2000hrs:
1)
A red salute to all martyrs of the State of Jammu Kashmir. Banned Pakistani terrorist parties have conducted trade in human blood and dignity in the name of religion. Allah - All Glory belongs to Him, He is the Most Exalted and The Most High - will certainly question these traders and running foot men. Despite 70 years of countless sacrifices, the State's public are not even a part of their own issue.
2)
Didn't go out at all today. Balancing public interest work - indoors and outdoors - is not easy. An overwhelming feeling of constantly wanting to catch up on what has happened elsewhere, is a time hazard in the social media age. It's also hell for data consolidation. You are consuming more data than you can analyse, let alone categorise and order - as appropriate - in your work files.
This also means that I write a lot less description, of how my actual day transpires on this daily blog.
Practice does make perfect though, or at least as close to perfect as possible.
Once again, I want to analyse another couple of tweets, not least because they reflect both sides of the occupation coin. Both are heads of course. A Jinnah and a Gandhi.
Those who created the problem (Britain) and those who need to solve it (citizens of the State of Jammu & Kashmir) are nowhere on the menu of conflict resolution:
1)
رياست جموں کشمير کے سبھی شہدا کو سُرخ سلام۔پاکستانی دہشتگرد اور کالعدم جماعتوں نے مذہب کے نام پر جو انسانی خون اور عزتوں کا کاروبار کيا اللہ سبحان و تعالی يقيناً ان تاجروں اور انکے ہرکاروں سے پوچھے گا۔ستر سال میں بے حساب قربانيوں کے باوجود رياستی عوام اپنے ہی مسہلے کا حصہ تک نہيں— Human on Planet (@JK4JKpeoples) February 9, 2019
Translated thus:
A red salute to all martyrs of the State of Jammu Kashmir. Banned Pakistani terrorist parties have conducted trade in human blood and dignity in the name of religion. Allah - All Glory belongs to Him, He is the Most Exalted and The Most High - will certainly question these traders and running foot men. Despite 70 years of countless sacrifices, the State's public are not even a part of their own issue.
2)
کشمیر ویلی کا ایک کے بعد ایک پڑھا لکھا نوجوان ملی ٹینسی کی طرف جارہا ہے اور روزانہ کی بنیاد پر ہندوستانی افواج کی گولیوں کا نشانہ بن رہا کیا جان بوجھ کر پڑھے لکھے طبقے کو مروایا جا رہا ہے ؟اس نسل کشی کا اور پراکسی وار کا حالیہ دنوں میں خاص نشانہ کشمیر کا پڑھا لکھا نوجوان کیوں؟— Azad Admi (@azad_Admi) February 10, 2019
Translated thus:
One after the other educated youngster of the Kashmir Valley is heading in the direction of militancy and is the target of Indian army bullets on a daily basis. Is the young educated class being killed on purpose? In this current genocide and proxy war, why in particular is the educated youth of Kashmir a target?
End...
As one can easily assess, both India and Pakistan are part of the problem. Hence, partisanship towards one or the other - may have merited arguments from a personal economic, security and perhaps even a cultural point of view - but when analysed with the purpose of conflict resolution in mind, it can prolong the conflict rather than help resolve it.
Thus, our argument to Pakistan (before India for a variety of reasons but one should suffice here: it should be easier to gain concessions on civil space from a perceived sympathiser than from a larger power seemingly unwilling to negotiate) is to not aggravate the issue by posing as sole spokesperson in the global community. This among other tactics makes you as guilty as India for the killing of innocent people. If you really believe there is no military solution to the conflict and if peace entails talking then why do you insist on the State of Jammu & Kashmir's citizens allowing you to talk on their behalf? The affectee can always accurately reflect their problem better than an assumed advocate with vested interests.
Finally (for now), if you present yourself as keen to talk then why are your terms not reflected in flexibility of position? Does it mean you are keen to talk as long as everyone else adheres to your terms? As you are well aware that is never going to happen, in which case there is no harm in pretending you want a solution if no one is going to compel you to fulfill your part of the bargain.
Meanwhile, the conflict continues and your use of the term "disputed territory" maintains your assumed relevancy. If this calculated ambiguity ends, we will embark on the road to a solution.
One after the other educated youngster of the Kashmir Valley is heading in the direction of militancy and is the target of Indian army bullets on a daily basis. Is the young educated class being killed on purpose? In this current genocide and proxy war, why in particular is the educated youth of Kashmir a target?
End...
As one can easily assess, both India and Pakistan are part of the problem. Hence, partisanship towards one or the other - may have merited arguments from a personal economic, security and perhaps even a cultural point of view - but when analysed with the purpose of conflict resolution in mind, it can prolong the conflict rather than help resolve it.
Thus, our argument to Pakistan (before India for a variety of reasons but one should suffice here: it should be easier to gain concessions on civil space from a perceived sympathiser than from a larger power seemingly unwilling to negotiate) is to not aggravate the issue by posing as sole spokesperson in the global community. This among other tactics makes you as guilty as India for the killing of innocent people. If you really believe there is no military solution to the conflict and if peace entails talking then why do you insist on the State of Jammu & Kashmir's citizens allowing you to talk on their behalf? The affectee can always accurately reflect their problem better than an assumed advocate with vested interests.
Finally (for now), if you present yourself as keen to talk then why are your terms not reflected in flexibility of position? Does it mean you are keen to talk as long as everyone else adheres to your terms? As you are well aware that is never going to happen, in which case there is no harm in pretending you want a solution if no one is going to compel you to fulfill your part of the bargain.
Meanwhile, the conflict continues and your use of the term "disputed territory" maintains your assumed relevancy. If this calculated ambiguity ends, we will embark on the road to a solution.
This is not a disputed territory and neither is it 'waiting' for the implementation of UN resolutions. These are tactical tropes used by Pakistan to control AJK, GB and the emotions of many citizens of the Kashmir Valley.
If Pakistan continues to pretend it is merely advocating Kashmiri aspirations and not heed the increasing calls to disengage by the latter, it ultimately has much more to lose in this relatively transparent digital age.
If Pakistan continues to pretend it is merely advocating Kashmiri aspirations and not heed the increasing calls to disengage by the latter, it ultimately has much more to lose in this relatively transparent digital age.
Neither action nor intention can remain concealed now.
%20Facebook%20-%20web.facebook.com.jpg)
That’s a great effort. Stay blessed dear comrade
ReplyDeleteYour attention is welcome.
DeleteAmeen.
ReplyDeleteShukrya aap ki tawajo ka.
Delete