From: rroy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Raja R Roy)
Subject: Re: BM-RJB issue (more developments)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:12:49 GMT


In article <1992Oct13.184703.29503@csrd.uiuc.edu> ghosh@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sanj
oy Ghosh) writes:
>(Raja R Roy) writes:
>
>>       Are we having a communication gap here? Demography is not geography,
>>it is the distribution of population. It does not take a God to change
>>the distribution of population. In my opininion, Kashmir problem is due to 
>>segregation of muslim population over there. If muslims are divided homoge-
>>neosly all over India, lot of problems will be solved. 
>
>No, as you made quite clear in this post, no communication gap.  But to
>repeat my earlier question, who or what gives anybody the right to divide
>any group of people up, homogeneously or otherwise.  How would Bengos like
>being distributed all over South India, simply because they are segregated
>in West Bengal.  Quite possible the Naxal problem would never have arisen
>if that had been done.  I know it does not take a God to do that.  A Hitler
>is enough.

       I am not talking of redistributing muslims. I am just saying that
 let everyone who wants to settle there, have an opportunity to do so,
in Kashmir.
>
>>     After the independence people from outside Kashmir were not allowed to
>> buy land there. If it has been allowed, population would be more homogeneous
>>there, and hopefully this would have thwarted an attempt of muslim extremists
>>to secede. 
>
>Nobody likes being swamped by outsiders, and made to feel like second 
>class citizens in their land.  And that is exactly what would have
>hsppened in Kashmir if the gates had been opened.  Been true in Bombay,
>Calcutta, and Shillong at least.  Kashmiris being such a small population
>they would have gone the way of the aborigines in no time.  Don't see how
>that could be avoided.

     And what is the way aborigines have gone? Do you want them to carry
them, the wat they were. Let them stay away from all the progress of 
 new era in the name of preserving their culture.
      Let's talk about the issues here. Hindus in Kashmir have been driven
 away from their homes, hindu women raped, some fundamentalists cut the
 breasts of hindu women, all in the name of religious fanaticism. How
 scary it will seem to you when you live among the neighours, who openly
 announce on loudspeakers : KASHMIR MEN RAHNA HOGAA, ALLAH AKBAR KAHNAA
 HOGAA.
     It is good to be idealistic, but sometimes it is better to be 
 realistic. History has shown time and again that Islam has not lived
 in harmony with any non-muslim group- hindus, christians, jews, they
 have problem accepting the rights of other groups. It is time that
 Islamic fundamentalism should get the same dose they have been giving
 to others. And Kashmir is the battlefield, where the pan-islamic
 brotherhood will face defeat. It is the acid test of secularity. India
 has to retain Kashmir at any cost.     

>
>>After all, if Kashmir is a part of our country, then why it should
>> not be just like  any other  part    of India, why it should have a 
>>special status?      
>
>How many Kashmiris have said they are a part of India?  And how many 
>have said they would unconditionally be part of India?

     This matter was decided 45 years ago. Kashmir is a part of India
and it will remain so. 
>
>>   What is your point here? Rich exploit poor, developed countries exploit
>> underdeveloped, but that is not point of discussion here.
>
>The point here is that when exploitation gets (or might get) to the
>point of extinction then it becomes very much part of a discussion
>such as this.

    You are being too imaginative here.
>
>Sanjoy Ghosh