• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Kashmir elections after 10 years

The point is he was assassinated in part for trying to reconcile Muslim and Hindu.

Kashmir is a low level continuation of the hatred.
For trying to please Muslims. He went to Noakhali where Muslims were being killed and not to Punjab where Hindus and Sikhs were being killed.
Yeah, that is still a problem in Kashmir but it will go away with time now that Kashmir has no dividing 'special status'.
At the moment, it is not even a state but a 'union territory' controlled by the government in Delhi.
 
All modern cultures have bigots in one form or another.

Gandhi was killed for violating Hindu cultural norms and bias.
MLK was killed for violating white cultural norms, being an outspoken Negro.
The Israeli leader Rabin was killed for making peace with Egypt.
Sadat in Egypt assassinated for making peace with Israel.


Hindu conservative prejudice against Muslims and vice versa is not suppressing.

We have bigots over here and we have hate crimes. I live in Seattle's China Town. There is an ongoing problem with assaults on Chinese. We do not dismiss it or rationalize it away, we confront it. What we do have are laws hat protect the rights of all regardless or race and region.

It is not perfect but the laws are applied and do work.

So, I understand India's bigotry as well as Pakistan. People like to cling to hatred and seeing others as inferior and peacemakers do not fair well.

I will be crossing India off my list of places to visit.
 
Oh no!!! We can't let those Muslims breed can we.
Fertility rate has fallen across all religions, specially in case of Muslims - See the first graph again.

"The Citizenship Amendment Act provides a fast track to naturalization for Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians who fled to Hindu-majority India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan before Dec. 31, 2014. The law excludes Muslims, who are a majority in all three nations."

Fast track is in reality not fast track. It still takes years. Yes, even without any law, a massive illegal immigration from Bangladesh is taking place. The law is really aimed at that. Afghan Muslims have come in much smaller numbers. Of course none allowed from Pakistan except women by marriage. Many families spread across the boundary.

"India is called the world's biggest democracy, but it is not a liberal democracy.
I suppose India has its conservative Hindu Islamophobia lke our conserve Christian bigots."

We (now this we stands for people like me) do not intend to be a 'without limit' liberal democracy. Everything has to have limits.
We have reasons for that. All Islamic and Pakistani terrorist organizations are active in India.
And what do they result in? Sorrow to Hindus and Muslims alike (those arrested will be in jails for long periods).
It is not going to bring Muslim rule in India. But what can we do about the encouragement by clerics (Don't let Kafirs live in peace).
 
Last edited:
I will be crossing India off my list of places to visit.
Rethink about it. India is one of the most interesting places. Historically as well as socially. See how various communities live together in spite of their differences.
It is also said to have the most air pouted cities. I'll pass.

The 'mysterious east' holds no attraction
Oh no!!! We can't let those Muslims breed can we.
Fertility rate has fallen across all religions, specially in case of Muslims - See the first graph again.

"The Citizenship Amendment Act provides a fast track to naturalization for Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians who fled to Hindu-majority India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan before Dec. 31, 2014. The law excludes Muslims, who are a majority in all three nations."

Fast track is in reality not fast track. It still takes years. Yes, even without any law, a massive illegal immigration from Bangladesh is taking place. The law is really aimed at that. Afghan Muslims have come in much smaller numbers. Of course none allowed from Pakistan except women by marriage. Many families spread across the boundary.

"India is called the world's biggest democracy, but it is not a liberal democracy.
I suppose India has its conservative Hindu Islamophobia lke our conserve Christian bigots."

We (now this we stands for people like me) do not intend to be a 'without limit' liberal democracy. Everything has to have limits.
We have reasons for that. All Islamic and Pakistani terrorist organizations are active in India.
And what do they result in? Sorrow to Hindus and Muslims alike (those arrested will be in jails for long periods).
It is not going to bring Muslim rule in India. But what can we do about the encouragement by clerics (Don't let Kafirs live in peace).

There is no peace when there is mutual hatred based on religion and ethnicity.

Neither religion appears to have a mechanism for mutual forgiveness and tolerance. Christians do but do not seem to practice it very well.

Religion and race and ethnicity have always been major causes of conflict form ancient times to today.
 
There is no peace when there is mutual hatred based on religion and ethnicity.
Neither religion appears to have a mechanism for mutual forgiveness and tolerance. Christians do but do not seem to practice it very well.
Religion and race and ethnicity have always been major causes of conflict form ancient times to today.
There is none in every day life, but it does happen sometimes.
Muslims too have it in Qur'an but do not practice it. Now, to clap one needs two hands.
Yes, they do, but India has it under control. That is why we cannot have 'liberal democracy'.
 
The normal rhetoric. Not impressed by Modi's address to Indian diaspora in New York. The address should have been more personal and not an election speech.
 
Well that changed quickly...
Forget about the world. The world has its own interests and biases. The large percentage of people voting means the people accept it.
Do not leave out why I said that what is reported around the world is not important.
The second phase of elections in Kashmir was conducted without any untoward incident. 54% of the voters voted. That is satisfactory for us.
The third phase will be held on October 1 and the results will be available on October 8.
Here is the Google Search result for past one hour (the count may go up a little when postal votes are counted):
 
54% of the voters voted. That is satisfactory for us.
Where "us" means the BJP, right?

If I were in power in India's national government, I'd want high turnout in Hindu districts in Jammu and low turnout in Muslim districts in Kashmir, to ensure that my collaborators form government while maintaining some facade of legitimacy.
 
Where "us" means the BJP, right?

If I were in power in India's national government, I'd want high turnout in Hindu districts in Jammu and low turnout in Muslim districts in Kashmir, to ensure that my collaborators form government while maintaining some facade of legitimacy.
Yeah, us means BJP supporters like me.
That does not solve the problem. The legislators may be Muslim but they should support BJP. In this election, BJP has Muslim candidates and also is supporting some independent Muslim candidates. The objective is to form the government. You cannot blame us that. In all elections, parties want to get a clear majority or at least a coalition in which they play a major role. Let us be practical.
 
Last edited:
What percentage of the voters were native to Kashmir and what percentage were from outside Kashmir? Immigrants?

Since retiring I have been paying attention to the news. Global and national.

I have heard little about India in US or global news, usually during Indian national elections or trade issues. I watched a report on air pollution in Indian cities. BBC radio reports sports in India, like Cricket.

I am sure there are reports filed on services lie Reuters and others on the Kashmir election, but I don't see any global concern as to how India was treating Kashmir.

There was reporting way back when India and Pakistan was shooting and shelling each other.

Kashmir painted as an isolated mountainous inconsequential region.
 
"India allows foreign diplomats to observe first elections in Kashmir in 10 years":

SRINAGAR, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Foreign diplomats from 15 countries were allowed to observe local elections in India's Jammu and Kashmir on Wednesday, as New Delhi highlighted the first vote in the disputed Himalayan territory in a decade.
It was the first time India has invited foreign diplomats to witness voting in the region, which Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government stripped of its partial autonomy five years ago, though Delhi has hosted similar trips on other occasions and a G20 meeting on tourism there last year.
(Aup. says: It is not the first time that this was done. Foreign observers were allowed in earlier elections also)

The visitors included diplomats from embassies of the United States, Mexico, Singapore, Spain and South Korea, among others, officials in Srinagar and New Delhi said. They visited polling stations across the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley.

"It is a rare opportunity to come to Kashmir and see the electoral process in action and see democracy. It looks very smooth, everything is very professional," said Jorgan K Andrews, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy.

Jammu and Kashmir is India's only Muslim-majority territory and has been at the centre of a dispute with neighbouring Pakistan since 1947. India and Pakistan both claim Kashmir in full but rule it in part, after having fought two of their three wars over the region.
(Aup. says: Yeah, Jammu & Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority territory, but we also have three Christian-Majority regions - Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya in Eastern India)

"When foreign governments comment (on Kashmir), the government of India says this is an internal matter for India, and now suddenly they want foreign observers to come and look at our elections," said Omar Abdullah, leader of the local National Conference party.
"Jammu and Kashmir elections are an internal matter for us and we do not need their certificate," he said, after casting his vote.
(Aup. says: Mr. Abdullah and others in opposition did not like the visit of diplomats because they would say that they did not find any coercion in the elections. Government did not allow foreign media correspondents because they spread false news (BBC, Guardian, NYT and Washington Post being the foremost among them). Reuters and Associated Press reported this:
 
What is the number d Muslims and the number of Hindus who moved into the region?
 
What percentage of the voters were native to Kashmir and what percentage were from outside Kashmir? Immigrants?

Since retiring I have been paying attention to the news. Global and national.

I have heard little about India in US or global news, usually during Indian national elections or trade issues. I watched a report on air pollution in Indian cities. BBC radio reports sports in India, like Cricket.

I am sure there are reports filed on services lie Reuters and others on the Kashmir election, but I don't see any global concern as to how India was treating Kashmir.

There was reporting way back when India and Pakistan was shooting and shelling each other.

Kashmir painted as an isolated mountainous inconsequential region.
I would not know the percentage but it will be very small. Itinerant agricultural laborers do not live in the valley permanently. Terrorism is still live in Kashmir, and sometimes these unprotected laborers get killed. These are from from UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. They would not be eligible to vote. More than them, there are Bangladeshis and Rohingyas who might have been able to get Indian identity papers (Aadhar cards - it is very insecure system, and can be got made for money).

That is excellent. I also do that. But reporting on India is more falsehood than truth. Yeah, our cities suffer from overpopulation and pollution.
Why should India be a major concern for other countries except when our interests meet (for example in case of Quad)? I do not mind that.

These days shooting and shelling is very rare between India and Pakistan. Firstly, it does not give Pakistan an upper hand, we reply in the same measure. Secondly, Pakistan is engaged in its food, finance, power, oil and terrorism problems and hardly has time to think about us. I hope IMF has agreed to give it further loan.

Kashmir is in no way inconsequental for us. Pakistan wants it for religion, and China wants Ladakh for a direct road to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where it has mining interests.
 
Last edited:
What is the number d Muslims and the number of Hindus who moved into the region?
Very few. Perhaps less than 10,000*. Hindus other than those who already live in the valley would not go because of terrorism.
* Government made is compulsory for Hindu employees from valley region to return there. Most have left their family back in Jammu.
Those who were pushed out of the valley (some 250,000) have settled in Jammu region. Here is the breakup:

graph-2.jpg
 
The legislators may be Muslim but they should support BJP.
This makes as much sense as an Israeli election in which "The legislators may be Muslim, but they should support Likud", or a Nothern Ireland assembly in which "The legislators may be Catholic, but they should support the DUP".

If you are saying to legislators what they 'should' support, and it's not "the voters who elected them", then you haven't understood what democracy even is, and have no entitlement to any respect whatsoever for your opinions.

The entire purpose of democracy - what sets it apart from, and makes it better for the people than, dictatorship, is that in a democracy nobody has much power.

In a well ordered democracy, being leader is a chore, or a duty; It is a lot of hard work, and your own opinions as leader will carry no weight at all.

A widely respected and admired leader is a sign of a weak and poorly run democracy. A powerful and decisive leader is a sign of a democracy that is in deep trouble. The leader of a strong democracy is a person who is constantly forced to compromise his own agenda in the service of the wider population.

If you like having a strong and admirable leader, then you are going to love living in a dictatorship. But history suggests you should be very careful what you wish for, because by the time you fall out of love, it will be far too late.
 
Last edited:
This makes as much sense as an Israeli election in which "The legislators may be Muslim, but they should support Likud", or a Nothern Ireland assembly in which "The legislators may be Catholic, but they should support the DUP".
If you are saying to legislators what they 'should' support, and it's not "the voters who elected them", then you haven't understood what democracy even is, and have no entitlement to any respect whatsoever for your opinions.

The entire purpose of democracy - what sets it apart from, and makes it better for the people than, dictatorship, is that in a democracy nobody has much power.

In a well ordered democracy, being leader is a chore, or a duty; It is a lot of hard work, and your own opinions as leader will carry no weight at all.

A widely respected and admired leader is a sign of a weak and poorly run democracy. A powerful and decisive leader is a sign of a democracy that is in deep trouble. The leader of a strong democracy is a person who is constantly forced to compromise his own agenda in the service of the wider population.

If you like having a strong and admirable leader, then you are going to love living in a dictatorship. But history suggests you should be very careful what you wish for, because by the time you fall out of love, it will be far too late.
Then who else has voted for them, if not people, allowing them to win?
Why should not the elected people have power, if they have been elected in a free and fair manner? You mean that the American President or the British Prime Minister should not have power? Of course, there are checks and balances. And Indian Supreme Court and Indian Constitution have proved their merit in the last 76 years.
Yeah, being a leader is hard work and Modi is doing it very nicely in his last tenure, for India as well as the world. He would not be there in the next national election, someone else will be leading BJP. BJP leaders come after a life-time in the crucible. It is not that any Tom, Dick or Harry with money in can decide to run as the 'top guy' in BJP.
If a leader compromises with his agenda, then he is not fit to rule. Modi's agenda is to make India prosperous and strong. He has no other agenda.
Yes, Modi's followers, including myself, admire him. Not just us, but he is the most admired foreign leader in the whole world. Even Pakistanis admire him for ruling India so well. At 72% approval, he leads Javier Milei of Argentina by 10%.
To rule purposefully includes taking some hard decisions. Modi has never transgressed the law, and the Indian Supreme Court would not allow him to do so.
We have a very strong Supreme Court, with no judges nominated by the government. In India, four senior most judges of the Supreme Court along with the Chief Justice (the five forming a 'Collegium'), choose the judges, and their choice cannot be challenged. Three of the current members of the 'Collegium' will assume the position of Chief Justice in future.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom