I am sorry it had to end this way. I really am. Conradg, I hope you have no hard feelings – but is kind of tough not to have them given the passionate discussion that we have had and the harshness of the words exchanged.

More light and less heat was what I was looking forward to. It seems to have ended with more heat instead. I will pull a McCain here – it was all on me.

Kumar, if you still havent tired of reading our posts, I really hope that you and people in the region who face the same difficulties what ever their religious persuasion may be, get to stay SAFE, no matter how many disagreements arise.

At the end of the day while we can have all the arguments in the world, but the basic right of Kashmiris – personal security and freedom from fear of terror still hangs in the balance.

Good luck is all that i can wish as well.

Bizzare.

This exactly why it is difficult to have an honest debate with you. You lack honesty. There is no other way to put it.

It was “slavery” for you and me and anyone who believes in the fact the people are born with equal rights. It wasnt “slavery” for Southerners. Blacks were treated merely as property. And the US constitution did guarantee property rights. You dont have the intellectual honesty to agree with this. Southerners did not join the Union in 1789 only to be told that 75 years now, what constitutes “property” is subject to the whims of the States.

We can discuss all day long about how I “accused Lincoln of trying to change the Constitution to outlaw slavery, when that is simply not true”. That is how you distort things – good, keep it up.

My point was simply this -Why exactly did Lincoln declare war on the Southern States ? Please dont tell me that it is because of “slavery”. Let me remind you again that it was slavery for most of the North (excluding the Northern slave states of course) and a question of property rights for the South.

The South should have never been allowed to join the Union in the first place in 1789 if the North felt so strongly about the fact that men cannot be treated as property.

Your idea of the attack on Fort Sumter being the cause of the Civil War is what you have been taught in your politically correct history class. And it is so laughable if not so thoroughly dishonest.

So 600,000 people lost their lives and another 400,000 were injured because the Federal Govt wanted payback for the attack on Fort Sumter? Keep deluding yourself that this is what triggered the Civil War.

Now pray why did they make a “very stupid, rash, and illegal decision to rebel, to take up arms against the United States” ?

Because they understood that the Union Army wanted to use war as means to co-erce them into freeing black people.

Again it is “illegal” according to you – as far as Southerners were considered it was tyrannical for the Federal Govt to infringe on their property rights. As simple as that. The Northern States betrayed the trust that the South had in them – namely that they were not going to go back on recognizing what constitutes property.

Like I pointed out, what was the reason for the South to ratify the Constitution in 1789 and join the Union ? Why did they join the Union if they thought that their rights to property could be infringed/re-interpreted upon by 3/4th of the rest of the United States within the next 75 years. ? Who exactly does that ?

What exactly stopped them from saying “Thank you but we want to be no part of your Union if you are going to re-interpret what constitutes property rights according to the whims and fancies of 3/4th of states 75 years from now ?” How could they possibly predict what the size of the Union will be – knowing fully well that they were in the New World with vast areas of land.Why take the risk at all ?

It was pretty simple – they didnt think that they were risking anything. They thought that never would come a day when the Federal Govt would say that they are re-considering what constitutes property.

You think that their decision to secede was “rash” too ? Oh, wait a minute that would be “illegal”, would nt it ?

For you it was “illegal taking up arms” – for the South, it was protecting their freedom – they didnt join the United States so that they could be tethered to it for ever – Even if their interpretation of what constitutes property was now subject to the whims of other states.? Even if the fundamental contract was broken.?

Property rights were at the heart of the free society envisioned by the Founding Fathers. What was the point of being in a country that was making a frontal attack on your property rights? What’s next ? You cannot own more than one house?

During the Civil War the South proved that they could fight the Union man to man – how difficult would it have been for them to create their own country in 1789 ? They didnt do that because they never thought it would come to .

The South pulled the trigger on the war realizing fully well that their interpretation of what constituted property was no longer accepted by the Union – even though it was accepted in 1789 and without which they simply would not have.

The attack on Fort Sumter was not some sudden attack.South Carolina had already seceded – the Union Army had no longer the legal authority to remain there – they were warned repeatedly to leave. But the Union kept pressing the matter, trying to resupply the fort ! What exactly do you think was meant to be ? It was an open invitation to prove if the South really thought that it seceded. And Gen Beauregard did just that.

You seem to paint it as a “rash” “rebellion” – that is a PURELY SUBJECTIVE interpretation that completely ignores the Southern perspective and the fact that they NEVER AGREED to have their property rights interpreted and re-interpreted.

Do you think that half a million people joined the Confederate Army to support a mere 7% who were slave owners ? And risk their lives against the might of the Union Army ? How much more deluded can you get ?

I wont fault you at all for your perspective on the Civil War – hell, if you did it any other way, you would be contradicting the victor’s version of history.

“Now look, if you think the majority of Kashmir wants to remain in India, fine, why not hold a plebescite? Why say it will never happen? The only reason I can think of is that you and the government are afraid the vote won’t go your way.”

If India was in the process of granting plebiscites to every terrorist fuelled minority, why have a union at all ?

You IGNORE the fact that democratic elections are being held in Kashmir and a majority of the people are participating – now, this is open to secessionists too. How the HELL DO YOU KNOW what the majority opinion in Kashmir is? If enough of these jihadis terrorize the region, does it make them a majority ?

The only people who are “afraid” here are people like jihadi terrorists and people like your own IGNORANT SELF.

Participate in elections, PROVE THAT YOU HAVE A FRICKING MAJORITY and make the Indian Govt address the question of “plebiscite”! It would have no other choice but to do so. I would readily say, ” listen to them”.

You skirt this simple and straight forward argument – the Indian Government is under no obligation to conduct plebiscites just because of a noisy minority. It faced this exact problem in Punjab with Khalistan – do you have any idea about that ?

Your ignorance about India and its history REPEATEDLY shows. Your dishonesty about the US Civil War is even more glaring.

The one who needs to feel shame is you. But you have nothing like that – if you did, you wouldnt be perptuating myths about the Civil War about half a million people dying in a war that was triggered by a sudden “rash decision” made by the South to attack Fort Sempter.

Keep fooling yourself while Kashmiris brave terrorists and jihadis and vote with their ballots.

Answer a simple question here – since the South seceded

All I’m asking is that you stop prefacing every argument with a declaration of what a dumb, ignorant fool I am. I have no problem with your disagreeing with me, and listing all the facts you think I’m wrong about. I can handle anything you dish out, but it’s just pointless to keep attacking me personally.

For example, you give a “history” of America that is simply incorrect, and any American school child would know that. I could lecture you on how you have no right to talk about America, blah blah blah, but instead, I’ll just correct your misunderstandings. I don’t expect you to have that intimate a base of knowledge about American history, so maybe you can learn from me, just as I am learning from you certain native viewpoints about India. You say, for example:

“Southern States joined the Union because they were no longer going to put up with British taxation. ”

Well, no. They rebelled against the British on July 4th 1776 for that reason (among many others), but that rebellion did not compel them to join the United States, so whether some states were pro- or anti-slavery was irrelevant. The declaration of Independence did not create the United States in its present form, and so there was nothing to secede from. Their agreement to work together to fight the British did not bind them together in permanent way. In 1781, as the war was winding down, approved a set of “articles of confederation” while guaranteed each state’s rights to self-government, and a very weak federal body. After the British surrender, this proved unworkable. A constitutional convention was convened in 1788, and our present Constitution was drafted and then ratified in 1789. No state was bound to ratify it, and if they had not, they would have been free to have their own political independence. There is no question that this was the case, and it was the reason for many compromises, such as the agreement to leave the slavery issue unmentioned, but not to give the vote to blacks or women. (blacks did not get a 3/5 vote, that is merely how they were to be counted for the purposes of determining how many congressional representatives each state got. In this sense, the southern states were overrepresented, in that blacks were counted in the census, but unable to vote, so in effect white southerners got more voting representation than white northerners.)

The point is, when the Constitution was ratified, there was no guarantee in it for the eternal preservation of slavery. There was always the possibility of slavery being outlawed, either by congressional action or constitutional amendment (which would require 3/4 of all states to approve, thus rendering it impossible to get through without southern states’ approval). Likewise, there was no provision for secession either. When you say there was nothing preventing the states from seceding, you are just plain wrong. It’s the opposite. The laws against treason and taking up arms against the United States government by any individual or state are quite clear in the Constitution. There was no legal basis for cessation. That was the whole point of adopting a strong federal constitution that was binding on the states. They couldn’t just leave if they disagreed with the majority, but would have to abide by it, which they were fine with given the protections the Constitution offered. The Constitution specifically outlaws rebellion, and a number of rebellions were put down by the federal government even in George Washington’s Presidency that the southern states did not object to, but fully supported. So the idea that the states were free whenever they wished to secede is just a fantasy on your part.

Likewise, your notion that men and women had some right of divorce at that time is also false. Divorce was actually illegal in many states, or very difficult to obtain. But where it could be obtained, it was because there were laws that specifically permited it. But there were no laws or provisions granting states the right of secession. It was very much a “till death do us part” union. (With one exception: when the independent state of Texas, which had gained independence from Mexico ten years earlier, joined the union in 1845, it did so with the provision that it had the right to secede).

So when you say that Lincoln did not give the south a plebescite, that’s because that was already done back in 1789. (Not by plebescite, actually, but by the elected representatives of those states negotiating the Constitution, and their elected state legislatures carrying out their will by approving it, which amounts to the same degree of popular support). This is why I say that if Kashmir had joined the Indian Union by a democratic process back in 1948, I would have no problem holding them to it now. But there was no such process, and thus no legitimate basis for forcing them to remain part of India without such a process.

Likewise, Thomas Jefferson was not the only person who argued against slavery. It was very controversial even then, and the question was never actually resolved, a practical compromise was made, that’s all. There was no provision in the Constitution that, at some future point, if slavery was outlawed, that slave states could secede from the union. It was just agreed for the time being to leave it alone.

Now, you also have the history of the Civil War backwards. Lincoln did not try to outlaw slavery. Quite the opposite, he tried to assure the southern states that this was not his intention. He didn’t put it up for a vote because he didn’t have the chance to. Before he even became President, the slave states seceded from the Union. He did not take office until after the secession had occurred, and it was therefore not because of any action on his part to ban slavery. Nor did he even run on that platform.

There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibts changes to it. Quite the opposite, it specifically allows amendments to be made, such as the 15th amendment (not the 14th, which guarantees equal protection under the law), that outlawed slavery. So the outlawing of slavery was a fully constitutional act, not a violation of the constitution of 1789, but the legal modification of it.

Now, you are right that much bitterness and prejudice towards blacks continued in the south for at least a century after the Civil war, and even up to today. But what did not continue was a widespread feeling that the South should secede from the union. Quite the contrary, the South was and remains one of the most patriotic parts of the entire country, with a strong military tradition of fighting in wars for our “yankee” federal government. There’s nostalgia among some for the “old south” and a kind of pop appeal for confederate flags and so forth, but nothing anywhere near approaching an actual secessionist movement of any kind.

I find it rather interesting that you are defending the right of states to keep slaves, and saying they have the right to secede from the Union if that “right” is infringed upon, but that Kashmir does not have the right to secede when it never even agreed to be a part of the Indian union. What does that say about your cause, that it seems on a par with preserving slavery? I can tell you, if Kashmir were wanting to secede from India so they can practice slavery, I would not be sympathetic to their cause. But you seem to have no problem with slavery at all, which I guess is why you don’t see anything wrong with occupying Kashmir against the will of the people there. The military occupation of our southern states ended fairly quickly after the war was fought, and there’s been no peep of rebellion since. So I don’t see how your arguments in any way support the notion of keeping Kashmir from voting for secession. In fact, your arguments all support the idea of secession as an innate right of any people. I don’t go that far, but since you do, how can you possibly continue to argue against the rights of Kashmiris to secede? Please, answer that question directly, if you dare.

In other words, even if you are right that the US should have let the southern states secede, how does that help your cause in any way? I would think it would completely undermine it. So please, address that, and put aside your resentments about us American hypocrites.

I did respond to your comments trying to be reasonable – so did the two other people who were trying to talk to you – Amar and Kumar.

I am not indulging in any personal attacks here – i am opening your eyes to the moral blind spots that you have and your lack of understanding/knowledge of the issues on the ground – worse, your unwillingness to learn anything from the information that we gave and your persistence that in the end your opinion is not going to change, no matter what the facts are.

I could have very well ignored you but i am not going to stand by silently when you trash around the concept of India and predict that will fall in the next 80 years or what ever. Such ignorance borne out of opinions and no knowledge, personal or otherwise of why India is one united country needs to be addressed. You may agree or disagree with that or feel its a personal attack – does not bother me in the least. If you cannot take opinions, dont dish them out – or better still dont post them on the Internet.

Your revisionist history of the United States formation is quite amusing to hear. Southern States joined the Union because they were no longer going to put up with British taxation. Their ideas of liberty were only limited to white men. Thomas Jefferson was the only person who is known to have questioned slavery. But it didnt matter. Black people were considered 3/5th human and tradeable commodities and personal property.

S when Southerners joined the Union, they made it very clear that the Union was based on certain conditions that were agreed upon.If Northern States had insisted upon freeing slaves, July 4th 1776 would have been just another day.

So when Lincoln finally decided that a house divided against itself cannot stand, the Southern states were more than willing to divide the house and let it fall. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that prevents a state from seceding from the Union. If you can point me to the specific clause that bans a state from seceding, I would be more than happy to look into it.

But of course, there was no clause like that – for the simple reason that States joined the Union out of their own free will as well as to protect their interests. If they felt that the American Federal Government reached the tyrannical levels of King George, they were not going to limit themselves by tying themselves to the Union. This country was borne out of enlightenment values and the importance of free will – there was nothing to prevent the States from seceding, if they wanted to. Absolutely nothing. If marriage between two individuals could be dissolved, so could the union between the States.

So whether Lincoln ran as an emanicipator or not does not really matter. The Southern States did not agree with the idea of liberty for all people regardless of color. No wonder they treated them as 3/5th humans and were more than happy with idea of an electoral college rather than a popular vote (which would have favored the North).

There fore, when the South decided to secede, they were well within their rights. After all slavery was not banned by the US Constitution and Northerners agreed to count black people as 3/5th a human person. If anything it was the Northern states which were reneging ( and I am glad that they did) from this understanding.

Not only did the North decide that the South had reneged, they were now ready to go to war with them to co-erce them into accepting the new terms on which the Union could exist.

So you see Conradg, Lincoln did not exactly give Texas, Georgia and Alabama, Virginia et al a plebiscite. He did not exactly ask them if they wanted to be in the Union – you know, the popular will of the majority. He bought on a war that forced them to be a part of the United States. He knew very well that no body but the slaves would have supported the idea of free black men.

I dont even want to get into economic reasons behind the Civil War or the fact that Northern merchants and businessmen didnt like their Southern counterparts getting things done on the cotton fields for zero dollars.

Both Charles Dickens and Mark Twain refused to see this war as being about slavery.You can look up the fact that Twain volunteered to join the Confederacy.

When the North won the War, what was one of the first order of business ? Adding the 14th Amendment. Now IF the South agreed to a Union in 1776 that did not recognize slavery in their states AND they reneged on it by having slavery any ways then we could say that they had no business trying to secede.

But as the Northern States knew FULLY WELL, there would have been no USA in 1776 if they insisted on freeing slaves. And that show of disunity would have been disastrous considering that they were fighting the most formidable army in the world back then. The South held all the chips which was why a Soputherner,Washington was chosen as the Commanding General of the Union Army.

So it is very clear even to a casual observer that Southerners wanted no part of a country where the Federal Government could openly violate their property rights – after all they considered black people, mere property. It was morally wrong of them to think that way – however they didnt renege on their side of the bargain in 1776 – the North did.

The century falling the Civil War showed the intense bitterness that followed – Southerners may not have been able to stop the freeing of slaves, but they still considered them unworthy of being in civil society. The closest that they came to was separate but equal.I am not sure if you really want me to go on about this very very painful blot in American history.

conradg, your country is an open book. Either you feign ignorance of the US constitution as written in 1776 or the political deals that lead to the creation of this great country or you are willfully trying to let that slide by hoping that i wouldnt know much to debate you on.

As I told you before, I lived in Atlanta before for a good three months and learnt quite a lot. I learnt that there were race fights in schools even now. Last year’s incident of Jena 6 serves to remind that there are still hard feelings a good 150 years after the Civil War. Is it any wonder why Lincoln didnt put up the question of slavery for a vote ? He knew that it would lose massively in the South and confirm through the ballot box the deep fissures in the Union.

So even though you seem to think that India is so fragile that it wont stand a Kashmir plebiscite going against its favor, you cannot come to acknowledge that if the will of the Southerners was followed through, there wouldnt be a Union in its present form. Hey you would not have had LBJ, Bush, Carter, Clinton as Presidents.

The North-South differences continue even today -the Republicans have now become pretty much the Souhern Party – there are zero Republican Congressmen in New England. I guess the political re-alignment following the Civil Rights Act has been re-confirmed rather emphatically. I agree that there are different issues dividing people now but that feeling of “those bloody racist Southerners” exists still today.

I am going to get back to the question of 9/11 and Kashmir plebiscite in my next post. Stay tuned.

By this point I ought to mention that your “argument” has degenerated almost entirely into personal attacks on me, my country, and my “moralizing”, as if that really had any bearing on the situation. People who rely on resentment-filled personal attacks, rather than just addressing the issues, are usually desperate and unable to come up with compelling arguments in the real world. I’ve been very patient with you, I think, and I have never made any personal attacks on you in return, which I hope you appreciate, but this is really getting out of hand. I’m not here to engage in flame wars. Honestly, if you have no respect for my views, why are you even engaging me? I’m not in the habit of talking with people I don’t have at least some basic respect for, so I don’t really grasp why you would wish to talk with me about this issue if you can’t offer that basic level of respectful disagreement. I would expect you to simply ignore me and not post a reply if you really think my views are as absurd and disrespectable as you claim. Unless you are just playing some kind of sadistic game, which doesn’t speak very well for you.

As for the American civil war, I expected you would raise this non-sequitar. As you probably know, the southern states completely and willingly, through fair elections, decided to join the United States and ratify the Constitution back in 1789. No provision was made for secession. So when the southern states decided unilaterally to secede in 1861, they had no legal basis for it. They didn’t even have any ethnic or cultural basis for it. In fact, Lincoln had not even run on a platform of freeing the slaves, so they didn’t actually have a definite economic threat against them. In any case, I’m not sure Lincoln would have fought the war if he’d known in advance how bloody it would be. In the beginning, his generals assurred him it would be over quickly. It became a growing nightmare as it escalated, and a national tragedy. The point is, however, there is no comparison to the situation in Kashmir. The people of the south don’t think of themselves as something other than Americans, in fact, they are the most “pro-American” part of our country, whatever that means.

By way of comparison, if the Kashmiris in 1947 had a plebescite or some elected representative assembly to decide the issue, joined the Indian union, and then years later tried to renege on the deal and secede, I would fully support India in keeping them a part of India – up to a reasonable point, at least, barring some kind of massive discriminatory policy on the part of the Indian government against them.

Now, if you feel certain that the secessionist in Kashmir are the minority, why not hold a plebescite and make that known to the world? It would be a tremendous boost to the pro-India forces, and settle any legal dispute over the issue. I guess the hard line secessionists might not give up, but it would completely undermine their cause. What is India afraid of? I would certainly have no more objections if a plebescite affirmed Kashmir’s union with India.

You also keep accusing me of thinking that the people who died on 9/11 deserved it, which I do not. I merely stated what I think is realistically obvious, that there are consequences to American foreign policy in relation to the muslim world in general that are going to encounter this kind of action, justified or not, and we should have been better prepared for it, or modified out policies so as not to be the whipping by for Islamic terrorists when we don’t really have any interests in stoking those flames. Nor did I say that Israel or India should agree to the terms of the terrorists attacking them. I explicity do not. The terrorists in Palestine demand the dissolution of the state of Israel, and I don’t think Israel should ever agree to that. But there are some reasonable demands, such as the end to the occupation of the West Bank, with some kind of land granted to Israel for its security, that are justifiable.

And once again, just to make it clear, I also condemn most of America’s cynical uses of power. I’m not here to say America is better than India. By some measures, we are worse. That is again irrelevant to the discussion, as much as you try to make it the main issue.

As for India collapsing, it is you who say it is so fragile it could not survive a plebescite in Kashmir. Either you are wrong about that, or India really is that unstable. Which is it?

That’s how things stand – not how you wish them to be. You know, GET REAL.

The only one who is living in denial is you – you readily admit that you dont have as “much familiarity” as people like Kumar in the know. And yet you come forth to give your moral preachings on how India is held together by “fear.” Geez, Halloween ended 17 days back, you aint scaring no one !

When you are so ignorant of the ground realities, what makes you think that you can spout off on Kashmir ?

Get this Yesterday India held statewide elections in Kashmir – 55% polling has been reported. Those pro secessionist Muslims that your heart so bleeds for are boycotting it – if they really are convinced that they command the majority opinion in the Valley, they would be conducting a grass roots campaign and getting candidates to speak for them. and try to win a majority.

They wont compete in the polls because they know that theirs is a minority opinion that uses violence and terrorism. Terrorism does not win you votes other than from jihadis.

Your comments about India being an artificial state that was a British colony left over indicate bitterness and a lack of knowledge about the country that you are talking about. For some one who has not lived a day in India, you doth protest a lot.

No amount of your whining helps – your opinions based on your fundamental ignorance of Kashmir get what it truly deserves – contempt.

Some how Indians have to get over Kashmir’s demographic changes while Palestine should nt. You dont agree with terrorism but you can see why it is happening !

You dont condone terrorists but you want India and Israel and yet you want both these countries to essentially agree to their terms.

You get irritated when I point out such twisted moralities. Why dont you just agree that 3000 innocent Americans deserved to die ? After all can you not see how America’s strong support for Israeli occupation of Palestine not come without any payback?

Your preachings on India’s and Pakistan’s “cynical exercise of power” are a joke – look which guy from which country is talking about a cynical exercise of power !

Seriously this is exactly why Americans get a bad rep – as Jesus said, thou who has not sinned, cast a stone.

What moral standing do you have to talk about India granting “freedom” to a noisy minority of jihadi terrorists when you come from a country that had a war that killed half a million people to “save the Union”.? I guess half the million lives where worth it, for you.

A mere 7% of Southerners had slaves – and this country had the bloodiest civil war in its history to settle that. Instead of giving the Confederacy a chance to secede from the Union, Lincoln ordered a war – a war that ended with Sherman torching Atlanta to rubble.

To this day, Southerners dont forget that. One of the few plants that managed to escape Sherman’s savagery is still fondly remembered. It is cooked as a New Year dish ! Three months of living and working in Atlanta and seeing the damn confederate flag every damn day thought me about how much pain America has had to go through and how much co-oercion was used to form the oldest democracy.

And here I am listening to your “life is black and white” sermons and fantastic theories of how India is held by fear and how it would collapse within the turn of the century. From some one who has nt lived in India for a day and knows what ever superficial knowldege that he has through text books.

I must have done something bad in my previous janmam.

Hey, thanks for the encouragement!

Taking offense seems like an Indian national sport, is it not?

My view – the more plebescites, the better. Your view – India is so fragile, it can’t possibly even contemplate having plebescites of any kind. All of which merely proves my main point, which is that India is an artificial construct, a leftover of colonization, and that it won’t survive this century.

As I’ve said, there are real countries in this world, like Canada say, that are perfectly willing to hold plebescites for parts of the country with different ethnic territories that might want to secede – Quebec. So far, each time this has occurred, they have declined, because many actually like being a part of Canada. Now, Canada also is a colonial product of the British Empire, and came into being without taking into account minorities like the French speaking. But India isn’t like that at all. It isn’t even a real country, but a rather crazy confederation of all kinds of territories, groups, ethnicities, languages, cultures, etc., that never were a real country, and don’t really belong together. So I guess it seems only natural to you to force one more reluctant territory into the fold. But I got news for you – this doesn’t work. The only argument you’ve got going is that allowing Kashmiris to decide for themselves what kind of government they should have, would lead to the natural dissolution of “India”, but in a violent crash rather than an orderly disengagement. Which is basically letting fear and terrorism tell you what to do. Nagee76 accused me of living in fear, but now you are telling me that the whole of India is held together sheerly by fear – fear of what would happen if people really were free to live as they wished, under the government they want. Well, maybe that fear is real. If so, it’s a terrible basis for having a country. If it isn’t real, then there’s no real rationale for holding onto Kashmir.

And yes, clearly I’m an outsider with not nearly as much familiarity with the situation on the ground as you are, or most Indians for that matter. I find your discomfort with me amusing. I find your denial of the reality of continuing things as they are rather bizarre, but not at all unexpected. Living in denial of the consequences of keeping a status quo situation going in perpetuity is common all over the world, including here in the US. Usually it doesn’t change until something goes drastically wrong. But by then its usually too late.

And yeah, I knew how to spell Ladakh, but my mind didn’t quite agree.

And be aware, if you can, that I’m not making the kinds of policy proposals a real diplomat would, I’m just talking about the kinds of action that needs to be considered. How a Kashmiri plebescite would actually get done is obviously subject to all kinds of negotiations, I just offered one of many possibilities as an example, not a forumula for success. But I am firm that a plebescite does need to occur, and I think most rationale people would agree. It is fine if you vote against secession, but don’t the other people have the right to vote also? Taking their vote away and dictating to them how its going to be is not exactly the sign of a free, democratic union.

That said, you are right that there are two sides to the debate – one is the matter of democratic principles, the other is the matter of practical consequences. I can certainly see why one would compromise to some degree on principles to take into account the practical consequences, but there are also serious consequences that come from utterly compromising one’s principles. And this thing has gone on for 60 years without a plebescite, when it was supposed to occur at the beginning, not at the end. We all know why that is – neither India nor Pakistan want to give up any territory, which would happen if Kashmir voted for independence, rather than being a part of either country. That’s neither a principle nor a “compromise”, it’s just a cynical exercise of power.

So really, when you start talking like a realist, who admits what’s going on, I’ll pay more attention to your criticism of my lack of realism.

Your latest post (‘three separate plebiscites should be held for Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladack’, etc.) made me chuckle. Your eagerness to dole out advice isn’t constrained in the slightest, it seems, by your lack of knowledge about J&K.

Dude, you can’t even get the spelling right, but you have no hesitation in dispensing advice about how many plebiscites India should hold (it’s Ladakh, not Ladack, okay? That’s the currently accepted spelling of the region; don’t google in haste).

Also, I’m sure you in your haste to post you merely forgot to stipulate a fourth plebiscite for the Kargil region (since they are a different ethnicity than those in Ladakh—Muslims, albeit non-secessionist). Oh wait, my bad: I meant to write that you forgot to include two additional plebiscites—one for Kargil Muslims, and another separate one for the Ladakhi Muslims (as opposed to the one for Ladakhi Buddhists, with whom they share ‘ethnicity’ but not religion).

Once again, the sort of plebiscites you suggest will wreak havoc on the ground, since geography conforms to ethnicity in J&K only from the vast distance of someone living in America. If carried out it would likely be a bloody process, with grave repercussions for the subcontinent. It’s simply not a live option.

Your use of the phrase ‘Kashmiris’—as if everyone is of the same mind–is also quite telling about your determined ignorance of the ethno-political contours of J&K. I am Kashmiri and anti-secessionist, along with a few million others in J&K State, as I’ve pointed out numerous times. Bracket the fact that eliding the differences in political opinion is offensive to those of us who don’t share the sentiments of (mostly) Sunni secessionists in the Valley. It is, nonetheless, an inconvenient problem for secessionists and their friends, one you can’t wish away. Your determined effort to ignore this fact is the reason why none of the ideas that you have proposed will ‘work’—they simply are not congruent with political reality in J&K state.

It’s remarkable, really, the extent to which you don’t grapple with the likely consequences of your ideas in any serious manner; and you then go on to suggest even more improbable scenarios to bolster your ideas. Such wishful thinking borders on intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps it’s time for you to google less, and read more (a lot more). Your posts might then be less farcical, and the debate more interesting.

Kumar

I’m not sure why you are twisting my words around to pretend that I condone or encourage terrorism on anyone’s part. Does it make you feel more justified in occupying Kashmir and not caring about those people if you think I’m a “furious” terrorist sympathizer? I’ve certainly said nothing that even remotely suggests that I approve of terrorism on anyone’s part.

I do agree that the US should have forseen something like 9/11 occurring as a consequence of our constant meddling in the Middle East. Not that killing 3000 innocents was in any way justified by that, but it’s not as if we shouldn’t have expected that putting troops in Saudi Arabia and supporting Israel would have no human costs. I don’t expect the Israelis to simply lie down and submit to the terrorist demands that they give up their nation. However, what did the early Zionists expect? Ben Gurion and others knew from the start that to achieve their goals they would have to commit a crime against the Palestinians and screw them out of their land. It’s part of the record of the Zionist movement. I can understand why they decided to proceed anyway, given the history of persecution. In short, they thought they could get away with it. That’s why people commit crimes, right? Well, turns out getting away with it isn’t as easy as they thought. They imagined the Palestinians would just go away, but they haven’t. Now the Jews of Israel are in just as dangerous a situation as they were in Germany in the 1920s and 30s. Except they have nukes, and they fantasize this makes them safe. I in no way approve of the Palestinian policy of terrorism. Their leaders have been awful, and have blown every opportunity presented to them. Yet I still see the Israelis, like the Indians, as the “good guys”. But good guys commit crimes too, and they don’t always get away with them. They have to atone for their crimes, if they want to remain good. Otherwise, they undergo a slow transformation into evil.

Likewise, India has been holding the Kashmiris’ country hostage. It’s a crime. Yes, the Pakistanis are even worse. That doesn’t make it better. The US has commited many crimes too, the fact that we’re better than the Soviets were doesn’t change that.

As for 1947, the British had committed so many crimes against India it wanted out before the guilt overwhelmed them. Yes, they should have had 500 plebescites for the 500 kingdoms and principalities of “India”. Where was the US? Well, as I recall we had just finished fighting the biggest war in the history of the world against Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, and were busy occupying both and trying to fend off the Soviets. Which is a shame, because we probably could have done things a helluva lot better than the British. We certainly did arrange free and fair elections for every country we occupied in the aftermath of WWII, probably could have worked something out for India too if it had been our job.

I do hope you “win out”, but winning means more than just getting what you want. It means making yourself right with the world. I’d like to see both India and America “win”, in that sense.

Kashmir is not so cut and dry – was it the right thing for Muslims to watch idly when their friends from the minority communities ( not just Hindus but Sikhs and Buddhists too) were driven out of the region ? Nope. Was it the right thing for Hindu’s to be systematically cleansed from the Valley ? Nope. Who stood for them back then ? No one.

Life is not fair. India’s painful history reminds us of that again and again. If you think you can appeal to the average Indian’s sense of righteousness over Kashmir, you are going to – but in a way opposite to what you want – as in – why the hell should we care about what “Kashmiris” want, when the original Kashmiris of the land have been systematically cleansed from their home.? What vote did Indians have when the country was partitioned ? How fair was that ?

We have been suckers for too long – the biggest mistake India has made is to try to be a friendly and tolerant people. No wonder we finally woke up in 1947 to suddenly realize that foreigners wanted to have a home carved out of ours – we really had no choice – either we agreed to officially become a minority in our own country or be hacked to death. Our own country was actually no longer ours.

So, i guess we have gotten sick and tired and have started to dish out “unfairness” of our own – But we seem to be doing it in a rather strange way. We are allowing Kashmiris to participate in a democratic process that could produce a potentially pro-secessionist Government – now i dont know why any sane country would want to do that.

OTOH Pakistan crushes the rebellion in Baluchistan. It goes so far as genocide to keep Bangladesh in its fold – and you know what ? No one gives a damn. The US stood by idly when genocide in Bangladesh was happening in 1971.

From all these experiences, India has come to realize that “moral” and “just” are over rated – do what you need to do to protect your interests – this is exactly how India needs to proceed.

So, you may cry hoarse about the supposed injustice in Kashmir – while we listen to it and say, ” hmm.. where were you when the Partition drove people out of their own homes” and drove Kashmiris out of their homes and loitering around in refugee camps.

The Mahabaratha war also teaches us another story – Arjuna and the Pandavas might have fought for justice – but this was achieved by killing their own cousins – their own blood. This was achieved by Yudhishtra (the King of Dharma) lying about Aswathamma so that Drona could be killed – Hey, Justice needed to be served !

It is very intersting to see you condoning terrorism in the name of fighting injustice. It is kind of surprising to see that – i mean after all, most Islamic countries and Europeans looked at 9/11 and said – you Americans had it coming for what you did.

So, conradg you seem to be ok with 3000 innocent lives being lost
because they did not side with Palestine’s idea of justice.

Btw, your approach to Palestine begs a question – why exactly are you so furious about Palestinians losing their land when you have come to terms with Kashmiris and Indians losing theirs ?

Either you ask Palestinians to get over it just like you are asking Kashmiri Hindus and Indians like me. Or you apply the same principle of the land being returned to its original inhabitants no matter what the conflict.

But you know what the difference is between Palestine and Kashmir – the Arabs there raised a stink and started commiting terrorism. I guess you would support Hindu terrorists if they fought to get back Kashmir, would nt you?

So you see, you have twisted sense of morality. Palestinians lost their land – they can commit any kind of terrorism to address their injustice. It is stupid of Israel to deny them this.

Indians lost their land in Kashmir and the Partition – they should get over it. Or do we now start commiting sabotage in Pakistan now and start cleansing the Muslims in Kashmir just like the Serbs did in Bosnia ?

This is what i carry away from your reasoning – some people are more justified of commiting terrorism ! If you dont get it your way, terrorize people into it.

You finding India exotic is not eccentric – it is typically painful condescending attitude of the 1800’s British Sahib and liberal Westerners. Ahh India is so “exotic” – some mystery these Indians are !

We will win out in the end – much to your dismay. And Injustice would have prevailed in the sub continent. Yet Again.

I’m not suggesting we live in fear, but only that we be realistic about the threats we face, and not pretend we can bully our way through this mess with bravado and macho self-confidence. The fact that MAD (mutually assurred destruction) somehow held off the US-Soviet conflict from destroying the world doesn’t mean it works every time. It almost didn’t work with the US countless times. JFK was urged by every single military and almost every diplomatic advisor to invade Cuba back in 1962. If he had, little did we know that Castro already had nukes which he had the authority to use in the event of an invasion. Taking the “mainstream” macho course of action would have led, basically, to the end of the world. I’m suggesting that something similar could happen in the India-Pakistan confict. One need not be a coward to see this and act to defuse the tensions, as JFK did, rather than imagine one can just bluster through it all and come out fine in the end.

As for my being anti-Hindu, quite the contrary. I am simply anti-religious-nationalist. I have a great affection for Hinduism, the Vedantic philosophy, and even Kashmir Shaivism, which I find a wonderful religious system. Islam, by comparison, I find most of it quite shallow and unattractive, except for the Sufi sect, which as it happens is quite well represented in Kashmir. If I were to base my views entirely on my own religious or cultural affections, I would be all in favor of India remaining in control of Kashmir forever. But the same religious views that attract me to Hinduism also convince me that the occupation of Kashmir is unjust, and that it will lead to greater trouble in the future. I don’t think you can really have it both ways.

As for the WMD arguments about Iraq, I did take them seriously, but I found the actual evidence deeply lacking. Powell’s presentation to the UN was a joke, and it was getting increasingly clear through the inspections regime that Saddam really had no active wmd programs, nor, as long as sanctions were in place, would he be a serious threat. But I did consider supporting the war for those reasons, I just felt that it was an unnecessary rush. If at some point in the future he had re-engaged his WMD programs, I might have supported an invasion. It’s just obvious to me that he was not presently a threat.

I think there’s a great danger in fighting terrorism to presume that there is no basis behind their greviences, and to actually harden up one’s determination to continue the very policies that provoke terrorism simply because one doesn’t want to “give in terrorism”. This is a losing approach. There really is an injustice in Palestine, for example, that needs to be corrected, regardless of whether Palestinians adopt terrorist tactics or not. Similarly in Kashmir. Now, clearly you don’t give a damn about those injustices, and I can’t say I have any respect for that attitude. It has nothing to do with real Hinduism or Vedanta, at least as I am aware of those compassionate systems of ethics and morality. It’s one thing to fight for what is right, in the manner of Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, it’s entirely different to fight for what is wrong. In the case of Kashmir, India is fighting in support of an injustice, I hate to say it, just as the Israelis are in Palestine. I know the situation is more complex than that in both cases, but it remains true. What the Israelis did to the Palestinians was a violation of their own moral system, and what the Hindus are doing in Kashmir is a violation of theirs as well. I’m sure the religious nationalists of India would strongly disagree, but I don’t think they really represent the true spirit of either India or Hinduism.

As for me, I’m surprised I’ve lasted this long in our debate as well. Perhaps I keep at it because I keep learning something about an exotic part of the world I find rather fascinating. Call me eccentric. Call me whatever you like. I don’t have much ego about such things. No hard feelings, I hope you understand.

It is astounding how you still dont understand the concept of deterrence and mutually assured destruction. Some how you assume that you care more deeply about a nightmarish nuclear scenario than we do. Do you see how incredibly foolish that is?

Do you really think that a parent in New Delhi or Bombay is less worried about the environment in which their children are going to grwo up than you ? You pretty much suggest that from the tone of your posts.

And what is this foolish nonsense about how our Gods will reward us for saving the unity of India ?

I have to ask this question flat out. Was that anti Hindu bigotry that slipped out of your mouth with out you even realizing it.? You think we are all doing this because we are waiting for some rewards in heaven ? How much more condescending can you get?

I am no America hater – i love this country more than you’d ever know and i cannot do anything if you dont know about that. It does not matter how “open” America is about its past – it does not make the “past” go away – I was not trying to score some cheap political points here – I was trying to open your eyes as to how morally preachy any one can get while talking about the history of other countries and how this gets us nowhere.

You were’nt exactly thick skinned when i reminded you of America’s past, were you ? What exactly gives you the moral authority to go all preachy about a situation about which you have mere superficial knowledge ? If a Mexican is going to ask you about how you can live with the annexation of California, what are you going to say to that guy ? Hey mexican dude, you are too thin skinned ?

If thinking that we are “gulity” about our position in Kashmir satisfactorily explains to you India’s position, it then begs a question. What really are we guilty of ?

I am telling you that we dont give a damn about Muslims who feel stifled under Indian rule in Kashmir. They can keep howling and protesting and terrorizing how much ever they want. I dont give these clowns a damn.

They have no standing to complain about living in a democratic society that gives them the freedom to protest to their heart’s content. If they are truly popular let them compete in state wide elections and show that they are indeed the predominant voice of the population there. But they are not exactly very confident of their own standing are they ?

All that they believe in is threats and terrorism and ethnic cleansing and gaming the demographics as much as they possibly can. If no one agrees with their vision of Kashmir, they have them killed, bombed and maimed.

“I think you have no realistic understanding how technology is accelerating in such a way as to make terrible weapons increasingly feasible and available at lower and lower levels of political organization, and thus that time is not on your side. ”

Really ? Assuming you know so much about how rapidly technology is accelerating and how it is available to lower levels of political organization , why is it that you opposed the Iraq war?

After all Bush gave pretty much the exact reason that you gave – we cannot let these terrorists and non state actors lay hands on the WMD ! Do you think that the US invasion of Iraq was early by 45 years ?

Time is not our hands it seems – so according to you, we roll over as quickly as possible on Kashmir to Islamic jihadists. Better to give in to Islamic terrorism NOW as opposed to the vague and unproven threats that will arise in 2050.

I see the strains of an interventionist liberal in you – wanting America to be involved in Kashmir, Palestine and “address” Muslim conflicts every where in a post 9/11 world.

Here’s a tip – you should be more worried if you will get your Social security “benefits” when you retire. At this point, your grand children dont look like they will get any.

So lets make a deal – Allow us to live in denial, roam down the dark alleys, not be worried about any nuclear nightmare nonsense.
while you start thinking fast as to how to paint the ensuing defeat in Afghanistan and what is going to happen after Karzai falls.

It is just amazing how much energy that you pour into arguing about a situation that you have ZERO CONTROL over while ignoring the way you are running ragged in Afghanistan and will have to withdraw in retreat pretty soon unless you manage to get the ISI on your side. Good luck with that.