|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
ASSEMBLY POLL '98
|
|
|
'There is no end to Pakistani greed'
E-mail from readers the world over
Date sent: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:01:40 PST What kind of signal are we sending to the world by even hinting at accepting the LOC as the border? That it's okay to grab Indian territory because after taking a position of injured innocence and whining to the whole world for 40 or 50 years, the Indians will finally concede abject defeat. So what's stopping China from insisting that we cede the territory it grabbed in 1962? And why not do the same to the border villages in West Bengal and the North-East that have large populations of Bangladeshis? C'mon people! Show a spine please. To win over the other guy by turning the other cheek, you first have to be a Jesus or a Gandhi. Nakal ke liye bhi akal chahiye. Jo hum mein hai nahin. We are small men compared to these two persons who advocated "the other cheek" policy. Let's get real. We declared a unilateral cease-fire when we had the Pakistanis on the run in 1948. We returned them 93,000 POWs and large territories captured in 1971, without any quid for the quo. And how do the Pakis pay us back? We all know it too well. The basic point is "laaton ke bhoot baaton se nahin maantey." It's all very well for guys like Gujral and Subramaniam to talk the way they do. Because it earns them brownie points. But have these people been able to do anything to alleviate the inhuman sufferings of the pandits? These guys can only talk. Will they ever be able to pick up the gun and defend even themselves, not to speak of others? It was at Jinnah's insistence that the Congress conceded that the final decision of India versus Pakistan will be left to the princes. In accordance with that, Maharaja Hari Singh chose to remain independent and later acceded to India. And your intrepid interviewer would not stop unless, she got good C Subramaniam to say that Kashmir, being a Muslim majority, should go to Pakistan. Does she know that there are more Muslims in India than in the "Homeland of South Asia's Muslims?" So, even on that ground Kashmir belongs to India. For God's sake, shut up if you do not have the guts or courage of convictions to stand up for yourselves and the country. Don't make a dharmshala out of this nation! Yours in anguish-at-my-fellow-countrymen's-lack-of-spine,
Manish Maheshwari
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:34:12 -0800 I think of the interview with C Subramaniam as nonsense. He should simply keep quiet and mind his own business without trying to sell his country to everyone else. Forget Kashmir. The more you give, the more others want. Have you heard of Bosnia, Serbia etc. There are no solutions to some problems. The people of that state themselves have to decide to work and prosper instead of indulging in terrorism against their own kith and kin supported by foreign groups that have expansionist interests. What people there need is economic development, new roads, schools and public utilities and tourism. Covert terrorism by other countries should not be tolerated. Period.
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:17:56 +0000 It makes a great deal of sense to listen to what has been said in this article by C Subramaniam on the solution to the Kashmir problem. No mention was made of Junagarh or the Indian "police action" against Hyderabad, but this is a good start. The problem remains whether anyone will take this seriously? Kashmir is bleeding India economically, the Kashmiris physically and the Pakistanis royally. Nothing good is going to come out of keeping this wound from healing. The sooner this difficult problem is tackled diplomatically, the better. Or else South Asia faces a very grim future. Ras H Siddiqui
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:29:02 -0500 Shobha Warrier asked the following question to C Subramaniam: "Are the politicians not responsible for portraying Pakistan as our enemy?" What kind of a stupid question is that? She sounds more like a Pakistani than an Indian in all the questions that she puts to the guy. Why don't you do all the sensible Indians reading this rundown net-mag! We expect a lot better from Rediff.
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:36:41 -0500 I liked the straightforward answers given by C Subramaniam in this article. It seems this is a dialogue of like minded people -- both Shobha Warrier and C Subramaniam seem ready to give away the Kashmir Valley to Pakistan or let it be independent, whatever "they" choose for buying peace with Pakistan. I respect the sentiments of both that they are sick of the continuous problems created by Pakistan on this issue. The mentality to accept Kashmir as a burden on India and justifying the "Great Give Away" based on the lives, money lost and the persistent headache, comes from the pacifist philosophy which says that Jagan Mithya -- the whole world is filled with false and only truth lies with our death, and we don't take anything with us to heaven or hell. Truly this is a sanyasi/fakir attitude of a elder person who is all done with his duties, desires on this earth. But a nation cannot think from the view point of a fakir or sanyasi? Our Greatest sanyasi of this century, Mahatma Gandhi had accepted the Partition of the unified India with the intention of buying peace with the Muslim League and showing this big brotherly noble attitude with a hope that the younger brother will understand some day the folly of Partition. The Mahatma was wrong when he thought that this policy of surrender and nobility will help achieve goodwill. I am sad that another Gandhian, C Subramaniam, wants to follow the same path. It is his nobility and greatness. But he is going to do a great injustice to my generation and the next 20 generations by giving away this land, its culture, people, resources which has been painstakingly cultivated by our forefathers for centuries. These decisions cannot be taken by sanyasis but by the rulers who should have a vision for the nation and our next generations. Many people from my generation are not convinced that after giving the Kashmir valley, all will be good and peaceful in India. Ultimately, there is no end to Pakistani greed and even if we make all 30 states as independent nations, there is no guarantee that they will all live in peace. We need a firm hand from series of rulers who can keep the flock of states together with a system of justice, development, cunning, free access, uniform laws, iron hand. I don't know when we will have such rulers? But the alternative suggested is no good at all. Unless, we have a guarantee of peace, we should not start another give away programme as suggested by C Subramaniam. Followers of Islam cannot give that guarantee unless we all convert to Islam. No third party also can give such guarantee either. We are not dealing with relatively saner British people here who had no religious quarrel with Indians. Let's stop indulging in this big brotherly love for those who don't deserve it. For most part, this a one way love matched by other side's greed and hatred. Finally, we don't think Kashmir is a BURDEN or Ladakh is useless as it does not grow even grass. The article depicts good views full of hopes and only hopes but no reality. Mukund Kute
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:42:00 -0600 It is indeed interesting to know the views of great statesman like CS on such an issue like Kashmir. We have very few people like CS living in our land who inherited the real Congress/Gandhian legacy. Though his intentions are very good, other complications might arise as he himself has pointed out. Once there is a referendum in Kashmir, there will be a hue and cry everywhere across the country for the same. We should not forget the Punjab problem and the age-old and died 'Dravida Nadu' concept of DMK and other Dravidian extremists. First of all, the concept of dividing India into two itself was very wrong, and proved to be detrimental to both Pakistan and India. So having done that there is no question of dividing Kashmir now based on whether Muslim dominated Kashmir or Hindu Jammu or Buddhist Ladakh. There is no end to that. Then why not divide other states where Muslims live predominantly and give it to Pakistan. We should be very careful when we do these sort of manipulations based on religion or caste which can have impact on the people for generations. Kashmir legally belongs to India and the solution is in Pakistan getting out of PoK. Ours is a secular country and Muslims enjoy equal rights with Hindus. But it is not the case in Pakistan. So even for the welfare of the Kashmiri people whether Muslims or Hindus, the people should be with a good democratic, secular country like India rather than often coup-inflicted Muslim Pakistan nation. Amudhan S
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:28:03 -0500 I have gone through the entire interview. I feel some topics are still to be discussed like the Simla Agreement and PoK. Why do we need third party mediation? Seeking third party mediation means that we ourselves are not certain that Kashmir should belong to Bharat or Pakistan. But we are, and we must? So why to look for mediation. If somebody claims that the house in which I am living belongs to him, what should I do? Leave the house or ask for third party mediation? Another issue is the area called as PoK. During the war, Indian troops captured Lahore and Pakis entered in the area called PoK. Panditji called Indian troops from Lahore but Pakis stayed there and they are still there. Why he did that? Under any pressure of just for the politics? Or just to make Muslims happy? What is your opinion about that particular piece of land? What India should do to take the land back? No political party talks about that, why? Don't they feel that it is part of India. Instead of calling it PoK , I'll prefer to call it Pakistan occupied India because I have a strong belief that Kashmir is a part of India. In my opinion, India needs a massive and hard move to kick off Pakistanis from PoK and capture Lahore again. Then we should boldly say 'Pakis, let's talk about Lahore ...' Mr Subramaniam I am just 25+, very young to discuss about all, I discussed above. You might be my grandfather's age, so please forgive me if I have written something wrong. Tushar Bhardwaj
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:09:14 PST Instead of giving it to both countries, why not declare Kashmir as a neutral region like Switzerland? Then they should have a branch of the United Nations, World Bank, IMF, World Bank, WHO, UNICEF, Red Cross, FAO, Salvation Army, and all aid agencies (non religious ones) based there. It will generate employment without spoiling the environment. It will also curb the monopolistic tendency of the USA and its allies. In fact an Asian branch of these above agencies will lead to a balanced view of the world. Rama
Date sent: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:49:55 -0000 It is all very well to say that we should have mediation by a third party, but is it acceptable to a majority of Indians? I'm sure I don't trust a third country to come up with anything meaningful, simply because they will not understand the ground realities of the situation. Also, the idea of turning the LoC into the border is ridiculous -- tomorrow the Afghani/Paki terrorists will invade some more territory, and people like Subramaniam will say, let us give them that territory too. Why have a border at all -- go with Mulayam's suggestion of letting in Pakis and Bangladeshis, so they can play havoc with our country. Just because Nehru committed one idiocy, it doesn't mean we have to go with it. A responsible government's first duty is to protect the life and property of its citizens and any territorial compromise with Pakistan will be a betrayal of this principle. Perhaps Mr Subramaniam should spend some time at the border areas where our armymen are fighting bravely so that he can sleep comfortably in his bed. Surely he owes them respect. His intentions may be honourable, but his ideas are idiotic.
Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 23:18:42 -0700 Something that really pleased my heart and I really wish The great man would continue giving his fans such movies always !!! From all of us here in Canada, we wish him all the best and hope that JBKK is a hit !!!
Date sent: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:56:37 -0600 Way too opinionated... It is a stupid story! Please refrain from having your writers put down other directors. It does not get any point across.
Date sent: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 14:06:37 +0530 Once again, I couldn't differ more with your Rediff reviews of Hindi movies. I thought Soldier was an average thriller, some good songs (especially the Balle Balle, and I ain't Punjabi). I think both Bobby and Priety, and even the rest of the cast have given good if not excellent performances. I think the movie is worth watching. I don't know what you Rediff wallas expect??? I mean, I know you guys liked Fire but hey, there's more to this world that that topic (lesbianism). The reason I say this is because lately, Fire is the only movie which Rediff has described as good (you even ditched KKHH). Long live Rediff. How Readers responded to Vir Sanghvi's recent columns
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
||