Chandan Mitra, editor-in-chief of The Pioneer, and a Rajya Sabha member nominated by BJP, in The Pioneer:
“Last weekend two prominent newspaper columnists [Swaminathan Aiyar in The Sunday Times, and Vir Sanghvi in The Hindustan Times] wrote about the need to think out-of-the-box urging us to seriously consider if it is morally right to hold “unwilling” Kashmiris back in this country.
“I agree with them…. But under no circumstances can Indian citizens be allowed to promote secession.
“Advocating the right of Kashmiris to secede, as a professional female agitator [Arundhati Roy]… reportedly did in Srinagar, is tantamount to treason and must invite provisions contained in the law relating to waging war against the State.
“Personally, I feel that even publicising such treasonable views, leave alone using dedicated columns to indulge in secessionist propaganda, should invite the charge of promoting terrorism and anti-national activity.”
Read the full column: Better Mush than traitors
When Nehru used to talk about ‘secularism’ immediately after India’s partition, Shyamaprasad Mukherjee used to reply: after surrendering to Islamic separatism of Jinnah, you have come to teach us “secularism” !
Sanghvi’s analysis was similar- it never dared to analyze what drives Jehadis of Valley. Worse, it never questioned the FAILURE OF NEHRUVIAN SECULARISM, STATECRAFT.
For sustenance of their own intelelctual continuance, Sanghvi & Co must integrate Kashmir into India, else its a foregone conclusion that India will become an official “Hindu Rashtra”.
Arundathi should write one more book quickly. She’s now become a case of idle mind…..
Whoa, Churumuri, wrong post. Take it down…
Law of the land is ‘clear’ on the issue. What Chandan say is true and why should “Sec Soc” Journalists be exempted from this?
After all in past too people have been booked and punished for the same.
PI
what possible reason cld we have to even discuss this topic and thus render it legitimacy?
request – take this one down
“Last weekend two prominent newspaper columnists [Swaminathan Aiyar in The Sunday Times, and Vir Sanghvi in The Hindustan Times] wrote about the need to think out-of-the-box urging us to seriously consider if it is morally right to hold “unwilling” Kashmiris back in this country.
“I agree with them…. But under no circumstances can Indian citizens be allowed to promote secession.” ”
Wait a minute. He agrees that we should “seriously consider whether it is morally right to hold unwilling Kashmiris back in the country,” however, at the same time he claims that as indian citizens we are not allowed to discuss the possibility of letting Kashmir secede?
How can he agree that we should consider the moral issues involved and yet place restrictions on what we say about those moral issues. Chandan Mitra is clearly contradictory and delusional. His assertion that he “agrees with them” (the advocates of a dialogue on the issue) is simply a badly designed smokescreen trying to reassure us that he is not after all a Hindu Hardliner when in fact the rest of his idiotic and contradictory article belies his true intentions.
Arresting journalists for treason when they are merely discussing important moral issues surrounding the issue that has plagued us for our entire independent history is ridiculous and counter-productive.
For once, I agree with Chandan Mitra. What does Vir Sanghvi know about Kashmir? India doesn’t need hypocrites who sit in a cabin of a metro paper and spew nonsense?
The so called “out-of-the-box” thinking is to admit defeat to jihadists? Is this all these ’eminent’ journalists are capable of coming up with?
It would have been laughable had it not been such a serious subject.
Moreover, Chandra Mitra should have responded to these two columnists instead of attacking a harmless activist as Arundhati Roy.
When CM wrote:
“I agree with them…. But under no circumstances can Indian citizens be allowed to promote secession.”
He is at the back of his mind referring to the two who wrote those out-of-the-box articles.
And people who are intolerant and want to silence people’s voices (Like Mr. Mitra) should be tried for violation of fundamental right of freedom of expression.
The doctrine of expression, extends beyond the point of agreeing with everything that a party or party, or even a consensus says is in National interest.
If I feel differently, I can say it freely, without any fear.
Here goes “I BELIEVE NO ONE SHOULD BE RULED AGAINST THEIR WILL”, and if there is sufficient cause to test that will, so be it. Call it self-determination or anything else.
The problem is, will we let a group of people (here the Muslims of Kashmir) secede based primarily on their religious beliefs?
And it is very likely that if they do get their ‘Azadi’ they would be swallowed up by Pakistan.
What then? War to liberate Kashmir again?
For the Muslims in Kashmir who think this is an Islamic thing and the Indian state and its people are the enemy, is better they understand that Indians are against theocracy and will support the fight against it for all time.
My view point is same. I cannot see its sufficient reason that ‘religion’ should ever be an acceptable reason to divide a country. And I also think that there is no reason to accept the reasons of partition of 1947, today.
But I also do not think we should supress views. Not all of us, least me, is 100% informed or have understood all angles. People should be allowed to express themselves or we can never grow as a society. It sounds dangerous today, but I think it is a better way forward and we can handle it. We should handle it bravely.
Problem is not something which can be solved by empty rhetoric. We need some soul searching and hard decision.
When India was vivisected in to two dominions, British also left some 560 odd Indian States as mostly land locked yet independent kingdom. Though both the dominions celebrated independence on 14/15 Aug 1947, for many on the line of divide , it was still unknown on that day. Largely due to the great efforts of Sardar and his Secretary of State Mr. VP Menon , almost all the Rulers agreed to accede to Indian dominion. Junagadh – a maritime state was ruled by a Muslim but predominantly Hindu subjects was conquered and the Ruler who acceded to Pakistan fled the country. Hyderabad was again conquered by police action yet tehy Ruler was accorded Rajapramukh status and recognised as a Ruler as per Art. 366(22) and given highest privy purse and privilege as per Art 291 and Art. 362. Again His son Mukharam was allowed stash away his wealth in private jet to Australia and Jewellary purchased by the State paying billions of tax payers money.
But in the case of J&K, it was a predominantly Muslim subject ruled by a Hindu Ruler . this posed piquant situation. If it was Ruled by a Muslim Ruler he would have surely acceded to Pakistan and India would have no reason to quibble. Even today the Ruler of Amarkot ( Umarkot) ruled by a sodha Rajput is till in Pakistan and enjoying a feudal lifestyle. But a Harisingh being a Hindu Ruler had a unenviable problem on hand. He wished to remain an Independent Monarch. But PAkistan had other ideas and sent army in the garb of Afridi nomads and conquered half of Kashmir by the time Indian army landed at Srinagar and rescued Harisingh. But Nehru committed a harakri by agreeing to referendum and by going to UN instead of reclaiming Gilgit and other parts of Kashmir.
This has resulted in two and odd wars and tax payers money being spent to keep J&K as part of India on the legal premise that Harisingh signed the Instrument of accession and merger – the very agreements which Mrs. Gandhi consigned to historical dustbin by the 26th amendment.
So our hold is tenuous. But if you are hardliner then you need to abolish Art 370 and allow assimilation of Indian population in Kashmir like the rest of the Republic and agree for the LOC as an International border OR if you are a rationalist , then agree for a plebiscite and allow the Kashmiris the right to self determination.
jeevarathna,
Thanks for the writeup.
About the 2 choices, I think a rationalist may want to think a step or two further. If plebiscite and its outcome, then what? Both the repercussions in terms of what will happen to Kashmir (the land) and its Muslim inhabitants who want to break away from India, and what will happen within India itself if such a thing happens. Does not seem like a rational choice – given the actual situation. And moreover practically no Indian government (unless it is some kind of dictatorship) can even contemplate things along those lines without thinking about its own demise. As of now, does not look like we have a choice, and neither do the Kashmiris who want to go the way of Pakistan.
It is clearly mischievous on the part of Churmuri to quote selectively from Chandan Mitra’s article – “I agree with them….”, as if he is agreeing with the two journalists.
He is definitely not, as you can see from the actual words, quoted below:
“Last weekend two prominent newspaper columnists wrote about the need to think out-of-the-box (a Musharraf copyright in this context) urging us to seriously consider if it is morally right to hold “unwilling” Kashmiris back in this country. I agree with them. As a matter of policy, the Government must encourage all those who have no loyalty to this country to leave, migrating across the Line of Control to the country of their dreams.”
Rathnajeevi and ‘X’ Guy!
Democracy trumps all and that includes Mullacracy and crazy Mullahs!
We have a some what Northern Ireland situation here. The Catholics are of course free loading Muslim Kashmiris. The Protestants are our own Jammuites. Now India has shown tremendous forbearance in dealing with this ingratiates. We simply have to guard the borders and gently let the jihadists in so that they stary giving some much wanted ‘self-rule’ to these Kashmiri types so that they start getting some tight brotherhood and all that related shit! After a few months of some ferocious usage from the LeT types the ordinary simple Kashmiris will want the simple freedoms available in India. We have to show some tough love. That’s all.
The Muslims in the Kashmir valley were never as radical as their brothers in Pakistan. The radicalization started with Pakistani involvement after ’89. The various groups were living in peace before ’89 although there was systematic discrimination of Kashmiri Hindus by the Muslim majorit. Now after the Pandits’ departure, the Middle class Muslims have also left for greener pastures, and the Valley is largely composed of people from rural areas with not much education and are prone to fanaticism.
Kashmir is not only an integral part of India, but the seat of Hindu and Buddhist civilization is also at stake here.
People should also mention that the peaceful non-Muslim people living there till 89 who and a unique culture and still dream of returning to their home.
The problem with Kashmir is that the Indian government never let other Hindus settle in the Valley. This would have solved the problem–for you cannot have a State within a State. And clearly the Muslim majority has cleansed the valley of all multi-culturalism so now it is 100 percent Muslim.
But at this stage I doubt it wil be easy to resettle even the Pandits there, because no one will want to go there if the government cannot guarnatee their security and they can be killed by Muslim fanatics.
The government has pampered the Muslims long enough–despite the billions of subsidies going into the Valley–the Muslim mindset remains the same.
Perhaps a final war with Pakistan once and for all.
Nehru has set a time bomb in motion 60 years back with a Pseudo Secular agenda.
Vir Sanghvi and Swaminathan Aiyar are products of this pseudosecular agenda.
This is eating up India like termites.
Linguistic Parochialism,Religion, Caste and economic disparity are all time high even after 60 years of Independence.
The structure of the Constitution needs to be reconstructed.
Feudalism is all time high. There are few families controlling the life of ordinary indians by becoming law makers
Gowdas
Thackareys
Karunanidhi’s
Chauthala’s
Nehru-Gandhi’s
Mulayam and Laloo’s
and latest feadalist you has joined is Chiranjeevi. He has his Brothers and Brother in law.
How will Indian’s have out of the box thinking if the same old blood is recycled.
Most of the big mouths shooting off here don’t seem to understand the very basics of the Kashmir problem.
You treat it as if it’s a regular Indian state trying to break away.. while the fact is that Kashmir was never in fact an Indian state that can be treated like the rest.
Kashmir is – no matter how hard you try to defend it using terms like ‘integral part of India’ – still a disputed territory between India and Pakistan.
If that’s hard to swallow, so be it.
Kashmir was temporarily acceded to India to be followed by ratification by a referendum. Had the referendum voted in favor of Pakistan – like most people with half a brain or more would agree – then the entire state, Jammu, Kashmir AND Ladakh would have been Pakistani territory now.
The referendum (the choice of the people!) was never given to the Kashmiris.
It’s easy to pin the blame on Pakistan for the insurgency in the early 90s.. (Convenient, isn’t it?) But what about the fact that Kashmir is the most densely militarized zone in the world?
What about the army atrocities (rape, torture, executions and mass graves) and India’s pathetic human rights record in the valley? What about all the rigged elections held there by India? (No one even bothers to deny those anymore!)
Surely, they have SOME part in the Kashmiri anger?
When communal elements in Jammu were burning police stations, the Kashmiris – hundreds of thousands of them – were protesting peacefully for the first time in recent history, braving the presence of the army.. and fearless.
Pakistani hand? Bullshit.
When a liberal voice like Swaminathan or Arundhati Roy has the balls to call a spade a spade and point the finger at oneself, you guys can’t seem to handle it.
Its easy to take the cowardly way out – hang everyone for treason.. send in the remaining army into kashmir.. pillage every village and shoot ‘them’ till they bow down to the Indian might, no matter how many lives it takes, or how many more billions of Indian taxpayers money that goes into Kashmir so that people like you can maintain your false pride.
The double standards and hypcocrisy is baffling, when it comes to trying to justify India’s unjustifiable occupation. What about Junagadh.. and Hyderabad? Whatever happened to that?
Trying to occupy a people through brute force on one hand and try to project an image of ‘tolerant, secular, democracy’ on the other hand just sucks. It’ll help all your fragile egos, but not to an oppressed people living under the barrel of a gun, in Kashmir.
***
And I hate that ‘pseudosecular’ fig leaf of an argument you morons come up with when you have to provide some defense, and CANNOT.
Blame some distant ‘Nehru’ and Jinnah.. what would Vir Sanghvi know about kashmir.. and any other bull that prevents you from confronting your own ugly self.
False pride and ego. And no balls to criticize oneself.
That’s why you want to ‘try’ the liberals for treason.