I think it is pretty clear that the Indian Government rushed into this because this is what their Hindu-nationalistic base wants - subdue the only Muslim Indian majority state. However, just like their ill-fated demonetization policy from 2016, they haven't given a whole lot of thought to what happens the day after. How long will they keep these restrictions? How far are they prepared to go if there is a mass uprising?
Absolute repeat of what happened in 1984 against Sikhs in Punjab. Play by Play. This is just the start of worse for Kashmir unfortunately. The young ones are in for a brutal ride especially. And no one will listen, as they are not Upper caste Hindus.
Are people not allowed to have opinions independent of their party now? There were plenty of Congresspeople who broke ranks and supported it. The opposition LS whips doing so is sad and frightening.
Amarinder Singh has not condemned Indian communication lockdown or curfew and ensuing brutalities, he only condemned breaking of state into two Union Territories in an unconstitutional way.
He is the same guy who supported Indian Army when they tied an innocent Kashmiri in front of a jeep and paraded him into town. His approach is very wily.
Indian Army's official publication, Baatcheet, asked for "Sikhs to be reported to authorities as they are dangerous criminals" in 1990. After such a blanket generalisation, Sikhs were indeed reported to authorities, and killed extra-judiciously. Mothers came to know what happened to their sons through newspapers replete with a photo of a cop getting bounty alongside the article branding her son as a militant. Just last month, 3 policemen were convicted of one such extrajudicial killing, and they were all pardoned by Punjab governor. Same governor attended a convocation ceremony where a student handed him a letter protesting the pardon of criminals, and the student was instead issued a show-cause notice of why a guest was humiliated. So nothing, it's all hunky dory in Punjab right now.
BTW, this is a classic Hindu Nationalist propaganda move. Justify past excesses, whitewash them by saying everything is pleasant in the present. Also, use an ad-hominem and paint the other as an opponent instantly.
When what how did you come to the conclusions from my post? What exactly made me a propagandist?
You have got to be kidding with Sikh regiment being one of the most valiant branches of Indian Army and a really high number of Indian Army soldiers per capita from Punjab.
There was Pakistan sponsored terrorism in Punjab, there isn't anymore.
I am countering propaganda, because this is personal for me. I cannot see an entire people silenced just because they are minorities, to be used to please the majority.
And Sikh regiment officers and privates mutinied too when they heard of Indian Army attack on Darbar Sahib, Amritsar (Sikh Golden temple). India changed recruitment policies for these regiments soon after.
Source: Understanding India's Counter-Rebellion Strategies during the Punjab Crisis - Philip Hultquist
See in all the glory how Indian Government victimized Sikhs, and blatantly Indian Army asked for Sikhs to be reported to authorities, as they are dangerous people who commit arson and murder.
I don't see any parallel. Khalistani separatism happened because Bhindranwale was propped by the Congress party to gain electoral giains. Who do you think the BJP has propped up now?
Hindu Nationalist, BJP is quelling democracy the same exact way. Minorities curfewed and muted to satisfy lust of majority. Nobody allowed to protest, and children as young as 11 jailed without charges. Same exact type of extra-judicial killings and molestation of women. Worse, state controlled India media being used as a weapon to justify all the excesses to the Indian masses. Manufacturing consent.
It don't matter you cannot get Asthma medicine or Insulin, but believe is this all will help you in the end. What a democracy to look up to.
Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark. The change is not like demonetisation rather a well thought and long-held demand of the present government. It has been there in the election manifesto since they started publishing election manifesto.
The new york times is entitled to its view on how India's elected government ought to run the country but that does not mean the government is going to forgo one of THE demands of the party founders.
The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is bad in any environment.
I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley?
Edit:
"Intorelent Minority" comes from Taleb's essay/book on the skin in the game
here is the link here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this
Here come the apologists. How can such a step be justified when the 12 million people did not vote for the said election manifesto? It's like saying UK is justified in annexing all of Ireland because people in England voted for it.
Oh god, Wikipedia has been taken over. Just look at the language and sources. All actions by India have been sugar coated with flowery language. Governor’s rule and Marshall Law is written as, “This allowed Governor Jagmohan to rule directly”. Not mentioning the fact that he dismissed a democratically elected government on a ruse.
How about the part where in 1986 75% of preprofessional admits, government jobs, etc were going to the minority community? Isn’t that a failure of government at some level? Do you expect that to persist in a democracy or that India should defend that setup? None of this is to be construed as an attack on KPs.
Mehr Chand Mahajan quoted in that article went on to Supreme Court of India. 370 allowed 100K of those refugees to be rehabilitated. When there was the possibility of more returning in 1980s, Indira Gandhi showed up and accused NC of bringing in 'anti-nationals'. But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary.
> But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary.
Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again.
Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
Be careful: this is the exact same line of reasoning the alt-right uses to conclude ethnostates.
Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
I think you misunderstood my comment or I failed to explain what I was trying to say. My point was that any nation state unilaterally revoking the autonomy of a region is undemocratic unless the people of that region vote for it. Imagine the Spanish military marching into Catalonia, shutting down all means of communication, arresting most Catalan politicians, lawyers and activists, and then unilaterally dismantling the Catalan parliament and constitution, just because people in Madrid felt so. I can't imagine anyone on HN trying to justify such a hypothetical event. I don't understand how anyone can justify this.
Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states.
But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it.
But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities.
The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.
> Imagine the Spanish military marching into Catalonia, shutting down all means of communication, arresting most Catalan politicians, lawyers and activists, and then unilaterally dismantling the Catalan parliament and constitution, just because people in Madrid felt so
I can't tell if you're being ironic. Because many similar things happened to Catalonia two years ago: arresting Catalan leaders, suspending parliamentary rule and autonomy, violently suppressing protests and dissent, censoring the Internet, imposing martial law.
The only thing that categorically did not happen from your list was an incursion by the Spanish military into Catalonia, although even that seemed possible for a period of time.
I agree with your stance re: autonomy, but Catalonia was a rather poor example.
I know similar things happened in Catalonia but no where near to this extent. AFAIR, Catalonian parliament was planning to hold a referendum on it's own and the Spanish police used force against protestors. That said it was no where as bad as what India has done. If Catalonia was cut off from the rest of the world, military deployed everywhere and no voices could be heard from them, Europe and the test of the would would go crazy over it. Also, don't forget Indian forces history in Kashmir.
May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example but I wanted to cite something that felt a bit more real and relatable.
> Also, don't forget Indian forces history in Kashmir.
Yes, this is the major difference between the two regions. But in terms of recent events, the main difference between Kashmir and Catalonia -- other than the lack of military involvement in Catalonia -- is the greater degree of oppression in Kashmir. Similar strategies and tactics were used by the more powerful polity in both crises.
> May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example
Yes, I originally wrote that in my comment, but deleted it because it seemed too rambling. In any case, I wouldn't hold up the reaction of the Spanish government to Catalonia's moves toward greater autonomy to be some kind of democratic ideal.
> I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley?
As long as a peaceful referendum is not held that lets the people of the region decide their own future?
Is this the official position of Indian Government right now? I don't think so. When was the last time India said they are eager or even open to holding a plebiscite if Pakistan military vacated it's part of Kashmir? AFAIR, India has always said Kashmir is it's internal matter and integral part and they proved it by literally annexing it 10 days ago. So no, Indian Government does not believe in paragraph five at all or any of the UN resolutions passed on Kashmir. If it did, instead of unilaterally "deleting" the Kashmiri parliament and constitution, it would have held talks with Pakistan about how to hold the referendum.
Also, if you cite UN sources then you must also agree with the reports about human rights violations in Kashmir by the UN and organizations like Amnesty International, right? If so, then you shouldn't be justifying what is happening right now but opposing it as that is the position of the UN. Otherwise you are just selectively citing things that re-affirm your point of view.
Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers?
If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself.
If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation.
And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.
I've been hearing this for last 3 decades and this is so patronizing. "Kashmiris don't know whats best for them so we'll rule them instead, because obviously they are incapable of Governing themselves". That is not for India or Pakistan to decide. Stop patronizing an entire people. 16 million of them.
> 1. Amnesty International is not a UN organisation.
I never claimed it was.
> 2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
> 3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
India literally annexed Kashmir 11 days ago by sheer military force. It unilaterally torn up the legal instrument on the basis of which Kashmir's Maharaja joined the Indian Union. Literally in one move nullified the constitution of Kashmir and their parliament without even consulting the Kashmiri parliament or people. India's own politicians, activists, journalists and Kashmiri Pandits have cited the move as illegal and unconstitutional.
> 4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
And I did not deny that source. I just pointed out that Indian Government does not actually abide by what you pointed out.
This is the official position of India. Amit Shah said this in the Parliament. Now Kashmir can only be solved through Shimla Agreement which calls for solving this issue billaterally.
Do you think separatists would win an election in Balochistan? (and I don't mean BNP). The situation isn't comparable to Kashmir. Balochistan wasn't one state in 1947 (accession of Kalat is separate case). iamshs is right to be sarcastic.
So nobody who is Muslim is ever allowed to have thoughts that aren't communal? They're not allowed to ask for independence as human beings? My God, is this what you all would have done to Cabinet Mission Plan?
> Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark.
To prevent what exactly? Political dissent?
Why can't people in Kashmir right now talk to each other over phone? Why can't they call their loved ones outside the region? Why isn't anyone else allowed to contact them? Why are lawyers, professors and activists being jailed? Why are some people not being allowed to leave the country? Why can't Indian politicians visit the region without being detained and sent back?
Okay, let's say they lift the ban here is how things will transpire.
First, Pakistan's ISPR would start a massive disinformation campaign aided by the separatist who lost all their influence with the present government but has a great following among the Kashmiri Youth.
Then there would immense violence with many dead while the "leaders" and there loved ones stay in a five-star hotel in Delhi.
To prevent a loss of life they had to do it. But it's slowly being downgraded and the curfew is absent in all but 4 districts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir
Edit:
I agree with you, that it is bad for people to have no communication channel.
C'mon, stop bringing Pakistan into this. India has mismanaged Kashmir so badly that the majority of the population wants to leave India -- and not to join Pakistan, mind you, but to be independent.
Pakistan is a big part of problem here by supporting militants and terrorists. Material, money and training support. Let’s not absolve Pakistan here. They invaded independent Kashmir in 1947 and Kashmir had to let go its independence to get support from India against Pakistan’s war.
Nah, tribals were armed by Pakistan. Tribals from Pakhtun invaded Kashmir. Locals actually helped repel the tribal attacks. Let’s not overlook stated facts.
So a resourceless Pakistan miraculously recovered from the bloody partition in mere three months to not only plan an insurgency, but also had the resources to execute it. Go Pakistan then? right?
Go learn your own history, Pakistan has given their highest bravery awards to these tribal invaders. Resourceless doesn't mean bereft of guns. British Army resources were divided among India and Pakistan.
You broke the site guidelines frequently and egregiously in this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules while posting here, regardless of how wrong or bad you think other comments are? And please don't use HN for nationalistic flamewar.
Like you said, let's not overlook the facts.
The fact is, India and Pakistan had visa on arrival up until 1974.
The fact is, people from both sides of the border could still get naturalised citizens across the border up until early 70s.
The fact is, both India and Pakistan did exactly the same things. Just look at the accession of Junagadh and Hyderabad estate into India. India got away with it because both the states were land locked and Pakistan couldn't help. If accession of Kashmir's raja is right, so was the declarations by nawab of junagadh and hyderabad.
The fact is, the 1947 war ended with UN intervention which demanded plebiscite for kashmir. India had agreed, but so far failed to conduct that. Not only that, India doesn't even allow UN observers, while Pakistan do.
I can throw in a lot of facts in here.
Hyderabad was a land locked pocket, and one of the conditions of partition was states aligning with Pakistan to be contiguous. How is Hyderabad contiguous to Pakistan? Junagadh claimed to be contiguous to Pakistan through bullshit reasoning of sea. So viability of these pockets was not feasible. India took over Goa the same way too. But Pakistan invaded Balochistan and Kashmir and forcibly occupied these territories, so it is not 'exactly the same things'. BTW, Pakistan did try to send weapons to Hyderabad through America.
First condition of plebiscite is withdrawal of Pakistani forces from occupied territories, 73 years and still waiting. India doesn't allow UN observers because they have outlived their utility, as LoC has been codified between Pakistan and India through Simla Agreement in 1971.
Huh what? Are you even aware of the history? Being independent has been their goal from day 1; that's the reason for the conflict. It's not because India has "mismanaged" Kashmir.
There was Hindu extremist dictatorship in 1947 when the conflict started? They originally wanted a separate country because they felt they are ethnically and culturally different to Indians. It didn’t become a religion issue until the 80s.
If Pakistan is not part of problem then why is it so much agitated by internal affairs of India?
Let's be clear here the call for 'Gajawa E Hind' (which means complete destruction of Kafirs in India and establishment of a Islamic rule) runs in most of the Pakistanis, though they can't do anything for this, the emotions are clear. On the other hand Pakistan is a military autocracy. Without enemity with India and a cause for fighting, their existence and dominance is threatened. For them the conflict is their oxygen.
Immense violence started in Kashmir back in 1989 when India pulled off something like this the last time. It started dying out by 1995-96 as India adopted a more democratic and less militaristic approach to Kashmir (Vajpayee's Kashmiriyat, Insaniyat, Jamburiyat) right until the current Government came in and started going back to the militaristic approach by quelling protests by brute-force. This move is not going to go well in Kashmir and the Government knows it. People are going to revolt and that is why the valley has been completely locked down. This is not about saving lives. If that was the case the forces wouldn't shoot protestors every years in Kashmir. This is about suppressing the voices of those who object.
India had made a lot of progress democratically in Kashmir and had actually won over a lot of Kashmiris. A lot of them either supported or tolerated Indian rule as long as their daily lives went on peacefully. With this move, they've lost all popular support they had in the valley. All pro-Indian Kashmiris I know personally are feeling betrayed and regretting that they supporting Indian rule in Kashmir.
Even elected pro-India politicians have been jailed and their voices suppressed. IMO this is going to result in people losing their belief in Indian democracy. Over the next few years, I expect number of militants in the Kashmir valley to grow rapidly. I think the valley will go back to where it was in early 90s. I hope it doesn't come to that but I don't see this playing out any other way unfortunately.
This time things will be different. Any militant movement needs money to grow - traditionally money (made using selling drugs) came from ISI [3]. Pakistan narrowly avoided FATF sanctions [1] (now in grey list but can be moved to black list this October) Now Pakistan's economy is tanking [2] and it clearly knows military options are not workable. No foreign governments except for China support them. Only option left is disinformation campaign aided by leftist media. [1] https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/watchdog-pakistan-co.... [2] https://herald.dawn.com/news/1398616
[3] https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b6fe2d2d.pdf
This is BS. Pakistani jihadis are not overcome with any kind words. The isolation of Kashmir was the problem and the government has taken the solution that the majority of the country agrees with.
The only people complaining are English language media who Modi has never cared about.
If the majority of the state wants Sharia law, that will still not happen. India is a country of 1.3 billion with at least 10 different languages. There are so many sub cultures in India that the people of India do not think a few Kashmiri separatists deserve independence. It will never happen.
The state is called Jammu and Kashmir and it is part of India's cultural heritage. Integration efforts may take time, but the alternatives are not an option for India. There are many pockets of Muslim majority around India, Kashmir will be no different. Despite the border with Pakistan.
On what basis do you imagine that any resistance or disinformation campaign by Pakistan and other interests would die down soon enough within days or weeks and make the central government allow bringing back Internet and mobile connectivity? It seems like it can never come back unless the concentration of armed forces increases manifold and punishments doled out as lessons for anything that looks like an infringement.
To me it seems like the situation cannot go back to how it was a month ago for a long time (several months, at the minimum).
Kashmir is a part of India and India is not an occupational force. Also India doesn't want another Syria/Afganistan/Pakistan/Sudan/Libya/Iraq happening next to it.
I look forward to the no doubt imminent abrogation of the Articles 371 that deal with the other integral parts of India such as Mizoram, Manipur (how's that AFSPA going over there btw), Nagaland, etc because all integral parts of India should be treated the same, right? If Kashmir is atoot ang why are you treating it differently like it has cancer?
A democratically elected Indian government has exercised it's mandate to update a temporary constitutional provision (370 and 35A and NOT 371 as mentioned above - these were granted 70 years ago) I'm not sure why foreign governments and media are getting fixated over it. Any armed struggle or insurgency movement against India will be crushed regardless. Also no other state or union territory has/had provisions for having separate flag, flawed property ownership and citizenship rights (currently a women loose her right as kashmiri citizen if she marries an outsider)
After denying the people of J&K the chance to democratically elect a government, a constitutionally dubious Presidential order was used to fundamentally alter the state. As an Indian, I find it concerning that our media is not fixated on this and instead is toeing the government line.
Simply put, it's preventing deaths. Kashmir is volatile and massive government decision like scrapping Article 370 is sure to create violent protests in the region. See Kashmir protests circa 2016 on how violent it can get.
India has always been bad at communicating effectively, clearly and loudly. Just read that Pakistan is claiming that India will attack AJK etc. I do not know the internal plans of Indian Army etc but I strongly believe India is not going to do it. But Pakistan make up so much stuff, put up fake videos, get embarassed but still they do not stop talking negatively about India and everybody else. The crying baby gets a lot of attention though even if it is crying for silly or fake reasons. So, for the Indian government, it has to make more noise than the crying baby, but also presenting supporting facts.
Now, the moment the controls in Kashmir are suddenly lifted, forget Pakistan, the opposition politicians and everyone whose wallet/influence is going to get lighter themselves will talk so much against the current government and create/add fuel to the negative sentiment in the Kashmiris. So, it is better to have controls to prevent violence. Better to not lose precious lives than otherwise.
Having said that, as some one above pointed out above, it is also mandatory for the government to ensure the availability of necessities. It is easy to criticize, not that we should not. But any big action like this will have something not going according to plan. Not every thing to extreme detail can be planned perfectly. So, I do want and hope that the government gets to know the ground realities, ensure availability of the necessities and also, with proof, talk about it wherever it can.
Listen to statements from Kashmiri leaders like Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. They've routinely threatened violence over any attempt to the abrogation of the article. What do you think they would've done after the abrogation was anounced? And unlike other states, political dissent in Kashmir is not anywhere close to peaceful. It includes stone pelting , murdering policemen and what not.
> The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for
This is a poor view of how areas should be funded. Governments are responsible for common welfare of a people, not to be run as a business that expects kickbacks and profit or returns on investment.
The fact is general population never received the money sent from Central government. Many have vested interests in autonomy of Kashmir, one of which are the elite three political families. They are the ones who have sucked all of that money.
> I think it is pretty clear that the Indian Government rushed into this because this is what their Hindu-nationalistic base wants - subdue the only Muslim Indian majority state.
Abrogation of Kashmir's special status has been a top agenda of the BJP for the past few decades. They are pretty big on "national unity", and they see the special status for Kashmir as going against this principle. They want Kashmir fully integrated into India once and for all. They also consider the indecision about Kashmir's status in India as being a prime cause for terrorism in that region. Kicking the muslims has very little to do with it.
Whether this step will backfire remains to be seen. Indians will have to ask some very tough questions about what kind of nation they want India to be, and whether the vision they come up with will be viable at all given the nature of the Indian society.
You know what else has been a top agenda for BJP? Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan. That is, single language, single religion, single nation.
BJP is a Hindu Nationalist party, and just because it is in their manifesto doesn’t mean it should have been fulfilled. The question to ask is, why is in their manifesto when there are other regions in India with similar laws? It is in their manifesto because Kashmir is a Muslim majority region. And BJP considers, Muslims and Christians as invaders and pests. This manifesto point is just utter bunkum to placate their Hindu Nationalistic base since 1950s, they finally got to fulfill it since they have the numbers and money power now. For the first time since India gained independence.
“Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan”, this takes Hindu as identity like American and not a religion.
“When there are other regions ...”, no, laws passed by the parliament were applicable everywhere except in Kashmir. So you had gems like child marriage not outlawed.
It’s lazy and biased journalism to just label them Hindu nationalists and portray them like some sort of evil overlords. India for centuries has been the most inclusive place in the world. Let’s not try and paint the majority as some kind of a clan of idiot oppressors.
But I am being told above that India is a secular democracy? So how come India wants a religion as an identity?
Keeping that aside though:
1. What is Hindu culture? Answer: It is a way to subjugate and bulldoze minorities and their culture. Hence the insidious name, acceptable to the majority and any opposition instantly termed as anti-Hindus. There is no need for such a divisive slogan when Indian culture already exists. It intentinally conflates Indian culture with made-up term 'Hindu culture'.
2. Why is the slogan being given by a Hindu Nationalist party? Answer: Hindu religion is their raison d'etre. They carry out their activities with justification as being benefitting Hindus solely.
3. Why does the slogan involve similar tones and reach as, "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer"? Fact: Members of this Hindu nationalist party (B.S. Moonje) met Mussolini and transported same bullshit to India. Golwalkar openly admired Hitler. These are people in power in India presently.
4. Why are the Indian cities names given by Muslim rulers being changed on lines of Hindu religious basis? Example: Allahabad has been changed to Pragyaraj, because Allah-abad is deemed as a Muslim name. Answer: Subjugation on religious lines to consolidate majority.
5. Try going to North East India without a special entry pass. Doesn't matter if you are India, you cannot certain North-East states enter without an Inner Line permit.
6. You cannot buy real estate in certain Indian states, like Himachal Pradesh. Doesn't matter if you are Indian or not.
7. They are Hindu Nationalists because they are using Hindu religion to consolidate majority, and are carrying out actions that they have wanted since independence. Hindu Nationalists killed Gandhi and were outlawed afterwards.
8. Let's not paint whole nation or its government as tolerant. In recent history, India has supported several terrorist movements in other nations.
A very ancient inclusive and compassionate culture. Even the name hindu was given by Persians/Arabs.
2. Why is the slogan being given by a Hindu Nationalist party?
The slogan was given to unify the nation and recognise the rich culture and heritage.
3. Why does the slogan involve similar tones and reach as, "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer"?
Stop with the nonsense please. I have even seen people draw equivalence like, Swastika-Nazi, Swastika-Hindu, Hindu-Nazi.
4. Why are the Indian cities names given by Muslim rulers being changed on lines of Hindu religious basis?
Why should a culture of thousands of years not roll back to the actual names for places which were changed by invaders? What has religion got to do with it? Should we also praise the queen?
5. Try going to North East India without a special entry pass.
Having booked hotel tickets all over north east for my parent's visits, I would say please stop with your propaganda.
6. You cannot buy real estate in certain Indian states, like Himachal Pradesh.
Unless you have been living there for some time. In Kashmir people who have been living for more than even 50 years didn't have voting and property rights.
7. They are Hindu Nationalists because they are using Hindu religion to consolidate majority, and are carrying out actions that they have wanted since independence. Hindu Nationalists killed Gandhi and were outlawed afterwards.
I am a Hindu and I am a nationalist. I don't want to kill people or put them under oppressive regimes like sharia. Being a hindu makes people evil? Is that your deciding criterion?
8. Let's not paint whole nation or its government as tolerant. In recent history, India has supported several terrorist movements in other nations.
>A very ancient inclusive and compassionate culture. Even the name hindu was given by Persians/Arabs.
What a complete bullshit of a definition. What are you even describing with that statement?
>The slogan was given to unify the nation and recognise the rich culture and heritage.
Why does the nation need unity? Why cannot rich culture and heritage not be recognized without a slogan?
>Stop with the nonsense please. I have even seen people draw equivalence like, Swastika-Nazi, Swastika-Hindu, Hindu-Nazi.
So you have no answer. Swastika is a Hindu symbol unofrtunately appropriated by Nazis.
>Why should a culture of thousands of years not roll back to the actual names for places which were changed by invaders? What has religion got to do with it? Should we also praise the queen?
Akbar was not invader, he was a third generation Indian. You are addressing him with 'invader' moniker because he was a Muslim. Simple. Well, ample number of Indians praise the queen. Punjab premier, Amarinder Singh, in fact has a portrait of his grandfather attending Queen Elizabeth's coronation ceremony which he displays out in the front.
>Having booked hotel tickets all over north east for my parent's visits, I would say please stop with your propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Line_Permit - You cannot visit Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh without ILP. So better arrange them for your parents. I have ample experience in North East.
>Unless you have been living there for some time. In Kashmir people who have been living for more than even 50 years didn't have voting and property rights.
You cannot buy real estate in Himachal Pradesh as an outsider. Period. It doesn't matter how many years you have been living there. Ample experience there.
>I am a Hindu and I am a nationalist. I don't want to kill people or put them under oppressive regimes like sharia. Being a hindu makes people evil? Is that your deciding criterion?
Mis-direction. Consolidation majority under name of religion is religious nationalism.
>Are you confusing India with Pakistan?
Search up Mukti Bahini in Bangladesh, LTTE in Sri Lanka, Balochistan/TTP militancy in Pakistan. Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
How many years does it take before you get to quit calling them invaders? 250? 500? Do you see people in England calling people with French names invaders?
You broke the site guidelines badly and more than once in this thread. That's not ok. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? And please do not do nationalistic flamewar, or any flamewar, on HN. It is not the way to counter wrongness—it just excites rage and intensifies opposition.
When I look at "What are the Most Spoken Languages in the World?"[0], I see so many in or around India, I can understand the need for unification of languages.
Unification of languages movement in India has an incredibly bitter experience for minorities. Just one example, a Hindu Nationalist group in Punjab opposed Punjabi as a language of Punjab, and if not acceptable, as a compromise they wanted Punjabi to be written in Devnagri, same script as that of Hindi. Same group led a very successful campaign in 1960s for Punjabi Hindus to change their mother tongue to Hindi instead of Punjabi in national census. They opposed Punjabi on religious lines.
Let's not bulldoze diversity with the sole aim to unify. The consequences are disastrous.
That's pure lies and propaganda. The brutal atrocities in past by invaders should not be forgiven, however, this doesn't mean to hate the descendents.
It is BJP which abolished Tripple Talaq, it is BJP which decriminalized homosexuality (Congress did not because it would hurt their voter base of Muslims), it is BJP, which is giving benefits on the basis of income, etc. Kashmir was and is integral part of India and it's culture. While we are on this no news outlets dared to talk about the genocide of thousands of Hindus, Buddhists and Suffis in Kashmir since 1989 by the Pakistan sponsored Islamic Terrorists.
If one comes on the ground instead of reading propaganda from news outlets dominated by Hinduphobic pessimists, it'll be better.
And to be clear NYT, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Bloomberg and even DW have anti-India sentiments because of lobbying and the vested interests.
It is the Hindu philosophy which is the most inclusive and that is why India was and is most diverse nation on the planet and not any Western nation.
'And to be clear NYT, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Bloomberg and even DW have anti-India sentiments because of lobbying and the vested interests.'
Hmmm vested interests going against India. My sympathies.
'It is the Hindu philosophy which is the most inclusive and that is why India was and is most diverse nation on the planet and not any Western nation.'
> You know what else has been a top agenda for BJP? Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan. That is, single language, single religion, single nation.
BJP's top leadership includes Modi, Amit Shah, Nirmala Sitaraman, Venkaiah Naidu, Nitin Gadkari etc. that come from non-Hindi states. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Literally religion had nothing to do with abolishment of article 370.
India is secular and this government is much more secular than any Congress coalition in the past few decades. NDA government is not a appeasement government.
If India is so secular why is there a tax law called Hindu Undivided Family or HUF, which Muslims cannot use to reduce their taxable income? How can a damn tax law be applicable on basis of religion?
If it is so secular then why does Indian Constitution term Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under Hindu religion umbrella. Since when is it for the constitution to define religions?
If India is so secular than why does it ban beef, sacred animal only to Hindus?
If it is so secular then why does it welcome Hindu refugees from Pakistan and expels Muslim Rohingya refugees?
I'm not sure why you're avoiding talking about the role of Pakistan in creating the whole conflict in Kashmir. Pakistan invented out of the whole cloth an armed struggle aspect to the Kashmir situation.
It's extremely convenient on your part to talk pointwise all the Pakistani talking points and yet avoid talking about the 90% causative factor in this entire mess.
FYI, Indian Muslims have their own personal law while the rest of the population follows uniform civil code. They get Hajj subsidies and other perks that no other community gets. As for taking refugees, a country can deny entry based on any number of reasons. In 2018, the number of refugees taken in by the US has gone down. That doesn't mean US is less secular. I agree Indian constitution is not the most secular but it definitely is not anti-minority.
Hindus are also given subsidies for travel to their religious sites, inside India and to China. Mansarovar Lake and Amarnath pilgrimage.
So that is one propaganda point of yours busted.
Let's bust the second point: Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?
That's a strawman argument. Even if what you say is true, are you proposing no communities other than minorities should get any perks? Also, do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Most of what you are saying seem to be just your opinions.
So why did you bring up subsidy as an argument for Muslims? Was that not a strawman?
Every single thing I said in this thread can be googled. Nothing in here is my opinion by an established fact. And facts can hurt because they ain't easy to counter. So go Google it, I ain't doing your homework for you.
I can say the same thing and just dismiss all your points. You are creating false equivalence between Hajj and amarnath. The Indian government controls all Hindu temples and derives revenue. So what is the problem in subsidizing these when the profit from these sites is used up within the country? On the other hand, Hajj spending goes out of the country and is a dead investment. And mind you, only Hindu institutions come under government purview by law. None of the minority institutions are touched.
Dismiss them all you want, I am setting your propaganda straight. There ain't no false equivalence there. Subsidy for religious pilgrimage for Hindus and Muslims exists, and you cherry picked Muslim subsidy only and I set it straight. So Hindu pilgrimage subsidy is acceptable because the money is spent inside India? Taxpayer money is still being spent on a religious cause and Mansarovar is in China and not India.
Why are you cherry picking only mansarovar to further your propaganda? There are thousands of Hindu sites inside India that provide employment opportunities and revenue to the state. And yes Hajj doesn't do that. If stating that is propaganda then so be it.
Ideally the state shouldn't spend a rupee on any religious subject. But the Indian law allows the government to take the revenue from Hindu institutions while minority institutions are exempt. If we are to accept your point, the government shouldn't take the profits from the Temples either. You just don't seem to see this at all.
Haj subsidy is history. Why are you still harping on it? (And by the way, it went to Air India tickets at inflated prices). If this money actually gets spent on Muslim girls' education now like government claims I will feed Najma Heptulla and Modi laddus myself. I also agree that government should not take money from temples without temple boards' consent.
Haj subsidy is not history. It is targetted to be removed by 2022. I was harping on it because the other commenter cherry picked it and it is good to have discussions on matters that are usually brushed under the carpet. I am glad that you at least partially agree with me on unfair govt policies.
AMU is a public central university. My argument is specifically about places of worship. Educational institutions are an entirely different discussion.
"Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?"
That bill deals with religious oppression in the neighbouring countries in India (mostly legacy of partition). Are muslims being oppressed in the islamic neighbouring countries?
Rohingyas are genuine refugees that have been oppressed. That bill codifies that Muslims cannot be oppressed, which is a patently false observation that a supposedly secular country should not have to resolve to.
That would sure seem to be the case unless you see from where refugees are allowed. They are not allowed from all over the world, only areas dealing with partition or Indian history.
Maybe familiarise yourself with Indian geography; you see between Xinjiang and India, there is this mountain range called Himalayas. Pretty big mountains those ones. Nepal has no internal disturbances, and India-Nepal border is absolutely open allowing free flow of people.
You know people can travel to different countries which are separated by mountains, oceans, deserts right? But those people won’t get citizenship unless the partition and Indian history part holds.
My family is Ahmedi. We left India in 1947. Pakistan stripped us of our right to vote in 1974-84. I guess we can't be oppressed there, chief. Congratulations on your airtight logic.
If India is so secular, why is polygamy allowed for Muslims, but not Hindus ?
Equal treatment does not mean same treatment.
A doctor treats both men & women equally, so he gives the woman estrogen and the man testosterone. Would you prefer it if the doctor gave everyone estrogen ?
Lol. Lets just say it thus; In the usa we have freedom of religion, but a minority of religions have a majority of special rights. The same is true for India.
Because gender equality and minority rights points are being used as a greenhorn to subjugate an entire minority. Article 370 giving them autonomy is gone, and not only their autonomy is gone but the state has been degraded as a Union Territory directly under Federal control.
A law which has been abrogated by locking down 10 Million people, and not allowing them the right to protest. I think we all know why the law has been forced in.
Kashmir wasn't exactly a peaceful paradise before the abrogation of the article. Stone pelting was a regular affair and long term curfew has been enforced previously in 2008 and after Burhan Wani's death. The Federal Government has to ensure security of the people to prevent bloodshed.
It might be a trope for you, but not for the people who routinely get gunned down by Pakistan backed terrorists and incur significant bloodshed in the process.
Sound reason to take away constitutional protections of people without any discussion, caging them and shutting them down. Security of the people trope has always eroded protections of populace, and this one is not any different. Except Hindu nationalists are cheering it on, as Muslims are being shown their place.
Your "Muslims are being shown their place" has no basis. Why there is no lockdown in Kerala and UP which have a good percentage of Muslim population? Curfew and communication is often enforced at other places as well, especially the ones where riots have happened for some reason.
370 and autonomy is just a dog whistle for subjugating minorities and women. You didn’t answer my question: Why wait to fix minority/ women rights for 70 years?
Kashmir’s minorities have drastically decreased in the last 70 years due to large scale systematic cleansing and India has increased its minority population.
That's false. Demonization is not relevant to any of this. Article 370 was a temporary provision in the Constitution. It's removal was on BJP's agenda since 80s. India's founding founders like B.R. Ambedkar were also somewhat against having seperate set of rules for J&K. The most likely reason for it's removal is that Article 370 still protected regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage and created a beaurocratic roadblock in implementation of Federal Government schemes(like reservation).
The claim that this was done to subvert state's Muslim majority doesn't hold merit. India has states like Punjab, Nagaland and Mizoram which don't have Hindu majority and are still doing well.
Any country that has been paying attention in recent years knows that the internet allows the opposition to organize, coordinate, and recruit effectively.
The US and China deal with this by ensuring they have leverage over the platforms that people use to communicate. Other countries that do not have this leverage, have to resort to shutting down the internet in areas of unrest.
You know what, that "resort to" will probably cause more uprising.
Some people maybe don't care about what ever is happening outside, but now they cannot connect to Steam anymore.
China was disconnected Xinjiang from the network in the past. During that time, some Xinjiangers traveled to neighboring province so they can take care their business in some online game. I guess they were the people who received the most piss from the disconnect, not those "uprising organizers".
Note that I'm talking about shutting down the internet in general, not this specific issue. I've heard that India has done this in the past for other things as well.
That's the thing though right? You can support annexing a region but not also letting the area fall into chaos/have civilians killed. If the "practical" way to do this is to shut down the internet and prevent chaos from spreading, the argument that this is the "right" thing to do isn't too far off.
Not that I condone this line of thought necessarily.
Kashmir is already part of India, since 1947. No question of 'annexing'. It was given 'special' privileges, which lead to nothing for 70 years. Now they were revoked.
Imagine if Florida had special privileges like No Federal Tax , and yet continued to remain a s*ithole like, say Missisippi? How would other states take it?
Not just internet but mobile phones and even landlines. Only a handful out of 100s of newspapers are being published and that too with restricted pages. Mainstream pro-India political leaders have been arrested along with lawyers, professors, activists and general public.
Shutting down the internet in an effort to "keep the peace" is really dystopian: how do Indian citizens stand for it?
Maybe they're used to it?
FTA: "While Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promoted the rapid adoption of the internet, particularly on smartphones, to modernize India and bring it out of poverty, the country is also the world leader in shutting down the internet.
The country has increasingly deployed communications and internet stoppages to suppress potential protests, prevent rumors from spreading on WhatsApp, conduct elections and even stop students from cheating on exams. Last year, India blocked the internet 134 times, compared with 12 shutdowns in Pakistan, the No. 2 country, according to Access Now, a global digital rights group, which said its data understates the number of occurrences."
They're not used to it. Most of them have been fed state propaganda through virtually all media for decades. The rest don't really care and a small minority are going mental over this trying everything they can to pressurize the Government but it isn't working.
I live in a country where I hope something like this would be illegal, so I'm not necessarily the best person to ask. I might complain when internet access is blocked for people who aren't me, though.
Indian citizens, at least the progressive thinking ones, do not stand for shutting down the Internet connectivity for any purpose, more so since the governments (central and state) have been doing it without transparency and without strong laws or enforcement to protect freedoms.
Internet Freedom Foundation [1][2] has been trying to make this a thing of the past, but it's very early days. As a tangential example, postal services are stopped in Kashmir now. Nobody is able to find the exact government order that made this possible. This is despite having RTI (Right to Information, the equivalent to the US FoIA). That's the sad level of governance going on for a long time in the country.
Majoritarian views — that prefer less freedom — on social media and broadcast media like TV don't help the situation much.
In my city Jaipur, there was internet shutdown for last 3 days in some areas because communal tensions flared up and situation had to be brought under control. I stand by it because putting myself in the administration's shoes, I know for a fact that you WILL have a lot of casualties if you don't do that. It's a sad reality.
Something I find very hilarious is that come election time,
these same stupid people somehow become magically smart enough to elect the very same said administration.
I don't think you are aware about Kashmir's situation prior to the abrogation of the article. Stone-pelting(sponsored by seperatists) and murder of civilians by terrorists were common. There is also significant amount of Pakistan-backed propaganda in the valley. Pakistanis have already flooded the internet with photos/videos from Syria, Palestine etc. and are claiming them to be from Kashmir. Considering this, what do you think would've happened if communication was fully open?
Hmm if the Pakistani people and media are lying keeping the internet open and showing their lies should be the reaction. Keeping it closed and hiding what is happening inside Kashmir will make the situation worse.
There are many instances in history where coercion was required to bring peace, especially in "bad situations" ranging from war to insurgencies to domestic terrorism. Most notable examples: Germany in 1945, Japan in 1945, counterinsurgency in Iraq in 2007-08, rooting out LTTE in Sri Lanka in 2009.
May be I should have clarified a bit more. I am talking about coercion of the native populace of an internal region by its own government. The first two were global conflicts. The last one may qualify but again it is a self-serving cycle. You create a situation which leads to a region revolting and then you need to pacify it through force.
> I don't think you are aware about Kashmir's situation prior to the abrogation of the article.
I'm no expert, of course, but I am generally aware of some of the issues in the region (disclaimer: I may not be a neutral source–none of my family members are Pakistani). I'm still of the opinion that shutting down the internet is a government overreach.
Would your opinion lead you to believe that India should act quickly and remedy the unacceptable state of affairs in which the residents find themselves?
At what point is a region so distinct from the state in which it resides that the best course of action would be secession? When I read the news I see conflicts in integration every where: Hong Kong, Kashmir, Kurdish Syria / Turkey. My general feeling is that due to a number of factors (imperialism, war, etc.) that our current global map just doesn't reflect the reality of international relations, unfortunately border disputes are rarely resolved peacefully...
I think the reality is that while politicians draw borders, and governments like them not to move, people move, ideals change, cultures spread and any region eventually doesn't match its lines on a map.
Sometimes it's messy (Yugoslav Wars), sometimes it's more civil (Virginia/West Virginia). But change happens. It's how we react and manage that change that helps define us as a people.
Balkanization has been tried, you know. Thousands of times. That doesn't work so well either. It sounds glib and naive, but at the end of the day the path to peace is just for people to stop fighting, forgive past sins and learn to live with each other.
And generally that happens only after they get wealthy. Which makes shutting down core civil infrastructure deeply counterproductive.
Well India has 20-30 odd states that are each, as distinct as countries in Europe. So answers to your questions lie in understanding how they have stayed integrated inspite of all the differences.
Shakshagam valley has been ceded to China by Pakistan as it not was contiguous territory, so Pakistan got Brownie points. Aksai Chin was not given by Pakistan to China.
Am Kashmiri. Was born there. Have family there. My parents were born and raised there. This is scary even for a region marked by persistent curfews, border clashes between two nuclear powers, and an ongoing series of conflicts between insurgents and the Indian Army.
We have extended family from whom we haven’t heard any news since this went into effect. It’s all just anxious waiting.
What could possibly be the endgame from this unless you’re trying to actively foment rebellion? How can this have any widespread support?
Mail has been banned as well. Cable TV was banned according to initial reports but recent reports say cable TV is now allowed. No idea about radio stations.
Why didn’t PDP grant permanent residency to the Sikh and Hindu refugees in Jammu from Poonch, Rawalakot, etc? No one is saying they would have gratefully voted for them but BJP talking point would have gone. Did they think they would demand the assembly seats from Muzaffarabad, Bagh etc?
NYT forgot something, let me add new information - Kashmir Valley is one the few places in post-partition India where successful ETHNIC CLEANSING of local minorities (Hindus) took place.
You reap what you sow. You kicked out real Kashmiris for the sin of being Hindus. Look at their slogan...
Azadi ka matlab kya ? La ila illila.. So, if your not muslim you have no place in Kashmir or its Nationalist movement.
No wonder, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhist are unequivocal about their support of Indian action.
Because the article is actually a pretty interesting look at how reliant the world has become on the internet.
“I don’t know when to sleep, when to wake up, what to do with my life,” he said during a rare foray outside on Monday evening for Eid al-Adha, the holiest festival in Islam. “There is no life without internet, even in Kashmir.”
this link violates all the guidelines of hackernews...i recommend taking it down.. it is a political hit job hinduphobic article thinly disguised as internet shutdown news.
Shopkeepers said that vital supplies like insulin and baby food, which they typically ordered online, were running out. Cash was scarce, as metal shutters covered the doors and windows of banks and A.T.M.s, which relied on the internet for every transaction. Doctors said they could not communicate with their patients.
While nobody expects a war in their city, it's yet another example of why none of us should rely on the internet as our sole means of doing anything.
Imagine a city where cashless transactions were the norm. Then imagine some political group (internal or external) decides to cut off the internet to that city.
While I understand where you’re coming from, I don’t agree with this sentiment.
Imagine saying this about electricity or gasoline. Modern cities would be completely shut down without these resources, and we should treat the Internet in the same way - as a vital resource that we simply accept as present except in the most egregious or catastrophic circumstances.
In many previous conflicts, electricity and gasoline were cut off or in short supply. Being able to keep infrastructure running without them was an important part of the war effort.
Kashmir wasn't independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with India, but presumably some individuals did.
Satellite Internet access would also be shutdown in a scenario like this, since it would be the government permitting or denying who operates a satellite to provide such services and the associated spectrum used...unless other countries or individuals are able to put up satellites to help people in oppressive regimes (slightly similar to the concept of Tor). Is there something like this? Perhaps neighboring countries that do not agree with the regime's decisions (like Pakistan in this case) could help. India demonstrated the ability to bomb low orbit satellites a few months ago. With the current regime showing no hesitation to bring two nuclear countries close to a war, all bets are off for such efforts by Pakistan.
Blocking satellites is much harder than shutting off the internet by ordering the telcos to. Jamming is possible, but takes a large commitment. Destroying satellites from unaligned countries is an even larger commitment, and not a great plan if you want to keep them unaligned.
In practice satellite very often works when nothing else does.
The thing is, only the few rich will be able to afford this kind of backup. This is Kashmir we're talking about, essentially a third world country still.
Satellites are extremely directional. A foreign entity can’t just launch a satellite over night. You could move a satellites trajectory hypothetically, but at what cost and what loss to the current users of that satellite. It’s just not realistic. US satellite internet providers are telcos. If cable is shutoff, it’s easy to shutoff satellite by a government. If it’s just power outage by a 3rd party, then satellite is the best option. However...how would you pay for it??
> If someone invents a way to bottle spare internet, that's the next unicorn for sure
Internet's architecture is already like this (See Alan Kay). You can create your own local networks, Problem is the centralized applications built on top of it.
Internet is far more critical than gasoline or even electricity. Everything is IP based, and processes for just about everything are dependent on some random service in AWS.
In a significant civil unrest event, it would be very feasible for a prepared party to create widespread disruption on a regional level.
The relevance of electricity depends on the scope.
Most institutions have continuity plans that allow them to function, perhaps in a degraded state, with widespread power failures. Hospitals will be functioning, cellular towers will be running, first responders will function and at least basic commerce can carry on. That “limp along” period ranges from days to weeks.
There are also different types of electrical outages. A hurricane or earthquake can wipe out infrastructure. Civil unrest may cause disruption. Open warfare will cause more strategic disruption and limit restoration.
I'm not Indian or Kashmiri, and haven't been following this closely until very recently. So I don't really have the information I need to form an opinion, and it would be inappropriate for me to pollute the internet with my thoughts on the subject.
Given what you just wrote in your top-level comment, that's an odd take. You wrote, "it's yet another example of why none of us should rely on the internet as our sole means of doing anything".
if the leader of a society is driving that society toward a Internet-based, cashless system, it doesn't much matter what you as an individual want to do, it's a matter of what the people around you can accept.
Ergo, based on your statement above, Modi's drive toward a electronic, cashless monetary system is a bad idea.
(as a personal aside, it's pretty clear now why someone with authoritarian tendencies would like a centralized, electronic payment system. it makes control of a population much easier.)
To that I say having diversity of connectivity physically (diverse fiber paths) and logically (BGP) is probably the best defense. I concede your point of the risk. However I don’t think we should cower in fear of such a thing - we should use this as inspiration to build a robust infrastructure.
All of this is moot if you are getting raped between two bigger powers who don’t care about you - that is a Layer 8 issue.
Don’t all cryptos rely on a global network consensus for operation? How would Kashmir’s forked chain resynchronize with the larger chain once back online?
Mesh networks can still connect up to the internet. "The internet" is a concept and isn't really owned or controlled by anyone. It's more about the ledger itself being distributed. It'll definitely be much slower. though.
"The internet" may be a concept, but the router your part of the mesh connects to is a physical machine that may be out of power. The GP's questions remain valid and unanswered.
It’s not valid. Mesh networks can cross boarders to hook up to another country’s internet. The GP should have done some research before asking a question with an obvious answer.
Bitcoin has a Lightning Network which can work independently and only uses the main blockchain to settle disputes, so it could keep operating for as long as there was non-disputed capacity left in the isolated segment.
Adding capacity would require some way of accessing the consensus, but it could be done by the parties updating their blockchain by just importing new blocks from a trusted source (not necessarily the same), like a friend with a USB drive.
Not even that, it's enough to take down a few backbone routers. The same reliability that prevents forging it would break any used cryptocurrency in two, if it even works at all.
Or imagine an island hit by a hurricane. The lack of sufficient physical cash on-island in Puerto Rico after Maria in our telecomms-free condition was paralyzing for a couple of weeks.
And that's the US, no weird third-world phone-only transactions, just no Visa network for a while.
While it is a territory, I wouldn’t categorize it to be similar to Hawaii. They are essentially autonomous compared to US states. This also means (whether anyone likes it or not) they are placed on a separate priority than a place like Hawaii or Alaska. Could you imagine Hawaii shutting down? Internet would be back up in 1 day.
Until recently, I had a strongly positive impression of India, as an outsider: rapidly modernizing, forward thinking and tolerant. Indians I meet in real life certainly tend to reinforce that position. However, I stumbled upon Indian Twitter during the election campaign, and I have been shocked by the vicious hatred and massive troll armies, that exceed anything I’ve noticed elsewhere. I imagine that WhatsApp is worse. The shocking behaviour has greatly diminished my opinion of the country, and it now strikes me as a powder-keg of hate.
The article mentions that the internet is being promoted as a way of advancing the country...if that’s advancement, it may be better for India to hit the brakes.
You judged a country of a billion people by two small subsets. No country has as diverse a people as India. It comes with its own set of problems. "don't use the internet" reeks of such privilege.
That’s a reasonable point, and I do try to keep some perspective. The number of “likes” and retweets for the hateful posts does seem to scale for India’s massive population.
India also has a long history of deadly “communal violence”, something that doesn’t really happen in other democracies. If questioning whether it’s wise for companies like Twitter and WhatsApp to allow incitement for violence to exist in such an environment is regarded as “privilege”, so be it.
There is a reason for proliferation of hate on Twitter and that is the skewed form of secularism that the Indian state has followed all these years. Those who have lived in India know that most of the time the state is lenient towards minorities even when they commit crimes. Even history has been whitewashed to portray invaders as benign rulers so as to not offend minorities. In some ways the Indian Natinal Congress turned the country's polity into minoritarianism because they realized they could continue winning elections with just their votes (this statement is a bit of a simplification). The majority which has silently been observing this got a voice with the advent of social media. For someone who doesn't have this context, Indians will of course look hateful and communal.
Every party panders to their vote bank. It isn't different from anywhere. Just so you know my original point wasn't proBJP or pro INC. Secularism and diversity is hard. That doesn't mean we forget our tenets
Thanks for that forthright answer, and it does seem to match the themes I’ve seen on Twitter. I think to many people, the idea that hatred and violent threats could be seen as a valid response to grievances, even if justified, is beyond the pale, especially in a democracy. As I said, I had a very different understanding of India prior to being exposed to it on Twitter. I appreciate your honesty.
> I have been shocked by the vicious hatred and massive troll armies, that exceed anything I’ve noticed elsewhere
Mutual distrust and animosity was always there underneath the surface. The internet is just making it a lot more visible to outsiders.
Don't forget that India itself was born during violent and widespread Hindu-Muslim clashes that displaced some 10+ million people from their homelands and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others. The past history of India has been quite violent if you think about it. We have had several insurgencies fueled by ethnic hatred and real or imagined grievances. The 80s and the 90s were very violent years. We had the Gujarat riots (or pogrom, depending on whom you ask) as late as 2002.
The freewheeling, anonymous nature of the internet just makes ideas fueling hatred to spread fast. Now it is easier for skilled rhetoricians to infect others. Everyone is getting radicalized - Hindus, Muslims, various caste and ethnic groups, you name it.
All this is not even counting any bots and propaganda armies on the internet working overtime to project a certain narrative. I fear that things might get worse, much worse, before they get better.
I always wondered why doesn't the government install a few hundred web cams across the big cities for the rest of world, including the journalists to see the reality. Why do only the journalists have to travel there and take pictures of whatever corner they want and tell whatever story they want to tell.
Reminds me of the time terrorists were shooting up Mumbai. A "brave" TV news channel gave live coverage. Intelligence agencies found out that the live coverage was being used by handlers to give specific instructions to the attackers.
Definitely old videos. At least most of them. Also the account sharing the video is a high ranking police office. Not sure why an Indian police officer is a reputable source in this situation but NYT, BCC, HuffPost, AJE, BusinessInsider, etc are not.
fakenews NYT is more reliable than someone on the ground.. hilarious
check the twitter feed this journalist also
https://twitter.com/AdityaRajKaul/status/1161226787352825856
The only time I accepted Govt offer was to take around 40-50 journalists in batches of 5 on a chopper to show Srinagar yesterday after Eid prayers. This was to bust rumours of massive protests or state brutality. There were no people visible on the streets. Restrictions in place
The Government of India has applied unnecessary force in trying to remove dissent, prevented lawful assembly and removed the right to be able to exercise their constitutional guarantees including the right to vote (the recent election was postponed, the legislative assembly was dissolved and governer's rule has been applied).
This provision was guaranteed by the constitution and the government should have called for the people's opinion either through a vote, or through their elected representatives. Instead what we see is a shadow of facism in the country - elected representatives are jailed, curfew is imposed and the rights of the state enshrined in the constitution is removed.
What next for India - new laws to call anyone a "terrorist" without due process (happening now), presidential style election and a change to the constitution to elect our "Dear Leader" for perpetuity.
Planet’s satellites use Indian launch vehicles due to their economic viability. They were muted in their response to Debris in outer soace due to Indian anti satellite test.
Degraded? Oh, is it looking bad for India? Then India should stop doing bad things. 10 Million people are caged right now, while you can express yourself and you have the audacity to try to mute me too now.
Here's your source, I am not into bullshit:
“While Planet enjoys a great working partnership with agencies of India’s government — like ISRO — we categorically condemn the anti-satellite missile intercept recently conducted by India’s defense department,” the San Francisco-based company tweeted March 27. “Space should be used for peaceful purposes, and destroying satellites on orbit severely threatens the long-term stability of the space environment for all space operators. Planet urges all space-capable nations to respect our orbital commons.”
Planet will still not be boycotting ISRO and using them for the upcoming launch of 5th series of Dove satellites.
Caged? Why spread lies? Do you even know what it means to cage 100 people let alone 10 million people? Don't fool yourself and others.
India did not do anything different through ASAT test, many others have done that anybody who is saying India did wrong thing first blame those who started it. India just attained capability for the sake of self defence.
If J&K Police has some cell in Srinagar writing form letters to Twitter in San Francisco every time someone posts something they don't like God help them when the Internet comes back on.
Hindu Chauvinist party. Really? There are dozens of countries with Islamic constitutions. Do we call all their leaders Islamic nationalists? There is a serious effort to malign democratic norms in India unless it is only for Islam, which was the state of affairs for J&K. Hindus in Jammu and Ladakh which were part of the state of J&K were second class citizens. That has been removed. Property rights of females is also restored unlike the Kashmiri Sharia influenced constitution.
Kashmiri separatism is another in the line of Islamic jihadi separatism. It was co-opted by the Pakistanis because they only consider that Muslims can live ruled by Mullahs and Sharia and an Islamic constitution.
You will probably find 75% people in India or more in agreement with Modi's action. The whip of the largest opposition party quit his party because he agreed with BJP's actions. Remember that the resolutions passed parliament with 66% of votesin the Rajya Sabha and 84% in the Lok Sabha. That is greater than the numbers of the BJP so many other parties joined them in this.
India's 1.3 billion people will have no problem fighting another war with Pakistan if again attacked over Kashmir.
The international media might as well get used to it.
I hear that Janata party trying to get Jan Sangh people to resign their affiliations went over like a lead balloon in the seventies. BTW, Kashmiris liked them. RSS people can keep their membership and be called secular?
Hinduism is secular. Where have historically persecuted people of the world gone? To Hindu India. Indian Hindus are why Zorastrian people still exists as a religion. They had to flee Iran and Islamic domination hundreds of years ago.
Hindu India has its share of casteism, which is a real problem. That I can agree with.
I somewhere read that Zorastrianism was once the primary religion of Perisan Empire? Would like to know what exactly has caused their numbers to dwindle so much.
Hinduism is/was the culture of the Indian subcontinent. Western society defined religion as a matter of faith. In India faith was not exactly part of your culture. That was in addition to your culture.
Hinduism is a religion in modern times, defining it as culture of India is one of the stated aims of Hindu Nationalist movement. Culture is a pluralistic adventure, and winds across religious divide. Defining it as Indian culture means subjugating other religions, which is a Hindutva endeavour. In Punjab, after Aryan migration Punjabis didn’t have any stated religion until Islam and Sikh religion came along, co-opting the no religion stance before as Hinduism is a grave stance to take.
Exactly how many people does she think are going to vote in panchayat elections in Baramulla, Anantnag, Sopore, Shopian, etc? Has she checked the turnout last time?
Mesh networks please! Briar, Meshenger , heck maybe we need to make a cell phone app to provide internet connection sharing over WiFi and or Bluetooth ad hoc networks.
Can it replace full isps? Almost never. Can it enable light text based things like emails, ordering supplies or cashless trxns? Maybe...
The biggest problem is scale of course, having such a large geographic area would require most of the population to have this mesh app active at once plus several 'exit nodes' with access to actual isp traffic somewhere in other regions.
IDK this is a spitball reaction that I considered not posting as it doesn't seem very thought provoking like normal HN comments but if it Sparks discussion then it will have done its job.
I generally try to stay away from threads related to Kashmir across social media because they tend to be toxic with people having absolutely no regard for democracy and basic human decency towards others. I thought HN discussion would be better and while it was a little better, it turned out to be more or less the same. In retrospect, I shouldn't have expected otherwise.
Speak for people who are silenced. Don't let overwhelming propaganda demotivate you, the article stands for itself. Propaganda in here is actually transparent and future visitors will be able to discern it. Make their job easier.
In a historical sense, when a government shut off communications out of some place somewhere, has there been a time they were just doing good things? In a Bayesian sense, I feel like any time someone is saying "Nobody from inside here can tell anyone outside anything", that someone isn't really doing good things.
I wonder if it's worthwhile to install some sort of LibertyWeb that forms a meshnet+satellite internet that allows text through, just in case governments turn authoritarian.
It would have been occupation if Kashmiris had lesser rights but that's not the case. People don't ask what rights did people of Kashmir didn't have that people of India had since 1947.
India is a country of diverse religions, and ethnic groups.
If a minority group demands separate nation should you give autonomy to it? If London becomes Muslim majority, and demands separation, should England give in to that demand?
If India gives away Kashmir, it means you can never trust minority of your country because they can ask for separate nation and the world will support that demand.
Do we really think that helps the cause of minorities in India or any other country in the world?
It's not just about the religion. Pakistan will most likely use Kashmir as a terror launchpad against other regions of India. From India's perspective, the region is strategic than anything else.
For your sake I hope not - when Kosovo autonomy was revoked all other republics became afraid. If I were Mamata Didi right now I’d be up late at night worrying about how many seats my assembly victory margin has to be for it not to be taken away with Darjeeling being made a UT.
303 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 289 ms ] threadDoesn't this comment contrast your first statement.
He is the same guy who supported Indian Army when they tied an innocent Kashmiri in front of a jeep and paraded him into town. His approach is very wily.
BTW, this is a classic Hindu Nationalist propaganda move. Justify past excesses, whitewash them by saying everything is pleasant in the present. Also, use an ad-hominem and paint the other as an opponent instantly.
When what how did you come to the conclusions from my post? What exactly made me a propagandist?
You have got to be kidding with Sikh regiment being one of the most valiant branches of Indian Army and a really high number of Indian Army soldiers per capita from Punjab.
There was Pakistan sponsored terrorism in Punjab, there isn't anymore.
Also citation needed for everything you said.
And Sikh regiment officers and privates mutinied too when they heard of Indian Army attack on Darbar Sahib, Amritsar (Sikh Golden temple). India changed recruitment policies for these regiments soon after.
Source: Understanding India's Counter-Rebellion Strategies during the Punjab Crisis - Philip Hultquist
See in all the glory how Indian Government victimized Sikhs, and blatantly Indian Army asked for Sikhs to be reported to authorities, as they are dangerous people who commit arson and murder.
It don't matter you cannot get Asthma medicine or Insulin, but believe is this all will help you in the end. What a democracy to look up to.
Minorities are not curfew anywhere in India. In Kashmir, Muslims are in majority.
> Nobody allowed to protest, and children as young as 11 jailed without charges. Same exact type of extra-judicial killings and molestation of women.
I don't recall that happening after the curfew was put in place. Could you share some news reports?
> Worse, state controlled India media being used as a weapon to justify all the excesses to the Indian masses. Manufacturing consent.
I haven't seen DD News justifying anything. They're just reporting what they're seeing.
The new york times is entitled to its view on how India's elected government ought to run the country but that does not mean the government is going to forgo one of THE demands of the party founders.
The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is bad in any environment.
I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley?
Edit:
"Intorelent Minority" comes from Taleb's essay/book on the skin in the game
here is the link here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again.
Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states.
But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it.
But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities.
The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.
I can't tell if you're being ironic. Because many similar things happened to Catalonia two years ago: arresting Catalan leaders, suspending parliamentary rule and autonomy, violently suppressing protests and dissent, censoring the Internet, imposing martial law.
Many of Catalonia's political leadership and activists are still in jail, and facing years of prison: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/12-catalan-leaders-fa... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41678086
The only thing that categorically did not happen from your list was an incursion by the Spanish military into Catalonia, although even that seemed possible for a period of time.
I agree with your stance re: autonomy, but Catalonia was a rather poor example.
May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example but I wanted to cite something that felt a bit more real and relatable.
Yes, this is the major difference between the two regions. But in terms of recent events, the main difference between Kashmir and Catalonia -- other than the lack of military involvement in Catalonia -- is the greater degree of oppression in Kashmir. Similar strategies and tactics were used by the more powerful polity in both crises.
> May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example
Yes, I originally wrote that in my comment, but deleted it because it seemed too rambling. In any case, I wouldn't hold up the reaction of the Spanish government to Catalonia's moves toward greater autonomy to be some kind of democratic ideal.
As long as a peaceful referendum is not held that lets the people of the region decide their own future?
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1...
Also, if you cite UN sources then you must also agree with the reports about human rights violations in Kashmir by the UN and organizations like Amnesty International, right? If so, then you shouldn't be justifying what is happening right now but opposing it as that is the position of the UN. Otherwise you are just selectively citing things that re-affirm your point of view.
Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers?
If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself.
If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation.
And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.
1. Amnesty International is not a UN organisation.
2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
Stop shifting goal post when you can't argue the point.
I never claimed it was.
> 2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
> 3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
India literally annexed Kashmir 11 days ago by sheer military force. It unilaterally torn up the legal instrument on the basis of which Kashmir's Maharaja joined the Indian Union. Literally in one move nullified the constitution of Kashmir and their parliament without even consulting the Kashmiri parliament or people. India's own politicians, activists, journalists and Kashmiri Pandits have cited the move as illegal and unconstitutional.
> 4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
And I did not deny that source. I just pointed out that Indian Government does not actually abide by what you pointed out.
Bigoted thoughts do come out eventually. Minorities always need to be taught a lesson in World’s largest democracy.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
Terrorist organizations like ISIS, JEM and ISI took over and now the talk of independence has been missing for a long time. It is all about Islam.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/11614847374096...
See here - https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo
To prevent what exactly? Political dissent?
Why can't people in Kashmir right now talk to each other over phone? Why can't they call their loved ones outside the region? Why isn't anyone else allowed to contact them? Why are lawyers, professors and activists being jailed? Why are some people not being allowed to leave the country? Why can't Indian politicians visit the region without being detained and sent back?
What exactly is all this preventing?
First, Pakistan's ISPR would start a massive disinformation campaign aided by the separatist who lost all their influence with the present government but has a great following among the Kashmiri Youth.
Then there would immense violence with many dead while the "leaders" and there loved ones stay in a five-star hotel in Delhi.
To prevent a loss of life they had to do it. But it's slowly being downgraded and the curfew is absent in all but 4 districts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir
Edit:
I agree with you, that it is bad for people to have no communication channel.
So a resourceless Pakistan miraculously recovered from the bloody partition in mere three months to not only plan an insurgency, but also had the resources to execute it. Go Pakistan then? right?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
First condition of plebiscite is withdrawal of Pakistani forces from occupied territories, 73 years and still waiting. India doesn't allow UN observers because they have outlived their utility, as LoC has been codified between Pakistan and India through Simla Agreement in 1971.
India had made a lot of progress democratically in Kashmir and had actually won over a lot of Kashmiris. A lot of them either supported or tolerated Indian rule as long as their daily lives went on peacefully. With this move, they've lost all popular support they had in the valley. All pro-Indian Kashmiris I know personally are feeling betrayed and regretting that they supporting Indian rule in Kashmir.
Even elected pro-India politicians have been jailed and their voices suppressed. IMO this is going to result in people losing their belief in Indian democracy. Over the next few years, I expect number of militants in the Kashmir valley to grow rapidly. I think the valley will go back to where it was in early 90s. I hope it doesn't come to that but I don't see this playing out any other way unfortunately.
Showing military might is not the solution.
The only people complaining are English language media who Modi has never cared about.
The state is called Jammu and Kashmir and it is part of India's cultural heritage. Integration efforts may take time, but the alternatives are not an option for India. There are many pockets of Muslim majority around India, Kashmir will be no different. Despite the border with Pakistan.
To me it seems like the situation cannot go back to how it was a month ago for a long time (several months, at the minimum).
Simply put, it's preventing deaths. Kashmir is volatile and massive government decision like scrapping Article 370 is sure to create violent protests in the region. See Kashmir protests circa 2016 on how violent it can get.
India has always been bad at communicating effectively, clearly and loudly. Just read that Pakistan is claiming that India will attack AJK etc. I do not know the internal plans of Indian Army etc but I strongly believe India is not going to do it. But Pakistan make up so much stuff, put up fake videos, get embarassed but still they do not stop talking negatively about India and everybody else. The crying baby gets a lot of attention though even if it is crying for silly or fake reasons. So, for the Indian government, it has to make more noise than the crying baby, but also presenting supporting facts.
Now, the moment the controls in Kashmir are suddenly lifted, forget Pakistan, the opposition politicians and everyone whose wallet/influence is going to get lighter themselves will talk so much against the current government and create/add fuel to the negative sentiment in the Kashmiris. So, it is better to have controls to prevent violence. Better to not lose precious lives than otherwise.
Having said that, as some one above pointed out above, it is also mandatory for the government to ensure the availability of necessities. It is easy to criticize, not that we should not. But any big action like this will have something not going according to plan. Not every thing to extreme detail can be planned perfectly. So, I do want and hope that the government gets to know the ground realities, ensure availability of the necessities and also, with proof, talk about it wherever it can.
Listen to statements from Kashmiri leaders like Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. They've routinely threatened violence over any attempt to the abrogation of the article. What do you think they would've done after the abrogation was anounced? And unlike other states, political dissent in Kashmir is not anywhere close to peaceful. It includes stone pelting , murdering policemen and what not.
This is a poor view of how areas should be funded. Governments are responsible for common welfare of a people, not to be run as a business that expects kickbacks and profit or returns on investment.
Abrogation of Kashmir's special status has been a top agenda of the BJP for the past few decades. They are pretty big on "national unity", and they see the special status for Kashmir as going against this principle. They want Kashmir fully integrated into India once and for all. They also consider the indecision about Kashmir's status in India as being a prime cause for terrorism in that region. Kicking the muslims has very little to do with it.
Whether this step will backfire remains to be seen. Indians will have to ask some very tough questions about what kind of nation they want India to be, and whether the vision they come up with will be viable at all given the nature of the Indian society.
BJP is a Hindu Nationalist party, and just because it is in their manifesto doesn’t mean it should have been fulfilled. The question to ask is, why is in their manifesto when there are other regions in India with similar laws? It is in their manifesto because Kashmir is a Muslim majority region. And BJP considers, Muslims and Christians as invaders and pests. This manifesto point is just utter bunkum to placate their Hindu Nationalistic base since 1950s, they finally got to fulfill it since they have the numbers and money power now. For the first time since India gained independence.
“When there are other regions ...”, no, laws passed by the parliament were applicable everywhere except in Kashmir. So you had gems like child marriage not outlawed.
It’s lazy and biased journalism to just label them Hindu nationalists and portray them like some sort of evil overlords. India for centuries has been the most inclusive place in the world. Let’s not try and paint the majority as some kind of a clan of idiot oppressors.
Keeping that aside though:
1. What is Hindu culture? Answer: It is a way to subjugate and bulldoze minorities and their culture. Hence the insidious name, acceptable to the majority and any opposition instantly termed as anti-Hindus. There is no need for such a divisive slogan when Indian culture already exists. It intentinally conflates Indian culture with made-up term 'Hindu culture'.
2. Why is the slogan being given by a Hindu Nationalist party? Answer: Hindu religion is their raison d'etre. They carry out their activities with justification as being benefitting Hindus solely.
3. Why does the slogan involve similar tones and reach as, "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer"? Fact: Members of this Hindu nationalist party (B.S. Moonje) met Mussolini and transported same bullshit to India. Golwalkar openly admired Hitler. These are people in power in India presently.
4. Why are the Indian cities names given by Muslim rulers being changed on lines of Hindu religious basis? Example: Allahabad has been changed to Pragyaraj, because Allah-abad is deemed as a Muslim name. Answer: Subjugation on religious lines to consolidate majority.
5. Try going to North East India without a special entry pass. Doesn't matter if you are India, you cannot certain North-East states enter without an Inner Line permit.
6. You cannot buy real estate in certain Indian states, like Himachal Pradesh. Doesn't matter if you are Indian or not.
7. They are Hindu Nationalists because they are using Hindu religion to consolidate majority, and are carrying out actions that they have wanted since independence. Hindu Nationalists killed Gandhi and were outlawed afterwards.
8. Let's not paint whole nation or its government as tolerant. In recent history, India has supported several terrorist movements in other nations.
1. What is Hindu culture? Answer:
A very ancient inclusive and compassionate culture. Even the name hindu was given by Persians/Arabs.
2. Why is the slogan being given by a Hindu Nationalist party?
The slogan was given to unify the nation and recognise the rich culture and heritage.
3. Why does the slogan involve similar tones and reach as, "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer"?
Stop with the nonsense please. I have even seen people draw equivalence like, Swastika-Nazi, Swastika-Hindu, Hindu-Nazi.
4. Why are the Indian cities names given by Muslim rulers being changed on lines of Hindu religious basis?
Why should a culture of thousands of years not roll back to the actual names for places which were changed by invaders? What has religion got to do with it? Should we also praise the queen?
5. Try going to North East India without a special entry pass.
Having booked hotel tickets all over north east for my parent's visits, I would say please stop with your propaganda.
6. You cannot buy real estate in certain Indian states, like Himachal Pradesh.
Unless you have been living there for some time. In Kashmir people who have been living for more than even 50 years didn't have voting and property rights.
7. They are Hindu Nationalists because they are using Hindu religion to consolidate majority, and are carrying out actions that they have wanted since independence. Hindu Nationalists killed Gandhi and were outlawed afterwards.
I am a Hindu and I am a nationalist. I don't want to kill people or put them under oppressive regimes like sharia. Being a hindu makes people evil? Is that your deciding criterion?
8. Let's not paint whole nation or its government as tolerant. In recent history, India has supported several terrorist movements in other nations.
Are you confusing India with Pakistan?
What a complete bullshit of a definition. What are you even describing with that statement?
>The slogan was given to unify the nation and recognise the rich culture and heritage.
Why does the nation need unity? Why cannot rich culture and heritage not be recognized without a slogan?
>Stop with the nonsense please. I have even seen people draw equivalence like, Swastika-Nazi, Swastika-Hindu, Hindu-Nazi.
So you have no answer. Swastika is a Hindu symbol unofrtunately appropriated by Nazis.
>Why should a culture of thousands of years not roll back to the actual names for places which were changed by invaders? What has religion got to do with it? Should we also praise the queen?
Akbar was not invader, he was a third generation Indian. You are addressing him with 'invader' moniker because he was a Muslim. Simple. Well, ample number of Indians praise the queen. Punjab premier, Amarinder Singh, in fact has a portrait of his grandfather attending Queen Elizabeth's coronation ceremony which he displays out in the front.
>Having booked hotel tickets all over north east for my parent's visits, I would say please stop with your propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Line_Permit - You cannot visit Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh without ILP. So better arrange them for your parents. I have ample experience in North East.
>Unless you have been living there for some time. In Kashmir people who have been living for more than even 50 years didn't have voting and property rights.
You cannot buy real estate in Himachal Pradesh as an outsider. Period. It doesn't matter how many years you have been living there. Ample experience there.
>I am a Hindu and I am a nationalist. I don't want to kill people or put them under oppressive regimes like sharia. Being a hindu makes people evil? Is that your deciding criterion?
Mis-direction. Consolidation majority under name of religion is religious nationalism.
>Are you confusing India with Pakistan?
Search up Mukti Bahini in Bangladesh, LTTE in Sri Lanka, Balochistan/TTP militancy in Pakistan. Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
[0] https://www.fluentin3months.com/most-spoken-languages
Let's not bulldoze diversity with the sole aim to unify. The consequences are disastrous.
Hmmm vested interests going against India. My sympathies.
'It is the Hindu philosophy which is the most inclusive and that is why India was and is most diverse nation on the planet and not any Western nation.'
Your fragility is showing.
BJP's top leadership includes Modi, Amit Shah, Nirmala Sitaraman, Venkaiah Naidu, Nitin Gadkari etc. that come from non-Hindi states. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
This is in the constitution.
This issue is an internal matter following due process within our parliamentary framework.
It is the reason why Kashmir never merged with the rest of India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
And yet the current Government has increased minority affairs budget substantially over the years[1].
1. https://m.timesofindia.com/business/india-business/62-increa...
If it is so secular then why does Indian Constitution term Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under Hindu religion umbrella. Since when is it for the constitution to define religions?
If India is so secular than why does it ban beef, sacred animal only to Hindus?
If it is so secular then why does it welcome Hindu refugees from Pakistan and expels Muslim Rohingya refugees?
It's extremely convenient on your part to talk pointwise all the Pakistani talking points and yet avoid talking about the 90% causative factor in this entire mess.
So that is one propaganda point of yours busted.
Let's bust the second point: Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?
Every single thing I said in this thread can be googled. Nothing in here is my opinion by an established fact. And facts can hurt because they ain't easy to counter. So go Google it, I ain't doing your homework for you.
That bill deals with religious oppression in the neighbouring countries in India (mostly legacy of partition). Are muslims being oppressed in the islamic neighbouring countries?
Please don't snark on HN. It's against the site guidelines and degrades your serious point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Equal treatment does not mean same treatment.
A doctor treats both men & women equally, so he gives the woman estrogen and the man testosterone. Would you prefer it if the doctor gave everyone estrogen ?
This move by the Indian government is objectively good for minorities (Christians, Hindus, Jains etc) and women in the state.
https://www.dailyo.in/voices/article-35a-women-in-kashmir-fu...
Kashmir had 70 years to rectify this after Independence but to chose to double down on ethnic cleansing of minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
A law which has been abrogated by locking down 10 Million people, and not allowing them the right to protest. I think we all know why the law has been forced in.
Kashmir’s minorities have drastically decreased in the last 70 years due to large scale systematic cleansing and India has increased its minority population.
India is the lesser evil.
The claim that this was done to subvert state's Muslim majority doesn't hold merit. India has states like Punjab, Nagaland and Mizoram which don't have Hindu majority and are still doing well.
The US and China deal with this by ensuring they have leverage over the platforms that people use to communicate. Other countries that do not have this leverage, have to resort to shutting down the internet in areas of unrest.
Some people maybe don't care about what ever is happening outside, but now they cannot connect to Steam anymore.
China was disconnected Xinjiang from the network in the past. During that time, some Xinjiangers traveled to neighboring province so they can take care their business in some online game. I guess they were the people who received the most piss from the disconnect, not those "uprising organizers".
By leverage, you mean the Prism project in USA?
Not that I condone this line of thought necessarily.
Imagine if Florida had special privileges like No Federal Tax , and yet continued to remain a s*ithole like, say Missisippi? How would other states take it?
Maybe they're used to it?
FTA: "While Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promoted the rapid adoption of the internet, particularly on smartphones, to modernize India and bring it out of poverty, the country is also the world leader in shutting down the internet.
The country has increasingly deployed communications and internet stoppages to suppress potential protests, prevent rumors from spreading on WhatsApp, conduct elections and even stop students from cheating on exams. Last year, India blocked the internet 134 times, compared with 12 shutdowns in Pakistan, the No. 2 country, according to Access Now, a global digital rights group, which said its data understates the number of occurrences."
Complain on Twitter? Oops, you can't.
Take it to the streets? So?
Internet Freedom Foundation [1][2] has been trying to make this a thing of the past, but it's very early days. As a tangential example, postal services are stopped in Kashmir now. Nobody is able to find the exact government order that made this possible. This is despite having RTI (Right to Information, the equivalent to the US FoIA). That's the sad level of governance going on for a long time in the country.
Majoritarian views — that prefer less freedom — on social media and broadcast media like TV don't help the situation much.
[1]: https://internetfreedom.in
[2]: https://twitter.com/internetfreedom
"We are doing this to protect you from yourself."
Is the communication blockade bad? Yes.
Is it necessary to keep the peace? Yes.
The only people complaining about it are the ones who aren't benefited by it.
I'm no expert, of course, but I am generally aware of some of the issues in the region (disclaimer: I may not be a neutral source–none of my family members are Pakistani). I'm still of the opinion that shutting down the internet is a government overreach.
It would seem that India has the more practically demonstrable claim.
Sometimes it's messy (Yugoslav Wars), sometimes it's more civil (Virginia/West Virginia). But change happens. It's how we react and manage that change that helps define us as a people.
And generally that happens only after they get wealthy. Which makes shutting down core civil infrastructure deeply counterproductive.
There is also a portion of the area that is claimed by China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir#/media/File:...
What could possibly be the endgame from this unless you’re trying to actively foment rebellion? How can this have any widespread support?
You reap what you sow. You kicked out real Kashmiris for the sin of being Hindus. Look at their slogan...
Azadi ka matlab kya ? La ila illila.. So, if your not muslim you have no place in Kashmir or its Nationalist movement.
No wonder, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhist are unequivocal about their support of Indian action.
“I don’t know when to sleep, when to wake up, what to do with my life,” he said during a rare foray outside on Monday evening for Eid al-Adha, the holiest festival in Islam. “There is no life without internet, even in Kashmir.”
While nobody expects a war in their city, it's yet another example of why none of us should rely on the internet as our sole means of doing anything.
Imagine a city where cashless transactions were the norm. Then imagine some political group (internal or external) decides to cut off the internet to that city.
Imagine saying this about electricity or gasoline. Modern cities would be completely shut down without these resources, and we should treat the Internet in the same way - as a vital resource that we simply accept as present except in the most egregious or catastrophic circumstances.
Kashmir wasn't independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with India, but presumably some individuals did.
This is like saying Maine is not independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with USA.
You can store both in dunks and batteries.
If someone invents a way to bottle spare internet, that's the next unicorn for sure :)
In practice satellite very often works when nothing else does.
Iridium is an existing satellite phone system that will technically work anywhere on the planet.
It won't complete calls to certain countries, and they warn that the phone might get confiscated in a few others: https://globalcomsatphone.com/support7/
Internet's architecture is already like this (See Alan Kay). You can create your own local networks, Problem is the centralized applications built on top of it.
In a significant civil unrest event, it would be very feasible for a prepared party to create widespread disruption on a regional level.
Most institutions have continuity plans that allow them to function, perhaps in a degraded state, with widespread power failures. Hospitals will be functioning, cellular towers will be running, first responders will function and at least basic commerce can carry on. That “limp along” period ranges from days to weeks.
There are also different types of electrical outages. A hurricane or earthquake can wipe out infrastructure. Civil unrest may cause disruption. Open warfare will cause more strategic disruption and limit restoration.
if the leader of a society is driving that society toward a Internet-based, cashless system, it doesn't much matter what you as an individual want to do, it's a matter of what the people around you can accept.
Ergo, based on your statement above, Modi's drive toward a electronic, cashless monetary system is a bad idea.
(as a personal aside, it's pretty clear now why someone with authoritarian tendencies would like a centralized, electronic payment system. it makes control of a population much easier.)
All of this is moot if you are getting raped between two bigger powers who don’t care about you - that is a Layer 8 issue.
Mesh nets with singular remaining internet access would crumble under the load too.
I guess a lot of economy instantly switches to IOU, barter and banknotes. (Including gold and other assets for the rich.) The old and tried ways.
Adding capacity would require some way of accessing the consensus, but it could be done by the parties updating their blockchain by just importing new blocks from a trusted source (not necessarily the same), like a friend with a USB drive.
Sure, some people would have off-grid power, but enough to have a reasonably functioning economy? Unlikely.
And that's the US, no weird third-world phone-only transactions, just no Visa network for a while.
The article mentions that the internet is being promoted as a way of advancing the country...if that’s advancement, it may be better for India to hit the brakes.
India also has a long history of deadly “communal violence”, something that doesn’t really happen in other democracies. If questioning whether it’s wise for companies like Twitter and WhatsApp to allow incitement for violence to exist in such an environment is regarded as “privilege”, so be it.
Mutual distrust and animosity was always there underneath the surface. The internet is just making it a lot more visible to outsiders.
Don't forget that India itself was born during violent and widespread Hindu-Muslim clashes that displaced some 10+ million people from their homelands and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others. The past history of India has been quite violent if you think about it. We have had several insurgencies fueled by ethnic hatred and real or imagined grievances. The 80s and the 90s were very violent years. We had the Gujarat riots (or pogrom, depending on whom you ask) as late as 2002.
The freewheeling, anonymous nature of the internet just makes ideas fueling hatred to spread fast. Now it is easier for skilled rhetoricians to infect others. Everyone is getting radicalized - Hindus, Muslims, various caste and ethnic groups, you name it.
All this is not even counting any bots and propaganda armies on the internet working overtime to project a certain narrative. I fear that things might get worse, much worse, before they get better.
I always wondered why doesn't the government install a few hundred web cams across the big cities for the rest of world, including the journalists to see the reality. Why do only the journalists have to travel there and take pictures of whatever corner they want and tell whatever story they want to tell.
Does the article cover urban and rural areas of Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/bab500/bypass_news_...
This provision was guaranteed by the constitution and the government should have called for the people's opinion either through a vote, or through their elected representatives. Instead what we see is a shadow of facism in the country - elected representatives are jailed, curfew is imposed and the rights of the state enshrined in the constitution is removed.
What next for India - new laws to call anyone a "terrorist" without due process (happening now), presidential style election and a change to the constitution to elect our "Dear Leader" for perpetuity.
Can those companies fund a few days' worth of live streaming of key areas? It gives everybody an option to see the reality/facts instead of opinions.
Nobody knows whom to trust in these crisis times and everything appears as an opinion of an individual or a small group.
I assume these companies dont want any trouble from the Indian Govt if they have business in India.
Here's your source, I am not into bullshit:
“While Planet enjoys a great working partnership with agencies of India’s government — like ISRO — we categorically condemn the anti-satellite missile intercept recently conducted by India’s defense department,” the San Francisco-based company tweeted March 27. “Space should be used for peaceful purposes, and destroying satellites on orbit severely threatens the long-term stability of the space environment for all space operators. Planet urges all space-capable nations to respect our orbital commons.”
Planet will still not be boycotting ISRO and using them for the upcoming launch of 5th series of Dove satellites.
India did not do anything different through ASAT test, many others have done that anybody who is saying India did wrong thing first blame those who started it. India just attained capability for the sake of self defence.
If J&K Police has some cell in Srinagar writing form letters to Twitter in San Francisco every time someone posts something they don't like God help them when the Internet comes back on.
Kashmiri separatism is another in the line of Islamic jihadi separatism. It was co-opted by the Pakistanis because they only consider that Muslims can live ruled by Mullahs and Sharia and an Islamic constitution.
You will probably find 75% people in India or more in agreement with Modi's action. The whip of the largest opposition party quit his party because he agreed with BJP's actions. Remember that the resolutions passed parliament with 66% of votesin the Rajya Sabha and 84% in the Lok Sabha. That is greater than the numbers of the BJP so many other parties joined them in this.
India's 1.3 billion people will have no problem fighting another war with Pakistan if again attacked over Kashmir.
The international media might as well get used to it.
Hindu India has its share of casteism, which is a real problem. That I can agree with.
In fact, Iran hosts the greatest number of the world minorities than any other country. Even those that have been thought of as extinct.
How is religion even called secular? Secular pertains to character of a state, not of a religion.
Can it replace full isps? Almost never. Can it enable light text based things like emails, ordering supplies or cashless trxns? Maybe...
The biggest problem is scale of course, having such a large geographic area would require most of the population to have this mesh app active at once plus several 'exit nodes' with access to actual isp traffic somewhere in other regions.
IDK this is a spitball reaction that I considered not posting as it doesn't seem very thought provoking like normal HN comments but if it Sparks discussion then it will have done its job.
I wonder if it's worthwhile to install some sort of LibertyWeb that forms a meshnet+satellite internet that allows text through, just in case governments turn authoritarian.
It would have been occupation if Kashmiris had lesser rights but that's not the case. People don't ask what rights did people of Kashmir didn't have that people of India had since 1947.
India is a country of diverse religions, and ethnic groups. If a minority group demands separate nation should you give autonomy to it? If London becomes Muslim majority, and demands separation, should England give in to that demand?
If India gives away Kashmir, it means you can never trust minority of your country because they can ask for separate nation and the world will support that demand.
Do we really think that helps the cause of minorities in India or any other country in the world?