[Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy (nanga bhukha hindustan)
baruk feddabonn
feddabonn at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 00:09:20 IST 2010
hi aditya,
you say: "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'."
i understand the official transcript has her saying "...what broke my heart
on the street of Srinagar was when people say "Nanga Bhukha Hindustan, Jaan
se Pyara Pakistan" and I said no because "Nanga Bhukha Hindustan" is with
you..."
cheers,
baruk
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:51:07 +0530
> From: Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com>
> To: 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
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinahMj3X+u-+-QNu26CgM5JYak=5_YUnvoc_kRh at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> 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.htmlI
> >> > > 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/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> reader-list mailing list
> reader-list at sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>
>
> End of reader-list Digest, Vol 88, Issue 101
> ********************************************
>
--
+64 021 035 1673
http://feddabonn.com
More information about the reader-list
mailing list