From: banerjee@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: ****2ND OCTOBER:::::GANDHI JAYANTI****
Date: 7 Oct 1992 17:31:41 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phad.hsc.usc.edu

In article <1992Oct7.041143.7835@cc.uow.edu.au> g9220348@cc.uow.edu.au (adil shaikh) writes:
>banerjee@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee) writes:
>
>
>>Interesting contradiction in terms coming from somebody who condones the
>>JKLF terrorism in Kashmir and yet preaches the Mahatma's doctrine of
>>non violence.
>
>
>>I didn't use the word "hypocrite", did I ?
>
>>Samit
>
>
>
>But, you used the word 'contradiction'. In the past you have always 
>ommited to look the thing like that. The Kashmir issue and in the
>follow up of Urdu article you have always maintained your view point
>as The supporters of Kashmiri independence are part of Pan-Islamic
>supporter. 


Yes and I still do.  And I see nothing in my posting which "contradicts"
this. Do you? Pray, enlighten me.

I have always maintained that the level of freedom and quasi independence
that Kashmir enjoys under article 370 of the Indian Constitution should have
been enough to deal with any identity problems that residents of the state
may have had athis has not happened and the people who are fighting for 
Kashmir's independence have repeatedly stressed that Kashmiri (read Muslim)
interests are not safe in "Hindu India"  lends credence to my views.

In addition, if you want us to beleive that the Kashmiri people would like
to secede from India en block, then why is it that the Hindus and Buddhists
do not share this goal? Why is it that the JKLF is comprised of Muslims alone
and it's targets have been non-Muslims only? Why is it that the uprising is
confined to the Valley alone and not in Jammu and Ladhak where the Muslims are 
in a minority? 



>
>By default, you have assumed that a Muslim's support to KAshmir
>issue has to deal with Pan-Islamic Idealogy.

Yes that is correct and if you think otherwise, you are politically naive.
However, it's not by default that I arrived at this conclusion. It was simply
a question of the facts justifying the hypothesis, common sense if you will. 




>
>None of my posting was in the Support of Islamic Idealogy.
>It was always on the Secular basis.

I wouldn't call condoning the murder of innocent people in the valley by the 
JKLF, secular. In one of your earlier posts, this is exactly what you wrote
in order to justify what you claimed where "excesses by the Army". 



>
>Since you are follwing my all aricles, you should look my articles on
>Scp too. 

I dont read SCP. Maybe you should post it post it on SCI and I will get a 
chance to comment on it.


>There is one article on Hyderabad. You will come to know the
>facts which I support and the things you take for granted.
>

Again, lay your cards on the table and we shall see. Given your track record
for India baiting, I am *not* willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.


>You will say that I ignored your posting as the contradiction between
>JKLF terrorism and Gandhi's non-violence.
>
>Yes,I did.

Well in your case, ignorance might be catastrophic.  Also I fail to see your
pathetic logic in saying that you chose to ignore my posting while responding
to it at the same time. 


Samit

>
>
>Bye
>Adil

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian