J&K: Implications of all party meet resolution
by Hari Om on 17 Jul 2010 14 Comments

After a 4-hour long meeting on July 12 in the state’s summer capital, Srinagar, the all-party meet convened and chaired by beleaguered Chief Minister Omar Abdullah came out with a six-point resolution which The CM released to the Press. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party (JKNPP), which together have 25 MLAs in the Assembly, did not attend the meeting, saying nothing positive would emerge out of it as the Chief Minister had vitiated Kashmir’s political scene to the point that only his resignation could restore the people’s confidence in the state apparatus. The PDP and JKNPP, which maintain cordial relations, have seen in the crisis an invaluable opportunity to settle scores with the National Conference (NC) and recapture political power.

 

The most controversial points, which are sure to encourage the separatists to heighten their anti-India activities, were two. One was the decision of the all-party meet to “ascertain the circumstances leading to the death of civilians.” This decision was consistent with what the PDP and several supporters of the Kashmiri separatists, including the human rights industry-wallahs, stood for and advocated.

 

Mercifully, the BJP dissociated itself from this part of the resolution. Its national general secretary Arun Jaitley declared on July 13 in Delhi that the “BJP is not party to this part of the resolution and, at the same time, assured the NC-led government of his party’s unstinted support that it would help it restore peace in the troubled-Kashmir - trouble, according to him, being fomented by Pakistan agencies under a “well-crafted strategy supported by local separatists.” Mr Omar Abdullah also declared that the “BJP is not party to this part of the resolution.”

 

The second controversial point was the decision that “urged the state government to strengthen the ongoing peace process (between India and Pakistan) through internal and external dialogue.” The BJP, which consistently says it considers Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India, was in complete accord. In other words, the BJP made common cause with the NC and Congress and endorsed the official view that Jammu and Kashmir is not a settled issue, and that Pakistan has to be taken on board if peace is to return to Kashmir, or even South Asia.

 

That the local BJP extended support to this highly controversial, unwarranted, part of the resolution suggests that local BJP leaders and their masters in New Delhi consider, just like the NC and other Kashmir-based outfits and separatists organizations, that the aggressor Pakistan is an important factor in the political situation of Indian Jammu & Kashmir; and that BJP is not averse to the idea of compromising Indian sovereignty in the state, which acceded to India in October 1947 in terms of the constitutional law on the subject.

 

Surprisingly, but interestingly, while Congress seems to be talking tough, the BJP still says that the issues between India and Pakistan could be resolved within the framework of “Insaniyat” (whatever that means). BJP conveniently overlooks the fact that Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists and extremists want to destroy the sovereignty of India in J&K, and do not want reforms in the dispensation as it exists today in Kashmir and New Delhi. They want a dispensation outside India/merger of J&K with Pakistan/a new sovereign state. It may be underlined that Congress declared on the eve of the India-Pakistan Foreign Secretary-level talks that Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna’s three-day (July 14-16) visit to Islamabad could turn out to be the last initiative on the part of India in case Islamabad fails to show credible results on the ground or fails to address Indian concerns.   

 

The people of Jammu province as well as others, who consider the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India as legal, complete, irrevocable and non-negotiable, have taken note of what the BJP did during the all-party meet. They are feeling aghast and doubting the very credentials of the party that claims day in and day out that it has fought for the state’s closer ties with New Delhi and continues to do so even today. By becoming a party to this part of the resolution, the BJP has virtually helped the NC and similar outfits to unsettle a settled issue. The BJP will have to pay a very heavy price for this; the people of Jammu and others expected the party to fight tooth and nail against all moves aimed at giving legitimacy to the politics of communalism and separatism.

 

The PDP, whose single-point agenda has been to destabilize the Omar Abdullah-led government and tarnish its image in the eyes of the people, especially Kashmiri Muslims; the separatist outfits and their supporters in different parts of India, including human rights-wallahs who have no love lost for India and behave like mercenaries, must be feeling jubilant. The six-point resolution not only talked about an “impartial inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of civilians” and “peace process” (with Pakistan) through “internal and external dialogue”, but did not say anything against those who took the law of the land into their hands for days together, attacked the symbols of the Indian state, challenged the very sovereignty of India, dotted Kashmir’s political scene with innumerable violent incidents, attacked the security forces and created a serious law and order problem. 

 

They must be feeling satisfied that they have succeeded in putting the Chief Minister on the mat by creating an environment that unnerved him and forced him to request New Delhi to deploy the Army in the affected areas of the Kashmir Valley to help restore calm. Army deployment after a span of fifteen years sent a message across the world that the situation in Kashmir was beyond control and that the people were not with India.

 

New Delhi should have rejected outright the demand of the Chief Minister, who, like the PDP and Kashmiri separatists, had opposed and criticized the institution of the Army and CRPF, overlooking the fact that as Chief Minister he had presided over the Unified Command meetings where all kinds of security-related decisions had been taken from time to time. By not rejecting Omar Abdullah’s demand, New Delhi walked into the trap laid by vested interests and anti-India forces. New Delhi should have spurned Abdullah because the Chief Minister, instead of defending the institution of the Army and paramilitary forces, repeatedly questioned their actions.                

 

As previously mentioned, the resolution of the all-party meeting urged the “state government and the Centre” to “act upon the two main suggestions (an independent inquiry and peace process, coupled with internal and external dialogue,) that emerged during the meeting. This means the resolution has (i) urged the Union Government to not only engage in a meaningful manner Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists to clinch the Kashmir issue in a manner that satisfies them, and (2) talked of an inquiry directed against the security forces involved in anti-insurgency operations.

 

These two highly controversial and separatist-friendly suggestions, if given effect to, would automatically and immediately mean – (1) demoralization of the security forces, which may give an upper hand to our reckless political class and (2) major concessions to Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists at the cost of the Indian nation, Indian sovereignty and Indian unity and integrity, and even at the cost of the values our political leaders profess to espouse.    

 

Thus, the message from an otherwise divided and fragmented Srinagar is loud and clear: The ball is in New Delhi’s court. It is for New Delhi to create an atmosphere that induces the separatists and other unruly groups, plus the stone-throwing hooligans and paid workers, to help restore peace in Kashmir. The state government has washed its hands off, nowhere accepting responsibility for what happened in Kashmir during the past about 25 days. It has nowhere suggested that the state government allowed the situation to deteriorate day by day, thus enabling anti-national forces to regroup and mobilize disgruntled elements, including unemployed youth, hooligans and drug addicts, to disturb and bloody the whole Valley. 

 

Can New Delhi vouch for what the all-party meeting resolution suggested? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, because the Home Minister has indicated that the Union Government could take a “political initiative” after the “cycle of violence comes to an end.” This suggests that the Union Government is not averse to the idea of engaging the Kashmiri separatists. This happened during the BJP-led NDA regime twice, and it can happen now as well.

 

No, because it is not possible for the Union Government to accept the demands being put forth from time to time by the Kashmiri separatists, leave aside Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who would not accept anything short of Pakistan. Not because there is none in the Indian political establishment who is prepared to do what the all-party meet resolution wants; there are elements in the Indian political establishment who are willing to go even beyond.

 

Their problem is Indian public opinion, which is against the idea of New Delhi giving any concessions either to the Kashmiri separatists or to Islamabad. Indian public opinion does not even favour of the idea of the state getting more autonomy or self-rule because it believes this would not only negate the very Constitution of India, but would empower the “sectarian and separatist” leadership in Kashmir to further jeopardize the general political and economic rights and interests of the non-Muslim Muslim minorities in the state.

 

The manner in which the July 15 Islamabad talks between Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi collapsed because of the firm Indian stand on Kashmir, infiltration from across the border, and action on Hafiz Saeed and others (read ISI) who masterminded the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, indicates the impact of Indian public opinion on our foreign policy. It is for the first time in years that Pakistan was put on the defensive and India appeared somewhat determined and assertive. This augurs well for the nation, though Krishna’s failure to rebut the criticism of Home Secretary G.K. Pillai was unfortunate.  

 

Yet another problem of the protagonists of major concessions to Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists based in New Delhi is the Army, and the presence of certain elements in the Indian political establishment who are against the idea of certain political bosses in the capital giving any concession to Pakistan and the Kashmiri fundamentalists. So, it can be said with some degree of confidence, it would be very difficult for Delhi-based votaries of concessions to Kashmir and Pakistan to ignore Indian public opinion and bypass the opposition of the Army and other elements in the political establishment, who want New Delhi to act tough.

   

The Chief Minister, in particular, would do well not to play with fire. Instead of yielding and putting forth unacceptable demands, he should reform himself and assert. He needs to wrest the initiative and tell protestors, whosoever they are, to behave and see reason or be prepared for stern action. He cannot pass the buck. Such an approach would not work because J&K is not an easy state. It would create more problems than resolve existing ones if one adopts the approach the all-party meet adopted. 

 

What had aggravated the situation in Kashmir? What helped Islamabad and Islamabad-supported and funded Lashkar-e-Taiba, United Jihad Council, Hizbul Mujahideen, All-Party Huriyat Conference (Mirwaiz) and Tehrik-e-Hurriyat of Syed Ali Shah Geelani stoke more fire in the Valley? What was the response of New Delhi and the Jammu & Kashmir Government to what the anti-national forces, including Pakistani-inspired stone-throwing hooligans, did to vitiate the atmosphere in Kashmir? What did the opposition PDP do to further complicate the already complicated situation in the sensitive state?

 

What aggravated the situation in Kashmir was the politics of competitive communalism by the two Kashmir-based mainstream (sic) political outfits, NC and PDP. The PDP, which was in a state of shock since it handed over the office of Chief Minister to Congress in November 2005, consistently put forth demands which were not only brazenly anti-India, anti-Army, anti-CRPF and anti-Armed Forces Special Powers Act, but also patently pro-Pakistan, pro-separatist, pro-terrorist and pro-stone throwing unruly mobs.

 

It was expected that the NC-led government would behave like a responsible government and take on the PDP and all outfits who tried to foment anti-India and anti-state government troubles. What happened was to the contrary. The NC leadership thought it prudent to walk into the dangerous trap meticulously laid by the canny PDP. Instead of countering the insidious propaganda and baneful influence of the main opposition party, the ruling NC tried to take a more radical stand on each and every issue the PDP raked up, thus making it extremely difficult for people to distinguish between the two, and enabling Pakistan and Pakistan-backed agents in Kashmir to exploit the situation to the extent possible.

 

The ruling party, like the opposition PDP, which was constitutionally bound to defend the Indian Constitution, the Army and other Indian institutions, adopted a line that created difficulties for the state government itself. One fine day, the Chief Minister publicly warned the stone-pelting force to behave failing which action would be taken against them. But soon he changed his stand and came out with a rehabilitation package for the stone-pelting boys, sending a wrong signal and promoting the cult of stone. The state government thus walked into the PDP’s trap, facilitating the task of Kashmiri extremists and their master, Pakistan.

 

It was expected that the Congress, a national party with stakes all over the country, would behave maturely and apply brakes whenever required. But its Kashmir-based leaders, particularly the state president, adopted a soft approach towards the troublemakers and on many occasions spoke the language of the PDP. His was a line consistent with what the NC and PDP had been pursuing religiously and relentlessly for quite some time. The result was that there remained none in troubled-Kashmir who could say what was right and what was wrong.

 

As for New Delhi, it did not act when it should have. Instead, it issued statements from time to time indicating that policy-makers in the Centre, rulers in Kashmir, and the main opposition PDP, were one as far as their approach to Jammu & Kashmir was concerned. Each one of them created an impression that the revival of the democratic process in the state and resolution of the so-called Kashmir problem were two different things.

 

New Delhi did not even once make it clear that it would not allow anyone to tinker with Indian sovereignty in Kashmir and that it would not allow anyone in Kashmir to speak a single word against the Indian Constitution and other Indian institutions. Instead, it talked of quiet diplomacy, unique solution to the Kashmir problem, amendments in the AFSPA, lowering of guard in terrorist-infested Kashmir, dialogue with Kashmiri separatists, and peace process with Pakistan. That Delhi’s approach would create additional complications was evident, and it happened. New Delhi acted when it was too late, when vested interests and anti-India forces had already set ablaze the whole Kashmir Valley.

 

No wonder that the situation has assumed alarming proportions, far worse than what we witnessed during 1989-1990. Keen Kashmir-watchers describe the present situation as most dangerous, and say that the entire political class in the Kashmir Valley is responsible for what happened during the past 25 dreadful days and that it would take years and years for things to stabilize, subject to the condition that the ruling party in the state and New Delhi does not make any political statement that has international ramifications and directly or indirectly promotes communalism, secessionism and extremism in Kashmir.

 

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the authorities in the state and at the Centre are not likely to learn lessons from their past mistakes. The Chief Minister’s July 9 statement that the “stone-pelting incidents and strikes in the Valley are ‘symptoms’ of a wider problem’’ and that “there is a problem in Jammu & Kashmir that needs to be resolved,” and the report that New Delhi would take the political initiative to win over the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people (read Muslims) and engage what certain elements in New Delhi call “moderates like the Mirwaiz and Yasin Malik,” to find out ways and means to resolve the Kashmir issue, indicate that neither the NC nor New Delhi would ever learn. The statement by Union Minister and NC president, Farooq Abdullah, in Delhi on July 10 that New Delhi must talk to the separatists as this was the only course left to restore peace in Kashmir also indicates that he and his party have learnt nothing.    

 

Here lies the basic problem. The Indian State is unwilling to move against the jihadis. Unless the authorities categorically say that Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India and that they shall not allow the politics of communalism and separatism to grow in Kashmir, there is no possibility a return to normalcy. The authorities have to act and comprehensively defeat the negative forces and jihadis at any cost. At the same time, they have to take on board those who have been holding the Indian flag in the state, braving all odds. They are in a majority and they include the people of Jammu and Ladakh and the internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus. They are Indians in the true sense of the term and hence the only stakeholders in the state.           

 

New Delhi must reject outright the all-party resolution as it is fraught with dangerous consequences. It must make it loud and clear that Kashmir is not Jammu & Kashmir and that it would introduce only such reforms that can integrate the state fully into India, and empower the grossly ignored Jammu and Ladakh and satisfy all patriotic people of Kashmir, including internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus. It must reject outright the suggestion that “a calibrated demilitarization of the state, as the situation improves, is also called for.”

 

The author is Chair Professor, Gulab Singh Chair, Jammu University, Jammu 

User Comments Post a Comment
Once again the Pakis have insulted India, once again Pakis have said that resolution of Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek disputes is essential to stopping export of Terror against India. GOI must resist US pressure and not get repeatedly humiliated. The situation in the Valley got worse in the run up to the talks. India can give any number of dossiers to Pakistan but they go straight into the dust bin. Peace with Pakistan is impossible. The day Pakis decide to make peace with India, they shall cease to exist as a nation. We need to strengthen our internal security and stop treating residents of the Kashmir Valley with kids gloves.
Namit
July 17, 2010
Report Abuse
In view of insinuatory and undiplomatic attacks by Pak Foreign Minister equating Home Secretary with the head of terrorist group in Pakistan, and criticizing Indian Home Minister Krishna for frequent consultations with Delhi, it is high time that India takes a tough stand on all issues related to Pakistan as follows:
[1] Kashmir is an undisputed Indian territory legally, constitutionally and geographically, and Pakistan has no claim over it after the King of Kashmir HariSingh signed the accession to India as per the Independence Act. of British. [2] The dispute relates to only U.N.Resolution No.1 which calls on Pakistan to vacate all its invading troops and irregulars from the Pak occupied Kashmir, which has not been followed by Pakistan so far. The discussions should have the main agenda of UN Resolution No.1 and how Pakistan proposes to vacate Azad Kashmir area [3] Pakistan has been refusing to achnowlegde presence of Dawood Ibrahim and Memon Brothers wanted for Mumbai blasts 1993 though there have been incontrovertible evidences and addresses, video-s presented by India. Same with 26/11 and Pak and other Muslim groups "Hindu terrorism" for the attacks!! But now Headley has confessed and the entire picture is clear of ISI and LeT monitoring the attack and India should not go for any talks unless the wanted terrorists are handed over for trials even in an international Court.
Sri
July 17, 2010
Report Abuse
The author has tried skillfully to criticize the stand of BJP Central leadership as if BJP has supported the NC on its some of the points.

While going through the statement of Arun Jaitley and the interpretation made hypothetically by the author in his view it appears that the author has tried to create confusion on the word Humanitarian. And by that way he has taken it in support of the separatists' demand of internal and external negotiation. Further the author has tried to create an impression that Congress is against any talk with external (Pakistan) negotiation and internal (separatists within Kashmir) negotiation, on author’s belief that for Congress Kashmir not an issue.

However in view of the recent visit of the Indian minister to Pakistan, no one can carry such impression. The matter could not move further in Pakistan simply because of the differences on the points of priorities for the discussion.

It was desirable from the author, instead of giving more punches to BJP, to give punches to the approach of Mehbooba (whohad been reported to had been kidnapped by the terrorists in Kashmir and the terrorists demanded to release 4 alleged terrorists from the jail. And the Congress lead government had agreed to that) who uses to speak the language of terrorists in indirect manner. But the author appears to have missed this willfully.
shirish dave
July 17, 2010
Report Abuse
For some observers it might be a sudden turn of events that the situation in the Kashmir valley has fast deteriorated and Army had to be called in. What happened to the claims of heavy tourist rush, successful Khir Bhavani pilgrimage and decline in terrorist related incidents. In fact there were clear warnings to the Indian State about its skewed understanding of events and some local journals as well as the Vijayvanii portal did carry out a series of write-ups for more than last one year against the flawed state policies and the gathering disaster in the form of an Intifada in Kashmir


The fact is that the Indian state is facing a serious predicament which is mostly self-created. Instead of contesting and exposing the regressive content of different variants of separatism in Kashmir – that is Aazadi, Autonomy or Self-rule, GoI has over the years concentrated mostly in transforming its violent expressions into non-violent agitational forms. GoI has been more ill at ease only with the violence of separatists, rather than their ideology.


The violence unleashed in the state is an inevitable consequence of the regressive exclusivist content of separatism. When GoI started describing terrorism as militancy, and terrorists as misguided youth, it was not merely a cosmetic or tactical ploy, but it reflected the outlook which guides its Kashmir policy. This outlook accords respectability to separatist cause. GoI is in fact face to face with a dangerous cocktail of non-violent Intifada and calibrated violent Jihad. Recent events in the state have shown that violence has not abated at all in intensity or sophistication.


Indian predicament only deepens the way it has allowed elected democratic dispensations to be undermined by none other than the elected governments themselves. GoI facilitated the People’s Democratic Party’s emergence on a soft secessionist plank. It introduced fierce competitive secessionism between PDP and NC on the ground. When PDP-led government assumed power, its leader described the elected government as merely an interface between Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been articulated time and again that that elections are only a makeshift arrangement for day to day requirements.


The ruling National Conference, taking a cue from PDP even before getting elected, described elections not as a solution, but only a day-to-day use arrangement. Hundreds of political workers have perished in the process of democratic mobilisation in Kashmir during the last one decade. When the world started recognising J&K elections as credible, GoI allowed the incumbent state governments to undermine their own legitimacy and credibility by describing themselves as mere ‘interfaces’ or temporary arrangements. The entire democratic mobilisation against the blackmail of armed separatism was disowned by allowing ‘Soft Secessionism’ as a guiding principle of Governance.



To cap it all, the GoI has allowed segments of our own strategic community and Track-2 diplomats to flirt with ideas of Independence of J&K or fully autonomous J&K. These ideas have been introduced from our side; and the rationale provided has been that counterpoising these options would checkmate Pakistan in Jammu & Kashmir. With Pakistan giving clear indications of supporting both autonomy and Independence options, GoI appears to have only checkmated its own self.



During the entire mobilisation for the present intifada in Kashmir, Jamaat and Dukhtaran-e-Millat cadres were given a free hand last year as well as this year. There are very few persons who know that none other than former Pakistan Army Chief Mirza Aslam Beg is on record saying that even Jamaat of Kashmir may support autonomy or independence.

It is now well known that the Intifada that has manifested itself in the organized stone-pelting mob violence is supported from across the border and heavily funded. Isn’t it an irony that no less a person than the CM of J&K had mooted proposals to rehabilitate the stone-pelters by offering them government jobs.

It is again ironic that how easily the elected representatives and the mainstream political parties have abdicated the political space in favour of the hooligans and the separatists. The situation has drifted to a point where only a serious and strong handling is required to bring this intifada to an end.
Shailendra Aima
July 17, 2010
Report Abuse
One thing could be discerned from the debates on TV on the one of the teenage stone pelter being killed by a tear-gas shell was that even the separatists have realized that they are losing popular support in the valley because in a world that is moving very fast everyone wants to move on in his life.
Indian Govt should built on this situation by providing good education to the children and corruption-free, good governance.
Krish
July 17, 2010
Report Abuse
If only India could act tough so many of its problems would be solved.
Vasant
July 17, 2010
Report Abuse
This is very well put.This not only reflects the consensus in Jammu but the of all the Hindus in India and elsewhere. BJP cannot and will not compromise on this issue, rest assured. It is time for people in Jammu and Ladakh to counter the minority of separatists in the valley.Your piece is right step in that direction.Try and spread it far and wide! Best wishes
Jitendra Desai
July 17, 2010
Report Abuse
I knew that my comments would be deleted as i spoke the truth (which is mostly hard to swallow),but i still stand for what i said earlier (you can delete the truth but it will always come back and haunt you),my only question to the writer and the commentators (the Islam phobes) above is, if Islam ,Muslims and Pakistan are the "usual culprits" then how would one explain what is going on in Naxal Land,Assam etc.?????
observer
July 18, 2010
Report Abuse
This is not the first time that taks between Pakistan and Bharat (aka India) have failed due to Delhi’s intransigence and propensity to focus on its own agenda. Bharti politicians torpedoed a golden opportunity to resolve all outstanding issues in Agra. The negotations have been failing since 1947, whether it was discussion of assets that were never sent to Pakistan, or it was the illegal occupation of Hyderabad. The result is the same. Bharati hubris and arrogance. The Bharati line goes like this:

1) Delhi will not third party involvement and all matters must be negotiated bilaterally

2) In bilateral talks, Bharat wants to concentrate of innuendo, rumor and propaganda to malign Pakistan

3) In bilateral talks, Delhi claims that Kashmir, Manvadar, Junagarh are Bhaarti territory and boundaries cannot be changed.

4) In the talks Bharat refuses to withdraw from Siachin and Sir Creek.

5) Talks fail

Bharat cannot impose peace—it has to work with “give and take”. It has to consider the other point of view. It has to learn the ability to resolve boundary disputes. Bharat has been unable to resolve its disputes, with Sikkim, Bhutan, China, Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives, and Lanka. All the countries of South Asia resolved their mutual disputes through boundary adjustments and through dialogue. Delhi does not have the capacity or the will to do so, because it is run by religious dogma which forces it to pursue an irredentist and revanchist policy of imposing its will on all the neighbors.

The Bharati attitude born out of meager success in the past decade is a bit more hardened. It thinks that it can force its opinions on a nuclear armed neighbor. It cannot force its opinions on Islamabad—or even on Lanka. Unless Delhi learns the art of diplomacy, it cannot have peace in the Subcontinent. Without peace, Bharat can kiss its regional or global ambitions goodbye.
observer
July 18, 2010
Report Abuse
It is a shame, that Hindu has never united, and fought against evils, they fight among themselves, and destroy each other, for greed of power and Kursi. WHERE ARE, THOSE GREAT, SELFLESS SONS AND SERVANTS OF BHARAT, ?!! God bless Bharat.
Trishool
July 18, 2010
Report Abuse
What "unity" are crying for,your religon is based on the division of people....The Caste System....A person from lower caste cant marry one from higher caste,a person is even killed if he drinks water from a well belonging to the upper caste,so still you are frustrated that you people are not "united"???The only benifactor of this system is the upper caste brahmins as this only serves to their purpose,they have all the benifits and rest are their "slaves",the only way you will get "unity" is when this caste system is abolished,which means end of hindooism as we se it today...now is'nt that ironic??
observer
July 18, 2010
Report Abuse
Oy Observer - a Hindu boy got killed in Pakistan for drinking water from a cooler outside the Mosque!!! How come?
Rani
July 19, 2010
Report Abuse
Oy Rani (probably that is how you people address each other ),its sad what happened in Karachi,it is totally agianist the teachings of Islam,but sick people are there too like where you live,but right now i was disscussing the core teachings of the religon for it stands for,the caste system is a curse that has to go if you people want "Unity"...thats all i was trying to say.
observer
July 19, 2010
Report Abuse
Oy Observer - dont know if you are Indian or Pakistani. But why Muslims in India are asking for CASTE Reservations and saying Ajlaf is ill-treated by Ashraf? Why Islam not solving the problem? If Islam cant, why not tell them to become Hindu again and let Hindu dharma take care of them? After all, Mayawati is going to become the PM one day.
Rani
July 20, 2010
Report Abuse
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at  editorvijayvaani@gmail.com
Post a Comment
Name
E-Mail
Comments