Kashmir : An Illusive Solution

Sir,

The situation is indeed underhanded. The dispensation given to the Centre, under the Constitution, for incorporation of subjects to be implemented by Ordinance in J&K was a one-time dispensation, for a single use only, that has been misused by successive Governments at the Centre over nearly sixty years, the first time, in the full realisation by the ministers and bureaucrats at Delhi that they were collusive in a breach of the Constitution. The legal parameters that you refer to have been specifically and egregiously violated. You might find Dr. Rajendra Prasad's views on the matter of interest.

And as for the comparison with the Catalans and the Kurds, neither of them had the constitutional sanction that the Kashmiris do. Article 370 is hard-wired into the Constitution of India.

Lastly, I sympathise with the frequent attempts of opponents of the status quo to do away with Article 370. Please look at the legal situation once again. It is not a question of the Indian Parliament passing a law with a simply majority; it is not even a question of the Indian Parliament passing a law with a two-thirds majority sufficient for a constitutional amendment either.

Only the state Constituent Assembly was empowered to inform the Indian Parliament that Article 370 is no longer needed, and may be abrogated. The state Constituent Assembly dissolved itself without so informing the Indian Parliament. This Constituent Assembly cannot be reformed, and is forever extinct. Therefore, a possibility of informing the Indian Parliament that Article 370 is no longer needed does not exist, and can never exist, not if we want to retain any legal link to the Valley or to Ladakh or to Jammu.

Please do bear in mind, Sir, that this is not my personal opinion, but the irrefutable legal position, that has been examined gingerly by far greater constitutional authorities than I, and from which position those experts have found it best to retire, creeping away furtively to avoid attracting attention.


Sir.

Your reply is quite structured and requires a certain amount of reading at my end.

However, if one was to follow the line of thought as propounded by yourself, a case for fundamentally re-examining the Instrument of Accession as part of an International Treaty concluded by two sovereign states i.e. the Dominion of India and the State of Jammu & Kashmir as fluidly expanded upon under the Constitution of India vide Article 51 and other statuettes.

It is interesting to note that in Birma v. State division bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed:

".....Treaties which are part of the International Law do not form part of the law of the land unless expressly made so by the legislative authority......."

If, from the above, the treaty entered into by the two independent states after Aug 15 1947, is considered an International Treaty, then the power to make it into a law rests with the Legislative Authority. That by itself empowers the Legislature i.e. Parliament, to move a bill suitably.

I will have to read as this is not my primary field. However, your views will be greatly appreciated.
 
Sir.

Your reply is quite structured and requires a certain amount of reading at my end.

However, if one was to follow the line of thought as propounded by yourself, a case for fundamentally re-examining the Instrument of Accession as part of an International Treaty concluded by two sovereign states i.e. the Dominion of India and the State of Jammu & Kashmir as fluidly expanded upon under the Constitution of India vide Article 51 and other statuettes.

It is interesting to note that in Birma v. State division bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed:

".....Treaties which are part of the International Law do not form part of the law of the land unless expressly made so by the legislative authority......."

If, from the above, the treaty entered into by the two independent states after Aug 15 1947, is considered an International Treaty, then the power to make it into a law rests with the Legislative Authority. That by itself empowers the Legislature i.e. Parliament, to move a bill suitably.

I will have to read as this is not my primary field. However, your views will be greatly appreciated.

Is the age of the world just 70 years? Why are you acting as a slave by parroting the Constitution again and again? Constitution was made by people and can be changed by people to something completely new.

Why insist on constitution again and again
 
We only rely on absolute facts and not anyone's opinion. For example, world was created by some creator and have rules of various entities set by default. Such rules are not changeable by man. Hence any observations, facts based on the laws of nature including psychology is what forms the basis of reason.

Dear Sir, Would you care to define an 'absolute fact'?

I ask because to you, the world was created by 'some creator', and have rules of various entities (the Indian Parliament, perhaps) set by default. To someone else, that is your very shallow and superstitious, uninformed opinion. Which of you is right and whose opinion is in fact not an opinion but is an absolute fact?

And psychology has not ever formed a part of the natural sciences, but consists of a series of opinions by experts in the field. How would you state that psychology is part of the laws of nature? Further, psychology forming the basis of reason is what is known by old-fashioned teachers as a howler. If you are right, then there is no absolute fact; there is actually a set of opinions about the same thing, and each individual is entitled to think that she is right.

What is the problem with kashmir? The people believe that some prophet named Muhammad got revelations from Allah and it is the duty of everyone to follow it. Anyone who doesn't is a blasphemous person and must be killed. Laws made by prophet is final.
The problem is clear - there is no evidence of entity allah exists, no evidence that even if allah exists, it is god and not the devil. There is no reason to consider Quran as holy. The list goes on.

Unfortunately, there are also nincompoops who believe that the Vedas are divine revelations, that the cow is a sacred animal and not to be killed, that pigs are not to be eaten, that food must not be shared, that food must be shared, that the laws of Manu are sacred, and so on. These ignorant people are unable to distinguish between asura and deva. The similarities are enormous, and both are vehement in their denial of rationality in these matters.

Since no one is born with quran fed into their heads, believing in it without a reason or evidence is being unreasonable. It is a choice to believe in quran and that is what makes muslims unreasonable people.

You realise, of course, that the same arguments hold true for the Bible, for the Talmud, and for Buddhist scriptures, and Jain scriptures.


We are dependent on oil. For that we have to export services in the form of workers to arabs. Arabs can choose people of their will and pay the salary of their choice. So, they are choosing their agents and giving high salary for funding jihad.

What is the connection between your third sentence and your fourth?

Since India is deficient on natural resources, it can't be a manufacturing hub like china and has to export services. Also, in addition to remittance, India also needs investments and foreign sales.

Are you aware of the extent to which China depends on imported resources?

Gulf countries fund movie producers and directors in India by overbooking the cinema halls for months along in overseas theatre release and hence pay billions of dollars in the form of ticket sales. There are many problems associated with foreign trade and globalisation - countries with large amount of resources can misuse their superior position by uaing the resources to fund trojan horses

It is clear from the last section that you have an affinity with the world of the cinema.
 
Sir.

Your reply is quite structured and requires a certain amount of reading at my end.

However, if one was to follow the line of thought as propounded by yourself, a case for fundamentally re-examining the Instrument of Accession as part of an International Treaty concluded by two sovereign states i.e. the Dominion of India and the State of Jammu & Kashmir as fluidly expanded upon under the Constitution of India vide Article 51 and other statuettes.

It is interesting to note that in Birma v. State division bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed:

".....Treaties which are part of the International Law do not form part of the law of the land unless expressly made so by the legislative authority......."

If, from the above, the treaty entered into by the two independent states after Aug 15 1947, is considered an International Treaty, then the power to make it into a law rests with the Legislative Authority. That by itself empowers the Legislature i.e. Parliament, to move a bill suitably.

I will have to read as this is not my primary field. However, your views will be greatly appreciated.

Another excellent point, Sir.

Here, each of the Instruments of Accession was translated into an enabling act by the constitution or immediately after the promulgation of the constitution, and hence, they form part of the law of the land.

A little clarification: not precisely the law of the land, but the jurisdiction of which the law of the land is possessed. Almost the same thing, but if you wish to quibble, we must grant you the point.

So these Instruments of Accession went into enlarging the original lands defined by the India Independence Act 1947 and expanded the territory of British India as it stood on August 15, 1947, to the extent of each Instrument of Accession.

@Hellfire
@Himanshu Pandey

Please see above; an excellent point, though one with an excellent riposte available. First new point I've come across for some time, for a very long time.
 
We only rely on absolute facts and not anyone's opinion. For example, world was created by some creator and have rules of various entities set by default. Such rules are not changeable by man. Hence any observations, facts based on the laws of nature including psychology is what forms the basis of reason.

What is the problem with kashmir? The people believe that some prophet named Muhammad got revelations from Allah and it is the duty of everyone to follow it. Anyone who doesn't is a blasphemous person and must be killed. Laws made by prophet is final.
The problem is clear - there is no evidence of entity allah exists, no evidence that even if allah exists, it is god and not the devil. There is no reason to consider Quran as holy. The list goes on.

Since no one is born with quran fed into their heads, believing in it without a reason or evidence is being unreasonable. It is a choice to believe in quran and that is what makes muslims unreasonable people.


We are dependent on oil. For that we have to export services in the form of workers to arabs. Arabs can choose people of their will and pay the salary of their choice. So, they are choosing their agents and giving high salary for funding jihad.

Since India is deficient on natural resources, it can't be a manufacturing hub like china and has to export services. Also, in addition to remittance, India also needs investments and foreign sales. Gulf countries fund movie producers and directors in India by overbooking the cinema halls for months along in overseas theatre release and hence pay billions of dollars in the form of ticket sales. There are many problems associated with foreign trade and globalisation - countries with large amount of resources can misuse their superior position by uaing the resources to fund trojan horses
If you allow me.. I have a problem with absolute as nothing is absolute even the laws of nature. now anything which is formed on the basis of anything can not be same i.e. diamonds and fuel both made by carbon but quite different in use and properties.

once we start interpreting or understanding anything... things get changed so does the reason.

Believe me I am no supporter of Islam, Quran or child marriages with old uncles... but religion is an excuse used for kashmir problem and a just cause to fool people. I totally support killing the enemy of India but killing the reason for this enmity is more important.

PS:- posts against any religion or people are not allowed here. please comply with the rules.
 
Sir.

there are only 1 Muslim dominant state and 1 Muslim dominant CRS.. but the trend is that everyplace where they are reaching 18 % they are going against popular will and customs of India.

A failure to enunciate a National Population Policy, legally empower the two child norm and the demonstrated failure of the MOHFW in couple protection schemes is indicative of a legislative and/or executive issue. How does extrapolating the failure of the executive and legislature to the State help us?

I suggest demographic change in kashmir because they are using these muslim dominant card to get separated from India... once they become minority and Jammu and Ladhakh get better representation in assembly.. almost all those unsolvable issue will be solved.

Sir.

What stops the Government of India from using the Citizenship Act of 1955? There are plenty of legal clauses which can be used in addition to the suggested indication to roll out a National Population Policy.


the education is quite different from literacy and I always support better educated man over better literate man but then the common sense and patriotism should be part of this education.

Sir.

Who decides and quantifies the same? If one is aware of Fundamental Duties, then one will find that the controversy over the National Anthem was needless. The fact that the Government itself is clueless and the Courts in their wisdom decided that there is no requirement of the same in theaters, indicates that quantification of nationalism or patriotism is best avoided in relative terms.

I can argue a case of disrespect to the National Anthem as being sung in an event meant as entertainment and in contravention to guidelines as below:

http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/NationalAnthem(E).pdf

Pertinent to note that the line says ... may be sung.

the reason we are not evolving as a society is much more because a lot of people are vasting their time in social studies and philosphy rather then science.

Sir.

There is a balance for both. I disagree with you on this point as Science is indicative of requirement to do away with religion. While I fully agree with the same, I find it a rather undesirable area to enter into for the discourse as prevalent.

I don't say that philoshpy are not required but the discussion on philoshpy and ideology is for the hunger of a filled stomoch not for people who are still struggling to come out of miseary in which they had been thrown by all privios rulers.

educate people on science, patriotism and human values of honor, honest and hard work and let's leave the philosophical stuff of nation and human nature for future generation with secure future and filled bellies.

I agree.
 
it is not a problem. The day we actually invade POK, the locals will kill the outsiders from Pakistan. It will be repeat of the 1947 massacre of Hindus but this it will be Pakistanis who will be killed.


Dear Sir.

I hope you realize that had that been the case of 1948, I would have agreed with you. I suggest we leave it at that.
 
Was constitution made by god? Then why can't the constitution overthrown? Only god has the authority to make laws. Anyone else, no matter what he calls himself - founding father or prophet is illegitimate. Just like one law is written, it can be erased.

Nothing is impossible. It is just a matter of maturity and timing


Sir.

Did God command you to write this?

What are your views on death penalty to the rapists as enacted by the MP Government? God intervened? Then where was God in the act itself? I hope we have the last of God's name in vain here.
 
Is the age of the world just 70 years? Why are you acting as a slave by parroting the Constitution again and again? Constitution was made by people and can be changed by people to something completely new.

Why insist on constitution again and again

Sir.

You have rules present that prevent me from killing you just because I do not like the view you represent or how you look. How about extrapolating the same to a nation?


Interesting tangent here, what, in your learned opinion, is a Nation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dear Sir, The world is not one unit. Different sets of misfits have disfigures the natural state of affairs, and restrained people from freely killing all whom they oppose. Terrible thing to do.

From your words, you are seeking justice on outsiders, and wish to declare war on somebody or the other. Are you sure that you will prevail in this war (only you, because nobody else may support you)?

However, I am badly equipped to understand your logic. On the one hand, you do not wish to go by man-made laws. On the other hand, you are annoyed at the unnatural advantages given by nature (natural resources, heredity and chance). Please make it clear: which are you backing, man's laws or the laws of nature?

An enquiring public seeks to know.

@Himanshu Pandey

Rara avis, sui generis. He should be preserved in formaldehyde, in a natural way.

I never liked natural laws. It is just that as part of creation, I am bound by it. Why is something I don't know yet. If I find a way to control nature and can find the creator, I might as well take revenge. But, that is not possible here.

Dear Sir, Would you care to define an 'absolute fact'?

I ask because to you, the world was created by 'some creator', and have rules of various entities (the Indian Parliament, perhaps) set by default. To someone else, that is your very shallow and superstitious, uninformed opinion. Which of you is right and whose opinion is in fact not an opinion but is an absolute fact?
Opinion is dependent on a person. Facts are independently verifiable. That is the difference. Indian Parliament is not default. It was not created naturally but by man. Natural laws are those that are beyond the control of man but are nevertheless laws that exist - like gravity, electromagnetic theory, elements and their composition by neutron, proton etc.
And psychology has not ever formed a part of the natural sciences, but consists of a series of opinions by experts in the field. How would you state that psychology is part of the laws of nature? Further, psychology forming the basis of reason is what is known by old-fashioned teachers as a howler. If you are right, then there is no absolute fact; there is actually a set of opinions about the same thing, and each individual is entitled to think that she is right.
Anything that is beyond human control is natural law. The law may not be understood by man. But if it exists on its own, it is natural law.

Unfortunately, there are also nincompoops who believe that the Vedas are divine revelations, that the cow is a sacred animal and not to be killed, that pigs are not to be eaten, that food must not be shared, that food must be shared, that the laws of Manu are sacred, and so on. These ignorant people are unable to distinguish between asura and deva. The similarities are enormous, and both are vehement in their denial of rationality in these matters.

You realise, of course, that the same arguments hold true for the Bible, for the Talmud, and for Buddhist scriptures, and Jain scriptures.
Vedas were always editable and still is. As new knowledge is discovered, vedas are to be edited. I have never heard of any empire that held manusmriti as absolute law. Just because there is manusmriti doesn't mean it is sacrosanct. It is just guidelines. Even Vedas are guidelines.

Yes, buddhists, bible etc are also stupid. These things have also caused great harm. Buddhism introduced cowardice in India. It also led to downfall of dharma and eventually Islamic invasion. Bible caused dark ages of Europe. I never condone any of them. But, I am specifically speaking of islam as it has not changed and continues to be retarded and proudly following rapist prophet. Christianity underwent renaissance, buddhists became violent as seen in Tibet, Lanka, Burma but muslims remain unreasonable, vile and disgusting. Doing mistakes is one thing but not correcting it and continuing it is another.

The other superstition like food practice are all linked to invasions and resulting degradation. But, that can be changed. Islam can't be changed in any way I know of.

What is the connection between your third sentence and your fourth?
I am saying that Arabs are hiring jihadi agents as workers by paying high salary. It is a legal way of getting funds laundered.

Are you aware of the extent to which China depends on imported resources?



It is clear from the last section that you have an affinity with the world of the cinema.

Affinity with cinema is your made up conclusions. I can't discuss on ypir whims and fancies

About Chinese dependence on imported resources - please check the chinese dependency till 2000. China didn't depend on imports to set up manufacturing hub. It is now expanding on imports. Initial investment of China was from internal resource only. Once established as hub, it started to import raw material for further export expansion. However, even now, it produces 3-4 times its own resources than India. China doesn't depend on too much imports for self consumption but for processing for export. If you don't understand economics, don't speak on it.
 
Another excellent point, Sir.

Here, each of the Instruments of Accession was translated into an enabling act by the constitution or immediately after the promulgation of the constitution, and hence, they form part of the law of the land.

A little clarification: not precisely the law of the land, but the jurisdiction of which the law of the land is possessed. Almost the same thing, but if you wish to quibble, we must grant you the point.

So these Instruments of Accession went into enlarging the original lands defined by the India Independence Act 1947 and expanded the territory of British India as it stood on August 15, 1947, to the extent of each Instrument of Accession.

@Hellfire
@Himanshu Pandey

Please see above; an excellent point, though one with an excellent riposte available. First new point I've come across for some time, for a very long time.


Sir.

Kindly allow me time to immerse in the legal nuances and rejoin at a latter time or date. I am but a mere mortal with limitation in this field.

However I seek the time to dig out references from AIR itself.

Is @VCheng the learned gentleman who has dared to put across a brutal view point that at times may not be palatable? Then certainly his indulgence here will be educative.

However, I will quiz him on the interesting analogy of Baluchistan
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonobashi
I never liked natural laws. It is just that as part of creation, I am bound by it. Why is something I don't know yet. If I find a way to control nature and can find the creator, I might as well take revenge. But, that is not possible here.


Opinion is dependent on a person. Facts are independently verifiable. That is the difference. Indian Parliament is not default. It was not created naturally but by man. Natural laws are those that are beyond the control of man but are nevertheless laws that exist - like gravity, electromagnetic theory, elements and their composition by neutron, proton etc.

Anything that is beyond human control is natural law. The law may not be understood by man. But if it exists on its own, it is natural law.


Vedas were always editable and still is. As new knowledge is discovered, vedas are to be edited. I have never heard of any empire that held manusmriti as absolute law. Just because there is manusmriti doesn't mean it is sacrosanct. It is just guidelines. Even Vedas are guidelines.

Yes, buddhists, bible etc are also stupid. These things have also caused great harm. Buddhism introduced cowardice in India. It also led to downfall of dharma and eventually Islamic invasion. Bible caused dark ages of Europe. I never condone any of them. But, I am specifically speaking of islam as it has not changed and continues to be retarded and proudly following rapist prophet. Christianity underwent renaissance, buddhists became violent as seen in Tibet, Lanka, Burma but muslims remain unreasonable, vile and disgusting. Doing mistakes is one thing but not correcting it and continuing it is another.

The other superstition like food practice are all linked to invasions and resulting degradation. But, that can be changed. Islam can't be changed in any way I know of.


I am saying that Arabs are hiring jihadi agents as workers by paying high salary. It is a legal way of getting funds laundered.



Affinity with cinema is your made up conclusions. I can't discuss on ypir whims and fancies

About Chinese dependence on imported resources - please check the chinese dependency till 2000. China didn't depend on imports to set up manufacturing hub. It is now expanding on imports. Initial investment of China was from internal resource only. Once established as hub, it started to import raw material for further export expansion. However, even now, it produces 3-4 times its own resources than India. China doesn't depend on too much imports for self consumption but for processing for export. If you don't understand economics, don't speak on it.

Dear Sir,

I have the excellent example of other people, who do not understand jurisprudence and speak about laws; who do not understand religion and speak about theology; who do not understand science and social science and speak glibly about these; who do not understand what can be demonstrated and what cannot and thereby confuse psychology with a science.

A little humility is a wonderful emollient.
 
Sir.

Kindly allow me time to immerse in the legal nuances and rejoin at a latter time or date. I am but a mere mortal with limitation in this field.

However I seek the time to dig out references from AIR itself.

Is @VCheng the learned gentleman who has dared to put across a brutal view point that at times may bot be palatable? Then certainly his indulgence here will be educative.

However, I will quiz him on the interesting analogy of Baluchistan

I hope I may have the pleasure of listening in on your discussions with @Himanshu Pandey and @VCheng . It will be a treat. Especially after wading through the garbage produced by bigots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hellfire
What I suggested is based on plain common sense, Sir, that being a rare virtue rare enough to be called common. Consider the following facts:
  1. The domain of the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir started very small.
  2. It originally consisted of the grant of the jagir of Jammu to Gulab Singh by Ranjit Singh, given to the Dogra for services rendered.
  3. The Gulab Singh family took care to take a pre-emptive deed of transfer of the title by the previous Raja, also a relative.
  4. Then during the existence of the Lahore suzerainty, the Dogras captured Kishtwar, Rajauri, and much of the foothills beyond the Shivaliks, largely through their own, home-grown doctrine of lapse. More than one of these came to them through the failure of existing rulers to maintain control over their state, and to the cupidity of their ministers.
  5. Poonch was ruled by a collateral branch of the Jammu family, that was also related to the Gulab Singh branch. It was taken over by mandate from the Lahore Durbar, in order to exploit the mines there better, more efficiently; the Durbar felt that it was being short-changed and too much revenue was leaking away.
  6. Already, in Kishtwar, Rajauri and Poonch, the Dogras had acquired Muslim majority principalities, and set in motion the disasters of 1947.
  7. Their loyal general, Zorawar Singh, annexed through war and victory the area we call Baltistan and that we call Ladakh. While the two were very alike, they were not identical, and their annexation was based on the agreement of their suzerain, Tibet, directed by its own suzerain, China.
  8. By the time of the fall of the Lahore Durbar, the Dogras had acquired a conglomeration of territories in the shape of a doughnut, with the vale represented by the central hole of the doughnut.
  9. Jointly with the British (please note this), the Dogras then captured the cis-Pamir Emirates. Sometimes with great slaughter, even among the non-combatant women and children.
  10. The British then took away the territory of Gilgit under a lease from the Srinagar Durbar, only returning it less than a month before independence, thereby ensuring that the change would be rejected by the people.
That is for the acquisition. You can see for yourself that the portions that broke away did so in refusal of the Maharaja's authority to speak for them. The action they took is a separate story.

Your post leads to an interesting question: What are the areas that would fall under the Instrument of Accession's legal authority?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hellfire
Your post leads to an interesting question: What are the areas that would fall under the Instrument of Accession's legal authority?

Dear Sir,

Inimitable, as always.

De jure, the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, as acknowledged by the British suzerain power; de facto, the areas under the Maharaja's control at the moment of signature, that is, excluding West Jammu, now known as POK by Indians, Azad Kashmir by Pakistanis. I am writing this without references; Gilgit as well, AND the Pamir Emirates, if their breakaway (conquest in the case of Baltistan) was earlier than October 26th.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hellfire
Sir.



A failure to enunciate a National Population Policy, legally empower the two child norm and the demonstrated failure of the MOHFW in couple protection schemes is indicative of a legislative and/or executive issue. How does extrapolating the failure of the executive and legislature to the State help us?
this is not a failure of them. they never tried to implement it as there was no incentive for government workers not they were trained and educated enough to make this a success. Another reason was the very process of election and winner in our nation where a man with most votes wins not a man with majority votes.

Sir.

What stops the Government of India from using the Citizenship Act of 1955? There are plenty of legal clauses which can be used in addition to the suggested indication to roll out a National Population Policy.
nothing else then the lack of will of government and the colossal task of fixing the issues, cost of it and the very skeletons which are buried in there.

Sir.

Who decides and quantifies the same? If one is aware of Fundamental Duties, then one will find that the controversy over the National Anthem was needless. The fact that the Government itself is clueless and the Courts in their wisdom decided that there is no requirement of the same in theaters, indicates that quantification of nationalism or patriotism is best avoided in relative terms.

I can argue a case of disrespect to the National Anthem as being sung in an event meant as entertainment and in contravention to guidelines as below:

http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/pdf/NationalAnthem(E).pdf

Pertinent to note that the line says ... may be sung.
there is just a little problem... our rights are protected by constitution and laws but our duties are voluntary... which makes our rights as freely given and as human nature shows we always misuse free things.

it is a good point that who will decides and quantifies... we had already solved it by allowing a lot of education boards as per need but the problem is all fallow each other.. better way is analyzing India's needs and then deciding the need of education system and review it once in a decade and changing with all that is needed to be changed.
Sir.

There is a balance for both. I disagree with you on this point as Science is indicative of requirement to do away with religion. While I fully agree with the same, I find it a rather undesirable area to enter into for the discourse as prevalent.



I agree.
I am a religious man so I don't suggest that but if a system allows a fool of 34 years to be an student of philosophy and use Indian tax payer money to abuse India and still a science grad is forced to finish his education in 3-4 years and get a job without a proper research under his/her belt... there is no balance.. and to create balance we need to allow underdog to perform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hellfire
If you allow me.. I have a problem with absolute as nothing is absolute even the laws of nature. now anything which is formed on the basis of anything can not be same i.e. diamonds and fuel both made by carbon but quite different in use and properties.

once we start interpreting or understanding anything... things get changed so does the reason.

Believe me I am no supporter of Islam, Quran or child marriages with old uncles... but religion is an excuse used for kashmir problem and a just cause to fool people. I totally support killing the enemy of India but killing the reason for this enmity is more important.

PS:- posts against any religion or people are not allowed here. please comply with the rules.
How many times should I say that 'verifiable and repeatable' characteristics is what makes it a law. When did carbon become same as diamond? Similarities are different from being same.

Inability to understand natural laws don't make natural laws relative. It is just man's problems. It is a mistake which must be corrected.

Sir.

Did God command you to write this?

What are your views on death penalty to the rapists as enacted by the MP Government? God intervened? Then where was God in the act itself? I hope we have the last of God's name in vain here.
God has given me the intelligence and ability to write and has allowed me to choose to write or not. So, I wrote. If I was born blind I wouldn't have written, for example.

God is the entity which created the world and made the default natural laws. What is its shape or form is something I don't know. God has given me no revelation or advice. It is just a reference to the entity that created.

Sir.

You have rules present that prevent me from killing you just because I do not like the view you represent or how you look. How about extrapolating the same to a nation?


Interesting tangent here, what, in your learned opinion, is a Nation?

There are no rules preventing you from killing me nor vice versa. It is a conventional rules based on the historical experiences and man's desire for life by virtue of instinct and psychology as created (or evolved) by nature.

Nation is a group of people following common values and living in common region who group together due to the conventional wisdom of strength in numbers. Simply put, one nation can have only one set of values. The values need not be too strict or detailed. There may be subculture too. But, a common basic principle of life is mandatory. Two groups whose design of living is antagonistic and hostile can't be part of same nation.

Examples - muslims are people of death - who live so that they can die to go to heaven. Hindus live to continue life and acquire knowledge of this world and hence people of life. The two can't be part of same nation.
 
Dear Sir,

Inimitable, as always.

De jure, the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, as acknowledged by the British suzerain power; de facto, the areas under the Maharaja's control at the moment of signature, that is, excluding West Jammu, now known as POK by Indians, Azad Kashmir by Pakistanis. I am writing this without references; Gilgit as well, AND the Pamir Emirates, if their breakaway (conquest in the case of Baltistan) was earlier than October 26th.

Then one must beg the question that did the corresponding enabling act in the Indian Parliament ratifying the Instrument of Accession go by the de jure or the de facto position, given that it is this determination that would guide the government's policies henceforth? Was there such a distinction made, ever?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people