In response to :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/4689

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/4689

[Manab]
Do you mean Kashmir was NOT a Native State, i.e., a protectorate of  the British Crown? It was independent in the same sense as Tibet or Nepal or Bhutan?
 

Since Gulab Singh became the independent emperor of Kashmir, the land never went to the British colonists.  It is a historical fact that Kashmir was independent even when the whole India was subjugated. You can see the book "Shadhinatar pore Bharoter jalanta shamassha" written by Prabir Ghosh for reference (page 95)

[Manab]

I don't deny thet the Kashmiris have a strong sense of alienation vis- a-vis India, but the present struggle is nothing but terrorism.

It is your perspective. If you were a Kashmiri, you would have termed their act as the "struggle for freedom". Please consider the case of Liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971. In 1971, while we Bengalis were at war against Pakistan, Pakistani government portrayed Sheikh Mujib as anti-state activist and our freedom fighters as terrorists and separatists. Indians are doing the same thing for Kashmiri people now. Sheikh Mujib- the undisputed leader of East Pakistan was arrested in 1971 because of his "Anti-state Activities" accused by the Pakistani ruler. Indian rulers also accused Sheikh Abdullah - the prime minister (yes - prime minister, not chief minister) of Kashmir for doing conspiracy against India. He was arrested in August, 1953 by Indian Government.  Got any similarity ? The problem is, the act is considered as "Handwork of terrorist"  if it happens within one's territory  but if similar activities happen in  other neighboring countries  it becomes "peoples' craving for freedom".  This hypocrisy is not new. One of the cases is clearly pointed out by Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/4692 ).  The hypocrisy of the Indian state can be understood by comparing the case of Junagadh and Kashmir. The Nawab of Junagadh had joined Pakistan. At that time India said that it should be the peoples wish and engineered an uprising in Junagadh. In Kashmir however the Indian stance was opposite.

[Manab]

This is evident from the timing itself. For 40 years Kashmir was a peaceful place. How come suddenly in 1989, they decided that let's take guns and fight India? Do you believe that mass opinion spontaneously organized itself overnight?

Your information is not true. Kashmir was not a peaceful paradise during past 40 years. During 1947 to 1951 a devastating genocide occurred mainly on the Muslim people of Jammu and Kashmir  under the leadership of Hindu maharaja Hari Singh. For reference you may read "Blood in the valley" - A report to the people of India on Kashmir by the joint fact finding committee of Org for democratic rights and civil liberties (page 37). Even in 1946 the people of Kashmir formed a mass-movement - "Quit India" ("Kashmir chor do") against the autocratic ruler Hari Singh. To keep his throne, Maharaja Hari Sing supplied arms to the members of "Rastriya shyang Shevak Shangha" to make the rebel mob silent. (Such information you can find in "New Lights on Kashmir by Durgadas, page -133). the first communal riot occurred in Kashmir in 1947. The main culprit behind the  atrocities was "Jammu Praja parishad" - a fundamentalist Hindu organization leaded by Balraj Madhok. Madhok was also a prominent leader of   "Rastriya shyang Shevak Shangha". At that time the crime of malicious  oppression,  arson, plunder, genocide occurred on the Muslim people of Kshmir by the direct influence of Balraj Madhak, Hari Singh and Shevak Shangha. Even Mahatma Gandhi got repented hearing the news of such atrocities and said that Maharaja was responsible for this riot ; Gandhi also uttered that Maharaja was no loner fit for keeping his throne after such brutal crime. The struggle of Kashmiri people started long time ago; it was not organized overnight. The tribal revolt which was started soon after 15th August  of 1947 and such movement was at last ended with the struggle for freedom. The tribal rebels  started calling them "Mujahid" (freedom fighters) after 23rd October 1947. Shuranjan Dasgupta confessed the truth in his book "Kashmir shargacchuta" (Page 101).

[Manab]

Isn't it too obvious that there is a power behind it? ...Now suddenly one of those peoples ask for self determination. What makes them unique? So, are we prepared to allow self determination to each and every race, tribe, linguistic group in the Subcontinent?

Manab, One thing you must have to understand. By calling your own people "separatists" and thereby keeping  down by severe and unjust use of force or authority is no longer a valid solution in the long run. Who are actually separatists? The word "separatist" always bears a negative approach like "atheist" to the common mass by clever advertisement.  We must realize no one wants to be a separatist if he/she is treated with milk and butter. A thought of separation usually comes to someone's mind if he/she feels that he/she is mentally, physically, culturally, economically deprived / tortured. They begin to feel  as a minority. Whenever some courageous people of that minority society stand up for their right, the government cleverly tries to portray that they are nothing but separatists, terrorists. We did the ethnic cleansing on the 'Chakma Terroist' inspired by our benevolent president when they demanded their cultural rights; we tortured on our own people to prevent separation of our holy land! Pakistan  also tried to legalize their genocide by calling freedom fighters as separatists and terrorists. Indians are also doing exactly the same thing.

You cannot accept Kashmiri people's struggle as "fighting from freedom" because your head is pre-occupied with traditional love for "holy soil". Like most of other countrymen, you are also most probably brainwashed  by the concept that wrongly defines a country by its "holy soil", mountains, rivers or  flowers. You don't even think twice before torturing your own people to prevent separation of  lifeless "holy soil". But as a true rational person, you should understand that  a country is NOT holy soil. Patriotism cannot and should neither be  "love for holy soil" nor love for any lifeless mountains or flowers.  Patriotism actually means love for own countrymen, NOT love for any soil. There is no complete definition of a country if we ignore it's real and only real asset  - the common mass. 

YES. I think every nation has the right to self determination. IT IS NOT A SIN. Consider your own house. If your younger brother do not want to stay with you for some various reasons, and if he wants self determination, will you consider it as sin ? How long will you be able to keep him with you against his will by applying force ?

[Manab]

According to the Shimla Agreemnet, Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. So there is no room for third party.

Shimla agreement itself is Marked by betrayal of fidelity, confidence or trust of Kashmir. it is "inhumane" too. Why the hell Kashmiri people  have no right to decide their own fate, and why ONLY India and Pakistan will decide entire nations' desire ? It is ridiculous to say "there is no room for third party" -even if the the native people of Kashmir wants to be the third party .  If today USA and China make an agreement and claim that according to their agreement they will take charge to solve all the  problems of India - and India will have no right to join in their discussion, will you accept ?

[Manab]

By the way: who are the Kashmiris' true representatives, anyway?

Kashmiri people - I already said.

 

Avijit