jensona6
Topic Author
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:15 pm

Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:43 am

As I believe many of you guys might be knowing the current ordeal over Jammu and Kashmir has been going with Indian Army forces buffing up their presence at the state, causing Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage to be cancelled. There were several rumours about J&K splitting up, etc. But now what we've got verified news that with government wants to revoke Article 370. According to Indian Constitution, Article 370 provided a special status for Jammu & Kashmir that granted them autonomy over their state. With this article going to be revoked, what could be the aftermath?
.
.
Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiat ... 2019-08-05
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9321
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:35 am

jensona6 wrote:
As I believe many of you guys might be knowing the current ordeal over Jammu and Kashmir has been going with Indian Army forces buffing up their presence at the state, causing Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage to be cancelled. There were several rumours about J&K splitting up, etc. But now what we've got verified news that with government wants to revoke Article 370. According to Indian Constitution, Article 370 provided a special status for Jammu & Kashmir that granted them autonomy over their state. With this article going to be revoked, what could be the aftermath?
.
.
Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiat ... 2019-08-05


More unrest and terror attacks, for starters...
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:34 pm

The repeal of Art 370 and 35A is LONG overdue . They are remnants of the period when 625 princely states were merged into the Republic of India by Sardar Patel and VP Menon between 1947-48 - one of the most profound and important actions in Indian political history . There was only one princely state that hey didn’t get to complete work on due to Nehru interfering - Jammu and Kashmir.

The result of that was a messy truce where J&K has its own citizenship and residency laws . Indians from outside JK can’t own property there . A JK resident marrying a non resident loses their residency. It’s an archaic agreement that is about 50 years past its sell by date .

Now that the congress party (who have a long relationship with the JK political dynasty) is no longer a major political force, it was natural that this would happen . The BJP, and it’s political predecessor, has always opposed Art 370 and it has always been clear it was simply a question of when they managed enough of a parliamentary strength to accomplish this.
 
texdravid
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:42 pm

This just makes the congress party look even worse with regards to their traitorous, ridiculous, and ineffective leadership since independence.

Nehru was one of the most overrated morons ever to rule over a multiethnic and democratic state. It is he and his family alone that caused India to undergoes decades of stagnant growth, license Raj, and socialistic policies that kept India from truly reaching its potential.

Thank God that his dim witted great grandson has finally put the nail in the coffin of the congress party. To the dustbin of history.
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:58 pm

jensona6 wrote:
As I believe many of you guys might be knowing the current ordeal over Jammu and Kashmir has been going with Indian Army forces buffing up their presence at the state, causing Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage to be cancelled. There were several rumours about J&K splitting up, etc. But now what we've got verified news that with government wants to revoke Article 370. According to Indian Constitution, Article 370 provided a special status for Jammu & Kashmir that granted them autonomy over their state. With this article going to be revoked, what could be the aftermath?
.
.
Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiat ... 2019-08-05


The aftermath? There'll be some short-term pushback and instability, that will evolve into stability through social engineering. Kashmir will cease being Kashmiri. The end goal is simple: flood Kashmir with Hindus, eliminating its unique identity/culture aspirations. Kind of like what's happening in a certain country to India's east.

Is it a good idea? Not in my humble opinion. We've seen this happen with the US/Canada in North America in the 1800s. Over time that has evolved into a recognition that the First Nations/indigenous North Americans were not treated fairly or justly.

This decision does put a marker in place. We can now discern where India is in its democratic and civilizational development. I.E. circa -1800s US, albeit with a more religion, rather than race-based, form of discriminatory government. That is to say, nowhere near the "government for all citizens" that exists in the west today.

Maybe one day, when education standards rise enough to develop more complex appreciations of justice, minority rights and equality, and fairness among the general populace, they'll have the aptitude to understand what they got wrong. But that requires 200 years of enlightenment and it's not guaranteed.

I mean, this is a country where juries were suspended by the Supreme Court partly because it assessed that the average citizen couldn't understand the implications of their own decisions. It's hardly a surprise that many of these folk think - and voted for - this type of change. In the long run, it means the decimation of an entire sub segment of India's diverse population and culture.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:58 pm

VP Menon wrote the book The Integration of the Indian States on his experience with the process of constituting a modern political entity out of the remnants of British controlled territory after they were thrown out, the princely states and the other unincorporated holdouts, immediately after independence.

The process was done similar to J&K - first the leader signs an instrument of accession, then they constitute their own assembly, which in turn negotiates with the central government and after agreement, dissolves its own assembly and reconstitutes itself as an Indian state with a regular state assembly according to the Constitution. J&K *started* out doing this, but stopped mid-sentence, and that half-baked situation has remained in force ever since.

For those who have any issues with what was done, it's worth reading the article - right out of the Law Ministry: Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Scroll down to the English version. The very first word is 'Temporary'. It was always meant to be temporary. All major princely states went through and completed this process - Travancore, Junagadh, Hyderabad (which arguably was the most high profile - it took a conflict to resolve).

The modern Republic of India owes its cohesion and power to the actions of Menon and Patel in rapidly convincing, cajoling, and pushing all - but one - of the princely states to merge into the Indian nation. This last step is intended to complete a process that was stymied so long ago by a bumbling leader who was far too sentimental about his ancestral land (the Nehrus were originally Kashmiri).
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm

texdravid wrote:
This just makes the congress party look even worse with regards to their traitorous, ridiculous, and ineffective leadership since independence.

Nehru was one of the most overrated morons ever to rule over a multiethnic and democratic state. It is he and his family alone that caused India to undergoes decades of stagnant growth, license Raj, and socialistic policies that kept India from truly reaching its potential.

Thank God that his dim witted great grandson has finally put the nail in the coffin of the congress party. To the dustbin of history.


And yet many of the folk you agree with would argue that he was wrong not to impose Hindi as a national language in the south, effectively meaning that India had to adopt the language of its colonial masters to communicate.

Maybe the BJP will ger around to fixing that by finally imposing Hindi on the south. I mean, does one country really need 17 official languages? Time to clean that up in the name of the uniformity you apparently support.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
The aftermath? There'll be some short-term pushback and instability, that will evolve into stability through social engineering. Kashmir will cease being Kashmiri. The end goal is simple: flood Kashmir with Hindus, eliminating its unique identity/culture aspirations.

Social 'engineering' ? It's called economic mobility. Do you live in India ? Your argument sounds like a Brexiter complaining about the Poles and Romanians.Most of the construction and services folk all over south India are from the north and east. 'The Bihari' is a common theme in Bangalore or elsewhere now. They work hard, make good money, and make us all better off in the process.

It breaks down barriers between various languages and groups within the country, and builds greater long term cohesion as a single whole, rather than a collection of protected species who all need their own special places the 'others' are kept away from.

The rest of India doesn't have any law artificially preventing residency by anyone from anywhere else. India does not have an internal passport - except for the oh so special J&K. Sorry, they're no longer entitled to one. The only reason Hindus don't dominate Kashmir (an important cultural and spiritual region of Hinduism) once again is Article 370 maintaining a political bar on their re-settlement.
 
alfa164
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:14 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
jensona6 wrote:
As I believe many of you guys might be knowing the current ordeal over Jammu and Kashmir has been going with Indian Army forces buffing up their presence at the state, causing Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage to be cancelled. There were several rumours about J&K splitting up, etc. But now what we've got verified news that with government wants to revoke Article 370. According to Indian Constitution, Article 370 provided a special status for Jammu & Kashmir that granted them autonomy over their state. With this article going to be revoked, what could be the aftermath? .
Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiat ... 2019-08-05


More unrest and terror attacks, for starters...


:checkmark: This. Modi and his BJP are taking their appeal to the extreme nationalists in India - much as a similar politician has appealed to nationalists, and contributed to the divisions, in the USA. The end result for Jammu and Kashmir - if he is successful - will be a Tibet-like state, where Indian nationals are encouraged to come in and populate the fragile state, in an attempt to "homogenize" - much like the Chinese have sought to do in the Himalayas - the area.

The current situation is obviously not ideal, but it has been relatively stable - until now. There can be no doubt that "stable" will not describe these Northern Territories in the immediate future.


ElPistolero wrote:
The aftermath? There'll be some short-term pushback and instability, that will evolve into stability through social engineering. Kashmir will cease being Kashmiri. The end goal is simple: flood Kashmir with Hindus, eliminating its unique identity/culture aspirations. Kind of like what's happening in a certain country to India's east. Is it a good idea? Not in my humble opinion. We've seen this happen with the US/Canada in North America in the 1800s. Over time that has evolved into a recognition that the First Nations/indigenous North Americans were not treated fairly or justly.


:checkmark: I really can't understand how the modern world can become so enamoured with authoratarian leaders; maybe they are just growing tired of democratic ideals, and prefer to hand off aurhority to someone else. Nevertheless, the rise of these regimes should raise a red flag - and their potential to do great harm cannot be ignored any longer.
Last edited by alfa164 on Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:18 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
The aftermath? There'll be some short-term pushback and instability, that will evolve into stability through social engineering. Kashmir will cease being Kashmiri. The end goal is simple: flood Kashmir with Hindus, eliminating its unique identity/culture aspirations.

Social 'engineering' ? It's called economic mobility. Do you live in India ? Your argument sounds like a Brexiter complaining about the Poles and Romanians.Most of the construction and services folk all over south India are from the north and east. 'The Bihari' is a common theme in Bangalore or elsewhere now. They work hard, make good money, and make us all better off in the process.

It breaks down barriers between various languages and groups within the country, and builds greater long term cohesion as a single whole, rather than a collection of protected species who all need their own special places the 'others' are kept away from.

The rest of India doesn't have any law artificially preventing residency by anyone from anywhere else. India does not have an internal passport - except for the oh so special J&K. Sorry, they're no longer entitled to one. The only reason Hindus don't dominate Kashmir (an important cultural and spiritual region of Hinduism) once again is Article 370 maintaining a political bar on their re-settlement.


Ha - yes. Go ask all those refugees in Dharamsala what they think about what's happening to their former homeland in the name of "economics".

Why even pretend that this is about something as sophisticated as economic mobility. It's not. It's about changing the demographics. Everyone knows that: why do you think a "democracy" has had to implement martial law (or something pretty damn close) to implement this? No internet, no cell phones, curfews, house arrests, businesses closed. It's chillingly alien to anyone who lives in a functioning democracy.

I know some keyboard warriors feel the need to put lipstick on this pig to save face, but it's not going to work. The way it's being implemented tells everyone everything they need to know. This stuff doesn't happen in real democracies.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:22 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Ha - yes. Go ask all those refugees in Dharamsala what they think about what's happening to their former homeland in the name of "economics".

Why even pretend that this is about something as sophisticated as economic mobility. It's not. It's about changing the demographics. Everyone knows that: why do you think a "democracy" has had to implement martial law (or something pretty damn close) to implement this? No internet, no cell phones, curfews, house arrests, businesses closed. It's chillingly alien to anyone who lives in a functioning democracy. .

Last I checked, Tibet is not part of India, and has never been. India just offers them the place to run their Government In Exile.

Explain why J&K needs special status different from any other state. Every other state has been dramatically changed demographically in the past 7 decades. What's so special about J&K that needs its demographics to be preserved ? If the Kashmiris are just as capable of maintaining their own unique culture like any other ethnic group in India, without needing a 'special' article in the constitution that begins with the word TEMPORARY.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:23 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
The practical impacts of the changes you've listed are minimal for most Kashmiris. All the changes do is allow mass immigration into Kashmir to alter its demographic make up.

And we are all better for it! There are tons of Indians elsewhere in the country who would love to own property and business or settle in the Himalayas .
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:24 pm

BarfBag wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
:checkmark: This. Modi and his BJP are taking their appeal to the extreme nationalists in India - much as a similar politician has appealed to nationalists, and contributed to the divisions, in the USA. The end result for Jammu and Kashmir - if he is successful - will be a Tibet-like state, where Indian nationals are encouraged to come in and populate the fragile state, in an attempt to "homogenize" - much like the Chinese have sought to do in the Himalayas - the area.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

All that's been done is to revert J&K to the SAME status as every other Indian state or Union Territory. All their 'special' statuses have been removed. Explain why they should be entitled to it ?


Why? For the same reason that Canada affords special status to First Nations. Recognition that they have as much of a right to exist and maintain their culture as anyone else, and make special provisions for them to do so in their ancestral homelands. Not wiping them out and engineering demographic change.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:28 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Why? For the same reason that Canada affords special status to First Nations. Recognition that they have as much of a right to exist and maintain their culture as anyone else, and make special provisions for them to do so in their ancestral homelands. Not wiping them out and engineering demographic change.

Oh, in successive posts you've quoted Canada as a positive example, and imputed the Chinese as a negative example. Effectively, you've canceled out your own line of argument, because as you've yourself shown, other countries can do whatever they please on their territory.

On Indian territory, Indian law applies. Indian law is that Art 370 was temporary, and it's just been removed. Explain why Kashmiris are so special that they need protections that Gujaratis, Kannadigas, Tamilians, Assamese and Manipuris (to quote 5 random groups) don't have.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:29 pm

[threeid][/threeid]
BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
The practical impacts of the changes you've listed are minimal for most Kashmiris. All the changes do is allow mass immigration into Kashmir to alter its demographic make up.

And we are all better for it! There are tons of Indians elsewhere in the country who would love to own property and business or settle in the Himalayas .


There are plenty of Himalayas outside Kashmir. Like I said, go ask the folk in Dharamsala what they made of the arguments you're now adopting.

This will turn India's only Muslim majority state into a Hindu one. That's the end goal. The rest of the explanations are obfuscation. This isn't about property in the Himalayas. Himachal is better for that anyway.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:33 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
Why? For the same reason that Canada affords special status to First Nations. Recognition that they have as much of a right to exist and maintain their culture as anyone else, and make special provisions for them to do so in their ancestral homelands. Not wiping them out and engineering demographic change.

Oh, in successive posts you've quoted Canada as a positive example, and imputed the Chinese as a negative example. Effectively, you've canceled out your own line of argument, because as you've yourself shown, other countries can do whatever they please on their territory.

On Indian territory, Indian law applies. Indian law is that Art 370 was temporary, and it's just been removed. Explain why Kashmiris are so special that they need protections that Gujaratis, Kannadigas, Tamilians, Assamese and Manipuris (to quote 5 random groups) don't have.


Religion bro. You know that. I know that.

In any case, they are afforded special dispensations - they're allowed to function in their own languages and run their own school boards, all of which have been given official status.

I don't get the gist of the rest of your arguments. Yes India can do whatever it wants. You can legalize sex-selective abortion tomorrow too. Doesn't make it right. Don't confuse sovereign decisions with moral decisions. Sovereign countries can make backward and immoral decisions too.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:35 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
There are plenty of Himalayas outside Kashmir. Like I said, go ask the folk in Dharamsala what they made of the arguments you're now adopting.

This will turn India's only Muslim majority state into a Hindu one. That's the end goal. The rest of the explanations are obfuscation. This isn't about property in the Himalayas. Himachal is better for that anyway.

Maybe, but you can't have a nice Taj Mahal Dal Lake someplace else.

What's wrong with J&K being Hindu majority, exactly ? Jammu and Ladakh have always been Hindu and Buddhist majority anyway. It's just the small sliver of Kashmir Valley that's been Muslim majority. Muslims can't live with a large Hindu majority ? Oh wait.. I've heard that one before. Can't quite place it, but a bunch of folks yelled that and demanded a special place for themselves many decades ago. Remember what that was ? :lol:
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:41 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
There are plenty of Himalayas outside Kashmir. Like I said, go ask the folk in Dharamsala what they made of the arguments you're now adopting.

This will turn India's only Muslim majority state into a Hindu one. That's the end goal. The rest of the explanations are obfuscation. This isn't about property in the Himalayas. Himachal is better for that anyway.

Maybe, but you can't have a nice Taj Mahal Dal Lake someplace else.

What's wrong with J&K being Hindu majority, exactly ? Jammu and Ladakh have always been Hindu and Buddhist majority anyway. It's just the small sliver of Kashmir Valley that's been Muslim majority. Muslims can't live with a large Hindu majority ? Oh wait.. I've heard that one before. Can't quite place it, but a bunch of folks yelled that and demanded a special place for themselves many decades ago. Remember what that was ? :lol:


Tamil Nadu? The seven sisters? Punjab? Don't know which part of India you're referring to.

What's wrong with squeezing out a culture? Generally not a fan of ethnic cleansing, howrver it's achieved.

We can all see it. I just don't think it's a good idea
Last edited by ElPistolero on Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:41 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Religion bro. You know that. I know that.

In any case, they are afforded special dispensations - they're allowed to function in their own languages and run their own school boards, all of which have been given official status.

I don't get the gist of the rest of your arguments. Yes India can do whatever it wants. You can legalize sex-selective abortion tomorrow too. Doesn't make it right. Don't confuse sovereign decisions with moral decisions. Sovereign countries can make backward and immoral decisions too.

Oh religion. Aren't you the guy who vigorously argued that India is secular ? But you still want one state to have special status entirely because ONE of its THREE territorial regions has a large number of members of a particular religion ? Since you want to talk morality, so it's moral for a secular country to give ONE religion particular treatment ?

That J&K is Muslim is only relevant to folks like you - who think explicitly in terms of religion - not a single one of my posts even discusses the matter. They can all be worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. What I do care about, is that J&K's special status is removed.

Anyone in India has the right to reside, work, own property and marry anywhere on its territory. J&K has no basis for doing things differently, and all that's been done is that this basis has been removed.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:49 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Tamil Nadu? The seven sisters? Punjab? Don't know which part of India you're referring to.

I'm referring to prepartition of course - when a group of people demanded they cannot live within a Hindu majority. J&K, as everyone knows, is a leftover from that - a territory that did not complete the full process of accession that every other princely state - all 620+ of them - did.
ElPistolero wrote:
What's wrong with squeezing out a culture? Generally not a fan of ethnic cleansing, howrver it's achieved.

An interesting argument with no factual basis - India has no shortage of unique subcultures, all of which have retained their uniqueness despite being part of one huge melting pot.

Does Durga Puja in Kolkata or the Ganesha immersion in Mumbai become less special because there are non locals living in those cities ?

Are Coorgis less different from the rest of the folks of Karnataka because they don't have their own state with its own Article 370 ?

Have all the native dances of India been replaced by a homogenized Indian National Bhangra dance ?

The Kashmiris don't need an artificial political construct to maintain their culture, any more than a billion Indians elsewhere in the country do.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:54 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
I find it puzzling that you don't want to admit that this is about turning India's only Muslim majority state into a Hindu majority state.

That's a very simple answer - because their religion matters to YOU, not to me. If YOU want to cheerlead the rights of Muslims as a special goal, that's your own prerogative.

I only care that all states in India have the same constituent basis. There is no reason for one state out of 30 to have a different political basis from any other.
 
alfa164
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:05 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
Tamil Nadu? The seven sisters? Punjab? Don't know which part of India you're referring to.

I'm referring to prepartition of course - when a group of people demanded they cannot live within a Hindu majority. J&K, as everyone knows, is a leftover from that - a territory that did not complete the full process of accession that every other princely state - all 620+ of them - did.


You comments are misleading - at best.

"This special status dates back to the end of British rule in India in 1947 when Maharaja Hari Singh of the then colonized state of Jammu & Kashmir signed a Treaty of Accession for the state of J&K to join the Indian side. Meanwhile, Article 35a, which was added to the constitution in 1954 under Article 370 gives the state of Jammu & Kashmir the right to decide who its permanent residents are. The clause further gives special rights to residents in government jobs, when buying property in the state and for educational scholarships among others.

"Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party had pushed for an end to Kashmir’s special constitutional status, arguing that such laws had hindered its integration with the rest of India. India’s government wants to strengthen its influence over its only Muslim-majority region."


These territories "did not complete the full process" because it was never intended that they would.

In the meantime, to enforce their arbitrary actions:

"India has deployed tens of thousands of troops across the Kashmir valley in anticipation of a backlash of the revoke. Indian authorities banned public movements, shut down schools and colleges indefinitely and put two former chief ministers of J&K — Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti — under house arrest ahead of the announcement."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/article ... tatus.html


That, of course, is how an autocrat carries out his wishes.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:29 pm

May I kindly ask you to stop attacking each other? This does not add any value to the discussion and the thread will be locked. Thanks.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:55 pm

alfa164 wrote:

:checkmark: This. Modi and his BJP are taking their appeal to the extreme nationalists in India - much as a similar politician has appealed to nationalists, and contributed to the divisions, in the USA. The end result for Jammu and Kashmir - if he is successful - will be a Tibet-like state, where Indian nationals are encouraged to come in and populate the fragile state, in an attempt to "homogenize" - much like the Chinese have sought to do in the Himalayas - the area.

The current situation is obviously not ideal, but it has been relatively stable - until now. There can be no doubt that "stable" will not describe these Northern Territories in the immediate future.
.


But why can't any state in India be held to this standard? All the Tamilians are moving to Bombay and destroying Maharastra! Look at all the people from UP moving en masse to Kannadiga Bengaluru! If Kashmir is to be treated an any other state in India, then anyone in India should neither be incentivized or de-incentivized to move there. There are other parts of India that have become more Hindu, more Muslim, more Christian, more whatever based on the free movement of people.

If you are an Indian of any religion or background, going to Kashmir for tourism, business, or residency should be as easy as going to any other part of your own country. Walls--built by laws or by concrete--only serve to divide people.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:37 pm

BarfBag wrote:
Oh religion. Aren't you the guy who vigorously argued that India is secular ? But you still want one state to have special status entirely because ONE of its THREE territorial regions has a large number of members of a particular religion ? Since you want to talk morality, so it's moral for a secular country to give ONE religion particular treatment ?

That J&K is Muslim is only relevant to folks like you - who think explicitly in terms of religion - not a single one of my posts even discusses the matter. They can all be worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. What I do care about, is that J&K's special status is removed.

Anyone in India has the right to reside, work, own property and marry anywhere on its territory. J&K has no basis for doing things differently, and all that's been done is that this basis has been removed.


Well, yes, I think it's fair to say that Kashmir's situation has always been a little "special". After all, parts of that state have had a military presence unlike anything seen in real democracies. For what, three decades and counting? I doubt it comes as a surprise that this is linked to religion as well.

It's nice that you could care less who worships what. I could care less either, because this issue isn't really about Islam. It's about minority rights in a country where people do care about who worships what - or at the very least, what kind of meat they keep in their freezer. In a country where some people genuinely believe that cows' lives are more valuable than minority religion practitioners' lives, there's a problem. When Indian civilization matures to the point that each life is treated equally, I'll happily support the removal of protective measures. I don't think much of India is there yet.

That aside, yes I'm a believer in secularism - it's in the constitution. What I don't care for are the superficial simplisms that parade as complex concepts like secularism. Unless one subscribes to a communist's definition of secularism - ie whitewash all religions and ignore them - secularism IS about special accomodations. Take North American schools for example. Instead of banning Christmas in the name of equality, they accommodate minority religious holidays too. A Hindu can take Diwali off without repercussions. It's not seen as "special".
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:44 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
I find it puzzling that you don't want to admit that this is about turning India's only Muslim majority state into a Hindu majority state.

That's a very simple answer - because their religion matters to YOU, not to me. If YOU want to cheerlead the rights of Muslims as a special goal, that's your own prerogative.

I only care that all states in India have the same constituent basis. There is no reason for one state out of 30 to have a different political basis from any other.


Indeed, and yet you look the other way when gau rakshaks kill your fellow Indian citizens over alleged mistreatment against cows.

I argue for minority rights in every case. The minority here happen to be Muslims. If this was a thread about Hindus and Ismailis in Pakistan, you can guess where I would stand. Try again.

I'm not sure what your last point is. Seems to be at odds with article 371.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:53 pm

N867DA wrote:

But why can't any state in India be held to this standard? All the Tamilians are moving to Bombay and destroying Maharastra! Look at all the people from UP moving en masse to Kannadiga Bengaluru! If Kashmir is to be treated an any other state in India, then anyone in India should neither be incentivized or de-incentivized to move there. There are other parts of India that have become more Hindu, more Muslim, more Christian, more whatever based on the free movement of people.

If you are an Indian of any religion or background, going to Kashmir for tourism, business, or residency should be as easy as going to any other part of your own country. Walls--built by laws or by concrete--only serve to divide people.


In fairness, none of those states have witnessed (military presence and all) anything close to what Kashmir has witnessed, nor is there any risk of their demographics being changed completely.

The areas where those risks exist are, it would seem, protected by sections of Article 371 (Mizoram, Nagaland etc). They don't seem to inspire as much passionate opposition. Why?
 
TryToFlySomeday
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:02 pm

Kashmiri Muslims will be upset by this move — but if Pakistan really wants a solution to Kashmir — then this might be endgame. LoC as permanent border — leave the Muslims in Pakistani Kashmir; and everyone else in Indian Kashmir.

Isn’t that how India and Pakistan was designed? I don’t agree with how Pakistan was designed because it hinders Pakistan’s progress — but regardless it is the truth.
Pakistan's aviation sector is coming back. It won't be as strong as our eastern neighbor, nowhere close, but it's going to grow over time. Stand by and watch.

Born to Pakistani parents near ORD; raised and based near ORD.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:03 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
BarfBag wrote:
Oh religion. Aren't you the guy who vigorously argued that India is secular ? But you still want one state to have special status entirely because ONE of its THREE territorial regions has a large number of members of a particular religion ? Since you want to talk morality, so it's moral for a secular country to give ONE religion particular treatment ?

That J&K is Muslim is only relevant to folks like you - who think explicitly in terms of religion - not a single one of my posts even discusses the matter. They can all be worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. What I do care about, is that J&K's special status is removed.

Anyone in India has the right to reside, work, own property and marry anywhere on its territory. J&K has no basis for doing things differently, and all that's been done is that this basis has been removed.


Well, yes, I think it's fair to say that Kashmir's situation has always been a little "special". After all, parts of that state have had a military presence unlike anything seen in real democracies. For what, three decades and counting? I doubt it comes as a surprise that this is linked to religion as well.

It's nice that you could care less who worships what. I could care less either, because this issue isn't really about Islam. It's about minority rights in a country where people do care about who worships what - or at the very least, what kind of meat they keep in their freezer. In a country where some people genuinely believe that cows' lives are more valuable than minority religion practitioners' lives, there's a problem. When Indian civilization matures to the point that each life is treated equally, I'll happily support the removal of protective measures. I don't think much of India is there yet.

That aside, yes I'm a believer in secularism - it's in the constitution. What I don't care for are the superficial simplisms that parade as complex concepts like secularism. Unless one subscribes to a communist's definition of secularism - ie whitewash all religions and ignore them - secularism IS about special accomodations. Take North American schools for example. Instead of banning Christmas in the name of equality, they accommodate minority religious holidays too. A Hindu can take Diwali off without repercussions. It's not seen as "special".


> There is nothing wrong with banning beef. There are many, many things wrong with harming, abusing, or killing people for having or transporting beef or killing a cow, and those people should be prosecuted quickly and punished as harshly as possible, but there is nothing inherently wrong about banning beef.

> India has a separate penal code that affords more rights to Muslims than even some other Islamic countries. Triple talaq, for example, was not permitted in many countries with a majority-Muslim population. The idea that all Indians should be treated equally under one set of laws is seen as anti-minority in India...but it is par for the course in every other democracy.

> India is far from perfect in having clean human rights record. That said, it seems most Western audiences are perfectly willing to see problems when India pushes for de jure equality. This is a country that subsidizes hajj visits, allows for a separate Islamic civil code for one in five of its own citizens, and literally funds madrassas. Again--it is far from perfect, but there are clearly exemptions and allowances made for minorities to exercise their beliefs. For what it's worth, August 12th is a gazetted holiday in India: https://www.india.gov.in/calendar?date=2019-08 .

Are there any Western democracies that have different marriage and property laws for different groups based solely on religion?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:43 pm

N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
BarfBag wrote:
Oh religion. Aren't you the guy who vigorously argued that India is secular ? But you still want one state to have special status entirely because ONE of its THREE territorial regions has a large number of members of a particular religion ? Since you want to talk morality, so it's moral for a secular country to give ONE religion particular treatment ?

That J&K is Muslim is only relevant to folks like you - who think explicitly in terms of religion - not a single one of my posts even discusses the matter. They can all be worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. What I do care about, is that J&K's special status is removed.

Anyone in India has the right to reside, work, own property and marry anywhere on its territory. J&K has no basis for doing things differently, and all that's been done is that this basis has been removed.


Well, yes, I think it's fair to say that Kashmir's situation has always been a little "special". After all, parts of that state have had a military presence unlike anything seen in real democracies. For what, three decades and counting? I doubt it comes as a surprise that this is linked to religion as well.

It's nice that you could care less who worships what. I could care less either, because this issue isn't really about Islam. It's about minority rights in a country where people do care about who worships what - or at the very least, what kind of meat they keep in their freezer. In a country where some people genuinely believe that cows' lives are more valuable than minority religion practitioners' lives, there's a problem. When Indian civilization matures to the point that each life is treated equally, I'll happily support the removal of protective measures. I don't think much of India is there yet.

That aside, yes I'm a believer in secularism - it's in the constitution. What I don't care for are the superficial simplisms that parade as complex concepts like secularism. Unless one subscribes to a communist's definition of secularism - ie whitewash all religions and ignore them - secularism IS about special accomodations. Take North American schools for example. Instead of banning Christmas in the name of equality, they accommodate minority religious holidays too. A Hindu can take Diwali off without repercussions. It's not seen as "special".


> There is nothing wrong with banning beef. There are many, many things wrong with harming, abusing, or killing people for having or transporting beef or killing a cow, and those people should be prosecuted quickly and punished as harshly as possible, but there is nothing inherently wrong about banning beef.

> India has a separate penal code that affords more rights to Muslims than even some other Islamic countries. Triple talaq, for example, was not permitted in many countries with a majority-Muslim population. The idea that all Indians should be treated equally under one set of laws is seen as anti-minority in India...but it is par for the course in every other democracy.

> India is far from perfect in having clean human rights record. That said, it seems most Western audiences are perfectly willing to see problems when India pushes for de jure equality. This is a country that subsidizes hajj visits, allows for a separate Islamic civil code for one in five of its own citizens, and literally funds madrassas. Again--it is far from perfect, but there are clearly exemptions and allowances made for minorities to exercise their beliefs. For what it's worth, August 12th is a gazetted holiday in India: https://www.india.gov.in/calendar?date=2019-08 .

Are there any Western democracies that have different marriage and property laws for different groups based solely on religion?


> if there are no conservation or safety reasons, there is absolutely is something fundamentally wrong with banning a meat because of one group's preferences. Why should one religious majority group have the right to tell others what they can or cannot eat. It is fundamentally against the notions of freedom and equality. What next - ban who they can or cannot worship?

> I'm not for or against religious law boards of any religion, as long as they don't violate the constitution. From what I understand, anyone who chooses to use that law still has recourse to Indian constitutional law. In that sense, I'm comfortable with it because constitutional rights are respected. What I don't understand is why anyone who isn't affected by it, cares? Seems to me like it's not really about rights; it's really just about putting a minority group in their place - "know your place" and all that.

> The rest of your grievances are policy decisions. They're not really about rights. Subsidizing schools is an equality issue if the state funds some and not others. I don't know if that is or isn't the case. Hajj flights - I personally could care less. I don't view that as a right. That said, if the government subsidizes other pilgrimages, then it should fund these too - but that's about equality.

In India, the constitution isn't the problem. It's implementation is. The constitution is actually pretty strong. So strong, in fact, that the majority religion gets pissed off that it can't impose its will on the minority. Apparently it's lost on these self-professed proponents of democracy that the constitution was built on the principle of upholding one of the key tenets of democracy: stopping it from devolving into a tyranny of the majority.

That's why they've taken aim at the constitution now. It keeps getting in the way of their efforts to establish Hindu hierarchy and upend equality.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:09 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

Well, yes, I think it's fair to say that Kashmir's situation has always been a little "special". After all, parts of that state have had a military presence unlike anything seen in real democracies. For what, three decades and counting? I doubt it comes as a surprise that this is linked to religion as well.

It's nice that you could care less who worships what. I could care less either, because this issue isn't really about Islam. It's about minority rights in a country where people do care about who worships what - or at the very least, what kind of meat they keep in their freezer. In a country where some people genuinely believe that cows' lives are more valuable than minority religion practitioners' lives, there's a problem. When Indian civilization matures to the point that each life is treated equally, I'll happily support the removal of protective measures. I don't think much of India is there yet.

That aside, yes I'm a believer in secularism - it's in the constitution. What I don't care for are the superficial simplisms that parade as complex concepts like secularism. Unless one subscribes to a communist's definition of secularism - ie whitewash all religions and ignore them - secularism IS about special accomodations. Take North American schools for example. Instead of banning Christmas in the name of equality, they accommodate minority religious holidays too. A Hindu can take Diwali off without repercussions. It's not seen as "special".


> There is nothing wrong with banning beef. There are many, many things wrong with harming, abusing, or killing people for having or transporting beef or killing a cow, and those people should be prosecuted quickly and punished as harshly as possible, but there is nothing inherently wrong about banning beef.

> India has a separate penal code that affords more rights to Muslims than even some other Islamic countries. Triple talaq, for example, was not permitted in many countries with a majority-Muslim population. The idea that all Indians should be treated equally under one set of laws is seen as anti-minority in India...but it is par for the course in every other democracy.

> India is far from perfect in having clean human rights record. That said, it seems most Western audiences are perfectly willing to see problems when India pushes for de jure equality. This is a country that subsidizes hajj visits, allows for a separate Islamic civil code for one in five of its own citizens, and literally funds madrassas. Again--it is far from perfect, but there are clearly exemptions and allowances made for minorities to exercise their beliefs. For what it's worth, August 12th is a gazetted holiday in India: https://www.india.gov.in/calendar?date=2019-08 .

Are there any Western democracies that have different marriage and property laws for different groups based solely on religion?


> if there are no conservation or safety reasons, there is absolutely is something fundamentally wrong with banning a meat because of one group's preferences. Why should one religious majority group have the right to tell others what they can or cannot eat. It is fundamentally against the notions of freedom and equality. What next - ban who they can or cannot worship?

> I'm not for or against religious law boards of any religion, as long as they don't violate the constitution. From what I understand, anyone who chooses to use that law still has recourse to Indian constitutional law. In that sense, I'm comfortable with it because constitutional rights are respected. What I don't understand is why anyone who isn't affected by it, cares? Seems to me like it's not really about rights; it's really just about putting a minority group in their place - "know your place" and all that.

> The rest of your grievances are policy decisions. They're not reallyabout rights. Subsidizing schools is only a rights issue if the state funds some and not others. I don't know if that is or isn't the case. Hajj flights - I personally could care less. I don't view that as a right. That said, if the government subsidizes other pilgrimages, then it should fund these too - but that's about equality.


> Cool, let me start up my dog meat business in the US. Not a lot of customers, but being bad at business isn't a crime right?

> The problem is that it isn't really secular. It's like passing a law that says every woman have an abortion except Catholics. You could even legalize polygamy and get around this religion-based exemption.

> Cordoning off an entire state of the country for religious reasons is not secular. Allowing members of certain faiths to have multiple spouses isn't secular. Paying for subsidized 747 trips to a foreign country for some religions isn't secular (an asterisk here--the govt subsidizes pilgrimages for other religions too, but not to the extent of the hajj). It is specifically to cater to a minority group. I agree 100% that some minority rights need extra protection. I'm not arguing against special rules, like affirmative action or even reasonable quotas to improve the lives of historically or persistently disadvantaged groups. I'm simply pointing out that integrating Kashmir into the Indian fold is not inherently anti-Muslim, and that India (again, at least de jure...and imperfectly at times) attempts to handle religious and sectarian needs.

I'm far more conflicted on whether any region of a country should have the right to self-determination by vote (eg, Kashmir, Catalonia, and many others).
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:43 pm

N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:

> There is nothing wrong with banning beef. There are many, many things wrong with harming, abusing, or killing people for having or transporting beef or killing a cow, and those people should be prosecuted quickly and punished as harshly as possible, but there is nothing inherently wrong about banning beef.

> India has a separate penal code that affords more rights to Muslims than even some other Islamic countries. Triple talaq, for example, was not permitted in many countries with a majority-Muslim population. The idea that all Indians should be treated equally under one set of laws is seen as anti-minority in India...but it is par for the course in every other democracy.

> India is far from perfect in having clean human rights record. That said, it seems most Western audiences are perfectly willing to see problems when India pushes for de jure equality. This is a country that subsidizes hajj visits, allows for a separate Islamic civil code for one in five of its own citizens, and literally funds madrassas. Again--it is far from perfect, but there are clearly exemptions and allowances made for minorities to exercise their beliefs. For what it's worth, August 12th is a gazetted holiday in India: https://www.india.gov.in/calendar?date=2019-08 .

Are there any Western democracies that have different marriage and property laws for different groups based solely on religion?


> if there are no conservation or safety reasons, there is absolutely is something fundamentally wrong with banning a meat because of one group's preferences. Why should one religious majority group have the right to tell others what they can or cannot eat. It is fundamentally against the notions of freedom and equality. What next - ban who they can or cannot worship?

> I'm not for or against religious law boards of any religion, as long as they don't violate the constitution. From what I understand, anyone who chooses to use that law still has recourse to Indian constitutional law. In that sense, I'm comfortable with it because constitutional rights are respected. What I don't understand is why anyone who isn't affected by it, cares? Seems to me like it's not really about rights; it's really just about putting a minority group in their place - "know your place" and all that.

> The rest of your grievances are policy decisions. They're not reallyabout rights. Subsidizing schools is only a rights issue if the state funds some and not others. I don't know if that is or isn't the case. Hajj flights - I personally could care less. I don't view that as a right. That said, if the government subsidizes other pilgrimages, then it should fund these too - but that's about equality.


> Cool, let me start up my dog meat business in the US. Not a lot of customers, but being bad at business isn't a crime right?

> The problem is that it isn't really secular. It's like passing a law that says every woman have an abortion except Catholics. You could even legalize polygamy and get around this religion-based exemption.

> Cordoning off an entire state of the country for religious reasons is not secular. Allowing members of certain faiths to have multiple spouses isn't secular. Paying for subsidized 747 trips to a foreign country for some religions isn't secular (an asterisk here--the govt subsidizes pilgrimages for other religions too, but not to the extent of the hajj). It is specifically to cater to a minority group. I agree 100% that some minority rights need extra protection. I'm not arguing against special rules, like affirmative action or even reasonable quotas to improve the lives of historically or persistently disadvantaged groups. I'm simply pointing out that integrating Kashmir into the Indian fold is not inherently anti-Muslim, and that India (again, at least de jure...and imperfectly at times) attempts to handle religious and sectarian needs.

I'm far more conflicted on whether any region of a country should have the right to self-determination by vote (eg, Kashmir, Catalonia, and many others).


> Go right ahead. You'll probably get protesters, but I can't see any ban surviving a legal challenge. Could care less.

> Uh, no, that analogy doesn't sound right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Indian Muslims retain all their constitutional rights under the Indian constitution. The Indian constitution does not get replaced by these personal law boards, so your hypothetical situation does not appear to be valid.

> Cordoning off a state to stop its religious demographic being changed by mass migration, potentially by people who are openly hostile to that religion (India has a lot of those, no), seems to make eminent sense. At least until the majority of the population are enlightened enough to not treat people of that group as inferior to animals. We haven't reached that point yet - at the individual level. Too many crazies running around. In any event, what's your plan with 371? Going after them next?

> Cost does not strike me as a reasonable basis for treating citizens unequally.

> Behind the smoke and mirrors ("integration"), revoking article 370 is about changing the demographic make up of Kashmir. We're seeing this happen north and east of India. One can remain wilfully blind, but that's reality. The Kashmiris know it. You know it. I know it. The Indian government knows it. Why else do you think they're in lockdown?
 
c933103
Posts: 3766
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:16 am

TryToFlySomeday wrote:
Kashmiri Muslims will be upset by this move — but if Pakistan really wants a solution to Kashmir — then this might be endgame. LoC as permanent border — leave the Muslims in Pakistani Kashmir; and everyone else in Indian Kashmir.

Isn’t that how India and Pakistan was designed? I don’t agree with how Pakistan was designed because it hinders Pakistan’s progress — but regardless it is the truth.

Wouldn't that be a form of ethnic cleansing if you want people to move across border according to their belief?
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
TryToFlySomeday
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:58 am

c933103 wrote:
TryToFlySomeday wrote:
Kashmiri Muslims will be upset by this move — but if Pakistan really wants a solution to Kashmir — then this might be endgame. LoC as permanent border — leave the Muslims in Pakistani Kashmir; and everyone else in Indian Kashmir.

Isn’t that how India and Pakistan was designed? I don’t agree with how Pakistan was designed because it hinders Pakistan’s progress — but regardless it is the truth.

Wouldn't that be a form of ethnic cleansing if you want people to move across border according to their belief?

Never thought of it like that, but yeah I guess there is some truth to that. But isn’t that how the design of Partition was like?
Pakistan's aviation sector is coming back. It won't be as strong as our eastern neighbor, nowhere close, but it's going to grow over time. Stand by and watch.

Born to Pakistani parents near ORD; raised and based near ORD.
 
c933103
Posts: 3766
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:29 am

TryToFlySomeday wrote:
c933103 wrote:
TryToFlySomeday wrote:
Kashmiri Muslims will be upset by this move — but if Pakistan really wants a solution to Kashmir — then this might be endgame. LoC as permanent border — leave the Muslims in Pakistani Kashmir; and everyone else in Indian Kashmir.

Isn’t that how India and Pakistan was designed? I don’t agree with how Pakistan was designed because it hinders Pakistan’s progress — but regardless it is the truth.

Wouldn't that be a form of ethnic cleansing if you want people to move across border according to their belief?

Never thought of it like that, but yeah I guess there is some truth to that. But isn’t that how the design of Partition was like?

Wasn't the goal of that partition more about drawing border according to where different people lives, instead of moving people around border?
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:04 am

ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

> if there are no conservation or safety reasons, there is absolutely is something fundamentally wrong with banning a meat because of one group's preferences. Why should one religious majority group have the right to tell others what they can or cannot eat. It is fundamentally against the notions of freedom and equality. What next - ban who they can or cannot worship?

> I'm not for or against religious law boards of any religion, as long as they don't violate the constitution. From what I understand, anyone who chooses to use that law still has recourse to Indian constitutional law. In that sense, I'm comfortable with it because constitutional rights are respected. What I don't understand is why anyone who isn't affected by it, cares? Seems to me like it's not really about rights; it's really just about putting a minority group in their place - "know your place" and all that.

> The rest of your grievances are policy decisions. They're not reallyabout rights. Subsidizing schools is only a rights issue if the state funds some and not others. I don't know if that is or isn't the case. Hajj flights - I personally could care less. I don't view that as a right. That said, if the government subsidizes other pilgrimages, then it should fund these too - but that's about equality.


> Cool, let me start up my dog meat business in the US. Not a lot of customers, but being bad at business isn't a crime right?

> The problem is that it isn't really secular. It's like passing a law that says every woman have an abortion except Catholics. You could even legalize polygamy and get around this religion-based exemption.

> Cordoning off an entire state of the country for religious reasons is not secular. Allowing members of certain faiths to have multiple spouses isn't secular. Paying for subsidized 747 trips to a foreign country for some religions isn't secular (an asterisk here--the govt subsidizes pilgrimages for other religions too, but not to the extent of the hajj). It is specifically to cater to a minority group. I agree 100% that some minority rights need extra protection. I'm not arguing against special rules, like affirmative action or even reasonable quotas to improve the lives of historically or persistently disadvantaged groups. I'm simply pointing out that integrating Kashmir into the Indian fold is not inherently anti-Muslim, and that India (again, at least de jure...and imperfectly at times) attempts to handle religious and sectarian needs.

I'm far more conflicted on whether any region of a country should have the right to self-determination by vote (eg, Kashmir, Catalonia, and many others).


> Go right ahead. You'll probably get protesters, but I can't see any ban surviving a legal challenge. Could care less.

> Uh, no, that analogy doesn't sound right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Indian Muslims retain all their constitutional rights under the Indian constitution. The Indian constitution does not get replaced by these personal law boards, so your hypothetical situation does not appear to be valid.

> Cordoning off a state to stop its religious demographic being changed by mass migration, potentially by people who are openly hostile to that religion (India has a lot of those, no), seems to make eminent sense. At least until the majority of the population are enlightened enough to not treat people of that group as inferior to animals. We haven't reached that point yet - at the individual level. Too many crazies running around. In any event, what's your plan with 371? Going after them next?

> Cost does not strike me as a reasonable basis for treating citizens unequally.

> Behind the smoke and mirrors ("integration"), revoking article 370 is about changing the demographic make up of Kashmir. We're seeing this happen north and east of India. One can remain wilfully blind, but that's reality. The Kashmiris know it. You know it. I know it. The Indian government knows it. Why else do you think they're in lockdown?


Well, I suppose you're right. There will be changes to the demographic make up of Kashmir. I'd wager the Indian government's response would be, "so what?". States in India aren't immune to demographic changes. Some towns become more Muslim over the years, some become more Hindu, or Christian, or whatever. That's just internal migration. I can see why Kashmiris may want to preserve their unique culture...but Bengaluru has a record number of non-Kannada speakers in it, and a significant portion of rickshaw drivers in Chennai know far better Hindi than Tamil. If the Centre feels Kashmir should be treated like any other state in the country, then of course they accept internal migration will change the demographic composition of the area.

The lockdown and interference with communications (including phone and internet) is worrisome to me and I disagree with these actions. I understand it's to prevent unrest in a volatile region, but it makes it seem like something clandestine is going on. I can see why: There are rules in place to prevent Whatsapp messages from being forwarded excessively to prevent the spread of rumors--people have literally died due accusations on social media in India. That said, pulling communications with the outside world is wrong in this case. We'll see how soon the lockdown is removed and what next steps are. The situation is still very tense.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
blrsea
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:03 am

ElPistolero wrote:
BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
Why? For the same reason that Canada affords special status to First Nations. Recognition that they have as much of a right to exist and maintain their culture as anyone else, and make special provisions for them to do so in their ancestral homelands. Not wiping them out and engineering demographic change.

Oh, in successive posts you've quoted Canada as a positive example, and imputed the Chinese as a negative example. Effectively, you've canceled out your own line of argument, because as you've yourself shown, other countries can do whatever they please on their territory.

On Indian territory, Indian law applies. Indian law is that Art 370 was temporary, and it's just been removed. Explain why Kashmiris are so special that they need protections that Gujaratis, Kannadigas, Tamilians, Assamese and Manipuris (to quote 5 random groups) don't have.


Religion bro. You know that. I know that.

In any case, they are afforded special dispensations - they're allowed to function in their own languages and run their own school boards, all of which have been given official status.

I don't get the gist of the rest of your arguments. Yes India can do whatever it wants. You can legalize sex-selective abortion tomorrow too. Doesn't make it right. Don't confuse sovereign decisions with moral decisions. Sovereign countries can make backward and immoral decisions too.


The bolded parts show how much you know about India. Being of Indian descent doesn't make one expert on India. Every state runs government in their own language. Go to any non-Hindi state government office, and all circulars and administrative notices are issued in local language. Every state has their own school board, there is nothing special about J&K. I studied in Karnataka state school board.

When J&K acceeded to India, it was on the same terms as any other princely state at that time. A simple search on the web should bring that out. The instrument of accession was signed in 1947, special status came about in 1952 and 1954. And even at that time, the special status was mentioned as temporary. And the people in Ladakh and Jammu were actually asking for separation because of overbearing dominance of Kashmir in adminstration. Also, on a per-capita basis, J&K got the most aid from central government compared to any other state. I don't know how it can be claimed to be discrimination!

Talking about Canada First nation makes me chuckle. Occupy majority of their lands, restrict them to a few areas an make that special, and then claim we are treating you fairly!

The posts expose the glaring lack of knowledge on issues on ground in India. Ignorance together with malice seems to rule the roost!
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:12 am

N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:

> Cool, let me start up my dog meat business in the US. Not a lot of customers, but being bad at business isn't a crime right?

> The problem is that it isn't really secular. It's like passing a law that says every woman have an abortion except Catholics. You could even legalize polygamy and get around this religion-based exemption.

> Cordoning off an entire state of the country for religious reasons is not secular. Allowing members of certain faiths to have multiple spouses isn't secular. Paying for subsidized 747 trips to a foreign country for some religions isn't secular (an asterisk here--the govt subsidizes pilgrimages for other religions too, but not to the extent of the hajj). It is specifically to cater to a minority group. I agree 100% that some minority rights need extra protection. I'm not arguing against special rules, like affirmative action or even reasonable quotas to improve the lives of historically or persistently disadvantaged groups. I'm simply pointing out that integrating Kashmir into the Indian fold is not inherently anti-Muslim, and that India (again, at least de jure...and imperfectly at times) attempts to handle religious and sectarian needs.

I'm far more conflicted on whether any region of a country should have the right to self-determination by vote (eg, Kashmir, Catalonia, and many others).


> Go right ahead. You'll probably get protesters, but I can't see any ban surviving a legal challenge. Could care less.

> Uh, no, that analogy doesn't sound right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Indian Muslims retain all their constitutional rights under the Indian constitution. The Indian constitution does not get replaced by these personal law boards, so your hypothetical situation does not appear to be valid.

> Cordoning off a state to stop its religious demographic being changed by mass migration, potentially by people who are openly hostile to that religion (India has a lot of those, no), seems to make eminent sense. At least until the majority of the population are enlightened enough to not treat people of that group as inferior to animals. We haven't reached that point yet - at the individual level. Too many crazies running around. In any event, what's your plan with 371? Going after them next?

> Cost does not strike me as a reasonable basis for treating citizens unequally.

> Behind the smoke and mirrors ("integration"), revoking article 370 is about changing the demographic make up of Kashmir. We're seeing this happen north and east of India. One can remain wilfully blind, but that's reality. The Kashmiris know it. You know it. I know it. The Indian government knows it. Why else do you think they're in lockdown?


Well, I suppose you're right. There will be changes to the demographic make up of Kashmir. I'd wager the Indian government's response would be, "so what?". States in India aren't immune to demographic changes. Some towns become more Muslim over the years, some become more Hindu, or Christian, or whatever. That's just internal migration. I can see why Kashmiris may want to preserve their unique culture...but Bengaluru has a record number of non-Kannada speakers in it, and a significant portion of rickshaw drivers in Chennai know far better Hindi than Tamil. If the Centre feels Kashmir should be treated like any other state in the country, then of course they accept internal migration will change the demographic composition of the area.

The lockdown and interference with communications (including phone and internet) is worrisome to me and I disagree with these actions. I understand it's to prevent unrest in a volatile region, but it makes it seem like something clandestine is going on. I can see why: There are rules in place to prevent Whatsapp messages from being forwarded excessively to prevent the spread of rumors--people have literally died due accusations on social media in India. That said, pulling communications with the outside world is wrong in this case. We'll see how soon the lockdown is removed and what next steps are. The situation is still very tense.


The difference, I think you'll agree, is that Karnataka etc have not been under a state of siege for the better part of three decades, nor are there any groups out there that explicitly want to rid Karnatakans of their religion or culture because they view it as inferior, or because they've got centuries-old religious axes (and associated inferiority complexes) to grind. Can anyone objective say that about Kashmir?

The "so what", then, is ethnic cleansing. Whether one supports that or not is down to personal values. I find it morally reprehensible. Evidently many Indiams don't. What I find odd is the obfuscation - that this is somehow about something more noble than ethnic cleansing. It's not. Why lie?

At this point in time, the disruption this will cause to one minority community will be magnitudes more damaging on a per capita basis than the benefits accrued by the majority (on a per capita basis). And they haven't even been consulted on it. In any civilized country, that wouldn't be an acceptable method or outcome.

That they had to shut everything down to do it is indicative of the fact that it wasn't done with the consent of those most affected. That's not a mark of a mature democracy. Like I said, this is a significant marker of where India is in terms of democratic and civilizational development. Roughly where North America was 200 years ago. Any sense of moral or civilizational parity can now be put to rest.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:30 am

blrsea wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
BarfBag wrote:
Oh, in successive posts you've quoted Canada as a positive example, and imputed the Chinese as a negative example. Effectively, you've canceled out your own line of argument, because as you've yourself shown, other countries can do whatever they please on their territory.

On Indian territory, Indian law applies. Indian law is that Art 370 was temporary, and it's just been removed. Explain why Kashmiris are so special that they need protections that Gujaratis, Kannadigas, Tamilians, Assamese and Manipuris (to quote 5 random groups) don't have.


Religion bro. You know that. I know that.

In any case, they are afforded special dispensations - they're allowed to function in their own languages and run their own school boards, all of which have been given official status.

I don't get the gist of the rest of your arguments. Yes India can do whatever it wants. You can legalize sex-selective abortion tomorrow too. Doesn't make it right. Don't confuse sovereign decisions with moral decisions. Sovereign countries can make backward and immoral decisions too.


The bolded parts show how much you know about India. Being of Indian descent doesn't make one expert on India. Every state runs government in their own language. Go to any non-Hindi state government office, and all circulars and administrative notices are issued in local language. Every state has their own school board, there is nothing special about J&K. I studied in Karnataka state school board.

When J&K acceeded to India, it was on the same terms as any other princely state at that time. A simple search on the web should bring that out. The instrument of accession was signed in 1947, special status came about in 1952 and 1954. And even at that time, the special status was mentioned as temporary. And the people in Ladakh and Jammu were actually asking for separation because of overbearing dominance of Kashmir in adminstration. Also, on a per-capita basis, J&K got the most aid from central government compared to any other state. I don't know how it can be claimed to be discrimination!

Talking about Canada First nation makes me chuckle. Occupy majority of their lands, restrict them to a few areas an make that special, and then claim we are treating you fairly!

The posts expose the glaring lack of knowledge on issues on ground in India. Ignorance together with malice seems to rule the roost!


Never claimed to be an expert on India. Just pointing out what's obvious to even us non-experts.

> I don't know why you think the bolded bit disagrees with what you've written. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I agree that many states (not just J&K) have special dispensations. That other poster is offended by those special dispensations. I could care less.

> Indeed it was meant to be temporary. I don't think it should be permanent. That said, I don't think now is the right time, nor do I think that implementing it without the consent of those affected is a good idea. If you have to shut everything down to do something because it's so detrimental to those directly affected by it, there's a pretty obvious problem.

> As for discrimination, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone objective that an Indian Muslim is safer - and freer - in the west than in many parts of India. No ones going to get lynched for eating beef, for example. Or for just being Muslim. The laws and institutions - and values - are too strong. That's not to say there's no risk. Only that it's marginal compared to India. Call it malice or ignorance, but it's a fact of life in India these days. Hence my disagreement on the timing and method of implementation.

> Indeed First Nations were treated badly. But that's an accepted fact now, and there are efforts to right that wrong. Very different from refusing to acknowledge wrongs. Maybe one day when India strains similar levels of enlightenment and associated values, they will look back on this implementation with regret. Rather than, you know, trying to justify it.

Realities on the ground are one thing, but it's a good idea to look at things as others see it. Forget me - what would you make of this if you were a Kashmiri Muslim living in today's India?
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 1933
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:49 am

I was hoping to see what coverage the Nightly News would have, but it was all El Paso driven today. Maybe tomorrow.
This thread is the best on this topic going.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:54 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Well, yes, I think it's fair to say that Kashmir's situation has always been a little "special". After all, parts of that state have had a military presence unlike anything seen in real democracies. For what, three decades and counting? I doubt it comes as a surprise that this is linked to religion as well.

You may think it is fair. But if you want to impose your approach, democracy requires that you have political basis to do so. The BJP has been nothing if not tenacious about this. They've ALWAYS stated this as one of their core party goals. This is no surprise. You think one entity requires 'special' treatment. Others don't agree. The only resolution is the democratic procedure that determine who has more supporters.
ElPistolero wrote:
It's nice that you could care less who worships what. I could care less either, because this issue isn't really about Islam. It's about minority rights in a country where people do care about who worships what .

Oh yes. Minority rights. You support the rights of minorities in Kashmir ? So do I! I strongly support the minority in Kashmir having a chance to become the majority too. Because, you know, the minority in Kashmir is the Hindus, not the Muslims.

Anyone can think and want a certain course of action, but as much as your own hopes may be interesting, it's clear that there's no national political consensus today that's even remotely in favor of Article 370. Did you see what happened in the Rajya Sabha ? The Congress RS whip - the very guy in charge of ensuring his party voted together against the bill, himself resigned:
Congress committing suicide: Congress whip in Rajya Sabha resigns to protest party's stand on Article 370
Image
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:02 am

ElPistolero wrote:
In fairness, none of those states have witnessed (military presence and all) anything close to what Kashmir has witnessed, nor is there any risk of their demographics being changed completely.

The areas where those risks exist are, it would seem, protected by sections of Article 371 (Mizoram, Nagaland etc). They don't seem to inspire as much passionate opposition. Why?

That's arguable. Assam and parts of Jharkhand continue to see substantial military and paramilitary presence for decades. The Naxal issue predates armed conflict in Kashmir by over two decades.

There's nothing special about Jammu and Kashmir anymore. If you think otherwise, prove it democratically - create a party, assert your position and show that people support your position.

This is a totally fair demand - the BJP's predecessor was created explicitly in response to the imposition of Article 370 seven decades ago, and SPM, its founder, was extrajudicially killed by Nehru in retaliation for it.

The abrogation of Art 370 has been a central party plank of BJS and BJP continuously for three generations now - assiduously building the political power to accomplish it.

Anyone's entitled to disagree with this political position, but your disagreement isn't in any way meaningful unless you have the political means to accomplish it.

The situation has already been irrevocably set. Even if the SC were to invalidate CO272 to take apart this legislative effort, that's fine - in fact arguably that's exactly what the BJP would love for the SC to do. Guess why - Art 35A.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:15 am

blrsea wrote:
And the people in Ladakh and Jammu were actually asking for separation because of overbearing dominance of Kashmir in adminstration. Also, on a per-capita basis, J&K got the most aid from central government compared to any other state. I don't know how it can be claimed to be discrimination!

Indeed. The posters who wave their hands around while claiming to be no experts on India, while bringing in Tibetan Buddhists, have no idea about this:
Image
Those are Tibetan Buddhists in Ladakh demanding Union Territory status and freedom from Muslim overlordship in J&K.

The picture is from circa 1985. BEFORE armed militancy even began, they wanted out. It took 35 years to give it to them.

There is so much absurd nonsense being peddled: "India needs to prove its secular credentials by giving one, JUST ONE religion - but NOT the others - a special la la land with its own flag, constitution and citizenship. This is ONLY for Muslims. The Sikh majority state of Punjab ? Nope, not for them. The Buddhist majority Ladakh or Sikkim ? Nope. How about the Christian majority Mizoram ? Nope. They're all regular states of India. No constitution, no flag, no special residency restrictions for them. Only Muslims get it. If they don't then their culture will flop over and die. If India doesn't maintain such a special la la land just for Muslims, then India isn't secular".

:lol:

This entire legislative effort boils down to one simple thing - "The SAME laws apply to everyone, everywhere in India". It's really that simple. I can't believe the amount of half baked sophistry over something so fundamentally egalitarian.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2566
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:24 am

ElPistolero wrote:
The "so what", then, is ethnic cleansing. Whether one supports that or not is down to personal values. I find it morally reprehensible. Evidently many Indiams don't. What I find odd is the obfuscation - that this is somehow about something more noble than ethnic cleansing. It's not. Why lie?

That's a very grave situation indeed. I'll be sure to inform the gorkha guard at the apartment complex nearby, and the Biharis working in the construction lot adjacent, that they're ethnically cleansing me, since I'm nowhere near Sikkim or Bihar.

It takes a unique degree of sophistry to call social and economic mobility of a large population 'ethnic cleansing'. Especially when a Kashmiri is free to live ANYWHERE in India, work in whatever he likes. I can think of about a dozen notable Kashmiris in Indian public life, none of whom live in Kashmir. Anupam Kher is all over Twitter as we speak...

But the opposite - Indians elsewhere living in Kashmir - is 'ethnic cleansing' :rotfl:
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:54 am

BarfBag wrote:
The only resolution is the democratic procedure that determine who has more supporters.


Lol - thats a pretty infantile understanding of democracy. What you're describing isn't democracy; it's a tyranny of the majority. Go look it up. Here's what I hope is a an easily digestible quote from Wiki:

a decision which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence.

It's the basis for independent judiciaries and checks and balances - the foundation of functioning democracies. You're describing what John Stuart Mills explicitly identified as a tyranny. In the very likely event that you've never heard of him or de Tocqueville, their work informed the constitutions that served as the basis for the Indian constitution.

My suggestion: don't throw around concepts you don't actually understand. It's not a good look.

BarfBag wrote:
Oh yes. Minority rights. You support the rights of minorities in Kashmir ? So do I! I strongly support the minority in Kashmir having a chance to become the majority too. Because, you know, the minority in Kashmir is the Hindus, not the Muslims.


Ok, I'll bite. How does this make things better for them? By ramping up communal tensions?

BarfBag wrote:
Anyone can think and want a certain course of action, but as much as your own hopes may be interesting, it's clear that there's no national political consensus today that's even remotely in favor of Article 370. Did you see what happened in the Rajya Sabha ? The Congress RS whip - the very guy in charge of ensuring his party voted together against the bill, himself resigned:
Congress committing suicide: Congress whip in Rajya Sabha resigns to protest party's stand on Article 370
Image


Right. Political parties agree that it is politically expedient to throw a minority group under the bus, therefore it's ok. Yeah no. See above. That's not democracy; that's a tyranny of the majority.

Doesn't paint a flattering picture of the Indian electorate, or the intellectual aptitude of those it elects/appoints. However, it does explain why the Supreme Court decided average citizens don't have the aptitude to serve on juries.

Like I said, if a party gets elected on a platform of legalizing sex-selective abortion, it's still a morally reprehensible thing to do. And it speaks volumes about the morality of those who elect it.
 
blrsea
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:59 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Never claimed to be an expert on India. Just pointing out what's obvious to even us non-experts.

> I don't know why you think the bolded bit disagrees with what you've written. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I agree that many states (not just J&K) have special dispensations. That other poster is offended by those special dispensations. I could care less.


Thats where you show your ignorance. There is no special dispensations. It is part of constitution. There are 14 official languages. Every non-hindi speaking state has its own official language. Also, constitution splits powers between states and center, so states have lots of powers.

ElPistolero wrote:
> As for discrimination, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone objective that an Indian Muslim is safer - and freer - in the west than in many parts of India. No ones going to get lynched for eating beef, for example. Or for just being Muslim. The laws and institutions - and values - are too strong. That's not to say there's no risk. Only that it's marginal compared to India. Call it malice or ignorance, but it's a fact of life in India these days. Hence my disagreement on the timing and method of implementation.


Random news that are blown up can create a false impression like yours. Beef is very much on the menu in Kerala, Goa, Karnataka, AP, Telangana, NE states and many other states. In some states, there is ban on slaughter of cows, but that doesn't mea they can't import beef from other states. Even one lynching is one too many. But its not like its a regular occurence. Some are blown up by media to create sensationalism.

> Indeed First Nations were treated badly. But that's an accepted fact now, and there are efforts to right that wrong. Very different from refusing to acknowledge wrongs. Maybe one day when India strains similar levels of enlightenment and associated values, they will look back on this implementation with regret. Rather than, you know, trying to justify it.

Realities on the ground are one thing, but it's a good idea to look at things as others see it. Forget me - what would you make of this if you were a Kashmiri Muslim living in today's India?



Kashmiri muslims had the est of both worlds.They could study, work & buy properties in any part of India, but their own state was off limits to non-J&Kites. In Karnataka too, there were few kashmiris studying in my college. And you are harping on "muslim" factor as though only they matter. Have you heard about the genocide of hindus in Kashmir, who were forced to leave Kashmir and become refugees within India? Perhaps you need to read up on that. Remember that J&K state has population split almost equally between muslims & non-muslims. Also, if sikhs can live harmoniously with others, why will it be different for muslims? Are there no muslims living in any other part of the country? Kerala has 1/3rd population muslims. West Bengal is approaching 30%. So to claim that muslims in J&K should be treated differently compared to muslims else where doesn't pass the smell test. And seeing through only the "muslims lens" when they are half the population only means you are ignoring the other half too, just because of your biases. Not to forget the worst genocide/ethnic-cleansng of kashmiri pandits in kashmir which is brushed under the carpet, while claiming only "kashmir muslim will be afraid". Has no logic or reasoning to it.

Do you know how the Shiv Sena party in Maharashtra came to exist? There was lots of concerns at one time about non-marathis coming into Mumbai and other places and taking away jobs and reducing marathi culture. Should the government have banned non-Marathis to come to Mumbai to "protect marathi culture"? Similarly, even today, Kannadigas is being reduced to a minority in Bangalore due to large scale influx of migrants from other states. In some places in Bangalore, it doesn't feel like part of Karnataka. Should Karnataka limit migrants coming in? But Bangalore is today IT capital of India due to people from all parts of India. If almost every state is managing to keep their culture and their language together with wider intra-country migrations, why should J&K be treated separately just because it has 50% muslim population?

And for anyone following news in India, they would remember that the terrorist problem started in 1990s, till then the state was pretty peaceful.Our family too visted Kashmir in 80s when it was very peaceful. In 1965, when pakistani commandos parachuted into Kashmir, they were beaten to death by villagers. The terrorist problem was directly sponsored by Pakistan in 90s in its "war of a thousand cuts" strategy. They tried the same in Punjab too by sponsoring Khalistanis. Terrorism was eliminated in Punjab and its one of very prosperous states today. And its in no small part to the companies and investment there. Investment in J&K is not possible due to articles 370 & 35A which limited outsiders from purchasing property in the state. Thats why the state is lagging behind. More industrialization and more jobs for youth means that the lure of terrorism for few dollars will die a natural death.

Fact: The only times where ethnic cleansing was tried in India was when Hindus were butchered and raped and thrown out of kashmir, and when cong goons tried to kill all sikhs in Delhi after Indira Gandhi's assasination.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:29 am

BarfBag wrote:
blrsea wrote:
And the people in Ladakh and Jammu were actually asking for separation because of overbearing dominance of Kashmir in adminstration. Also, on a per-capita basis, J&K got the most aid from central government compared to any other state. I don't know how it can be claimed to be discrimination!

Indeed. The posters who wave their hands around while claiming to be no experts on India, while bringing in Tibetan Buddhists, have no idea about this:
Image
Those are Tibetan Buddhists in Ladakh demanding Union Territory status and freedom from Muslim overlordship in J&K.

The picture is from circa 1985. BEFORE armed militancy even began, they wanted out. It took 35 years to give it to them.

There is so much absurd nonsense being peddled: "India needs to prove its secular credentials by giving one, JUST ONE religion - but NOT the others - a special la la land with its own flag, constitution and citizenship. This is ONLY for Muslims. The Sikh majority state of Punjab ? Nope, not for them. The Buddhist majority Ladakh or Sikkim ? Nope. How about the Christian majority Mizoram ? Nope. They're all regular states of India. No constitution, no flag, no special residency restrictions for them. Only Muslims get it. If they don't then their culture will flop over and die. If India doesn't maintain such a special la la land just for Muslims, then India isn't secular".

:lol:

This entire legislative effort boils down to one simple thing - "The SAME laws apply to everyone, everywhere in India". It's really that simple. I can't believe the amount of half baked sophistry over something so fundamentally egalitarian.


> You never did explain what article 371's various sections are about. Begs the question: do you even know what they are? Or is your understanding of the Indian constitution limited to 370 and other such cause du jour? Come on, try harder.

> This is not about one religion; rather it's about imposing majority rule on a minority without even consulting them or doing it in an orderly manner. Sorry bro - that ain't democracy.

> Why single out Muslims? It's a fair question. You know the answer. It's roughly along the lines of why stuff like this happens in India:

"Last month, a video that went viral on social media showed a terrified Muslim man tied to a pole being assaulted by a lynch mob made up of Hindu men in the eastern state of Jharkhand.

In the video, 24-year old Tabrez Ansari is seen pleading for his life, blood and tears streaming down his face. His attackers force him to repeatedly chant "Jai Shri Ram", which translates from Hindi to "hail Lord Ram" or "victory to Lord Ram". Mr Ansari does as told, and when the mob is finished with him, he is handed over to the police.

The police lock him up and his family is not allowed to see him. He dies four days later from injuries sustained during the attack."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48882053

> That happened what - 6 weeks ago? Seems to me as though many Indian citizens cannot or will not protect their fellow Indian Muslim citizens in such cases. Or treat them as equals (must be that egalitarian streak in them).That, in itself, makes a pretty compelling argument for retaining special protections for that one religion for the time being. If Karnatakans and Meghalyans start facing similar treatment, I'll fight for them too. I'm afraid I still don't see the merit in the timing and method.

> Interesting point about sophistry. I guess everything comes across as sophistry to people who only have a superficial understanding of complex concepts. The concept of democracy is too complex for some self-proclaimed democrats these days.
Last edited by ElPistolero on Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:52 am

blrsea wrote:
Thats where you show your ignorance. There is no special dispensations. It is part of constitution. There are 14 official languages. Every non-hindi speaking state has its own official language. Also, constitution splits powers between states and center, so states have lots of powers.


What ignorance? Article 370 was also part of the Constitution. Till it wasn't. I'm not sure we're disagreeing on states rights. I'm not the one calling for uniformity.

blrsea wrote:
Random news that are blown up can create a false impression like yours. Beef is very much on the menu in Kerala, Goa, Karnataka, AP, Telangana, NE states and many other states. In some states, there is ban on slaughter of cows, but that doesn't mea they can't import beef from other states. Even one lynching is one too many. But its not like its a regular occurence. Some are blown up by media to create sensationalism.


Sorry, let's be clear about this. Was an Indian citizen not killed solely on the basis of a rumour that he had beef in his freezer. Are you saying that didn't happen? How regularly it happens is irrelevant.

Not a fan of the double standards either. The moment an Indian origin person is attacked in Australia or the US ... well, you know the drill. And that's far more irregular than these lynchings - like that video from 6 weeks ago.

blrsea wrote:
Kashmiri muslims had the est of both worlds.They could study, work & buy properties in any part of India, but their own state was off limits to non-J&Kites. In Karnataka too, there were few kashmiris studying in my college. And you are harping on "muslim" factor as though only they matter. Have you heard about the genocide of hindus in Kashmir, who were forced to leave Kashmir and become refugees within India? Perhaps you need to read up on that. Remember that J&K state has population split almost equally between muslims & non-muslims. Also, if sikhs can live harmoniously with others, why will it be different for muslims? Are there no muslims living in any other part of the country? Kerala has 1/3rd population muslims. West Bengal is approaching 30%. So to claim that muslims in J&K should be treated differently compared to muslims else where doesn't pass the smell test. And seeing through only the "muslims lens" when they are half the population only means you are ignoring the other half too, just because of your biases. Not to forget the worst genocide/ethnic-cleansng of kashmiri pandits in kashmir which is brushed under the carpet, while claiming only "kashmir muslim will be afraid". Has no logic or reasoning to it.

Do you know how the Shiv Sena party in Maharashtra came to exist? There was lots of concerns at one time about non-marathis coming into Mumbai and other places and taking away jobs and reducing marathi culture. Should the government have banned non-Marathis to come to Mumbai to "protect marathi culture"? Similarly, even today, Kannadigas is being reduced to a minority in Bangalore due to large scale influx of migrants from other states. In some places in Bangalore, it doesn't feel like part of Karnataka. Should Karnataka limit migrants coming in? But Bangalore is today IT capital of India due to people from all parts of India. If almost every state is managing to keep their culture and their language together with wider intra-country migrations, why should J&K be treated separately just because it has 50% muslim population?

And for anyone following news in India, they would remember that the terrorist problem started in 1990s, till then the state was pretty peaceful.Our family too visted Kashmir in 80s when it was very peaceful. In 1965, when pakistani commandos parachuted into Kashmir, they were beaten to death by villagers. The terrorist problem was directly sponsored by Pakistan in 90s in its "war of a thousand cuts" strategy. They tried the same in Punjab too by sponsoring Khalistanis. Terrorism was eliminated in Punjab and its one of very prosperous states today. And its in no small part to the companies and investment there. Investment in J&K is not possible due to articles 370 & 35A which limited outsiders from purchasing property in the state. Thats why the state is lagging behind. More industrialization and more jobs for youth means that the lure of terrorism for few dollars will die a natural death.

Fact: The only times where ethnic cleansing was tried in India was when Hindus were butchered and raped and thrown out of kashmir, and when cong goons tried to kill all sikhs in Delhi after Indira Gandhi's assasination.


Awww, you started with a rational argument and sadly reverted to type. It's all about historical baggage and putting people in place, isn't it. Always a good reason to change the constitution. Article 370 revocation is more likely to result in a deterioration of the security situation than a boom in investment. Until the gradual ethnic cleansing changes the demographics anyway.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure Kashmiri Muslims would watch that video mentioned above and think they have the best of both worlds. I personally find the cognitive dissonance you betray here amusing. Indians are always ready to play the discrimination card abroad, but never willing to acknowledge the situation at home.

PS - I m not a congress supporter.
 
blrsea
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:04 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Awww, you started with a rational argument and sadly reverted to type. It's all about historical baggage and putting people in place, isn't it. Always a good reason to change the constitution. Article 370 revocation is more likely to result in a deterioration of the security situation than a boom in investment. Until the gradual ethnic cleansing changes the demographics anyway.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure Kashmiri Muslims would watch that video mentioned above and think they have the best of both worlds. I personally find the cognitive dissonance you betray here amusing. Indians are always ready to play the discrimination card abroad, but never willing to acknowledge the situation at home.

PS - I m not a congress supporter.


A bigot is a bigot, whether congress supporter or not. For every video, there can be two other videos showing the reverse situation. Sadly, that won't solve anything. Recently a hindu temple was attacked and idols destroyed in Delhi by a muslim mob. A hindu doctor was killed by a muslim mob, again in Delhi for a trivial reason. Should I add those videos here and claim hindus are being systematically assaulted? Two can play the game and each claim victimhood. But that doesn't solve anything. Sadly, communal riots are a reality in India, and its not always started by one religion. To claim that only one religion is presecuted is of course easier to grasp and fits the narrative they want to propagate. But such wanton misinformation can be easily called out based on publicly available information.

I see that you still use the term "ethnic cleansing" lightly, and chose to ignore facts even when presented. IAnd had no rational answer to any of the issues reaised. That's fine, it just establishes basis for your arguments. So you are also guilty of ethnic cleansing of First Nation people in Canada by migrating (you or your ancestors) , remember that. And don't try to pass on your guilt about that (if you have any) to somewhere totally unrelated where you have no grasp of reality or facts
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Indian Constitution - Proposal to revoke Article 370 - J&K to no longer have special status

Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:20 am

blrsea wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
Awww, you started with a rational argument and sadly reverted to type. It's all about historical baggage and putting people in place, isn't it. Always a good reason to change the constitution. Article 370 revocation is more likely to result in a deterioration of the security situation than a boom in investment. Until the gradual ethnic cleansing changes the demographics anyway.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure Kashmiri Muslims would watch that video mentioned above and think they have the best of both worlds. I personally find the cognitive dissonance you betray here amusing. Indians are always ready to play the discrimination card abroad, but never willing to acknowledge the situation at home.

PS - I m not a congress supporter.


A bigot is a bigot, whether congress supporter or not. For every video, there can be two other videos showing the reverse situation. Sadly, that won't solve anything. Recently a hindu temple was attacked and idols destroyed in Delhi by a muslim mob. A hindu doctor was killed by a muslim mob, again in Delhi for a trivial reason. Should I add those videos here and claim hindus are being systematically assaulted? Two can play the game and each claim victimhood. But that doesn't solve anything. Sadly, communal riots are a reality in India, and its not always started by one religion. To claim that only one religion is presecuted is of course easier to grasp and fits the narrative they want to propagate. But such wanton misinformation can be easily called out based on publicly available information.

I see that you still use the term "ethnic cleansing" lightly, and chose to ignore facts even when presented. IAnd had no rational answer to any of the issues reaised. That's fine, it just establishes basis for your arguments. So you are also guilty of ethnic cleansing of First Nation people in Canada by migrating (you or your ancestors) , remember that. And don't try to pass on your guilt about that (if you have any) to somewhere totally unrelated where you have no grasp of reality or facts


And yet it is an indisputable fact that minorities tend to be more vulnerable than majorities. Especially in India these days. Like I said, an India Muslim is safer - and freer in the west than in India. Perhaps that applies to poorer Hindus too. A symptom of dysfunctional government, if you will. I would happily agree with the revocation of this article if it was done with the consent of those most affected by it. Instead they were locked up to pave the way. If pointing that out makes one a bigot, so be it.

And no, I don't believe it's just the one group that suffers. Africans (in India) and north easterners have similarly troubling tales of racism across India. The bigots, I dare say, are the ones who equivocate or look away. Or pretend it isn't happening.

That aside, I get the impression that most Canadians are willing to accept that there was ethnic cleansing - and more importantly - that it was wrong. They've long given up trying to justify it in the name of economic development. And no, I don't use the term lightly. I use it with ll it's gravity. Just because it doesn't involve mass murder, doesn't make it acceptable.

You can keep calling me names. Doesn't change the fact that your arguments are about giant historic chips on the shoulder, rather than anything evidence based or rational.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 777ER, Bing [Bot], cpd, L410Turbolet, Teganuma and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos