Why My Father Hated India: An Indian's Point of View

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Thus, to me, the root cause underlying the India-Pakistan hatred is religious intolerance and to the extent I have learnt, the major blame for this extreme polarisation goes to Gandhi, the original because he was also intolerant to a large extent, to sane ideas and suggestions because he was immensely self-opinionated.

Sri Sangom -

Can you elaborate on this point? What sane suggestions did Gandhi reject unilaterally?
Could he have prevented the blood shed during partition?

 

[sangom]

Dear Y, peoples of South Asia are largely of the same ethnic stock, though there are some pockets of significant diversity. Yet, the region is mired in religious hatred rooted in ignorance.

In this respect I wish to point to a poignant story from your backyard. The State of Texas executed Mark Stroman, a self described Arab Slayer. He was so ignorant he could not tell a Bangaladeshi from an Arab.

One of the victims of his shooting spree that killed two others, Rais Bhuiyan, survived though blinded in one eye. A Muslim immigrant from Bangladesh not only forgave the killer, but worked hard to stop the execution. The killer himself was so moved by the forgiveness and love the victim showed, that the killer was transformed and offered a message of peace before he was murdered by the State of Texas. Here is what Stroman said in an interview in the lead up to his execution.

"In the free world, I was free but I was locked in a prison inside myself because of the hate I carried in my heart,....It is due to Rais' message of forgiveness that I am more content now than I have ever been."

​

For more click here.

Kashmir problem can be easily solved if only the Indians and Pakistanis let the Kashmiries alone and not make a pawn out of them. Who will dare to think outside the box? No chance, Indian politicians are just as much a bunch of dishonest and self-serving leaches as the U.S. ones.

Cheers?

Dear Shri Nara,

"kashmiris today" are all Pakistani muslims or converts who are muslim sympathisers. If Kashmir as it is today, is left alone, it will surely opt to join Pak, I have no doubt about it.

If you are thinking of bringing back all the displaced Pakistani Pundits into Kashmir, it is next to impossible. Even if this happens by some miracle, one cannot be sure whether the Pundits will have their alleginace more to Pak than to India which had completely ditched them in the past.

 

[Nara]

...If Kashmir as it is today, is left alone, it will surely opt to join Pak, I have no doubt about it. [...] ... one cannot be sure whether the Pundits will have their alleginace more to Pak than to India which had completely ditched them in the past.

Dear Shri Sangom sir, the politicians from both India and Paksitan have made Kashmir into an emotional issue, so much so, even people in Tamil Nadu with a level of familiarity with Kashmiri history, culture, geography, politics, etc., somewhere between nil and zero deeply believe it is a natural part of India and not an inch must be given away to Pakistan.

However, if we take the emotions away and look at it rationally, I see no reason why the Kashmiris must be denied their right to choose. I am aware of the arguments like Pakistan invaded, etc., but is it not better to settle the matter in a three-way negotiation among India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri militants? Don't you think it is just emotions that is standing in the way?

IMO, India can never realize its full potential in international politics with this problem festering.

.... When I was working in Ahmedabad, I have been able to feel the sub-terranean current of hatred and disbelief in the minds of both the hindus and muslims there.

Of course I concede to your knowledge and experience in this matter. Please correct me if you disagree, IMO, the reality of latent hatred among these ordinary folks is one that is carefully cultivated by the religious, political, and media establishment?

A little diversion -- blame the Muslims first is a world-wide phenomenon. If there is a bombing anywhere, the first reaction is, Muslims did it.

In 1995 when a federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, suspicion fell on innocent Muslim traveler in Chicago before McVeigh was caught.

Now, in the immediate aftermath of the Oslo massacre even the otherwise respectable media outlets like The Guardian, and a few that pass as respectable media like NYT, reported that a global jihadi group called Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami claimed responsibility for the attacks. It turned out the whole thing is completely false, made up by an "expert" based on some posting in a web site that was deleted by the the owner of the site. Just imagine somebody claiming expertise on TBs citing one of the posts here, that Praveen subsequently deletes, as the source for his expert analysis -- this is what the newspaper of record, NYT, is standing by.

For an incisive analysis of how this rumor and mere gossip got picked up by these outlets click here.

BTW, according to this EU report, there were 294 terrorist attacks either attempted or executed on Europe in 2009, and out of this 294 the number of attacks for which Muslim extremists are suspected is O N E, thats right, 1.

Sangom sir, you know my stand on religion -- I think, on balance, it is more of a bane than boon -- so, I have no sympathy for any religion, not in the least for Islam. But, IMO, most ordinary Muslims are decent people, no more, no less than TBs. While I disagree with Gandhi on many issues, particularly his stand on Varna and his opposition to my hero Ambedkar, I think he deserves credit for preventing major bloodshed in Bengal. Is this not true, or have I been drinking the cool-aid of the Indian establishment?

with best regards, Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Sri Sangom -

Can you elaborate on this point? What sane suggestions did Gandhi reject unilaterally?
Could he have prevented the blood shed during partition?

Dear tks,

Gandhi did the right thing. There were insane suggestions made to him by extreme opinion on both sides. Being aware of the level of emotions he agreed for the partition. The animal in man took over the smooth transfer of population is a different matter. We owe our prosperity, growth and clout in international arena to MKG.

Kashmir was unnecessarily made into a problem by the inept handling by Nehru and his advisors. If Kashmir can be given the special right to decide its accession to India much bigger Hyderabad, any number of strategically important princely states like Jamnagar, Travancore, Oudh, Bhavnagar, Mysore et al could also be given that right. That it did not happen is itself adequate proof that Kashmir was treated with kid gloves because of a perceived fear of repercussions from Pakistan and Britain. Both these repurcussions could have been handled well if and when they came. Unfortunately we had men of clay in positions of decision making at that crucial time. This is history.

Now coming to the present.The present line of control can be recognised as the international border with some minor adjustments of give and take. India will give up its right to the Pak occupied Kashmir and Pakistan will give up its right to rest of Kashmir. Pakistan and India can give a mutual assurance that they will not encourage any terrorist out fits in the soil of either kashmirs to train or to germinate. If the environment is condusive they can add Sir Creek and Soltoro range also in a comprehensive sort of treaty.

Other than this there does not appear to be any other solution in sight. Those who speak in favour of Kashmir as a separate nation do not see beyond the tip of their nose. In no time Kashmir will become a hell hole for people of different ethnic and religious denominations if independence is to be ceded.

 

[tbs]

Dear tks,

Gandhi did the right thing. There were insane suggestions made to him by extreme opinion on both sides. Being aware of the level of emotions he agreed for the partition. The animal in man took over the smooth transfer of population is a different matter. We owe our prosperity, growth and clout in international arena to MKG.

Kashmir was unnecessarily made into a problem by the inept handling by Nehru and his advisors. If Kashmir can be given the special right to decide its accession to India much bigger Hyderabad, any number of strategically important princely states like Jamnagar, Travancore, Oudh, Bhavnagar, Mysore et al could also be given that right. That it did not happen is itself adequate proof that Kashmir was treated with kid gloves because of a perceived fear of repercussions from Pakistan and Britain. Both these repurcussions could have been handled well if and when they came. Unfortunately we had men of clay in positions of decision making at that crucial time. This is history.

Now coming to the present.The present line of control can be recognised as the international border with some minor adjustments of give and take. India will give up its right to the Pak occupied Kashmir and Pakistan will give up its right to rest of Kashmir. Pakistan and India can give a mutual assurance that they will not encourage any terrorist out fits in the soil of either kashmirs to train or to germinate. If the environment is condusive they can add Sir Creek and Soltoro range also in a comprehensive sort of treaty.

Other than this there does not appear to be any other solution in sight. Those who speak in favour of Kashmir as a separate nation do not see beyond the tip of their nose. In no time Kashmir will become a hell hole for people of different ethnic and religious denominations if independence is to be ceded.

hi raju,
i served in indian army for 16 years....i served three years in my kashmir tenure....kashmir situation is like this...this is jammu/

kashmir/ladakh regions...its called kashmir state...jammu hindu dominated...kashmir muslim dominated...ladakh buddhists

dominated....just imagine a independent kashmir?....its impossible to survive alone..either go to pakistan or stay with hindustan


for long term survival......i have a long tenure inside kashmir....i dont want talk much..due to security/ground realities....

regards
tbs

 

[DrBarani]

hi raju,
i served in indian army for 16 years....i served three years in my kashmir tenure....kashmir situation is like this...this is jammu/

kashmir/ladakh regions...its called kashmir state...jammu hindu dominated...kashmir muslim dominated...ladakh buddhists

dominated....just imagine a independent kashmir?....its impossible to survive alone..either go to pakistan or stay with hindustan


for long term survival......i have a long tenure inside kashmir....i dont want talk much..due to security/ground realities....

regards
tbs

"Independent Kashmir" is a ruse to separate a part from India and later rejoin it with Pakistan. Pakistan never owned any part of it. Pakistan didn't even exist before 1947!

I blame Indian Government for most of the problems in Kashmir. The Khalistan movement was much stronger in 1980s and it was crushed in no time once a strong decision was taken. The Kashmir problem could be solved much easy - go after the self-styled troublemakers who make news. Get rid of them. No more emotional news release from radicals. That will calm down rest of the population.

My father served in Indian Army for some years. He is now nearly 80, but still shows around some old momentos from that era.

 

[Haridasa Siva]

I am going back to the economic issues raised earlier in this thread.

Ref post 47 by Dr.Barani:
I agree that capitalism assumes unlimited resources.
But I don’t think it aims at “quickly” bringing down the prices. As we know, prices are more of a market determined factor based on demand and supply unless it is a monopolistic market.
Similarly, I don’t think pitching the price at the higher band is the direct result of capitalism. Again, it is market determined, I believe.

Ref. Post 48 by Y:
Capitalism encourages savings? Not to my knowledge. On the contrary, it encourages spending – more on impulsive buying.

I am afraid you have mixed capital markets with capitalism. While the former is a financial issue, the latter is an economic issue. We need capital markets when capitalism is in place.

 

[Yamaka]

"Ref. Post 48 by Y:Capitalism encourages savings? Not to my knowledge. On the contrary, it encourages spending – more on impulsive buying.I am afraid you have mixed capital markets with capitalism. While the former is a financial issue, the latter is an economic issue. We need capital markets when capitalism is in place." - Siva wrote.

Hello Siva:

1. I was writing about how "Capital" is formed in the first place. It's only an accumulated savings that swell into Wealth or Capital to be used in financing new companies or expanding an existing business operation.

2. Yes, Capitalists encourage Spending or Consumption in others, the Consumers! That would eventually accrue profit to the him.

3. Capital Markets are the central point of Capitalism, where private Capitalists allocate their funds for controlling the means of production and distribution.

4. Economics is run by either Socialistic or Capitalistic Approach..Socialism encourages collective ownership of means of production and distribution, while Capitalism follows private ownership of means of production and distribution. Private wealth creation is encouraged in the latter.Financing is core part of economic activity.

Cheers.

ps. Authoritarian Communism is one very extreme form of Socialism.. not practiced by any country, except probably Cuba! There also Raul Castro is slowly opening it up to private investors, I believe.

 

[suraju06]

.Socialism encourages collective ownership of means of production and distribution, while Capitalism follows private ownership of means of production and distribution. Private wealth creation is encouraged in the latter.Financing is core part of economic activity.Cheers.ps. Authoritarian Communism is one very extreme form of Socialism.. not practiced by any country, except probably Cuba! There also Raul Castro is slowly opening it up to private investors, I believe.

Dear Yamaka,

You have left out the democratic socialism which was something midway between the two. This was adopted by India after independence for a long time. What are your views about it?

 

[suraju06]

i served in indian army for 16 years....i served three years in my kashmir tenure....kashmir situation is like this...this is jammu/kashmir/ladakh regions...its called kashmir state...jammu hindu dominated...kashmir muslim dominated...ladakh buddhists
dominated....just imagine a independent kashmir?....its impossible to survive alone..either go to pakistan or stay with hindustanfor long term survival......i have a long tenure inside kashmir....i dont want talk much..due to security/ground realities....
regards
tbs

Dear tbs,

If independence was ceded, Ladakh in course of time will be gobbled up by our northern neighbour just as happened in the case of Tibet and the Jammu will be taken in by India and Kashmir valley will go to Pak. This is the reason why India is hesitant to broach this solution.

Cheers.

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Yamaka,

You have left out the democratic socialism which was something midway between the two. This was adopted by India after independence for a long time. What are your views about it?

Dear Raju:

The Democratic Socialism of India was not serving Indians well. That's why both NDA and UPA Coalition Parties started the Reforms, starting in 1990.

This is the same as what Gorbachav learnt for Soviets... that we need to bring the initiatives of private citizens into decision making, and we should reward them for their entrepreneurship.

Innovation, new inventions, entrepreneurship and RISK taking are the hallmarks of any Economic System, and the Capitalism delivers it the best, IMO.

In fact, wholly owned large private companies are very rare: Bechtel is one large company wholly owned privately in the US... Most other companies are PUBLICLY owned by millions of shareholders (who may be ordinary savers via their Retirement or Pension Funds)..

Thus Capitalism has embraced a component of Socialism, which is Collective Ownership.

Not bad at all.

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

What a looker the new Pak FM is -- watch out India, SM Krishna, a known jollu party, may give away the store ....

The Hindu : News / National : India, Pak agree on additional CBMs on Kashmir

 

[biswa]

What a looker the new Pak FM is -- watch out India, SM Krishna, a known jollu party, may give away the store ....

The Hindu : News / National : India, Pak agree on additional CBMs on Kashmir

Oh no Mr. Nara, now you will get in trouble with the FemiNazi Gestapo!