kashmir.
And any suggestion/ veiled threat to Indian Muslims is bogus as another Chhatrapati will never be born. That may happen only and only if another Aurangzeb sits on the throne of Delhi. Then perhaps in that extra effort to integrate Kashmir, India itself will disintegrate. The threat is not to Indian Muslims but to the integrity of India and for that reason Kashmir must not be let to go and for that to not happen neither it be handled highhandedly. Just keep rebellion under control but do not try to overdo it by pumping army. After all why Indians are paying taxes and what else is army for? To contain rebellion, as simple as that and defend Delhi, keep holding Kashmir. Not to win Kashmir from Kashmiris. That is absurd. Kashmir is already there, it is Kashmiris who have to be won. And why does a country have diplomats and politicians? What are they paid for? To keep fooling ‘junta’, giving hope and promises and keeping down pressure from building up, else even modern day Aurangzeb could have run the show, but for how long?? 50 years; and then to be succeeded by whom Aurangzeb-2 and then Aurangzeb-3? That is then stretching it bit too far. Poor Aurangzeb, could never live in peace, same will happen to all future Aurangzebs.
The best policy for peace is to go soft. Let some of them say Jai Mahashtra or Jai Kashmir. Some will continue to be blasphemous, only their tails have to be cut and let them stay loose as was done to a certain Lee Jay Walker that existed once upon a time.
Seems to be that Bandukwalaji's point is not whether there is a merit on the side of his argument on the issue, but that if it goes the other way, the RSS will take advantage of the situation.
J.S.Bandukwala states the following
"Further Kashmir is a major road block in India's emergence as a world power, in particular the acceptance by Muslim countries."
The writer should think again; the Russian Federation cared little about the war in Chechnya and this nation clearly is seen to be positive in the majority of mainly Muslim nations.
The Russian Federation deems Chechnya to be an internal issue; however, I must stress that many Muslim soldiers are loyal to Russia and this applies to Tatars and the current leader of Chechnya and so forth.
Therefore, India must not be "blackmailed" by the "Islamic card" because national security is more important than appeasing other nations.
India is seen to be more favourable in Afghanistan than Pakistan; and clearly Muslim nations see India to be a dynamic market for economics.
Also, how about the treatment of the Hindu Kashmiri Pandits - do they count?
Not to mention the role of Pakistan in supporting terrorism either actively or covertly or both irrespective if through the ISI or a multitude of terrorist organizations.
Also, why state negatively about the RSS and does the RSS need Kashmir in order to rebuke political Islam? After all, past Islamic invasions, Mumbai, Islamic dawah, and so forth, is more than enough for the RSS to point a genuine finger...........irrespective if you agree with the RSS or not?
Mr Bandukwala is a sensible scholar-activist. Unfortunately, the likes of Geelani have sold a chimeric dream of an Islamic state to a generation which doesn't seem to be aware of history. And history teaches us that a theocratic state is doomed to fail. They only have to look at Pakistan. The way Islamic Pakistan is being bled from within should be enough for the Arundhatis and Geelanis of this world to wake up to a changed reality. And the reality is that Kashmir's destiny lies with united India. Some sort of autonomy is fine, scaling down the military presence will help win the confidence but granting freedom will keep the once paradise on earth perpetually crippled.
Kick this (Syed Ali Shah Geelani) let him go to Pakistan alone...
He doesn’t deserve to be in Indian or Indian Kashmir...
Prof Bandukwala says: "Once it goes, the RSS will immediately call for giving up secularism, and declaring India as a Hindu state."What does a Hindu state look like? Is it the Manusmriti version? Will the majority of Hindus accept Kshatriya-only rule? Will they accept a ban on education for all but the three twice-born?Does it mean Manmohan Singh cannot be prime minister? Or that Meira Kumar cannot be Speaker? Or that Sonia Gandhi cannot be Congress president? Or that Narendra Modi (an OBC) cannot be chief minister?Or does it mean that Muslims are to be banned from holding political office? How many Hindus, including RSS members, want this?Hindu state does not mean anything. It meant something in Nepal where one part of Manusmriti was operational and executive power flowed from a Kshatriya (Chhetri) king. But even there it no longer exists.