coffee_rules Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 WTF is the big deal? Why can't the Cong govt just hoist a flag in Lal Chowk and be done with it. This guy says it will hurt minority sentiments...Truly WTF? http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/bjps-lal-chowk-plans-not-in-national-interest/20110124.htm here is a section that is asking what is so wrong about hoisting the national flag in Srinagar? Who is saying anything is wrong in hoisting the tricolour in Srinagar? In Jammu, the Governor will hoist the flag in a function. In Srinagar senior ministers will be there when the flag is hoisted. There will be a flag hoisting ceremony in every district headquarters in the state. So if the BJP wants to participate, they could have participated in any of these official functions. But why can't the BJP have the right to hoist the flag at Lal Chowk? Are they doing it elsewhere? Why are they just targeting Srinagar? I have a question. What is Republic Day? It is to reinforce the message that we are a secular democracy. But by targeting Srinagar are you not antagonising the minority? Why instead can't you send a message that you show willingness to co-operate and accommodate their aspirations? :omg:
asterix Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 WTF is the big deal? Why can't the Cong govt just hoist a flag in Lal Chowk and be done with it. This guy says it will hurt minority sentiments...Truly WTF? http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/bjps-lal-chowk-plans-not-in-national-interest/20110124.htm here is a section that is asking what is so wrong about hoisting the national flag in Srinagar? Who is saying anything is wrong in hoisting the tricolour in Srinagar? In Jammu, the Governor will hoist the flag in a function. In Srinagar senior ministers will be there when the flag is hoisted. There will be a flag hoisting ceremony in every district headquarters in the state. So if the BJP wants to participate, they could have participated in any of these official functions. But why can't the BJP have the right to hoist the flag at Lal Chowk? Are they doing it elsewhere? Why are they just targeting Srinagar? I have a question. What is Republic Day? It is to reinforce the message that we are a secular democracy. But by targeting Srinagar are you not antagonising the minority? Why instead can't you send a message that you show willingness to co-operate and accommodate their aspirations? :omg: Don't know about BJP's intentions but many a times Pak fal has been hoisted on Lal Chowk, without any incidents. So I don't understand what's the fuss about. When everybody can hoist any countries flag their, what's the problem in hoisting the Indian tricolour, once, atleast for a symbolic gesture. There's lot's of other ways to placate the minorities. I mean the Parliament attacker and the Mumbai attacker are still safe and sound an healthy. So what else do you want? Maybe Kashmir should be handed over to Pakistan as the Pak flag is regularly being hoisted in Lal chowk during Independance and Republic days..
yoda Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Last year a P@ki flag was hoisted with no govt. objections apparently, but this time around it is supposedly a big no-no to hoist an Indian flag in India. May be we should just hand over the land and be done with.
Sachin=GOD Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 The only objection the Govt seems to have is that its the BJP thats going to hoist the flag. Such is the narrow minded politics of the Congress that they won't allow the flag to be hoisted just because its an opposition party thats going to do it.
mhr123 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 i can't understand the phacking tension in J & K .. Tri Colour shud be hosted there w/o any fuss... who the hell are they to stop from flag hosting...
Clarke Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Another closed thread http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=257777 There's this attack in Moscow as well but seeing how threads end up, no point discussing it. Rather than Russia-Chechenya, there will be mention of ROP and bam, thread closed.
Texy Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 absolutely disgusting on top of that BJP leaders were arrested in Jammu Indians already cannot migrate to Kashmir or buy property and now we can't hoist our flag...what's the point of having Kashmir then? thousands of kashmiri pandits are already living in refugee camps...... hand it over to Pakistan. Congress dynasty will destroy India inch by inch
King Tendulkar Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 arrey baba ... It will "hurt the sentiments" tumko pata nahin man :yes: ... so what if there are a few hundreds dead ... :poink: :giggle:
Mariyam Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 absolutely disgusting on top of that BJP leaders were arrested in Jammu Indians already cannot migrate to Kashmir or buy property and now we can't hoist our flag...what's the point of having Kashmir then? thousands of kashmiri pandits are already living in refugee camps...... hand it over to Pakistan. Congress dynasty will destroy India inch by inch We can migrate to J&K. That is our constitutional right as is hoisting the national flag. If I understand article 370 correctly, a non Kashmiri Indian can migrate to J&K and stay/work there as long as he/she wishes but he/she will never get to vote in the J&K elections. His/her name cannot be added to the electoral roll in J&K. Indians cannot buy property in J&K. Even starting a business in J&K has to have a local partner. I'll share with you what a Kashmiri class mate of mine once told us. A bright lad, and very good looking too :P What he said in a nutshell is that article 370 hurts the people of J&K much more than it does the rest of India. They just can't find people to invest in Kashmir and they have a very tough time getting jobs elsewhere. When the article was first conceived, it was to ensure that the plebiscite ( which never took place) is fair and that there isn't any demographic swamping from the mainland. It was also put in place to ensure that Kashmiri industry ( mainly handicrafts) are well protected from the cheaper substitutes that were being mass produced in the rest of the country. The intentions of the legislature were noble. At least back then. This article was considered a 'bargain' in return for having the Maharaj of Kashmir sign the accession treaty. What the article did, is that de facto all the major economic activity of the state is through the state government and tourism. It killed the will for any private enterprise. No major external bank or creditor would loan a project in J&K. An Indian from the other states can't invest there also. So, we have a situation where in the government controls almost all jobs. And the government are the ones who want to keep status quo. All the political parties in Kashmir, irrespective of their fights against each other, are united on article 370. Status quo makes the government all powerful. Those who throw stones for complete independence/ in the name of religion do not know ( or if they know do not acknowledge) that the entire economy of Kashmir runs on Indian tourist $$ and 'bailouts' by the government of India. If the article were abolished, we would see better integration of the Kashmiris in the mainstream. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As for the flag hoisting, its just wrong on so many levels to forbid someone from hoisting the national flag. Unconstitutional also.
Texy Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 If I understand article 370 correctly, a non Kashmiri Indian can migrate to J&K and stay/work there as long as he/she wishes but he/she will never get to vote in the J&K elections. His/her name cannot be added to the electoral roll in J&K. Indians cannot buy property in J&K. Even starting a business in J&K has to have a local partner. I'll share with you what a Kashmiri class mate of mine once told us. A bright lad, and very good looking too :P What he said in a nutshell is that article 370 hurts the people of J&K much more than it does the rest of India. They just can't find people to invest in Kashmir and they have a very tough time getting jobs elsewhere. When the article was first conceived, it was to ensure that the plebiscite ( which never took place) is fair and that there isn't any demographic swamping from the mainland. It was also put in place to ensure that Kashmiri industry ( mainly handicrafts) are well protected from the cheaper substitutes that were being mass produced in the rest of the country. The intentions of the legislature were noble. At least back then. This article was considered a 'bargain' in return for having the Maharaj of Kashmir sign the accession treaty. What the article did, is that de facto all the major economic activity of the state is through the state government and tourism. It killed the will for any private enterprise. No major external bank or creditor would loan a project in J&K. An Indian from the other states can't invest there also. So, we have a situation where in the government controls almost all jobs. And the government are the ones who want to keep status quo. All the political parties in Kashmir, irrespective of their fights against each other, are united on article 370. Status quo makes the government all powerful. Those who throw stones for complete independence/ in the name of religion do not know ( or if they know do not acknowledge) that the entire economy of Kashmir runs on Indian tourist $$ and 'bailouts' by the government of India. If the article were abolished, we would see better integration of the Kashmiris in the mainstream. From what I've read about Article 370 so far has pointed me towards the conclusion that Article 370 is nothing but a thinly structured, ratified article that merely mocks the veil of secularism and nationalism. It's basically constitutionally recognized separatism as proclaimed by others. Always wondered about the special clause in the constitution and would it been there if the majority in the valley were Hindus? Why the special appeasement? From Nehru pressurizing Maharaja to hand over power to Sheikh Abdullah who in turn convinced the state assembly to decide on the accession. When the state assembly ratified the accession -- the article 370 originally planned as a temporary assessment, was never scrapped. Shouldn't this be subjunctive of vote bank politics instituted by Nehru and his cohorts? This article restricted Govt of India in enforcing any law connected with J&K without the approval or concurrence of the State Government. Parliament has the powers to frame laws for rest of the states in the country but Article 370 of the Constitution restricts the hands of the Union Government & parliament. Violent consequences witnessed in recent years when the law prohibiting misuse of religious places could not be extended to J&K where temples were destroyed and uprooted and particularly one community were constantly targeted without any proactive movement from the central govt. Pandit community were victimised and were subjected to cruelties especially during the rise of islamic terrorism in 90s. UP govt was dismissed in the aftermath of Ayodha & Babri Masjid episode under the article 356 however, this article could not be implemented directly in J&K due the provisions already in place by Article 370 and thus hundred thousand Kashmiri pandits are now refugees in their own country
asterix Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 I think it's a futile excercise by BJP. If somehow it manages to hoist the flag, it'll again be replaced by Pak flag in due course, unless State Govt. protects the Indian flag. Atleast I don't wish to see the Indian tricolour being replaced by Pak flag among huge cheers of local public... BJP has ***ked up when NDA was in power...
The Outsider Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Another closed thread http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=257777 There's this attack in Moscow as well but seeing how threads end up, no point discussing it. Rather than Russia-Chechenya, there will be mention of ROP and bam, thread closed. Can't blame the moderators if the posters cannot abide with forum rules and policies. Apparently, even an old man paying for the marriage of a few people is part of a global Islamic conspiracy to take over the world.
coffee_rules Posted January 25, 2011 Author Posted January 25, 2011 Can't blame the moderators if the posters cannot abide with forum rules and policies. Apparently' date=' even an old man paying for the marriage of a few people is part of a global Islamic conspiracy to take over the world.[/quote'] My bad. was meant to be tongue-in-cheek comment (forgot some smileys).
bulbul Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 even if BJP is doing this for politics whts the problem of State and Central gov to hoist flag. was watching TNOW last night reps of NC,Cong and Meh mufthi shouting at high pitch against BJP while refused to utter a single word against seperatists who are thretened not to allow flag hoistingg. Soz is even telling seperatists may told that because of BJP. Rajdeep in IBN bringing Yeddy in between discussion of Flag hoisting :)
hari504504 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 With every passing year, Kashmir seems like more and more of a burden than anything else. Unless we show some backbone like Israel and completely annex everything on this side of the L.O.C(for now) and grant everyone full rights like any other state in our country - out with the goddamn 'special status', I'd rather we come to some kind of an agreement to expand on the Article 370 and give them full-autonomy minus any sort of militarization or joining any other republic. And focus our spending to improve the rest of the country rather than these ungrateful @#$@#%@#$ who seriously think they'd be better off with Pakistan ? - a country whose wheels are slowly coming off with each passing day !
Sir john Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Which piece? And how many? shaanti mera matlab.:mad:
Recommended Posts