Non-spiritual frauds

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

.. Say, the Indian govt., says to hell with it and give away Kashmir to Kashmiris; will they join Pakistan? With Kashmir land-locked, how will they move about?

Dear Shri sf, India has an obligation to make sure they do right by Kashmiris. IMO, just walking away will cause even more suffering.

I would like to see the entirety of Kashmir, both POK and IOK, demilitarized, both armies must get out, there may be soft border between POK and IOK, allowing free movement of people and commerce. Then, a constitutional convention could be held under multi-party supervision, without the presence of India or Paksitan or other trouble-makers like USA, China, etc. In this atmosphere, the Kashmiris could decide what kind of future they want. Whatever is their decision, the UN general assembly and truly impartial states like SA, Brazil and Turkey could guarantee its implementation.

There are many land-locked countries in the world. In our own neighborhood there are Nepal and Bhutan. India, being a large liberal democracy, can guarantee safe access to international travel and commerce. A joint security guarantee by India and Pakistan can be offered to Kashmir.

It is not rocket science, we have lots of bright people from all three sides to work this out. A little bit of humanity and little less ego are all that is required from Indians and Pakistanis.

Cheers!

 

[silverfox]

Dear Prof. Nara

Your proposal is great! except there is only one problem! I have a suspicion that all Kashmiris being Muslims (now that they have driven out all the Hindu Kashmiri Pandits) will want to go with Pakistan. Now ...what would you do?

A friend says that will make Pakistan at our doorsteps -- about less than 200 miles from New Delhi. I don't know if this is true.

 

[anandb]

Dear Prof. Nara

Your proposal is great! except there is only one problem! I have a suspicion that all Kashmiris being Muslims (now that they have driven out all the Hindu Kashmiri Pandits) will want to go with Pakistan. Now ...what would you do?

A friend says that will make Pakistan at our doorsteps -- about less than 200 miles from New Delhi. I don't know if this is true.

I have been living in a Muslim region for the last twenty years. What I find is Islam is actually a highly fragmented religion though on the outside they present a very united front. This is the reason why the Shias and Sunnis are at each other's throats. A lot of other minority sects like the Ahmadis and the Sufis are persecuted as well especially in places like Pakistan. But try saying that this religion has bred the most number of terrorists to a Muslim only at the cost of serious harm to yourself. They can never tolerate a word against PBUH or the Koran. Two Hindus or even a Hindu and a non-Hindu can have an intelligent discussion about the shastras being discriminative or not but never a Muslim about the Koran containing violent passages against the kafirs or PBUH marrying a nine year old Aisha when he was 55 without the argument turning violent.

The other thing is apostasy. The fear of death will never make a Muslim speak against a fellow Muslim even if he is a terrorist. And America and Israel's policies are not helping either. Their policies no doubt are turning more Muslims into terrorists but Muslims also have to look inwards and say whether their attitudes and mindsets against kafirs also breeds terrorism. In fact this soul searching has to be undertaken by all religions. So Christianity has this responsibility to realise if their proselytizing and evangelizing methods are turning lot of Hindus against them while the Hindus have to realise if their despicable treatment of dalits is responsible for a lot of them converting to other religions.

Personally, I am not too worried about Pakistan other than their nukes. The problem with Pakistan again stems from the Islamic mentality of not looking inwards to sort out one's problems. Once they were blaming India for all their social unrest and now they are blaming USA for their ills. Their ISI is anti-India and pro-Taliban while their military is anti-India and divided on the Taliban and their political establishment is anti-India and divided on the Taliban. So there is no cogent policy. The US defense contractors are making merry selling arms and ammunition to Pakistan while the US soldiers are getting killed there. Same with the UK.

The West is playing a dangerous double game here. All they are interested is profits from selling arms and ammunition so they create killing fields everywhere. They did this to Iraq and now they are doing this to Afghanistan and Pakistan and the next target will be Iran.

My worry is if Pakistan breaks up and the Taliban walks into India and allies with the Maoists what the heck is going to happen to India? Yesterday I was watching this movie Salt where a unrealistic situation is presented of nuking Tehran and Mecca after the White House is raided. It is probably not possible to raid the White House bunkers so easily but what about nukes in Pakistan or for that matter even India. With the amount of corruption in these two countries it is a scary prospect.

 

[sangom]

Thank you, Prof. Nara for your observations on Kashmir.

I have been meaning to ask this question but somehow keep forgetting!! I see the Indian-occupied Kashmiris are protesting the Indian 'occupation'. But what about the Kashmiris in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir? Do they also protest against Pakistan occupying their land? Say, the Indian govt., says to hell with it and give away Kashmir to Kashmiris; will they join Pakistan? With Kashmir land-locked, how will they move about?

POK and IOK are today, for all practical purposes mentally aligned to Pak. India is trying to make it look as if IOK is all for India. The Indian govt. is spending astronomical amounts to maintain it and much of the money ends in the hands of Taliban and ISI. Almost none in Kashmir (IOK) pays IT, there is hardly any tax collection but very huge expenditure and no audit. We have not heard of CAG's audit of Kashmir for ages now!

Re. property ownership, HP and some other really integral parts also enjoy similar rights in order that their ethnicity and culture are not damaged.

 

[Nara]

...Your proposal is great! except there is only one problem! I have a suspicion that all Kashmiris being Muslims (now that they have driven out all the Hindu Kashmiri Pandits) will want to go with Pakistan. Now ...what would you do?

Dear sf, if this is what the Kashmiris want that is what they should get. We can't prejudge the outcome. From what I have read, India and Paksitan were on the verge of finalizing a deal somewhat along the lines I outlined in my last post, but, the Mumbai attack scuttled it, perhaps ISI did not want peace to come about between P and I, and the Indians are neatly playing into the hands of ISI.

.. Two Hindus or even a Hindu and a non-Hindu can have an intelligent discussion about the shastras being discriminative or not but never a Muslim about the Koran containing violent passages against the kafirs or PBUH marrying a nine year old Aisha when he was 55 without the argument turning violent.

Dear Anand, a very good analysis, I agree with almost all of it. The only change I would like to suggest is the "all Muslims" implied in the above. The second part about M marrying Aisha is bad, but it is not of any great significance today, it is just a stick we can use to beat them on their head, figuratively speaking.

But the first part about violence against kafir, Sharia law against women, and their position on apostasy are indeed abhorrent and troublesome in the extreme. But not all Muslims swear by these practices. Outside of the extreme Salafi Sunnies, the rest of them like Sufis, Ahamadis, Muslims of Turkey, are peaceful and decent people. They apparently do not take these literally and do not fashion their lives based on these.

Having said this, I do concur, Islam like all other religions needs to look inward and do some cleansing.

Dear Shri sangom, I did not know HP has land ownership restrictions. When it comes to agricultural land all states have some sort of restriction, don't they?

Thank you, Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

now it's iok,pok finally it will become kok (kashmir occupied by kashmiris)

 

[nachi naga]

nara,

Dear Anand, .. The second part about M marrying Aisha is bad, but it is not of any great significance today, it is just a stick we can use to beat them on their head, figuratively speaking.

nearly 1600 years,wonder how women looked or in particular aisha looked ,and whether it was an accepted norms & customs of the caravan life that existed then in arabia.it was a mutually consented marriage where M was in a way had to yield to the wishes of the folks then,as he is divine in nature,had to spread his seeds amongst many women,and it was always with mutual consent,as far as i know.even at this age,i happily ogle at young women and thats where i have stopped myself....so notty of me

 

[anandb]

I quoted M marrying Aisha only because that is conveniently quoted by a lot of Gulf Muslims especially Saudis marrying girls the age of their grand daughters. Though the sects you mentioned are the more tolerant lot, is it because they are a minority within their own religion and afraid of the majority. I do agree that the Wahabi brand of Islam promoted by Saudis is the most dangerous of the lot intent on establishing a world Islamic Caliphate.

Actually, middle east politics is strange. You have Israel gunning for Iran before it acquires the nukes and USA siding it. You have some of the Sunni majority countries of the Gulf like Saudi Arabia also wanting USA to contain the Shite Iran and at the same time opposing the Israeli Jews. Strange bed-fellas.



Dear Anand, a very good analysis, I agree with almost all of it. The only change I would like to suggest is the "all Muslims" implied in the above. The second part about M marrying Aisha is bad, but it is not of any great significance today, it is just a stick we can use to beat them on their head, figuratively speaking.

But the first part about violence against kafir, Sharia law against women, and their position on apostasy are indeed abhorrent and troublesome in the extreme. But not all Muslims swear by these practices. Outside of the extreme Salafi Sunnies, the rest of them like Sufis, Ahamadis, Muslims of Turkey, are peaceful and decent people. They apparently do not take these literally and do not fashion their lives based on these.

Having said this, I do concur, Islam like all other religions needs to look inward and do some cleansing.

Dear Shri sangom, I did not know HP has land ownership restrictions. When it comes to agricultural land all states have some sort of restriction, don't they?

Thank you, Cheers![/QUOTE]

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri sangom, I did not know HP has land ownership restrictions. When it comes to agricultural land all states have some sort of restriction, don't they?

Thank you, Cheers!

I am not aware of any other state but similar privileges may be there for Sikkim and some of the NE states, I feel.

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear Kunjuppu

Any reason why you purposely spell Dollar as 'Dolla'? I am just curious!

Regarding your observation:
the alternates, though unlikely to happen, is for china, japan to stop giving credit, stop buying american securities and find markets elsewhere in the world (???).

Where can China sell its goods to the tune of billions of dollars? No economy is as big as the American economy. This is like the proverbial adage: 'புலி வாலை பிடித்த மாதிரி - பிடிக்கவும் முடியாது, விடவும் முடியாது!!

China has to keep its manufacturing going to keep those millions of Chinese employed - so they will continue to give credit to the US by buying the US Treasuries! No one knows where this all is going to end!

dolla? it is the way the chinee in toronto says it. also in a different mode, the west indians. there is a mockery implied due to their helpless dependency on that almight currency.

you are right re puli vaal. let us see how this ends. maybe obama will print notes.

 

[Nara]

...it was a mutually consented marriage where M was in a way had to yield to the wishes of the folks then,

NN, not many will agree that a 9 year old can give consent. Further, according to the account I read, the marriage was fixed between M and Aisha's father, at which time, A was said to be playing with her friends.

I quoted M marrying Aisha only because that is conveniently quoted by a lot of Gulf Muslims especially Saudis marrying girls the age of their grand daughters.

I did not know this. Given such a sorry tendency the account has urgent relevancy and must be discredited unequivocally.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

NN, not many will agree that a 9 year old can give consent. Further, according to the account I read, the marriage was fixed between M and Aisha's father, at which time, A was said to be playing with her friends.

ancient times customs and traditions were diff,its more like child marriages,as soon as the girl attains puberty.i think islam got it correct,the appetites difference betweeen men & women at large,are totally mis-matched,no wonder talaq talaq talaq was thot of,imho a practicaL way out.though such practices have totally declined in islamic marriages,but then chinna veedu set up,is thriving in tamil nadu