[Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy - comparing her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru
Aditya Raj Kaul
kauladityaraj at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 23:51:07 IST 2010
Dear Ana,
Thanks for writing in. I understand what you mean to convey. Though I'm
sorry, I may not be as generous to respect 'anything' about Arundhati Roy.
She is using 'Kashmiris' as fodder for her activism-business to gain
publicity and quick bucks. She continues to stay in prime localities, owns
bunglows where 'capitalists' and 'entrepreneurs' stay. She is cheating the
poor of this nation. She is as well cheating the 'Maoist Terrorists' by
illegally occupying tribal land.
I understand you to be a lady of metal. Arundhati is right opposite. She
should shift to Pakistan if she is the lady of her words. I re-write the
slogan she uttered in the Delhi Anti-India Communal Seminar "Bhookha - Nanga
Hindustan, Jaan Se Pyaara Pakistan'.
Otherwise, let her hear music from the honorable Court. She was waiting for
the FIR to be registered. It has been now. Congratulations to all the
patriots!
warm regards
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Ana Valdés <agora158 at gmail.com> wrote:
> With all respect, Aditja, allow a fellow writer to Arundhati Roy to salute
> her for her courage. In despite to being harassed, her house vandalized,
> etc, she keep on doing what a writer is born to do, to provoke, to tell
> umconfortable truths, to be subversive, to be seditious, to be apart from
> the States and their norms and false allegeancies and false loyalties.
> Socrates was poisoned because his discourse was considered sedicious.
> I was imprisoned four years because my student group was considered
> sedicious.
> I don't have a clue if Arundhati Roy is right or wrong, but she is standing
> on the line as the writers should do, as independent and critical observers
> of their contemporaneity.
> Ana Valdes
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Quite interesting to see people here maintaining silence on the
>> provocative
>> and seditious speech by fiction-writer Arundhati Roy at the Delhi seminar.
>> They still tend to live in the dark ages. Hope a lantern helps such people
>> with some light or perhaps a sudden magic. The Court has already set the
>> tone. Perhaps, now the 'real' engagement will begin.
>>
>> Let the mediocre people live in peace, finally.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, geeta seshu <geetaseshu at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I do agree with Gargi Sen. The level of debate is truly pathetic. As
>> > someone
>> > who reads discussions/ debates (but rarely intervenes), I used to get
>> some
>> > insights into differing points of view. Please make an effort to bring
>> it
>> > back to a more intelligent, even if combative, level.
>> >
>> > Geeta
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Gargi Sen <sen.gargi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks Sudhha for one more considered reply. Now if only the raving
>> and
>> > > frothing people on the Sarai list would send considered replies, even
>> as
>> > > they rave and froth, which, incidentally I don¹t mind, I think the
>> level
>> > of
>> > > the discourse would rise considerably. Unfortunately, instead, all
>> they
>> > > seem
>> > > to be posting in the way of arguments are a series of slurs, insults
>> and
>> > > name-calling. Unfortunately, even the name-calling is left at such a
>> > > tedious
>> > > and mediocre level that one despairs.
>> > > Where is the wit, the arguments crafted with diligence, the play of
>> > words,
>> > > all that that lead to the joys of engagement?
>> > > The colloquial Hindi proverb that an intelligent enemy is more
>> desirable
>> > > than a mediocre friend is put to rest on the Sarai list.
>> > > I hope though not forever.
>> > > Gargi
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
>> > > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:35:34 +0530
>> > > To: Aalok Aima <aalok.aima at yahoo.com>
>> > > Cc: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy -
>> > > comparing
>> > > her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru
>> > >
>> > > Dear Mr. Aima, I am writing this in response to your criticism of
>> > Arundhati
>> > > Roy's recent statement published in the Hindu. You say, "the
>> directive
>> > of
>> > > "Metropolitan Magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha" asks delhi police to
>> > "lodge
>> > > an FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code" against
>> some
>> > > named persons (which includes arundhati roy) for their speeches made
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > seminar on 21/10/2010 ........ it does not say anything about
>> 'waging
>> > war
>> > > against the state' The Times of India, seems to have reported
>> otherwise
>> > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delhi-court-calls-for-FIR-
>> > > against-Roy-Geelani/articleshow/7002100.cms The Times of India quotes
>> the
>> > > Metropolitan Magistrate, Navita Kumari Bagha as saying - "The Delhi
>> > police
>> > > is hereby directed to lodge an FIR under relevant provisions of the
>> > Indian
>> > > Penal Code and file a report in this regard on January 6, 2011, the
>> next
>> > > date of hearing,'' metropolitan magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha said,
>> > > pointing out that the court has to step in since even after an
>> offence
>> > was
>> > > disclosed, the police failed to register an FIR. The sections include
>> > > those
>> > > relating to sedition, waging war against the state of the IPC and a
>> > > section
>> > > of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)." If you read any other
>> > > paper's reports on the matter, you will see exactly the same
>> language.
>> > > Which in itself is not surprising, as the complainant has sought
>> remedy
>> > > under those precise sections, including the one pertaining to 'waging
>> > war
>> > > against the state' and so, the Magistrate, in instructing the Police
>> to
>> > > look into the filing of the FIR, has to instruct the police to file
>> > their
>> > > report with reference to these specific sections. So, when Arundhati
>> Roy
>> > > refers to the court asking the police to file an FIR for 'waging war
>> > > against the state' against her and others (including, incidentally,
>> me)
>> > > she
>> > > is not trifling by any means. What she has said in her statement
>> > > faithfully
>> > > mirrors the reports that have appeared in the press. I suspect, that
>> > > rather
>> > > than her, it is you who seems not to have read the reports with care.
>> > Now,
>> > > as for your contention, that Nehru changed his position on the need
>> for
>> > a
>> > > plebiscite to ascertain the will of the people of Jaamu and Kashmir
>> > > following the ratification of the accession to the state of Jammu and
>> > > Kashmir to the Union of India by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu
>> and
>> > > Kashmir. This, unfortunately, is simply not true. I had published a
>> > posting
>> > > on this list on the matter of 23 statements made by Jawaharlal Nehru
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > matter of ascertaining the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir on
>> > the
>> > > 25th of August, 2008. The link to the posting is as follows -
>> > > http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2008-August/014098.html I
>> > > don't
>> > > want to reproduce the contents of this posting in its entirety,
>> because
>> > > much of the matter is already contained in Arundhati Roy's statement
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > Hindu. But since you have produced the magic date of the 15th of
>> > February,
>> > > 1954, as a threshold, let me just reproduce two statements made by
>> > > Jawaharlal Nehru AFTER this date. In a statement in the Rajya Sabha
>> > > (Chamber
>> > > of States) of the Indian Parliament, Nehru says on the 18th of May,
>> 1954
>> > -
>> > > ³But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance
>> > and
>> > > international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.² 'Every
>> assurance
>> > and
>> > > International commitment' includes the commitment to hold a
>> plebiscite,
>> > as
>> > > mandated by several United Nations resolutions. If, Nehru believed
>> that
>> > > the
>> > > ratification of the Maharaja's of J & K's accession to India by the
>> > > Constituent Assembly of J & K was the same thing as an expression of
>> the
>> > > popular will vis- a-vis the question of the integration of J&K into
>> the
>> > > Indian Union, then, he would not have needed to state that
>> > "international
>> > > commitments in regard to Kashmir stand". The international
>> commitments,
>> > > which can have been nothing other than the holding of the plebiscite
>> > under
>> > > international auspieces, could have been said to be 'standing' if,
>> and
>> > > only
>> > > if, they had not yet been seen to have borne fruit. Clearly, here,
>> Nehru
>> > > on
>> > > the 18th of May 1954 still sees the plebiscite as a possibility.
>> > Further,
>> > > On 31st of March, 1955, (which as you will notice, is a full year and
>> > five
>> > > weeks after the 15th of Februrary, 1954), Nehru, in a statement in
>> the
>> > > Indian parliament, says - ³Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied
>> about
>> > > between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an
>> > > individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill
>> and
>> > > consent of the people of Kashmir.² First of all, Nehru makes a
>> > > distinction here between the wills of the entities he calls India,
>> > > Pakistan
>> > > and Kashmir. Which means that he does not conflate the will of the
>> > entity
>> > > he calls India, with the entity he calls Kashmir. Kashmir, in his
>> eyes,
>> > > (these are his words, not mine) is seized of a will and individuality
>> of
>> > > its own, distinct from India, and Pakistan. Next, Nehru says,
>> "Nothing
>> > CAN
>> > > be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir".
>> Had
>> > > Nehru said - "Nothing HAS BEEN DONE without the goodwill and consent
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > people of Kashmir", your contention, that Nehru treated the
>> ratification
>> > > of
>> > > the Maharaja's accession by the Constitutent Assembly of Jammu and
>> > > Kashmir
>> > > as the final word on the matter, would have had some weight, because
>> > then
>> > > we would be arguing about whether or not the decision of the
>> constituent
>> > > assembly of J & K actually represented the 'goodwill and consent' of
>> the
>> > > people of Kashmir. But Nehru did not say what you wish he had said.
>> His
>> > > statement clearly implies that he believed that as of 31st of March,
>> > 1955
>> > > a
>> > > year and a month after the J&K Constitutent Assembly's so called
>> > > 'ratification' that the "goodwill and consent" of the people of J&K
>> was
>> > > yet
>> > > to be ascertained. So, following from this, as far as Nehru is
>> > concerned,
>> > > it is very difficult logically to assert that he believed that the
>> > > Constituent Assembly of J&K's ratification amount to anything closely
>> > > resembling the final statement of the "goodwill and consent" of the
>> > people
>> > > of J&K. Incidentally, this quotation, from 1955, was included in
>> > Arundhati
>> > > Roy's statement in the Hindu. I suppose, in your haste to indulge in
>> the
>> > > popular pastime of attacking people who say things that are not
>> > > comfortable
>> > > for Indian Jingoism, you had overlooked the fact that March 1955
>> comes a
>> > > year and a bit, AFTER, February 1954. Mr. Aima, Your contention that
>> > Nehru
>> > > changed his public stance on the question of a plebiscite post
>> February
>> > > 1954 is not borne out by these two quotations. You say - "this is
>> where
>> > > arundhati roy reveals her stupidity and how little she knows about
>> > > kashmir". I wonder who looks more stupid now, you, or Arundhati Roy.
>> > best
>> > > Shuddha On 28-Nov-10, at 3:57 PM, Aalok Aima wrote: > ARUNDHATI ROY :
>> "My
>> > > reaction to today's court order directing the > Delhi Police to file
>> an
>> > > FIR
>> > > against me for waging war against the > state" > > has the court
>> asked
>> > the
>> > > police to file an FIR against arundhati roy > for 'waging war against
>> > the
>> > > state' or is arundhati trifling with > facts? > > the directive of
>> > > "Metropolitan Magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha" asks > delhi police to
>> > > "lodge
>> > > an FIR under relevant provisions of the > Indian Penal Code" against
>> > some
>> > > named persons (which includes > arundhati roy) for their speeches
>> made
>> > in
>> > > the seminar on > 21/10/2010 ........ it does not say anything about
>> > > 'waging war > against the state' > > it is another thing that
>> arundhati
>> > > roy's utterance could be > interpreted as 'waging war against the
>> state'
>> > >
>> > > > as she did in an earlier statement, arundhati seems to find >
>> > > unacceptable that someone should seek prosecution against her or >
>> that
>> > a
>> > > court of law should be approached with the complaint that > delhi
>> police
>> > > have not taken cognisance of the 'anti-india speeches' > by arundhati
>> > > (amongst others) > > so arundhati roy issues yet one more statement
>> > (quoted
>> > > below from > 'the hindu') > > she seeks to compare her statements on
>> > > kashmir with those of nehru > on kashmir and suggests that delhi
>> police
>> > > "should posthumously file > a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru too" >
>> >
>> > > (her
>> > > statement, giving quotes of nehru on kashmir, is a > regurgitation of
>> > what
>> > > has since long been put forward as arguments > by the secessionist
>> and
>> > > secession supporting propaganda > machines ...... geelani also used
>> the
>> > > quotes just a few days back) > > this is where arundhati roy reveals
>> her
>> > > stupidity and how little > she knows about kashmir > > in comparing
>> her
>> > > utterances with those of nehru, arundhati roy > gives us a list of 13
>> > > quotes attributed to nehru (and 1 of krishna > menon) > > what
>> arundhati
>> > > roy overlooks, in her stupidity, is that the > position of goi (and
>> of
>> > > nehru as pm) treating the accession of j&k > to india as confirmedly
>> > final
>> > > (in what goi considers as fulfilling > it's part of the un resolution
>> on
>> > > kashmir) is on the basis of the > ratification of j&k's accession to
>> > india
>> > > by the constituent > assembly of j&k on 15/02/1954 > > the nehru
>> > > statements
>> > > nos 1 to 12, that she quotes, pre-date that > ratification date of
>> > > 15/02/1954 and are from a period when the > status of j&k with
>> respect
>> > to
>> > > india was subjected to a lot of > questioning (including the un
>> > > resolution)
>> > > and nehru acknowledged > that as is reflected in his statements > >
>> > after
>> > > the 15/02/1954 ratification by the j&k constituent assembly, > goi
>> > treated
>> > > the accession of j&K to india as being unquestionable > and nehru did
>> > not
>> > > make any statement that carried the vein of the > statements 1 to 12
>> > > quoted
>> > > by arundhati > > arundhati roy is being stupid in comparing her own
>> > > statements on > kashmir with those of nehru prior to 15/02/1954 and
>> on
>> > > that
>> > > basis > self-righteously suggesting that if she is to be prosecuted
>> then
>> > > >
>> > > nehru (posthumously) should also be prosected > > ........... aalok
>> aima
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/28/stories/2010112862661200.htm > >
>> They
>> > > can
>> > > file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too: > Arundhati
>> Roy
>> > >
>> > > > Arundhati Roy > > My reaction to today's court order directing the
>> > Delhi
>> > > Police to > file an FIR against me for waging war against the state:
>> > > Perhaps > they should posthumously file a charge against Jawaharlal
>> > Nehru
>> > > > too. Here is what he said about Kashmir: > > 1. In his telegram to
>> the
>> > > Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian > Prime Minister Pandit
>> > Jawaharlal
>> > > Nehru said, ³I should like to make > it clear that the question of
>> > aiding
>> > > Kashmir in this emergency is > not designed in any way to influence
>> the
>> > > state to accede to India. > Our view which we have repeatedly made
>> > public
>> > > is that the question > of accession in any disputed territory or
>> state
>> > > must
>> > > be decided in > accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to
>> this
>> > >
>> > > view.² (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of >
>> > > Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK). > > 2. In other
>> > > telegram
>> > > to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, > ³Kashmir's accession to
>> > India
>> > > was accepted by us at the request of > the Maharaja's government and
>> the
>> > > most numerously representative > popular organization in the state
>> which
>> > > is
>> > > predominantly Muslim. > Even then it was accepted on condition that
>> as
>> > > soon
>> > > as law and > order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would
>> decide
>> > > the > question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either
>> >
>> > > Dominion then.² (Telegram No. 255 dated 31 October, 1947). > >
>> Accession
>> > > issue > > 3. In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on
>> 2nd
>> > >
>> > > November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, ³We are anxious not to finalise >
>> > > anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity >
>> to
>> > be
>> > > given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for > them
>> > > ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it > has
>> been
>> > > our
>> > > policy that where there is a dispute about the > accession of a state
>> to
>> > > either Dominion, the accession must be made > by the people of that
>> > state.
>> > > It is in accordance with this policy > that we have added a proviso
>> to
>> > the
>> > > Instrument of Accession of > Kashmir.² > > 4. In another broadcast to
>> > the
>> > > nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit > Nehru said, ³We have declared
>> > that
>> > > the fate of Kashmir is > ultimately to be decided by the people. That
>> > > pledge we have given > not only to the people of Kashmir and to the
>> > world.
>> > > We will not and > cannot back out of it.² > > 5. In his letter No.
>> 368
>> > > Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed > to the PM of Pakistan,
>> Pandit
>> > > Nehru said, ³I have repeatedly stated > that as soon as peace and
>> order
>> > > have been established, Kashmir > should decide of accession by
>> > Plebiscite
>> > > or referendum under > international auspices such as those of United
>> > > Nations.² > > U.N. supervision > > 6.In his statement in the Indian
>> > > Constituent Assembly on 25th > November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, ³In
>> > > order
>> > > to establish our bona > fide, we have suggested that when the people
>> are
>> > > given the chance > to decide their future, this should be done under
>> the
>> > > supervision > of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations
>> > > Organisation. > The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked
>> force
>> > > should > decide the future or the will of the people.² > > 7.In his
>> > > statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 5th March, > 1948,
>> > Pandit
>> > > Nehru said, ³Even at the moment of accession, we went > out of our
>> way
>> > to
>> > > make a unilateral declaration that we would abide > by the will of
>> the
>> > > people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or > referendum. We
>> > insisted
>> > > further that the Government of Kashmir must > immediately become a
>> > popular
>> > > government. We have adhered to that > position throughout and we are
>> > > prepared to have a Plebiscite with > every protection of fair voting
>> and
>> > > to
>> > > abide by the decision of the > people of Kashmir.² > > Referendum or
>> > > plebiscite > > 8.In his press-conference in London on 16th January,
>> 1951,
>> > > as
>> > > > reported by the daily ŒStatesman' on 18th January, 1951, Pandit >
>> > Nehru
>> > > stated, ³India has repeatedly offered to work with the United >
>> Nations
>> > > reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to > express
>> their
>> > > will and is always ready to do so. We have always > right from the
>> > > beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people > deciding their
>> fate
>> > by
>> > > referendum or plebiscite. In fact, this was > our proposal long
>> before
>> > the
>> > > United Nations came into the picture. > Ultimately the final decision
>> of
>> > > the settlement, which must come, > has first of all to be made
>> basically
>> > > by
>> > > the people of Kashmir and > secondly, as between Pakistan and India
>> > > directly. Of course it must > be remembered that we (India and
>> Pakistan)
>> > > have reached a great > deal of agreement already. What I mean is that
>> > many
>> > > basic features > have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is the
>> > > people of > Kashmir who must decide for themselves about > their
>> future
>> > > externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that > even without
>> our
>> > > agreement no country is going to hold on to > Kashmir against the
>> will
>> > of
>> > > the Kashmiris.² > > 9.In his report to All Indian Congress Committee
>> on
>> > 6th
>> > > July, 1951 > as published in the Statesman, New Delhi on 9th July,
>> 1951,
>> > > Pandit > Nehru said, ³Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize
>> > for
>> > > > India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a >
>> > > commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual >
>> existence
>> > and
>> > > its people must be the final arbiters of their > future. It is here
>> > today
>> > > that a struggle is bearing fruit, not in > the battlefield but in the
>> > > minds
>> > > of men.² > > 10.In a letter dated 11th September, 1951, to the U.N. >
>> > > representative, Pandit Nehru wrote, ³The Government of India not >
>> only
>> > > reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of > the
>> > > continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India >
>> shall
>> > be
>> > > decided through the democratic method of a free and > impartial
>> > plebiscite
>> > > under the auspices of the United Nations but > is anxious that the
>> > > conditions necessary for such a plebiscite > should be created as
>> > quickly
>> > > as possible.² > > Word of honour > > 11.As reported by Amrita Bazar
>> > > Patrika,
>> > > Calcutta, on 2nd January, > 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji's
>> > > question
>> > > in the Indian > Legislature as to what the Congress Government going
>> to
>> > do
>> > > about > one third of territory still held by Pakistan, Pandit Nehru
>> > said,
>> > > > ³is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the
>> >
>> > > Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to >
>> > the
>> > > leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide > by
>> the
>> > > verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I > would
>> have
>> > > no
>> > > hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to > United Nations
>> and
>> > > given our word of honour for a peaceful > solution. As a great nation
>> we
>> > > cannot go back on it. We have left > the question for final solution
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > people of Kashmir and we are > determined to abide by their
>> decision.² >
>> > >
>> > > 12.In his statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952, >
>> > Pandit
>> > > Nehru said, ³Let me say clearly that we accept the basic >
>> proposition
>> > > that
>> > > the future of Kashmir is going to be decided > finally by the
>> goodwill
>> > and
>> > > pleasure of her people. The goodwill > and pleasure of this
>> Parliament
>> > is
>> > > of no importance in this matter, > not because this Parliament does
>> not
>> > > have the strength to decide > the question of Kashmir but because any
>> > kind
>> > > of imposition would be > against the principles that this Parliament
>> > > holds.
>> > > Kashmir is very > close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree
>> or
>> > > adverse > fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench
>> and
>> > a
>> > > > pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not
>> >
>> > > wish
>> > > to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep > them
>> > > against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to >
>> stress
>> > > that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the > future of
>> > > Kashmir. It is not that we have > merely said that to the United
>> Nations
>> > > and to the people of > Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is
>> > borne
>> > > out by the > policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but
>> > > everywhere. > Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and
>> > > expense and > in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave
>> if
>> > it
>> > > was > made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. >
>> > > However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay >
>> against
>> > > the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose > ourselves on
>> them
>> > > on
>> > > the point of the bayonet.² > > Kashmir's soul > > 13.In his statement
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > Lok Sabha on 31st March, 1955 as > published in Hindustan Times New
>> > Delhi
>> > > on Ist April, 1955, Pandit > Nehru said, ³Kashmir is perhaps the most
>> > > difficult of all these > problems between India and Pakistan. We
>> should
>> > > also remember that > Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between
>> India
>> > > and
>> > > Pakistan but > it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its
>> own.
>> > > Nothing > can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people
>> of
>> > >
>> > > Kashmir.² > > 14.In his statement in the Security Council while taking
>> > part
>> > > in > debate on Kashmir in the 765th meeting of the Security Council
>> on
>> > >
>> > > 24th January, 1957, the Indian representative Mr. Krishna Menon >
>> said,
>> > > ³So
>> > > far as we are concerned, there is not one word in the > statements
>> that
>> > I
>> > > have made in this council which can be > interpreted to mean that we
>> > will
>> > > not honour international > obligations. I want to say for the purpose
>> of
>> > > the record that there > is nothing that has been said on behalf of
>> the
>> > > Government of India > which in the slightest degree indicates that
>> the
>> > > Government of > India or the Union of India will dishonour any
>> > > international > obligations it has undertaken.² > > > >
>> > > _________________________________________ > reader-list: an open
>> > discussion
>> > > list on media and the city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To
>> subscribe:
>> > > send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with > subscribe in
>> the
>> > > subject header. > To unsubscribe:
>> > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive:
>> > > <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> Shuddhabrata
>> Sengupta
>> > > The
>> > > Sarai Programme at CSDS Raqs Media Collective shuddha at sarai.net
>> > > www.sarai.net www.raqsmediacollective.net
>> > > _________________________________________ reader-list: an open
>> discussion
>> > > list on media and the city. Critiques & Collaborations To subscribe:
>> send
>> > > an
>> > > email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
>> > > header.
>> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-listList
>> > > archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>> > >
>> > > _________________________________________
>> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> > > Critiques & Collaborations
>> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> > > subscribe in the subject header.
>> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> > > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>> > >
>> > _________________________________________
>> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> > Critiques & Collaborations
>> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> > subscribe in the subject header.
>> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aditya Raj Kaul
>>
>> India Editor
>> The Indian, Australia <http://www.theindian.net.au/>
>>
>> Blog: http://activistsdiary.blogspot.com/
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> subscribe in the subject header.
>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://anavaldes.wordpress.com
> http://passagenwerk.wordpress.com
> http://caravia.stumbleupon.com
> http://www.crusading.se
> Gondolgatan 2 l tr
> 12832 Skarpnäck
> Sweden
> tel +468-943288
> mobil 4670-3213370
>
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with
> your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always
> long to return.
> — Leonardo da Vinci
>
--
Aditya Raj Kaul
India Editor
The Indian, Australia <http://www.theindian.net.au/>
Blog: http://activistsdiary.blogspot.com/
More information about the reader-list
mailing list