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

Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:15 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

The First Nations reserves are the best example. One need only look at the travails of the trans-Canada pipeline to see how entrenched these rights are.

You see similar things with Quebec; while there's no prohibition on movement/ property buying per se, the language laws are very restrictive and act as a de facto barrier. It also runs its own immigration program, has its own laws (civil matters are Judged according to French-heritage civil law), has its own flag, and has its own "mini-embassies" abroad. Canadians from outside Quebec have to pay higher university tuition than foreign students from francophone nations. The country also has to officially function in two language, despite the fact that only around 20% of the country is francophone.

The kind of stuff that would make them easy targets for the type of angry majoritarians we see in India.


Honestly, if Kashmir had the same basic policy as Quebec that'd be fine by me. Quebec's immigration laws only apply to immigration from outside Canada, correct? They can't prevent someone from Vancouver or Edmonton from moving there and buying a house? There's really nothing wrong with having a Kashmiri mini-embassy in other countries to serve as an ambassador for the state--in fact, it's a good idea.

Language and religion are not the same (bilingualism is a thing, but not bi-theism) so the analogy falls apart quickly. The geopolitical realities facing Quebec and Kashmir are also pretty different. But it's not a bad start.

Edit to add: Things are obviously not fine in Kashmir. They weren't fine last week, last month, last year, or frankly any time in the lifetimes of many posters here. The tension just waxes and wanes. The hope is that these next few weeks are the nadir.


I'm not sure I agree. Québécois culture is more akin to a religious culture than just a linguistic culture (a la, say, Punjabi). Just witness their RSS-style secularism - they're trying to ban religious symbols (turbans etc) in government workplaces, but insist on keeping the Christian cross in the provincial legislature. But anyway, probably splitting hairs at this point.

Which is to say, yes, you can move, but the barriers to movement are formidable. And deliberately so - they're designed to preserve the unique cultural identity of Quebec. The language laws are pretty heavy; witness Montreal's relative decline as an economic hub since their implementation. That's in large part because language barriers stop a lot of companies and talent from going there.

That aside, they're both examples of rights given to minority-majority (?) states/provinces with strong national identities. The civil law/common law combination is unique to Quebec. And the mini-embassy thing was just a reminder that some of these grievances against flags and whatnots are trivial.

Frankly I think Nagaland is a much better comparator. Luckily for them, they're majority Christian. For now, anyway.


Quebec's always fascinated me because how different they try to be. Even the stop signs in Paris say Stop, but QC must do its own thing. Companies like BMO fled Montreal because of violence and separatism in the 1960s and 1970s. Now it's too late to unring the bell. The first referendum was the final nail in the coffin. And the second one, which the Premier of Quebec himself says was lost due to the money and the ethnic vote, pretty much confirmed everyone's decision to stay in Toronto.

There's really no good comparison, just kind of close ones. We'll see how Kashmir's story unfolds. There's definitely room for a Quebec-like arrangement in my mind. If in two generations Kashmir can be stabilized the way Quebec fits in Canada today, then so be it.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

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

Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:18 pm

anshabhi wrote:
Restrictions partially lifted from Kashmir,
Curfew to be completely removed from Jammu tomorrow, and in a very sad news for vested interests, its all peaceful.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... gFDpK.html

I have unwavering faith in dedication and commitment of my nations security apparatus which no E L or P can shake.


If you say so. Others ...don't.

"But sporadic violence has already broken out. BBC reporters saw some protesters throwing stones at security forces, and spoke to residents who said they feared that the situation could worsen significantly."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49289680

Can't see your comment aging well. We all have a pretty good sense of what's coming next. Why else have hundreds of academics, politicians and activists been pre-emptively detained since Sunday without actually committing any crime.

But then again, takes all kinds to make the world go round. Like self-professed "democrats" becoming fanboys of police state tactics.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

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

Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:09 pm

N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:

Honestly, if Kashmir had the same basic policy as Quebec that'd be fine by me. Quebec's immigration laws only apply to immigration from outside Canada, correct? They can't prevent someone from Vancouver or Edmonton from moving there and buying a house? There's really nothing wrong with having a Kashmiri mini-embassy in other countries to serve as an ambassador for the state--in fact, it's a good idea.

Language and religion are not the same (bilingualism is a thing, but not bi-theism) so the analogy falls apart quickly. The geopolitical realities facing Quebec and Kashmir are also pretty different. But it's not a bad start.

Edit to add: Things are obviously not fine in Kashmir. They weren't fine last week, last month, last year, or frankly any time in the lifetimes of many posters here. The tension just waxes and wanes. The hope is that these next few weeks are the nadir.


I'm not sure I agree. Québécois culture is more akin to a religious culture than just a linguistic culture (a la, say, Punjabi). Just witness their RSS-style secularism - they're trying to ban religious symbols (turbans etc) in government workplaces, but insist on keeping the Christian cross in the provincial legislature. But anyway, probably splitting hairs at this point.

Which is to say, yes, you can move, but the barriers to movement are formidable. And deliberately so - they're designed to preserve the unique cultural identity of Quebec. The language laws are pretty heavy; witness Montreal's relative decline as an economic hub since their implementation. That's in large part because language barriers stop a lot of companies and talent from going there.

That aside, they're both examples of rights given to minority-majority (?) states/provinces with strong national identities. The civil law/common law combination is unique to Quebec. And the mini-embassy thing was just a reminder that some of these grievances against flags and whatnots are trivial.

Frankly I think Nagaland is a much better comparator. Luckily for them, they're majority Christian. For now, anyway.


Quebec's always fascinated me because how different they try to be. Even the stop signs in Paris say Stop, but QC must do its own thing. Companies like BMO fled Montreal because of violence and separatism in the 1960s and 1970s. Now it's too late to unring the bell. The first referendum was the final nail in the coffin. And the second one, which the Premier of Quebec himself says was lost due to the money and the ethnic vote, pretty much confirmed everyone's decision to stay in Toronto.

There's really no good comparison, just kind of close ones. We'll see how Kashmir's story unfolds. There's definitely room for a Quebec-like arrangement in my mind. If in two generations Kashmir can be stabilized the way Quebec fits in Canada today, then so be it.


There's an important lesson in there: the majority's attitude. At its core, this is about strong group identities, with the associated excprtionalism that needs accommodation. The English-French conflict is probably as old as, if not older than, the Hindu-Islam conflict. The history is still alive - you can literally walk on the plains of Abraham where the French were defeated, sealing Quebecs fate. But despite that, there's never been any real antagonism or hostility directed at Quebec. Pundits and politicians grumbling? Sure. Antipathy at the street level? Never. As a result, the narrative of the majority posing an existential threat has never resonated. Makes it easier to co-opt the Québécois over time - to the point that sovereignty no longer has much traction even in provincial elections.

Most of the arguments used by our resident majoritarians can easily apply here too. There are, after all, many immigrant minorities who don't get these exceptions. But it's seen as part of the core Canadian identity. That the French Canadian nation is part of the Canadian nation, and if exceptions are needed to keep it that way, whatever. Different, but the same. And, crucially, equal regardless of population size.

Contrast this with the RSS ideology of India as a Hindu majority nation. There's posters on here who harp on about how India is 80% Hindu. You won't hear that kind of sentiment in Canada. Nobody cares. The refusal to pander to the majority combined with the refusal of the majority to accept it as an issue proven to be critical. In India? It's the opposite.

Hence my original point about time and cooption. It took Quebec decades to go from sovereignty to the current buy-in to the Canadian project. And that was without any majoritarian hostility.

In that context, if it is fair to say Kashmir isn't there yet, it is equally fair to say that India isn't there yet. This gau rakshak, "anti-national" phenomena hints at a Hindu majoritarian outlook that is more hostile towards minorities (and indeed Hindu dissidents) than anything we've seen in the past.

This is not lost on Kashmiris. The timing and the implementation - in arguably one of the worst phases of Hindu victimhood complexes and vindictiveness since the early 1990s - suggests that this is not going to end well. The pervasiveness of that attitude within Hindu society is evident on this thread.
Last edited by ElPistolero on Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
golfradio
Posts: 892
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:35 pm

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

Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:22 pm

With 370 gone, J&K and Ladakh are now viable destinations for business investments.

Article 370 gone, investor summit planned in Jammu and Kashmir to boost industry, healthcare

Uday Kotak calls for investments in J&K; Amul, Lemon Tree confirm intent

With avenues for higher learning, vocational training and employment opportunities, the youth and kids in the valley no longer have to be on the ISI payroll for stone pelting.

“Knowing what to do with time is the key to being productive”
― Sunday Adelaja
CSeries forever. Bring back the old site.
 
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

Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:11 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

I'm not sure I agree. Québécois culture is more akin to a religious culture than just a linguistic culture (a la, say, Punjabi). Just witness their RSS-style secularism - they're trying to ban religious symbols (turbans etc) in government workplaces, but insist on keeping the Christian cross in the provincial legislature. But anyway, probably splitting hairs at this point.

Which is to say, yes, you can move, but the barriers to movement are formidable. And deliberately so - they're designed to preserve the unique cultural identity of Quebec. The language laws are pretty heavy; witness Montreal's relative decline as an economic hub since their implementation. That's in large part because language barriers stop a lot of companies and talent from going there.

That aside, they're both examples of rights given to minority-majority (?) states/provinces with strong national identities. The civil law/common law combination is unique to Quebec. And the mini-embassy thing was just a reminder that some of these grievances against flags and whatnots are trivial.

Frankly I think Nagaland is a much better comparator. Luckily for them, they're majority Christian. For now, anyway.


Quebec's always fascinated me because how different they try to be. Even the stop signs in Paris say Stop, but QC must do its own thing. Companies like BMO fled Montreal because of violence and separatism in the 1960s and 1970s. Now it's too late to unring the bell. The first referendum was the final nail in the coffin. And the second one, which the Premier of Quebec himself says was lost due to the money and the ethnic vote, pretty much confirmed everyone's decision to stay in Toronto.

There's really no good comparison, just kind of close ones. We'll see how Kashmir's story unfolds. There's definitely room for a Quebec-like arrangement in my mind. If in two generations Kashmir can be stabilized the way Quebec fits in Canada today, then so be it.


There's an important lesson in there: the majority's attitude. At its core, this is about strong group identities, with the associated excprtionalism that needs accommodation. The English-French conflict is probably as old as, if not older than, the Hindu-Islam conflict. The history is still alive - you can literally walk on the plains of Abraham where the French were defeated, sealing Quebecs fate. But despite that, there's never been any real antagonism or hostility directed at Quebec. Pundits and politicians grumbling? Sure. Antipathy at the street level? Never. As a result, the narrative of the majority posing an existential threat has never resonated. Makes it easier to co-opt the Québécois over time - to the point that sovereignty no longer has much traction even in provincial elections.

Most of the arguments used by our resident majoritarians can easily apply here too. There are, after all, many immigrant minorities who don't get these exceptions. But it's seen as part of the core Canadian identity. That the French Canadian nation is part of the Canadian nation, and if exceptions are needed to keep it that way, whatever. Different, but the same. And, crucially, equal regardless of population size.

Contrast this with the RSS ideology of India as a Hindu majority nation. There's posters on here who harp on about how India is 80% Hindu. You won't hear that kind of sentiment in Canada. Nobody cares. The refusal to pander to the majority combined with the refusal of the majority to accept it as an issue proven to be critical. In India? It's the opposite.

Hence my original point about time and cooption. It took Quebec decades to go from sovereignty to the current buy-in to the Canadian project. And that was without any majoritarian hostility.

In that context, if it is fair to say Kashmir isn't there yet, it is equally fair to say that India isn't there yet. This gau rakshak, "anti-national" phenomena hints at a Hindu majoritarian outlook that is more hostile towards minorities (and indeed Hindu dissidents) than anything we've seen in the past.

This is not lost on Kashmiris. The timing and the implementation - in arguably one of the worst phases of Hindu victimhood complexes and vindictiveness since the early 1990s - suggests that this is not going to end well. The pervasiveness of that attitude within Hindu society is evident on this thread.


That's a very rosy view of Anglo-French Canadian relations. Quebec had terrorists in the 1970s setting off bombs and even murdering people in their cause. Not as many as Kashmir, but it's definitely not free of bloodshed. Quebec's plates say, "Je me souviens". Remember what? Remember their original French lineage. In 1995, just over 49% of Quebec voted to leave Canada, and Quebec's own premier at the side publicly said Quebec would be its own country if not for money and the ethnic vote. He's basically admitting letting people from the rest of Canada and the world cost his province its independence. Not that it would have mattered anyway, because Ottawa has been very wishy-washy on what result is needed for QC to break off. All we know is it's not 50%+1 votes. BQ and PQ were, until pretty recently, very large parties. Quebec gets by far the most of any Canadian province in equalization payments, and it is no coincidence Air Canada remains a Montreal-based company. I'd bet a referendum for sovereignty today would fail but it took decades of Canadian investment and integration to get there.

Kashmir is different because there are several interested parties. There is India, there is China, there is Pakistan, and then there are the Kashmiris themselves, who have been caught in the crossfire for decades. I'd imagine the situation would be different if the United States kept making claims to Quebec and encouraging a militia while the UK helped itself to the Gaspe peninsula. That said, I still wouldn't mind giving Kashmir the same rights and privileges Quebec enjoys as a nation within Canada. They are a nation within India. The attitude of some Indians (and for that matter, Pakistanis) toward Kashmir is disgusting. I would bet most Indians harbor anti-Pakistani views but the hardcore RSS wing are a minority.

And people say the wildest things: https://twitter.com/BrianJeanAB/status/ ... 9756659714 (as someone in the US there's a good bit of irony in sharing a politician's tweets!)
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

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

Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:58 pm

N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:

Quebec's always fascinated me because how different they try to be. Even the stop signs in Paris say Stop, but QC must do its own thing. Companies like BMO fled Montreal because of violence and separatism in the 1960s and 1970s. Now it's too late to unring the bell. The first referendum was the final nail in the coffin. And the second one, which the Premier of Quebec himself says was lost due to the money and the ethnic vote, pretty much confirmed everyone's decision to stay in Toronto.

There's really no good comparison, just kind of close ones. We'll see how Kashmir's story unfolds. There's definitely room for a Quebec-like arrangement in my mind. If in two generations Kashmir can be stabilized the way Quebec fits in Canada today, then so be it.


There's an important lesson in there: the majority's attitude. At its core, this is about strong group identities, with the associated excprtionalism that needs accommodation. The English-French conflict is probably as old as, if not older than, the Hindu-Islam conflict. The history is still alive - you can literally walk on the plains of Abraham where the French were defeated, sealing Quebecs fate. But despite that, there's never been any real antagonism or hostility directed at Quebec. Pundits and politicians grumbling? Sure. Antipathy at the street level? Never. As a result, the narrative of the majority posing an existential threat has never resonated. Makes it easier to co-opt the Québécois over time - to the point that sovereignty no longer has much traction even in provincial elections.

Most of the arguments used by our resident majoritarians can easily apply here too. There are, after all, many immigrant minorities who don't get these exceptions. But it's seen as part of the core Canadian identity. That the French Canadian nation is part of the Canadian nation, and if exceptions are needed to keep it that way, whatever. Different, but the same. And, crucially, equal regardless of population size.

Contrast this with the RSS ideology of India as a Hindu majority nation. There's posters on here who harp on about how India is 80% Hindu. You won't hear that kind of sentiment in Canada. Nobody cares. The refusal to pander to the majority combined with the refusal of the majority to accept it as an issue proven to be critical. In India? It's the opposite.

Hence my original point about time and cooption. It took Quebec decades to go from sovereignty to the current buy-in to the Canadian project. And that was without any majoritarian hostility.

In that context, if it is fair to say Kashmir isn't there yet, it is equally fair to say that India isn't there yet. This gau rakshak, "anti-national" phenomena hints at a Hindu majoritarian outlook that is more hostile towards minorities (and indeed Hindu dissidents) than anything we've seen in the past.

This is not lost on Kashmiris. The timing and the implementation - in arguably one of the worst phases of Hindu victimhood complexes and vindictiveness since the early 1990s - suggests that this is not going to end well. The pervasiveness of that attitude within Hindu society is evident on this thread.


That's a very rosy view of Anglo-French Canadian relations. Quebec had terrorists in the 1970s setting off bombs and even murdering people in their cause. Not as many as Kashmir, but it's definitely not free of bloodshed. Quebec's plates say, "Je me souviens". Remember what? Remember their original French lineage. In 1995, just over 49% of Quebec voted to leave Canada, and Quebec's own premier at the side publicly said Quebec would be its own country if not for money and the ethnic vote. He's basically admitting letting people from the rest of Canada and the world cost his province its independence. Not that it would have mattered anyway, because Ottawa has been very wishy-washy on what result is needed for QC to break off. All we know is it's not 50%+1 votes. BQ and PQ were, until pretty recently, very large parties. Quebec gets by far the most of any Canadian province in equalization payments, and it is no coincidence Air Canada remains a Montreal-based company. I'd bet a referendum for sovereignty today would fail but it took decades of Canadian investment and integration to get there.

Kashmir is different because there are several interested parties. There is India, there is China, there is Pakistan, and then there are the Kashmiris themselves, who have been caught in the crossfire for decades. I'd imagine the situation would be different if the United States kept making claims to Quebec and encouraging a militia while the UK helped itself to the Gaspe peninsula. That said, I still wouldn't mind giving Kashmir the same rights and privileges Quebec enjoys as a nation within Canada. They are a nation within India. The attitude of some Indians (and for that matter, Pakistanis) toward Kashmir is disgusting. I would bet most Indians harbor anti-Pakistani views but the hardcore RSS wing are a minority.

And people say the wildest things: https://twitter.com/BrianJeanAB/status/ ... 9756659714 (as someone in the US there's a good bit of irony in sharing a politician's tweets!)


If it's a rosy view, it's substantiated by the fact that sovereignty barely featured in the most recent provincial election, and it isn't resonating with the youth. BQ and PQ aren't as big as they once were.

Of course my point there is less about what's going on within Quebec and it's identity, and more about how the majority has managed it. The external interference is of course relevant - and who can forget that de Gaulle speech - but the relationship between the majority and minority is more important here. The fact that it's evolved from bloodshed to ...well... today owes a lot to the absence of majoritarian hostility to Quebec. Nobody, for example, drones on and on about Quebec Anglos leaving en masse amid the violence. Contrast that with the current, somewhat vindictive, messages about the Kashmiri pandits.

Ultimately, incorporating Kashmir into the Indian project will require the consent - or the wholesale replacement - of the locals. For that to happen, the majoritarian impulses need to be toned down. I don't think anyone objective will disagree that the communal temperature has gone up over the past 5 years. Gau rakshaks, the "anti-national" phenomena, meat bans - we're seeing new majoritarian impulses aimed at imposing their own beliefs on others.

Part of that is the hypernationalism - we've got avowed "democrats" cheering police state tactics. Part of it is education and temperament - too much emotion and very little critical thinking (evidenced by many posts on this thread). The end result is a reluctance to question authority, and a perpetual historical victim hood complex that manifests itself as a more or less constant appetite for vindictiveness. Like that bizarre post above trying to link the suffering of today's Kashmiri Muslims to the suffering meted out by Islamic invaders from a thousand years ago.

What it all amounts too is an easily angered, emotionally-driven irrational majority (a la hardcore Brexiteers) that wants to put everyone in their place for past disagreements and conflicts. That type of approach wouldn't have worked in Quebec. Can't see it working in Kashmir.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

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

Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:10 am

Russia backs India, says J&K move 'carried out within framework of Constitution'

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 614443.cms

Well that's good news.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

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

Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:10 am

ElPistolero wrote:

"But sporadic violence has already broken out. BBC reporters saw some protesters throwing stones at security forces, and spoke to residents who said they feared that the situation could worsen significantly."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49289680


But then again, takes all kinds to make the world go round. Like self-professed "democrats" becoming fanboys of police state tactics.


So now some people throwing stones is a matter of international concern for BBC? :rotfl:

Funny to see how libtards and left wing propoganda machine is running out of arguments

Btw don't be mistaken to think that Indian security forces work without accountability. There's accountability built into every layer of the security apparatus.

You should watch "Delhi Crime" on Netflix based on the Nirbhaya case in Delhi. Its a fair portrayal of ground reality of working environment for Police, media, judiciary and the public.

All of the officers in Army and other forces come from great families and a great community. All that they want is peace and welfare of all.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

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

Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:01 am

anshabhi wrote:

So now some people throwing stones is a matter of international concern for BBC? :rotfl:

Funny to see how libtards and left wing propoganda machine is running out of arguments

Btw don't be mistaken to think that Indian security forces work without accountability. There's accountability built into every layer of the security apparatus.

You should watch "Delhi Crime" on Netflix based on the Nirbhaya case in Delhi. Its a fair portrayal of ground reality of working environment for Police, media, judiciary and the public.

All of the officers in Army and other forces come from great families and a great community. All that they want is peace and welfare of all.


Indeed it is. After all, even stone throwing is is rare in mature democracies around the world. Indeed, even in semi-democracies. There's a lot of coverage about stone throwing in Hong Kong too. That it's not considered noteworthy by some (all?) Indians says less about "libtards" and "left-wing press", and more about the normalization of this dire state of affairs in India. Pretty backward state of affairs.

Granted, the story is less about the stone-throwing and more about the communications blackout. You know, that draconian measure reminiscent of Iranian theocracy during the green movement in 2009-2010.

Isn't it odd how Hindu "democrats" and "nationalists" inevitably copy hardline Muslim regimes without even noticing it? Taliban-style "meat bans". Iranian theocratic style approach to freedom of information and assembly. Saudi Arabian "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"-style Gau Rakshaks. Hindu nationalists have become what they profess to oppose.

It would be funny if people weren't dying. Assuming, of course, that Hindu nationalists consider their fellow Indian citizens - the ones that happen to be Muslim - to be people at all. Might be too "libtard"/"left-wing" for Hindu "true believers".

As an aside, the accountability of the Indian security forces in this case is moot. It's clear as day that the "reporting" is being controlled by political types at the centre. It's all gone a bit "Baghdad Bob". Why deploy security forces, implement curfews and shutdown communications if they were - are - expecting a calm and peaceful reaction.
 
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

Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:45 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
anshabhi wrote:

So now some people throwing stones is a matter of international concern for BBC? :rotfl:

Funny to see how libtards and left wing propoganda machine is running out of arguments

Btw don't be mistaken to think that Indian security forces work without accountability. There's accountability built into every layer of the security apparatus.

You should watch "Delhi Crime" on Netflix based on the Nirbhaya case in Delhi. Its a fair portrayal of ground reality of working environment for Police, media, judiciary and the public.

All of the officers in Army and other forces come from great families and a great community. All that they want is peace and welfare of all.


Indeed it is. After all, even stone throwing is is rare in mature democracies around the world. Indeed, even in semi-democracies. There's a lot of coverage about stone throwing in Hong Kong too. That it's not considered noteworthy by some (all?) Indians says less about "libtards" and "left-wing press", and more about the normalization of this dire state of affairs in India. Pretty backward state of affairs.

Granted, the story is less about the stone-throwing and more about the communications blackout. You know, that draconian measure reminiscent of Iranian theocracy during the green movement in 2009-2010.

Isn't it odd how Hindu "democrats" and "nationalists" inevitably copy hardline Muslim regimes without even noticing it? Taliban-style "meat bans". Iranian theocratic style approach to freedom of information and assembly. Saudi Arabian "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"-style Gau Rakshaks. Hindu nationalists have become what they profess to oppose.

It would be funny if people weren't dying. Assuming, of course, that Hindu nationalists consider their fellow Indian citizens - the ones that happen to be Muslim - to be people at all. Might be too "libtard"/"left-wing" for Hindu "true believers".

As an aside, the accountability of the Indian security forces in this case is moot. It's clear as day that the "reporting" is being controlled by political types at the centre. It's all gone a bit "Baghdad Bob". Why deploy security forces, implement curfews and shutdown communications if they were - are - expecting a calm and peaceful reaction.


I guess you're not talking about anyone (or to) anyone in the thread anymore. Just the extremes. Not sure what your point is here other than just say, "ultra right Hindu nationalist = bad", which is something everyone here agrees with...
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

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

Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:47 pm

N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
anshabhi wrote:

So now some people throwing stones is a matter of international concern for BBC? :rotfl:

Funny to see how libtards and left wing propoganda machine is running out of arguments

Btw don't be mistaken to think that Indian security forces work without accountability. There's accountability built into every layer of the security apparatus.

You should watch "Delhi Crime" on Netflix based on the Nirbhaya case in Delhi. Its a fair portrayal of ground reality of working environment for Police, media, judiciary and the public.

All of the officers in Army and other forces come from great families and a great community. All that they want is peace and welfare of all.


Indeed it is. After all, even stone throwing is is rare in mature democracies around the world. Indeed, even in semi-democracies. There's a lot of coverage about stone throwing in Hong Kong too. That it's not considered noteworthy by some (all?) Indians says less about "libtards" and "left-wing press", and more about the normalization of this dire state of affairs in India. Pretty backward state of affairs.

Granted, the story is less about the stone-throwing and more about the communications blackout. You know, that draconian measure reminiscent of Iranian theocracy during the green movement in 2009-2010.

Isn't it odd how Hindu "democrats" and "nationalists" inevitably copy hardline Muslim regimes without even noticing it? Taliban-style "meat bans". Iranian theocratic style approach to freedom of information and assembly. Saudi Arabian "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"-style Gau Rakshaks. Hindu nationalists have become what they profess to oppose.

It would be funny if people weren't dying. Assuming, of course, that Hindu nationalists consider their fellow Indian citizens - the ones that happen to be Muslim - to be people at all. Might be too "libtard"/"left-wing" for Hindu "true believers".

As an aside, the accountability of the Indian security forces in this case is moot. It's clear as day that the "reporting" is being controlled by political types at the centre. It's all gone a bit "Baghdad Bob". Why deploy security forces, implement curfews and shutdown communications if they were - are - expecting a calm and peaceful reaction.


I guess you're not talking about anyone (or to) anyone in the thread anymore. Just the extremes. Not sure what your point is here other than just say, "ultra right Hindu nationalist = bad", which is something everyone here agrees with...


Lol - while I'm flattered that you're only reading my posts, I think you'll find that language like "libtards" and "left-wing" press, not to mention accusing people of being Muslims who need to be "dragged into the 21st century", typically only holds currency among the far/ultra right nationalists, and their enablers - you know, the ones who offer up mealy mouthed concessions that "things aren't perfect", but obfuscate, deflect and look the other way when it suits them.

That, and the unquestioning acceptance of the narrative being peddled by a government that's resorted to police state tactics. It's all in the post you've quite literally quoted me responding to.

I have to admit, I'm kind of surprised you haven't called any of that out, given your "virtue-signalling" when I characterized the "revoking article 370 is great because I can buy a second house" argument as intellectually lacking. Looking the other way, perhaps.
 
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

Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:07 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
N867DA wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

Indeed it is. After all, even stone throwing is is rare in mature democracies around the world. Indeed, even in semi-democracies. There's a lot of coverage about stone throwing in Hong Kong too. That it's not considered noteworthy by some (all?) Indians says less about "libtards" and "left-wing press", and more about the normalization of this dire state of affairs in India. Pretty backward state of affairs.

Granted, the story is less about the stone-throwing and more about the communications blackout. You know, that draconian measure reminiscent of Iranian theocracy during the green movement in 2009-2010.

Isn't it odd how Hindu "democrats" and "nationalists" inevitably copy hardline Muslim regimes without even noticing it? Taliban-style "meat bans". Iranian theocratic style approach to freedom of information and assembly. Saudi Arabian "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"-style Gau Rakshaks. Hindu nationalists have become what they profess to oppose.

It would be funny if people weren't dying. Assuming, of course, that Hindu nationalists consider their fellow Indian citizens - the ones that happen to be Muslim - to be people at all. Might be too "libtard"/"left-wing" for Hindu "true believers".

As an aside, the accountability of the Indian security forces in this case is moot. It's clear as day that the "reporting" is being controlled by political types at the centre. It's all gone a bit "Baghdad Bob". Why deploy security forces, implement curfews and shutdown communications if they were - are - expecting a calm and peaceful reaction.


I guess you're not talking about anyone (or to) anyone in the thread anymore. Just the extremes. Not sure what your point is here other than just say, "ultra right Hindu nationalist = bad", which is something everyone here agrees with...


Lol - while I'm flattered that you're only reading my posts, I think you'll find that language like "libtards" and "left-wing" press, not to mention accusing people of being Muslims who need to be "dragged into the 21st century", typically only holds currency among the far/ultra right nationalists, and their enablers - you know, the ones who offer up mealy mouthed concessions that "things aren't perfect", but obfuscate, deflect and look the other way when it suits them.

That, and the unquestioning acceptance of the narrative being peddled by a government that's resorted to police state tactics in the post you've quite literally quoted me responding to.

I have to admit, I'm kind of surprised you haven't called any of that out, given your virtue-signalling when I characterized the "revoking article 370 is great because I can buy a second house" arguing as intellectually lacking. Looking the other way, perhaps.



This is a fair point and hard to defend. "Libtard" is a pretty low blow, and there are many millions in India (the majority Hindu, might I add) that need to be brought into the 21st century. Not a fan of the anti-Muslim rhetoric.

I also don't buy into the government's "ooh, everything's OK" stance. Things will suck for a while, and the situations pretty fragile. I personally don't care if Kashmir is Muslim, Hindu, or if everyone converts en masse to Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism.

There's definitely been a bit of duplicity in my part. Guess I'm focusing on your posts because you're the only one vehemently against the move and it's interesting to get a conflicting opinion.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

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

Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:20 am

A view from a Pakistani, with a degree in International Relations from National Defence University in Islamabad.

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/opini ... n-kashmir/
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7070
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:37 pm

N867DA wrote:
Kashmir is different because there are several interested parties.

Tough love is not going to make it any better when there are other parties involved.

BTW, I am sure Australia and New Zealand accord special provisions to Aboriginals. There is nothing wrong giving special status to weaker sections or minorities.
 
golfradio
Posts: 892
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:35 pm

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

Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:46 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
A view from a Pakistani, with a degree in International Relations from National Defence University in Islamabad.

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/opini ... n-kashmir/


The article is in poor form, full of flaws and historical distortions.

The state of Hyderabad Deccan, with a sizable Muslim population and a Muslim ruler, not contiguous to Pakistan but on the banks of the Arabian Sea, opted for Pakistan. It was brutally invaded, occupied and later annexed to India.


A simple two sentences that are patently false and distort history. Hyderabad is not on the banks of the Arabian sea. It is land locked in the Deccan plateau. A simple google maps lookup would show that. The Nizam never opted to join Pakistan. He chose to remain independent just like Maharajah Hari Singh of Kashmir. In November 1947, the Nizam signed a Standstill Agreement with India not Pakistan. But communal riots and the Telangana uprising (which continued for another 6 and a half decades culminating in its separation from Andhra Pradesh) which his ragtag military could not control, required the Indian military to intervene. Subsequently the Nizam signed the instrument of succession.

The Pakistani leadership did not see any problem with the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had an overwhelmingly Muslim majority population and was contiguous to Pakistan but ruled by a Hindu rajah. However, the Indian military occupied J&K; only one-fifth of it could be freed by Pakistan, later named Azad Kashmir and administrated by Pakistan.


Again completely distorted. He whitewashes all events leading up to the Indian military entering J&K. The instrument of ascension was signed by Maharajah Hari Singh on October 26 1947. When communal riots broke out in October, the Pakistani military infiltrated J&K to support the muslim population and used the event to occupy it. The barbaric killing, raping and looting of the minorities by the invading hordes is well documented. The Maharajah unable to defend, requested military help from India and signed the instrument of ascension as a precondition for India using its military to defend J&K.

One could argue that this is no different than the case of Hyderabad. But the important distinction is the Instrument of Ascension came with a pre-condition from Mountbatten that after the Pakistani invaders retreat, a plebiscite will be held to take into account the people's wishes instead of the unilateral decision of the Maharajah. The same condition was accepted by the UN Resolution 47 to which both Pakistan and India are signatories.

He goes on to claim
The Indian political leadership, instead of attending to United Nations resolutions over Kashmir, tried to calm Kashmiris through various legal deceptions


You want India to heed to UN Resolutions? The first condition is very specific. Pakistan is to unilaterally withdraw all its nationals from entire Kashmir. So the day Pakistan will withdraw from PoK and also all of its nationals from the Valley, they can come back asking for India to heed to UN resolutions.

But they know they don't want it. A plebiscite runs a big risk that the majority will choose independence instead of joining either India or Pakistan.
Pakistan is happy with PoK. They would rather hold on to it instead of running a risk of a plebiscite. They will happily accept the LoC as the international boundary. Their fake sympathies with the Kashmiris is because if this matter is resolved, they no longer have a justification for encouraging terrorism/insugency as a tool of a covert war against India, the Pakistani doctrine of "bleeding India with a thousand cuts".

And finally he parrots the idiotic comments made by the Congress MPs about the abrogation of articles 370 and 35a as not internal affairs of India but an international issue. He writes how the articles are part of the Indian constitution but then claims their abrogation is an international issue.

Pakistan has no locus standi on the abrogation of articles 370 and 35a. This is unequivocally an internal affair of India.
CSeries forever. Bring back the old site.
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

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

Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:05 pm

Pakistan keeps chiming UN UN but UN stand is pretty clear: follow the Simla Agreement

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/u ... 2019-08-09

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Agreement

Kashmir is an issue for Pakistani politicians to divert attention away from real domestic issues- media censorship, sinking economy, international isolation, among others.
 
TryToFlySomeday
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:51 pm

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

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:51 pm

anshabhi wrote:
Pakistan keeps chiming UN UN but UN stand is pretty clear: follow the Simla Agreement

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/u ... 2019-08-09

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Agreement

Kashmir is an issue for Pakistani politicians to divert attention away from real domestic issues- media censorship, sinking economy, international isolation, among others.
Ahem, international isolation? Wonder why? (Cough cough, It’s because most of the Western world has decided to side with India due to Pakistan’s lack of action against the radicalized Muslims, leaving Pakistan with the communists that are China... cough cough.)

But I digress. There are liberal Muslims too, and I consider myself one. I speak up.

I honestly think Pakistan is bringing up Kashmir right now because they are tired of war. They know if there is another war, there will be a weaker India, but as an exchange, absolutely no such thing as Pakistan.

I truly hope this Kashmir issue is solved, and whether Simla Agreement is followed or not. Although I’d say that would truly depend on a lot of factors, such as interest of the rest of the world on solving this crucial problem.

Unfortunately, I have to bump this thread, because amid all the tension. India has began to consider the revocation of “no first use”. Anything ethical about India is slowly wearing out. I swear if you’re not careful you will end up being just a larger version of Pakistan — filled with people who are hypernationalist, radical, and are ready to nuke your neighbor at a needed time, regardless of consequence to both countries. That’s Pakistan right now. Don’t be like us.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 1.html?amp

LH658 wrote:
Kashmir was suppose to go to Pakistan all together, according Lord Mountbatten and Radcliffe. Muslim majority area are suppose to be for Pakistan, obviously the Hyderabad area of India was impossible to do that or states like Bhopal.

True, but that obviously hasn’t happened.

I honestly think there are 4 possible solutions:

1. Give Kashmir to India — Well, if a pro-Hindu-state government were not in charge, I’d argue this would actually not be a terrible idea. India would’ve provided a stable democracy to Kashmiris and options for diversity, which could be beneficial to education of the peoples.

2. Give Kashmir to Pakistan — I don’t think this will ever happen. Pakistan can barely handle itself and they only really need Kashmir for that border with China. Which by the way, China is persecuting Muslims in Northwestern China, so I think Pakistan could live without Kashmir. But Kashmiris would still much, much, rather be part of Pakistan than India as of recently. Other than the Buddhists in Ladakh and Hindus in Jammu, of course. Muslim majority otherwise... (Pakistan could use an incentive to keep those Buddhists and Hindus safe from persecution; somehow I’m more worried about Hindus than Buddhists if Pakistan gets Kashmir)

3. LoC as permanent border — This is probably the easiest solution. Pakistan keeps half, India keeps half. Pakistan gets the Muslims over to their side of Kashmir a la Partition, and India keeps Buddhists and Hindus. Partition benefitted India more than Pakistan anyways (since India doesn’t deal with ISIS in Balochistan)

4. Independent Kashmir — Well...this would be hard to get India to agree to. But an independent Kashmir would probably be the BEST but most IMPOSSIBLE solution EVER. This would keep Kashmiris safe from tensions of nuclear war, Hindu-Muslim riots and other defacto issues than India and Pakistan face.
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.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2572
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 20, 2019 1:24 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
I think you'll find that language like "libtards" and "left-wing" press, not to mention accusing people of being Muslims who need to be "dragged into the 21st century", typically only holds currency among the far/ultra right nationalists, and their enablers - you know, the ones who offer up mealy mouthed concessions that "things aren't perfect", but obfuscate, deflect and look the other way when it suits them.

Why is it a low blow to you ? You're on record within this thread having had multiple posts of yours deleted for the use of profanities and ad hominems, i.e. "chaddiwallahs", "gau-rakshaks" and more, suitably taking advantage of the lack of Hindi comprehension of the moderators, until multiple others intervened and explained that you're in fact quoting standard obscenities and dog whistles of the extreme left, while they're none the wiser. And you have one more ad hominem in the quoted sentence above, while simultaneously accusing the other side of using such language. Given those circumstances, I've no compunction about verbally fighting dirty.

I'm more than happy to discuss within the constraints of absolutely zero personal references - i.e. no "RSS sympathizer", no reference to cows anything, no reference to attire, food habits or any other personal commentary. And certainly no personal grandstanding about greater moral standing. Long posts describing ones own food habit are nothing more than verbal Instagramming and virtue signalling.

You are not better than me or anyone else on the other side of the debate, in any way. You simply happen to have a different opinion, that is all. Now, we can completely ignore who we are and focus merely on the topic, because I can certainly make my point within those parameters. Can you ?
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2572
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 20, 2019 1:39 pm

Meanwhile a status update on the topic:

* BBC got itself into an enormous controversy for using doctored footage to claim 'large scale violence and abuses' on the ground, a statement not corroborated by any Indian press source, on either side of the political spectrum. This is rather standard "disprove a negative" logic, and the Indian government refused the bait beyond a standard denial. The BBC has fallen a long way to being little more than another branch of Al Jazeera.
* There was a Sino-Pakistani effort to discuss the "Kashmir issue" at the UN Security Council. It was predictably backed by Britain, considering both sides of the British political spectrum covet their Muslim vote as the Brexit deliberations reach a climax. The French had more sense, and refused to back it. Neither did the US. Russia apparently abstained, as they typically do when US and China take opposing positions. The Indian representative responded tersely that regardless of what the meeting might have resulted in, India will not recognize the UNSC's authority on the matter, at all. This is the continuation of a standard position India has maintained for about 70 years now.

PM Modi is headed to UAE, who strongly supported India on the removal of Article 370, and who are bestowing upon him the Zayed Medal, their highest civilian decoration, for furthering Indo-UAE ties. He then continues to France as an invitee to the G-7 meeting in Biarritz.

Interesting historical background - one of the few countries to react positively to Article 370 way back in 1950-55 was Apartheid-era South Africa. They proceeded to create similar ethnic enclaves of their own but for opposite reasons - the Bantustans. Apartheid SA is long gone, but it took India this long to eliminate a such an ethnic enclave for one religion within its own territory.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
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 20, 2019 2:10 pm

BarfBag wrote:
Why is it a low blow to you ?


Where did I say it was? The other poster called it a low blow. I just pointed out that "libtard" etc-type language only carries currency with the alt/far-right. You know, the type that, among other things, would think nothing of bashing someone's head in because of their brown skin. It's a bit weird seeing Indians adopt the language of people they also accuse of being racist. Part of a long trend of not thinking things through perhaps.

For the record, I've been called worse things by better people. And could care less.

BarfBag wrote:
You're on record within this thread having had multiple posts of yours deleted for the use of profanities and ad hominems, i.e. "chaddiwallahs", "gau-rakshaks" and more, suitably taking advantage of the lack of Hindi comprehension of the moderators, until multiple others intervened and explained that you're in fact quoting standard obscenities and dog whistles of the extreme left, while they're none the wiser. And you have one more ad hominem in the quoted sentence above, while simultaneously accusing the other side of using such language. Given those circumstances, I've no compunction about verbally fighting dirty.


Hmmm?

I don't recall using the term "chaddiwallahs". Admittedly don't know what it even refers to. Care to show me where I used that term? At best, I think you've got me confused with someone else.

As do gau rakshaks, how is that a profanity? It is quite literally what they call themselves. See here:

http://bgrd.org
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhartiya_Gau_Raksha_Dal

As an aside, as far as I can tell, only one of my posts has been deleted. It was a response to a Pakistani poster and probably strayed off topic. Insofar as OBL isn't directly relevant here.

BarfBag wrote:
I'm more than happy to discuss within the constraints of absolutely zero personal references - i.e. no "RSS sympathizer", no reference to cows anything, no reference to attire, food habits or any other personal commentary. And certainly no personal grandstanding about greater moral standing. Long posts describing ones own food habit are nothing more than verbal Instagramming and virtue signalling.


Oh yeah? Tell that to your compatriots who think accusing me of being a Muslim is simultaneously appropriate and an insult. That kind of language is used by RSS-types. They typically wear their RSS affiliation as a badge of honour. What's wrong with calling a spade a spade?

BarfBag wrote:
You are not better than me or anyone else on the other side of the debate, in any way. You simply happen to have a different opinion, that is all. Now, we can completely ignore who we are and focus merely on the topic, because I can certainly make my point within those parameters. Can you ?


Well, yes and no. I don't recall claiming to be better than you - not really my style. While I agree with the general sentiment of "no ones better than anyone else", it only extends to a certain point. After all, most of us agree that a racist is worse than a non-racist, a murderer worse than a non-murderer, and someone who thinks an animal's life has more value than a certain human's is worse than someone who values all human lives. At some point, it ceases to be just a "different opinion". I'm more than happy to have a substantive discussion on any of these statements.

Also what food habits? Are you referring to the bit where I responded to being called a Muslim by pointing out that I like bacon cheese burgers (which simultaneously do not conform with Islam, Hinduism and Judaism)?

Or are you referring to the meat bans that are all the rage in India because certain types of meat offend Hindu majoritarian sentiments? If the latter, I absolutely stand by my post because it's relevant here. It feeds directly into concerns about Hindu majoritarianism trampling minority rights, and the broader tyranny of the majority discussion.

Before you accuse me of ad hominem or profanity about the latter phrase, it's a real concept that anyone familiar with democratic theory knows. See here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

To be honest, I don't know what prompted your post. If you want to discuss substance, it's odd that you disappeared after making so many factually incorrect statements about the constitution and Nagaland.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
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 20, 2019 2:13 pm

BarfBag wrote:
Meanwhile a status update on the topic:

* BBC got itself into an enormous controversy for using doctored footage to claim 'large scale violence and abuses' on the ground, a statement not corroborated by any Indian press source, on either side of the political spectrum. This is rather standard "disprove a negative" logic, and the Indian government refused the bait beyond a standard denial. The BBC has fallen a long way to being little more than another branch of Al Jazeera.
* There was a Sino-Pakistani effort to discuss the "Kashmir issue" at the UN Security Council. It was predictably backed by Britain, considering both sides of the British political spectrum covet their Muslim vote as the Brexit deliberations reach a climax. The French had more sense, and refused to back it. Neither did the US. Russia apparently abstained, as they typically do when US and China take opposing positions. The Indian representative responded tersely that regardless of what the meeting might have resulted in, India will not recognize the UNSC's authority on the matter, at all. This is the continuation of a standard position India has maintained for about 70 years now.

PM Modi is headed to UAE, who strongly supported India on the removal of Article 370, and who are bestowing upon him the Zayed Medal, their highest civilian decoration, for furthering Indo-UAE ties. He then continues to France as an invitee to the G-7 meeting in Biarritz.

Interesting historical background - one of the few countries to react positively to Article 370 way back in 1950-55 was Apartheid-era South Africa. They proceeded to create similar ethnic enclaves of their own but for opposite reasons - the Bantustans. Apartheid SA is long gone, but it took India this long to eliminate a such an ethnic enclave for one religion within its own territory.


Two things:

> The Indian media has also been complaining about a lack of access to Kashmir. How do you expect them to corroborate anything?

> Nagaland remains a (very) distinct ethnic enclave. Flag, 14 Aug Independence Day, passport, ignoring Indian citizenship laws etc It's part of India's asymmetric federalism. Their response to this revocation has been anything but positive.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2572
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 20, 2019 4:26 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
As do gau rakshaks, how is that a profanity?

Apparently you do not understand contextual language. You can choose what is an ad hominem against you OR you can choose to decide what constitutes an ad hominem against the other person - and consequently the other side decides what is acceptable language to describe you, hmm ?

It's rather too convenient for you to sit around deciding what constitutes both acceptable language to use against others, AND what must be proper language to use to describe you, hmm ? :-)
ElPistolero wrote:
After all, most of us agree that a racist is worse than a non-racist, a murderer worse than a non-murderer, and someone who thinks an animal's life has more value than a certain human's is worse than someone who values all human live.

Maybe so, but this topic is nothing more than a legislative exercise in implementing an existing constitutional provision that ensures equal application of the constitution across a state that hitherto did not.

There's no question of racism, discrimination or anything else here. Quite the opposite - it fixes a wrong. You may argue there is, but for one, I've argued quite reasonably versus your position (you're not obligated to agree either), and for another, I'm not about 'bid against myself' - the existence of a moral issue is not a fact as much as your own argument, and I am not obligated to defend against the claim because I don't even recognize the argument that treating Kashmiris on par with those across the border in Punjab or HP is immoral.

As for my absence (shrug) I have about 2K posts in 20 years here. If I post more than once a day, that's an anomaly :) I'm not offer any further reason - the beauty of the offline forum medium is that one can post whenever they like.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2572
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 20, 2019 4:39 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
> The Indian media has also been complaining about a lack of access to Kashmir. How do you expect them to corroborate anything?

The Beeb/Al Jazeera test fails the most basic test of reporting - all journalists have the same level of access to J&K, and yet they alone report 'largescale violence'. It's like a White House presser after which one - and just one - guy reports frenetically that the POTUS has purple hair. Quite different from the argument that they all claim they didn't get to talk enough.
ElPistolero wrote:
> Nagaland remains a (very) distinct ethnic enclave. Flag, 14 Aug Independence Day, passport, ignoring Indian citizenship laws etc It's part of India's asymmetric federalism. Their response to this revocation has been anything but positive.

It isn't though - because they don't have a separate passport, separate flag, or separate citizenship laws. The NSCN demands those, which isn't the same thing as saying they have it. They don't even have anywhere near Art 35A level autonomy to decide residency rights.

Several NE states, as well as several hinterland states, come under the purview of various Art 371 provisions, each of which is for that specific state. By definition, the existence of state specific articles in the constitution reflects a process of asymmetric integration, since it recognizes that the process of absorption of that state into the national milieu is a distinct process.

Art 371 itself is a 'lessons learned' derivative of Art 370 - which was only ever applied to J&K. Both articles are part of an explicit temporary/transitional/special arrangements section of the constitution.

While you can argue that the lack of standard treatment for every other state reflects some kind of hypocrisy, there's a converse argument that the constitution explicitly enables the federal government to insert Art 371 subclauses for new states to pursue their integration in a state specific manner. However, the end goal is consistent - full integration with all terms of the constitution. There's no valid reason to claim that every state must have this done at exactly the same time or same speed.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
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 20, 2019 5:01 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
As do gau rakshaks, how is that a profanity?

Apparently you do not understand contextual language. You can choose what is an ad hominem against you OR you can choose to decide what constitutes an ad hominem against the other person - and consequently the other side decides what is acceptable language to describe you, hmm ?

It's rather too convenient for you to sit around deciding what constitutes both acceptable language to use against others, AND what must be proper language to use to describe you, hmm ? :-)
ElPistolero wrote:
After all, most of us agree that a racist is worse than a non-racist, a murderer worse than a non-murderer, and someone who thinks an animal's life has more value than a certain human's is worse than someone who values all human live.

Maybe so, but this topic is nothing more than a legislative exercise in implementing an existing constitutional provision that ensures equal application of the constitution across a state that hitherto did not.

There's no question of racism, discrimination or anything else here. Quite the opposite - it fixes a wrong. You may argue there is, but for one, I've argued quite reasonably versus your position (you're not obligated to agree either), and for another, I'm not about 'bid against myself' - the existence of a moral issue is not a fact as much as your own argument, and I am not obligated to defend against the claim because I don't even recognize the argument that treating Kashmiris on par with those across the border in Punjab or HP is immoral.

As for my absence (shrug) I have about 2K posts in 20 years here. If I post more than once a day, that's an anomaly :) I'm not offer any further reason - the beauty of the offline forum medium is that one can post whenever they like.


> Mish-mashing too many concepts there. Gau rakshak is not a profanity. Gau rakshaks call themselves that. Libtard is a profanity. No one calls themselves that. Calling someone a Muslim, apparently as an insult, is an ad hominem. Which is to say, I don't understand the first part of your post.

> I will simply contend that it is immoral to take actions that affect a minority group without actually consulting the minority group. I will also contend that taking these actions under the circumstances that they have been taken - mass detentions, communications lockdown; siege conditions is both immoral and inconsistent with democracy. In fact it's the antithesis of democracy. It can be quite accurately defined as "backward". There's a reason it doesn't happen in mature democracies. Whether you agree or not is of little concern to me.

> I don't care how often you post. I just find it curious that after being called out for peddling rank falsehoods, your first post tried to attribute things I didn't say to me. Just weird, is all.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
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 20, 2019 5:25 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
> The Indian media has also been complaining about a lack of access to Kashmir. How do you expect them to corroborate anything?

The Beeb/Al Jazeera test fails the most basic test of reporting - all journalists have the same level of access to J&K, and yet they alone report 'largescale violence'. It's like a White House presser after which one - and just one - guy reports frenetically that the POTUS has purple hair. Quite different from the argument that they all claim they didn't get to talk enough.
ElPistolero wrote:
> Nagaland remains a (very) distinct ethnic enclave. Flag, 14 Aug Independence Day, passport, ignoring Indian citizenship laws etc It's part of India's asymmetric federalism. Their response to this revocation has been anything but positive.

It isn't though - because they don't have a separate passport, separate flag, or separate citizenship laws. The NSCN demands those, which isn't the same thing as saying they have it. They don't even have anywhere near Art 35A level autonomy to decide residency rights.

Several NE states, as well as several hinterland states, come under the purview of various Art 371 provisions, each of which is for that specific state. By definition, the existence of state specific articles in the constitution reflects a process of asymmetric integration, since it recognizes that the process of absorption of that state into the national milieu is a distinct process.

Art 371 itself is a 'lessons learned' derivative of Art 370 - which was only ever applied to J&K. Both articles are part of an explicit temporary/transitional/special arrangements section of the constitution.

While you can argue that the lack of standard treatment for every other state reflects some kind of hypocrisy, there's a converse argument that the constitution explicitly enables the federal government to insert Art 371 subclauses for new states to pursue their integration in a state specific manner. However, the end goal is consistent - full integration with all terms of the constitution. There's no valid reason to claim that every state must have this done at exactly the same time or same speed.


> I'm not getting into a debate on the been. That belongs on Breitbart. You'll get more sympathy there. None of that changed the fact that there's an anti-democratic lockdown in place. The Hindu has reported 140 incidents of stone throwing in the first 8 days since the revocation (see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ia/596314/). Some posters here suggest that stone throwing is a non-event. In mature/advanced democracies, it is a major event. All of which is to say, things aren't as rosy as you make them out to be.

> I'm not here to argue against 371. I support it. Amongst other things, it's existence has highlighted how spectacularly ill-informed or hypocritical (take your pick) those who support this are. IMHO, it lends a lot of credibility to the idea that for many folk, including some here, this was never about equality or secularism or whatever else has been claimed.

> I can't be bothered with listing all of Nagalands privileges again. I'll just leave it be with a reminder that they told the Indian cabinet they are not obligated to respect India's citizenship laws. It literally negates a lot of stuff you were trying to pass off as fact earlier on this thread. Begs the question: why were you misrepresenting reality?
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2572
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 20, 2019 5:58 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Mish-mashing too many concepts there. Gau rakshak is not a profanity. Gau rakshaks call themselves that. Libtard is a profanity. No one calls themselves that. Calling someone a Muslim, apparently as an insult, is an ad hominem. Which is to say, I don't understand the first part of your post.

Unfortunately you do not get to decide what is a profanity against me. I decide that. When I tell you that it is profane, you're obliged to agree. If you do not, then I get to decide whether the terms used to call you are profane or not.

I'm afraid you don't get to argue on my behalf and your own. At all. It's really that simple. Such latitude is not available to you.
ElPistolero wrote:
> I will simply contend that it is immoral to take actions that affect a minority group without actually consulting the minority group. I will also contend that taking these actions under the circumstances that they have been taken - mass detentions, communications lockdown; siege conditions is both immoral and inconsistent with democracy.

Neither Art 370 nor Art 35A were created under consultation of ANY minority - Kashmiris or otherwise. Both were transitional arrangements, inserted without legislative amendment procedure - i.e. via Presidential order. The process of adding them, and removing them, are both Constitutional provisions.

India has countless minorities. They are not defined by religion alone. Since J&K is the topic, a popular Kashmiri thread from the 1990s often seen in Shia heavy areas (eg Baramulla) goes "Kae’firen patt’e chhe Raaefi’zun laar" (after the Hindus, you Shias are the next target). Fairly predictable considering that all the J&K terrorist groups are Sunni.

The government in any democratic state is entrusted with powers of coercive action to maintain law and order. After 70 years of special treatment, its removal like the proverbial band aid *will* result in a blowback - it is the Government's job to manage it by all means available to it.

One might argue "well, why rip it off like a band aid" ? A reasonable question. But I don't agree that it's wrong. Clearly, the arrangements were made carefully, i.e. troops, travel and communication systems were all carefully set up for the action on August 5, indicating deliberate planning to ensure that the transition to full central control occured in a manner that suits the central government.

The word 'democracy' is thrown around in this argument rather haphazardly. The central government has a democratic mandate to do this. There's no 'opposition' as such, not because they were suppressed, but because essentially the entire national polity agrees with the ruling government, including half of INC itself. To quote Hindu - a standard left-friendly press source:
Article 370: Jyotiraditya Scindia, Deepender Hooda, Janardan Dwivedi go against Congress stand
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2572
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 20, 2019 6:12 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
> I'm not getting into a debate on the been. That belongs on Breitbart. You'll get more sympathy there. None of that changed the fact that there's an anti-democratic lockdown in place. The Hindu has reported 140 incidents of stone throwing in the first 8 days since the revocation (see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ia/596314/). Some posters here suggest that stone throwing is a non-event. In mature/advanced democracies, it is a major event. All of which is to say, things aren't as rosy as you make them out to be.

I've no idea who/what Breitbart is. A lockdown is not 'anti-democratic'. Maintenance of law and order IS a government prerogative, given to it by democratic means. Every elected government in India has used its power to maintain law and order... to maintain law and order.

Stone pelting in Kashmir isn't anything unusual. They've been at it for decades - before and after 370.
ElPistolero wrote:
> I'm not here to argue against 371. I support it. Amongst other things, it's existence has highlighted how spectacularly ill-informed or hypocritical (take your pick) those who support this are.

You support the existence of temporary / transitional arrangements in the constitution, except when one of them is removed by a party originally founded almost 7 decades ago in opposition to the said temporary arrangement ? What part of it do you oppose ?
a) the existence of an arrangement ?
b) the prior existence of two sets of arrangements (370 and 371)?
c) only one of them being removed at a particular time ?
ElPistolero wrote:
> I can't be bothered with listing all of Nagalands privileges again. I'll just leave it be with a reminder that they told the Indian cabinet they are not obligated to respect India's citizenship laws.

Impressive. Except that they don't even have Art 371(a) rights over defining citizenship laws, just over the question of ownership and transfer of land, which they've been demonstrably quite happy to sell to anyone Naga or not, Indian or not, as in the case of ADB.
 
User avatar
WingsFan
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:24 pm

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

Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:27 pm

I sympathize with the argument that the change to a law that affects a particular region should be done only after consultation with people of the region. This is logical thing to do for most 'normal laws' of governance in a normal state of affairs. However, conditions in Kashmir are far from normal. The question really is this...How much weightage should be given to religious separatist ideology that traces clear and obvious roots to systematic foreign influence whose only objective is to destabilize the country? Shouldn't entire nation's desire to form a strong equitable union be more important?

It's easy to draw parallels with Khalistan movement or other religious separatist movements that have faded away. Khalistan movement was even more vocal and brutal just a few decades ago. Shouldn't India have just given up and agreed to separatist demands of separate Sikh nation? After all ( supposedly) it was Sikh people's desire to secede from India. Thankfully the government was wise enough to recognize that foreign influenced separatist movements have no legitimacy and slowly the Khalistan movement faded away. Now Punjab is equal state in India and punjabi/sikh identity has not been diluted what so ever.

Removal of special provisions is a necessary and good step towards eventual normalization. In the short term it is going to be very ugly, but hopefully normalization will occur. Personally, I think this is a de-facto establishment of LoC as a final international border unless the cross border nuisance continues.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
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 20, 2019 9:38 pm

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
Mish-mashing too many concepts there. Gau rakshak is not a profanity. Gau rakshaks call themselves that. Libtard is a profanity. No one calls themselves that. Calling someone a Muslim, apparently as an insult, is an ad hominem. Which is to say, I don't understand the first part of your post.

Unfortunately you do not get to decide what is a profanity against me. I decide that. When I tell you that it is profane, you're obliged to agree. If you do not, then I get to decide whether the terms used to call you are profane or not.

I'm afraid you don't get to argue on my behalf and your own. At all. It's really that simple. Such latitude is not available to you.
ElPistolero wrote:
> I will simply contend that it is immoral to take actions that affect a minority group without actually consulting the minority group. I will also contend that taking these actions under the circumstances that they have been taken - mass detentions, communications lockdown; siege conditions is both immoral and inconsistent with democracy.

Neither Art 370 nor Art 35A were created under consultation of ANY minority - Kashmiris or otherwise. Both were transitional arrangements, inserted without legislative amendment procedure - i.e. via Presidential order. The process of adding them, and removing them, are both Constitutional provisions.

India has countless minorities. They are not defined by religion alone. Since J&K is the topic, a popular Kashmiri thread from the 1990s often seen in Shia heavy areas (eg Baramulla) goes "Kae’firen patt’e chhe Raaefi’zun laar" (after the Hindus, you Shias are the next target). Fairly predictable considering that all the J&K terrorist groups are Sunni.

The government in any democratic state is entrusted with powers of coercive action to maintain law and order. After 70 years of special treatment, its removal like the proverbial band aid *will* result in a blowback - it is the Government's job to manage it by all means available to it.

One might argue "well, why rip it off like a band aid" ? A reasonable question. But I don't agree that it's wrong. Clearly, the arrangements were made carefully, i.e. troops, travel and communication systems were all carefully set up for the action on August 5, indicating deliberate planning to ensure that the transition to full central control occured in a manner that suits the central government.

The word 'democracy' is thrown around in this argument rather haphazardly. The central government has a democratic mandate to do this. There's no 'opposition' as such, not because they were suppressed, but because essentially the entire national polity agrees with the ruling government, including half of INC itself. To quote Hindu - a standard left-friendly press source:
Article 370: Jyotiraditya Scindia, Deepender Hooda, Janardan Dwivedi go against Congress stand


> I genuinely don't know or care about what you think is profane or offensive. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. Your post does, however, go some way to explaining the medieval mindset in some segments of Indian society that manifests itself in the form of burning and banning books. Shiv Sena has something of a reputation.

> On the rest, my point is simple. If you're going to upend people's lives, you should consult them. If it's going to cause dramatic changes, carry out a slow implementation. Ramming change down people's throats without consultation - indeed while their representatives are locked up and the entire group is under virtual house arrest is not democratic. Nor does it pass the moral smell test.

> Any measure that can only be implemented by stripping away basic tenets of democracy (freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly) is by definition undemocratic. The law and order argument is the kind of nonsense peddled by authoritarian regimes and police states. Not democracies.

> That the majority of Indians would vote to strip the rights of a minority does not make the decision mora. Majorities voted in favour of slavery and racism in the past. That does not ascribe a positive moral value to them. Majorities can get it wrong. History has shown that time and again. All you have is a tyranny of the majority where people are willing to upend the lives of others because it doesn't affect them. Always easy to sacrifice other peoples rights for your own benefit, eh?
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

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

Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:17 am

BarfBag wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
> I'm not getting into a debate on the been. That belongs on Breitbart. You'll get more sympathy there. None of that changed the fact that there's an anti-democratic lockdown in place. The Hindu has reported 140 incidents of stone throwing in the first 8 days since the revocation (see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ia/596314/). Some posters here suggest that stone throwing is a non-event. In mature/advanced democracies, it is a major event. All of which is to say, things aren't as rosy as you make them out to be.

I've no idea who/what Breitbart is. A lockdown is not 'anti-democratic'. Maintenance of law and order IS a government prerogative, given to it by democratic means. Every elected government in India has used its power to maintain law and order... to maintain law and order.

Stone pelting in Kashmir isn't anything unusual. They've been at it for decades - before and after 370.
ElPistolero wrote:
> I'm not here to argue against 371. I support it. Amongst other things, it's existence has highlighted how spectacularly ill-informed or hypocritical (take your pick) those who support this are.

You support the existence of temporary / transitional arrangements in the constitution, except when one of them is removed by a party originally founded almost 7 decades ago in opposition to the said temporary arrangement ? What part of it do you oppose ?
a) the existence of an arrangement ?
b) the prior existence of two sets of arrangements (370 and 371)?
c) only one of them being removed at a particular time ?
ElPistolero wrote:
> I can't be bothered with listing all of Nagalands privileges again. I'll just leave it be with a reminder that they told the Indian cabinet they are not obligated to respect India's citizenship laws.

Impressive. Except that they don't even have Art 371(a) rights over defining citizenship laws, just over the question of ownership and transfer of land, which they've been demonstrably quite happy to sell to anyone Naga or not, Indian or not, as in the case of ADB.


> Suspending constitutional freedoms, detaining politicians, banning movement, curfews, communications lockdown etc are, by definition, not democratic. This is so self-evident, it doesn't warrants an explanation.

> What do I oppose? Simple: trampling a minority's rights without consultation while running roughshod over their constitutional rights. Never been a fan of authoritarian and police state tactics. I don't know how anyone can call suppressing basic freedoms for two weeks "good planning". Well, I can. Just not in democracies.

> On Nagaland, I think you've passed the point of pleading ignorance. So I'll be as polite as I can: please stop lying. Don't know what I mean? Here's something to chew on:

"The Nagaland Cabinet has rejected the (Indian) citizenship bill, following pressure from various tribal organisations and students bodies."

"The National Democratic People’s Party-led People’s Democratic Alliance (PDA) government in the state had said that Nagaland enjoys protection under provisions of Article 371 (A) of the Constitution and the Inner Line Permit (ILP), according to which, any person who acquires Indian citizenship will be ineligible for acquiring property or settling down in the state."

https://m.hindustantimes.com/world-news ... pBkYM.html

And this inner line permit - a visa for Indian citizens to travel inside India? Unless I'm misreading this, the maximum time an Indian citizen can spend in Mizoram is 18 months at a stretch (six month initial permit, with 2 six month renewal limit.) Even Leh is included.

Looks like the EU provides more freedom of movement to the citizens of its member states, than India does to its own citizens.

Good luck squaring that with your fantasy version of reality.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1754
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

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

Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:33 am

WingsFan wrote:
I sympathize with the argument that the change to a law that affects a particular region should be done only after consultation with people of the region. This is logical thing to do for most 'normal laws' of governance in a normal state of affairs. However, conditions in Kashmir are far from normal. The question really is this...How much weightage should be given to religious separatist ideology that traces clear and obvious roots to systematic foreign influence whose only objective is to destabilize the country? Shouldn't entire nation's desire to form a strong equitable union be more important?

It's easy to draw parallels with Khalistan movement or other religious separatist movements that have faded away. Khalistan movement was even more vocal and brutal just a few decades ago. Shouldn't India have just given up and agreed to separatist demands of separate Sikh nation? After all ( supposedly) it was Sikh people's desire to secede from India. Thankfully the government was wise enough to recognize that foreign influenced separatist movements have no legitimacy and slowly the Khalistan movement faded away. Now Punjab is equal state in India and punjabi/sikh identity has not been diluted what so ever.

Removal of special provisions is a necessary and good step towards eventual normalization. In the short term it is going to be very ugly, but hopefully normalization will occur. Personally, I think this is a de-facto establishment of LoC as a final international border unless the cross border nuisance continues.


It's not binary. There were more than two approaches (status quo or this) available. This was one of the worse ways of doing this.

- it alienates and disenfranchises the local population.
- it does nothing to address the foreign element. If anything, it plays into their narrative of Indian occupation/surpression/violation of human rights.
- it creates a surge of Kashmiri nationalism and identity - and a sense of "otherness".

The most likely outcome is that the valley turns into India's own West Bank.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 727LOVER, Alias1024, TheF15Ace and 21 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