The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar
aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
Maududi opposed Partition, saying that Muslims could not be defined through territorial nationalism but only through faith. He also opposed the first raid into Kashmir, launched under governor-general Jinnah, arguing that jihad could only be declared officially by the state using its army, not through freelancers. He was born in Aurangabad but moved to Lahore in 1940, remaining there and setting up the Jamaat, which is today, more powerful and larger in Pakistan than in India. Maududi reconciled with the idea of Pakistan and was on the side of President Ziaul Haq when he moved the laws that Islamised certain punishments in the Pakistan Penal Code.
Geelani is associated with the Jamaat only in Kashmir. The Indian side of the body has declared itself apolitical, does not contest elections and has only a loose affiliation with Geelani’s unit (“friendly relations” as they told me some years ago).
What Geelani wants is clear and uncomplicated. He wants Kashmir to merge with Pakistan. And he wants this because it is a Muslim state and, therefore, should be governed under Sharia. He does not compromise on this demand, and because of this perceived lack of flexibility, he had to be removed from the Hurriyat Conference. That group of Kashmiri separatists is more flexible and willing to negotiate with the Indian state.
Geelani, on the other hand, is so uncompromising that even Pakistan’s conduct does not meet with his approval. He declined to visit Pakistan a couple of months ago, upset by its normalisation move with India. He dismisses the idea that trade over the Line of Control is important. “Kashmir is not an economic issue or an issue of trade ties but an issue linked to the death and survival of a nation,” he said. “Trade ties cannot change the ground reality which is that this bloody line has consumed thousands of lives.”
Geelani remains, along with Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, Kashmir’s most popular leader. However, Farooq does not, or perhaps cannot, offer to his constituents what Geelani does — a full-throated denunciation of India’s secular constitution. This has left the field to Geelani, who best represents the anger and resentment that Kashmiri-speaking Muslims feel towards India.
Other leaders of the Hurriyat have all softened. Abdul Ghani Lone did it first and died for it. The otherwise pro-Pakistan Abdul Ghani Bhat (he told me in 2001 that Pakistan’s economy was superior to India’s) said last year that the United Nations resolutions in Kashmir were no longer enforceable. For saying this, he was suspended from the Hurriyat Conference.
Officially, the group’s position remains that the resolutions be implemented, with some saying that the plebiscite vote should include an independence option. The Mirwaiz says he accepts India is secular and democratic but even so, Kashmiris should be allowed to determine whether they want any part of it. Unofficially, the Hurriyat leaders want to engage India and take a share of power. They cannot do so for fear of Geelani.
Geelani is unafraid of saying things that would hurt people. Fifteen or so years ago, I interviewed him from Hyderabad, when India and Pakistan were shelling each other, just as Kargil had begun. He told me of his beliefs about the bravery of the mujahideen and the cowardice of the Indian Army. I took it down as a reporter should and the editor chose not to carry the piece, saying it was too acidic for the readers.
Geelani did not fully appreciate the Indian, or perhaps sub-continental, ability to absorb great pain in the cause of its territory.
The deadlock in Kashmir awaits an event, the exit of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who is 83 and the last true Maududist in India. The moment he leaves the stage, a senior Kashmiri reporter told me this week, the whole of the Hurriyat will queue up for talks on how to settle this thing.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 10th, 2013.
COMMENTS (69)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1725345423-0/ronaldo-(2)1725345423-0-405x300.webp "article")
1725083820-0/Untitled-design-(24)1725083820-0-270x192.webp "karachi to experience more rains as monsoon winds arrive from bay of bengal")
@Razi:
Sir, it was an observation and as already stated, it's purely from a personal view point.
@varuag:
Sir, I confess my ignorance. But I must say, your style of prose reminds me of the brilliant Ms. Arundhati Roy
@Another North Indian What argument was presented by Yuri aside from a quote by Einstein? If that is an argument, then we can surely have a great debate! Merely throwing around a quote by a Physicist, no matter how great, does not an argument make either.
You have also presented your opinion not any argument. As for those who present what you call "arguments", it is precisely the highly problematic nature, source and the manner of presentation of those "arguments" that varuag quite eloquently pointed to. Hardly any moral superiority there.
To give one example, if you sing praises of the Indian judicial system and heap obloquies on its Pakistani counterpart, that does not make an argument. There are plenty of people here who have used that as an "argument". I can point to similar issues in "arguments" from the other side.
@gp65:
"In a debate between democracy and dictatorship/monarchy/caliphate, I am biased towards democracy."
Never saw a comment of yours supporting the Kashmiri's democratic rights to choose their destiny, but only the justifications why should they be denied the democratic right of plebiscite on one excuse or the other.
I am amazed to know that the author, and the Indian commentators here, believe that the whole Kashmiri nation's struggle for their rights rests on a single person named Syed Ali Shah Geelani. It is like a huge skyscraper resting on a single pillar. Remove that pillar and the whole building comes crashing down, except that no such building exists anywhere. What can I say. Keep waiting for another couple of years in the hope, when this gentleman is gone, only to discover that it was just a sweet dream, and the the time has also changed, as it never stays the same. One wonders if there is any other decent person like @varuag in India, as most of the Indians don't give a damn what the native Kashmiris want, rather interested only in what they want.
What is the purpose of bashing "the site"? One gentleman makes baseless claims to moral superiority and then opines that "Express Tribune is not the appropriate forum for a serious discussion"? The other "begs to disagree" after passing the unilateral fatwa that everything on this site is merely people bashing one another.
That is all right, but then don't advance these opinons as arguments.
@varuag Arguing for brevity in social phenomenon can only be the deduction of a kupa manduka (the frog in the well).
Personally, I would rather have a line that shouts than a paragraph that whispers. But then, to each his own poison
Depends on your definition of sophistry. I might see your explanation as sophistry. Dismissing someone by calling his/her explanation verbose or lacking simplicity is non academic. Intellectual honesty of Indians and Pakistanis commenting on a Pakistani newspaper site, trying to score points against each other by bashing and passing it off as objective criticism is anything but given.
I beg to disagree.
"This is a classic case of appealing to reductionism."
And this is a classic, unfortunately, very frequest misapplication of logic. Before dismissing an argument as reductionist one is obliged to offer a more satisfactory, to intended audience, explanation that is supposedly 'not reductionist' without sounding patently hokey.
Merely throwing around a few big words and claiming "I don't believe this, or I don't believe that' does not an argument make. Personal eccentricities should be presented as personal eccentricities alone.
@Yuri Kondratyuk: *
>
* Well platform is ill-equipped due to the monstrous time lags between each comment. Its akin to communicating with Voyager 1 (though to be fair it takes about 16 hours in that spaceprobe). The issue was not the lacuna in understanding but precisely the expanse of fundamental knowledge. Arguing for simplicity by invoking Einstein is oxymoronic since the theory might be well-known but few people can grasp its nuances holistically. This is an interesting anecdote just to prove just that.
Arguing for brevity in social phenomenon can only be the deduction of a kupa manduka (the frog in the well). If you have an anathema to verbosity and believe that knowledge is given, then there is no point arguing since I disagree. And please, next time you read an actual quality paper on any issue (social science or physical science), please browse through the reference section too and utter profanities to the author for his/her verbosity and sophistication. Intellectual honesty presupposes extensive and authentic knowledge and I have grave doubts regarding the same, especially in a society where the best selling author is Chetan Bhagat and not Pankaj Mishra or Amitav Ghosh .........
@Razi:
Agreed. Reductionism as in breaking down a complex system as a sum of it's individual parts is unrealistic even for "hard sciences". The simplicity I refer to is where a seed principle/motivation is understood to drive a complex behavior/interaction. If a debate is centered on an understanding of "seed" drivers, it is generally less verbose and it discourages sophistry. But, if the debate is centered around the observed behavior while being ignorant of the fundamental drivers, the debate gets verbose, sophistic and is generally of poor quality. Besides, as long as knowledge and intellect are a given, it's the intellectual honesty that decides the quality of a debate. Anyway, that's my personal opinion.
@Yuri
This is a classic case of appealing to reductionism. Einstein's statement in the particular context of hard sciences cannot be applied indiscriminately. And appeal to authority, that too in Physics, is a logical fallacy here.
@Yuri Kondratyuk: I have said this to @gratgy and have no hesitation in saying it to you - I greatly admire how succinctly yet clearly you express yourself withou trivilialising oversimplifying an issue. Your last post explains the secret.
@varuag:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough - Albert Einstein
@Jism:
Not in India, Not in Pakistan. Independent KASHMIR
Brother time for a reality check.
A. The UN resolution talks about either India or Pakistan.
B. India allows you to discuss the third possibility of 'independence'.
C. On the Pakistani side, you can not contest an election in AJK if you do not declare that you support Kashmir's dissolution in Pakistan.
D. Article 370 has ensured preservation of Kashmiri ethnic identity, AJK is increasingly populated more by non-Kashmiris.
E. The territorial integrity of 'Kashmir' has also been violated by Pakistan. It has gifted part of 'Kashmir' to China and annexed a large chunk as GB.
Now you know.
@gp65: . This platform is grotesquely ill-equipped for a debate. To be frank anyone who believes that the treaties of yore are going to be blueprint for a settlement or that negotiations will be based on equanimity and equal stature is living in a fool's paradise. The disputed facts are inconsequential because the facts of yore are not going to matter. Norway's negotiations in LTTE-SL dispute were useless after Eelam War IV, so were the protracted negotiations between Albania, KLA and Serbia after 1999. These facts are good only for scoring points. I think the debate should be framed with people at the center and not like the Ratzelian notion of Social Darwinism that it has now been reduced to.
I don't have a Tagorian view of nationalism. Its just different, because its not hegemonic or jingoistic and is one where people matter, not artificial constructs like land, water etc. My identity ends with being an Indian, rest are primordial thereby inconsequential. I abhor rigidity and especially iron-clad biases. If my own biases are not going to be in a state of flux, then I am not growing.
There is 2000 movie called The Contender where Shelly Runyon has an interesting take on objectivity and subjectivity and especially its importance to modern day politics. When politicians helm complex negotiations, its never the facts but the perceptions and the subjectivity that eventually triumphs. And that is the way it should be............
@gp65: This platform is grotesquely ill-equipped for a debate. To be frank anyone who believes that the treaties of yore are going to be blueprint for a settlement or that negotiations will be based on equanimity and equal stature is living in a fool's paradise. The disputed facts are inconsequential because the facts of yore are not going to matter. Norway's negotiations in LTTE-SL dispute were useless after Eelam War IV, so were the protracted negotiations between Albania, KLA and Serbia after 1999. These facts are good only for scoring points. I think the debate should be framed with people at the center and not like the Ratzelian notion of Social Darwinism that it has now been reduced to.
I don't have a Tagorian view of nationalism. Its just different, because its not hegemonic or jingoistic and is one where people matter, not artificial constructs like land, water etc. My identity ends with being an Indian, rest are primordial thereby inconsequential. I abhor rigidity and especially iron-clad biases. If my own biases are not going to be in a state of flux, then I am not growing.
There is 2000 movie called The Contender where Shelly Runyon has an interesting take on objectivity and subjectivity and especially its importance to modern day politics. When politicians helm complex negotiations, its never the facts but the perceptions and the subjectivity that eventually triumphs. And that is the way it should be............
@varuag: IT seemed that you were disagreeing with me not based on any specific facts I had provided but by asserting the general superiority of your knowledge (the questions about what I had or had not read pointed in that direction). If that was not the case, great. Agreeing to disagree is absolutely fine, if you do not want to rebut with facts. The world would be a boring place if all of us were clones of each other.
Separately, I understand that for you the construct of nationalism is restricting. While I respect your view, I obviously feel differently since my primary identity is that I am an Indian woman (language, race, caste, province etc. really matter little for me. My religion does matter but only as a source of internal guidance and in some cases cultural practices that I observe e.. fasting during Navratri or on Janmaashtami - not as a way to judge someone else).
Also when I said that it is not possible for anyone to be truly unbiased, it is because I believe that. I was certainly not being condescending towards you since I did not imply that you were not unbiased but I was - something that you in fact had implied to @BlackJack.
ET please allow.................last comment @gp65: I am not attacking anyone, lest of all you. I have no interest in rebutting your facts. I can assure you I have the highest regard for your analysis but there is an inherent intransigence and lack of empathy that I detect. Most people are terribly parochial when it comes to emotional constructs like nation state. I just wish people would be a little accommodating in their outlook I apologize if you feel wronged because, believe me, I know for a fact that I am poorly informed on a host of issues. I am generally in conformity with your views but I don't know why we end up in thes silly keyboard battles. We should agree to disagree ..............
ET please allow. I am responding to someone who has written to me directly. @varuag: You are attacking me as being not being as well read as you and having a confirmatory bias in the facts I use. Fine. Please rebut my facts with a different set of facts and provide a reference for those.
@Arijit Sharma:
Over the past 1000 odd years, it was Arabs, Persians and Afghans who brutalized, violated and molested the ancestors of present day Pakistanis. Yet, Pakistanis recognize themselves with the Arabs/Afghans (Iranian ancestry claims went out of favor due to it's Shia roots) and believe the sufferers were someone further south or east. Fundamental psychology tells us that this dissociation from reality is in fact, "a coping mechanism or defense mechanisms in seeking to master, minimize or tolerate stress – including conflict."
@Jism: "Not in India, Not in Pakistan. Independent KASHMIR"
If this is what you want, do know that the plebiscite only has 2 options India and Pakiostan. Pakistan is lying when it tells you that they are fighting to make Kashmiri people realize their aspirations.
@varuag There is a difference between being unbiased and objective. One can be objective I.e. be guided by facts. But each one of us interprets facts through the prism of one's life experiences and value systems thereby introducing an element of bias. In a debate between democracy and dictatorship/monarchy/caliphate, I am biased towards democracy. In a debate between secularism and theocracy, I am biased towards secularism. Whether you support or oppose honour killing, you have displayed your bias for one argument. Anyone claiming to be truly biased is simply unaware of their own biases.
@Sikander: "... The issue with this line of thinking is that Geelani is powerful enough to make or break a deal. ... "
There is ALWAYS more that what meets the eye. Remember how Taliban raised by the Pakistani state has come to haunt Pakistan - the same way, with Geelani gone from the scene, "AJK" people will start demanding the third option - i.e - "independence" - the very cause Pakistan has been championing for Indian Kashmir.
Food for thought ?
@gotti
Most of my comments do not get published either, but yes you are the victim and yes it is a conspiracy. Isn't it always?
@Maula Jut: " ... Status Quo for ever. Are you kidding? The Scots are preparing to have a referendum by the British on -yes- Scottish indepependence. ... "
That is half the story. The other half is that the Scots are NOT going to vote "yes for independence". Please, if you must illustrate with an example, do find a good one and present the ENTIRE picture.
The issue with this line of thinking is that Geelani is powerful enough to make or break a deal. According to the venomous indic comments, he apparently isn't. Logic then dictates he isn't the reason india can't come to terms with the Kashmir Movement; because the people of Kashmir are the Kashmir Movement. Pretty sure the time was on the side of the Viceroy as well. Banking on time would make sense if times didn't change.
@Yuri Kondratyuk: " ... Aren’t these the guys who brutalized the ancestors of present day Pakistanis? No wonder not a single one in the list is born in present day Pakistan region! ... "
A Muslim can brutalise another Muslim with impunity and still be a hero.
@BruteForce: Status Quo for ever. Are you kidding? The Scots are preparing to have a referendum by the British on -yes- Scottish indepependence.
@Spud: and also change the demographics as Pakistan has done.How about Bangladesh Muslims settling in Kashmir for a start?
@Indian: Partly now being implemented in Pakistan where the minorities are shrinking and will eventually vanish.
@Varuag
You are perhaps the only Indian on these pages who tries to impartially look at various perspectives and is not bigoted or driven by a warped 'patriotic' agenda. I really admire your ability to distance yourself. Unfortunately, most of your compatriots here are not endowed with this ability, and unfortunately, you do not comment here very frequently. You must have seen how they have pounced upon you with the usual Pakistan-is-to-blame-for-everything claptrap. Replace Pakistan with Islam and that too is their favorite mantra.
I wish there were more Indians here like you!
@asif:
LOL. You are welcome to fool yourself.
India's secular (but feudal) Democracy is real. It respects the rights of its minority, and whole world acknowledges this fact. The biggest factoid that supports it - Muslim percentage of India actually went up in 65 years.
India wasn't handed its freedom on a platter. It fought for it for almost a 100years. Pakistan however had it easy. The concept came about and the state materialized in a matter of just couple of decades, without many sacrifices from Pakistani leaders in the fight.
How many Pakistani leaders were in Jail during British Raj? How many folk paid with life?
Mr Gilani should thank his stars that he was in India and the fair justice, though convinced of his part in the Parliament attack released him on the ground of lack of evidence; otherwise to day along with guru the bigger guru would have been o the gallows.
@usmanyy @Arijit, Yes indeed Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Nadir, Abdali, Sher Shah Suri were futile…. We don’t give up as easily as you do good sir. Sure you won't give up so easily as you are still living in the times of Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Nadir, Abdali, Sher Shah Suri, and of course, in the era of Mohammad-bin-Kasim. Commendable indeed!
I think now India and Pakistan should concentrate on their poor people. This is ridicules to think of war etc. as for as Kashmire is concerned it should give the status of Independent region out of the influence of both countries. We should stop hatred and try to improve relationship. Now world has changed, countries are measured because of their economic prosperity. If people of both countries will happy, peaceful and prosperous, everything will go well. What we got from the enmity of both countries, just cloud of fear and uncertainty. Please stop this rhetoric and work for the betterment of general public. ..
@usmanyy:
Aren't these the guys who brutalized the ancestors of present day Pakistanis? No wonder not a single one in the list is born in present day Pakistan region!
It seems like a peaceful resolution of kashmir and ending of the suffering of kashmiri people is dependent on death of Geelani! What is india and pakistan waiting for? Even from pakistan's point of view, sooner the geenani departs the better! Pakistan can then move its army and economic resources to improve the lives of its citizens suffering from economic and terrorism related hardship! This is the common ground merging the pak-india interest, get rid of Geelani!
Since when did Kashmir become a Muslim state? All the Hindus of Jammu area have been hounded out under the threat of murders. Sure there was a Muslim majority there but it never was a Muslim state. If it were then Maharaja would have been a Muslim too but he was a Hindu. The only solution for this problem created by Jawaharlal Nehru is to divide Kasmir along the current border and be done with it.
@ET: These are replies to specific posts addressed to me - allow me to respond. @Arijit Sharma: There is a bigger agenda – it is the reclamation and restoration of the Indic nation. I have often admired this ability to encapsulate your point of view in a single, punchy sentence; however, I don't agree with this one. Harking back to a mythical, golden age is best left to our neighbors - we can recreate one with what we have, which is undoubtedly a new and different India. Homogeneity is the enemy of creativity; there have been several infusions of foreign culture over centuries, most of which have been absorbed into the Indian mosaic (your Borg example was excellent, btw :), but have still left their distinct imprint - where would we draw the line? We must make the best of what we have rather than seeking to restore the past. At the same time, I am all for breaking down unnecessary divisions amongst Indians (caste/ religion) to achieve said purpose. If India is dearer to you than your religion or caste, then what difference does that element of your identity make?
@varuag: Forgive me for saying this, but you both represent the opposite ends of a polarized spectrum and to the truly unbiased both will come off as uncompromising bigots. I forgive you. I assume that you are the truly unbiased person described above. Your modesty does you credit.
@gp65: Apart from the points that you have listed, the plebiscite was to be a 2-way choice between India and Pakistan. Pakistan pays lip service to Kashmiri aspirations for independence, thus complicating the problem, and stoking popular discontent. This problem wouldn't exist today if Pakistan was openly demanding Kashmir for itself instead of playing the field, max we would have had to escort Geelani to the border with a couple of his buddies.
By the looks of the comments on this site and especially the writers, it is quite fair to conclude that the ".pk" domain is either there out of deception, confusion or it was cheaper than the .in domain.
Also, the observation that the comments I post are not allowed whereas blatantly anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim comments are allowed, it is fair to assume that this newspaper is run by Indian elements to hurt the sentiments of Pakistanis and Muslims by provoking them and not allowing them to have a say. So much for free speech and the freedom of expression!
This is a larger conspiracy by the Russian backed Indian neo-commies (anti-religion facade in one face but pro-Hindutva extremism in the other) - remember, the paper is a subsidiary of the IHT and NYT - those who feel the need to ponder this further, may, but those who already understand need to start boycotting and defaming this newspaper on social media lest they continue their ways, don't allow freedom of speech and avoid a Pakistani point of view from being heard, indiscriminately.
@ asif
'Indians were handed their ‘freedom’ in a platter. That is why they are so glib about it. They truly don’t know freedom or democracy – these are concepts not intrinsic to their nature. '
This statement is most obnoxious and idiotic in nature..Asif says India got freedom for nothing and democracy etc. etc. .This statement is so so true about Pakistan..
Tell me one Muslim league member who went to jail for freedom struggle..? you got Pakistan because of British..only thing you did was killing Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhist in Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, NWFP and Bengal…
But I’m not shocked by your version of History..after all you’re a Pakistani..!!
Here's hoping that Syed Ali Shah Geelani lives to at least a 100 years, if not much longer! Because, if this author's views are accurate it would mean that most of the so-called "Hurriyat" members will also be dead and/or irrelevant by the time that comes. All the more easier then to deal with Kashmir, and for that matter with Pakistan -- i.e. if it still happens to exist at that time!
@varuag: "If everyone wants to be in India then a simple plebiscite can forever seal the mouths of all, can’t it?"
Here are the reasons that a plebiscite cannot be held: 1) The plebiscite is supposed to be held in tehe entire KAshmir and not just the part that is administered by India. The people who are supposed to be able to vote are original inhabitants of Kashmir. However a part of what was under PAkistan has been ceded by PAkistan to China. How shall we hold the plebiscite there? 2) Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its army which it never did. 3) Pakistan has changed the demography of the part of Kashmir it occupies by settling people from all over Pakistan there. 4) Pakistan has also changed the demography of the part of Kashmir India administers through jihadis by driving out hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris.
You are extremely well read, so my question to you is why did you ask a question where you must have known the answer.
ET has refused to accept pro Pakistani comments.
@Arijit,
Yes indeed Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Nadir, Abdali, Sher Shah Suri were futile.... We don't give up as easily as you do good sir.
ET, please allow my rejoinder in response to his statement, "Indians have not died in large numbers to expel intruders."
@asif: Will & Ariel Durant in their epic "The story of civilization" the book that has had the most impact in the study of human history, writes:
"The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. More than XX million peace loving Hindus and Buddhists were eliminated from the north-west India in this conquest. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India’s boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in....".
@Umer and other Pakistanis:
As an Indian, I "hope" most Pakistanis wish Maududi had stayed in India, but not for the reason you state, that he initially opposed the creation of Pakistan. Indians are thankful that he did, because:
Maududi's ideology, specifically his views on how non-Muslims should be treated in an Islamic state, is brutal, inhuman and simply evil. His ideology is pure hate, intolerance, demonisation and dehumanization of non-Muslims. Such people and their ideologies should never have been born. This apart from his other hateful ideas on holy war, etc.
As a liberal Indian, the only real argument I can see against a change in Kashmir's status is their religious demagoguery. This is a group which is fighting for its right to set up a religious theocratic state, and has already carried out an ethnic cleansing. If Kashmir will be a free society with freedom of religion and equal rights for all - and the separatists can prove this with credibility, then and then only is there a case for Kashmir's independence. If they just want to be another Pakistan or Saudi Arabia where minorities are oppressed, then they don't deserve anything. Freedom is deserved only by those who are willing to extend everyone else the same courtesy. Not to say that India is perfectly free. Very far from it, but we try.
I'd like to ask my Pakistani friends if they feel that atrocities by Israel on Palestinians are justified because a hypothetical majority of Israel's population supports that? Expulsion of Kashmiri Pandits is no different from the expulsion of Palestinians. If expulsion of Hindus from the valley is justified because of majority wants it, then expulsion of Palestinians from their lands is justified because a majority wants it too. Why double standards?
Not just Geelani, but all Kashmiris from both sides, and indeed Pakistanis and Indians themselves who cannot march to the tune of the 21st century, a secular age of reason, will be marginalized and die. Fundos of the world have a simple choice, either embrace the new age of education, reason, and enlightenment, or recede into your black hole of religious dogma that will leave you further and further behind.
"The Mirwaiz says he accepts India is secular and democratic but even so, Kashmiris should be allowed to determine whether they want any part of it."
The world media uses a language, which changes from time to time depending upon their national interests.
For example : Until 2001, Kashmiri separatists and Pakistan based terrorist organizations which targeted only India were referred to as militants.
But since 2001, the world media has slowly adopted the word terrorists.
Indian media has to change the Lingo as well. India should stop calling these people as separatists. Those who seek a separate nationhood of Kashmir solely on the basis of religion (there is no other basis) should be referred to as 'Occupying forces'.
Because these muslims (like the rest of the muslims of India) are not Indians if they think they are not. if they are not and still living in India and seeking a separate nation, they are nothing but occupying forces.
"What Geelani wants is clear and uncomplicated. He wants Kashmir to merge with Pakistan. And he wants this because it is a Muslim state and, therefore, should be governed under Sharia."
This is exactly why Kashmir cause is bigoted and will die the same death as Osama.
Pakistan should realize that seeking Kashmir is both morally and ethically wrong and practically, it's suicide for Pakistan.
Only, this suicide will not be a quick death. It will be quite slow and painful.
@BlackJack: "... Meanwhile Kashmiris who want to take advantage of the economic opportunities in India have no reason to complain. ..."
BlackJack, it is not about economic opportunities. There is a bigger agenda - it is the reclamation and restoration of the Indic nation.
@BlackJack: If everyone wants to be in India then a simple plebiscite can forever seal the mouths of all, can't it? As much as I may want your end statement to be true, I cannot convince myself of the argument. Call me a cynic as I do not share your sunny optimism but answers to such vexed issues lie in shades of grey, not black or white. Actually there is not much difference in the crux of your argument and that of Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Forgive me for saying this, but you both represent the opposite ends of a polarized spectrum and to the truly unbiased both will come off as uncompromising bigots.
Geelani gets treated for his kidney, Liver ailment in Delhi. He is biting the hand that feeds him. Alas
Not in India, Not in Pakistan. Independent KASHMIR
He is 83 years old. Opposes Indian government in most vitriolic and religion based ideological terms but uses government provided free medical care and even a pension from the J&K government. He receives financial aid from foreign agencies. This is possible only in India.
Be it 83 or 38 , be it so called Maududist or Hitler , no one greater than country . Be brutal to them , don't wait for that guy to leave stage , just force him to leave stage .Till now Gov is soft to this leader , otherwise he wouldn't have turned 83. Avail proper education and job guarantee to the poor youths of Kahmir and they will kick this man out.
Geelani is equally loved in Pakistan for his principal stance of merger with Pakistan state. I don't understand why can't India see the resentment of Kashmiris ? They are Pakistanis being occupied by Indians for decades
@BlackJack
.......everyone wants to be in India.
ya... right... keep dreaming ...
@the author "Maududi reconciled with the idea of Pakistan and was on the side of President Ziaul Haq when he moved the laws that Islamised certain punishments in the Pakistan Penal Code." Was Moulana Maududi actively participating at the time of General Zia? So called Islamic reforms by the General came when Moulana was not even alive but he had full support of the JI.
... The moment he leaves the stage, a senior Kashmiri reporter told me this week, the whole of the Hurriyat will queue up for talks on how to settle this thing ...
As said by the Borg in Start Trek/Voyager:
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
..Geelani did not fully appreciate the Indian, or perhaps sub-continental, ability to absorb great pain in the cause of its territory... History says otherwise ! Indians have not died in large numbers to expel intruders. Mostly they have colluded with them or accepted them like other afflictions in their lives - passively with burning resentment. I salute Kashmiris for demanding their right to be free and they have given their blood for it. Indians were handed their 'freedom' in a platter. That is why they are so glib about it. They truly don't know freedom or democracy - these are concepts not intrinsic to their nature. Atleast we in PK admit that democracy is a learnt behavior. No so for this 'beacon' of democracy that has traumatized and brutalized a whole generation of kashmiris without remorse.
Great intellectual? I wish he stayed in India, instead of moving to Pakistan, which he opposed tooth and nail, so you could see how much of an intellectual he was. His Jamaat-e-Islami is nothing but trouble wherever it exists; and an apple does not fall far from its tree. Hint to the wise. Even Maududi’s son is critical of him to put it mildly.
The ideas of Maududis and Geelanis can be understood using the framework produced by one of Pakistan's hidden gem of an intellectual -- Mobarak Haider who is now writing for Dawn. In his book he explains the why Indian Muslims even after 700 to 800 of rule, no matter how you add it, could not see themselves in a secular democracy ruled mostly by the people from the majority religion. His book "Tehzeebi Nargasiat" which is translated into Civilizational Narcissism is one of those hidden gems. Highly recommended. I would also like to see his writing on this website, editors please note.
All well and good but what is missing in all these discussion is the voice of non Muslims and Muslims who were persecuted by the demagogues of yesteryears based on their policy of pan islamism, who are now coming up with different colors elsewhere in the world. It is high time, India speaks up for those who were persecuted by these idiots for their contrived views and holding the progress of the state.
Geelani may be a popular demagogue in the valley (although a big nobody in Jammu and Ladakh), but I am sure he privately acknowledges that he is fighting a losing battle. India has time on its side - we will wait. Meanwhile Kashmiris who want to take advantage of the economic opportunities in India have no reason to complain. Kashmiris who want to exercise their right to vote for a leader of their choice do have some reason to complain with the continued death threats that local panchayat leaders receive from Pakistani militants - and have come to realise the consistently negative role that Pakistan continues to play in Kashmir. Of course, those who want an Islamic state have no reason to complain either - they can just cross a nearby border and get there - but nobody seems to be lining up. Isn't it surprising that the exodus of Hindus from Pakistan and return of Kashmiri youth to the mainstream is all going in one direction - everyone wants to be in India.