 KASHMIR CRISIS DISCUSSION |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Kashmir Crisis |
—————————————————————————————
India and Pakistan have come to the brink of war over Kashmir. Efforts at mediation have thusfar failed, and Western nations have advised their nationals in the area to leave.
Can international law help avert war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- Wednesday June 5, 2002 at 4:42 pm
The fight is really been secularism and the adherents of control by religions. The basic need for Kashmiri land or Palestinian or Israeli land is to see that no other form of religion exists on those territories - I see no other genesis for such motivation. One may complain of atrocities in Kashmir but how is it that Kashmir was peaceful as between 1950 to 1970 and suddenly there was this upsurge with Hindu pundits being driven away from Kashmir systematically. It is not whether Hinduism or Islam should prevail in Kashmir but whether both can live in amity anywhere at all. How is any neighbourhood,in any part of the world with a mix of religions to survive and live in peace!. Or is it that there should be as many divisions wherever they exist!. The problem will never be solved with this fragmentary thinking. Internationally there should be a premium on Liberty and freedom to practise ones own belief however mistaken that belief may be.
Sam Kumar
Rochester, NY - Thursday June 06, 2002 at 9:07 am
My openion about kashmeer crises is very clear.Kashmeer problem in my openion can only be solved If both countries Army take interst in this matter honestly,& politicians also. In my openion both sides of Kashmir togather declared the one state under the control of un forces.the internal control will be given to local people and defence control will be given to international or un forces.pakistan & India is spending More than 80% of there budget in defence, If this could happen Then this budget will be utilised in better education,Helth & welfare of the both nations. But some selfish people of both sides will never accept this solution becase of their greed, I can expose that powers but due to some reson I cant expose them in pakistan.You can understand who is taking benefit of all this conflict in pakistan and in India.Kindly send me the other people 's views 7 thanks , nissar ali
NISSAR ALI
Lahore
Pakistan - Friday June 07, 2002 at 4:35 am
The question is: Can international law help avert war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir? My question is: Did international law help create the problem in Kashmir? There was a problem to start with, but the reason it may come to a war is that the US had no proper end-game in Afghanistan. The terrorists having no better things to do, they went to Kashmir to wreak some havoc. And who is to say that international law binds the terrorists (or even the US)?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday June 07, 2002 at 1:05 pm
The question is if international law can provide a solution for the Kashmir problem. I think of international to be a weak law. I believe it to be for a certain set of people. Like for example when it was the case of east-timor it was solved in days. Kashmir has a population of 80% Muslims and are the followers of the region which is based on peace. If they are not to be given the right to live freely in accordance with their beliefs these sort of tensions are going to stay there. I think that UN should first force INDIA to follow the resolutions of UN in which the Kashmirs were given the right to plebiscite.
Saghir Mehar
Sialkot
Pakistan - Friday June 07, 2002 at 2:54 pm
Is Kashmir or for that matter any other region of the world to be given up because they belong to a particular religion?. That means the world will never see any peace for eternity. The scenario is simply this in stages in mixed religion areas: a. Minority religions complain about problems with the majority religion b. Minority religions take the Moral support of countries which have that minority religion as a majority population c. Minority religions take acts of terrorism on to mixed religion areas and frighten the other religions out of the place d. Minority religions now demand negotiation with Mixed religion government for a separate state so that they may practise there religion in peace ( Specially because it is a peaceful religion) e. At the end of time no other religion has an inch of space to live on let alone own
KUMAR SAM
Rochester
NY - Saturday June 08, 2002 at 5:36 am
The worst sufferur in India has been the poeple of Kashmir since indepence, they are suffering at the hands of Indian army and Pakisthan militants. leaders of people covered with back commando security are not aware by the meaning of shelling and bullets,they are not aware of the meaning of 'touture' or 'Rape' because it is only the poor peole are suffering and not they or there near ones. what now kashmir want is 'Peace" and just 'Peace'. they do not want kashmir, they want India. there two generation have died without having as simple as thing as 'peace' or 'happiness' at least the third generation deserve it. A open poll or election under internation banner like UN agencies should be conducted and the fate of kashmir should be decided. The people of Kashmir want the basic neccesity of life - love, peace, safety which there past generation have not got. the sincere efforts of leaders of both side should to find out the happiness of the Kashmir not the lust of land and natural resources. the valuable resourece of a country is its citizen and not land,iron ores or apple. internation law may help but international presure and effort can avert the war, especially, us, britain and Russias
yogesh kolekar
Trivandrum
India - Sunday June 09, 2002 at 4:59 am
People are more important then rocks and bricks. So rights of people should be safe guarded first. For the people who think that it is just a case of mix religion, they should know that rights of muslims have always been crushed in Kashmir. It is they who deserve to be in peace and it is they who think that their rights have been crushed from the last fifty years and it is they who know that they were ignored during partition and were left with INDIA to die despite of their desire to be with Pakistan. Its the law which has been violated during the partition of 1947. I find it hard to believe that UN would have enough justice in its books to solve this problem. Its only in the hands of Kashmirs to solve this problem. History has witnessed the role of International law so many times and have seen it fail whil the problems of Muslims were taken to the international forum. So many jurists are right in saying that there is no such thing as an international law. In my view first the international law should be ammended and an element of justice be added in it. only then all such problems would be solved in a better manner.
Saghir Mehar
Sialkot
Pakistan - Monday June 10, 2002 at 2:54 am
Dear readers i am from Pakistan & studying law here at The University of Punjab's law college.In what I'll comment on the Kashmir issue Inshallah i won't be biased towards India.First of all just think what international law is, for me it isn't just a law but also a moralty .In this modern world everybody is talking about rights and duties but nobody is able to understand what rights are ;if they think that rights are what the powerful person and states enjoy then for me they are wrong.Dear readers now moving on to the Kashmir issue,which Pakistan calls as a FREEDOM STRUGGLE while Indians call it as CROSS BORDER TERRORISM my question to you all is that if the world states are so concerned about Kashmir then why don't they give the Kashmiris, a right to decide about their own fate? why don't they make India to get the UN resolution on Kashmir to be implemented ?why Kashmiris are not being given their right to self determination? why all this & now about cross border terrorism.well people who won freedom for US are called as freedom fighters while peole who are making sacrifices of their lives,blood,money,property & their families are termed as TERRORISTS (WELL DONE INDIA!!! )is this justice? Don't they love this precious life, don't they love to be among their families,don't they!!! .May i also have the oppurtunity to tell the world community that Islam is the religion of peace, it doesn't back terrorism in any of its forms or manifestations and the principles of Islam are fully followed in Pakistan(exceptions are always there but if any are very nominal and will soon cease to exist).Pakistan stands for peace, it was a key alliance in the war on terror,our government is fully ready to talk to India ANYWHERE & AT ANYTIME then why is India neglecting to do so.To avert the war the international community will have to play its part for the supreme interest of HUMANITY!!!!-PLEASE DO THINK IT VERY SERIOUSLY.THANK YOU
Kashif Malik
Islamabad.
Pakistan. - Monday June 10, 2002 at 6:04 am
If Kashmir terrorist are not condemned as terrorists, the prospects of achieving peace appear slim indeed. Did India mislead British foreign secratary Jack Straw to call the Islamic militants in Kashmir terrorist, not freedom fighters? These freedom fighters use suicide bombings, and once you start referring to this kind of conduct as "extremist elements" (which are supposedly slowly disappearing, while in fact they are only gathering more momentum) doesn't give anyone the right to brag about their contribution to the war on terror. I don't know how many Muslims there are in India, so why should Islam be so suppressed particularly in Kashmir? If one is allowed to draw a parallel to Lebanon, the Muslims don't settle for multi-religious administration, which they consider disproportionately weak given their actual numbers, so they take over the whole show and declare an Islamic revolution with outside help. In this logic, it is only natural to call international law weak. International law is weak, because it is infringed upon so often, and why is it infringed upon? Because it is presented as something that is inequitable to the Muslims. This perception of the inequitable nature of international law can also be called by its proper name: they are called international obligations.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday June 10, 2002 at 9:47 am
People are not religions and religions are not people. Economics, the right to a decent education,the right to opportunity and the freedom to believe in anything including rocks or even that which others may disagree or disapprove due to certain religious texts is non-negotiable If one does not recognize this fundamental right - such a view has to be condemned by all freedom living peoples of the world. One may not claim statehood (or at least fresh statehood) just on the basis of the practise of a religion however well founded it may be according to thinking of its adherents. Please note that I am not addressing merely Kashmir but stating something generally.
KUMAR SAM
Rochester
NY - Wednesday June 12, 2002 at 5:27 am
Kumar, you said you were not addressing merely Kashmir but stating something generally. What is the problem in Kashmir especially?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday June 12, 2002 at 9:54 am
Mr Jari the problem with Kashmir is that it is the systematic carving of a state through a process of Islamization which is unacceptable namely, through creating hostile atmospheres for other religious groups or secular conditions, on a day to day living basis. To prove the difference -India got its legitimate freedom from Britain but this was through non-violence. Is this strictly so in Kashmir?. Granted that there were some excesses from Indian soldiers like that which happens anywhere by an occupying army - having said that, if the movement towards independence was peaceful would there have been the same repercussions to whatever extent it exists today?. Or is it that this is entirely sponsored by Jihadis(are there peaceful Jihadis? I would like to be enlightened on that!) from some other country - in the name of some type of unacceptable international brotherhood in terror?. In the face of violent methods within and outside Kashmir even a talk of "Moral support to Kashmir" from "proximate countries" implies sponsoring terror. The arguement would have been different If "Gandhis Satyagraha" was used. In that case the International community would have a legitimate reason for understanding it as a genuine cause for freedom. However that does not seem to be the case.
KUMAR SAM
Rochester
NY - Thursday June 13, 2002 at 3:37 am
I must say I am sympathetic to your view. However, let us look at the problem from the opposite point of view, if only for the sake of argument. You say India is an occupying army. So India too is taking the law into its own hands and infringing of the rights of the Muslims? I am sorry to say I am not acquainted with the Kashmir problem, but when one hears of Islamic militants and suicide bombings, one immediately seeks parallels with similar events in Lebanon, Palestine, the Philippines etc. which may not necessarily be fair to anyone. I would be very interested in pinpointing the problem legally, but then we need to hear all the different viewpoints. I think this board would be a very good way to achieve this.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday June 13, 2002 at 9:55 am
Donald Rumsfelds observation in todays newspaper of Al Quaida networks in Pak Kashmir is a very telling point for the need of an Indian army at the borders. Is it that a jihadi that catches a westward flight is deemed a terrorist and the one that catches a flight to Delhi or Kashmir is a freedom fighter?. How can there be two classifications for the same act of terror. Terror is terror no matter where and who or what reason or target - a group or individual practises it. We have to recognize a seamless existence of terrorists all over the world. Suicides based on belt bombs are no different from persons driving an aircraft and ramming it onto a building with thousands of innocents therein. They do not deserve International sympathy let alone in some quarters even praise for courage???. It requires courage to live - death in such misguided ways is cheap.
Kumar Sam
Rochester
New York - Friday June 14, 2002 at 3:48 am
Again you would seem to be correct. If Mr Rumsfeld has reason to be worried about terrorists in Kashmir, surely India would have too. But that would not seem to be the problem. Why is India "not allowing Kashmiris their fundamental right of plebiscite", as it is stated in the article on this website? The matter has been in the UN and it was India that took it there to begin with. To quote the article again: "India indeed promised a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir, soon after it took the issue to UN in 1948." But it never did. The only discrepancy I can trace in the article is that "the Security Council appointed a UN Commission for Indo-Pakistan for the purposes of helping organize a Kashmir plebiscite" on April 21, 1948. However, a few months later, on August 13, 1948, "this UN Commission passed its first Resolution ... according to which the cease-fire took place". So if the cease-fire took place after the plebiscite had been promised, were the hostilities still going, in which case it would be natural for India not to be very excited about the whole thing?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday June 14, 2002 at 9:37 am
The problem is a very practical one for India's Republic. If Kashmir secedes on the matter of religious dogma (Pakistan was in fact a state carved out of such religious secession from India). Are secular countries going to be periodically and eternally - put to such divisions on the basis of religion?. Pakistan happened some fifty years ago how many other "Stan's" in the future?. May we have a list?. Perhaps there could be one - but then in Islam, treaties are made only for convenience. One could be made now for strategic reasons and later discarded if it is against the religion. What is the credibility of any treaty made with one such. Don't forget that they are around 180 million Muslims in India - can they also ask for such divisions in time?. Perhaps not in the cards immediately but does it not set a precedent for India. The consequence of Kashmir tantamounts to agreeing to break up of the Indian nation. India in fact is defending the territorial integrity of its secular democracy. Is this to be undermined not withstanding statements made in the UN in the past?. kashmir as you know is not precisely the industrial belt of India - it is the principle behind it that makes it non-negotiable.
KUMAR SAM
Rochester
NY - Sunday June 16, 2002 at 2:29 am
Its been very disappointing how India is presenting the Kashmir issue at the international level.Dear readers be realistic and don't live in the world of illusions.Just read the comments of a person truly speaking the language of fundamentalist hindus and to my utter surprise he is calling the freedom fighters as terrorists.oops!!!(big joke).The Indians by calling Kashmiris as terrorists want to gain the support of the world community & specially US.Dear readers just think that will anybody even in his wildest of dreams would think of giving away his life by suicidal bombing??without even a cause!!!NO SIR,NOT AT ALL.You people can't even think about the attrocities being committed by the BRUTAL INDIAN ARMY IN KASHMIR.When these people have no other way out & all the rays of hope for them seem to be fading then the circumstances force them to do so and such attacks are never targeted against the civilians but against that very army.IF INDIA PRETENDS TO BE SO MUCH INNOCENT AND AN AFFECTEE OF TERRORISM THEN WHY IT'S ATTACKING THE US MISSIONS IN PAKISTAN; JUST TO MALIGN PAKISTAN!!!!.IT IS RAW(INDIAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY) THAT IS SPONSORING THE TERRORISTS ATTACKS BEING CARRIED OUT AGAINST PAKISTAN AND IN WHICH SEVERAL INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE MADE A VICTIM OF BRUTAL INDIAN STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM.VERY SAD!!!.Dear readers we wan't good relations with India and the people of India but why isn't India ready and willing to do so; it needs two hands to clap!! COME ON INDIANS ADDRESS THE KASHMIR ISSUE OK, NOT ACCORDING TO THE WISHES OF PAKISTAN BUT ATLEAST ACCORDING TO THE WISHES OF KASHMIRIS THEMSELVES!!! AND LET'S MAKE SOUTH ASIA A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE AND THE WORLD IN GENERAL A MORE SAFER ONE, SO THAT OUR NEXT GENERATIONS MAY NOT SAY THAT OUR ANCESSTORS WERE DINOSAURS AND NOT HUMANS.PLEASE ADDRESS THE KASHMIR ISSUE!!!
KASHIF MALIK
ISLAMABAD
PAKISTAN - Sunday June 16, 2002 at 11:35 pm
I respect the views I have read here and would concur with the ideas of politial greed and abuse of power that has gone on in the disputed areas . Has international Law caused this problem? Perhaps,but more likely is the posibility of international interference in the diplomatic solutions offered at the various summits. A great many interests of more than a few actors has made the issue one that would be hard to surmount in a legal way . I would add the the united states and china have seen fit to make sure that conflict continues by suppling arms to both sides . India and Pakistan are new powers to the atomic table and I feel it would be best to left them work out their diffences on the cricket pitch .... the only funny thing about this idea is that if put to a referendum ... it would win unilateral support.
steve castle
victoria
b.c. Canada - Monday June 17, 2002 at 9:52 am
Killing in the name of religion is indefensible. Pray how are suicide bombers different from Atta?. The intent behind these suicide bombs is not self immolation - but to destroy others through the only available means of murder(considering that nations are now prepared for such modes of attack). If this is not murder or terrorism I do not know what to call it. Res Ipsa Loquitor - no need for argument on this point.
Kumar Sam
Rochester
NY - Friday June 21, 2002 at 3:11 pm
Res Ipsa Loquitor is on the indian side now and killing for to stay in power is even indefensible. The history of agreements have seen the positive stand of Muslims. These are human being who are being killed in Kashmir. Furthermor Muslims are being killed in India. The whole world has witnessed the seens of Gujrat were thousands of Muslims have been murdered. International media has showen the burnt bodies of thousands of Muslims. One news paper had even showen some pictures of infants who had been cut with hindu blades. If this is not terrorism then nothing else can be. It is just the reaction of human beings who are still defencive and not offencive. If international law can not see this then it is blind. If murders of Muslims in Kashmir and Gujrat are just another horrer intertainment for international associations they would just enjoy it and if they find these evidences material then they would take some action. It is my hope that if this problem was created by the dishonuring of international resolutions of UN, It would be solved by UN as well. May it not be late, because it is the human who is suffering and in particular the Muslims.
Saghir Mehar
Sialkot
Pakistan - Monday June 24, 2002 at 10:24 am
About the happenings in Gujarat -India's Prime Minister was ashamed and openly admitted it in a public speech for the International community. We do not see the same kind of shame from the leadership in Pakistan. In fact it is not shame but the explanation " Look what you made me do" that seems to be rattling everywhere. Or that it is an International consipiracy to defame Pakistan or Islam. Look at a perfunctory list of blame throwing: 1. WTC attack was a jewish conspiracy to malign Islam 2. The attack on the US consulate was by RAW. (What India had to gain is any bodies guess. Perhaps India wants the Taliban or Al Quaeda to remain in Pakistan - a ludicrous suggestion) 3. Mohd Sayeed and the Killing of Dany pearl was an Indian COnspiracy. Pray why?. On the same lines is it that Mr Reid the shoe bomber also a RAW agent?. Or that Mohd Sayeed who was left by the government of India as a bargain for releasing a Hijacked Indian Airlines plane also a RAW agent?. That he (Sayeed) was freely moving in the streets of Pakistan prior to the Danny pearl event seems to tell an untold tale of state complicity. 4. There are many many such - other people did it explanations. Including of course the fomenting of the Taliban terrorist movement in Afghanistan - but of course that also was not the creation of Pakistan and was the product of RAWS endevours. By such repeated accusations from Pakistan, perhaps the credibiity of such statements have now eroded to such an extent that it now has to be taken with a pinch of salt. At least when such accusations are made, it should take into cognizance - if there could be any logical motive besides it being a general paronoid behaviour. Regarding agreements, I am merely reiterating what is extant in the Islamic text. One may make agreements for strategic reasons and may break them with impunity for religion. If this is not true I stand corrected. I hold no brief for those murderers who killed innocent Muslims in Gujarat. The point here is not whether a GOvernment protects Muslims. The point here is that a seular government has a bounden duty to protect all in the ambit of its territory - regardless of Race, color or religion. This has been violated in Gujarat and the government there stands impeached. I would like a similar sentiment from the Pakistani side, Is it forthcoming?. Or shall we only see condemnations of India for all the internal problems of Pakistan?. I realize that this straying from the Kashmir topic - but I am just trying to focus on atitudinal problems. I hold no brief for Murderers and terrorists in the name of any religion. If such criminal propensities are being advocated against the state from any religious center anywhere this is sedition and does not qualify for International sympathy for fresh and separate statehoods.
Kumar Sam
New York
USA - Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 3:50 am
I think some of the stuff on RAW's activities in Pakistan come from a report by the Federation of American Scientists. On the other hand, the people have the inexplicable need to explain terrorism by some kind of cranky conspiracy theory. I don't know why that is. Second, what happened in Gujarat was unacceptable, but I think the religious fanaticism didn't come solely from the Hindu side. The Muslims had given the Hindus to understand that they shouldn't be in certain Muslim holy areas. Anyway, how is Gujarat connected to Kashmir? It is incontestable that suicide bombings have been used in Kashmir. Are we going to hear that "desperation" rhetoric again, as in the Palestinian conflict? But I think Pakistan isn't to blame for everything either. Even if Pakistan were involved in the violence in Kashmir, the fundamental question remains: why hasn't India allowed the plebiscite in Kashmir, as it promised in 1948? There may be a "systematic carving of a state through a process of Islamization", but isn't that for the plebiscite to decide? A fundamentalist Muslim state may be an undesirable neighbour, but why didn't India foresee such a possibility when it took the matter to the UN and promised a plebiscite in 1948? Or doesn't it matter any more what happened in 1948?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 9:43 am
Mr Jari. I had explained already the practical problem in respect of maintaining the territories and secular integrity of the Indian Republic and the precedent it would create if we give in to religious fundamentalisem to carve out new states on religious basis. The choice in regard to either an Islamic state or Secularism was made in 1947 when both countries parted ways. If a plebiscite is given today in Kashmir we all know the result that a taliban type reaction would be on the vote - having virtually decimated the opposition over two decades of civil attrition. If the problem is that only Kashmiri muslims are treated badly, as opposed to Muslims in other states - this seems to be very odd. Is the Indian government selectively discriminating in Kashmir alone?. The other presumption that we could invetigate, is that Muslims are ill treated throught out India. Assuming for a while that this is true, then the referendum should be directed to all Muslims living in India to decide whether Kashmir should be in secular India or not. Having put that referendum to test and if Kashmir does got to an Islamic state - then all muslims that have voted for such a proposition should also be sent to Pakistan or Kashmir having decided that there loyalties are not to the constitution of India and its secular focus. This is only by way of an hyptothetical proposition on the matter. But such discrimination in India is baseless - we have had Presidents and people in the highest of offices throughout India's checkered history in the last couple of decades after Independence. I wonder if Pakistan can say the same thing?. Also practically by putting, such a test of referendum of loyalities - on our Muslim citizens in India puts them in a position of step children. This is truly not the case, I think Muslims as all other communities are reasonably satisfied with the secular Indian government. There are will be some problems. But which county does not have such problems to contend with?. But I would not go so far as secede territories on the basis of religion. The UN resoluton was based on 1947 this is the 21 century and we have to take into consideration the new realities and push on with creating a progressive society - rather than fight for lands and destroy or weaken a secular fabric of a country like India. May I add that it is also an international responsibility to be specially sensitive to an area wherein One sixth of humanity lives in an Indian administration with a written consititution - which is essentially fair to all religions living in its ambit?.
Kumar Sam
New York
USA - Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 12:06 pm
Mr Jari in the context of the special responsibility that the International comity of nations in respect of countries that are secular - May I point out that it is easy to function in a "Religiously besotted military dictatorship". But it is difficult and a worthy objective to live in a pluralistic society where variance in views and beliefs are not only allowed but respected. However, such societies are also fragile and require to be protected like delicate flowers. I do hope that India may also be one such country that deserves such special consideration from the International community - when they have made such substantial efforts like their secular constitution, also allowing personal laws to function within their democracy etc. Should this achievement be disturbed?. If there is civil strife in India it will be worse than any Nuclear attack. The option is clear, are we to preserve our secular traditions or are we to have endless civil strife in the name of any religion. By way of giving in to creating new religious states , we are fomenting exactly this. It is hoped that the International community wakes up to this fragile need for protecting freedom and societies that espouse it.
Kumar Sam
New York
USA - Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 2:03 pm
It is very strange thing to hear that there is some thing like breaking a contract in Islam or changing it on ones need when ever required. There is no such thing in Islam like breaking of the agreements. If some body has studied Islam he should know that for the very first agreement made between Muslims and others was obeyed even on when it had not yet been written. That even was not much in the favour of Islam. Now about in Kashmir Pakistan pulled out and stoped the first war of Pakistan and India just because to pespect the resolutions of UN. This is how International relations work, you obey some thing and then you expect the other party to obey it. That ofcourse did not happen in 1948. Now when ever an international obligation is broken it becomes weak and its effectiveness becomes less important for people. The truth is that the problem of Kashmir should be solved be the international law but like a judge and keeping in mind the estoples created in the history.
Saghir Mehar
Sialkot
Pakistan - Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 2:43 pm
I suggest our scholars in Islam to go through their Law of Hadaibiya in respect of breaking treaties and obligations with pagans and infidels. So as to make war on them whenever they find themselves strong enough to do so.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Wednesday June 26, 2002 at 9:19 am
Mr Kumar, it is extremely shameful that you are talking about Islam without any knowledge about it.If you study the Hudaibiya agreement you will see that our Holy Prophet(may peace be upon him) was the first one to fulfill the obligations arising out of contracts and promises; and made it a precedent for all times to come ,eventhough he was at the helm of affairs.Islam cares for non muslims more than any other religion,if somebody is presenting a wrong picture of it then he is not clearly following the teachings of Islam.So,kindly abstain from misleading others just for the sake of your Hindu vested interests.I was really impressed by the comments of few writers who gave their views in a very impartial manner but again it was unfortunate that they are being misled by someone.Dear readers there are million dollar questionS that: WHY INDIA IS NOT LETTING THE UN OBSERVERS TO MONITOR THE LINE OF CONTROL IN KASHMIR;WHY IS IT NOT HOLDING A PLEBISCITE THERE ;WHY IS IT CONTINUOUSLY DEFAMING PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS MEDIA.ANSWER:JUST BECAUSE AFTER THE WAR ON TERROR,PAKISTAN GAINED INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AND SINCE IT WAS TERMED AS A FRONT LINE STATE AND WAS MOVING ON TO THE ROAD TO PROSPERITY AS A MODERN & MODERATE ISLAMIC STATE;WHICH INDIA COULDN'T DIGEST!!!!.We are continuously asking india to come on to the negotiating table but God knows why india is declining to do so.Well about the RAW; certainly it is carrying on terrorist attacks in pakistan for the only reason that pakistan should loss the support of international coalition.Again i request the respected writer to abstain from commenting on any religion without having an adequate knowlege of it ;and also be friendly,we are not here to fight but to discuss one of the most important issue regarding the future of two nations.
KASHIF MALIK
ISLAMABAD
PAKISTAN - Wednesday June 26, 2002 at 9:52 am
I am indeed thankful that I am corrected!. Please preach that in your Madrasas. The world shall be extremely thankful if you do care for Non muslims - that is all that Pagans and Infidels of the world want. I also add, that may that tolerance be practiced by all religions of the world. It was not my intention to talk about Islam. But if it affects me in my own belief as a pagan or whatever freedom of thought and belief I have or prefer to have, don't I need to know my position or at least clarified in respect of that tenet?. Incidently, I hold no brief for Hindus too. I reject portions of the Gita regarding caste .which have been subesequently interpolated. Krishna himself was yadava how can he talk of caste?. So you see, I am now defaming Hinduism. This has been done from time immemorial not only be me, but by varioius reformers. But one does not hear of violent reactions to reform for religious tenets in India. But can Islam tolerate criticism? without going into a fit of rage?.
Kumar Sam
New York
USA - Wednesday June 26, 2002 at 1:31 pm
I am closing all discussions from my side considering that others should have the opportunity to voice their opinion. However, I have the following refrain to be said about the 21st century ethos. I do hope readers across the world will not frame me as a Hindu or this or that by the following statement: "The right of free will and freedom to practise any form of belief is an inalienable right of Man. There are no condescensions or kindnesses involved in entertaining this fundamental right. Any state action or behaviour abrogating this right is to be termed Internationally as "Religious rights subjugation" - however exalted the source of that religion, its proponents or their texts may be" I do hope that International law can reach this position, as a point of reference in its dealings with states.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Wednesday June 26, 2002 at 3:18 pm
The rights of Muslims who die every day in Kashmir can not just be hidden behind any wall. To respect the lives of others is more important then many other things. For the rights which are vested in Kashmires i.e plebiscite can not just be scrubbed under the rug. As I have said before that international law losses its force when its obligations are not respected. Whenever one party breaches the agreement it leaves the space for the other party to react. Some people have their eyes on Kashmirs that they are using succide missions but they are ignoring the other part of the picture and that is the every day killings of Kashmirs. Who is responsible for that. Mr. Malik has raised very gunuine Questions which need to be answered yet. To keep the people of kashmir silent India is using very shameful techniques.
Saghir Mehar
Sialkot
Pakistan - Thursday June 27, 2002 at 4:37 am
If I understood Kumar correctly, he said that some of the non-Muslim population has been driven out of Kashmir, so it wouldn't reflect the genuine will of the Kashmiris, if the plebiscite were held now. Also, a plebiscite that would lead to a separate state would incite separatism inside India, which it could clearly not afford, being a multiethnic state. On the other hand, India has accepted the special status of Kashmir in 1948. It is not a part of India like any other. So it cannot refuse the UN observers to monitor the line of control. However, let's get the chronology right. This was in 1948, and the Indian statements of intention are not necessarily valid. There is a back door in international law called "rebus sic stantibus", which means that an obligation binds only if the circumstances remain the same. I don't know if that applies here. Further, the trouble in Kashmir stems from the time of the war on terror and the ensuing Pakistani popularity. As to RAW (Research and Analysis Wing), the secret service of India, this was the first time I heard of the conspiracy theories concerning it. More often the conspiracy theories concern Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday June 27, 2002 at 2:42 pm
We have two things in front of us firstly to let those innocent people die in Kashmir and secondly to do some thing about it. I believe "rebus sic stantibus", does not applies here because situation is much like that of 1948. If East Timor can get independance then Kashmir can as well and with the concent of Kashmiri people. I think India is trying to change theses circumstances by force and to show that plebiscite can not be conducted now. As I have already said that people are more important then any thin else in the world and then again majority is more important then individual. The case in Kashmir is that of the majority. It is very easy for some states to make agreements so as to put every thing in the freezer and to let the time pass to apply the principle of "rebus sic stantibus". If we want to see the International law in a place from where it can be obeyed by all nations and for the sake of peace then we should start to respect international obligations insted of just using them as a get away.
Saghir Mehar
Sialkot
Pakistan - Friday June 28, 2002 at 5:13 am
East Timor was a former Portuguese colony, which Portugal and pretty much everybody had forgotten about and which the Indonesian army took it over. I don't understand in what respect the two cases are supposed to be similar. India has held a firm grip on Kashmir. And that seems to be the problem. Back to the issue of "rebus sic stantibus". Why should the line of control be monitored by UN observers? It was a line of control, not a peace treaty, and every such preliminary agreement is by definition subject to change. As Tipu Salman Makhdoom mentions in this article, "the Kashmir issue has never been resolved through negotiations". That means that the parties have no mutual obligations. So "rebus sic stantibus" would seem to apply. And let's not forget that it was India that took the Kashmiri question to the UN. It is my understanding the UN hasn't taken a position against India concerning Kashmir. Pakistan raised the issue in the UN again and again, but that is not the same thing as getting the UN oppose the Indian rule. It is telling that these pleas come from Pakistan, to which the matter belongs even less than to India. So I think if India had broken the UN rules, it should have been the UN's business to respond. The fact that India took the matter to the UN only demonstrates that India think it is up to the UN to decide, not Pakistan. If the UN has remain silent, this should show all the more that the "rebus sic stantibus" applies. As to the loss of human life, what I have gathered from this discussion is that the Muslims decided to stay in Kashmir in face of Indian oppression, whereas the Hindus decided to leave Kashmir in face of the Muslim oppression. Even then, is the Indian army not composed of Muslims too, in which case it would be a misrepresentation that the conflict is about sectarian violence from the Indian side.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday June 28, 2002 at 9:46 am
May I add two Presidents of India, one incumbent (who also is India's equivalent of Godard in Missile development & a scholar), Ambassadors to the United states, Cricket captains, Film stars, Poets and countless public positions small and big- have been held by Indian Muslims. Can we see the same record in Pakistan?. I sincerely wish that Pakistan could present such a portfolio of its religious Minorities. Also in the face of even a slight hint of violence, civilians will flee with families. Such exodus cannot be reversed by democratic governments. There is nothing like a forcible relocation of peoples (like what happened in Tibet). India could have done this in Kashmir - had it not been the fact that it is a democracy. On the other hand Militants have no such problems. Consequently there is no problems for asking for Plebiscites in the face of such irreversible departures by the civilian population - and a ripening of the situation, considering that a time bound sytematic plan of terrorism was operational towards such an end.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Monday July 01, 2002 at 6:35 am
Maybe the central passage, and the primary source of confusion, in the article by Tipu Salman Makhdoom is the following: "With the Maharaja losing control over his state, he signed an Instrument of Accession to the Indian Union in October 1947. On 27th of October, 1947, the Indian army entered Kashmir. Pakistan responded, and localized warfare between India and Pakistan continued during 1948." So eventually Kashmir jined the Indian Union. As far as I know, that means it is an integral part of India! The Maharaja's dithering about Kashmir staying independent doesn't count as soon as he signed the accession instrument. It was to be expected that the Indian Army "entered Kashmir". That was no occupation. So Pakistan may take too much credit when it says it "responded". It wasn't their business to respond, because there was nothing to respond to. The Indian Army has the right to take control of an integral part of the Indian territory. Sure, India took the matter to the Security Council, but does that make the later Line of Control an internationally enforceable line? India and Pakistan defined it among themselves. It seems that Pakistan is the aggressor here, and the question is why India accepted the line of control. Anyway, it doesn't seem obliged to allow international monitors on that line, because that would be tantamount to recognizing the line as an international border. Maybe accepting the line of control was a move to let India off the hook because it didn't want to organize the plebiscite. It had promised the plebiscite before the armistice, and it seems too much to ask to yield to the armistice and organize the plebiscite.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday July 01, 2002 at 10:09 am
Mr Jari, I understand that this is a Kashmir discussion. In this internet, information age - a progressive world economy has better things to do beside being preoccupied by border line disputes. The ideal would be to put border line disputes in the back burner and think of constructive world integration in trade and commerce. Towards this end. I would suggest that International Law and the International community take an "As is where is policy" to all land disputes and pay attention only to bringing peace and order. On the other hand Religions all over the world must take a tolerant view of others beliefs - this is a very fundemental requirement. The statement of General Musharaff categorizing Osama Bin Laden as "a dangerous Religious terrosts" is a welcome announcement, in that direction. Let moderates in every religion speak out in public and condemn events such as Sept 11th or any such happening anywhere. This will make an atmosphere congenial not only for others beliefs but also for their own. Can we hear such positive messages on this website?.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Tuesday July 02, 2002 at 4:07 am
Peace is by no means independent of settling the border disputes. The Indian principles of Pancha Shila were applied to international relations for the first time in the Treaty on Trade and Borders between China and India in 1954. Pancha Shila is normally associated to Buddhism. When applied to international relations, the first of the five principles is "Mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty". In the Bandung Conference in 1955 they listed ten such principles, and territorial integrity was still number 2. It was even repeated in connection of the use of force in principle number 7. The point is that the respect for territorial integrity is the foundation of peace. What we have in Kashmir is not a border dispute, in case I have understood correctly, but a case of non-respect of territorial integrity. The Line of Control is not an international border. The demarcation of the Line of Control may be in dispute, but the border of Kashmir should not be in dispute. So what we have here is, if my interpretation is correct, non-respect of territorial integrity, not a border dispute. But your point illustrates that getting the legal niceties in order is not contrary to achieving peace. You even use the expression "peace and order".
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday July 02, 2002 at 10:07 am
Dear Mr Jari. It appears that the Kashmir discussion has come to a close on the Jurist site. There is not much we can discuss considering that both of us are on the same side of the fence. What I am visualizing is a more borderless traffic of lawful commerce - wherein even Nationalism would take a back seat (let alone religious anacronisms). This is going to be truly the case in the future - considering the emergence of the Mulitnational Corporate entity and global requirement of goods and services. Even a country like the United States would like an expansion of the markets. Borders would be only in the Historical context and merely symbolic of a region. Religion (I mean every kind of religion) seems to a prisoner of time - unable to keep up with this onward march of civilizations. New paradigms are to be developed to deal with this. HOwever, countries like CHina (Nationalism) and some other fixated religious countries seem to insist that this is not so - hence the trouble.
kumar Sam
NY
USA - Friday July 05, 2002 at 4:18 am
The answer cannot be that simple. If you haven't read the article by Tipu Salman Makhdoom on the Kashmir history, please do so. It can be viewed at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issues/kashmirback.htm . Before the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession to the Indian Union in October 1947, "elections were held in Kashmir in 1947, ... in which a political party called the Muslim Conference won all the seats and decided to join Pakistan". Is this true? Did the Hindus of Kashmir vote at all, if the Muslim Conference won all the seats? If it is true, we might see what the problem is. We have the word of the population against the word of the Maharaja. Which should prevail? I think the correct legal answer would be the word of the Maharaja, but you see the Pakistani point of view. On the other hand, there are two contradicting demands on the Pakistani side: 1) the line of control should be internationally monitored, and 2) there should be a plebiscite in the whole of Kashmir. How can the whole of Kashmir hold a plebiscite, when Kashmir is divided in two? the demand that India organize a plebiscite would mean that India is the legal sovereign over the whole of Kashmir. In that case, the Pakistani rule would be illegal. I gather that the UN has only accepted the plebiscite, not the line of control. In that case, too, the plebiscite would erode the legitimacy of the line of control.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday July 05, 2002 at 9:33 am
Mr Jari, I will also go through the article by Maqdoom. But pleae do consider also another more impracticable geographical condition - if the Kashmir valley as a whole is given away to Pakistan. The Hindu populated (We are forced to use such innocuous terms, thanks to the Pakistani's) Jammu and the Tibetian Lahdak (would be cut off) from the main stream of India. What are we to tell them secede to Islamists because it is more practical?. In any case, as I already informed you - once the International community gives in to divisions on the basis of religions - the juggernaut of complaint, terror, International brotherhood in terror and effectuating separate statehoods in that order continues endlessly. The world has to recognize that belief and religion is strictly a private affair of individuals. When an entire mass of people are mobilized to enforce that particular belief on others they would be as one would term it "Religious subjugation states". The international community must respect the "Individual and his freedom of thought and belief". This is very necessary to preserve freedom. But am I being vague in my requirement?. I would love to be contradicted.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Friday July 05, 2002 at 11:39 am
Mr Jari, I just went through the article. The principle contention of the claim to Kashmir are two fold: 1. Five hundred years of Muslim rule I gather, from 13th century to 1819. 2. Muslim vote to be a part of Pakistan as an Islamic state. Regarding the first, he admittedly affirms that the Maharaja controlled Kashmir between 1817 to 1947. Two questions arise: 1. what was the nature of the control over these alleged 500 years. I am not aware but is it Mongoloid under Chengiz Khan or Timur?. Was there a civilization - did art and commerce flourish in that region at that time. I wish to be enlightened. 2. How was the reign of the Maharaja as between 1819 to 1947 - almost an 128 years rule. Was it peaceful?. If so was the creation of revolt from India topical only to 1947? - a flash in the Pan?. Other similar questions: (1) Why did India go to the UN?. Was it possible that the immediate post independence army on both sides of the fence - were really not fighting a military battle, because both sides were manned with British officers?. (2) Who were these pashtuns? How organised were they?. Where they marauders like CHengiz Kahn. Historically battles are fought not by civilians but by armed marauders - which then put on a religious garb (Legitimately or illegitimately). (3) The British (of that period) have a little explaining to do as to their position at that time. Surely there commanders knew what was happening?. Was there an element free will among the Kashmiris or where they surrounded by an alleged relgious military commander. (4) If there was an armed revolt even at that time. Such election held under such conditions are unacceptable - both as on today as also in the past - for lack of "proper free will atmosphere".
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Friday July 05, 2002 at 1:06 pm
Mr Jari the reference by Mr Maqdoom about Pashtuns in the 18th century does not appear very flattering. It is an era of Rapine and extortion on Kashmir by Mohd shah durrani,a marauder (or this OK) The people of Kashmir finally being liberated by Maharaja Ranjit singh (a sikh) who handed Kashmir over to a local Hindu chieftain. Earlier to this dark period(of Durrani) seems to have been an integration of Sufi and Hindu faiths. In fact both faiths seem to have had gurus from the other religion. One such gurus to a Muslim saint,seems to have a been a woman!. I wonder if we can see this today!. Which is the Kashmir Maqdoom is talking about, surely not the more recent Rapine of Mohd Shah?. Or is this praiseworthy if done to another religion?. ALso taxing other religions merely for keeping other faiths seems be OK in Muslim history.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Saturday July 06, 2002 at 12:34 am
I am a South East Asian, and a religious person. Yes, it distresses me to see that some of us, human beings, cannot or are not allowed to live in peace and focus on more important issues like trade, which will improve ‘material’ living standards and bring prosperity. Spiritual improvement is up the individual, and given that society comprises millions and billions of individual, the collective result of these individual standards, will complement society’s spiritual improvement in addition to their improved material living standards. Across the globe where once there were many wars in Europe, and even 2 major world wars starting from there, the Europeans have now forged a common currency this year to strengthen their economies as a bloc. In Africa, with a land mass of Europe, China, USA combined and a population of 880 million, they survive on 0.5% of the world trade with high rates of HIV(AIDS). They too have their ethnic wars. They too are the poorest continent ! Technology is moving at a fast pace, and it is now globalised through the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation 1995, where then 120 countries are members and today 144 countries are members of which 75% are developing countries. Look within ourselves, as Asians and Africans, and seek to find and implement ways to improve the conditions of our people and nations, in whatever ways our station of life permits, instead of fighting with each other and spending huge sums on defence and military that could be better spent on development. Religion carries deep emotional and spiritual overtones, and the intrinsic matrix of Islam that somehow leads a believer to desire and need to create an Islamic state, is likely to lead to clashes. There are 56 Islamic states in the Organisation of Islamic Conference, and if this current trend to create an Islamic state persists, as it is likely to, then secularism will take a back seat a bit, if the kind of Islamic state is more fundamentalist, and less of a back seat if the Islamic state is more liberal and progressive. In USA, when the atheist father took the case to US court to remove the word ‘under God’ from the American pledge of allegiance from being recited each morning in US public schools and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal by 2:1 majority decision agreed with the US atheist (case for his daughter attending school) to remove the word ‘under God’ from the Pledge, there was a strong emotional response from the Congress and the public. This lead to suggestions that Bush said, ‘US judges appointed should share the belief that there is a universal God.’ As humans, there is a need and necessity for religion for the larger segment of the world, whatever be the religion, monotheist (Christianity, Islam, Bahai Faith , etc), polytheist (Hindusim, etc) non theist (Buddhism, Taoism, ect) ..etc , whether for meaning and purpose of life, metaphysical security for after life, etc … but when religion enters public realm, it inevitably carries seeds of differences which when mix with other issues of politics, economics, etc… tend to give rise to severe conflict. While I think the way of the future in centuries to come, will be secularism, with religion relegated to the private realm, the day, will be at least five or more centuries to come, when we as humans, are ready for that kind of secularism. Till then it is likely they will be more wars between parties and countries of different religion, and maybe even a major World War III! Thus to the Muslims and Hindus, People of India and Pakistan, I hope you will rise to face the challenges of globalisation. There are 192 nation states with 189 of them in the United Nations. There was a survey done of the significant economies of the world. It was found that, based on trade and competitiveness, there were only 49 significant economies. In terms of GDP (overall productiveity), USA topped the list and India ranked 12 while Pakistan did not rank within the 49 significant economies. I am from Malaysia and we ranked 37 and our neighbour Singapore ranked 38. Philippines ranked 40, Thailand ranked 33 and Indonesia ranked 28. However in terms of the overall competitiveness (as a good place do business) Singapore ranked 5 and Malaysia ranked 26, with Phillipines 40 and India 42. Pakistan was not ranked. Where India is a big continent with huge talent and much resources, what does she lack that prevents her from ranking higher? Where Pakistan is an important member of South Asia and with also good talent, and much resources, why is it not ranked within the 49 significant economies. Material development as well as spiritual development complement each other and both are important, and if wars are needlessly fought, whether in the battle field or harboured in one’s mind and heart, the space for material development is impeded and may be even too spiritual development. I wish all Indians, Pakistans, Hindus and Muslims well and the very best and better ranking in the years ahead of the significant economies in the world, as too I wish all African states.
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Saturday July 06, 2002 at 3:53 am
I have a suggestion for Mr. Kumar Sam, Hindu, of USA (New York) Given the huge sums spent by either side on conflict in Kashmir, can Pakistan say to India (Kashmir included) that we will let you alone and together work for peace and development, but India must give greater aid to Kashmir to help rebuild it to the level as found at the more developed parts of India. Pakistan would have done their best for the majority Muslims in Kashmir by ensuring they have a good life and peace and also peace with other religionists and India as a whole. India would have saved lots of money and Pakistan too (more so as a % of GDP since their economy is small and thus similar expenditure as India will cost more dearly to Pakistan) I know that such a novel idea will not take root in minds burning with revenge for the numerous casualties from 1947 todate, but if people can think like that, and if the numbers increase, maybe then, there will be peace and development. Of what use is it to have nuclear power to kill each other, when the people are lacking behind global development? Any nuclear war will cause greater damage to Kashmir as they are small compared to the whole of India . How is Kashmir’s majority Muslims helped? Cooperation is better than conflict in South Asia. The issue of right and wrong, is also complex as seen across the continent where Palestinians and Israel have a conflict of 50 years on borders, with no end in sight, given the many other complex factors around it. Meanwhile USD 3 billlion that went to aid Palestinians’ development around early 1990’s has not shown any improvement in living standards and in fact per capita income of Palestinians have decreased as compared to before USD 3 billion was pumped in!
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Monday July 08, 2002 at 10:27 am
Mr Yi Ling Lu, I am glad that there are significant people in the world and delighted that it comes from Asia that think of Commerce as priority rather than religion. There was never any doubt of this in any civilized country. But the issue is religious intolerance above all else that the world is contending with. In that context any religion that preaches that other religions (or even a difference of opinion within that religion) - should be put down by the sword, needs to be recognized as such. We shall indeed by naive if such propensities are not recoginized in time as an abrogation of fundemental right - akin to Nazism, communism in its dictatorial form, racism etc. Equating freedom with religious bigotry has become politically correct. The buck needs to stop somewhere. India has to invest in security for fear that religious bigotry may take over (As it has happened in Kashmir). I do not believe HInduism, Jainism, Sikhism or the many parts that constitute that firmament(whch includes atheism) - ever wanted to convert anyone to their belief. This cannot be said of the rest of the religions. It is right that Palestinians are aided USD 3 Billion for a population and land area vastly less than say India. WHy should they work towards commerce when conflict is so nice and religious?. In contrast the aid to India under secular conditions is only 250 Million are so. Perhaps some emabargo on trade such as in the form of Child labour exploitation etc - is the status India deserves. Also the world community sees Pakistan(An Islamic state) and India (Secular constitution) in equal footing or even perhaps slightly favourable sometimes!. Justice Indeed!.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Monday July 08, 2002 at 1:38 pm
Kumar Sam, Can it be that the West had several centuries of religious domination over all aspects of their life, before they realized the benefit and necessity of separating the Church from the State? Personally I do not put commerce as a priority over religion. Where I can, I put them on the same footing, as one deals with material development and the other spiritual development. At the same time, I recognize that commerce can uplift standard of living where in Africa there is abject poverty, i.e. defined as when too many persons live on less than USD 1.00 a day. I guess religious leaders mean well, but I wonder if it is humans that are not up those exhortations of ideals? In the golden age of Islam, it appears that mosques were centers of learning and the faithful heard lectures of science, arts, literature. The quest for learning and knowledge was strong and powerful, but I note that it seems now two thirds of all Ph.Ds in Saudi Arabia are in Islamic studies with few in medicine and engineering. I personally think if a nation or a people wants roads, highways, piped water, electrical items, TV sets, videos, cars, air conditioning, than they want technological development which then requires them to master science and technology and implement an industrialization programme. That requires degrees in science and technology and Ph.D.s too in science and technology. It seems trite, but 2/3 Ph.Ds in religious studies will not provide the society the means to successfully implement an industrialization programme. However if a people or a nation is prepared to forego the roads, highways, piped water, electrical items, TV sets, videos, cars, air conditioning, for spiritual development with no material technological development, then they do not need many degrees in science and technology nor many Ph.D.s too in science and technology. It is noted that society is not homogenous, and even if the masses want prepared to forego the roads, highways, piped water, electrical items, TV sets, videos, cars, air conditioning, for spiritual development, the elites might not agree. What then? I think if nations spend less on defence and more on development, and religious people recognize the only way to ‘electrical items, TV sets, videos, cars, air conditioning’ (that is if they want it or need it) is more degrees in science and technology, then the issue of religion would have attained its proper place of moral and spiritual upliftment with scientific enquiry and material and technological progress. Whether it is modern secular state like Turkey holding duo membership of EU and OIC: European Union & Organisation of Islamic Conference, or modern Islamic state which is not secular, or any variants, this distinction would serve all well. Lastly I am a female, so I get extra credit for being female too, besides being an Asian ? Incidentally I wonder if India with a large land mass, more people, more resources and lots of brains could have done better if they had globalised earlier and faster than be a late entrant to this development. This is not a case of who is better, but an argument that wherever we are, we could try to see where we can develop better and faster and improve the standard of material and moral or spiritual development of our people AND, OF OTHERS TOO. Ms. Lu Yi Ling (surname 'Lu', written Chinese style, surname last as opposed to Western style)
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Monday July 08, 2002 at 2:42 pm
Ms Lu Yi Ling. Sorry about my gaffee of not recognizing you as a woman!. What you say is undisputed but the real equation in the 21st century is that the table are now turned againgst all religions considering that they have to now face the inquisition anvil from science and reason. Every statement they ( the so called religious)make are being questioned. Galilio was recognized only in 1998 or So!!!!. What you are referring to is the Arabic world which invented Algebra, shippping etc (Probably the pagan world) - this is not invention through Islam. I challenge anyone to give me an Islamic inventor as such. Of course if the argument is stretched that Islam existed even before Mohammed and Napolean, Alexander, Gandhi, Jefferson etc etc were all Islamic - what can be said. SImilarly there are no christian or jewish inventors. Most inventions came from free thinkers. SOmehow the world religions got divorced from materiality, may I also say "life" as such. This has specially been so with India - hence the delay in their creativity.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Monday July 08, 2002 at 11:40 pm
Dear Kumar Sam, You refer to 3 monotheist religions and cast your net it refers to ‘all’ religions. That may not be so, but that is your quest (if you wish to publicly assert it applies to ‘all’, as my thinking is that he who asserts publicly should do some homework before any grey or unknown area , if he makes a public assertion). I will only confine myself to the queries your last posting, and no other posting, for various reasons, one of which is that the theme here in the board is international law and Pakistan and India conflict. I began with a sincere query to you, whether there is a workable plan for peace, in South Asia, international law aside. That has been side stepped and I would conclude, it is not feasible to your reckoning. That’s OK too. It was just a non South Asian concern for South Asian. On the first issue of inventions in Islam, during the Golden Age of Islam between 750-950, there were several inventions. Some of them are , inter alia, the development of algebra after the introduction of ‘Arabic Numerals” from India, with the use of the Greek’s discovery of Algebra, for different purpose, the introduction of sinc arc in trigonometry, discovery of the tangent, the Pendulum by Ibn Yunus, the first watch by Kutbi, the Mariner’s Compass, Photography by Ibn al-Hashem, an instrument through which sunken ship would be raised, Manufacturing of first soap, first windmill, making glass from stone. On the second issue of inventions and science in Christianity, today there are 2 astronomical observatories of the Roman Catholic Church, one in Italy and the other in USA (Arizona, Tucson). You could consider visiting it. It engages many Catholic priests who are cosmologists, scientists. The first observatory was set up in 1891, to show that the Church and her pastors are not opposed to true science. While many of the founders of modern science in Europe are not priests and a few are, it is worth noting the comments of Isaac Newton , in his world famous, the Principles, ‘The most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being… This Being governs all things not as the soul of the world but as Lord over all and on account of his dominion, he is wont to be called Lord God.” Gregor Johann Mendel , a monk, and his green garden peas on modern genetics in the 1800’s discovered heredity . His work on Queen Bees was lost. During the Dark Ages, the Church in Europe preserved learning and books, which were utilized in the period of great learning after, that then paved the way for modern science. The Islamic civilization, collected and translated great ancient Greek works (lost to Europe) and during and after the Crusades, these treasures were then made available to the West again. While there is no ideal situation in any thing or in anywhere, in this human real world, it just spurs us to strive to better things for our fellow human beings, whether Hindus, Muslims, Bahais, Christians, polytheists, non theists, animists, atheists, agnostics, existentialists, humanists, others; we should also pay appropriate contribution to the inherited and transmitted legacies of our (world) past rich civilization, and culture, as well as pay heed to the current rich legacies of science and technology. Where we stand today, is a culmination of many things of the past, from many places and many people, rich ancient Tamil civilization in Indian continent included, even as we trace the humble origins of human ancestry to Africa, though today as we know, it is regrettably, the poorest continent in the world. Yi Ling
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 3:05 am
Dear Kumar Sam, NY, USA, Most analysts would attribute India’s slower growth, post independence, as compared to other faster growing developing countries, who have become middle income or developed nations, to reasons of economic policies than religion. The Hindu caste system in India is also a factor, but a lesser factor. While the caste system was useful once long ago, today it has outlived its usefulness but continues to affect India’s development. One day the caste system will go away when the people of India are ready. It has been said that India’s ‘closed door’ economy policies and disinclination to ‘free trade, until recently when she gradually had a more economy, is a larger reason for her lack of growth. Her better growth of recent years has been attributed largely to her recent more open economy. For visitors to India more than 1-2 decades ago, there was only the Indian cars as India wanted to develop her own car industry. Thus imported cars were rarely seen on Indian roads. This means there was restricted ‘trade in cars’. Visitors to India today see a wide array of imported cars or foreign model cars. There is now freer trade in cars. In others more free trade in India today. That is the key. India having signed the GATT 1994 and becoming a member of WTO 1995 has committed to more free trade in several areas, in goods, in services, trade related intellectual property rights, etc. This has been heralded as the opening of India’s economy with more development. Indian creativity is never in doubt. The number of Indian engineers and computer scientists , in US Silicon Valley, Europe and elsewhere. However in the past India chose to set up her own industries without much reliance on the established players. The car industry is one of the example. This shows that it is not so much the issue of religion but the issue of choice of economic policies that delayed India’s growth in the past and accelerates it now . Hopefully these gains will not be set off by expensive and destructive conflicts with Pakistan or internally in Kashmir. The rest of the world is busy with building up their economy and forming regional economic groups. Where once Europe was the land of many wars, the Luxembourg man who mooted the idea of a common currency 42 years ago has seen the use of the common currency Euro in the European Union. In South East Asia, the Asean Free Trade will be going for implementation by 2003 for original 6 members and extended date for new members like Vietnam etc . This is so, in Africa, North & South America. … Therefore I hope that Pakistan and India will cooperate economically , just as others are, so that they can develop better as a collective of neighbouring states, just as India and Pakistan are neighbours. To survive and compete alone is harder and thus worldwide there are ‘regional trading arrangements’ If India forges one with Pakistan and bury their differences, they will catch up faster with other regional trading arrangements/groups. The Indians living abroad especially in USA, can play a significant role to assist in this global trend of regional trading arrangements as they have seen the impact of NAFTA . Yi Ling
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 4:12 am
Maybe poverty gives rise to religious fanaticism. This is how the Muslim struggle in the Philippines has been portrayed. However, what Ms Lu said about two thirds of the PhD's in Saudi Arabia being done in Islamic studies should show that the Muslim resurgence is not connected to poverty. What we see in the Balkans is Saudi Arabia linking the financial aid to accepting the Islamic religion. So in a way fanaticism is linked to poverty, but the poorest regions are a mission field for the more affluent Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. The goal is establishing fundamentalist Muslim states, so Ms Lu's hope of a personalized religion doesn't seem to be in the offing.I thank Mr Kumar Sam for his comments on the article. Basically, I agree with everything that was put forward. I agree that holding a plebiscite in the midst of an armed struggle is unacceptable. I can accept the armed conflict as a reason India went to the UN in the first place. I can also accept the view that a big part of the problem stems from the British mismanagement. I accept the negative characterization of the Pashtun rule. I can accept the argument that Kashmir independence would trigger similar movements in Jammu and Ladakh.
I am still wondering about the international status of the line of control. Has it ever been monitored by international observers?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 7:01 am
Dear Jari Nousiainen, Finland. Personally, I think that secularism, with a strict divide between religion and the state is good, and conduces to progress and development, but as I also stated in my earlier posting in this board, if you could refer to it and the context in which it was written; but the pertinent conclusion I made is this “…While I think the way of the future in centuries to come, will be secularism, with religion relegated to the private realm, the day, will be at least five or more centuries to come, when we as humans, are ready for that kind of secularism. Till then it is likely they will be more wars between parties and countries of different religion, and maybe even a major World War III! Thus to the Muslims and Hindus, People of India and Pakistan, I hope you will rise to face the challenges of globalisation….” I recognise the ground realities that this is not an ideal possible currently, but hopefully maybe in FIVE CENTURIES or more ! In Malaysia a federation of 13 states, one of states, Trengganu has passed a bill yesterday (yesterday here was 7 July 2002, Sunday, as per Islamic style, is a working day as Friday is the Muslims’ holy day of the week, and not Sunday in the West. However many other states in Malaysia follow Sunday as the whole off day) in the state legislature for Islamic criminal law to apply to Muslims and indicated that eventually it will apply to Non Muslims when all non Muslims in Trengganu have understood and can accept it. The Federal Government says that the Trengganu state law on Hudud (Islamic criminal law) is unconstitutional as criminal law is the domain of Federal enactments. There is a case pending before the civil court, filed by a Muslim lawyer, on this constitutional issue, which has yet to be heard. The Federal Government says that, there is already a comprehensive criminal law code for all in the country. Coming from such a country, I therefore can say that I have ground understanding of the profound and complex difficulties and niceties involved to separate religion from the state, where Muslims constitute the majority as here, where they constitute about 51% of the population. Further recent developments in USA, after the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal decision (2:1) on deletion of the word, “under God” in the American Pledge of Allegiance, which was not in the original Pledge but only introduced during Mc Carthy’s time at the height of the Cold War with USSR, is daily recited children in USA public schools, with the US Executive expressions of concern of such developments (deletion of under God by US Judges) and suggestion of appointment only of Judges who share their belief in a Universal God, is also cause of additional concern from the global perspective. Though I personally hold it to be an ideal, for the nation’s progress and development, I recognize the complex and profound impediments, to secularism or the grave and serious/possible threats to secularism, whether here or elsewhere . This statement does not detract from the legacy of Islam to the world, especially Algebra, and Arithmetic. Most children in the West learn that their numbers are Arab figures, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and especially 0 (zero). One of the main contributions of Islamic civilization has truly been the transmission of the knowledge of the ancient Greeks (otherwise lost to the world) to the Europeans. Without the revival of the lost learning of the ancient Greek, I am inclined to think the progress in Europe might either have not taken off or been very much delayed. It was Europe’s building on the ancient Greek collective treasure and wisdom that greatly aided Europe’s Renaissance and development . Nor does the statement on serious/possible threats to secularism detract from USA’s contribution to science and technology, nor does it infer that USA is not a secular state. Yi Ling
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 9:42 am
Ms Lu. I want your suggestion how the modern world (Not even other religions) has to adjust to the following in a religion: (1) Division of the world in to Al ARab and Al Haram ( Good and evil! ) (2) DOes not reform over time (3) Binds and dehumanizes women as chattels worth only the money prize of their bodies (Nikkah) (4) Does not allow women into secular schools (5) Actively teaches Jihad to convert Al Haram to Al Arab by the sword (6) Its founder himself apart from other things was a religious commander (and perhaps an example to others to do so??) (7) Taxing other religions is acceptable taking into account Al Haram and Al Harab (8) Women who are taken captive in such Jihads are fair game. (9) WOmen are to cover their bodies head to foot throughout their earthly lives (10) WOmen could be divorced merely by three words with no other say accept taking their dower. Five Women can be taken as wives at any given time. (11) Treaties could be broken when convenient. Treaty of Hudaibiya was broken for a very lame excuse. You may contradict me on all of this. Do you frankly think that the mind such as the above really created the inventions that you are talking about? Inventions require breaking away from the normal. The inventors are independent of religious connections, mostly they have worked inspite of it. What about Darwin?. Darwin is not an Hypothesis but a theory. A theory is a much misunderstood misnomer. Theory in science means that there are proofs existing for that thinking - not to be confused with merely saying it. In any case why should Modern man put up with any religion that really does not conform to natures truths?. Contemporary Religion seems to be scorched by the stinging beams of Modern science. Can religions based on mere blind belief face the sunlight of tested truth?.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 10:04 am
Ms Lu, just as a further input. You will be amazed about how far man can get in the face of creative invention. The twentieth century is a glowing example of an age of invention never before in the History of Man. More revolution has been seen by the invention of the electric bulb rather than by any religious text, anywhere in history. I have full confidence that in this information age -Mankind will transcend any type of enslavement that has been kept in place only by sustained reigious propaganda and indoctrination. I mean all religions including the religion that is called Marxism.
Kumar SAm
NY
USA - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 10:30 am
I am also amazed that you have connected Mendels work to religion. IF at all he has some connection to Nazism and race (although mistakenly so). Perhaps he was a monk but His work has nothing to do with religion or religious texts. Unfortunately, written religious texts are little more rigid then that and are not very malleable for co opting inventions that are made independently.
Kumar SAm
NY
USA - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 12:36 pm
Ms Lu a further piece for the day. One of the most profound scientists of our age Albert Einstiein in his argument against the uncertainity principle of Hisenberg and others said "God does not play dice with the World". Perhaps for his Semetic mind Gods acts etc appeared to be a certainity. This prompted an immediate rebuke by another great scientist Niels Bohr who said to Einstein " Not to surmise about what God can and cannot do". It is perhaps tempting to associate Traditional religions with Physical laws. But these are merely interpolations -there has never been an objective connection of religious belief and Science. It has always been surmised Post facto - so that some of the credit could rub off on the clergy.
kumar Sam
NY
USA - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 2:01 pm
Dear Kumar Sam, I did not intend to respond, but I was concerned about how hostile feelings and perceptions add to increased conflict. For the sake of attempting to create a more friendly environment in our current classroom, which we call Planet Earth of the New Millineum, currently 2002; this then is my last considered reply on religion and modern science I would like to set the framework of my presentation. I think it is relevant to see things in the larger framework. Based on today’s given knowledge, the Universe began with the Big Bang about 15 Billion years ago. The Universe expanded and our Sun and planets came or were formed only about 4.5 Billion years ago. I now come to mankind’s or his predecessors entry. There is the hominid bone about 5 Million years ago, found in Africa, said to be the cradle of human civilisation. The famous “Lucy” bones were said to be about 3.2 Million years ago. Finally we have the Homo Sapiens came about 100,000 years ago. If we are to be amazed at the recent discoveries of modern science, we should also marvel at mankind’s fantastic and revolutionary discovery of fire around 700,000 years ago. Given today’s estimates that our Sun will be around for about another Few Billion years before she exhausts, it looks like we humans are going to be together on Planet Earth for a real long haul. Please, let us all, strap in our seatbelts. Looking at the major religions of the Planet Earth today, we have about 2 Billion Christians, 1.3 Billion Muslims, 900 Million Hindus, Secular/Non Religious/Agnostic/Atheists 850 Million, Buddhism 360 Million, Chinese Traditional Religion 225 Million, Primal-Indigenous 150 Million, African Traditional & Diasporic 95 Million, Sikhism 23 Million, Juche 19 Million, Spiritism 14 Million, Judaism 14 Million, Bahai 6 Million, Shinto 4 Million, Cao Dai 3 Million, Tenrikyo 2.4 Million, Neo Paganism 1 Million, Unitarian-Universalims 800 Thousand , Scientology 750 Thousand, Rastafarianism 700 Thousand, Zorastrianism 150 Thousand. In essence, our Muslim brothers and sisters constitute the 2nd largest religious grouping in today’s world. Muslims comprise 22% of the world’s population. The United Nations has estimated that the Muslim annual growth rate (1994-1995) was 6.4% while the Christian growth rate for the same period was 1.46%. This can only imply that, Islam will eventually become the largest religion in the world as it is the fastest growing. I put it to you, that 1.3 Billion people, extremists aside, in the world today and more in the future, do not see intrinsic and extrinsic value in their espoused faith. I should bring to your attention one famous French physician Dr. Maurice Bucaille who wrote “The Bible, The Quran and Science” who had favorable things to say of the religion, Islam and the Koran. He quoted from Sura 51 Verse 47, “The heaven, We have built it with power. We are expanding it.” He goes on to compare this with the recent cosmological conclusions that our Universe is an expanding Universe. The recent times have debunked the earlier Steady State Theory of the Universe in favour of the Expanding Universe. My point is that we have to live with each other on Planet Earth, and we should strive to see the good in others and help them, just as we would want that for ourselves of others. We should also look at the bigger picture and see that we humans and our modern science is just a small recent event in the time line of history of mankind. Given that the time of a Few Billion Years is still ahead, we do not know what beholds us and if other new discoveries will come forth and how nor even where or even from whom. Let us then accept our current modern science & technological achievements with pride as well as some humility. In the time scale of 15 Billion years, we have probably been around only for 1 second, if 15 Billion years is 24 hours. When we see this, does it not induce awe and humility in us as humans, when we look up at the sky at night and see the Universe? It does for me. So what major world religions say, might be wrong or incorrect in some ways by the measure of today’s scientific, historical and technological tools, but they too may be correct in some or even many ways that we are wrong in our limited human perception. If religion has no place, in today’s world, or in the past, why then are there more people who espouse some form of faith than others who do not. I end with stating that they must have some intrinsic as well as extrinsic value, and point towards an ideal way of life as an individual and as a community. That ideals are not always translated into practice in real life, is another question. Lastly, if as modern science says we have only used 3% of our brains, then who is going to discover the use of the next 3% remains to be seen. It follows who is going to discover the use of the rest of the brain 94% also remains to be seen. Is it today’s modern scientists? We do not know. Will it come from those who can do spiritual ‘miracles’ in their religion? We do not know. Let us therefore learn from each other and be proud of our achievements and be humble in our attitude towards others different from us. I rest my case. Lu Yi Ling (f)
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 3:11 pm
SOme HIndus say Missile technology as well as as atomic energy was invented/discovered by them. Stories from Mahabharata and Ramayana are replete with such weaponry, also aircraft. Oppenheimer recited the Baghavadgita during the first atomic test at Mexico. Are we supposed to believe in this also?. We have to separate fact from fiction. This is not a case of mutual respect. Science has always been humble as to its limits. Only Religion seems to have gone astray in terms of humility. I need not elaborate on History which bears proof of what I say. DOnt equate Science with religion. May be Science could have a relationship with spirituality which is altogther different.
Kumar Sam
Ny
USA - Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 7:56 pm
There is a major profund practical, metaphysical and spiritual difference between cyclical thoughts / framework/ worldviews and linear thoughts/ frameowrk/worldviews. Claims of cyclical religions (Hinduism/ Buddhism etc) requires proof through their pathways. Claims of linear religion, where the 'scientific' claims are made in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages can be established through current modern scientific, historical methods. A sincere seeker can verify the authenticity of the respective claims in the respective frameworks for themselves if they apply theiir efforts in the appropriate direction.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Wednesday July 10, 2002 at 1:43 am
Mr Kumar Sam, In case, my brief assertion is not fully grasped, and since the spirit of your query is a genuine one, which is also debated by Hindus, in the face of modernity, leading to your consequential rejection of the Muslim civilization claims of mathematical and scientific contribution / inventions during the Islamic Golden Age, based on your comparison and understanding of some Hindu claims to, ‘technological achievements of India’ within India’s great epics the Mahabarata and Ramayana, my full reply is as follows. It appears that where text states that, “Hanuman can fly in the air, make himself unbelievably large, warriors can shoot an arrow and make every one in the battle field lose their consciousness, build bridges across a vast ocean’, when India had not science and technology of that sort, gives you, Mr. Kumar, no option, but to rationally reject those as mere unfounded beliefs. Others have as a matter of faith believed it. Others too, for the record, have diligently, taken a third option, to use the spiritual (a form of ‘ancient science’ still available today) pathway within Hinduism to verify those truths, for themselves, given Hindu view of the cyclical view of time. Modern science as an offshoot of the European cultural milieu of the linear concept of time, cannot be used to establish truths of such cyclical views of thoughts and assertion, unless modern science develops further, if ever, in the direction of or discoveries of or on or relating to a cyclical view of time. It is said that there was an esoteric Christian school of thought and belief of such cyclical view of time pre dating 1500’s but it is said that at the Council of Trent, in Europe in the 1500’s, these cyclical views of time were pronounced as heretical and thus expunged from the official and accepted records of Christian thoughts and belief. This posting does not go into the merits of the case for or against cyclical view of time. It arises in the context of your comparison of some Hindu claims with majority Muslim claims. Further, I note that, there is a minority trend in the cosmological circle, that, maybe there is ‘evidence of time’ before the Big Bang. In other words, a possibility that ‘time’ may have started earlier i.e. before the current given , 15 Billion years ago. I understand work is under way even right now, and given that this is the Golden Age of Cosmology, it is possible that soon ( it does not intend to infer that ‘soon’ is 50 years or 100 years) we may have some cosmologists’ tentative findings, or hypothesis of the cyclical view of time, subject to cosmological proofs, which may then take longer, as has occurred for other cosmological hypothesis. This leaves open the question of whether there is ‘one and only’ Big Bang some 15 Billion years ago, or whether there have been ‘another’ Big Bang before this 15 Billion years ago Big Bang. For that matter it may also leave open the question whether, as those from the cyclical schools of thought may be predisposed to think and believe that, there could have been ‘numerous’ and /or ‘countless Big Bangs’ and /or ‘un-countable’ Big Bangs, besides the ‘one and only’ currently known Big Bang of 15 Billion years ago. Until modern science provides proof, if any, of the cyclical view of life, your current scientific expectation and/or requirement of modern science to prove the assertions of ‘technological developments and achievements’ as reported in the Indian great and monumental epic is not possible because modern science as it stands today has not yet found the tools, if any, to do so. However in the case of the Muslim claims, their claims can be verified or debunked, as the case may be, by a serious modern historical research and methodology. Some have traced those records, others have not. If the issue is important to you, then you could trace those historical records and verify it for yourself scientifically. In conclusion, to compare the two (2) claims on the same basis is not appropriate, nor relevant, as one can be verified by current historical and scientific methods but the other cannot be verified by current historical and scientific methods as explained above. Its value is that it intrinsically raises the question of a possible ‘cyclical view of time’ which has not yet entered modern scientific discourse. Whether it ever does or not, remains an open question for the future, given that our Sun could be around for another Few Billion years…. Good-bye and good day. I wish you well. Thank you. Lu Yi Ling (f)
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Wednesday July 10, 2002 at 9:30 am
Dear Yi Lung Lu. It is unfortunate that I am classified as Hindu this or that. I have no such personal inclination. I think you have not noted the sarcasm with which I mentioned the aspect of Missile technology in the epics Mahabharata etc. It is to be debunked not only in the Bharatvarsha but also in all religions where ever they exist. Romanticising religions is the origin and number one cause of trouble in the world today. "No proof no validity" should be the refrain. I request you to kindly avoid using the term Hindu view in referring to me!. This is what the Islamic do, in order to get out of a valid argument. It makes me look rather cheap in my own eyes. Not that I am deriding Hinduism - the classification is simply not true. I would be proud to be a free thinker unfettered by any notion present or past. I wish you well too and may you have a good day.
Kumar Sam
Ny
USA - Wednesday July 10, 2002 at 1:55 pm
Dear Kumar Sam. It is a case of genuine mistaken identity of your religion or ‘no religion’ as it turns out , based on my interpretation of your posting 26.6.2002 Wednesday at 9.52 a.m. While it is clear now you are an atheist, it did not come across to me that way at that posting. Further, based on my genuine interpretation of that, I had first referred to you as a ‘Hindu’ in my first call to you on 6.7.2002 Saturday at 3.53 a.m. in the first line, and you had not pointed out to me then that you are not a Hindu, and thus at your second last posting, 9.7.2002, I assumed then you were putting forth the views of ‘some Hindus’ . I read that as sincere nor sarcastic. Now that I hear from you that you are not a Hindu, I offer my sincere apologies. However if you felt defamed by the well intended explanation, it is your perception. On my part it was to assist to clarify ancient religious text with good intent as well as with much validity from my view. In assisting to clarify it, I learnt more of Hinduism and understood better the co-relation between Hinduism and Buddhism. I had privately noted to myself that your response on the purported discrepancies was indeed a benefit to me. Given the explanation above, I not only did not detect sarcasm, but took your assertion as a matter of good faith, that you were informing of some Hindus belief which you disagreed with. It is not an exception for people of faith to question or doubt certain parts of ancient text or to treat it not as literal truth but as mythical truth. There was no intention to defame you, and it comes as a surprise to me you feel this way. I also do not understand your statement that, ‘This is what the Islamic do, in order to get out of a valid argument’. Where appropriate I have gone to great length to address your questions. Thus that statement is odd or appears to be out of context. Thank you.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 2:36 am
It seems safe to say that international law doesn't help avert war between India and Pakistan. We have discussed other things, like whether Hanuman can fly and whether the Koran teaches expanding universe. These are very interesting questions, but they only go to show that the present conflict has nothing to do with international law, hence international law can do nothing to avert the war.I find it the height of arrogance to offer us a beatific vision of how good things will be 500 years from now, while the present havoc wrought by the Muslims all over the world is condoned. That sounds just as big a platitude as the cliche "Islam is peace", which we have learnt to expect every time the Muslims destroy something. What does it matter what will happen in 500 years? And probably it won't happen the way we expect, because the express purpose of the Muslim terrorists is to eliminate the separation of church and state, which is the basic ingredient of Ms Lu's beatific vision. I find it irresponsible to avoid tackling the problems here and now, speaking about Arabic numbers (which were not Islamic numbers, by the way) or separation of state and religion some time in the future, once the separation has been obliterated. The more beatific the vision, the more drastic the measures that are justified to achieve it. And then we hear that if someone else doesn't share the vision, he is having "hostile feelings". What hypocrisy.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 3:38 am
PART ONE : I start with the perplexing issue of the term Muslim and Christian inventions and Muslim and Christian inventors and what they mean or in what context they are being discussed. I would summarise the essence of the issue as, whether in the Golden Age of Islam or Islamic civilization (this phrase is noted to be a common phrase), new grounds were broken or advances were made to science and technology. I would say the answer is YES. The next question is why is it that in the modern day states where there are theocratic Islamic states, there is no repeat of the past glory of Islam. Here the divide lies and begins. It may also be that less was spent on defence and more spent on peaceful administration of the economy. I am inclined to think that some Muslims think that the implementation and set up of an Islamic state will lead Muslims to a resurgence of her past glory. However, if we were to examine the factors and circumstances surrounding the Golden Age of Islam, it may be possible to find the spirit of enquiry and search for knowledge was more prevalent then than currently. It may be the Islamic administrators encouraged facilitated and promoted rational thought in all fields of knowledge as is exhalted by the Koran. It may also be there was patronage for rational endeavours into rational enquiries with institutions of learning set up and funded for such explorations. If these factors, did indeed conduce to Arab Muslims and others residing within the realm of Islamic administration, then the environment was ripe for break throughs in or advances in science and technology. If the scientific advances ceased after the Golden Age of Islam, one may ask, what changed the supportive and conducive environment? One may also ask, how can Islamic theocratic states revive the supportive and conducive environment for break throughs in or advances in science and technology? The past glory is an indication of future possibilities, however the means and approach would be to create an environment that encourages and support development in science and technology. More Ph.Ds in science and technology would be more helpful than more Ph.Ds in Islamic studies. Only with a critical mass of degrees and Ph.Ds in science and technology can new inventions and breakthroughs come from Islamic states or states with Islamic majority. It is suggested that while some Muslims could trace the causes of the flourishing of knowledge in the Golden Age, others should examine, the factors that led to her decline, and others too could examine what factors are needed for society as whole to progress materially and scientifically. It is in this context, that the perplexing definition of Muslim inventions should be situated. That there were arithmetic and mathematical and scientific inventions or advances made during the era of the Islamic Golden Age, by people living within the Islamic administrative rule, majority of whom might have been Muslim, where there were favourable factors for the elite populace to engage in rational enquiries and discoveries. Some of the noted discoveries or advances were made by Arab Muslims, and in popular language these have been loosely termed Muslim inventions by Muslim inventors. PART TWO: Going back to the issue, must Muslims establish a state where Islam is fused with the state for Muslims to make advancement and progress in science, mathematics and economy? Here there is a divide. Turkey and the founder, of modern Turnkey deemed it best to have a secular state though the majority of the populace are Muslims. Iran or Iraq chose another route. I would advocate a secular state, and delegation of religion to the private realm. Whatever choices the nations make, where Muslims form the majority today, it would be good if they bore in mind, it is the factors that conduce to rational enquiry for development in science, technology and economic development. Thus the factors need to be examined and where possible soonest implemented. While religious studies is important but to allow or encourage major segments of the population to specialize primarily in this field, would restrict the scope for the overall societal development in science and technology as well as economic development. Scholars who are Muslims would need to specialize in world trade law (public international law) as well as private international trade law, so that their society will be better facilitated in the participation of global trade. Higher and more rational efficient knowledge of these rules and participation will lead to increased wealth for Muslims and the nation, whether secular or theocratic. As Islam indicates Muslims who gain wealth legitimately can then give to the poorer segments of society. To contribute to the essence of the debate on the conflict between Pakistan and India, greater focus by Muslims on economic development would enable them to fulfil their duties to Allah meaningfully. The faster the conflict is resolved the sooner attention and efforts can be paid to scientific and economic development, and creating of the right environment to conduce encourage breakthroughs by Pakistan or Muslim majority in Kashmir in India, in the fields of science and technology. This explanation is in response to Mr. Kumar’s query on the Muslim mind.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 3:40 am
PART THREE: The word science carries the popular understanding of the branches of biology, chemistry and physics. However there have been other uses of the word science in the Webster’s Dictionary, i.e. mental science, moral science (ethics) , ‘seven sciences’ in the Middle Ages (i.e. the seven liberal arts then) . I have also noticed a popular use of the word, ‘science of yoga’, amongst the yogic community. For esoteric communities, they refer to the ‘esoteric science’ which focuses more on the ‘astral body’ or ‘soul’. In USA, there is a sect of Christianity called Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy and their followers are Christian Scientists. They publish the Christian Monitor, which yields some articles on the public internet from time to time on topical issues. Within this framework, to refer to the practice of ‘yoga or meditation’, which is a discipline highly developed a few thousand years ago, in the Ganges Valley, India, as an “ancient science” appears to me, to be appropriate. In Hinduism and Buddhism, this ancient science is an integral part of their religion, just as prayer is an integral part of Islam and Christianity. Therefore it was never intended to equate the said ancient science in Hinduism with modern science. This explanation is a response to Mr Kumar’s remark, “Not to equate religion with science”. Today the practice of this ‘ancient science’ discipline in both Hinduism and Buddhism is found in pockets throughout the world and even in USA and Europe. While I distinguish between modern science, especially the said natural science with the ‘ancient science’ of the esoteric aspects of cyclical religions, in both I find there is discipline, methodology and hypothesis that the seeker seeks to determine. While their methods differ, both seek to discover the law and truth of the world and the universe, through their specific disciplines and methodologies. Again truth has a wide ambit, and is not the sole domain of any one or of modern science nor of ancient science in Hinduism (or of any major world religion). A major difference is that the truth of modern science is publicized, while that of ancient science is reserved for initiates and not publicized. Thus the role of the Yogic or Meditation Teacher or Guru plays an important part in the ancient science for the transmission of the knowledge of this ancient science. It is in this context, that, I say that, certain statements in Hindu ancient religious text, that by standards of modern science are invalid, can be proven only within the initiate’s diligent and persevering adoption and practice of this ancient discipline to verify for himself or herself or themselves as to the truth of those statements. That is one approach. Another approach is, to use current tools of scientific and historical methodologies to establish the truth of those statements. In the instant case, where, the statements cannot be established by current tools of scientific and historical methodologies, because there is no historical or scientific evidence to support them, then the only option is to use the ancient science approach. Until that avenue is extinguished, with proof to support it or debunk it, it is inappropriate to close the door to the statement of ancient (Hindu) society’s collective wisdom, and debunk them as untrue. Further truth is not just literal truth, it can also be interpreted as mythical truth. In any event, for adherents of the Hindu faith, there is the choice of reject those ‘several’ statements without a dent to their faith, or accept those ‘several’ statements without a dent to their faith, or seek to establish the truth of those statement by modern science or historical research, or seek to establish the truth of those statement by ancient science practices and discipline, or leave the faith. Thus it is not for other religionists or non religionists to categorically debunk them as invalid. While one may ask them for proof of and /or value of their statements in their text, which one thinks contradicts modern science as it stands today, one may not through the use of one modern discipline state categorically that it is invalid in its totality as a statement. If one wishes, one can state that, this statement in your ancient religious text does not meet the standards of proof in modern science as it stands today, and thus of what value is that statement to you or for you. Modern science keeps on progressing. Once Newton’s Law of Motion dominated the scene. Then it was overshadowed by Einstein’s Relativity Theory. Even cosmology is a recent development in modern science. What tomorrow brings, we do not know. What a million or a billion years will bring to modern science, we do not know. In USA, we read of America’s Greatest Sleeping Prophet, Edgar Cayce, where his prescription of medical treatment for thousands of patients referred to him by others, US medical doctors included, has startled segments of the US medical community. Edgar Cayce, successfully treated thousands. US medical doctors who were unable to successful treat certain difficult or baffling cases, this man, in sleep hypnotic state succeeded. Which part his brain he uses, modern science today would not does not know. But the archived successfully treated medical cases is a challenge to modern science. The records of his treatments are archived in USA and open for public inspection. This is one evidence from a land of the highest state of art in science and technology, today, of the possible other doors to knowledge that currently defies modern medicine. Mr. Kumar, this then is not about ‘non-utilitarian’ mode of “romanticism” but about a ‘utilitarian’ mode of seeking proof, truth and knowledge in all possible avenues open to mankind today, in ancient as well as in modern science. This does not detract from the role of science and technology to improve the material living standards of societies, where some today still lack the basics of piped water, electricity, and information technology gadgets.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 3:42 am
PART FOUR : Further distinct Christian biblical scholarship has also developed where, there is a distinction between literal truth and mythical truth in the Christian biblical text. Certain statements, in particular the Old Testament, invalid as literal truth by the standards of proof in modern science and historical search as they stand today, have now been accepted and publicized in significant part of the Christian intellectual community as mythical truths. Myths have a value. Ancient Greek civilization, too, had a number of myths. Mythical truths are used in many societies past and present. Thus modern science poses challenges to the Bible, but Christian scholars of past and this century have endeavoured to rise up to those challenges. In this regard, the recent historical scholarship of Christian scholars, both priests and laity, on the Old Testament, distinguishing between literal truths and mythical truths, of several statements and or events, may be worth the Muslim scholar’s reading, and exploration, as they deal with the ‘common heritage’ of the Old Testament, accepted by both; although the Christians consider the Bible (Old and New Testament) as their Holy Book while the Muslims consider the Koran as their Holy Book. PART FIVE : A more recent religion, said to be an off shot of the semitic religions, and Islam, but now regarded as an independent world religion, called the Bahai’ Faith, has less of those challenges (as compared to older or more ancient religions) as it is closest in time to us in this century where science and technology has to a certain extent filtered down to many segments of society. The fact that there are more people on Earth with one religion or other, suggest that it is the common challenge posed to many people on Earth, i.e. a challenge posed to at least 3 Billion people. The collective scholarly effort of some of the 3 Billion people or their scholars, laity and or clergy, can and will produce some good results to face the challenges of modern scientific approaches to current scientific truths.
Yi Ling Lu
Kl
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 4:08 am
I have been a short time a Baha'i myself (a very short time). In fact, I could almost expect where you were heading. Anyway, I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Baha'i faith. The Baha'is respect international law, and that means that it should be discussed apart from the religious frills, at least on this forum.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 4:44 am
Jari Nousiainen, Finland. No where did I envisage a beautific vision of life on Earth in 500 years. That is your incorrect jumping to the conclusion. I was just looking at the massive global trend towards fusion of state and religion by a significant number of the OIC states. OIC has 56 states with a population of 1/5 of the world population. Given such a global trend, the reversal of it or check on it will at least take 5 centuries or more, when we look at Europe’s crawl and attempts to separate her state/s from the Church. I am too acquainted with the current massive & numerous kinds of problems, in just take one continent, Africa, or the history of humanity, to ever even think that there is a vision of global heaven on Earth on account of one factor, the secularization of states. However the secularization of states may be achieved over a long span of time as education and information technology becomes more wide spread. Further secularization will enhance freedom, development and progress in all fields of human endevaour. This itself is not the recipe for peace on Earth. If as you put it, that “the present havoc wrought by Muslims all over the world is condoned.” it may give or gives the connotation that you refer to 1.3 Billion Muslims. This reflects your lack of distinction between the majority peaceful Muslims and the minority who engage in violence. If indeed 1.3 Billion Muslims engaged in violence, all over the world, we may not be here discussing your statement. We all have different approaches to handling a problem. My approach has been above stated in 5 parts, prepared off line , prior to reading your posting. As to the issues that crept into this board, they arose in response to queries, that I handled. Part of the Holy text for 1.3 Billion Muslims, should not be taken in isolation to then depict the Muslims negatively. This leads to serious and grave misunderstanding, of their heritage and promotes hostility and hurt feelings, as well as reflects it. These are not good ways to handle a problem worldwide in this age and times. We differ on this. If Muslims in Kashmir or elsewhere are able to grasp the basic elements for material as well as spiritual success in today’s globalised world, and yet in accordance with their faith, they need not aspire for the route of an Islamic state. They can then settle down more easily and comfortably with the reality and thoughts of secularization, while retaining their private religion, as well as make progress in their economic development. With economic development, the chances of peace and security are enhanced. I therefore beg to differ from your incorrect, inadequate & narrow assessment per your posting 11.7.2002 Thursday 2.36 a.m. and also take grave exception to it. Please refrain yourself.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 5:05 am
I think you should take your own advice and "please refrain yourself". The next question is: "Are you heading anywhere with this?"
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 5:05 am
Jari Nousiainen, Finland. I was referring to Mr. Kumar’s posting Tuesday July 09, 2002 at 9:42 am, that, inter alia, …”Contemporary Religion seems to be scorched by the stinging beams of Modern science “ .when I included Bahai Faith as a more recent contemporary religion, in the lengthy discussion for completeness. However you may be off the mark as to where I am heading. Nonetheless I thank you for your kinder response this round. Thank you.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 7:26 am
Jari Nousiainen, Finland. Comment to your question, The next question is: "Are you heading anywhere with this?" Your question needs no further comment. The points were made to address earlier comments/queries, by another, and also to distinguish between Islam and the minority of Muslims, who engage in violence which is outside the boundaries of international law. The fault and international crime of some should not be attributed to 1.3 Billion Muslims, nor should their historical Golden Age and contribution to civilization be undermined, because of fault /international crime of some this century and last, save and except for evidence by the assertor challenging the Muslim written claims/ evidence of their contribution. That’s done.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 8:36 am
If a plesbite was promised to a state of India , i.e. Kashmir, and then not activitated, by India, I wonder whether International Law applies at all to this issue. I have oft thought, unless someone advises me on the true nature of International Law on this issue, that, International Law only applies to relations between states, save for armed groups which are not states. The conflict between majority in Kashmir and India may thus not be a proper legal issue for International Law. One legal recourse I see for people of Kashmir, is the election box, where they can elect their preferred party, in accordance with democracy as practiced in Indian secular state. Therefore I think it is legally right for UN Security Council not to intervene or pass a resolution to enforce the plesbite. However where there is and provided there is unlawful use of force, and it comes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court of Justice, and if state parties are signatories, I wonder whether individuals can bring the case to the International Criminal Court of Justice, against the state. It is not easy for outsiders to determine whether there is unlawful use of force. It is for the lawyers in Kashmir who allege that to seek international legal remedies, in accordance with International Criminal Law. It is only in extreme cases that the UN Security Council convenes a separate and ad hoc Criminal Tribunal for each case, like the Rwanda Genocide. Further the International Criminal Court of Justice, was set up to dispense with these ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals on a case to case basis. Therefore I conclude that, save and except for allegations or instances as the case may be of the commission of international criminal crimes, by parties under and within the jurisdiction and scope of the International Criminal Court of Justice, this conflict is an internal conflict which should be dealt with in accordance with the local laws of Kashmir and federal laws of India and in particular the Constitution of India. I note that for some matters, in some states in Europe, a national referendum is required before the State can act, such as the adoption and use of the Euro common currency. Thus unless the lawyers in Kashmir can find any article or provision in the Indian Constitution for a national referendum, on this issue of secession, or unless expressly provided for a state referendum, or unless the Indian Government accedes to secession, the issue of the territorial integrity of Kashmir as part of India is a non international law or closed international law issue. I wish the people of Kashmir a better and more secure place, more focused on development , trade, science and technology, and that they attain standards of living equivalent to other more developed parts of India.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 9:49 am
Dear Ms Yi Ling Lu. I am not denying that I was born an Hindu. What I intended to tell you is that I am not dogmatic about many matters. You jump to conclusions when you think of me as an atheist. Do I need to follow anyone in my relationship with god or whatever I wish to beleive?. It seems almost a necessity that one has to follow someone or some text. In fact anything but himself!. You can be anything Islamic, Buddhist, Sikh or Christian. Even sincere about your convictions. BUt you (meaning the world)have no right to impose it on others. HOwever, having said that, some teachings do contradict this position. Is it a big expectation that others not of the same religion, require, nay demand reformation of such written texts when they are so antagonistic?. I appeal to anyones reasonable expectation of justice and fair play in this regard. Having said that I do praise religions that have undergone reformation and transformations such as Hinduism, Christianity and even Buddhism. It is now the turn of Islam. But what and who is to do this, considering that even internally (within the religion) they live in mutual fear of the text and the creator of the text?. Kashmir conflict is a mere extrapolation of religious intolerance. If the issue was a lack of development in Kashmir due to bias by India - there is a valid requirement for separation. BUt is seems that it is purely on religious terms. Does this not seem odd to you?. Should the world stand by and see religion( what is purely a personal notion)entering into state craft by fire and sword?. Is this the religion we want for this century?. I am aware that Kashmir is being side lined in this type of discussion. But when we are discussing matters in a holistic manner - we need to see the entire gamut of things to arrive at a situation which is called International LAw. Law is after all an evolution of many functions that civilized society needs to perform and the norms they set up for such performance. But first one has to understand the functions of a civilized society. Elimination of "Free will" is certainly not one of them.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 11:07 am
I dare again any religion Hindu, Islam, Buddishist or any other to have found an explanation in its texts(direct not surmized) even for a notion on gravity( as antedated as even Isaac Newtons!). ALso creativity was never in religious texts such as Islam. Architectures such as the Taj Mahal, even putting a mark on burial grounds, or even the so called chadars on burial sites are strictly against wahabi cultures. Ask the taliban, this question and they will tell you that it is the interpolation from Hinduism. So you see it is quite water tight. Christianity was also like this but fortunately for the Galileos, Newtons and the industrial age - Religion was put in its right place - namrly domesticated confined to things like Marriage, Divorce, abortion etc. But here also there seems to be buffeted by changes and Alvin Tofflers speed of societies. When is Islam going to catch up?. Or is it that they will blow up thw world to smithereens before they do?. Atta by the way is in the Islamic heaven- having done an excellent deed. The goodies that he is getting or has supposedly got, is also well documented in the Koran. Shall we give credence to that and the impetus it creates in blowing up people of other religions in Kashmir and other parts of the world?.
kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 1:52 pm
Ah! Confusion reigns again over linguistic choice of words. What do common people generally infer when someone says they would be proud to be a free thinker? Quote Mr. Kumar: “I would be proud to be a free thinker unfettered by any notion of present or past” The assumption is either they are not yet free thinkers but would be proud to be one in the future; or alternatively they are already free thinkers. NEXT PART: If the person is already a free thinker, taking into consideration other statements, then is the word, ‘atheist’ synonymous with ‘free thinker’? Webster’s implies they are the same but the word, ‘atheist’ is considered old fashioned word by one Addison, as compared to free thinker. Quote from Webster’s Dictionary: ‘atheist’ is one who believes that there is no God . ‘free thinker’, is a person who forms his opinions about religion, independently of tradition, authority, or established authority--- “Atheist is an old fashioned word. I am a free thinker-Addison.” Thus there is scope for concluding on linguistic ground that Mr. Kumar is an atheist. If you are a free thinker but not an atheist, then no apologies are due as linguistically it is not incorrect. NEXT PART: If the person is not yet a free thinker but still a Hindu, and also born a Hindu, but would be proud to be a free thinker, then it would clearly be linguistically incorrect to assume that he/she is an atheist or a free thinker, as he or she is describing a future event that he/she would be proud to be a free thinker. It is like someone saying, he would be proud to be a team member of the football team. He is therefore not yet a team member, but would be proud to be a team member one day. However if you are not yet a free thinker, then my error is to jump to the conclusion that you are a free thinker/atheist, while you are a Hindu even now, who is just not dogmatic about many things and would in future be proud to be a free thinker. In this instant, apologies would be in order for not catching the difference between ‘would be proud’ and ‘am’. NEXT PART: While we are on this, might as well cover another important word, ‘agnostic’. Agnostic means one who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is God or a future life or anything beyond material phenomena. NEXT PART: Finally on this issue, I would not be surprised if you said, you are a Hindu now (of you being born a Hindu, I am clear now) as well as a free thinker now, though this is not the norm according to societal expectations, but then again life permits all computations, just as there are some who assert that they are both of this religion and another religion, more so when one religion asserts that it is not possible. If you are both a Hindu as well as free thinker, now, then half the apologies would be extended as I would have got half right on linguistic ground that atheist is an old fashioned word for free thinker. NEXT PART: Since I am unclear even now as to which situation you are in, I will withhold my apologies until further clarification as to your use of words, as well as use of concepts, ideas, and frameworks. It can be zero, half or full apology as the case may be.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
M\'sia - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 3:58 pm
Ms Lu, You rely on dictionaries. I am not at issue!. It is Islam and its outdated tenets that are. What I really must go counter to your view is the "Self aggrandizing and fantacizing about religion". It is this same fantasy that pit Irag against the rest of the world. It is this same fantasy that put Osama and his followers in the trial of terror. What they probably expected is hordes of angels coming down to fight the electronic wizardry of the US air force. Or perhaps they thought that one Talban is equal to a 100 US marines with their sophisticated equipment. What they needed is merely the grace of god. This kind of misguided morale is certainly there. These are the myths that seem to give religion a "false non-existent, self delusory power". However as results have proved,the only thing left was defeat, in modern tactical warfare. Also Atta is supposed to be enjoying the heaven that they are talking about. I do not want go into that but what I understand is that among the bounty in heaven are 75 Virgins included!(These are in the texts I am told) I wonder what the bounty is for women for such glorious adventures?. Are we supposed to feed on such phantasmagoria which seems to be the root cause of both ignorantia and the current attrition. I am not at issue, forget me and think of the troubles the world is in. You seem to be at trouble to classify me. I am nothing
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday July 11, 2002 at 8:49 pm
Mr. Kumar Sam, I do not go out to classify people, unless they appear to me to bring it into issue. You have done so. Please note, you raised it again, when you informed me on Thursday July 11, 2002 at 9:49 am “You jump to conclusions when you think of me as an atheist”. Therefore, I am clearing an important preliminary point, before I proceed. I would refer you to my posting of Thursday July 11, 2002 at 9:49 am. to determine whether your response, “You jump to conclusions when you think of me as an atheist” is true or not or half true, when you consider it important to state to me, on Wednesday July 10, 2002 at 9:30 am, “I would be proud to be a free thinker unfettered by any notion present or past.” If a direct response is not forthcoming, I suggest we, if you so wish, revert to my posting on Thursday July 11, 2002 at 8:36 am, inter alia, “If a plesbite was promised to a state of India , i.e. Kashmir, and then not activitated, by India, I wonder whether International Law applies at all to this issue…… I wonder whether individuals can bring the case to the International Criminal Court of Justice, against the state.”
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Friday July 12, 2002 at 4:58 am
The International Criminal Court doesn't judge states but individuals. These would include individuals on both sides. If there is a genuine effort from India to prosecute the individuals in India, the ICC doesn't have to intervene. But again, this applies to both sides. The Muslims shouldn't complain when they are prosecuted for war crimes in India. And judging by what has been said before you entered the discussion, I think India has the sovereignty in Kashmir. Whether India keeps its promises of plebiscite doesn't alter that, the insistence that India should hold a plebiscite only confirms the Indian sovereignty (and the illegality of the Line of Control, if I am not mistaken).
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday July 12, 2002 at 6:04 am
That is, if India had joined the ICC. My understanding is it hasn't.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday July 12, 2002 at 9:46 am
I am a free thinker at least I try to be and proud in that effort. I sincerely hope the religions of the world can also be the same (free thinking and trying to be). This is epitomized by religions reforming from time to time - this is what is needed. Fixations to books and leaders - whether on an Individual or on a whole mass of religious zealots has always resulted in clashes. All I can say is Ms Lu really has to have a pigeon hole to classify people. Any person has to have a declared position in his relationship to God or to nature - namely Atheist, agnostic or one or the other religion. Is this not a gist of the travail of listening to books and their preceptors?. When is religion going to be personal to indviduals - where it rightly belongs?. Kashmir defies political solution, today. However, there is another solution that I expect will overtake events, naemely the full bloom of Islamic militancy in Pakistan and elsewhere. Centuries of indoctrination both in Pakistan as well as Arabia - as Ms Lu rightly points out 1.3 Billion or so is not easy to tackle. I wonder if time is on the side of free thinkers. Have we lost precious years in not actually facing the problem square one on its face namely that Islam is not very peaceful in its tenets?. Unless the world community addresses itself to this problem within that religion namely intolerance on its "Face". Solutions are remote. Where are these religious heads hiding Pope, Bishops, Acharyas, Buddhist bikkhus, Jain Monks, Mullahs etc. Don't they see the travail that they put the world too by there organisations across the centuries. The priestly class has been always an unnecessary appendage to commerce and the peoples lives. Why don't they sit down and come to an understanding - as to there mutual problems?. Or do they have their corporate interests in their organisations?. To the rescue may be refomers within the religion - that can modify the thinking. But even if there are people like that they would be afraid to face up to a whole mass of mobilized bigoted crazy's. Death is the judgement for apostacy in Islam. Perhaps internet, TV etc may rescue us with wide spread dissemination of information. The Taliban and also parts of Pakistan as you know raided shops selling TVs etc - because they were seeing Indian movies. They seem to be on dote as to what can happen if the world comes to them. This is the real challenge - the transformation of religious behaviour into something more individual. The present system, at least in Islam seems to be like a Gulag revisited.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Friday July 12, 2002 at 3:45 pm
PART ONE: Mr. Jari Nousiainen. It appears that there may be another legal angle to the issue of plebescite, that we have not addressed. Does the UN Security Council Resolution(s) state any conditions to be fulfilled by Pakistan before India allows the plebescite and whether the UN Security Council agreed to a time limit for the fulfillment of the condition(s). Secondly, whether there have been any intervening Agreements signed between the two states, India and Pakistan, and what is the effect, if any, of such Agreement/s, and/or Declaration/s? As time permits, we could/should trace this event from the first of the 1948 UN Security Council Resolution. PART TWO: Mr Kumar Sam, please note you either have inadvertently and unintentionally got your language wrong or you have seriously and gravely distorted my statement of fact that, there are 1.3 Billion Muslims, by your posting on Friday July 12, 2002 at 9:46 am, .. “Centuries of indoctrination both in Pakistan as well as Arabia - as Ms Lu rightly points out 1.3 Billion or so is not easy to tackle.” Your statement juxtaposed with your quoting a part of mine, implies that ‘1.3 Billion Muslims have been indoctrinated for centuries’, issue of other states aside, as it is clear that there are Muslims in other states too. My statement on Thursday July 11, 2002 at 7:26 am, was that “…The fault and international crime of some should not be attributed to 1.3 Billion Muslims,…” Please take note of the difference between the majority peaceful Moderate Muslims, and the minority Muslims who engage in unlawful violence. Moderate Muslims contribute meaningfully to society and the world. The wrong extremists kind, are a cancer to the whole world as well as to the Moderate Muslims themselves, too. PART THREE : Mr Kumar Sam, please note that your posting of Friday July 12, 2002 at 9:46 am, .. “The priestly class has been always an unnecessary appendage to commerce and the peoples lives.” can only be described as an utterly DISRESPECTFUL statement. PART FOUR: Mr Kumar Sam , please draw a difference between ‘one person’, that is you, and ‘people’ in general. Your statement, “ All I can say is Ms Lu really has to have a pigeon hole to classify people.” is incorrect.
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Saturday July 13, 2002 at 1:51 am
Mr. Kumar Sam, New York. There has to be a clear line drawn between negative elements of minority errant/deviant Muslims who wrongfully use/hijack Islam for wrongful destructive ends and positive elements of majority Moderate Muslims who use Islam constructively as their guide to a good, purposeful, and meaningful way of life. Just for information, after James Merrick 32 pleaded guilty, to filling two mason jars with gasoline and torching the restaurant, saying to the USA Judge, that, “My actions were a response to the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, against the World Trade Centre towers and the Pentagon”, he was sentenced to 51 months on Jan 7. Prosecutors filed a Court Memo that said, “We were compelled to respond quickly to deter the perceived growing backlash against innocent members of our community. These hate crimes are noxious to the principles of liberty and freedom embodied in our constitution.” The early US (successful) criminal prosecution of a few hate crimes post Sept 11, committed by their citizens, as well as the US military action against the suspects of Sept 11 attack, indicates and affirms their appreciation of this non-negotiable divide and invisible line. Any intellectual discussion, if deemed appropriate by others on this Message Board, on the sincere and genuine collective quest for possible solutions to eliminating or reducing the errant/deviant practice of minority of Muslims who have wrongfully used Islam for their political ends, bringing about destruction, should at all times, spring from a wholesome respect for Islam as a world religion (other major world religions included and their laity and clergy too, if any) without stereotyping all Muslims negatively, while firmly condemning bad practices of minority deviants. This is my firm irrevocable view, on the basic ground rules for participation/participants, summed up as “Mutual Respect” and “Consent of Others on this Message Board”. Breach of the first basic rule of “Mutual Respect” possibly renders more harm than good. Therefore sensitive and judicious use of the word, ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslims’ with appropriate ‘qualifiers’ is necessary and strongly encouraged. Ms. Lu Yi Ling
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Saturday July 13, 2002 at 4:26 am
Mr. Kumar Sam, New York, PART ONE: If you signify your written agreement, then I will proceed further, considering that you have honourably, truthfully and gentlemanly, satisfied the prior important preliminary issue. To illustrate what your (future) written agreement (if forthcoming, by subsequent posting/s) will mean, I have picked two (2) out of your prior and most recent several ‘unacceptable’ statements on Islam and Muslims, in civil society, and/or civilized society, especially for our intellectual discourse, for clarification. PART TWO: On your posting of Thursday July 11, 2002 at 9:49 am, “ …Should the world stand by and see religion( what is purely a personal notion)entering into state craft by fire and sword?. Is this the religion we want for this century?….” This is unacceptable as these statements breach Rule No. 1 . You are implying that Islam, the major world religion for 1.3 Billion Muslims, enters into state craft by fire and sword. You could have expressed your thoughts and intent with sensitive and judicious use of relevant qualifiers. For instance, you could have said instead, “Should the world stand by and see a minority group of violent or violence prone Muslims wrongfully exploit the use of a major world religion for 1.3 Billion Muslims ( what is purely a personal notion) by distorting the teachings of Islam and falsely teaching that Muslims should use Islam as a political ideology to use unlawful and illegitimate destructive violence against the people of Kashmir and/or the ruling democratic Indian administration/regime? “ Secondly you are impliedly denying 1.3 Billion Muslims the right to practice their religion this century, by questioning whether this is the religion we want for this century. You could have expressed your thought and intent with sensitive and judicious use of relevant qualifiers. For instance, you could have said instead, Is this terrible kind of recent exploitation of Islam, by violent minority errant groups of Muslims, we want for this century?….” Had you done the same, you would be more likely to achieve the goodwill, sympathy and understanding of 1.3 Billion Muslims and other non Muslims who are acquainted with the good practices and good contribution of the majority peaceful Muslims. You would also have achieved your purpose to engage world opinion on a serious and grave global threat to peace and security, for the world as well as for the majority of the 1.3 Billion Muslims. We would, then waste less time and needless energy on this constant, repeated and crucial misunderstanding of the fault and horrors of a minority versus the more wholesome practice of the majority. We would in turn, be able to focus together on how to contribute (with others, if any) ideas, based on sound (and also not generalized) analysis, to weed out and segregate deviant and horrible practices by minority errant/deviant Muslims in serious and grave contravention of the wholesome Islamic Tradition and Islamic Teachings. PART THREE: To your posting on , Friday July 12, 2002 at 9:46 am, “….The present system, at least in Islam seems to be like a Gulag revisited.” it is unacceptable as it breaches Rule No. 1. You are wrongly implying that Islam is like a Gulag revisited, without distinguishing between the errant /deviant practices by a minority group/s of Mulsims, in contravention of Islam on the one hand and the good practices of Islam by majority peaceful Muslims. You could have expressed your thought and intent with sensitive and judicious use of relevant qualifiers. For instance, you could have said instead, “….The present system of deviant/errant/violent bad practices of minority deviant Muslims in contravention of Islam, seems to be like a Gulag revisited.” FOURTH PART: Over to you, Mr. Kumar Sam, New York, for your important written agreement on 2 Rules, per my posting on Saturday July 13, 2002 at 1:51 am, to proceed, as you have met the important preliminary issue. Thank you and good day. Best wishes, Ms Lu Yi Ling.
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Saturday July 13, 2002 at 4:12 pm
My disrespect is for the tenets of Islam that does not respect other religions. If I am disrespectful, I intend to be so. My disrespect is not to individuals of that religion - but most certainly to a tenet which says "Kill to convert, terrorize to retain them within the fold". Reform those tenets - I have no argument. Let Moderates come forward and speak for me. They have to take a stand of "for or against freedom" their is no third way. The reason for the silence of the moderates is the Gulag type of behaviour in Islam. I am also disrespectful of sections of the Gita that actually promotes caste. However, I have to agree with Ms Ku that we cannot alway throw the baby with the bath water. I should have been a little more toned in my presentation.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Monday July 15, 2002 at 4:30 am
Again, I rely on Tipu Salman Makhdoom's article, which is just as pro-Muslim as one can hope for. He says that "the Kashmir issue has never been resolved through negotiations". As to the preconditions laid down to Pakistan before India can hold the plebiscite, it should be obvious that Pakistan should first withdraw from Kashmir. It is the occupying force. No plebiscite can take place in such circumstances.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday July 15, 2002 at 9:07 am
by Jean–Luc Racine ( 33 pages article) dated 19.7.2000 PAKISTAN AND THE INDIAN SYNDROME: BETWEEN KASHMIR AND ... (PDF) at http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/archive/octo00/artjr.pdf
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Monday July 15, 2002 at 9:40 am
Ms Lu Jean-luc Racine's article is an excellent record of events both in India and Pakistan. However,beyond record keeping one has to go to the roots of the problem of Jihad?. Whence does it come from?. If the source is not diffused the ailment continues. I am unable to understand why new thinking does not come to strategic international thinking for Religious conflict resolution. In this day and time, one is able to asses a complex issue such as the environment and come to a reasoned mode of administration. Here we refuse to see the reality and the need for a kind of reform in all religions to face up to modern day expectations as to what society has turned out to be. It is not enough to record keep, it is not enough to be critical. One must have a sustained program of action in order to diffuse the high mental priority given by people to the so called "Pre eminence and infallibility of their own faiths". I mean this for all religions not only Islam?. But who is or can be the neutral arbiter for vocalizing such perceptions - that is the Question?. Kashmir/Bosnia/Palistine/Israel etc other prospective countries??? will always be a problem, if intolerance is not addressed. Who will address such a problem - with a notion that all religions essentially has been created by Man?.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Monday July 15, 2002 at 10:34 pm
Clarification,the Jean Luc-Racine's, was to add to Makhdoom's to clarify the issue of plebscite.
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Tuesday July 16, 2002 at 6:44 am
That was indeed a welcome addition to Makhdoom's article. However, it doesn't seem to change anything. Rather, it ascribes the demand of a plebiscite to the extremist elements. The demand of a plebiscite only reconfirms the Indian sovereignty over Kashmir. The article is just as unclear about the status of the Line of Control as Makhdoom's article. What is clear is that the Line of Control is not based on a peace treaty but an armistice and thus it is not an international border. The article suggests that India would be happy to let go of the Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir with minor rectifications. This would require that the Indian sovereignty over the whole of Kashmir is recognized by Pakistan, after which India can cede to Pakistan a part of Kashmir.On the other hand, we learn some things that are not so flattering to Pakistan, like the allegation that the Pakistani army sabotaged the secret talks with New Delhi on Kashmir (p. 16). This is also the first time that I hear that suicide commandos were used as early as the year 2000, and not only in Kashmir but also in Chechenia (p.22).
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday July 16, 2002 at 7:38 am
Mr Jari Nousiainien. Mr. Kumar Sam has raised some issues outside the perceived four corners of this message board on Kashmir, for reasons Kumar Sam has given much earlier, on Thurs 11/7/02 9.49 am last portion. Have you any objections to the discussion of the issue of the root of Jihad, which exceeds or probably exceeds the realm of International Law?
Yi Ling Lu
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia - Wednesday July 17, 2002 at 4:36 am
I have thought all the postings have been interesting in their own right. The problem was that some of the time international law was by-passed altogether. I still don't think the international legal solution is so clear-cut as I have suggested, so I would welcome any criticism, especially on the status of the Line of Control.It seems to me that India would accept the Line of Control as an international border, thus confirming the partition of Kashmir, if some extremists didn't call for a plebiscite that would determine the fate of the whole of Kashmir. But such a demand only reinforces the Indian sovereignty even over the Pakistani-controlled Kashmir.
In the meantime, I would be happy to see what you two have to say to each other.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday July 17, 2002 at 8:56 am
Rule No. 2: Mr Jari Nousiainen’s consent is duly noted. Now the views of other(s) are sought for the period for the next 45 days ending around 31 August 2002. If there are no other objection/s, then I will respond to Mr. Kumar’s questions, which are slightly outside the immediate topic at hand on this Board. Mr. Jari Nousiainen has indirectly raised Rule No. 3 that the discussion should preferably not side step International Law altogether. To the extent that this is possible, I thus think it would be good if we endeavoured to situate the discussion within the context of International Law, whether it is International Trade Law, International Law of War, or International Covenant on Human Rights (civil and political rights, social and economic rights), etc. Further I note Mr. Kumar Sam’s secular position both for government (states and world) as well as personal position (Free Thinker), when he ‘secularly’ deals with all religions (all including Islam) while I ascribe to secular for government (states and world) and religion for myself (Theravada Buddhist), but I think this difference , while it lends a different flavour, will not prevent concerned citizens globally, handful or many, to try to think what is best for society at large, provided we each endeavour to be as respectfully as we possibly can to either views. Mr. Jari Nousiainen , as I would try to ground the discussion on international law, your views will be welcomed. In the next posting, I will return to your 'ine of control' issue. Meanwhile as you have earlier asked for where is the current / latest 'line of control', I have come across these two (2) versions of LOC, but I do not know whether they or any of them are the latest. http:www.forisb.org/issues.html and also http:www.meadev.nic.in/jk/terrintro.htm
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 18, 2002 at 3:16 am
While India is clear that the issue of plebiscite does not arise, for various legal reasons, Pakistan insists on it for her legal reason(s). Pakistan’s claim is now being echoed by a ‘Third Party’, i.e. segment of the population of the Kashmir people. It appears this Third Party desires a plebiscite so that they can create a New Islamic State. My view is that, firstly, the international conflict between India and Pakistan should have been resolved in 1949 after the ceasefire or soonest thereafter. The delay has unfortunately prevented India and Pakistan from giving substance to their regional economic cooperation, given Pakistan’s firm position that Kashmir dispute should be first resolved before economic cooperation can proceed substantially. It has also led to a further division of Kashmir to China. It has also become a nuclear flashpoint. It has led to reduced development in Pakistan who has instead spent more on her military and defence than otherwise necessary. Maybe it has also indirectly contributed to the breakaway of Bangladesh, maybe due to inattention or insufficient attention. How this international conflict will be resolved, if it can be resolved, remains a big question. Until then the Line of Control appears a like a border of sort between India and Pakistan, though not an international border as yet. Secondly, it appears to me that the delay in resolving this international conflict has created an internal threat of segments of Kashmir population demanding the ‘out-dated ’ plebiscite, so that they can hopefully create a new Islamic state. Thirdly, both states, India and Pakistan, are parties to the ICJ and there is the option of submitting it to the ICJ for a decision. However as India insists that this is an internal problem in Kashmir, while claiming sovereignty, India would never agree to submitting the issue to the ICJ. Thus the ICJ route is ruled out. Fourthly, UN is unlikely to intervene, in the manner that some may hope for to enforce a plebiscite in Kashmir with the new issue of a new state altogether, instead of the old issue of joining either India or Pakistan. At best, after India procured the constituent assembly in Kashmir, UN Security Council, on 24 January 1957 suggests that this does not displace the plebiscite, even though India had just immediately before that resolution insisted that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan had not complied with the pre condition to withdraw her troops, and India’s further assertion that she had the understanding of the UN that timing was important to India’s offer to hold a plebiscite and that it was not an indefinite offer, when conditions would have drastically changed. The issue of a reasonable time to accept an offer sounds reasonable to me, (as even in private contract law, an offer is not an indefinite offer for perpetuity or even for 40 years!) and thus it would not seem reasonable to consider a plebiscite after more than 40 years. That is beside the issue of the satisfaction of the pre condition by Pakistan on withdrawal of her forces, for even if there were a withdrawal now, the circumstances have changed since 24 January 1957 , or even 1947, where a plebiscite would, to me appear inappropriate. Thus a plebiscite is out dated! Further since 1957, India and Pakistan have entered into bilateral talks and signed the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. It appears to me that these bilateral agreements would replace the prior ‘out-dated’ plebiscite issue. Thus to the new Third Party’s claim for a plebiscite, I would contend that, the bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan would be the way forward and not the plebiscite. Further, to those who are resident in Pakistan occupied or Free Kashmir, they should obey the laws there, and those who are resident in India occupied Kashmir, they should obey the law there. Without law and order in these two places, anarchy will prevail and the residents will suffer more. I wish the people of Kashmir peace and prosperity.
Yi Ling Lu
Kl
Malaysia - Thursday July 18, 2002 at 4:50 am
I agree that the offer of plebiscite would seem outdated. The complicating factor is the Palestinian issue, which may have a radiating effect. It is still argued that the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of November 1947 is still valid. In it, the Palestinian Arabs were "offered" a clearly delineated "Arab state", which they themselves rejected.I am not at all sure that the analogy is valid, but I believe the analogy is widely perceived to be valid, and it thus plays a part in the Kashmir issue. As to the changing of circumstances, that was what I meant by the "rebus sic stantibus" above.
As you may have read in Racine's article, Pakistan argues it signed the Simla agreement under duress. And anyway, there is disagreement if the agreement really bars any outside mediation. As to taking the issue to the ICJ, I think that if Pakistan were sure of its case, it could still take the matter to the ICJ. The expectation is, however, that the ICJ declares the matter inadmissible because it is
an internal problem. The Act of Accession to the Indian Union signed by the Maharaja is unequivocal. This is not to mention anything about the restrictions that India may have set to the ICJ's jurisdiction.
It was asked by one of the Pakistani participants in this discussion why India doesn't let international observers monitor the Line of Control. This is one of those points that are only bound to reinforce the Indian sovereignty over the whole of Kashmir, the LOC included. However, why was the question asked? Is the suggestion that India doesn't monitor the LOC because it wants to let the Muslim extremists in to wreak havoc in Indian-controlled Kashmir, or at least to be able to say that there are Muslim terrorists, even when there aren't, which in turn would justify its "reprisals"?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday July 18, 2002 at 4:53 am
Italics stops here. Sorry.
J N
Finland - Thursday July 18, 2002 at 7:26 am
If indeed the UN General Assembly (not Security Council) Resolution 181 is perceived as a radiating effect, for Kashmir, it might have been an incorrectly grounded perception. After the War between the then Jewish state of Palestine and the other Arab states, after the announcement of the UN Resolution 181, lasting 2 years, an Armistice Agreement was igned and set out the new borders. This new border is different from that envisaged under Resolution 181. At that time, the question of Palestine as an independent state was not envisaged by Jordan and Egypt. Thus a smaller version of West Bank became part of Jordan and a smaller version of Gaza Strip became part of Egypt. The Oslo Peace Process used this pre 1967 Border as the basis for the proposed new Palestine state. It did not use Resolution 181 borders as the basis for the proposed new state. There is a UN Map which shows the signature of the Head of Jordan on the pre 1967 border. Even now, after Oslo, Arafat is said to have asked for a Clinton based plan (which uses the pre 1967 Border as the basis with modifications). The people of Kashmir should realise their situation is very much different from that in Palestine. It is unlikely that UN, US, EU or any other party would want to intervene in the internal affairs of India (after more than 40 years since 24 Jan 1957) or the dispute between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. The people of Kashmir should realise that, any appeal for a UN intervention for a plebiscite is a misplaced and misguided misappeal as it is outdated and overtaken by other international events. It is a reality that Kashmir people (especially in the India occupied Kashmir) should wake up to or accept (no matter what others say) so that they can better order their affairs for peace and prosperity. As for the ICJ, consent of both parties are necessary for ICJ to hear the dispute. Thus, without the consent of either India or Pakistan, the ICJ route is a dead-end, even when it is alleged by Pakistan that the acession document signed by the Maharajah is defective or the original is not found. I do not know whether India has a copy of the original document.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 18, 2002 at 9:38 am
Supposing there was credence to Pakistan’s averment that Simla Agreement of 1972 was signed under duress, if ‘nuclear potential of India” is said to be the factor of duress, maybe the issue should be seen in the broader perspective of how this duress came about. Firstly, Pakistan ‘ceded’ part of Kashmir to China in 1963 and China tested her nuclear in 1964. For India to work towards nuclear is understandable in such circumstances, issues of right or wrong of nuclear development and proliferation aside. So if the first duress came from Pakistan’s act as well as China’s nuclear test, then the consequential Indian nuclear plans cannot be 100% duress per se to Pakistan in the 1972 Simla Agreement. Secondly, since 1972, there is the more recent Lahore Agreement between India and Pakistan of 21.2.1999. This Agreement is signed after Pakistan had tested her nuclear in 1998. Is the 1999 Agreement an agreement signed by India under duress then ? Or would it be an agreement signed between 2 states on a parity of footing and thereby displacing unequivocally the 50 years out dated plebiscite issue? The people of Pakistan have suffered much for the huge sums of monies spent on military and defence, and bearing the burdern of UN economic sanctions for their nuclear programme and tests. Pakistan has also suffered much for their refusal and failure to develop a free trade area with India. Surely a time must come to consider a more peaceful settlement as well as a genuine and substantial economic cooperation between India and Pakistan in the interest of the people of Pakistan?
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Thursday July 18, 2002 at 11:37 am
“Is the suggestion that India doesn't monitor the LOC because it wants to let the Muslim extremists in to wreak havoc in Indian-controlled Kashmir, or at least to be able to say that there are Muslim terrorists, even when there aren't, which in turn would justify its "reprisals"?” is not clear to me. Maybe Mr. Jari Nousiainen can elaborate.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
M\'sia - Friday July 19, 2002 at 4:57 am
It can be argued that India has left the LOC uncontrolled or at least unmonitored so that the "cross-border terrorists" do get in. By way of comparison, this has been one of the contentions in the Palestinian conflict: Israel doesn't control the "green line" so that the suicide bombers do get in, which Israel is supposed to use as a propaganda tool. (This suggestion has come from a Jew, by the way.)Another possibility, which the Pakistani participant in this discussion may have had in mind, is that there are no "cross-border terrorists". India just says there are. That way, India could justify the use of force, the "reprisals".
The point you made about the nuclear weapons and their role in the alleged duress is interesting. Maybe we could benefit from your insight some more. The Pakistanis say that the issue of Kashmir is comparable to that of East Timor. How would you answer?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday July 19, 2002 at 8:42 am
I wonder whether the recently proposed Fence along the bulk of the line between Israel and West Bank has begun. It was scheduled for completion in 1 year and costs about USD 200 Million. If as record shows that there have been destruction of property by militants—Year 2001, 30 government buildings, 16 educational buildings, 2 bridges, 1 hospital, 419 private houses, 77 shops, is it possible that India would destroy the property of land under her administration? The mischief of the terrorist militants is destroying the infrastructure of Kashmir. These are despicable acts of terrorism to create anarchy, not the ways of faithful adherents of a peaceful religion. On East Timor, I would agree with your prior reply on the same issue, of Friday June 28, 2002 at 5:13 am that "East Timor was a former Portuguese colony". This is an important distinction under international law. Kashmir was not under a separate colonial master, unlike East Timor. Kashmir together with the other states of the Indian sub continent was under one rule, i.e. the British rule. At time of Indonesia's independence, from the Dutch, I believe East Timor was still under Portugese rule or control or protection. The people of Kashmir would be better off if their intellectuals, lawyers and academics realised and come to terms with the reality, that both international law (on the issue of the "time barred" plebiscite) as well as international politics is unlikely to come to their rescue with a UN enforced plebiscite or allow secession & self determination. Especially after Sep 11, it is unlikely that UN , US or EU will look kindly on terrorists who destroy 274 buildings in Kashmir in 2001 alone! If the intent of the terrorists is to create anarchy and then hope to obtain self determination, it is self defeating and truly harmful to the people of Kashmir.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Friday July 19, 2002 at 10:50 am
The following is the text of the Lahore Declaration : The Prime Ministers of the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Sharing a vision of peace and stability between their countries, and of progress and prosperity for their peoples; Convinced that durable peace and development of harmonious relations and friendly cooperation will serve the vital interests of the peoples of the two countries, enabling them to devote their energies for a better future; Recognising that the nuclear dimension of the security environment of the two countries adds to their responsibility for avoidance of conflict between the two countries; Committed to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and the universally accepted principles of peaceful co- existence; Reiterating the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement in letter and spirit; Committed to the objective of universal nuclear disarmament and non-proliferartion; Convinced of the importance of mutually agreed confidence building measures for improving the security environment; Recalling their agreement of 23rd September, 1998, that an environment of peace and security is in the supreme national interest of both sides and that the resolution of all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, is essential for this purpose; Have agreed that their respective Governments: - shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. - shall refrain from intervention and interference in each other's internal affairs. - shall intensify their composite and integrated dialogue process for an early and positive outcome of the agreed bilateral agenda. - shall take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at prevention of conflict. - reaffirm their commitment to the goals and objectives of SAARC and to concert their efforts towards the realisation of the SAARC vision for the year 2000 and beyond with a view to promoting the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their quality of life through accelerated economic growth, social progress and cultural development. - reaffirm their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and their determination to combat this menace. - shall promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Signed at Lahore on the 21st day of February 1999. Atal Behari Vajpayee - Prime Minister of the Republic of India Muhammad Nawaz Sharif - Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Friday July 19, 2002 at 12:07 pm
Dear Jari and Ms Lu. Due to some preoccupying work I am unable to participate for at least 3 weeks. Carry on the interesting dialogue. The discussion seems to have veered around minute of what has transpired recently. Seems to be fine.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Friday July 19, 2002 at 1:56 pm
The fact sheet on East Timor that Jari might have asked for – to better explain the factual differences in the case of Kashmir when compared with East Timor:- During the 17th century, the island was divided between the Dutch who took West Timor and the Portuguese who took East Timor. Indonesia gained her independence around 1949 and West Timor being part of Dutch rule became part of Indonesia. East Timor continued to be under Portuguese rule until 1975. Note the time gap of about 25 years! In Kashmir there was no time gap at all. Unfortunately Indonesia annexed East Timor not long after the Portuguese left. However by 1982 the international community and UN Security Council Resolutions condemned the Indonesian army’s move. The international community asked Indonesia to give East Timor the right of self determination. No country (with the exception of one) recognized Indonesia’s sovereignty over East Timor. The story ends with a referendum for East Timor in 1999 and placement under UN administration until independence in May 2002. Even then, with a then population of 700,000, East Timor had lost 200,000 lives in those 24 years. This comment responds to Saghir Mehar’s posting of 7 June 2002, 1.05 p.m. that , “…when it was the case of East Timor it was solved in days.” A problem shortly after 1975 and ending around 1999 was solved in 24 years! The “East Timor” example may only be validly used, had East Timor been under Dutch rule. Instead it was under Portuguese rule for several hundred years. If it is clear that Kashmir is not like East Timor, and if it is also clear that neither UN or the international community will ask India to give Kashmir self determination, what would be the reasonable or better course of action for rational, good and intelligent people of Kashmir?
Yi Ling Lu
KL
M\'sia - Tuesday July 23, 2002 at 2:46 am
Maybe only one country did recognize Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor, but the question is what you mean by "recognition" in a situation like this. Surely there was wide recognition of Indonesia's de facto control over East Timor.You raised a very interesting point about the one colonial master. Pakistan (and Bangladesh) and India were both part of the British colony. I don't know exactly how the colony was administered, whether it was one colony or nominally many colonies. At least there must have been administrative borders within that whole. As you know, the uti possidetis suggests that as a colony becomes independent, the old colonial administrative borders should be respected. If India was indeed a mosaic of smaller colonies, this principle couldn't have been applied without breaking the Indian subcontinents into smaller parts. In any case, it is my understanding on the basis of Racine's article that when Pakistan (East and West) was carved out from "India" some of the administrative units were split.
The Pakistanis would then have a quasi valid reason to keep pointing to the Kashmir issue. If the Pakistani border split some of the administrative units in two, there should be no reason to retain Kashmir as one bloc. The bad news is that this reasoning seems to be lost on the fanatics who want India to organize the plebiscite so the sovereingty over Kashmir could be decided en bloc. Anyway, according to Racine's article, India would be ready to split Kashmir into two (even if then you would have similar problems with China). It may indeed be in the interests of the Pakistani army to keep the Kashmiri issue unresolved, which was also suggested in the same article.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday July 23, 2002 at 5:43 am
Dear Jari Nousiainen. I understand Australia (I might be wrong and would like to be corrected) recognized the Indonesia’s de jure (legal) control of East Timor, while others did not. Maybe that is why the international community, why acknowledging the fact of Indonesia’s ‘de facto’ (factual) control of East Timor, could still favor the self determination of East Timor, which then resulted in the East Timor referendum. Maybe some one who knows better can help us to shed light on this issue of de jure and de facto control of East Timor. While generally, most colonies under one colonial master formed an independent nation state, this was not the case with India, as 2 nations emerged because of the fear at that time of ‘religious based’ violence that erupted just pre independence. Pakistan then became a nation based on her people’s Muslim identity. I do not know what is the situation in Africa, if in all cases, a nation state emerged from the administrative border of a colonial master, or two or more nation states emerged from the administrative border of 1 colonial master. If someone or Jari knows or can find out how the boundaries of the nation states of Africa evolved, it will greatly assist the understanding of Jari’s pointing us to international law on ‘uti possidentis’. Coming back to Kashmir, one of the several princely states then, the choice was offered then whether to join India or Pakistan (in view of the 2 nations concept), and the India-Pakistan current dispute appears to be traced to the root of the issue on how the choice had been exercised. It appears that India insists that the choice has and had been legally made then, and affirmed again and again, while Pakistan denies the same and insists the choice needs to be made through a plebiscite yet to be held. This is a serious and grave dispute between 2 states, on territory, and unfortunately, it has resulted in intense violence waged by proponents of Muslim extremists with the Indian army, with loss of lifes and ‘lost’ economic opportunities as well as . As the violence rages on since its outbreak stated to be around 12 years ago, around 1988, lifes are lost and economic opportunities for development ‘lost’. (There has been an estimate that there is 3,000-5,000 Muslims extremists engaged in armed struggle in Kashmir with about 30,000 trained but ‘on standby’ as against 500,000 Indian army there.) From a humanitarian angle (not a legal angle), this is a TRAGEDY! The earlier this 60 years’ old dispute is peacefully resolved between India and Pakistan, the better it is for all. As an outsider, and given the maxim that ‘guerilla warfare cannot survive without popular support”, I appeal to and ask the ‘Muslim Intelligentsia’ in Kashmir, Pakistan, and India, to ask themselves, four questions. The first question is, should Islam have been used by the extremists Muslims engaged in armed struggle in Kashmir (whether indigenous Kashmiris or alleged outsider Muslims). The second question is, whatever may be the Muslim Intelligentsia’s current views, can the ‘Muslim Intelligentsia’ consider or re-consider their views in the wider context of modernity and globalisation, world trade structures. The third question, is the world view and ideology of the extremists Muslims of Islam compatible with the wider context of modernity and globalisation, world trade structures? The fourth question is, “Is the world view and ideology of the extremists Muslims on modernity and globalisation, world trade structures, if any, compatible with the essence and values of Islam?” I might be wrong as to my earlier conclusion on who caused the destruction of the property and buildings in Kashmir and/or the reason(s) for the destruction of all or some of the 200+ buildings in Kashmir as I do not have in depth knowledge of the Kashmiri situation. Please refer to Friday July 19, 2002 at 8:42 am… where I stated, “…If as record shows that there have been destruction of property by militants—Year 2001, 30 government buildings, 16 educational buildings, 2 bridges, 1 hospital, 419 private houses, 77 shops, is it possible that India would destroy the property of land under her administration? The mischief of the terrorist militants is destroying the infrastructure of Kashmir. These are despicable acts of terrorism to create anarchy, not the ways of faithful adherents of a peaceful religion.”. I will be away in a Buddhist hermitage center for the next several days, and will respond to you, on return if you have any other posting(s).
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Tuesday July 23, 2002 at 7:42 am
I don't know to what extent the statements by some politicians reflect the official position of that state, but there were voices in Canada, too, in support of the Indonesian de facto control over East Timor.As to the uti possidetis rule in Africa, a much cited example where it was side-stepped was the case of the Northern Cameroons (judgment of the ICJ on 2 December 1963). The Northern Cameroons were part of the British-controlled mandate of the Cameroons. The British mandate was split into two: the Northern Cameroons were annexed to Nigeria and the Southern Cameroons to Cameroon. However, the ICJ found that there was no dispute to adjudicate, and at any rate it is unclear to me if uti possidetis principle was really the crux of the problem. The uti possidetis rule has been confirmed in the ICJ judgement Burkina Faso/Mali in 1983.
However, these things do not mean that if the uti possidetis rule was side-stepped in the formation of India and Pakistan, it couldn't be side-stepped in the case of Kashmir. The Northern Cameroons case does seem to leave that possibility open. In other words, the former princely state of Kashmir could be split between India and Pakistan, especially if other former princely states were subjected to partition as well.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday July 25, 2002 at 4:07 am
Of the princely states, the two major ones, the Punjab and Bengal, were split between India and Pakistan. Those that acceded to Pakistan intact were Sind, Balochistan and North-Eastern Frontier.This means that the uti possidetis rule was not adhered to in partitioning India and Pakistan. That suggests that partitioning Kashmir was not completed as it should have been.
However, the UN resolutions that call for the plebiscite provide that Pakistan withdraw its troops from Kashmir, which hasn't been done. Either Pakistan should withdraw its troops and let the plebiscite decide the fate of the whole of Kashmir, or Pakistan should let its troops stay in Kashmir, forget about the plebiscite and let Kashmir be partitioned.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday July 27, 2002 at 2:55 am
Jari Nousiainen, as to the uti possidetis rule, you have mentioned some of the princely states and since this site http://adaniel.tripod.com/princely.htm indicates there were 562 Princely States, in 1947, how then was the fate of the other Princely States? Secondly, the same writer at the site http://adaniel.tripod.com/external.htm mentions that there were pocket/s of Portugese and French colonies in India. Would this affect your observation on the uti possidetis rule? Thirdly, to your legally based proposal, “Either Pakistan should withdraw its troops and let the plebiscite decide the fate of the whole of Kashmir, or Pakistan should let its troops stay in Kashmir, forget about the plebiscite and let Kashmir be partitioned.” it appears that you assume that a plebiscite is still available so long as Pakistan first fulfils the condition precedent to the plebiscite. As India thinks otherwise, how would you ‘legally’ handle the Indian ‘legal’ argument on the Jammu & Kashmir dispute at http://www.meadev.nic.in/jk/kashmirissue.htm on the void plebiscite? Please contrast this with the Pakistan position on the Jammu & Kashmir dispute at http://www.forisb.org/kashmir.hmtl which claims the validity of the plebiscite, although there is no reference to the precondition of withdrawal of Pakistan forces. What is your international legal view of the plebiscite? Is it still a live legal issue (per Pakistan) or a dead legal issue (per India) ? The factual issue of the perceived popular Muslim demand for a plebiscite, aside. After September 11, would the international community /UN allow a plebiscite (even if still legally valid) to stop the armed guerilla struggle in Kashmir which is linked to extremist Muslim armed guerilla struggle ? My view is that, unless the geo-politics change, this option of a plebiscite (even if still legally valid, which I doubt it is still valid legally, factual popular Kashmir’s Muslims demand aside) is unlikely at this juncture to be offered to Kashmir by the international community /UN. The Jammu & Kashmir dispute is then a private dispute between 2 nation states, Pakistan and India, to be settled through bilateral talks/negotiations. I am concerned that, if the Muslim Intelligentsia in Kashmir morally or otherwise support the guerilla armed struggle by the small minority of extremists Muslims, this ‘lends legitimacy’ to and also ‘prolongs’ the conflict with increasing death toll of innocent civilians and destruction of property / infrastructure caught in the cross fire of bullets /destructive modern ammunition between 500,000 Indian army and 3,000-5,000 extremists Muslims engaged in guerilla war fare. Where legally there is no more continuing basis for a plebiscite, and geo-politically after Sep 11, there is unlikely to be UN Security Council moral sympathy for a plebiscite (if ever) won through the efforts of 3,000-5,000 extremist Muslims engaged in guerilla war fare against the Indian army, then the prolonging of this guerilla warfare invites needless loss of life, limb, and property. It is this needless loss of life, limb and property that I am concerned with and that I am in turn addressing the Muslim Intelligentsia in Kashmir, to investigate for themselves, whether this is Jihad in line with the authentic Muslim Tradition or whether this is not Jihad in line with the authentic Muslim Tradition.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Wednesday July 31, 2002 at 3:48 am
We don't need to go into the validity of the plebiscite offer. The plebiscite is contingent on the withdrawal of the Pakistani troops. We know Pakistan won't do that. And how do we know that? Because Pakistan would have to persuade China to withdraw its troops from Ladakh! This won't happen.So partitioning the province is the only option. But now we to get the green light from the Chinese as well, so this could take a while.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday July 31, 2002 at 6:15 am
Jari Nousiainen,Following your new thread, "So partitioning the province is the only option. But now we to get the green light from the Chinese as well, so this could take a while." , what do you mean by that is the "only option", and in the same breath, you go about the ' green light from China'.
Yi Ling Lu
KL
Malaysia - Wednesday July 31, 2002 at 7:26 am
The context is: can international law avert a conflict between India and Pakistan? If you suppose it can, the only option is the partitioning of Kashmir. But now that China has been invited into Kashmir by Pakistan (into Ladakh), it isn't a conflict between India and Pakistan only, but involves China as well.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday July 31, 2002 at 8:07 am
Jari Nousiainen,
Reiterating, your thread, "So partitioning the province is the only option. But now we to get the green light from the Chinese as well, so this could take a while." , and clarifying the question, in the "only option" scenario you envisage,isn't the line of partition you envisage, with India clearly on the other line? If yes, in the "only option" scenario, why is there still a need to go about getting the ' green light from China'.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Monday August 05, 2002 at 9:27 am
Dear Yi Ling Lu, Mr Jari The recent attack on Jammu which has marginal Hindu majority has been attacked in a strictly Hindu conclave. The aspiration of the Islamic fundementalist is not merely Kashmir valley - which is a strip of land between Jammu and Ladakh - but also these two regions. I understand that by voluntarily asking for a plebiscite India has put itself in an ackward position. But should we not takeg the ground realities into question?. That is of the fundementalist of Islam asking for the entire region?. China has also to move out including Pakistan. Is it thatIndia does not have muscle in the Inter-national community that only they are pushed around?.
Kumar Sam
New York
USA - Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 9:17 am
Kumar Sam,
The issue is, whether under international law, a plebiscite is still legally available. The question, then is "Is a plebiscite still legally available"
Only if you answer that a plebiscite is still legally available, do you then proceed to the issue of what are the ground realities, as you seem to suggest, for avoiding a plebiscite.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 11:10 am
I contest the priority of your question?. The first question to be answered irrespective of the legality or illegality of a plebiscite either during 1947 or now is to decide whether there has been a Gulag type of coercion or whether it is a free will atmosphere. If there was violence then or now or at any time. Freewill cannot be presumed. Consequently, plebiscite cannot be held. Only after a prolonged period of peace with no outward attacks on people in the name of religion can the issue of plebiscite be even thought of. With attacks on Hindu held Jammu even as recent as One week - seems to indicate the operative attrition as I already indicated some months back. If the idea is to take Jammu as well as Ladakh - this is also one step towards "religious state subjugation". You seem to think that Plebiscite does not require any ground realities or free will conditions at all,before even proceding towards legality or illegality. That means anyone that can foster religious intimidation anywhere can ask for such plebiscites - a kind of admission of territorial expansiion based on guerrila tactics of intimidation and terror. Albeit in the name of religion.
KUmar Sam
NY
USA - Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 1:19 pm
Is it not surprising that not one in Pakistan or the Muslim world in general, dared to define "Jihad" as a non-violent expression in thE tradition of the Muslim world?. Are my worst fears of a "Gulag type" of muzzling of moderates confirmed by mere silence from the Islamic world?. Perhaps predominant in the thinking of the Islamic world may be one of "intimidation" and not of "non-violence" - therefore the silence. I would love to be contradicted on this premise. Is it forthcoming or not?. If the Silence continues where shall we proceed with any type of conciliation, inclusive of plebisictes etc - from time immemorial to eternity?.
Kumar Sam
New York
USA - Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 1:35 pm
Kumar Sam,
From the point of international law, the first issue , if on plebiscite, per the resolution around 1947, must be whether the plebiscite is still valid as a legal issue.
As stated at Saturday July 27, 2002 at 2:55 am Thirdly, to your (Jari then, and Kumar now)legally based proposal, “Either Pakistan should withdraw its troops and let the plebiscite decide the fate of the whole of Kashmir, or Pakistan should let its troops stay in Kashmir, forget about the plebiscite and let Kashmir be partitioned.” it appears that you assume that a plebiscite is still available so long as Pakistan first fulfils the condition precedent to the plebiscite. As India thinks otherwise, how would you ‘legally’ handle the Indian ‘legal’ argument on the Jammu & Kashmir dispute at http://www.meadev.nic.in/jk/kashmirissue.htm on the void plebiscite? Please contrast this with the Pakistan position on the Jammu & Kashmir dispute at http://www.forisb.org/kashmir.hmtl which claims the validity of the plebiscite, although there is no reference to the precondition of withdrawal of Pakistan forces. What is your international legal view of the plebiscite? Is it still a live legal issue (per Pakistan) or a dead legal issue (per India) ? The factual issue of the perceived popular Muslim demand for a plebiscite, aside
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Wednesday August 07, 2002 at 9:31 am
Dear Yi Ling Lu. Which is that position in International Law which eliminates the free will discussion in an election procedure as an essential prerecquisite before deciding on any form of election. Perhaps there is one in the communist manifesto under Josef Stalin!. I have always supported a position of "as is where is". and the back burner for all territorial disputes in the face of WOrld integration in trade and commerce. You are being presumptive that I wish to even talk of plebiscite let alone except the process. what is the point of talking about legality independently and in the absence of the very summum bonnum of any election process namely lack of coercive forces. I charge that a time bound systematic process of changing the face of the electorate was afoot by the Jihadis whether it be in the aegis of Kashmiri, Pakistani or any middle eastern power. At issue here is whether Jihad means suicide bombers, whether Jihad means elimination of unbelievers, whether Jihad means territorial occupation by religious forces. Whether Jihad stems from intolerance. This is a question not only for the Kashmir discussion but seamlessly extends itself worldwide North and South East and West. If International Law does talk of some finer points that no one understands - then I can only repeat the DIckens refrain "Then Sir, the Law must be an Ass"
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Wednesday August 07, 2002 at 2:00 pm
Dear Kumar Sam,
You appear to have difficulty grasping the point I pose to you. Thus I will make one last attempt to state the legal issue for your response.
Incidentally there is also a saying, that a poor workmen blames his tools, to balance it against your Dicken’s refrain…
On Thursday July 18, 2002 at 7:26 am, I stated as follows, “….Fourthly, UN is unlikely to intervene, in the manner that some may hope for to enforce a plebiscite in Kashmir with the new issue of a new state altogether, instead of the old issue of joining either India or Pakistan. At best, after India procured the constituent assembly in Kashmir, UN Security Council, on 24 January 1957 suggests that this does not displace the plebiscite, even though India had just immediately before that resolution insisted that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan had not complied with the pre condition to withdraw her troops, and India’s further assertion that she had the understanding of the UN that timing was important to India’s offer to hold a plebiscite and that it was not an indefinite offer, when conditions would have drastically changed. The issue of a reasonable time to accept an offer sounds reasonable to me, (as even in private contract law, an offer is not an indefinite offer for perpetuity or even for 40 years!) and thus it would not seem reasonable to consider a plebiscite after more than 40 years. That is beside the issue of the satisfaction of the pre condition by Pakistan on withdrawal of her forces, for even if there were a withdrawal now, the circumstances have changed since 24 January 1957 , or even 1947, where a plebiscite would, to me appear inappropriate. Thus a plebiscite is out dated! Further since 1957, India and Pakistan have entered into bilateral talks and signed the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. It appears to me that these bilateral agreements would replace the prior ‘out-dated’ plebiscite issue. Thus to the new Third Party’s claim for a plebiscite, I would contend that, the bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan would be the way forward and not the plebiscite.”
In brief, the legal position of the Indian Government is that, while the plebiscite was a conditional offer, it was not a conditional offer for eternity. It had a time limit. By about 1960’s, the Indian Government appeared to have taken the legal position that, the time period for the condition to be fulfilled by Pakistan had expired. Thus a plebiscite is no longer an alive issue.
In brief, the legal position of the Pakistan Government is that, while the plebiscite is still a ‘live’ legal issue. Pakistan disagrees that there is a time limit to plebiscite issue and thus Pakistan views that only a plebiscite can determine the fate of the Kashmiris.
The question posed repeatedly to you, as you constantly refer to the plebiscite is whether you agree with the Indian Government or Pakistan Government legal position on the issue of the plebiscite.
The relevance of this legal question, is that, if you agree with the Indian legal position, you would not on state the following, “ “ as there is no question of any continuing offer of a plebiscite.
If you agree with the Pakistan legal position, you would then further delve into the conditions for the holding of a plebiscite, as you have been doing.
Thus for clarity, of your position, I have repeatedly asked you for your confirmation of your legal position on the issue of the plebiscite.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Wednesday August 07, 2002 at 2:11 pm
Dear Kumar Sam,
To elaborate on the missing portion of the preceding posting, ”The relevance of this legal question, is that, if you agree with the Indian legal position, you would not on state the following, on Monday August 05, 2002 at 9:27 am “….I understand that by voluntarily asking for a plebiscite India has put itself in an ackward position…” as there is no question of any continuing offer of a plebiscite. Nor would you state on Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 11:10 am “…Freewill cannot be presumed. Consequently, plebiscite cannot be held….”
If you agree with the Pakistan legal position, you are then correct to state what you stated (as reproduced above) on Monday August 05, 2002 at 9:27 am and further again on Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 11:10 am , whereby you would then further delve into the conditions for the holding of a plebiscite, as you have been doing.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 10:36 am
Dear Yi Ling Lu. While it is true that considerable amount of time has elapsed since the offer. I still don't understand that elapse of time is the real argument here. This is not a contract clause these are international understandings or mis-understandings between Pakistan and India. Most thinkers in the west attribute the "the will of the Kashmiri people" as the hall mark for plebiscite. In other words a kind of "Sons of the soil" fight for freedom and liberty. Hence my emphasis on the dichotomy between freedom fight and Jihad. It depends in what angle you are looking at it. In any event the violence does not abate irrespective of the legal contentions. Perhaps indirectly by giving a semblance of achievability of Independence, plebiscite or whatever - the international community may have contributed to the violence in Indian held Kashmir. Incidentally why don't we here the cry for independence from the chinese held Kashmir?. Is it because China is too big a nut to crack or that its human rights record everywhere is excellent?. Democracy's can be pushed around I guess. Also, when an issue is debated it will always be argued in a holistic manner. If you just keep a paper in front of you and state the legality - this is not going to cut ice anywhere. Is this the reason why International law cannot achieve resolutions properly - because they are hemmed in by "Court like proceedings between nations" - can this work?. Who is to explain court procedures or niceties of legal texts and documents and theories to the Taliban?.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 10:53 am
A better solution would be for the UN (and commerce and trading countries) to put a moratorium on the Kashmir issue for say another 15 to 20 years. The parties standoff on an "As is where is Basis" and no further discussion on this matter. This will put an end to the armed oppostion in Kashmir. Instead of doing this if success is a possibility in the internationa fora - why would armed Jihadi's not try for it. In the manner that Palestinian armed struggle continues because International aid in Billions continue. There seems to be good motivation right now. Solutions must be found and armed maruaders dismantelled with time on the side of the peace keepers. The Internatinal body should work towards resumption of civil life first. I detect a condescending note at your end. I am sure you are more qualified to discuss legality. I do not have any pretentions to my knowledge of Law beyond the peripheries of common sense.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 1:00 pm
Yi Ling lu. A big gaffe on my side. There is no chinese held Kashmir. But there seems to be implicit support of the Pakistani's from that side.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 1:50 pm
Dear Kumar Sam,
First I would tackle the issue you raised , . I detect a condescending note at your end. I am sure you are more qualified to discuss legality. I do not have any pretentions to my knowledge of Law beyond the peripheries of common sense.”.
I was responding to your gripe about ”If International Law does talk of some finer points that no one understands - then I can only repeat the DIckens refrain "Then Sir, the Law must be an Ass"
Admittedly, if I had earlier realized that you did not see the point I was trying to put across, I would have explained it. You did not ask and I did not know or realize!!!
However when I realized it, you had already taken a sling shot at law , that is, "Then Sir, the Law must be an Ass" which I do love, whatever her failings and insufficiencies. The rest is history…
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 2:14 pm
Dear Kumar Sam,
Now I will tackle your issue of, ”Perhaps indirectly by giving a semblance of achievability of Independence, plebiscite or whatever - the international community may have contributed to the violence in Indian held Kashmir.” .
Yes I would agree, that, as along as the issue of plebiscite , is discussed, it does create an idea that only when the conditions are ripe that then a plebiscite will be held to determine the will of the people of Kashmir.
It appears to me that India, has taken the clear legal position, that the plebiscite, is no longer available!
You would be aware that in commercial contract, you have about 6 years to sue to recover your money/loan. If you do not sue within 6 years when you could have first sued, the other party is entitled not to pay you. In short, your court case, brought after time has expired is time barred .
Can such time bar not also apply at international law?
To your next point, “Most thinkers in the west attribute the "the will of the Kashmiri people" as the hall mark for plebiscite.”, would you not think that this a dangerous thinking , and an erroneous one? It presupposes the continuing availability of plebiscite , once the conditions have been met. The conditions are withdrawal of forces. It undermines settled sovereignty. It draws a dangerous co-relation to the ‘will of the people of East Timor” determined by a referendum.
I had therefore placed before you at least twice, the legal arguments by the Indian government at http://www.meadev.nic.in/jk/kashmirissue.htm on the void plebiscite? If you would only read it, you might see the common sense arguments of it. You could then balance it against the legal arguments of the Pakistan position at http://www.forisb.org/kashmir.hmtl and determine what is your common sense legal view .
That 500,000 Indian army is stationed in Kashmir bespeaks of a major insurgency in Kashmir! Contrast this with only 3,000- 5,000 armed guerilla in Kashmir. Ratio of 500 : 1 ?
The solution cannot be a void plebiscite, but a bilateral negotiation between India and Pakistan.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 3:07 pm
Dear Yi Ling Lu. I was once again browsing over the Kashmir map. How is it that Pakistan transferred some portions of POK kashmir to China?. This seems to be a very significant event, considering that Pakistan assumed sovereignity and even acceded disputed territories and at in the same breath is asking for a plebiscite. This seems to be more valid than a Contract presumption,which seems rather peurile in this context. The other stand (that is the equity position) is like appearing in a court of equity with unclean hands of both Pakistan and China. Regarding the other matter of the will of the kasmiri people - I am just informing you the hitherto view of the west, on this issue. These are not my views. If you say that these are erroneous views - I would agree with you - that is what I have been telling all the while. Namely there is not real free will in a gulag ype atmosphere, which the west is rather late to understand and appreciate in the Jihad context.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 3:10 pm
The illegal transfer of some portions of POK kashmir was I believe done in 1963. How was this done and why? - specially on a disputed territory?.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 8:34 pm
Kumar Sam,
On your point, "Regarding the other matter of the will of the kasmiri people - I am just informing you the hitherto view of the west, on this issue. These are not my views. If you say that these are erroneous views - I would agree with you - that is what I have been telling all the while.", what i said is erroneous is that, in the first place, one should not even be discussing whether today there is free will to hold a plebiscite. The reason is that, as of today, there is no existing offer or existing conditional offer of a plebiscite
Therefore there is no necessity to enter into the argument, that there should be free will, a plebiscite can then be held. Thus for this reason "the will of the kasmiri people - I am just informing you the hitherto view of the west, on this issue." is an erroneous view. It is erroneous because it assumes the existing offer or conditional offer of a plebiscite provided free will is first established before the holding of the plebiscite.
The will of the people of Kashmir can be through the usual democratic process of the ballot box as has been so for the past 40+ years. If there is any grievance, then Kashmiris can prevail on the Indian democratic system for redress either in or through the political system (in the ballot box) or legal system (courts of law).
I will refrain a while here, unless further clarification is required on the issue of the plebiscite & the legal position of 'the plebiscite' being no longer available today because of the passage of time. ... that is, the conditional offer of a plebiscite made around 1947 has lapsed, expired, died, ceased!
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Thursday August 08, 2002 at 9:37 pm
Dear Kumar Sam,
If you agree with the Western thinkers, as you have expressed on Thursday August 08, 2002 at 10:36 am “Most thinkers in the west attribute the "the will of the Kashmiri people" as the hall mark for plebiscite.” then you would state as you did on Monday August 05, 2002 at 9:27 am that < “I understand that by voluntarily asking for a plebiscite India has put itself in an ackward position”.
To your point on Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 11:10 am that “You seem to think that Plebiscite does not require any ground realities or free will conditions at all,before even proceding towards legality or illegality”; my reply is as follows:-
(1) As there is no more offer or conditional offer of a plebiscite, there is no reason at all to examine what are the ground realities that will allow the holding of a plebiscite
(2) . It is trite understanding that there should be ‘free will conditions’ for there to be a plebiscite. That is probably why it was a necessary pre condition that Pakistan withdraw her forces, before the Indian Government hold a plebiscite. Indian author/s have sought to explain why Pakistan did not want to withdraw her forces. Whether that is true or not, requires other kind of investigation. <(3)>The issue at hand is that, was the universally accepted norm of holding a plebiscite under free will conditions embodied in the UN SC Resolution? Yes, the ‘free will ‘ element was embodied in the UN SC Resolution around 1947 or ’48. It was embodied as Pakistan to first withdraw her forces from Kashmir. Did Pakistan withdraw her forces for the past 40+ years? No, Pakistan did not.
(4) Is this conditional offer of a plebiscite, an eternal offer? No, it is not an eternal offer. When has the offer lapsed? It may have lapsed around early 1960’s.
(5) Would it then be awkward to keep on harping on the need for ‘free will’ to hold a plebiscite? Yes, it would be awkward. It would unnecessarily complicate matters.
If you agreed with the Indian Government thinkers, then you would not state as you did on Monday August 05, 2002 at 9:27 am that < “I understand that by voluntarily asking for a plebiscite India has put itself in an ackward position”.
Instead your point may or could have been expressed as follows:-
At the time of independence, with the concept of a 2 nations State for the Indian sub continent, there were about 562 Princely States, in 1947. Kashmir was one of the 562 Princely states although amongst the bigger ones. (See http://adaniel.tripod.com/princely.htm as provided by Yi Ling on Saturday July 27, 2002 at 2:55 am) As pointed out by Jari Nousiainen, Finland on Thursday July 25, 2002 at 4:07 am, ”Of the princely states, the two major ones, the Punjab and Bengal, were split between India and Pakistan. Those that acceded to Pakistan intact were Sind, Balochistan and North-Eastern Frontier.” There was dispute then in 1947 between India and Pakistan as to which nation Kashmir wished to join. India said that the Prince of Kashmir had agreed to join India. Pakistan said the people of Kashmir , majority Muslims, wanted to join Pakistan. To avert a war between India and Pakistan, India agreed to a plebiscite under ‘free will’ conditions, through Pakistan withdrawing her invading forces in Kashmir. This was not withdrawn at the material time nor to-date. India has confirmed that the conditional offer has lapsed, expired, died, ceased, since it was not a conditional offer for eternity. Thus it would be awkward if there is a constant reference ( by well meaning people not familiar with the Indian sub continent situation) to hold or promote the view that the holding of a plebiscite…. must be attributed to the will of the people of Kashmir ; as you have stated aptly as “Most thinkers in the west attribute the "the will of the Kashmiri people" as the hall mark for plebiscite.”
Then again, one must ask you, what is the source for your inference that, “Most thinkers in the west attribute the "the will of the Kashmiri people" as the hall mark for plebiscite.” . Also how reliable is your source and how accurate it is. I therefore reserve my view as to the accuracy of your finding, >“Most thinkers in the west attribute the "the will of the Kashmiri people" as the hall mark for plebiscite.”. But should that indeed be the view, I would say it is an erroneous view and leans to more harm than good, by keeping alive the torch of plebiscite, which fire has extinguished, never to be revived by early 1960’s or thereabouts.
Which is it that you agree with ?
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Friday August 09, 2002 at 2:12 am
Footnote:(1) Thursday August 08, 2002 at 2:14 pm, The solution cannot be a void plebiscite, but a bilateral negotiation between India and Pakistan.
(2) Thursday July 18, 2002 at 3:16 am, Further since 1957, India and Pakistan have entered into bilateral talks and signed the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. It appears to me that these bilateral agreements would replace the prior ‘out-dated’ plebiscite issue. Thus to the new Third Party’s claim for a plebiscite, I would contend that, the bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan would be the way forward and not the plebiscite
(3) (Quote also from: Jari Nousiainen, Finland, Thursday July 18, 2002 at 4:50 am, I agree that the offer of plebiscite would seem outdated.)
(4) For avoidance of doubt, based on the legal records, I contend that, the plebiscite is a dead issue, from the legal angle, and it has been replaced by the legal documents of the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration.
(5) Thus any discussion, however well intended, in the vein of, presupposing the continuing conditional legal offer of a plebiscite (condition of ‘free will’) is misguided and can lead to complications. It can lead to keeping the myth of the plebiscite offer alive.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Friday August 09, 2002 at 9:45 am
Kumar Sam,
For your ease of reference on the legal position of the plebiscite, from the Indian Government’s side: Extract from http://www.meadev.nic.in/jk/kashmirissue.htm, also refers to V.K. Menon in the Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957): "if an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it".
The other pertinent paragraphs from this site are as follows:-
Para 6. . Despite India's completely legal and valid position on Jammu & Kashmir, in order to find a solution to the situation created by Pakistan's aggression, India had accepted the option of holding a plebiscite in J&K. It had, however, been made clear by the Indian leaders that holding of such a plebiscite would be conditional upon Pakistan fulfilling Parts (I) & (II) of the UNCIP resolutions of 13 August, 1948, which inter alia, required that all forces regular and irregular under the control of both sides shall cease fire; Pakistan would withdraw its troops, it would endeavour to secure withdrawal of tribesmen and Pak nationals and India will withdraw bulk of its forces once the UNCIP confirms that the tribesmen and Pak nationals have withdrawn and Pak troops are being withdrawn. India was also to ensure that the state government takes various measures to preserve peace, law and order. Indian acceptance of these UNCIP resolutions was also subject to several conditions and assurances given by UNCIP including that Pakistan would be excluded from all affairs of Jammu & Kashmir, "Azad J & K Government" would not be recognised, sovereignty of J & K government over the entire territory of the state shall not be brought into question, territory occupied by Pakistan shall not be consolidated, and Pakistani troops would be withdrawn completely. Pakistan never fulfilled these assurances.
Para 8. . India had accepted these resolutions, subject to assurances, (mentioned in para 6) and in the hope of having the matter resolved quickly. Pakistan, however, wrecked the implementation of the resolutions at that time by not fulfilling the preconditions. As V.K. Menon stated in the Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957): "if an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it". With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events. In fact, the representative of India (M.C. Chagla) had stated in the Security Council as far back as 1964 (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964): "I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir".
Para 13. The above position is increasingly being acknowledged by the world today. Highlighting the fact that the UNCIP resolutions did not come under Chapter VII, and were therefore not self enforcing, the UN Secretary General stated at a press conference in Islamabad in March 2001, that “the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way out, is the route I recommend”.
Para 14. It is now widely acknowledged that bilateral dialogue, in accordance with the Simla Agreement, reiterated in the Lahore Declaration, is the only way to address all bilateral issues between India and Pakistan, including the issue of J&K. UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, stated in the British Parliament on 10th June 2002, that “if United Nations resolutions could have solved the matter, it would have been solved more than 50 years ago”. Speaking for the British Government, he said, “we think that there is not a huge amount of point in getting in a historiographical exercise about which position is correct. We have to deal with the here and now”, adding that a solution to this issue could be found only “by looking forward and by a direct dialogue between those two sovereign nations, India and Pakistan”.
Para 15. The people of Jammu and Kashmir could not wait indefinitely to decide their future. In any case the UN resolutions did not recognise or grant any role to Pakistan in the conduct of the plebiscite. "If Pakistan, therefore, has no part in the plebiscite, it really became a domestic matter for India". (V.K. Krishna Menon, UNSC, 800th meeting, 11 November, 1957). India waited several years for Pakistan to fulfil the preconditions. When that did not happen, the people of Jammu and Kashmir then convened a Constituent Assembly in 1951, which once again reaffirmed the Accession of the State to India in 1956 and finalised the Constitution for the State. The Jammu and Kashmir Constitution reaffirms that "the State is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India."
Next I will put the legal position from the Pakistan Government’s side. Then you can re-evaluate, re-consider and decide on the relevance and accuracy or otherwise of all your prior statements on plebiscite, from the legal perspective.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Friday August 09, 2002 at 10:20 am
Dear Kumar Sam,
The legal argument by the Pakistan government as per this site, http://www.forisb.org/kashmir.html , indicates that the plebiscite in the UN Resolution is still valid. The pertinent paragraphs are below.
In Jammu and Kashmir state, the situation was the reverse. The ruler of the State was a Hindu, while the population was overwhelmingly Muslim and wanted to join Pakistan. In this case, India consistently pressurized the Hindu Ruler to accede to India. Apprehending that the Hindu ruler was likely to succumb to Indian pressure, the people of Jammu and Kashmir rose against him, forcing him to flee from Srinagar, the capital of the State. They formed their own government on 24th October, 1947. On 27th of October, 1947, the Government of India alleged that the ruler had acceded to India on the basis of a fraudulent instrument of accession, sent its forces into the State and occupied a large part of Jammu and Kashmir.
But Indian leaders, including Jawahar lal Nehru, the Prime Minister and Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, solemnly declared that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by the people of the State. This declaration was reiterated by India at the UN Security Council when the dispute was referred to that august body, under chapter 6 of the U.N Charter relating to peaceful settlement of disputes. The Security Council adopted a number of resolutions on the issue, providing for the holding of a fair and impartial plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir under UN auspices to enable the Kashmiri people to exercise their right of self-determination and join either Pakistan or India. The UN also deployed the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire line between the Liberated or Azad Kashmir area and the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK). These resolutions were accepted by India and Pakistan and constitute an agreed legal basis for settlement of the dispute.
India, however, thwarted all attempts by the United Nations to organize a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Eventually, India openly resiled from its commitments and declared that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India.
The Indian armed intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was illegal and took place against the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Despite the decision of the UN Security Council for the holding of a plebiscite to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own future, India's own pledges to that effect, and reiteration of their commitment of resolving the Kashmir issue in the Simla Agreement of 1972 signed between Pakistan and India after the 1971 war, India continues to remain in illegal occupation of a large part of Jammu and Kashmir, refuses to allow the Kashmiris to decide their own future and continues its brutal suppression in the territory.
After more than four decades of a peaceful struggle against Indian repression, manipulation and exploitation, the Kashmiri people, convinced that India would never honour its commitments, and inspired by similar movements for freedom in other parts of the world, rose against the Indian occupation towards the later part of 1989. Their struggle was, and remains, largely peaceful. India sought to suppress their movement with massive use of force, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children. This led some of the Kashmiri youth to take up arms in self defence. Since 1989, more than 60,000 Kashmiri people have been killed in a reign of terror and repression unleashed by over 600,000 Indian troops. Many more languish in Indian jails where they are subjected to torture and custodial deaths. There have been numerous cases of gang rapes of Kashmiri women by the Indian forces and the deliberate burning down of entire localities and villages.
These brutalities have been documented by International and even Indian Human Rights Organizations. Organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as Indian human rights NGOs have extensively documented the gross and systematic violation of human rights of the Kashmiri people by Indian military and para-military forces. Extra judicial killings, involuntary disappearances, arbitrary detentions, rapes and torture continue to be reported on a large scale. The Kashmiri leaders have been repeatedly harassed and physically intimidated. They have also been denied travel permission to prevent them from exposing Indian human rights abuses in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The massive suppression by India is clearly designed to silence the people of Jammu and Kashmir through sheer brutality bordering on genocide and ethnic cleansing.
A peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN resolutions remains on top of Pakistan’s foreign policy agenda To demonstrate its sincerity in finding a peaceful solution to this core issue, Pakistan has always sought a meaningful and substantive dialogue with India. However, the Indians have refused to engage in meaningful talks on Kashmir, claiming the territory as an integral part of India. Only when compelled by extraneous factors or international pressure, such as in 1962-63, 1990-94 and again after May 1998, have the Indians agreed to talks on Kashmir. But this dialogue has been sterile because the Indian objective has never been to find a settlement but to deflect international pressure by creating the facade of talks.
While the first round of talks on Kashmir was held in October 1998 between the Foreign Secretaries, as per the agreed agenda of June 1997, there was no change in the Indian position. India rejected Pakistan’s frame work proposal for a structured and substantive dialogue on Kashmir, maintaining its intransigent position that the status of Kashmir was not open for discussion.
Pakistan will continue to extend full political, diplomatic and moral support to the legitimate Kashmiri struggle for their right to self-determination as enshrined in the relevant United Nations resolutions. In the context of the bilateral dialogue, it calls on India to translate its commitments into reality. At the same time, it will encourage the international community to support and supplement our efforts to establish lasting peace and stability in South Asia on the basis of equitable resolution of all disputes between the two countries, in particular the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir.
Thus if the above, establishes the legal position of the Pakistan government, then the plebiscite in the UN Resolution is still valid. In which case, one needs to determine, whether there are conditions of ‘free will’ to then proceed with the holding of the plebiscite. Conditions of ‘free will’ would entail the withdrawal of forces as stated in the UN resolution, and any other meaning as has become necessary because of the passage of time and events.
Only from the legal stand point of the Pakistan Government, would your earlier statement, “I understand that by voluntarily asking for a plebiscite India has put itself in an ackward position” be apt and correct. From the legal stand point of the Indian Government, your statement suggests a problem with the ‘existing and continuing offer of a plebiscite’ which according to V.K. Menon, does not exist any more --- It is therefore highly unlikely that VK Menon would have agreed with your said statement & other statements on plebiscite, as V.K. Menon had said in the Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957): "if an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it".
I did not take serious issue with you, on the legal issue on the void or expired plebiscite for triviality, but for the longer ranging outlook for the interest and welfare of the Indian sub continent (Pakistan and India alike; Muslims and Hindus alike) as well as the world. Please accept my sincere apologies if in the course of putting forward the gravity of the legal issue , and trying to un-ravel your misperception of the legal issue, I have come across to you, in any negative way.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Saturday August 10, 2002 at 2:42 am
Kumar Sam,
The difference between your understanding of legal issue of plebiscite results in your ‘plebiscite’ statements as follows:-
(1) Tuesday August 06, 2002 at 11:10 am: Kumar Sam: ”Only after a prolonged period of peace with no outward attacks on people in the name of religion can the issue of plebiscite be even thought of.”
(2) Thursday August 08, 2002 at 10:36 am: Kumar Sam “While it is true that considerable amount of time has elapsed since the offer. I still don't understand that elapse of time is the real argument here. This is not a contract clause these are international understandings or mis-understandings between Pakistan and India.”
(3) Thursday August 08, 2002 at 3:07 pm: Kumar Sam “This seems to be more valid than a Contract presumption,which seems rather peurile in this context”
It is not unlikely that the or a legal adviser of India might have rejected and countered your above ‘plebiscite’ statements with :-
…..Para 8. With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events. In fact, the representative of India (M.C. Chagla) had stated in the Security Council as far back as 1964 (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964): "I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir". Extract from http://www.meadev.nic.in/jk/kashmirissue.htm
The point , is that, if there were a miracle and suddenly there are “free will’ conditions, you would honourably consider ‘plebiscite’.
The Indian Government position as far back as 1964, rules out 100.00 % plebiscite. In other words, even if there were a miracle and suddenly there are “free will’ conditions, India would never consider ‘plebiscite’ as the conditional offer has lapsed. (V.K. Menon in the Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957): "if an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it".)
(1) That is the legal difference.
(2) Besides that, an acceptance of a plebiscite on fulfillment of free will conditions, is contrary to the current international understanding. (Highlighting the fact that the UNCIP resolutions did not come under Chapter VII, and were therefore not self enforcing, the UN Secretary General stated at a press conference in Islamabad in March 2001, that “the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way out, is the route I recommend”. ) (3) Further, it unrealistically nurtures wrong hopes of possible plebiscite and unnecessarily complicates the issue.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Monday August 12, 2002 at 8:12 am
Plebiscite (legal ) Issue
I leave a small room for doubt, on the legal issue of the plebsicite for others to investigate. -- My attention is drawn to a posting by a Muslim Intelligentsia on Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 2:03 pm: Saghir Mehar, Sialkot, Pakistan: “……Now about in Kashmir Pakistan pulled out and stoped the first war of Pakistan and India just because to pespect the resolutions of UN. This is how International relations work, you obey some thing and then you expect the other party to obey it. That ofcourse did not happen in 1948. Now when ever an international obligation is broken it becomes weak and its effectiveness becomes less important for people. The truth is that the problem of Kashmir should be solved be the international law but like a judge and keeping in mind the estoples created in the history.”
Is Saghir Mehar, of Sialkot, Pakistan on Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 2:03 pm , suggesting that, in accordance with the UN Resolution 1948, Pakistan had indeed pulled out their forces in accordance with condition for plebiscite in the UN Resolution 1948?
Even if Saghir Mehar, of Sialkot, Pakistan is suggesting that, the question of fact is that, “Is it a fact that Pakistan had indeed pulled out their forces in or around 1948 in accordance with condition for plebiscite in the UN Resolution 1948?”
If yes, Pakistan did pull out their forces in or around 1948 in accordance with condition for plebiscite in the UN Resolution 1948, then India should have held the plebiscite in 1948.
However I do not find in Pakistan’s official or government explanation of the Kashmir issue, such a fact of Pakistan’s compliance with all the pre conditions in or around 1948, as stated in the UN Resolution 1948, for India to hold the plebiscite.
As stated on Wednesday July 31, 2002 at 3:48 am: by Jari Nousiainen, Finland : “We don't need to go into the validity of the plebiscite offer. The plebiscite is contingent on the withdrawal of the Pakistani troops. We know Pakistan won't do that. And how do we know that? Because Pakistan would have to persuade China to withdraw its troops from Ladakh! This won't happen. …..”
Unless someone has information to the contrary, I would conclude, that since 1948 and till now, Pakistan has not complied with the precondition in the UN Resolution of 1948 to withdraw her forces for the plebiscite.
This does not detract from the earlier point, that, the conditional offer of a plebiscite has lapsed. Thus even with Pakistan’s withdrawal of forces, now, in 2002, if ever, India has as at 1964 stated they would never agree to a plebiscite. So the way forward is the bilateral talk to a peaceful settlement.
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Monday August 12, 2002 at 9:23 am
Dear Yi Ling Lu, I do not profess to be a spokesperson for the Government of India nor am I one. But the illegal transferrance of some parts of the disputed area to China in 1964 has still not been investigated. On what basis did Pakistan gift away what is allegedly disputed even by their thinking?. I am all for freedom of peoples and their wishes but this is , but this is certainly not the case in Kashmir. As you rightly put it they should seek redress within the Constituitional laws of India - if the Kashmiri people wish to correct bias or other forms of discrimination. If religion alone can permit some group to secede from the soverign territories of a Nation - there is no end to giving up land on that basis. Particularly, if the religion professes and believes that they should get rid,convert and retain people by the sword or the fear thereof. This has happened in the past - but the twentieth and twenty first century has a built in capacity to defend the freedom of belief on an Individual basis. WHy is not religion a strictly personal one?. How has religion come to mean territorial occupation by right?. Don't we notice anything wrong in this?. I have sometime to study the SImla agreement etc - my particular thanks to you for articulating the positive position of a secular democracy. But this does not seem to stop Pakistan or the rest of the world in engaging in the notion of plebiscite.
Kumar Sam
NY
USA - Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 7:09 am
Kumar Sam, lu5798@hotmail.com
Yi Ling Lu
Malaysia - Monday July 14, 2003 at 2:00 pm
As a kashmiri I can speak with more authenticity than most. The core of the Kashmir problems lies in the sharp divisions within kashmiri society. The tussle is between people who wish to follow secular kashmiri culture and those who subscribe to orthodox islam. It is important to note that kashmir is the only place in south asia when hindu muslim riots are unheard of and feudal structures have been totally dismantled. Thanks to the bungling of the indian govt. and suffocation of kashmiri nationalism, the orthodox elements aided and abetted by their saudi and paki masters have managed to destabilise the situation.
Koshur Nafar
Los angeles
ca - Friday October 31, 2003 at 10:01 am
Before 1947 - the area that now constitutes Pakistan had roughly 30-40% non-muslim population. That has dropped to 3% now. Kashmir now has roughly 40% non-muslim population. What will happen to them if they join Pakistan? Can we afford another large-scale genocide in this world?
P MUKHERJEE
Delhi
India - Sunday November 16, 2003 at 11:36 am
Hey everybody all these reviews that your send relating to india paki issue is all shit .No difference is gonna happen We all want both countires to progress in future with good relationship.The only way out would be to not jus speaking about it ather work on it.We youngstars can make it happen. But it should all come from within our hearts.The best and effective way would be to form an organistaion in all of the major cities in India as well as pakistan.The organisation must have stricktly youngstars in it and only educated once.The head of both the organisation india and pakistan must be in touch every day .Then we can work it out that way by discussing things that need to be done repectively so that our relation improve.Politics on both side will never think of good relation between both countries.Youngsaters in India as well Pakistan very well know of what is actually happing but we people jus can give good comments no one actually thinks of walking in to it and educate illitrates who are spoiling it.we can do it.People on this site who are giving such slogans everyday and are having time for it think of getting together and lets work on it.Lets stop Pionting fingers and lets jus spread love among our people for each other repectively.For India Pak Future
Biju Nair
Mumbai
Maharashtra - Wednesday December 03, 2003 at 9:15 pm
The end game for Kashmir will come about when two things happen. Firstly, India's steady economic progress makes an alliance with it far more attractive than any merging with Pakistan. Witness what is happening in other impoverished states such as Bihar. There is a rush on to more prosperous states. Secondly, terrorist activities without active support from the Western side of the LOC will cease gradually. Lastly the notion that Kashmiris are different and therefore need a state of their own is an absurd proposition. Were that the case all of South America should be one nation and Switzerland should break up into three.
Sanjiv Wanchoo
New York
NY USA - Monday April 26, 2004 at 4:45 am
The discussion on J-k misses a few vital points, which are pertinent to understand the problem and why the issues is dragging along. At the time of partition, princely states had the choice to either join India or Pakistan or remain independent. Sundar Garh, a princely state under a Muslim, but with majority of Hindus, was let go by Pakistan to join India with the assurance by India that Hyderabad under a Hindu Prince but with a majority of Muslims will be joining Pakistan. India later annexed the Hyderabad and made a part of the Indian state. Pakistan got irritated and sent armed tribes to grab Kashmir, again under a Hindu king but with a majority of Muslims, and which had decided to remain independent state. India offered military help to King Hari Singh with the condition that later signed the Instrument of Accession. Hari Singh did that with reportedly "trembling" fingers. What followed after that is history and is known to every body. But by that time Pakistan had already captured a major region of Kashmir which it called as Azad (Free) Kashmir and India dub it as Pak-Occupied Kashmir. The story would have ended there had India not provoked Pakistan again, in 1971, by helping East Pakistan to secede from West Pakistan to become Bangladesh. That perhaps made Pakistan to take revenge, by first provoking the Punjab to secede, and after having failed there, it has turned its attention on Kashmir, which is till date going on.
Nasir Jawed
New Delhi
India - Monday April 26, 2004 at 5:07 am
The discussion on J-k misses a few vital points, which are pertinent to understand the problem and why the issues is dragging along. At the time of partition, princely states had the choice to either join India or Pakistan or remain independent. Sundar Garh, a princely state under a Muslim, but with majority of Hindus, was let go by Pakistan to join India with the assurance by India that Hyderabad under a Hindu Prince but with a majority of Muslims will be joining Pakistan. India later annexed the Hyderabad and made a part of the Indian state. Pakistan got irritated and sent armed tribes to grab Kashmir, again under a Hindu king but with a majority of Muslims, and which had decided to remain independent state. India offered military help to King Hari Singh with the condition that later signed the Instrument of Accession. Hari Singh did that with reportedly "trembling" fingers. What followed after that is history and is known to every body. But by that time Pakistan had already captured a major region of Kashmir which it called as Azad (Free) Kashmir and India dub it as Pak-Occupied Kashmir. The story would have ended there had India not provoked Pakistan again, in 1971, by helping East Pakistan to secede from West Pakistan to become Bangladesh. That perhaps made Pakistan to take revenge, by first provoking the Punjab to secede, and after having failed there, it has turned its attention on Kashmir, which is till date going on.
Nasir Jawed
New Delhi
India