America is addicted to junk food and we're getting fat. Still, we just can't resist sweet, fatty, pretty-packaged edibles that are not only tasty, but convenient too. Unfortunately, this love affair with "quick and easy" isn't just infecting our food choices. Take for example the latest serving of foreign policy-lite by the Asia Society. On Nov. 11, the New York based educational institution hosted a panel entitled Kashmir: The Case for Freedom. Purportedly aimed at shedding light on the long and complicated history of the region, the program with novelists Arundhati Roy and Pankaj Mishra, and a Kashmiri graduate student Mohamad Junaid is emblematic of the manner in which many of America's intellectual elite institutions, including the Asia Society and the New York Times, prefer pretty prose over substance and ideology over actuality when exploring the complexities that rile Southeast Asia.
For those not well versed in the political spectrum of India, for comparison, having Arundhati Roy and Pankaj Mishra speak on Kashmir is akin to having a panel on church reform that includes Christopher Hitchens and no clergy; or a panel on American imperialism where Noam Chomsky is the featured speaker. Not only would such programs provide little in the way of a diversity of views or robust conversation on very complex topics, but they would likely draw only the choir to whom the panelist wanted to preach.
Renowned economist Jagdish Bhagwati from Columbia University said it best last summer in a critique of the New York Times and its op-eds on the Indian economy: "Perhaps the most articulate critics are the 'progressive' novelists of India, chief among them Pankaj Mishra whom the op-ed page editors of the New York Times regularly and almost exclusively invite to write about the Indian economy, a privilege they do not seem to extend symmetrically to American novelists to give us their profound thoughts on the US economy! While economic analysis can often produce a yawning indifference, and Mishra's narrative is by contrast eloquent and captivating, the latter is really fiction masquerading as non-fiction. Whether its exploring the economy or foreign policy, one thing is clear. Asia Society chose this same intellectual diet of platitudes -- one in which the perspective of a Kashmiri Pandit (Hindu) didn't fit its flavor du jour.
Between 1989 and 1991, nearly 99 percent of the Kashmir Valley's Hindus (400,000 Kashmiri Pandits) were systematically and brutally driven from their homes through an orchestrated campaign of massacres, intimidation, pillage, rape and murder. Countless eyewitness accounts recall the sheer terror and loss experienced when they came face to face with de facto eviction notices slapped on their homes, businesses, and temples, and firing guns accompanied by loudspeakers and the slogan, "Raliv, galiv ya chaliv!" (Convert, die, or escape), echoing through the once peaceful Valley.
But it wasn't until 54 minutes into the 75 minute panel that even a mention of Kashmiri Hindus was made. The Government of India, the CIA, members of the U.S. Congress (see H.Res. 387), USCIRF, and nearly every reputable human rights organization have volumes documenting the Pakistani ISI backed insurgency and atrocities committed during the 1990 religio-ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. But according to Roy, "... perhaps the most contentious issue of the Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir... there was an exodus from the Valley in 1989, at the time of the uprising, and the reasons for that exodus are seriously contentious."
Adding insult to injury, she also suggested that the 70,000 to 80,000 Pandits who are stuck in squalid refugee camps, somehow remain there by choice. After two decades, these poverty-stricken refugee camps remain overcrowded and lack basic necessities such as drinking water and medicine, education and employment. They do not have adequate facilities for sanitation, and thus have a high incidence of disease, high death rates and low birth rates. There are widespread depression and stress-related problems. Does it seem likely that anyone would really "choose" to stay? Bare mention was made of the 1,300 or so Hindu families remaining in the Valley, who live with some of the same socio-economic pressures as those in the camps, but also in constant fear of terror and violence.
While Pankaj Mishra doubled as a bench warmer, the most questionable claims came from graduate student, Mohamad Junaid (whom the Asia Society has marketed as an anthropologist). According to Junaid, Kashmiris (presumably Kashmiri Muslims) had faced 400 years of foreign, ie. Indian, rule and 1990 was thus "a year of idealism, of resolve, that we will finally throw India out." He held that Kashmir was not a part of South Asia, but more a part of Central Asia through "cultural influences." Indeed Central Asians, namely the Turks, did invade Kashmir, and violently at that, but not until the 1300s. Prior to that, Kashmir was very much an integral part of 3rd century CE Mauryan Empire, which ushered in a politically united continent which looks an awful lot like modern India (and Pakistan). But according to Junaid, "... the borders of India, as a nation-state were first marked out by the British and Kashmir was never a part of India."
As for cultural influences, none of the panelists mentioned that Kashmiri Hindus can trace back their history nearly five millenia. None of them brought up the fact that despite its geographic isolation from the rest of the then Hindu continent, Kashmir "proved outstandingly creative in the domain of religion during most of the centuries in which the dominant faiths of the inhabitants were Buddhism and Hinduism [early centuries of the Common Era through the 14th century]."* There was no discussion of scriptural commentaries, such as the 13th century CE Sarvadarshanasamgraha by Madhavacharya Vidyaranya (as refererenced to me by lay historian Vishal Agarwal) in which the influential saint hailing from what we know now as the southern state of Karnataka included Kashmiri Saivism amongst the 15 significant Hindu schools of thought.
Indeed there are many opinions on an issue as complex as Kashmir, and the Asia Society, as an institution seeking "to increase knowledge and enhance dialogue, encourage creative expression, and generate new ideas across the fields of arts and culture, policy and business, and education," really shouldn't have picked sides. But it did.** It chose to promote a jaundiced, anti-India, ultra-left wing view -- the same view, in fact, of recently convicted Pakistani spy agency lobbyist Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai. I hope the next time the Asia Society decides to serve up Kashmir, that it comes with some sides called balance, new ideas, and dialogue.
For a fact-check on many of the statements made on the Asia Society panel, see "Kashmir Fiction and the Facts."
* Jacobsen, Knut A., Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar, and Vasudha Narayanan. Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Vol. 1. Boston: Brill Leiden, 2009. Print.
** In the description of the program itself, Asia Society demonstrates its lack of neutrality:
"The Indo-Pakistani conflict over the former princely states of Jammu and Kashmir has led to three wars and the loss of thousands of lives over almost 65 years. Since 1989 an armed insurgency in Indian-administered areas has contested Indian rule with some groups demanding independence and others union with Pakistan. Under Indian and Pakistani military rule, allegations of severe human rights abuses have been leveled against both sides. The 2008 bombings in Mumbai further postponed hopes of discussion toward resolving the conflict, with the possibility of an independent Kashmir hanging in the balance."
Azeem Ibrahim: Is Charisma Enough to Save Pakistan?
Wajid Ali Syed: Islamabad, Afghanistan
Amir Madani: The Rabbani Assassination and a Way Forward for Obama in Afghanistan
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar: Calling for World Peace, Making the World a Better Place
It states Pakistan AND India should withdraw the forces.
Kashmir is etymologically linked to Sage Kashyap who inhabited the place after draining the Lake in the valley. Word Nehru is related to 'Nahar' = Lake. Nehru's title is said to be Kaul originally. We must not loose sight thai Islamic history is only just over 1300 odd years and Christianity just about two millennia. But the history of India (so called) dates back to millennias whose exact dates are yet to be ascertained.
Today's world politics is governed by diplomacy, whatever it may mean but certainly it has failed to inspire confidence in the global masses. Lies, intolerance, hate has taken over the humanity which is fast loosing its right direction.
Let India and Pakistan put an end to this hostility and find a peaceful solution to Kashmir issue and move on fighting poverty and economic development
Indian economy has been growing faster than Pakistan for several years. The nominal per capita incomes in the two nation are still about the same at just over $1200, according to 2011 data released by Economic Survey of India and Economic Survey of Pakistan.
Nominal per capita incomes in both India and Pakistan stand at just over $1200 a year, according to figures released in May and June of 2011 by the two governments. This translates to about $3100 per capita in terms of PPP (purchasing power parity). Using a more generous PPP correction factor of 2.9 for India as claimed by Economic Survey of India 2011 rather than the 2.5 estimated by IMF for both neighbors, the PPP GDP per capita for Indian and Pakistan work out to $3532 and $3135 respectively.
Nominal per capita income of Indians grew by 17.9 per cent to Rs 54,835, or $1218, in 2010-11 from Rs 46,492 in the year-ago period, according to the revised data released by the government in May, 2011 as reported by Indian media.
India has the worst public sanitation situation in the world today, according to a recent UNICEF survey. In terms of open defecation, India(638m).
18 percent of urban India still defecates in open
Michael Roberts
Director, New York Public Programs
Asia Society
Asia Society Online
In my opinion, Pakistan should first decide the plight of Balochistan, whose resources have been exploited for some time now. Let Pakistan treat its citizens fairly first, if it continues its behavior, there is a precedent for Balochs - Bangladesh.
Pakistan should certainly decide the plight of Balochistan, no argument there, so should India of Kashmir and its Northeastern States where Maoists are in open rebellion.
Secondly, the logic that "Kashmir should go to Pakistan because it is Muslim majority" is irrelevant because India is a secular country and it is acceptable for India to have non-Hindu majority areas. Not just Kashmir, but many other parts and districts of India do not have a Hindu majority: Murshidabad in W Bengal, several districts of Assam, Mamallapuram in Kerala, Lakshadweep islands, Rampur in Uttar Pradesh, the states of Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, hill tracts of Manipur, parts of Arunachal Pradesh etc etc. If Kashmiris want to secede from India just because they are in a Muslim majority region of India, they jeopardize the status of Muslims in other parts of India.
I wonder why not a single so called human rights organization are talking about Justice for Pandit.
May it does not suit the political agenda of so called human rights organisations.
If there is a will there is a way. Both Pakistan and India are abusing the freedom of the people of Kashmir and are using them as their pawns in order to enhance their national arrogance. You will never come across as much ego in any other race in the world as we find among the people of the Indian sub-continent, stubborn, inconsiderate, arrogant and overwhelming
Nehru has said, I quote,
"KASHMIRI NATION IS NOT A HERD OF SHEEP WHO INDIA OR PAKISTAN WOULD LIKE TO DRIVE ACCORDING TO THEIR WISHES. KASHMIRIS ARE INTELLIGENT AND BRAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMAIN FREE AND SELF-DETERMINED"
The Simla Agreement just changed the cease-fire line into the line of actual control, but it never solved the Kashmir question. The liberation movement will succeed if Indian Govt thinks that their military is more powerful than the brutal Israeli or the U.S. army.
People are terribly biased and lop sided in their self-serving parochial RSS based selective nationalism of my nation right or wrong
A nation belongs to its people not to a king or a corrupt individual ruler,
Even China has not fully destroyed Shariah rules being practised among the Muslim Chinese. India and Pakistan are capable of finding a solution to Kashmir if they stop playing politics and they both kill their ego and pride.
Ayodhya: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) launched its election campaign in Uttar Pradesh from Ayodhya. Though the party had dropped the 'Ram Mandir' as its main issue as a part of its NDA alliance some elections back, even here at ground zero the focus was 'Ram Rajya', not 'Ram Mandir'.
But to keep 'Hindutva' elements happy - a blend of development and emotional appeal - is being offered. So for the UP polls - the party started from Varanasi - home to the Kashi Temple dispute and from Mathura - home to the Krishna Temple dispute. They ended in Ayodhya - home to the Ram Temple dispute.
Ghosts from the backyard of history continue to haunt the BJP. Real politics tells the BJP - 'move on'. The ghosts, however, say 'hang on'. Hence, the shift to 'Ram Rajya'.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bjp-launches-up-election-campaign-focuses-on-ram-rajya-150915
India should revoke the Act that has given special powers to the armed forces behaving irresponsibly. Try to create confidence among Kashmiris. Kashmir has become worse than a police state; demilitarization of Kashmir is a must.
Remove the Disturbed Areas Act and other draconian laws that have caused so much of death and misery to the normal life of Kashmiris and disappearance of youth. Allow free trade between the two Kashmirs. A sincere strategy is important to find a lasting solution.
We can not keep on shouting that Kashmir is part of India, let it become a part of India by the conviction of the people, (most of the people of Kashmir have no particular love in being part of Pakistan any way) not by duress or brute force.
Accept the fact that Kashmir is a disputed territory and then find a sensible solution to remove the dispute. Let both Pakistan and India kill their ego first.
Kashmir dispute was internationalized, in the first place by India. It was Nehru who talked about plebiscite. Kashmir Dispute file has not been closed at the UNO.
She has lots of fans from Kerala and West Bengal
When the accession treaty (Is the Treaty lawful by international law?)was signed, India sent its army to dislodge the Pakistani invaders. But by that time, one-third of Kashmir was gone. Had India continued the war, Kashmir would have been turned into Vietnam or Afghanistan and eventually war of liberation would have succeeded and both India and Pakistan would have vacated the land of Kashmir after causing deaths to millions.
It was India which approached the UN for mediation and Nehru promised to abide by the verdict of the people of Kashmir. Did India do the right thing? is history now. What is important now is to find a solution to Kashmir issue by negotiations. More wars between India and Pakistan is going to bring more misery and slow down their economic development. Can wars solve issues? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Bosnia? Chechnya?
End of story.
When Congress is in power, BJP overturns its previous stand on Kashmir.
It is better to give the Kashmiris some sort of self rule until they make up their mind to get assimilated into India within say 20, 30, 40 years time.
Kashmiris, a big majority hate Pakistan and so India need not worry.
Kashmiris apologised to Pandits for the wrong doing of some of the militants. But in NO other state in India the relation between Hindus and Muslims is as brotherly and as cordial as in Kashmir, this has been so for generations, it is possible that they will live together in peace, much more peacefully than in Gujarat or Maharashtra.
Give them a chance. Both Pakistan and India have committed mistakes, blunders and wrong doing in Kashmir, on whom the bigger blame is a matter of degree only.
I am waiting.......
India sent its army to dislodge the Pakistani invaders.
But by that time, one-third of Kashmir was occupied by the tribes of Pakistan. Had India continued the war, Kashmir would have been turned into Vietnam or Afghanistan and eventually war of liberation would have succeeded and both India and Pakistan would have vacated the land of Kashmir after causing deaths to millions.
It was India which approached the UN for mediation and Nehru promised to abide by the verdict of the people of Kashmir. Did India do the right thing? is history now. What is important now is to find a political solution to Kashmir issue by negotiations.
More wars between India and Pakistan is going to bring more misery and slow down their economic development. Can wars solve issues? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Bosnia? Chechnya?