A pheonix or a mere mortal? Afzal guru

15 posts

Flag Post

On feburuary 9 2013, India has hanged "Afzal guru ":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afzal_Guru the mastermind of 2001 parliament attack.
Kashmiris have reacted to this with protests and civil disobedience

Will he become an icon for Kashmir cause like Maqbool Butt and be the spark for the next armed struggle or will he be just forgotten like others before him?
What will be the effect of this on situation of Sarbajeet Singh?
What is your opinion?

 
Flag Post

Interesting. I really can’t say I am terribly familiar with the nuances of Indian/Pakistan conflicts, especially contemporary ones.

I can’t really answer your questions, I can’t claim to have a feel for the public mindset over there. Would you care to talk a little more about the context and history?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Interesting. I really can’t say I am terribly familiar with the nuances of Indian/Pakistan conflicts, especially contemporary ones.

I can’t really answer your questions, I can’t claim to have a feel for the public mindset over there. Would you care to talk a little more about the context and history?

On 14 august 1947, India was divided into two states.
its north westren and south eastren sides with muslim majority were combined into one separate state called Pakistan. Province of punjab was divided into two and many muslim majority areas were given to India which gave her access to Kashmire.
At that time there were many prnicely states who had the mandate to join India, Pakistan or remain separate.
Rulers of states of Joonagarh and Haderabad Dukkan opted for Pakistan but India forcefully annexed them citing the hindu majority in those states.
Raja of Kashmir(a muslim majority state) signed stand still agreements with Pakistan and India and the discreetly annexed it to India.
Indian forces entered Kashmir and faced resistence, tribals from FATa came to kashmiri’s help and 2/3 of Kashmir was taken over by Pakistan.
India called on UNO for cease fire, cease fire was established and it was agreed that a refrendum will be held.
30 years passed in status quo during which two wars were fought over it along with many minor operations, then armed rebellion began, fully backed by Pakistan.
20 years passed with continous struggle and then 9/11 happenned, Pres.Gen.Mushraf took a U- turn on Kashmir policy and once heroes were hunted down like dogs.
Armed struggle ended political struggle started.
A decade later, today, Above mentioned events happenned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict

 
Flag Post

An interesting subject, but I doubt you will get many takers. I need to ask some questions.

I know the conflict has been rumbling on for ever, but my knowledge of the personalities involved is marginally above nil. So I will have to ask you why Magbool Bhut became an icon when others were forgotten. Was it because of personal charisma or something else? You make no mention of China’s claim to have an interest in this area. Does their baleful presence have any real bearing on the situation, or are they just a sideshow to the main India/Pakistan standoff? And what’s the big deal about Kashmir anyway? This confrontation has been going on since partition, and yet it’s still unresolved. Kashmir seems to have little to offer in the way of natural resouces, so is it about strategic importance, national pride or something else?

 
Flag Post

Actually, that is something I’d like to second. Not to sound too naive, but, why not get along? Is the source of the issue really just religion, and clashes that result from the two differing creeds? Was there special treatment, or different government standards, regarding them? Did the split lead to major changes in government/religion?

I know a lot of islamic majority countries tend to keep state law/religious law pretty close. Is this the case in Pakistan?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

An interesting subject, but I doubt you will get many takers. I need to ask some questions.

I know the conflict has been rumbling on for ever, but my knowledge of the personalities involved is marginally above nil. So I will have to ask you why Magbool Bhut became an icon when others were forgotten. Was it because of personal charisma or something else? You make no mention of China’s claim to have an interest in this area. Does their baleful presence have any real bearing on the situation, or are they just a sideshow to the main India/Pakistan standoff? And what’s the big deal about Kashmir anyway? This confrontation has been going on since partition, and yet it’s still unresolved. Kashmir seems to have little to offer in the way of natural resouces, so is it about strategic importance, national pride or something else?

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Actually, that is something I’d like to second. Not to sound too naive, but, why not get along? Is the source of the issue really just religion, and clashes that result from the two differing creeds? Was there special treatment, or different government standards, regarding them? Did the split lead to major changes in government/religion?

I know a lot of islamic majority countries tend to keep state law/religious law pretty close. Is this the case in Pakistan?

First of all majority of kashmiris have supported pakistan in the past (I don’t know their current tenedencies), secondly, Five rivers flow from Kashmir and by virtue of an agreement called sindhtaas agreement, water of three of them is under pakistani control, but that is just in theory, India has been building dams on the rivers which are solely entitled to pakistan and if it succeeds, it can starve us.
So, it is a matter of survival for us.
I don’t know about India, may be just a matter of regional domination.
It has fought atleast one war with:-
Sirilanka
Bangladesh.
China.
Maldives
and three with
Pakistan
As for maqbool butt, he was at wrong place (for him) at right time, and he became a poster boy for struggle.

 
Flag Post

If Maqbool Bhut became a cause célèbre purely by chance, then I see no way to judge whether Afzal Guru will follow suit. Outside of their immediate area, these people are virtually unknown, and are very minor players in world affairs.

Reading your last post has left me wondering whether you would rather be talking about the Indus River dispute, and the possible consequences of two nuclear powers going to war over controlling water in the region.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

If Maqbool Bhut became a cause célèbre purely by chance, then I see no way to judge whether Afzal Guru will follow suit. Outside of their immediate area, these people are virtually unknown, and are very minor players in world affairs.

Reading your last post has left me wondering whether you would rather be talking about the Indus River dispute, and the possible consequences of two nuclear powers going to war over controlling water in the region.

Yes I am talking about Indus water treaty
I understand that they are minor players in world stage and they will have to take drastic measures to come in lime light .

 
Flag Post

I did some background reading about this, and it was very illuminating. The dispute over Kashmir isn’t really about land at all, it’s about the leverage India gets from controlling so much of the water flowing through the Indus Valley. I had never realised the extent that Pakistan has to rely on the goodwill of India just to survive.

While I suppose we can take a little comfort from the fact that both sides have adhered to the terms of the treaty despite two intervening wars, it’s still a very worrying situation. With both countries facing increasing demands for water, it seems to be only a matter of time before things come to a head. If India ever did turn the taps off, I dont see that Pakistan would have any alternative but to threaten to drop the big one. It simply would’t have time to negotiate or wage a protracted conventional war. Lack of water could kill millions within days, certainly far more people than a nuclear bomb could be expected to kill.

India has managed to come to agreement with China and Bangladesh over water rights, so what’s making a more permanent agreement with Pakistan so difficult? Is it just old rivalries coming into play, or something else? I am struggling to understand how two countries with ambitions to become major world powers can be stupid enough to play games of brinkmanship in such a volatile region.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

I did some background reading about this, and it was very illuminating. The dispute over Kashmir isn’t really about land at all, it’s about the leverage India gets from controlling so much of the water flowing through the Indus Valley. I had never realised the extent that Pakistan has to rely on the goodwill of India just to survive.

While I suppose we can take a little comfort from the fact that both sides have adhered to the terms of the treaty despite two intervening wars, it’s still a very worrying situation. With both countries facing increasing demands for water, it seems to be only a matter of time before things come to a head. If India ever did turn the taps off, I dont see that Pakistan would have any alternative but to threaten to drop the big one. It simply would’t have time to negotiate or wage a protracted conventional war. Lack of water could kill millions within days, certainly far more people than a nuclear bomb could be expected to kill.

India has managed to come to agreement with China and Bangladesh over water rights, so what’s making a more permanent agreement with Pakistan so difficult? Is it just old rivalries coming into play, or something else? I am struggling to understand how two countries with ambitions to become major world powers can be stupid enough to play games of brinkmanship in such a volatile region.

On Indian side, it is the far right that hinders the process and on Pakistani side, its Kashmir issue.
I really hope voilence erupts in kashmir on such a large scale that our govrn have to step in.

 
Flag Post

Another foolish conflict based on religion and land I say they should blow each other up already.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Another foolish conflict based on religion and land I say they should blow each other up already.

And you would of course be glad to die in the ensuing global conflict. Its worth blowing the human race into dust, just to get rid of a few religious leaders, right?

 
Flag Post

Well I wasn’t being completely serious I was really just saying its foolish.

 
Flag Post

Welcome to the modern world, Wraymond. Most things done by those with political power are foolish, stupid, and/or self-serving.

There’s often very little sign of intelligence from the race in general. Eventually humanity’s antics will wind up doing irrepearable damage to the crust we’re living on. It’s just a matter of time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Welcome to the modern world, Wraymond. Most things done by those with political power are foolish, stupid, and/or self-serving.

There’s often very little sign of intelligence from the race in general. Eventually humanity’s antics will wind up doing irrepearable damage to the crust we’re living on. It’s just a matter of time.

Jeez you sound like poison ivy.