From: ghayalm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Kashmir Solution is Self-determination (was Clinton/Gore '92??!!!!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:14:33 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

>
>>I asked you which part of Kashmir you are from, because you claim
>>that the Indian forces are brutal. 
>
>	   You classified Kashmir into two parts - Indian part and
>Pakistani part. That in itself is presumptious, and required
>clarification, that there is no *Indian part* - a brutally occipied
>Indian part, yes, but NO Indian part. If that is clear, please read
>on, otherwise I am sure your time is precious and so is mine. 
>
>>I wanted to know if this knowledge is first hand or from hearsay?
>
>	   The knoweldge is first hand. Some of my relatives are still in
>Srinage, and what they tell me is hardly humane. If the Indian part of
>Kashmir is so heavenly, why don't Indian politicians allow unbiased
>international reporting in that area? Why no? Because even most Indian
>citizens would object to the gross mistreatment of the Kashmiris.
>
Have you ever been to Srinagar?  I have relatives who after partition
had to run for their lives from Pakistan.  They claim that Pakistanis
are the most brutal people on earth.  I have never been to Pakistan
so I don't know if that is true.  Indian citizens have a strong
stomach, they can take a lot mistreatment, after all you don't
see many Indians showing sympathy to Hindus kicked out of or
murdered in Kashmir.

>>Obviously I am showing a pro Indian bias, are you not showing a pro
>>Pakistani bais? 
>
>	   No, I am not. If I am showing any bias, it is a pro-Kashmiri
>bias. I bear no particular ill-will toward Indians, but despise
>politicians, both Pakistani and Indians, who are fueled by personal
>greed. Pakistani polticians have also contributed to the general
>deterioration of Kashmir issue - yes Kahsmir ISSUE not PROBLEM - the
>PROBLEM is not Kashmir, the PROBLEM is subcontinetal politicians.
>
If you are not showing pro Pakistan bias why don't you object to their
occupation of 1/3rd Kashmir?

>>In kashimir India has lived upto its end of the bargain by
>>not letting any outsiders to settle in Kashmir.  
>
>	   I think Indian politicians have not even allowed Kashmiris to
>settle in Kashmir - whaddyamean outsiders? :-)

Does that mean Kashmir is a ghost state.
Does Pakistan have a policy similar to India as far as settling down in
Kashmir is concerned?  If not how can there be a fair plebiscite in
Kashmir?  
>
>
>	   There really is a marked difference between the way Pakistani
>politicians have handled Pakistani side of "Azad Jammu and  Kashmir",
>and the atrocities Indian politicians have supported in Indian
>occupied. Pakistani politicians, like Indian politcians, have failed
>to realize that the only solution to Kashmiri issue lies in
>self-determination. Kashmir is not a bone of contention between Indian
>and Pakistani politicians, even if they may bear canine tendencies. :-)

Again you are showing a pro Pakistani bias.  Why call the Kashmir occupied
by Pakistan as azad Kashmir?  I am curious to know how Pakistan has handled
Kashmir.  Every new generation in India is more convinced than the old
one that Kashmir is an integral part of India,  if the Pakistani troops
do not move out soon, I am sure article 370 in the constitution will soon
be repelled.  Then there can never be a free kashmir.  Even now BJP
in its rallies claims that we are too soft on Pakistan, by letting them
keep a part of Kashmir.
>
  I think both Pakistanis and Indians are reasonably cosniderate
>people, and it is their politicians that have fueled them with enough
>propogande, so that even the most thoughtful people like Manoj Sahib,
>ask such questions as......
>
>>Is your Kashmir going to be the home of only muslims?
>
>	   The question is not stupid, in fact is is perfectly natural
>one that any gullible subcontinental will ask.
>
Do you refuse to anwser stupid questions?  Hindus are being killed and
driven out of Kashmir?  If Kashmir does get independence, how will
you safegaurd their lives and properties?  We know that Partition
causes a lot of innocent bloodshed.  That was seen in 1947 and 1971.
There has been a recent tendency for nations with a muslim majority
to become Islamic states, in such states nonmuslims are treated as
second class citizens (I know that the Quran does not allow it, but
it happens), so if it is in our power to prevent this from happening
why shouldn't we?
>
>>Manoj
>
>   Salman [dsqa-jna '92 :-)] Azhar
>
>
>-- 
> I must, with emotional fire, burn or illume myself
> I must, with the heat of passion, melt or sublime myself
> I must, in flood of tears, drown or cleanse myself
> I must! I must! I must! For my people and myself -- D. Salman [Q] Azhar
Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:15594 soc.culture.iranian:8819 soc.culture.arabic:4208