The Arundhati Roy thread

[ina_jawaan]

This lady pisses me off immensely as I mentioned in this thread a year ago. Now she has left all acceptable limits of Indian democracy and starts calling for secession and calling us all Indians bhookha-nanga people. One of her statement yesterday as mentioned in news sources is: Kashmir should get Azadi from bhookhe-nange Hindustan This should shut up all the Arundhati supporters in this forum. She is a bloody b*tch and wont be surprised if she is a paid agent of some foreign country too. No Indian however corrupt or pathetic with even a single patriotic bone in his/her body would make such a statement. She is NOT an Indian and is even worse than separatist dogs.

Another lazy and misleading statement. She was arguing AGAINST this slogan which she heard at a Kashmiri rally. What she actually said was "The slogan that cut through me like a knife and clean broke my heart was this one: Nanga bhookha Hindustan, jaan se pyaara Pakistan. (Naked, starving India, More precious than life itself - Pakistan.) Why was it so galling, so painful to listen to this? I tried to work it out and settled on three reasons. First, because we all know that the first part of the slogan is the embarrassing and unadorned truth about India, the emerging superpower. Second, because all Indians who are not nanga or bhooka are and have been complicit in complex and historical ways with the elaborate cultural and economic systems that make Indian society so cruel, so vulgarly unequal. And third, because it was painful to listen to people who have suffered so much themselves mock others who suffer, in different ways, but no less intensely, under the same oppressor. In that slogan I saw the seeds of how easily victims can become perpetrators." http://www.countercurrents.org/roy230808.htm

[ina_jawaan]

You have obviously not read the UN resolution. Go and read it and then summarize what it says in 5 lines. That's your homework.

You can read it here yourself. http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm

[The Outsider]

You can read it here yourself. http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm

Thank you for link. Now if you have even a basic comprehension of the language the resolution is drafted in, you will understand what the following means and has it been fulfilled :

When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

If you still don't understand the resolution, try again. Jawaan ho, seekh jaaoge.

[seedhi]

I completely agree about the dangers of clerical fascism' date=' whatever religion it might cloak itself in. As Arundhati Roy has said, Kashmir is a "toxin" which poisons the whole region and feeds both jihadist and Hindu revivalist sensitivities. It would be a tragedy if the intifada developing now in Kashmir was derailed into the clerical fascist route which it took in Iran and which it might yet take in Palestine. In the dialectic of the Kashmir struggle there are 3 strands - a) the unquestioning affirmation of the status quo ("Kashmir is Indian"), b) the abstract negation of this ("Kashmir cannot be part of India therefore it must be part of Pakistan") and c) a more well rounded perspective which both recognises the apiration of most people in Kashmir for an end to Indian occupation and couples this with a recognition of the right of all communities to live in Kashmir. This last is Roy's position and it is vital that Roy and those who think like her are allowed to put forward this position both within Kashmir and within India generally. The alernative is a further polarisation along communalist lines across the whole region, leading to the increasing Islamisation of Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan. At the same time the Indian state would become increasingly militarised, Hindu revivalist politics would gain the ascendancy and Indian muslims would be more inclined as a reaction to embrace Islamist politics.[/quote']She can spout her views as much as she likes. But the Constitution of India does not permit secession and there is a unanimous parliamentary resolution saying that Kashmir is an integral part of India. So no azaadi is happening. Ever. As far as stabilizing the region through Kashmir is concerned - there is NO evidence to suggest that any pro-azaadi solution will have a positive impact on India (not that its happening anyway). On the other hand what is abundantly clear is that in its obsession with Kashmir, pakistan has embarked on a path of suicide. This should be seen as a positive development for India. I believe that in a few years pakistan will cease to exist as a country and plunge itself in civil war. That would be the ultimate settlement for the Kashmir issue, for I believe the solution lies in the destruction of pakistan, and that wretched country will surely oblige us in committing suicide within a few years.

[ina_jawaan]

Thank you for link. Now if you have even a basic comprehension of the language the resolution is drafted in, you will understand what the following means and has it been fulfilled : If you still don't understand the resolution, try again. Jawaan ho, seekh jaaoge.

On the contrary I referred not merely to Resolution 47 but “UN Resolution 47 originally passed in 1948 and subsequently revisedâ€. In other words I was ALSO referring to all the resolutions passed since then and especially since the McNaughton Report of 1949. The McNaughton Report undertook “To avoid unprofitable discussion of disputed issues of the past.... â€. Along these lines it proposed “an agreed program of progressive demilitarization, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CEASEFIRE LINE by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages â€. Following this, a plebiscite could be held. All subsequent UN Resolutions have been based on the McNaughton Report. Which is why I wrote that “India has repeatedly refused to agree to a demilitarisation of the region in order to conduct a plebiscite to consult the people of Kashmir on the final status of the region....†I am quite happy to continue the discussion about the legal niceties of the Kashmir issue but I think we should move to a separate thread as this has no direct bearing on the positions taken by Arundhati Roy.

[seedhi]

As for the "brutality" of India's occupation it is common knowledge nowadays – Noam Chomsky recently said much the same thing! When half a million soldiers are in a region enforcing a regime against the wishes of the majority of the population there, I think we are justified in calling it an "occupation". As for international law, both India and Pakistan are complicit - India has repeatedly refused to agree to a demilitarisation of the region in order to conduct a plebiscite to consult the people of Kashmir on the final status of the region, as required by UN Resolution 47 originally passed in 1948 and subsequently revised. Pakistan has also repeatedly refused to allow Kashmiris a "third option" of outright independence in a plebiscite. The point is that it is in Indian occupied Kashmir that discontent with Indian rule is so widespread that an uprising has broken out.

LOL! Those half a million soldiers are present ONLY BECAUSE the terrorist state of pakistan regularly sends over jehadi terrorists across the LoC to slaughter people. BEFORE 1989 THERE WAS NO MILITARY IN CIVILIAN AREAS. The only problem is the running of terrorist camps in PoK and in pakistan. That is why I am certain that the destruction/disintegration of pakistan is the only real solution to the Kashmir/terrorism/extremism problems in the subcontinent. Because willingly pakistan is not going to give up the terror option, it has to be reduced to state where it cant afford it - which will hopefully happen in the next few years through deprivation and civil strife leading to fragmentation.

[seedhi]

On the contrary I referred not merely to Resolution 47 but “UN Resolution 47 originally passed in 1948 and subsequently revisedâ€. In other words I was ALSO referring to all the resolutions passed since then and especially since the McNaughton Report of 1949. The McNaughton Report undertook “To avoid unprofitable discussion of disputed issues of the past.... â€. Along these lines it proposed “an agreed program of progressive demilitarization, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CEASEFIRE LINE by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages â€. Following this, a plebiscite could be held. All subsequent UN Resolutions have been based on the McNaughton Report. Which is why I wrote that “India has repeatedly refused to agree to a demilitarisation of the region in order to conduct a plebiscite to consult the people of Kashmir on the final status of the region....†I am quite happy to continue the discussion about the legal niceties of the Kashmir issue but I think we should move to a separate thread as this has no direct bearing on the positions taken by Arundhati Roy.

The UN resolutions have long become invalid. Several events have taken place since then which can be pointed to. Firstly, in the 1960s China occupied Aksai-Chin which was a part of the J&K state in 1947 and this occupation was agreed to by pakistan in a formal agreement - i.e. pakistan unilaterally bartered away a significant part of J&K. Secondly, in 1972 in the Shimla agreement pakistan itself agreed that all disputes have to be settled bilaterally and there is no room for any third party including the UN. And in the Manmohan-Musharraf talks from 2004-2007 the pakistani position had abandoned its primacy of the UN resolution. These UN resolutions are anyway not enforceable and not worth the paper they written on.

[ravishingravi]

Exposing Ina Jawaan a bit more Ina Jawaan posted this "“This one cannot by any means call itself pristine, and will always be stigmatised by, and will some day, I hope, have to account for among other things the brutal killings of Kashmiri Pandits in the early years of the uprising, culminating in the exodus of almost the entire community from the Kashmir Valley. ” http://www.global-sisterhood-network.../view/2178/59/" Now, let me present the entire quote by Roy, "Standing in the grounds of the TRC, surrounded by a sea of green flags, it was impossible to doubt or ignore the deeply Islamic nature of the uprising taking place around me. It was equally impossible to label it a vicious, terrorist jehad. For Kashmiris, it was a catharsis. A historical moment in a long and complicated struggle for freedom with all the imperfections, cruelties and confusions that freedom struggles have. This one cannot by any means call itself pristine, and will always be stigmatised by, and will some day, I hope, have to account for among other things the brutal killings of Kashmiri Pandits in the early years of the uprising, culminating in the exodus of almost the entire community from the Kashmir Valley." So, she basically refuses to concede radical islamlization and the subequent killings as Jehad. In fact she calls it "catharsis". Yeah I wonder why Kashmiri Pandits are pissed at her. As for other claims he has made ”1) spreading the lie that Roy ever said “The people of Dantewanda have risen up”” It is wonderful how the simplest of Google search can elude some. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmMRadlB6VE]YouTube - Arundhati Roy on Dantewada Naxal attack[/ame] “I salute people of Dantewada: Arundhati Roy” http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/i-salute-people-of-dantewada-arundhati-roy_100348149.html 2) trying to fictionally manufacture a schism in the long and distinguished collaboration between Roy and Chomsky in support of popular struggles across the globe (including Kashmir) I am still waiting Jawan. So, far you have not shown any more acumen than Arundhati in your claims other than smart usage of thesarus. As, I have said, if having an acquaintance or a broad mutual respect is assumed as endorsement of every single position of Miss Roy then it shows how desperate her supporters truly are. I also notice how smartly you have eluded Post no. 99. To be honest, you were nailed bro. 3) claiming that Roy never acknowledged “the predicament of the Pandits”. As I have posted the entire quote above, if this is how she acknowledges their predicament, I can clealry understand their demosntrations against her. As for the second quote ""I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland..." Firstly Ina learn to read the thread before, it usually helps to not make a fool of oneself. This has already been posted. This quote on the back of the recently held secessionist conference after the outcry over her remarks which was protested and interrupted by guess who??? "Kashmiri Pandits" Again I ask Don't go the Miss Roy route, atleast know about the current affairs. I have already posted links to confirm the above fact. Yes, I can see why some can find links childish esp. when one doesn't know how to search for them , esp. when one doesn't know how to post the entire context , esp when one doesn't have any links, esp. after getting found out time and again one can still have an "Ostrich" approach. Well to be honest, that is what has made Miss Roy what she is, so you are on track. “Don't embarrass yourself mate.” Sorry mate, but by not addressing the post in its entirety, I am afraid you are doing so. Moot point is there was an uprising 1980s, but how exactly is military responsible for Ethnic cleansing. Am asking a very simple question "How did military ocupation lead to ethnic cleansic of hindus ? " All I am asking for is a link "Definition of Ethnic Cleansing as per UN “[E]thnic cleansing [...] defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of a population from a given territory" ”As for the "brutality" of India's occupation it is common knowledge nowadays – Noam Chomsky recently said much the same thing! http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/..._obamas_nobel/” It is his opinion and I respect it and wouldn’t necessarily disagree with it, because unlike a fundamentalist and her blind followers, he also say this "“Kashmir, though, is a much more complex story. There are plenty of problems in Kashmir and they go way back, but the major current conflicts come from the 1980s. In 1986, when India blocked the election, it actually stole the election, and that led to an uprising and terrorist violence and atrocities, including atrocities committed by the Indian army. “ I never denied atrocities by the India military, but you don’t read the post before replying, do ya ? Yes, there was and is military brutality, ethnic cleansing, unrest, infiltration and cross border terrorism. Btw the militancy part has only recently been admitted by your ex-president Musharraf We trained militant groups against India, admits Musharraf http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-trained-militant-groups-against-india-ad/692856/ ”Oh by the way you also said” "she conviniently leaves out the Islamization and the radical elements infiltrated into India from Pakistan..." "One of the things that happened in the early 1990s in Kashmir was that when the elections were rigged in 1987, which led to the movement in Kashmir which existed beforehand, suddenly it had become a militant movement, and there were young men rising up with arms, young men crossing the border to Pakistan to train and come back." I must say you are an astute follower of Miss Roy, literally picking up her editing tools. Let me put my entire statement up “I conviniently leaves out the Islamization and the radical elements infiltrated into India from Pakistan” My implication was the influence from across the border leading to growing radicalization in name of Islam. If you provide me the link where she talks about Pak and cross border terrorism and the militancy, then, hey I have no issues in accepting your or her point. Now, this is the homework for you (optional). As I said earlier, I have no rigid opinions on any person. So, in order to change my opinion and those of other readers about her which is a noble act indeed. Provide me links on her challenging the sharia act as desired by Mr Geelani whom she support. Provide me links for her condemnation of Pakistan esp. after Pervez Musharraf’s admission of training militants. I ll deal next with the Maoist propaganda Unless, you provide opinions of her which give rounded view on the subject, why do you think anyone will oppose. So, if your arguments, or whatever you call them need to have tenability, then all we ask is for you to put forth a Roy's objective outlook. Otherwise I have no interest in encouraging a troll.

[seedhi]

Can someone enlighten me on this so called "brutal military occupation"? I mean it must be a unique "brutal military occupation" where the people who support the military -- Kashmir Pandits -- have been forced out of their homes to live in refugee camps for the last 20 years. It is also unique that non-Kashmiris are prevented to buy land in Kashmir thereby preventing the integration of Kashmir with India. Compare it to China's policy of settling Hans in Tibet. And why does this "brutal military occupation" refuse to use heavy artillery, tanks, fighter jets, helicopter gunships. Why does it choose to fight guns with only guns? Concern for collateral damage maybe .. Compare that to China, which had no qualms in rolling down tanks in its capital to suppress students, Russia which used a scorched earth policy in Chechneya or pakistan which is using fighter jets in its tribal areas. So much for the "brutal military occupation".

[ravishingravi]

Can someone enlighten me on this so called "brutal military occupation"? I mean it must be a unique "brutal military occupation" where the people who support the military -- Kashmir Pandits -- have been forced out of their homes to live in refugee camps for the last 20 years. It is also unique that non-Kashmiris are prevented to buy land in Kashmir thereby preventing the integration of Kashmir with India. Compare it to China's policy of settling Hans in Tibet. And why does this "brutal military occupation" refuse to use heavy artillery, tanks, fighter jets, helicopter gunships. Why does it choose to fight guns with only guns? Concern for collateral damage maybe .. Compare that to China, which had no qualms in rolling down tanks in its capital to suppress students, Russia which used a scorched earth policy in Chechneya or pakistan which is using fighter jets in its tribal areas. So much for the "brutal military occupation".

Seedhi China, Russia and a failed state like Pakistan are not exactly great yardsticks for India to set in terms of Human Rights. I agree the instances of brutality by these countries are on a different league, but there is no doubt that Indian military has stayed far too long in the valley and the events recently have been nothing short of pathetic. I feel Kashmiri anger is completely justified. Then again imo, the idea of a State in itself encapsulates a certain element of dehumanization and brutality. Look through history.

[ina_jawaan]

Exposing Ina Jawaan a bit more Ina Jawaan posted this "“This one cannot by any means call itself pristine, and will always be stigmatised by, and will some day, I hope, have to account for among other things the brutal killings of Kashmiri Pandits in the early years of the uprising, culminating in the exodus of almost the entire community from the Kashmir Valley. ” http://www.global-sisterhood-network.../view/2178/59/" Now, let me present the entire quote by Roy, "Standing in the grounds of the TRC, surrounded by a sea of green flags, it was impossible to doubt or ignore the deeply Islamic nature of the uprising taking place around me. It was equally impossible to label it a vicious, terrorist jehad. For Kashmiris, it was a catharsis. A historical moment in a long and complicated struggle for freedom with all the imperfections, cruelties and confusions that freedom struggles have. This one cannot by any means call itself pristine, and will always be stigmatised by, and will some day, I hope, have to account for among other things the brutal killings of Kashmiri Pandits in the early years of the uprising, culminating in the exodus of almost the entire community from the Kashmir Valley." So, she basically refuses to concede radical islamlization and the subequent killings as Jehad. In fact she calls it "catharsis". Yeah I wonder why Kashmiri Pandits are pissed at her. As for other claims he has made ”1) spreading the lie that Roy ever said “The people of Dantewanda have risen up”” It is wonderful how the simplest of Google search can elude some.

“I salute people of Dantewada: Arundhati Roy” http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/i-salute-people-of-dantewada-arundhati-roy_100348149.html 2) trying to fictionally manufacture a schism in the long and distinguished collaboration between Roy and Chomsky in support of popular struggles across the globe (including Kashmir) I am still waiting Jawan. So, far you have not shown any more acumen than Arundhati in your claims other than smart usage of thesarus. As, I have said, if having an acquaintance or a broad mutual respect is assumed as endorsement of every single position of Miss Roy then it shows how desperate her supporters truly are. I also notice how smartly you have eluded Post no. 99. To be honest, you were nailed bro. 3) claiming that Roy never acknowledged “the predicament of the Pandits”. As I have posted the entire quote above, if this is how she acknowledges their predicament, I can clealry understand their demosntrations against her. As for the second quote ""I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland..." Firstly Ina learn to read the thread before, it usually helps to not make a fool of oneself. This has already been posted. This quote on the back of the recently held secessionist conference after the outcry over her remarks which was protested and interrupted by guess who??? "Kashmiri Pandits" Again I ask Don't go the Miss Roy route, atleast know about the current affairs. I have already posted links to confirm the above fact. Yes, I can see why some can find links childish esp. when one doesn't know how to search for them , esp. when one doesn't know how to post the entire context , esp when one doesn't have any links, esp. after getting found out time and again one can still have an "Ostrich" approach. Well to be honest, that is what has made Miss Roy what she is, so you are on track. “Don't embarrass yourself mate.” Sorry mate, but by not addressing the post in its entirety, I am afraid you are doing so. Moot point is there was an uprising 1980s, but how exactly is military responsible for Ethnic cleansing. Am asking a very simple question "How did military ocupation lead to ethnic cleansic of hindus ? " All I am asking for is a link "Definition of Ethnic Cleansing as per UN “[E]thnic cleansing [...] defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of a population from a given territory" ”As for the "brutality" of India's occupation it is common knowledge nowadays – Noam Chomsky recently said much the same thing! http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/..._obamas_nobel/” It is his opinion and I respect it and wouldn’t necessarily disagree with it, because unlike a fundamentalist and her blind followers, he also say this "“Kashmir, though, is a much more complex story. There are plenty of problems in Kashmir and they go way back, but the major current conflicts come from the 1980s. In 1986, when India blocked the election, it actually stole the election, and that led to an uprising and terrorist violence and atrocities, including atrocities committed by the Indian army. “ I never denied atrocities by the India military, but you don’t read the post before replying, do ya ? Yes, there was and is military brutality, ethnic cleansing, unrest, infiltration and cross border terrorism. Btw the militancy part has only recently been admitted by your ex-president Musharraf We trained militant groups against India, admits Musharraf http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-trained-militant-groups-against-india-ad/692856/ ”Oh by the way you also said” "she conviniently leaves out the Islamization and the radical elements infiltrated into India from Pakistan..." "One of the things that happened in the early 1990s in Kashmir was that when the elections were rigged in 1987, which led to the movement in Kashmir which existed beforehand, suddenly it had become a militant movement, and there were young men rising up with arms, young men crossing the border to Pakistan to train and come back." I must say you are an astute follower of Miss Roy, literally picking up her editing tools. Let me put my entire statement up “I conviniently leaves out the Islamization and the radical elements infiltrated into India from Pakistan” My implication was the influence from across the border leading to growing radicalization in name of Islam. If you provide me the link where she talks about Pak and cross border terrorism and the militancy, then, hey I have no issues in accepting your or her point. Now, this is the homework for you (optional). As I said earlier, I have no rigid opinions on any person. So, in order to change my opinion and those of other readers about her which is a noble act indeed. Provide me links on her challenging the sharia act as desired by Mr Geelani whom she support. Provide me links for her condemnation of Pakistan esp. after Pervez Musharraf’s admission of training militants. I ll deal next with the Maoist propaganda Unless, you provide opinions of her which give rounded view on the subject, why do you think anyone will oppose. So, if your arguments, or whatever you call them need to have tenability, then all we ask is for you to put forth a Roy's objective outlook. Otherwise I have no interest in encouraging a troll.

Ravi – this is really desperate stuff. I am not Pakistani (not that it should matter if I were) – I was born in Assam, went to school in Dehradun, lived in Kolkata for a while and currently resident in UK. If you want to do all your “our friend over the border”, “your president Musharraff” stuff then that is up to you but it only serves as a distraction from your risible arguments. You can call me a “troll” if you want but if I see people being abused, racially or by being called “dog”, “*****” (even calls for them to be murdered on this thread!) etc., in a cricket community I wanted to belong to, then I can't keep quiet. Sorry, maybe I could have been more diplomatic but there you go............ As for your post................ You stated in post 81: “I salute the people of Dantewada who have stood up against such a mighty state.” - Arundhati Roy after the massacre of CRPF personnel by Maoists ” it is amazing how people can fantasise and dream up things which are not actually there – I repeat – where in the video does she say that? She NEVER said it! What is more – the comment she was reported to have made was NOT in a televised press conference recorded on video but a speech at a public meeting organised on June 2 2010 by the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR) - which was then inaccurately reported by a reporter attributing that quote to her - of course this was then eagerly picked up by the wonderful Indian "free" press (which I note Chomsky had some stern words for the other day). I really needn't say any more – I have already posted the link which explains what she actually said on post 87 where I wrote: “Of course it would be absurd to try and defend every single statement any human being makes. It is noteworthy, however, that in the case of Dantewanda she never actually said what was attributed to her. http://www.thehindu.com/news/nationa...service=mobile ” Please withdraw your calumy! 2) The political collaboration of Chomsky and Roy is a matter of public record – here is a list of some of their most recent collaboration together. There are lots of other links I could post – these should do for now: September 2010 Collaborated over “The Goldstone Report” http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/ken-loach-and-arundhati-roy-are-latest-narrators-of-goldstone-report.html Technology and Culture Forum 2 April 2010 http://www.green-rainbow.org/content/amy-goodman-arundhati-roy-noam-chomsky-discuss-threats-democracy-us Left Forum New York 21 March 2010 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_71tiSI9Qk]YouTube - Rekindling the Radical Imagination - Piven, Jones, Roy & Chomsky, March 21, 2010[/ame] Oct 12 2009 – Chomsky and Roy cosigned an open letter to the Indian government against a planned offensive on Maoist rebels http://globalgeopolitics.net/wordpress/2009/11/05/rights-india-govt-urged-to-rethink-war-on-maoists/ They both publish books for the same non-profit publishing house, South End Press. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=read_local 2008 Chomsky reviews “Listening To Grasshoppers; Field Notes On Democracy” by Roy - “In her searing account of the actual practice of the world's largest democracy, Arundhati Roy calls for 'factual precision' alongside of the 'real precision of poetry.' Remarkably, she combines those achievements to a degree that few can hope to approach. Roy shows in painful detail how the beneficiaries of the highly admired 10 percent growth rate are enjoying a 'new secessionism, ' leaving the great majority languishing in poverty and despair, with malnutrition reaching the same levels as sub-Saharan Africa. As surveillance and state terror extend, all under the guise of flourishing democracy, India is becoming 'a nation waiting to be accused, ' a nation where a confession extracted under torture can lead to the brink of nuclear war, and where 'fascism's firm footprint has appeared' in ways reminiscent of the early years of Nazism. Most chilling of all is that much of the grim portrait is all too familiar in the West. Roy asks whether our shriveled forms of democracy will be 'the endgame of the human race'--and shows vividly why this is a prospect not to be lightly dismissed. ” http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9781608460243-2 August 2006 cosigned letter to The Guardian about Lebanon War http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/03/syria.israelandthepalestinians 2001 - “War is Peace” - book coauthored by Chomsky and Arundhati Roy. This is a collaboration which has been going on for at least 10 years - why persist in your comical attempts to drive a wedge between Chomsky and Roy when none exists? 3) “if this is how she acknowledges their predicament, I can clealry understand their demosntrations against her.” So you do now accept that she does acknowledge their predicament? Of course the Kashmiri pundits are upset by their situation – Roy acknowledges this – and naturally some of the more extreme groups representing them wanted to disrupt a conference where independence for Kashmir was being discussed. There is nothing surprising about any of this. I am sure you could find a hundred links about this if you wanted to. The important thing is that Roy is not being silent about their situation but speaking the truth openly – both about their tragedy and the larger tragedy of Kashmir of which it is a part. Roy has agonised long and hard over the position of the various communities in Kashmir - this is a matter of public record. Didn't you know that? Take this for example - "Do the Hindus of Jammu and other minorities also have the right to self-determination? Will the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits living in exile, many of them in terrible poverty, have the right to return? Will they be paid reparations for the terrible losses they have suffered? " http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/kashmir.india Don't be ridiculuous – Roy never said that the Indian army is responsible for “ethnic cleansing”. She has openly stated (pay attention), in the first quote I posted on post 113, that the Kashmiri independence movement “will always be stigmatised by, and will some day, I hope, have to account for among other things the brutal killings of Kashmiri Pandits in the early years of the uprising, culminating in the exodus of almost the entire community from the Kashmir Valley. ” Neither has Roy denied the links between Pakistan and militancy in Kashmir. You seem to be having a lot of difficulty reading what is in front of you recently. It is obvious that “young men rising up with arms, young men crossing the border to Pakistan to train and come back” does refer to, as you put it, “Pak and cross border terrorism and the militancy”. In fact that statement is almost identical to the statement about Kashmir by Chomsky that you quote – if anything it goes further in explicitly identifying Pakistan as the source of some of the terrorism. "Provide me links on her challenging the sharia act as desired by Mr Geelani whom she support." Roy has been quite explicit in challenging some of the more reactionary aspects of the Kashmiri independence movement - consider this for example: "Those who wish to turn to the Qur'an for guidance will no doubt find guidance there. But what of those who do not wish to do that, or for whom the Qur'an does not make place?...." What will happen to homosexuals and adulterers and blasphemers? What of thieves and lafangas and writers who do not agree with the "complete social and moral code"? Will we be put to death as we are in Saudi Arabia? Will the cycle of death, repression and bloodshed continue? History offers many models for Kashmir's thinkers and intellectuals and politicians to study. What will the Kashmir of their dreams look like? Algeria? Iran? South Africa? Switzerland? Pakistan?" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/kashmir.india Let me conclude by saying that I am only defending Roy against some of the atrocious abuse which has been heaped on her on this thread. I am not her representative on earth and I donot claim to defend everything she has said or done in her entire life, even if I knew what that was. There was an injustice being done to her, which I have endeavoured to mitigate to the best of my limited capabilities.

[Prudent]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVAcud2ESaM]YouTube - Arundhati Roy at the Azaadi Conference[/ame]

[youngindia]

When half a million soldiers are in a region enforcing a regime against the wishes of the majority of the population there, I think we are justified in calling it an "occupation". .

the "wishes" you are talkin about pertains to only members of one religion and their poor record with respect to multi culturaism and democracy pretty much makes the "wishes" a moot point.it will be a surpise if they are friendly to a secular system. such "wishes" cannot be portrayed in a positive light because it works on a sectarian basis and at odds with the non muslim neighbours. so they cannot be respected for this reason. the state is there by legitimate means. one section of the popualtion wants to overthrow it by illegtimate desire and illegitimate means of terrorism. that's the plain truth. "Majority" refers to one sect of islam whose members have proved least receptive to democracy and your case is heavily tainted because of this sectarian nature.. Talking about people 's will when the people in question have a poor record in democratic credentials and (con tinue to have poor attitudes toweards democracy) is laughable. how can democracy flourish if people dream of shariah laws, spread of islam and all that delusional nonsense? the fautline here is inability of many muslims to align their politcal interests on a sectarian basis with their nonmuslim neighbours and following a archaic politcal philosophy . and you are being preposterous in talking about people's wishes when the seperatists have dreams of an islamic state and poor democractic credentials. how ridiculous and ironic can it get.

India has repeatedly refused to agree to a demilitarisation of the region in order to conduct a plebiscite to consult the people of Kashmir on the final status of the region, as required by UN Resolution 47 originally passed in 1948

That resolution is under chapter 6. its not an required enforceable resolution as under chapter 7. Chapter 6 is a set of recommendations pending agreement between 2 parties . there is nothing binding on India by this specific resolution and former geenral kofi annan spoke on this on a visit to pakistan. your understanding and all your comments onthe resolution are derived from this faulty understanding. and instrument of accession is valid instrument for accession under international law. India's legal case is air tight from there. let me put it this way. India will not leave kashmir. that's a practical way of looking at it. all this talk about plesbciite are all talks of dreamers. not going to happen in the politics of the real world. arundhati is an impractical woman who cannot look at things as it is and relies on hyperbole.

The point is that it is in Indian occupied Kashmir that discontent with Indian rule is so widespread that an uprising has broken out

people of mirpur or bhimber etc in the pok area are not regarded as real kashmiris by the kashmiris in the valley. the culture ,dress etc are different.

[youngindia]

c) a more well rounded perspective which both recognises the apiration of most people in Kashmir for an end to Indian occupation and couples this with a recognition of the right of all communities to live in Kashmir. This last is Roy's position and it is vital that Roy and those who think like her are allowed to put forward this position both within Kashmir and within India generally. .

you are mispresenting the situation by use of the word "people". Its misinformation by under information. the separatism is wholly sunni muslim based. and the islamic world as is well known has failed to divorce politics from religion by and large. This is the jackpot. the only reason there is a seperatist struggle is becuase its majority is sunni musllim. this has strong correlations with their historical tendency of demanding an islamic state with shariah laws. Infact it would be a surprise if they became genuine democrats. that's precisely why the seperatist campaign will always be morally bankrupt and illegitimate . All your attempts to portary struggle as positive fails glaringly on this one basis. members of other communities are not driven by the same desire. let's cut to the hard facts . are the sunni muslim population justified in following a archaic politcal philosphy that is at odds with their non muslim neighbours of their society? aren't people of several communities living together especially in this of migration and globalisation? how can a society work if one community wants a state to privilege their religion and want to pound other members into submission? obviously kashmir won't be the first or last problem caused by a muslim population . should they not prove more receptive to multi cultural democracy? should they not learn how to form politcal aspirations on a non sectarian basis and go along with their non muslim neighbours? Talking about people's wishes is ridiculous considering this context. we don't recognise the communal tendency of one community right of of as long as a muslim population form politcal goals which is at odds with their non muslim neighbours, there is going to be a problem. I was in europe last month. people were highly concerned about the politcal nature of their muslim population. some of them paranoid ofocurse. but their basic fear was right. Politcal islam is a real threat to multi cultural societies. no society can work if members of one community behave this way.

[youngindia]

Multicultural democracy and politcal islam are polar opposites.they are irreconcialiable. the "well rounded perspective" you are talkin about is impossible considering the scale of the divide. if you are supporting or condoning politcal islam, you are being hostile to the ideals of multicultural democracy. and vice versa. the likes of arundhati roy in my view has failed to grasp the strategic implications and dangers of political islam and she is being ridicuous and not credible in talkin about democracy, concerning people who are not at all interested in democracy. the sunni muslim(atleats many of them) want an islamic state. the non muslims of kashmir cannot live in dignity and won't live under an islamic state. let me put it slowly. the desire of the kashmiri sunni muslims for an islamic state is totally against the wishes of the non muslims. so how can she do justice to both? by camouflaging political islam as "people's wishes"? does not wash. peole who support or condone an discriminatory islamic state against the wishes of the non muslims deserve stick. people who support or condone communal politics deserve stick. people who talk about democracy when their supporting party has no interest or poor credentials in democracy are showing themselves to be shallow and absurd.

[someone]

Good work youngindia, Pity how incapable our Indian government is when one person(foreigner) comes at splits at their faces, yet they are doing nothing. However when another person talks some sense( Varun Gandhi) he is booked and jailed.

[youngindia]

However when another person talks some sense( Varun Gandhi) he is booked and jailed.

i have to clear this misunderstanding. i hate the sangh parivar as well for their politcal philosophy.if you think the communalism in the islamic world is not ok, why is the comunalism of the sangh any more defensible? . the notion of a state defending a religion or a particular community sharing a politcal interest is not only narrow minded but medieval nonsense and does not withtsand critical scrutiny in the modern age. The islamic world(many aprts of them) and the sangh parivar have not come out of this medieval mindset. Politics basically boils down to public services and public order.its about who can deliver these things. do i care a damn whether politcian is hindu or whatever. its about whether he has dedication and capacityfor public service. all this stuff about defending islam or hinduism or chritsanity is delusional nonsense.whoever it comes from.they are a waste of time and space. my ideas are clear,. politics should be fought about delivery of public services ona nonsectarian basis for all citizens of a country. citizens of any denomiantion or group should have equal opportunity to access this services. i

[someone]

i have to clear this misunderstanding. i hate the sangh parivar as well for their politcal philosophy.if you think the communalism in the islamic world is not ok, why is the comunalism of the sangh any more defensible? . the notion of a state defending a religion or a particular community sharing a politcal interest is not only narrow minded but medieval nonsense and does not withtsand critical scrutiny in the modern age. The islamic world(many aprts of them) and the sangh parivar have not come out of this medieval mindset. Politics basically boils down to public services and public order.its about who can deliver these things. do i care a damn whether politcian is hindu or whatever. its about whether he has dedication and capacityfor public service. all this stuff about defending islam or hinduism or chritsanity is delusional nonsense.whoever it comes from.they are a waste of time and space. my ideas are clear,. politics should be fought about delivery of public services ona nonsectarian basis for all citizens of a country. citizens of any denomiantion or group should have equal opportunity to access this services. i

Look, seems like I have started an uncessary discussion. However, pretty useless of your part to bring the point of sangh parivar as the topic itself is totally different. That is like talking about Muslim League and how you hate their political philosophy. I think we should leave that out. The point is that in India, the government itself are really scared some of these people who can happily make anti Indian comments.

[ina_jawaan]

@youngindia You seem to be well informed about the legal issues. I am not legally competent enough to be able to state unequivocally that international law is being violated in a strictly technical sense by Indian rule in Kashmir. As far as I can see, your position boils down to saying – the people who live in Kashmir have no legal right to decide on the status of their territory. It seems to me that anyone who wants “justice done” within a legal framework should want ALL the provisions of the original jurisdiction fulfilled, including the requirement to consult the people of Kashmir on the question of the final status of the territory. India may be legally correct to say that it is not legally obliged to consult the people of Kashmir until Pakistan withdraws its troops from Kashmir. But this does not necessarily mean that the final status of the territory has been resolved. It may only indicate that the final status of the territory still awaits legal clarification. To dogmatically insist that India has an “air tight” case, backed up as it is by half a million soldiers on the ground, is to largely vacate the “legal” terrain and submit to the ultimate arbitration of brute force. Even if you are right about the position regarding the UN resolutions, and even if we accept that Kashmir is legally a part of India, are you completely sure that the population of a certain part of a country has absolutely no right in international law to secede from that country? I suspect that your glib presentation of a cut and dry case is not based on a very close acquaintance with all the legal arguments either. Otherwise you would pay more attention to the complexities of the issue. However I repeat to you what I said to The Outsider – the legal technicalities of such a complex issue deserve a thread on their own and have no direct bearing on Arundhati Roy’s position, which is based not on the technical “illegality”, but the popular illegitimacy, of the forcible imposition of Indian rule against the wishes of the majority of people living in Kashmir. As for your other arguments I could say a lot more but I will restrict myself to one observation. The denial of political subjecthood to a whole category of people on the basis of their nominal religious denomination is not a recognisably democratic formulation. I am going to make this my last contribution on this forum as I have other areas of my life which now demand more attention. Also I have got the feeling that people with views similar to my own are not contributing because they somehow feel they do not want to be associated with me. Under these circumstances I feel that the best course of action for me is to withdraw and allow other people to have their say and scrutinise the arguments which have raged back and forth over the past few weeks.