Follow palashbiswaskl on Twitter

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Fwd: [bangla-vision] Re: [political_analysts] Re: [issuesonline_worldwide] Fw: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] Is Kashmir India’s integral part? "-Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon (Machaki) Responds

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:36 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Re: [political_analysts] Re: [issuesonline_worldwide] Fw: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] Is Kashmir India's integral part? "-Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon (Machaki) Responds


Mr <>

The 'Brahmins-Hinds, Incorporation of the alleged Indian democracy of the 'Brahmins-Hindus & pro-Brahmins-Hindus, like Prakash (Hanera/Darkness) Sinh Badal and his "joe boys and joe girls" of the Akali Dal-Badal Private Limited Incorporation

Do not blame Dr G N Fai for the problems of the Internationally Disputed Areas of Jammu and Kashmir. You must blame the 'Brahmins-Hindus, Incorporation' for the whole problem of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

The 'Brahmins-Hindus, Incorporation is well known to 'twist and distort' the facts of the History. In over six decade the deceitful, divisive and apartheid practicing bureaucracy, political scientist, foreign, defence affairs personnel, etc., have done unimaginable damage to the problems of Kashmir, the Landless Sikh Nation, PUNJAB (under the occupation of the 'Brahmins-Hindus alleged Indian democracy, since 15th August, 1947), Assam, 7-sister of Assam, Manipur, Bihar, Orrissa, Dalits, Adivaasis/Moolnivaasis, etc., that the 'ONLY' amicable resolution of the problems of the non-Brahmins-Hindus is to "Break the Chains of the 'Brahminis's Slavery." 

That's what Dr G N Fai had advocated and demanded. Any day that passes by, the 'Brahmins-Hindus, Inc.' has been loosing the 'grip' on the democracy. Besides, the 'Brahmins-Hindus, Inc., has already turned into a 'police state'. The Hon Dana Rohrabacher, Congress of the United States of America's statement that "as far as the Sikhs, Muslims, and other non-Brahmin and non-Hindus minorities" are concerned, 'India is a police state'.

The 'Brahmins-Hindus' evil polices will destroy the alleged Indian democracy. Sooner is better.

I wish you the very best fellows (4+11%, Brahmins and Hindus), to chalk out their programme for the establishment of a state to be called the "Brahminstan".

-Awatar Singh Sekhon (Machaki), Ph D, FIBA, RM (CCM)
Editor in Chief
International Journal of Sikh Affairs ISSN 1481-5435

----- Original Message -----
Date: Saturday, August 28, 2010 2:25 pm
Subject: [political_analysts] Re: [issuesonline_worldwide] Fw: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] Is Kashmir India's integral part?
To:,,,,,,,,,,,,, brasstacks <>, IslamicViews <>, S A Hannan <>, revealingthetruth <>, ahlesunnah <>, ahlesunnat11 <>,

> The Article from Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai is misleading. as to some
> material details:
> .
> !.  Pakistan,  in contravention of its Standstill Agreement with
> the Maharajah,
> invaded the state of J& K two months after its inception.
> 2. Under the India Independence Act 1946, J & K legally and
> constitutionally
> acceded to India.
> 3. India took the case to the Security Council who passed a 
> resolution that
> Pakistan should vacate the areas that it was illegally
> occupying, India will
> take control of the whole of the state and when situation
> returned to normal and
> all those who were uprooted were brought back into the state,
> the wishes of the
> people of the state would be sought
> 4.. The relevant resolution also stated that should Pakistan
> fail to vacate the
> occupied areas of the state , India would be under no obligation
> to hold any
> plebiscite.
> 5.. Pakistan has not only not vacated the occupied areas, it has
> also ceded a
> part of the state to the Chinese.
> 6.  Whereas  Pakistan has no locus standi in J & K, India has
> every legal and
> constitutional right to claim its sovereignty on the whole of
> the state as it
> existed at the time of the signing of the Instrument of
> Accession by the
> Maharajah. 
> 7.  In 1971 India and Pakistan signed what is called Shimla
> Accord whereby all
> issues between India and Pakistan including J & K would be
> settled bi-laterally.
> Therefore there is no question of a third party involvement in
> any bi-lateral
> issues.
> 8.. The only part of the state that is subject for negotiation
> is what is known
> as PoK.   Devinder Thakur
> ________________________________
> From: Abdul Wahid Osman Belal <>
> To:; aawaz-e-
>; al-
>; brasstacks
> <>; IslamicViews
> <>; S A Hannan
> <>;
> revealingthetruth <>;
> ahlesunnah
> <>; ahlesunnat11
> <>;
> Sent: Saturday, 28 August, 2010 17:57:17
> Subject: [issuesonline_worldwide] Fw: [ History Islam & Beyond .
> . .] Is Kashmir
> India's integral part?
> --- On Tue, 24/8/10, DR. GHULAM NABI FAI
> <> wrote:
> Subject: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] Is Kashmir India's
> integral part?
> To: "History Islam" <>
> Date: Tuesday, 24 August, 2010, 14:59
> Is Kashmir India's integral part?
> Published: Aug 23, 2010 21:35 Updated: Aug 23, 2010 21:35
> Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assertion that "Kashmir is an
> integral part of
> India" needs to be supplemented by some observations from the
> viewpoint of the
> people of Kashmir.
> This deserves to be borne in mind by all those who wish the
> conflict to be
> justly resolved once and for all.
> When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States
> took the stand
> that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in
> accordance with the
> wishes and aspirations of the people of the territory. The UN
> Security Council
> adopted a resolution on April 21, 1948 that was based on that
> unchallenged
> principle. So the idea that "Kashmir is an integral part of
> India" is in
> contravention to India's international obligations. Any such
> suggestion is an
> insult to the intelligence of the people of Kashmir. The people
> revolted against
> the status quo and status quo cannot be an answer? Also,
> Kashmiris wish to
> emphasize that their land is not a real estate which can be
> parceled out between
> two disputants but the home of a nation with a history far more
> compact and
> coherent than India's and far longer than Pakistan's. No
> settlement of their
> status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of
> self-determination and erases the so-called line of control,
> which is in reality
> the line of conflict.
> Secondly, under all international agreements, agreed by both
> India and Pakistan,
> negotiated by the United Nations and endorsed by the Security
> Council, Kashmir
> does not belong to any member state of the United Nations. So,
> if Kashmir does
> not belong to any member state of the United Nations, then the
> claim that
> "Kashmir is an integral part of India" does not stand. And if
> "Kashmir is not an
> integral part of India" then Kashmiris cannot be called
> separatist or
> secessionist. Because Kashmir cannot secede from a country —
> like India — to
> which it has never acceded to in the first place. My opinion is
> confirmed by a
> poll conducted jointly by major news outlets on Aug. 12, 2007:
> CNN-IBN and
> Hindustan Times in India and Dawn and News in Pakistan. A
> majority of those
> polled in Kashmir Valley (87 percent to be precise) preferred
> freedom (Azadi).
> The Azadi means the rejection of the idea that "Kashmir is an
> integral part of
> India."
> However, there is but one fair, just, legal, and moral solution
> to Kashmir,
> which was provided by the United Nations. The procedures
> contemplated at early
> stage of the dispute at the United Nations for its solution may
> be varied in the
> light of changed circumstances but its underlying principle must
> be scrupulously
> observed if justice and rationality are not be thrown overboard.
> The setting
> aside of the UN resolution is one thing; the discarding of the
> principle they
> embodies is altogether another. So the settlement has to be in
> accordance with
> the wishes of the people; impartially ascertained; in conditions
> of freedom from
> intimidation.
> Kashmiris are open to a constitutional dispensation that answers
> all of India's
> legitimate national security and human rights concerns. With
> regard to the
> former, they are willing to explore permanent neutrality for
> Kashmir along the
> model of the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and a renunciation of
> war or the threat
> of force in international affairs along the model of Article 9
> of the Japanese
> Constitution. They are willing to consider abandoning a military
> force like
> Costa Rica, Haiti, and Panama. Moreover, they hold no objection
> to providing
> community quotas in government offices along the lines of the
> 1960 Constitution
> for the Republic of Cyprus to safeguard against invidious
> discrimination of any
> religious or ethnic group, i.e., Pandit, Buddhist, Sikh, and
> Muslim alike.
> With good faith by all parties common ground leading to a final
> settlement of
> the Kashmir tragedy can be discovered. And an appointment of a
> special envoy by
> the United Nations or by President Barack Obama, like Bishop
> Desmond Tutu will
> hasten the way of peace and prosperity in the region of South Asia.
> — Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai is executive director of Kashmiri American
> Council. He can
> be reached at
> P Think Green
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Palash Biswas
Pl Read:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Website counter


Blog Archive