Kashmir : An Illusive Solution

[Himanshu Pandey]

Sir.

Change of demography is a continuous and dynamic process. As you talk of change in demography, the same is also being witnessed in Kerala and many other states. Recently there was a petition filed to declare the Hindus minority in nine states of India.

The logic is hardly a solution.

As for the education, sir, we need the education of each and every citizen. The education must not be related only to the definition of literacy in India. This is a social effort which needs the society to evolve.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

 

[Himanshu Pandey]

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.

very few has concluded and putted the situation in better words than these.

yes our biggest dilemma right now is this dissolution of state constitutional assembly. In my opinion, which is completely not legal and only personal, a body can't be considered fully dissolved until it is done with all the task given and if it is dissolved we can create another body to finish the unfinished work.

another point is that we know that law is important and all laws of India get their power from constitution of India and all successful democracies has same constitution with several amendments in it but then we apply same on state constitution assembly. these is still scope for forming state constitution body again on the basis of 370 and it's legality and few other problems of state constitution say the political representation of people of jammu and laddakh or to fix the minority issues.. we can use any of several points to reform the constitution assembly and solve this article 370 dilemma.

 

[zebra7]

What worries me is the stone pelters.....If you look at their age, they are pretty young, and believe it or not these young minds are injected with hatred, and we are talking about one more generation which is gonna fight with forces...... This is not a good sign.....

Don't worry, because the One who was tied in front of the Jonga/Jeep, was only 16 year old aka Kashmir ka Bacha, Daadi wala.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

Security agencies enter 'Tora Bora' of Kashmir to kill JeM terrorists

Security agencies enter 'Tora Bora' of Kashmir to kill JeM terrorists

 

[bonobashi]

very few has concluded and putted the situation in better words than these.

yes our biggest dilemma right now is this dissolution of state constitutional assembly. In my opinion, which is completely not legal and only personal, a body can't be considered fully dissolved until it is done with all the task given and if it is dissolved we can create another body to finish the unfinished work.

Dear Sir,

That is, in fact, a brilliant answer: the best opinions,when charged strictly to find a way out, have not done better than what you have suggested.

However, as Noorani has pointed out, the Constituent Assembly might have been revived, or re-constituted, if you will pardon the phrase, if it had adjourned sine die. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to them, they terminated themselves.

The question of reconstituting them arises if they have handed over some part of the powers delegated to them by the Maharaja to any successor body. Without that express act, no other body may represent itself as a successor.

In esssence, if I received powers from some authorised body, I may exercise those powers; to permit me to pass those on, the original body that authorised me must have permitted me to delegate this to another, third body. In the absence of that original authority, the powers delegated to me die with me. The original body was the sovereign prince the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir; once he was superseded by Government of India, he, and his power to constitute a constituent assembly, vanished for ever; it may be noted that the J&K State constitution DOES NOT envisage a procedure for setting up another constituent assembly. So their constitution-making power was confined to them, and was dissolved when they dissolved themselves, and there is now nobody, given the block that Article 370 represents, to re-constitute a constituent assembly for the state.

The sad part is not that the Indian politician, dense and stupid as the present avatar is, does not understand this; even if he does, he has sense enough to understand when his legal friends advise him to drop the matter.

THE SAD PART IS THAT THE POPULATION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS.

another point is that we know that law is important and all laws of India get their power from constitution of India and all successful democracies has same constitution with several amendments in it but then we apply same on state constitution assembly. these is still scope for forming state constitution body again on the basis of 370 and it's legality and few other problems of state constitution say the political representation of people of jammu and laddakh or to fix the minority issues.. we can use any of several points to reform the constitution assembly and solve this article 370 dilemma.

No, Sir. This cannot be done. Thanks to the action of the State constituent assembly, Article 370 represents a Gordian knot that the Indian Constitution cannot overcome.

Incidentally, the state constitution of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be superseded by the Indian constitution. So the opening premise is wrong.

Consider the Worm Ouroboros, and you will understand the difficulty.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Dear Sir,

That is, in fact, a brilliant answer: the best opinions,when charged strictly to find a way out, have not done better than what you have suggested.

However, as Noorani has pointed out, the Constituent Assembly might have been revived, or re-constituted, if you will pardon the phrase, if it had adjourned sine die. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to them, they terminated themselves.

The question of reconstituting them arises if they have handed over some part of the powers delegated to them by the Maharaja to any successor body. Without that express act, no other body may represent itself as a successor.

In esssence, if I received powers from some authorised body, I may exercise those powers; to permit me to pass those on, the original body that authorised me must have permitted me to delegate this to another, third body. In the absence of that original authority, the powers delegated to me die with me. The original body was the sovereign prince the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir; once he was superseded by Government of India, he, and his power to constitute a constituent assembly, vanished for ever; it may be noted that the J&K State constitution DOES NOT envisage a procedure for setting up another constituent assembly. So their constitution-making power was confined to them, and was dissolved when they dissolved themselves, and there is now nobody, given the block that Article 370 represents, to re-constitute a constituent assembly for the state.

The sad part is not that the Indian politician, dense and stupid as the present avatar is, does not understand this; even if he does, he has sense enough to understand when his legal friends advise him to drop the matter.

THE SAD PART IS THAT THE POPULATION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS.



No, Sir. This cannot be done. Thanks to the action of the State constituent assembly, Article 370 represents a Gordian knot that the Indian Constitution cannot overcome.

Incidentally, the state constitution of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be superseded by the Indian constitution. So the opening premise is wrong.

Consider the Worm Ouroboros, and you will understand the difficulty.

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

 

[vstol Jockey]

How does India invade a nuclear armed country and not get annihilated in return? Is Kashmir really that important?

who will push that button in Pakistan? do you think will they will let their entire population be wiped out for Kashmir.

 

[bonobashi]

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

Dear Sir,

That is the essence of the autocratic and dictatorial stand; that a majority determines everything, and that individual human rights do not matter, as an individual is nothing against an aggregation of individuals. Also, that an irrational object like God can determine that one aggregation of individuals is empowered to overthrow the human rights of another aggregation of individuals. Very well summed up.

 

[vstol Jockey]

So, why doesn't the Central Government realize this very basic point of the problem? What, in your opinion, stops the people and the government from being able to recognize this point and taking it into consideration while devising the strategy?

Further, what, in your opinion, has been the ramification of the much talked about policy of Pakistan to settle and encourage their service personnel on retirement to base near LoC and marry local women of PoK? How does that impede or facilitate an Indian policy to 'retake' PoK?

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.

 

[bonobashi]

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

Dear Sir,

You have a difficult choice between the authority of God to make laws, and the rule of law. The first choice therefore supersedes the Constitution, and both the IPC and the CrPC, and in effect, means that you can be killed without any repercussions, if your view were to be upheld. Fortunately, it will not, and the law will take its course. It might not mean much to you, but you might die knowing that legal retribution would follow.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Dear Sir,

That is the essence of the autocratic and dictatorial stand; that a majority determines everything, and that individual human rights do not matter, as an individual is nothing against an aggregation of individuals. Also, that an irrational object like God can determine that one aggregation of individuals is empowered to overthrow the human rights of another aggregation of individuals. Very well summed up.

What is human right? You people created arbitrary things without any basis and then declare it as universal? Can you tell me who gave you any rights?

Autocratic or dictatorship simply is an excuse. What is needed is right or wrong. Opinions can be kept aside. If you are unreasonable, you are evil and hence better dead than alive.

The world doesn't work according to your whims and fancies. Gravity doesn't exist because you wanted it to. Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran etc didn't become like this naturally. One can't just ignore history and act as if World has started from scratch with all the new rights and democracy.

As I said, world doesn't work in a way you want it to. Either accept the laws of nature or commit suicide. Don't lecture your made up. Laws to others

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Dear Sir,

You have a difficult choice between the authority of God to make laws, and the rule of law. The first choice therefore supersedes the Constitution, and both the IPC and the CrPC, and in effect, means that you can be killed without any repercussions, if your view were to be upheld. Fortunately, it will not, and the law will take its course. It might not mean much to you, but you might die knowing that legal retribution would follow.

As I said, people who enforce the made up laws are also human. They can't avenge anything that is illegal. They may just cower and make changes in the law itself. How many Pandits got justice? How many people killed by Turks, Tughlaq, Lodhi, Mughals got justice? If there was justice, things would not be this way in the first place. You can't simply say that justice will start from a cut off date, or will always be enforced etc.

Your concept of justice is made up one and no one cares for it. As I said, natural laws are true laws.

 

[bonobashi]

What is human right? You people created arbitrary things without any basis and then declare it as universal? Can you tell me who gave you any rights?

Dear Sir,

Human rights are the residual rights that human beings - every human being - possesses, in spite of giving up his or her complete and full authority to deal with his or her natural and social environment without restriction. Human beings possess those rights in their state of nature, and the state has power only because humans living within a state voluntarily resign their freedom of action to the state. The state may or may not exercise these in a formal manner; the different ways in which states exercise power are defined as political systems; democracy is one such.

Autocratic or dictatorship simply is an excuse. What is needed is right or wrong. Opinions can be kept aside. If you are unreasonable, you are evil and hence better dead than alive.

Right or wrong, Sir, are defined by human beings. In the wild, they exercise their judgement and kill, or others exercise their judgement against them, and they are killed. In a state, this is tempered by the political system, by the rule of law, by constitutions, and the like.

The world doesn't work according to your whims and fancies.

Very well put, Sir. That is why there are constitutions, there are laws, and there are those appointed to enforce those laws; the police, attorneys, courts and prisons.

Gravity doesn't exist because you wanted it to.

No, Sir, gravity doesn't exist because any individual wanted it to. Gravity belongs to natural science; there is a distinction between that and social science. Any elementary, barely trained teacher will help you understand the difference.

Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran etc didn't become like this naturally. One can't just ignore history and act as if World has started from scratch with all the new rights and democracy.

No, Sir, that is precisely the point. None of them are natural; each of them is societal, as in belonging to a nation-state. That is exactly the point; that a nation-state exists on the strength of its constitution and its laws. None of this is new; all of these have evolved over ten thousand years of human existence. Presumably you are already aware of the Laws of Solon, or of Draco before him; if you are, you will have answered yourself; the world has started with democracy many thousands of years ago.

As I said, world doesn't work in a way you want it to. Either accept the laws of nature or commit suicide. Don't lecture your made up. Laws to others

Dear Sir, if you reside in India, you have already lost your argument.

 

[bonobashi]

As I said, people who enforce the made up laws are also human. They can't avenge anything that is illegal. They may just cower and make changes in the law itself. How many Pandits got justice? How many people killed by Turks, Tughlaq, Lodhi, Mughals got justice? If there was justice, things would not be this way in the first place. You can't simply say that justice will start from a cut off date, or will always be enforced etc.

What you have referred to, Sir, belongs to that era where the right of conquest prevailed over other human rights. Furthermore, those whom you have mentioned observed a system of law that did not punish those who killed others of a different religion.

That most unsatisfactory state of affairs is today at an end. Today, Turks, and other individuals and groups that you mention will not go unpunished; nor will those who take the law into their own hands. If, however, you wish to revert to the days of the Turks, meaning thereby the Turks who established the Sultanate in north India, that will bring back the day when killing and slaughter went unpunished. I thought you aspired to the opposite.

Your concept of justice is made up one and no one cares for it. As I said, natural laws are true laws.

Natural laws are the laws of physics and chemistry. If you are referring to the laws governing humans before the concept of a body of law came in, those are not natural laws. There is nothing called natural law.

 

[Aashish]

Pls stick to topic in hand

MAD situation can be discussed here
Nuclear MAD Scenario and possible effects in Indo Pak China context

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Dear Sir,

Human rights are the residual rights that human beings - every human being - possesses, in spite of giving up his or her complete and full authority to deal with his or her natural and social environment without restriction. Human beings possess those rights in their state of nature, and the state has power only because humans living within a state voluntarily resign their freedom of action to the state. The state may or may not exercise these in a formal manner; the different ways in which states exercise power are defined as political systems; democracy is one such.



Right or wrong, Sir, are defined by human beings. In the wild, they exercise their judgement and kill, or others exercise their judgement against them, and they are killed. In a state, this is tempered by the political system, by the rule of law, by constitutions, and the like.



Very well put, Sir. That is why there are constitutions, there are laws, and there are those appointed to enforce those laws; the police, attorneys, courts and prisons.



No, Sir, gravity doesn't exist because any individual wanted it to. Gravity belongs to natural science; there is a distinction between that and social science. Any elementary, barely trained teacher will help you understand the difference.



No, Sir, that is precisely the point. None of them are natural; each of them is societal, as in belonging to a nation-state. That is exactly the point; that a nation-state exists on the strength of its constitution and its laws. None of this is new; all of these have evolved over ten thousand years of human existence. Presumably you are already aware of the Laws of Solon, or of Draco before him; if you are, you will have answered yourself; the world has started with democracy many thousands of years ago.



Dear Sir, if you reside in India, you have already lost your argument.

Humans have rights by virtue of their creation and autonomy sanctioned by nature. It only involves those actions which humans are able to perform. This right involves killing.

Yes, state has rights only when granted by the people by either direct consent or by being indifferent and hence giving a tacit consent to the actions.

But, when the state behaves excessively irrationally or in ways which people don't like, they can be deprived of the rights given. I am saying the exact same thing - the constitution and the state can be overthrown and a new system formed.

If there are people with diverse opinions and want their opinions to be imposed on everyone in a particular region, Those groups who are more powerful by virtue of intelligence, numbers, rational culture or luck factor are the ones who will win in case if clash of interests. This is war. So, if people disapprove of these policies and someone organises them and rebels, then the state can be overthrown. This is what I have been saying.

So, what is your point?

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

What you have referred to, Sir, belongs to that era where the right of conquest prevailed over other human rights. Furthermore, those whom you have mentioned observed a system of law that did not punish those who killed others of a different religion.

That most unsatisfactory state of affairs is today at an end. Today, Turks, and other individuals and groups that you mention will not go unpunished; nor will those who take the law into their own hands. If, however, you wish to revert to the days of the Turks, meaning thereby the Turks who established the Sultanate in north India, that will bring back the day when killing and slaughter went unpunished. I thought you aspired to the opposite.



Natural laws are the laws of physics and chemistry. If you are referring to the laws governing humans before the concept of a body of law came in, those are not natural laws. There is nothing called natural law.

And what is the punishment for the turks, mughals? Who will punish them? What is the date by which they will be punished and all the wrong deeds undone?

Your insisting of - punishing those who break your made up laws shows your arrogance. Why do you think your law makers have powers of superman? Making a law which doesn't have popular support itself is a major crime. Law is what people support. If people support slaughter, then that is the law

 

[bonobashi]

Don't worry, because the One who was tied in front of the Jonga/Jeep, was only 16 year old aka Kashmir ka Bacha, Daadi wala.

Dear Sir, No thinking Indian thinks of the episode in the bitterly sarcastic terms that you have used.

It is unfortunate that you should report the incident with some slight exaggeration. Farooq Ahmad Dar was going to vote, by his own account, when he was held by the Army and tied to the Jeep. As you know, in India, the voting age is 18. Even a slight exaggeration casts doubt on the whole account.

 

[bonobashi]

Humans have rights by virtue of their creation and autonomy sanctioned by nature. It only involves those actions which humans are able to perform. This right involves killing.

Yes, state has rights only when granted by the people by either direct consent or by being indifferent and hence giving a tacit consent to the actions.

But, when the state behaves excessively irrationally or in ways which people don't like, they can be deprived of the rights given. I am saying the exact same thing - the constitution and the state can be overthrown and a new system formed.

So far, then, dear Sir, we are saying the same thing.

If there are people with diverse opinions and want their opinions to be imposed on everyone in a particular region, Those groups who are more powerful by virtue of intelligence, numbers, rational culture or luck factor are the ones who will win in case if clash of interests. This is war. So, if people disapprove of these policies and someone organises them and rebels, then the state can be overthrown. This is what I have been saying.

So, what is your point?

Dear Sir, You should have got the point by now. If we live under a constitution, either you obey it or you don't. Who is imposing their rules on others by force of numbers, and where? Where is the war? What overthrow are you speaking of?

 

[Himanshu Pandey]

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

No but by the people and once made it is flexible enough to rechange in itself... but throwing it out means inviting anarchy in.

killing something is easy solution and create a precedence for someone else to kill again and what if his reason to kill is not as noble? finding a solution in workable boundaries and constitution allows matter to be settled rather then emerge like hydra heads.


there are people who will even question the authority of god on law... so you can analyze that nothing is holy and scared once we start destruction and where it will put us all at end?