Re: [mukto-mona] atrocities in PoK

Read how thirteen colonies grew into the mammoth called U. S. A., and you would have a clue to what I mean.  Given that Hindu fanatics are no less dangerous than Muslim fanatics, a nation is not built of religious fanatics.  All it needs is a contiguous land and common business interest, with the growth of China as a world power, India is bound to regain its former shape even if it takes a few decades.  Probably you are not aware of the possibility of SARC nations being mould into a Federal state.  In such a state, Z. A. Bhutto wanted to be foreign minister about four decades ago, while Bhasani opposed it due to his pro-Chinese politics.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 9, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

I find most of Dr. Das's points quite flawed.

 

Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was a sensible man, and he wanted NWFP to be a part of the secular India, as opposed to the Islamic fanatic Pakistan. If his wish came to fruition in 1947, his people most likely would have been more civilized now, than what they are in reality now. However, looking at the reality on the ground, there is no reason to believe that the population of that land wants to be a part of India now.

 

I believe Islam would keep the Pakistani provinces together for a long time. Even as I agree that Pakistan is destined to fragment, I believe that it would take a very very long time; just guess how long it would take to wash off the religious fanaticism from the heads of the people there. There is no shortage of Islamic fanatics in any part of Pakistan now. I am convinced that if East Bengal were a contiguous state to what is Pakistan now, there would be no Bangladesh today. East Bengal had enough collaborators in 1971 to keep the province with Pakistan, if the Pakistani military had convenient arms supply for them and for themselves.

 

I do not believe India's leadership would be stupid enough to 'swallow fragmented parts' of what is Pakistan today. There is no vacant land to swallow; they would have to take in a lot of religious fanatics. No smart leadership would do that. And India has enough human right activists to stop anything like a mass expulsion of any kind of people from their homes, even if a crazy leadership (which is unlikely anyway) ever wanted to do that.

 

SuBain

 

=================================================

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] atrocities in PoK

 

All the rivers in Pakistan originate in Kashmir. Besides, Peswar led by Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan wanted to join India and Baluchistan wanted to remain Independent.  Islam can not glue together the provinces of Pakistan, even Jiye Sind movement is not dead yet.  Pakistan is destined to be fragmented, India has high hope to swallow fragmented parts of the strange land created by the British rulers in 1947.  
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 8, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

"the least important of which is religion" - I am also ignorant.

 

Could you educate us with some details, Dr. Das? Thank you in anticipation.

 

Sukhamaya Bain

 

==============================

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] atrocities in PoK

 

Apparently, Mr. Chakrabarty is ignorant of the reasons of dispute on Kashmir between India and Pakistan, the least important of which is religion.
Sent from my iPad

 

==========================================

On Feb 7, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Dear moderators

The following message has not yet been published. Is there any reason for not publishing it? Please make me aware of your policy. 

I really want to share my views with the most active members of the group. It can be an interesting debate. 

Thanks. 
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 5, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have an "impossible" proposition. It is impossible in the sense that neither India nor Pakistan will agree to it one of the reasons being that the the trust level between these two neighbors is minimal. Any way, my proposition is that India and Pakistan agree to a time frame to create an independent Kashmir. 

The other reasons that make the proposition are

1. Pakistan will not want to lose Azad Kashmir although India is kind of tired of spending money and other resources to keep J&K with her. 

2. Kashmir part of J&K may want to be free but Jammu may not. 

3. India may want to have Kashmir and Jammu as two separate independent states as an alternative political solution. 
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:52 PM, "Sankar Kumar Ray" <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:

 

Civil rights activists are legitimately opposed to unbridled atrocities by the Indian military and para-militarily forces in Kashmir ( India-occupied Kashmir, according to the Pakistanis) but mysteriously silent about atrocities in Azad Kashmir (we call it Pakistan-occupied  Kashmir). But the Friday Times of Lahore had the conscience unlike organisations such as APDR, PUCL and  PUDR, not to speak of Dodhichi 

For Ikram – Life in Pakistan occupied Kashmir – Azad Kashmir

By markulyseas

From The Friday Times, Pakistan's First Independent Weekly Newspaper  -  17 Jan 13 (http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markulyseas/markulyseas/4145/for-ikram-life-in-pakistan-occupied-kashmir-azad-kashmir/)

The "Azad" in AJK smacks of oxymoronic rhetoric. Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is neither a free territory, nor a province of Pakistan. Muzaffarabad has always been under the control of Islamabad and the curtailment of the freedom of expression is constitutionally protected. Without meaning to refer to the new name just bestowed on an old province, let me ask, what's in a name?

Here is what.

There are a number of reports that describe the human rights violations in Indian Occupied Kashmir but it is hard to come by reports of violations on Pakistan's side. The Pakistani government often pretends that the only problems faced by Kashmiris are in India. The official position that there are no human rights violations in AJK is a naïve and disingenuous position that needs to be challenged. According to the Freedom House World Freedom Reports, in 2008 Pakistan-administered Kashmir was given the status "Not Free". This index awards a score of 1 to a "free country" based on ratings of political rights and civil liberties. These ratings are averaged, ranging from 1 to 7, i.e. countries or disputed territories with scores from 1 to 2.5 are considered Free, 3 to 5 are Partly Free, and 5.5 to 7 are Not Free. In 2008, this index gave AJK a Political Rights Score of 7 and a Civil Liberties score of 5. The scores for AJK have improved to a 6 and a 5 respectively in 2010. In comparison, Indian Occupied Kashmir has better scores of 5 for political rights and a 4 for civil liberties, and a status of 'partly free', which ironically is exactly equivalent to Pakistan's national score and status!

According to Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch , the "Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms… The military shows no tolerance