RamJas College Incident Thread

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Maybe this is why Nehru stopped against all military advice, in re-taking PoK. Because as long as PoK exists, the question of independence of Kashmir does not arise. But what if India had re-conquered Kashmir ? Then the UN would've likely demanded a mandate and India most likely would've lost it. Better to have half an apple, than no apple.

 

Dude, Nehru went to UN which resulted in status quo .... if Ind had re-taken PoK militarily, there may not have been any issue as Kashmir signed the instrument of accession 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

Can you show me the sentence in OP that said ABVP started it?

Quote

Right here:

 

Quote

Some students at Ramjas protested against this cancellation of invite to Umar Khalid and shouted "anti national" slogans leading to a scuffle with ABVP.

Not scuffle 'against'/'scuffle targeting', but 'scuffle with'. meaning equal blame. 
Again, basic english.

 

Quote

Now answer the question on Bengal  

Already done.

Nobody in India gets justice, because people like you cannot break the cycle of crime by demanding action against crime. They always point to 'but he/she got away! why shouldn't the criminals i like get away too ?' The Mamata-brigade used the same logic, as they can point towards BJP gundaas, Congress Gundaas, CPM Gundaas, all getting away with uttering threats in the past.

Problem is mentality like yours.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

Dude, Nehru went to UN which resulted in status quo .... if Ind had re-taken PoK, there may not have been any issue 

 

 

So you think if Nehru had taken Kashmir, Pakistan wouldn't have gone to the UN ? They'd have been like 'sorry bhai, we lost, goodnight. happy independence' ?

 

If India had re-taken PoK, Pakistan most probably would've gone to the UN and UN would've said the same thing : 'mandate of people needed'. right now, situation favours us, because there can be no mandate when land is under occupation. if we re-took PoK, India would have to either commit to the referendum and lose Kashmir or be a global pariah as a democracy that does not have legal mandate over its lands.

Both worse scenarios to India than now.

 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Right here:

 

Not scuffle 'against'/'scuffle targeting', but 'scuffle with'. meaning equal blame. 
Again, basic english.

 

Already done.

Nobody in India gets justice, because people like you cannot break the cycle of crime by demanding action against crime. They always point to 'but he/she got away! why shouldn't the criminals i like get away too ?' The Mamata-brigade used the same logic, as they can point towards BJP gundaas, Congress Gundaas, CPM Gundaas, all getting away with uttering threats in the past.

Problem is mentality like yours.

 

Again wrong intrepretation on scuffle (already provided example) 

 

I m actually talking about taking action against those who issue such threats .... Common sense would suggest that any action law can take > party's 

 

So again, you are wasting time with your stupid intrepretations and have nothing meaningful to post

 

 

[zen]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So you think if Nehru had taken Kashmir, Pakistan wouldn't have gone to the UN ? They'd have been like 'sorry bhai, we lost, goodnight. happy independence' ?

 

If India had re-taken PoK, Pakistan most probably would've gone to the UN and UN would've said the same thing : 'mandate of people needed'. right now, situation favours us, because there can be no mandate when land is under occupation. if we re-took PoK, India would have to either commit to the referendum and lose Kashmir or be a global pariah as a democracy that does not have legal mandate over its lands.

Both worse scenarios to India than now.

 

On what grounds would Pak have gone to UN when the territory legally belongs to Ind 

 

Ind going to UN has given some sort of platform to Pak 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

Again wrong intrepretation on scuffle (already provided example) 

The wrong interpretation is from your part, since the word 'with' is a pretty basic english word, denoting joint action.

Again, basic english. Try it sometime. 

 

Quote

I m actually talking about taking action against those who issue such threats .... Common sense would suggest that any action law can take > party's 

As i said, when you learn more about how the civilized world conducts business, when party members utter threats and commit crimes, civilized nations punish the members under the law AND party takes action against said people. 
Because if the party does not take action, it is seen as condoning it. anybody can say 'we don't support this'. But words mean nothing, when the same Gundaas are part of the party. 

Common sense would suggest that if the party does not wish to be associated with the crimes of the criminals, they should expel the criminals from their party. Otherwise, they are liable to be tainted by the criminal members of their party.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

On what grounds would Pak have gone to UN when the territory legally belongs to Ind 

 

Ind going to UN has given some sort of platform to Pak 

 

 

The same grounds they used to argue their case in the UN. 
If territorry legally being India's was the only issue, then UN would not have asked for a mandate. They asked for a mandate, because they think that the people of Kashmir deserve to have their own destiny. 

[zen]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

The wrong interpretation is from your part, since the word 'with' is a pretty basic english word, denoting joint action.

Again, basic english. Try it sometime. 

 

As i said, when you learn more about how the civilized world conducts business, when party members utter threats and commit crimes, civilized nations punish the members under the law AND party takes action against said people. 
Because if the party does not take action, it is seen as condoning it. anybody can say 'we don't support this'. But words mean nothing, when the same Gundaas are part of the party. 

Common sense would suggest that if the party does not wish to be associated with the crimes of the criminals, they should expel the criminals from their party. Otherwise, they are liable to be tainted by the criminal members of their party.

 

If you think it is a joint blame, why are writing against ABVP only? .... For me, it could be self defense and nothing that does not happen on campuses in Ind. It is in fact sad to see professors, etc join in too 

 

Common sense suggests that if parties are sensible, they woukd in fact expel such elements. As it would be seen as a positive so there is nothing to write on what action parties shoukd take 

 

So again, what should happen in Bengal? What police action was initiated by Mamta's govt?

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The same grounds they used to argue their case in the UN. 
If territorry legally being India's was the only issue, then UN would not have asked for a mandate. They asked for a mandate, because they think that the people of Kashmir deserve to have their own destiny. 

UN asked for a mandate because Ind went to UN 

 

Can Ind go to UN asking for a mandate on Sindh 

 

  (stop copying me, dude, a crow can't be a crane  )

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

If you think it is a joint blame, why are writing against ABVP only? .... For me, it could be self defense and nothing that does not happen on campuses in Ind. It is in fact sad to see professors, etc join in too 

Because it was ABVP as a group, against a few individuals. 

It could be self defence. It could be ABVP stared it. But you asked where the OP said ABVP was responsible and i showed you. Which is pretty unquestionable, since the word 'with' means equal culpability. 

That is what the OP said.

 

Quote

Common sense suggests that if parties are sensible, they woukd in fact expel such elements. As it would be seen as a positive so there is nothing to write on what action parties shoukd take 

There is everything to write on what action parties should take, because political parties in India do not take such action.

 

Quote

 

So again, what should happen in Bengal? What police action was initiated by Mamta's govt ?

What should happen in Bengal and across entire India, is people like you who justify one crime with another should stop doing it and the police should prosecute every single crime with no mercy.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

UN asked for a mandate because Ind went to UN 

 

Can Ind go to UN asking for a mandate on Sindh 

 

  (stop copying me, dude, a crow can't be a crane  )

But the fact that UN asked India for a mandate, means that India winning/losing Kashmir is irrelevant, as India has de-jure authority.

If De-jure authority is only thing what matters, which is what you are implying, then why would UN ask for mandate and not ask Pakistan to vacate legal Indian territory ?

 

Nehru was naive in many ways, but he wasnt such a big fool to realize that the UN would ask for a mandate on Kashmir anyways, as the sovereign of Kashmir was not of popular mandate but divine right of kingship. in democratic framework of the UN, the mandate would've been asked regardless and India would've lost the mandate if the mandate would be carried out.

So Nehru chose to keep half the apple, than no apple.

This is pretty straightforward.

 

PS: You are not thekedaar of emoticons. When you say something stupid, i can use the stupid emoticon.

 

[zen]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Because it was ABVP as a group, against a few individuals. 

It could be self defence. It could be ABVP stared it. But you asked where the OP said ABVP was responsible and i showed you. Which is pretty unquestionable, since the word 'with' means equal culpability. 

That is what the OP said.

 

There is everything to write on what action parties should take, because political parties in India do not take such action.

 

What should happen in Bengal and across entire India, is people like you who justify one crime with another should stop doing it and the police should prosecute every single crime with no mercy.

 

It does not specify ABVP started it .... and since you are NOT sure, no point in discussing this further 

 

So you are basically saying what I said on what action should be taken against those who issue such threats so again what is the issue here aoart from you being a dishonest hypicrite who debates on points no one is making?

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

But the fact that UN asked India for a mandate, means that India winning/losing Kashmir is irrelevant, as India has de-jure authority.

If De-jure authority is only thing what matters, which is what you are implying, then why would UN ask for mandate and not ask Pakistan to vacate legal Indian territory ?

 

Nehru was naive in many ways, but he wasnt such a big fool to realize that the UN would ask for a mandate on Kashmir anyways, as the sovereign of Kashmir was not of popular mandate but divine right of kingship. in democratic framework of the UN, the mandate would've been asked regardless and India would've lost the mandate if the mandate would be carried out.

So Nehru chose to keep half the apple, than no apple.

This is pretty straightforward.

 

PS: You are not thekedaar of emoticons. When you say something stupid, i can use the stupid emoticon.

 

UN asked Ind for a mandate because Ind went to UN for resolution .... if Pak goes to UN, Ind can simply show the instrument of accession and ask UN to not get involved like it is doing now .... In fact, Kashmir issue has now been taken off UN's list, iirc, so that should tell you something 

 

I am not a thakedar but dont appreciate copycats 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

It does not specify ABVP started it .... and since you are NOT sure, no point in discussing this further 

It doesnt specify anything. It uses the word 'with', which means equal culpability in the OP. 

There is nothing 'unsure' about the OP. 

 

Quote

 

So you are basically saying what I said on what action should be taken against those who issue such threats so again what is the issue here aoart from you being a dishonest hypicrite who debates on points no one is making?

Do you know the meaning of the word hypocrite ?

Because i don't think you do. 
Otherwise, me saying anyone who utters rape/death treats and commits crime should be expelled by the party and have the criminal law applied, would not be 'hypocritical'.

 

On the other hand, saying stuff like:

 

Quote

Common sense suggests that if parties are sensible, they woukd in fact expel such elements. As it would be seen as a positive so there is nothing to write on what action parties shoukd take 

and then saying :

Quote

 

I m actually talking about taking action against those who issue such threats .... Common sense would suggest that any action law can take > party's 

 

is hypocritical.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

UN asked Ind for a mandate because Ind went to UN for resolution .... if Pak goes to UN, Ind can simply show the instrument of accession and ask UN to not get involved like it is doing now .... In fact, Kashmir issue has now been taken off UN's list, iirc, so that should tell you something 

 

I am not a thakedar but dont appreciate copycats 

If India could show instrument of accession and its matter over, then why would the UN ask for a plebiscite, because India always had the instrument of accession in the back pocket.

 

The fact that India had the instrument of accession and the UN STILL asked India for referendum means the instrument of accession is irrelevant to the reason UN asked for referendum.

 

now, do you think India would've won the referendum in whole of Kashmir ?

 

IN what list is Kashmir taken off by the UN exactly ?

 

[zen]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

It doesnt specify anything. It uses the word 'with', which means equal culpability in the OP. 

There is nothing 'unsure' about the OP. 

 

Do you know the meaning of the word hypocrite ?

Because i don't think you do. 
Otherwise, me saying anyone who utters rape/death treats and commits crime should be expelled by the party and have the criminal law applied, would not be 'hypocritical'.

 

On the other hand, saying stuff like:

 

and then saying :

 

is hypocritical.

 

Read my posts. I asked you to show me where it says ABVP started it .... And if you think it is equal culpibility, there is no point in blaming ABVP like a dishonest hypocrite 

 

And I have said that thise who issue such threats should be punished. So what is a person who ignores what is being clearly stated and goes on to assume that I do not want action be called? And when that person acts as if he is standing up for what is right but only blames one party, while dishonestly misrepresenting the position of one he is debating against? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

Read my posts. I asked you to show me where it says ABVP started it .... And if you think it is equal culpibility, there is no point in blaming ABVP like a dishonest hypocrite 

I did not blame ABVP for starting the riot. I blamed ABVP for not doing anything about its members issuing rape threats to an Indian citizen and that too, the daughter of a national hero.

 

You said you don't read my posts unless it is specifically addressed to you, so read the rest before you form opinions on what i am saying, as you are getting only half the picture.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

Because Ind acceped the terms with Nehru assuming things (miscalculation)would be sorted out in this way 

 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Jammu-and-Kashmir-out-of-U.N.-list-of-disputes/article15687886.ece

 

^ Kashmir is off UN list

 

I don't know what you are going on and on about 

 

But India accepting terms has nothing to do with UN presenting terms. 

If you say instrument of accession is the only issue, why would UN present terms with referendum ?

Its pretty logical to say that if UN thinks referendum has to happen, then UN doesn't care about instrument of accession. and if referendum would've been demanded anyways, how would India refuse referendum if it controlled all of Kashmir and still say it has the mandate of its people ??

 

You didnt answer my question re: India winning/losing referendum in full Kashmir.

 

[zen]

47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

But India accepting terms has nothing to do with UN presenting terms. 

If you say instrument of accession is the only issue, why would UN present terms with referendum ?

Its pretty logical to say that if UN thinks referendum has to happen, then UN doesn't care about instrument of accession. and if referendum would've been demanded anyways, how would India refuse referendum if it controlled all of Kashmir and still say it has the mandate of its people ??

 

You didnt answer my question re: India winning/losing referendum in full Kashmir.

 

UN presented terms such as referendum to Ind because Ind went to UN despite having instrument of accession. This gave Pak an opportunity to present its version and therefore the refendum with the conditions of Pak having to remove all its citizens (including its army disguised as tribals) from PoK .... Ind forced itself into that situation as a result of miscalculation and despite advice from the likes of Sardar Patel

 

If Pak had simply gone to UN, Ind would not have had to accept even UN intervention as Kashmir is a legal part of Ind .... Ind has learned the lesson the hard way 

 

To me, referendum does not matter once Kashmir signed the instrument of accession .... Note that it was Pak that attacked Kashmir with its soilders disguised as tribals and caused havoc in the region 

 

 

PS

 

 

 

As mentioned, Kashmir has been taken off the UN list 

Edited February 27, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

23 minutes ago, zen said:

 

If Pak had simply gone to UN, Ind would not have had to accept any terms or even UN intervention as Kashmir is a legal part of Ind .... Ind has learned the lesson the hard way 

India would not accept the terms and then India would lose its status in the eyes of the world as a mandated democracy. It'd have been seen as a sham democracy. 

 

Quote

 

To me, referendum does not matter once Kashmir signed the instrument of accession

but it matters to the UN.

 

Quote

Again, you are going on and on and wasting time over nothing 

I am exploring the possibility that Nehru deliberately stopped the war and went to the UN because he knew that if India completely re-conquered Kashmir and UN still asked for a plebiscite, then India would lose Kashmir or lose reputation for being a sham democracy.

As i said, he figured 'half an apple is better than no apple'.