[Reader-list] Tourist heaven turns into valley of fear

[Aashish Gupta]

Ok, I am sorry.

Aashish


2009/2/12 Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>

> Dear Aashish
>
> 1. Alas! Looks like you have commented without having read my post. I had
> written:
>
> """"  I must say here that comparisons provide no justification and any
> 'excess' whatsoever by the Indian Army (or CRPF, or BSF, or RR) are totally
> unacceptable to me as an Indian.""""
>
>     So, why are you Alaasing! your pompous lecture on logic to me?
>
> 2. Again your convoluted interpretation of my having stated 'excesses' in
> the manner I did is all your own doing. The word 'Excesses' by itself does
> not enumerate the acts committed (or being accused of). It also does
> not provide an objective or even subjective evaluation of the acts nor the
> extent (gravity) of the excess. That is why I put it the word 'excesses' in
> inverted commas. It needs qualification.
>
> Kshmendra
>
>  ------------------------------
>  *From:* Aashish Gupta <aashu.gupta20 at gmail.com>
> *To:* Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:14:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Reader-list] Tourist heaven turns into valley of fear
>
> Dear Kshmendra
>
> The fact - that the Indian army was present in the civilian areas of
> Kashmir because of Pakistan - does not, in any way, absolve them of the
> excesses they committed. Neither the fact that the Pakistani (or American)
> army commits greater violations make the human rights violations of the
> Indian army acceptable.
>
> I thought this lesson in logic would be known. Alas!
>
> And ok, the Indian army was forced to act. Let's accept this for a moment.
> Does acting iclude what the army did? Does the presence of terrorism force
> soldiers to rape, abduct, main and kill innocents?
>
> You put excesses within inverted commas. Would you like to clarify why you
> do that? Are they so called excesses? We would have a new term then -
> Pseudo-Excesses.
>
> Aashish
>
>
> From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>; sarai list <
> reader-list at sarai.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:59:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Reader-list] Tourist heaven turns into valley of fear
>
>  Dear Yasir
>
> Kashmir being a part of India, it should not be surprising that the Indian
> Army was/is present there.
>
> You speak though of the 'nature' of that presence. Till the Pakistan
> sponsored Islamic Terrorism showed up in Kashmir, the Indian Army's 'nature'
> of Peacetime presence was like that of any other Army in the border region
> of any other country which has an enemy nation across the border. The Indian
> Army was deployed in the 'border posts' and was confined to Cantonment
> Areas elsewhere.
>
> It was only because of the 1965 Operation Gibraltar infiltration/invasion
> plan of Pakistan that the Indian Army had to first 'act' in the civilian
> areas. After the 1965 War and whatever possible mopping up of the Pakistani
> infiltrators, the Indian Army had no deployment in the civilian areas.
>
> With the start of the Pakistan sponsored Islamic Terrorism in late 1980s,
> the Indian Army was again forced to 'act' in the civilian areas.
>
> Whatever  other 'excesses' the Indian Army may have committed against
> innocent Kashmiris, we did not have the kind of Artillery and Aerial Bombing
> attacks that the Pakistan Army has repeatedly resorted to against
> Pakistanis. I must say here that comparisons provide no justification and
> any 'excess' whatsoever by the Indian Army (or CRPF, or BSF, or RR) are
> totally unacceptable to me as an Indian.
>
> As far as 'sandwiched' or 'bun kabaabed' Afghanistan, Pakistan and India
> are concerned, the only thing stringing them together is Islamic Terrorism.
>
> Kshmendra
>
>
>
>