Jammu Amarnath agitation
started by Truthbetold3 2 mnths agoFlat
Nested
Replies
If the local people, i.e. the Kashmiris don't want their land to be allocated to a temple, I don't see how outsiders - be they from Jammu or from Jhumritalaiya - can force that allocation.
It is this misplaced sense of entitlement that strengthens the hands of the separatists in the valley.
So you think "locals" have the right to decide what they want to do in their "land".
Do you think the Kashmiri Pandits deserve any voice in their "land" or no ?.
Do you think the Kashmiri Pandits deserve any voice in their "land" or no ?.
Yes, so hold a local referendum on the matter and then decide instead of forcing something from the outside.
With all that hysterical outrage and sense of entitlement on what is disputed territory, you chaddis are actually strengthening the separatists' core argument that despite its ostensible secularism, a Hindu-majority India will always run roughshod on a Muslim-majority state.
With all that hysterical outrage and sense of entitlement on what is disputed territory, you chaddis are actually strengthening the separatists' core argument that despite its ostensible secularism, a Hindu-majority India will always run roughshod on a Muslim-majority state.
So you mean a referendum in a Muslim majority area (that recently ethnic cleansed the minority Hindus) to determine whether to offer some temple land or not?.
Now my next question. Do you accept a similar referendum all over India for the construction of Hajj houses / subsidy etc?.
This is getting far better than expected.
Now my next question. Do you accept a similar referendum all over India for the construction of Hajj houses / subsidy etc?.
This is getting far better than expected.
Yes. If you chaddis had the guts to take on a real issue, you would be fighting for the resettlement of displaced Pandits in their homelands instead. But no, temples are a far easier platform to launch rath-yatras and incite the trishul-weilding hordes, isn't it?
I've already opposed Haj subsidies just as I oppose subsidy of the Kailash Manasrovar yatra and other miscellaneous religious activities that the GOI supports with taxpayer money despite being a secular republic.
I've already opposed Haj subsidies just as I oppose subsidy of the Kailash Manasrovar yatra and other miscellaneous religious activities that the GOI supports with taxpayer money despite being a secular republic.
Good to know your consistent position on yatras. I welcome banning the subsidy and demand the immediate demolition of all such places built using taxpayer's money so far. I assume you'd support me in that drive.
I'm further trying to understand your position.
On the one hand you say you'd allow the Kashmiris veto power over the "land" and on the other hand you claim that "chaddis" should fight for resettling the driven out Pandits. If they can't even give 40 hectares of unused land for religious reasons, on what basis do you think the Kashmiris would allow Pandits their religious freedom?.
I'm further trying to understand your position.
On the one hand you say you'd allow the Kashmiris veto power over the "land" and on the other hand you claim that "chaddis" should fight for resettling the driven out Pandits. If they can't even give 40 hectares of unused land for religious reasons, on what basis do you think the Kashmiris would allow Pandits their religious freedom?.
>> If they can't even give 40 hectares of unused land for religious reasons, on what basis do you think the Kashmiris would allow Pandits their religious freedom?.
Local opposition to land transfers for religions purposes is common across the world, be it in Kashmir, Katy (TX) or Cologne. So it's not some nation-breaking issue.
OTOH, when it comes to a far graver matter i.e. the Pandits' displacement from the valley - which really strikes at the heart of India's secularism and Kashmir's place in the Indian Union - you chaddis pay just lip sympathy; apparently the Pandits' cause don't merit the same rath-yatra launching rhetoric and nationwide protests reserved for some penis-gawking pilgrims. I wonder why.
Local opposition to land transfers for religions purposes is common across the world, be it in Kashmir, KatyCologne. So it's not some nation-breaking issue. (TX) or
You are entitled to your opinion. i don't think there was ethnic cleansing in Katy or Cologne in the last 20 years.. I'm amused by the trivialisation of the issue by the "pseudo secularists" (pardon me since you have used chaddi to refer me more than once).
OTOH, when it comes to a far graver matter i.e. the Pandits' displacement from the valley - which really strikes at the heart of India's secularism and Kashmir's place in the Indian Union - you chaddis pay just lip sympathy; apparently the Pandits' cause don't merit the same rath-yatra launching rhetoric and nationwide protests reserved for some penis-gawking pilgrims. I wonder why.
Let me try to understand you further. So you think it is Ok for (or rather want) the chaddis to agitate all over the country for the plight of Pandits like they do now for Amarnath. I think it is atleast better that they are starting the agitation now for the restoration of land rights first followed by residency rights for the Pandits.
What do you think?.
You are entitled to your opinion. i don't think there was ethnic cleansing in Katy or Cologne in the last 20 years.
. I'm amused by the trivialisation of the issue by the "pseudo secularists" (pardon me since you have used chaddi to refer me more than once).OTOH, when it comes to a far graver matter i.e. the Pandits' displacement from the valley - which really strikes at the heart of India's secularism and Kashmir's place in the Indian Union - you chaddis pay just lip sympathy; apparently the Pandits' cause don't merit the same rath-yatra launching rhetoric and nationwide protests reserved for some penis-gawking pilgrims. I wonder why.
Let me try to understand you further. So you think it is Ok for (or rather want) the chaddis to agitate all over the country for the plight of Pandits like they do now for Amarnath. I think it is atleast better that they are starting the agitation now for the restoration of land rights first followed by residency rights for the Pandits.
What do you think?.
>> I think it is atleast better that they are starting the agitation now for the restoration of land rights first followed by residency rights for the Pandits.
You clearly don't see the difference between the two issues, so let me simplify it for you - the penis-gawkers are outsiders whereas the Pandits are local to Kashmir. The latter has a right to live on their own land and deserves full support in exercising that right whereas the outsiders have no such rights in this special territory as per the Indian constitution.
By demanding the overturning of the protections of Article 370, you are in fact fueling the separatist movement, strengthening their international credibility and further reducing the Pandits' chances of ever returning to their native land.
Seems to me the chaddis are only interested in galvanizing their hordes for the next election, no different from the so-called p-sec politicians they love to hate. Longer term national interest has never been part of their thinking.
You clearly don't see the difference between the two issues, so let me simplify it for you - the penis-gawkers are outsiders whereas the Pandits are local to Kashmir. The latter has a right to live on their own land and deserves full support in exercising that right whereas the outsiders have no such rights in this special territory as per the Indian constitution.
By demanding the overturning of the protections of Article 370, you are in fact fueling the separatist movement, strengthening their international credibility and further reducing the Pandits' chances of ever returning to their native land.
Seems to me the chaddis are only interested in galvanizing their hordes for the next election, no different from the so-called p-sec politicians they love to hate. Longer term national interest has never been part of their thinking.
Not sure if I can participate in a wider debate.. but wanted to get a feel for what you mean by 'local'. Do you mean those that are born in that valley area OR settled there in recent past OR have ancestary from that area? Can someone in Baramulla decide about Pahalgam area issues? And if you narrow further, then we can say that only those people who are native to the 100 acre in question or are actual owners of that 100 acre have a right to decide if it goes to Amarnat Board or anyone else. What do you think? Please define a consistent framework.
And if you narrow further, then we can say that only those people who are native to the 100 acre in question or are actual owners of that 100 acre have a right to decide if it goes to Amarnat Board or anyone else. What do you think?
Very logical question. I don't think there are any "locals" in that area. It is an uninhabited forest area 10000 feet above sea level.
Ofcourse, facts won't matter to "pseudo secularists".
Very logical question. I don't think there are any "locals" in that area. It is an uninhabited forest area 10000 feet above sea level.
Ofcourse, facts won't matter to "pseudo secularists".
You clearly don't see the difference between the two issues, so let me simplify it for you - the penis-gawkers are outsiders whereas the Pandits are local to Kashmir. The latter has a right to live on their own land and deserves full support in exercising that right whereas the outsiders have no such rights in this special territory as per the Indian constitution.
I think before you start writing, read some newspapers / articles / opinions etc.. Otherwise you come up as an ignorant. bombastic pseudo secularist (not that there is anything wrong with being that..). For the last 35 days the people who are agitating are residents of Jammu and Kashmir.
I think before you start writing, read some newspapers / articles / opinions etc.. Otherwise you come up as an ignorant. bombastic pseudo secularist (not that there is anything wrong with being that..
). For the last 35 days the people who are agitating are residents of Jammu and Kashmir. Given that there are two groups with entirely opposite POVs on the issue, the only civilized solution to the problem is to put it up to a vote and then live with whatever is the outcome. That would be the mark of a true democracy.
All you chaddis clamoring for a unilateral sarkari appropriation of the land despite local opposition are not only undermining democracy itself but also lending credence to the separatists' claim that their interests will never be protected in a Hindu-majority country.
Btw, good job staying silent over being called out on the chaddi's opporunistic trumpeting of some penis-gawkers' interests while staying silent on the Kashmiri Pandits' rights.
All you chaddis clamoring for a unilateral sarkari appropriation of the land despite local opposition are not only undermining democracy itself but also lending credence to the separatists' claim that their interests will never be protected in a Hindu-majority country.
Btw, good job staying silent over being called out on the chaddi's opporunistic trumpeting of some penis-gawkers' interests while staying silent on the Kashmiri Pandits' rights.
>> the only civilized solution to the problem is to put it up to a vote and then live with whatever is the outcome. That would be the mark of a true democracy. <<
I'm not disputing that. But wanted to come to an understanding about what specific areas can be considered 'local' to decide that they are eligible to cast their vote in favor or against. I think we have to decide that. I agree that Jammu region people cannot have a say. But I wanted to see why you think anyone other than the actual owners or residents of the said 100 acre land would have any rights to vote by the same logic.
I hope you'd respond with the what and why of your framework for defining a 'local' unlike the opportunistically chaddis who prefer to stay silent on matters of inconvenience.
I'm not disputing that. But wanted to come to an understanding about what specific areas can be considered 'local' to decide that they are eligible to cast their vote in favor or against. I think we have to decide that. I agree that Jammu region people cannot have a say. But I wanted to see why you think anyone other than the actual owners or residents of the said 100 acre land would have any rights to vote by the same logic.
I hope you'd respond with the what and why of your framework for defining a 'local' unlike the opportunistically chaddis who prefer to stay silent on matters of inconvenience.
>> But I wanted to see why you think anyone other than the actual owners or residents of the said 100 acre land would have any rights to vote by the same logic.
This is public land being re-zoned for the convenience of visiting pilgrims. The local people very much have a say in how their land is being utilized.
This is public land being re-zoned for the convenience of visiting pilgrims. The local people very much have a say in how their land is being utilized.
You still haven't defined the boundaries of 'local' that can lay claim to a say on the specific 'public' land. My question is by what logic do people of Baramulla become part of the 'public' and not people of Jammu? Your 'localization' algorithm seems to think that State or Country is too large a scope for a referendum but arbitrarily concludes that 'region' is the right level. My question is why not narrow it further and take it to say a district, or city or area or colony. Please explain the what and why of your conditions to set 'local' rights.
I don't know what is the smallest administrative unit applicable. If land re-zoning is a district level decision, then it should be up to the people of that district.
The important thing is that this is not something to be forced onto a local population of a disputed territory by outsiders.
If it helps, the facts of the case:
outlook article
It is difficult to comprehend how a request to build brick-and-mortar lavatories at 10,000 ft altitude in an inhospitable area where not a tree grows and where it snows for nearly 8 months a year could be seen as a land give-away that could provoke such a violent reaction.
The actual locals are the "snowmen" who live in pseudo secularists' dreams.. We need to conduct a referendum by getting inside the pseudo secularists' brains.
outlook article
It is difficult to comprehend how a request to build brick-and-mortar lavatories at 10,000 ft altitude in an inhospitable area where not a tree grows and where it snows for nearly 8 months a year could be seen as a land give-away that could provoke such a violent reaction.
The actual locals are the "snowmen" who live in pseudo secularists' dreams.
. We need to conduct a referendum by getting inside the pseudo secularists' brains.
PS,
The Land was already given by an elected govt. It happens every day.
So one party agitates to get that order rescinded. Now the other party is fighting back. What referandum now?
The Land was already given by an elected govt. It happens every day.
So one party agitates to get that order rescinded. Now the other party is fighting back. What referandum now?
Oh, I thought the Outlook was a pseudo-secularist rag. Interesting that you should quote it when it suits you.
You're quite a simple guy, aren't you? Just because it's some uninhabited jungles, you think it's ok for the government to rezone it in whatever fashion it wants? Sorry pal, welcome to the real world.
AFAIK, any re-zoning in India - be it for a dam or a steel plant or for a place of worship - faces opposition by some local group or the other. These objections have to be particularly heeded to when the region in question is a disputed territory which is accorded special status by the Indian constituion when it comes to land rights.
You're quite a simple guy, aren't you? Just because it's some uninhabited jungles, you think it's ok for the government to rezone it in whatever fashion it wants? Sorry pal, welcome to the real world.
AFAIK, any re-zoning in India - be it for a dam or a steel plant or for a place of worship - faces opposition by some local group or the other. These objections have to be particularly heeded to when the region in question is a disputed territory which is accorded special status by the Indian constituion when it comes to land rights.
If you notice I report the FACTS and TRUTH whatever their sources be and I accept the same from Gyanputra / Gyaanputra / and Mr.Nambiar.
As I said earlier you can wake up a sleeping man but you cannot wake up a man who pretends to be sleeping.
As I said earlier you can wake up a sleeping man but you cannot wake up a man who pretends to be sleeping.
Ok. Continue to pretend then.
Sure, I would continue to argue based on FACTS and TRUTH. 
Nice read PS. Thanks for the insight and staying calm all the while on the thread. :)
As soon as the opposition stops responding on the topic, called names and pulled in another topic in the thread, you know that even google is not helping them. :)
As soon as the opposition stops responding on the topic, called names and pulled in another topic in the thread, you know that even google is not helping them. :)
Thanks Vivek,
I think I have remained calm even when we debated over language issues.So this is not something new. :-)
As days go by, I'm getting even calmer.
I personally think that abuses / slanging match don't work . They cannot replace effective arguments based on solid facts and TRUTH.
I think I have remained calm even when we debated over language issues.So this is not something new. :-)
As days go by, I'm getting even calmer.
I personally think that abuses / slanging match don't work . They cannot replace effective arguments based on solid facts and TRUTH.
The situation has been grossly mismanaged by Congress. Jammu & Kashmir was probably not this polarized on Hindu Jammu & Muslim valley (after they cleansed all Hindus/Sikhs out of the valley).
It's heading for a showdown wherein Pak will soon make an entry supporting the next breed of traitors who want to break away from India. This time, India should setup a long lasting solution after learning from the stupid mistakes of 1971 when Lahore was almost in India's kubza.