Topic: India - deteriorating?

[Bullet500]

I always thought that it made sense just to give Kashmir what they want. They hate Hindu-Indians, Hindu-Indians hate them, and I had a few bad experiences with them over the years as well (not to say they're all bad lads, just that they are marginalised in their country so act out a bit more). Why not jut let them go? Strengthens them? closer to Delhi? Showing weakeness? Controversial opinion I think,but I can't see another option that makes more sense. Why not just remove the problem and give them their independence. They'll never be at peace or peaceful - so just let it go. Of course,ultimately, I know nothing. Just how I see it and would love to hear why this isn't the case. I've said it for years now.

I think India more or less had the correct approach on Kashmir. The the insurgency wasn't homegrown in the early days and the Kashmiri Pandit exodus was unfortunate. Hindu fascists term it as a 'genocide' of Kashmiri Pandits, but that's inaccurate. There were killings but far fewer than what we have seen after AFSPA was applied to J&K. That said, if you send any army to do policing anywhere in the world, there will be human right violations. I personally think AFSPA as a law was important earlier as state police didn't have the tools to carry out their work, only army did. Should definitely be discarded now, especially since army recruits can be from any part of India. State police knows the sensibilities better.

Everything said, a dead Kashmiri Pandit matters more to Hindu fascists than an alive one. I don't think anybody can dispute this.

[Bullet500]

Just another Partition related cock-up by the British I am afraid, there was no way they should have allowed Kashmir not to be included in Pakistan when the boundaries were drawn up, but then again the Dogra family that ruled Kashmir were among the slipperiest bastards in all of Indian history.

This is a good book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hindu-Rulers-Muslim-Subjects-Community/dp/1850657017/

[Nobby Reserve]

This is a good book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hindu-Rulers-Muslim-Subjects-Community/dp/1850657017/

I love the writings of Tariq Ali, and this paper is a detailed assessment of Kashmir leading up to, during, and after Partition

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n08/tariq-ali/bitter-chill-of-winter

[Bullet500]

I love the writings of Tariq Ali, and this paper is a detailed assessment of Kashmir leading up to, during, and after Partition

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n08/tariq-ali/bitter-chill-of-winter

> The confessional movement was gaining strength, however. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, had left the Congress in the 1930s partly because he was uneasy about Gandhi’s use of Hindu religious imagery.

This is completely false. The main reason why Jinnah resigned was beacause Gandhi pandered to the orthodox Ali brothers of Khilafat Movement fame to strengthen Non-cooperation Movement. Jinnah wasn't orthodox (shame that Pakistan turned out this way) and he resigned in 1920, not in 1930s. Due to Gandhi's use of Hindu religious imagery? No, but because Gandhi pandered to Muslim religious zealots in Ali brothers.

[west_london_red]

This is a good book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hindu-Rulers-Muslim-Subjects-Community/dp/1850657017/

At £60 I’ll take your word for it!

[Nobby Reserve]

> The confessional movement was gaining strength, however. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, had left the Congress in the 1930s partly because he was uneasy about Gandhi’s use of Hindu religious imagery.

This is completely false. The main reason why Jinnah resigned was beacause Gandhi pandered to the orthodox Ali brothers of Khilafat Movement fame to strengthen Non-cooperation Movement. Jinnah wasn't orthodox (shame that Pakistan turned out this way) and he resigned in 1920, not in 1930s. Due to Gandhi's use of Hindu religious imagery? No, but because Gandhi pandered to Muslim religious zealots in Ali brothers.

Thanks for your reply. After looking into it, you're correct about Jinnah resigning from Congress in 1920.

It's not like Tariq Alibto be wrong on such a basic and easy-to-check fact.

Do you have a link to back up your assertion that it was Ghandi's pandering to the Ali brothers that caused Jinnah to quit Congress?

I only ask because most online resources state it was due to Congress adopting, on the instruction of Ghandi, the policy of satyagraha - non-conformism/peaceful civil disobedience, but wrapped in Hindu imagery.

Jinnah himself gave his reasons for quitting as:

‘I will have nothing to do with this pseudo-religious approach to politics. I part company with the Congress and Gandhi. I do not believe in working up mob hysteria. Politics is a gentlemen’s game’

Ghandi rowed back from his 'passive resistance' (as satyagraha had become more colloquially known) after some followers expanded it into violence.

[Bullet500]

Thanks for your reply. After looking into it, you're correct about Jinnah resigning from Congress in 1920.

It's not like Tariq Alibto be wrong on such a basic and easy-to-check fact.

Do you have a link to back up your assertion that it was Ghandi's pandering to the Ali brothers that caused Jinnah to quit Congress?

I only ask because most online resources state it was due to Congress adopting, on the instruction of Ghandi, the policy of satyagraha - non-conformism/peaceful civil disobedience, but wrapped in Hindu imagery.

Jinnah himself gave his reasons for quitting as:

‘I will have nothing to do with this pseudo-religious approach to politics. I part company with the Congress and Gandhi. I do not believe in working up mob hysteria. Politics is a gentlemen’s game’

Ghandi rowed back from his 'passive resistance' (as satyagraha had become more colloquially known) after some followers expanded it into violence.

The context of that Jinnah quote - "pseudo-religious approach to politics" isn't Gandhi's use of just "Hindu imagery". It's also the fact that Gandhi used Muslim orthodoxy to bring Muslims into the fold of Non-cooperation Movement's satyagraha. Support for Khilafat Movement and Jinnah's resignation from Indian National Congress were right after each other.

You may read these (of course there is a need to cut off some noise in these texts):

> [1] There were two major sources of difference between him and Gandhi. One, Jinnah as a liberal constitutionalist of the old school like Dadabhai Naoroji and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who were his mentors, was uncomfortable with the Congress’s turn toward agitational politics under the Mahatma’s leadership. Two, as a confirmed secularist he was against the use of Hindu and Muslim religious terminology adopted by Gandhi to mobilize the populace. He was opposed not only to the use of references to Hindu idioms such as Ram Rajya but even more strongly to the Khilafat movement that he scorned as antediluvian. He warned Gandhi that the use of religious idioms to mobilize people against British rule would lead to perpetual division between Hindus and Muslims and jeopardize the unity of India. He refused to refer to the leader of the Khilafat movement Muhammad Ali as "Maulana" for which he was hooted down at the Nagpur session of the Congress in 1920 and left in disgust. This was the immediate reason why he resigned from the Congress.

> [2] Some of the Muslim leaders started the Khilafat Movement. This was a religious movement; however, over the last few years orthodox religious leaders among the Muslims had been mostly sidelined through the efforts of Jinnah. And here Gandhi gave them a new lease of life. Gandhi who had openly declared that he was a Hindu first and anything else later (as opposed to Jinnah who said he was an Indian first and Muslims afterwards) put his full support behind this orthodox Islamic movement calling Indian Muslims to rise up in jihad to save the Turkish Caliph.

> [3] Even though ironic, it was actually Gandhi who first created division on the basis of religion and later became a beacon of secularism. He first used the religion card to support the Khilafat Movement and recruited Muslim fundamentalists and Hindu conservatives in the Congress which Jinnah was strongly opposed to and asserted that “it must lead to disaster.” He finally resigned from Congress in 1920 out of frustration over the divisive religio-political policies of Gandhi and Congress. Jinnah then used the platform of the Muslim League to propagate this vision of Muslim-Hindu unity and Indian nationalism.

[1] https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/opinion-the-multiple-facets-of-muhammad-ali-jinnah/360961

[2] https://www.nation.com.pk/23-Mar-2017/pakistan-day-how-gandhi-s-support-for-khilafat-movement-made-a-separate-homeland-for-indian-muslims-inevitable

[3] https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/919630-the-promise-of-a-secular-jinnah

My take on this is that India and by extension Congress has always condoned everyone's (all religions) bad habits (https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=352656.msg18471693#msg18471693). If they actually didn't and were truly secular, we won't see the rise of Hindu fascism, perhaps. Early in his political career, Jinnah was an actual secularist. The tragedy is that eventually Pakistan didn't have a place for his own daughter who had married a Parsi.

[deano2727]

I think India more or less had the correct approach on Kashmir. The the insurgency wasn't homegrown in the early days and the Kashmiri Pandit exodus was unfortunate. Hindu fascists term it as a 'genocide' of Kashmiri Pandits, but that's inaccurate. There were killings but far fewer than what we have seen after AFSPA was applied to J&K. That said, if you send any army to do policing anywhere in the world, there will be human right violations. I personally think AFSPA as a law was important earlier as state police didn't have the tools to carry out their work, only army did. Should definitely be discarded now, especially since army recruits can be from any part of India. State police knows the sensibilities better.

Everything said, a dead Kashmiri Pandit matters more to Hindu fascists than an alive one. I don't think anybody can dispute this.

Interesting. I'm not well versed in the Kashmiri Pandit exodus. My main knowledge came from a girl I knew in Delhi who was a Kashmiri pandit and one of the most staunch Bhakt people you could come across. Safe to say, not the most neutral of sources. 

From an outsiders persepective who has a fairly decent understading of the situation in India, I personally believe it makes more sense to let Kashmir go. I understand it doesn't solve the problem. There will be a border created, the division will remain and stones will still be getting pelted. Ultimately, they don't want to be there, and if we're being brutally honest, most Indians would be completely fine if they weren't a part of India. So surely, it makes sense to not have the burden of controlling them from within the borders at the cost of lives and tax payers money. Again, not saying it solves it, but at least remove the direct involvement in what is a futile conflict.

I think what it comes down to is pride and unwillingness to be the one who backs down - particularly under Modi.

I don't want to get too deep into this, because this is not my issue to tell Indians what is right and what is wrong (I say this as someone from Ireland just 20 minutes from the Northern Ireland Border). But I'm curious to hear from an Indian perspective why keeping the bubbling cauldron that is Kashmir as a part of India. I'm 100% open to reasoning on this. I've had in depth conversations with friends on this before and never left feeling totally satisfied.

Again, this isn't directed specifically at you Bullet mate, and I'm not trying to stir shit, just genuinely curious to hear others opinions on the matter.

[ScouserAtHeart]

Kashmir (and it would be just Kashmir, not Jammu or Ladakh) will never stay an independent country. Pakistan would take over.

Even if you believe in just "letting Kashmir go", strategically it would be incredibly stupid to let Pakistan just get closer to New Delhi.

EDIT: And just to add, you'd just be encouraging them to ask for more of Punjab next. Modi or no Modi, that's just not happening

[Bullet500]

Interesting. I'm not well versed in the Kashmiri Pandit exodus. My main knowledge came from a girl I knew in Delhi who was a Kashmiri pandit and one of the most staunch Bhakt people you could come across. Safe to say, not the most neutral of sources. 

From an outsiders persepective who has a fairly decent understading of the situation in India, I personally believe it makes more sense to let Kashmir go. I understand it doesn't solve the problem. There will be a border created, the division will remain and stones will still be getting pelted. Ultimately, they don't want to be there, and if we're being brutally honest, most Indians would be completely fine if they weren't a part of India. So surely, it makes sense to not have the burden of controlling them from within the borders at the cost of lives and tax payers money. Again, not saying it solves it, but at least remove the direct involvement in what is a futile conflict.

I think what it comes down to is pride and unwillingness to be the one who backs down - particularly under Modi.

I don't want to get too deep into this, because this is not my issue to tell Indians what is right and what is wrong (I say this as someone from Ireland just 20 minutes from the Northern Ireland Border). But I'm curious to hear from an Indian perspective why keeping the bubbling cauldron that is Kashmir as a part of India. I'm 100% open to reasoning on this. I've had in depth conversations with friends on this before and never left feeling totally satisfied.

Again, this isn't directed specifically at you Bullet mate, and I'm not trying to stir shit, just genuinely curious to hear others opinions on the matter.

If the Indian democracy hadn't taken an illiberal turn, I'd have argued otherwise. Under the current regime, India doesn't have the moral high ground and it would actually be a good thing to let Kashmir go. Minorities thrived in India once. Can't say the same about neighbours, however.

[west_london_red]

Kashmir (and it would be just Kashmir, not Jammu or Ladakh) will never stay an independent country. Pakistan would take over.

Even if you believe in just "letting Kashmir go", strategically it would be incredibly stupid to let Pakistan just get closer to New Delhi.

EDIT: And just to add, you'd just be encouraging them to ask for more of Punjab next. Modi or no Modi, that's just not happening

That’s one hell of a leap considering Indian Punjab has a Muslim population of about 1-2%!

[ScouserAtHeart]

That’s one hell of a leap considering Indian Punjab has a Muslim population of about 1-2%!

No one's gonna be logical about any of this 

I'd be supportive of a plebiscite in Kashmir if everyone agreed to honour the outcome. That's a pipe dream sadly

[west_london_red]

No one's gonna be logical about any of this 

I'd be supportive of a plebiscite in Kashmir if everyone agreed to honour the outcome. That's a pipe dream sadly

Nothings going to change now anyway, the fact both countries have nuclear weapons pretty much guarantees the status quo with regards to the border and LoC. If everyone could just accept that then it would be better for all involved.

[Nobby Reserve]

It's all Hari Singh's fault anyway.

[west_london_red]

It's all Hari Singh's fault anyway.

Not his fault, it’s the DNA. All a bunch of self serving treacherous bastards the lot of them.

[Bullet500]

At £60 I’ll take your word for it!

Look for it on Library Genesis.

[Nobby Reserve]

Not his fault, it’s the DNA. All a bunch of self serving treacherous bastards the lot of them.

Kashmiris? Hindus? Muslims?

 

[west_london_red]

Kashmiris? Hindus? Muslims?

 

Specifically the Kashmiri royal family

[Nobby Reserve]

Specifically the Kashmiri royal family

Ah, yes.

Would heve been better if they'd all died/been driven into exile, and Sheikh Abdullah had been in charge prior to partition

[Bullet500]

Kashmiris? Hindus? Muslims?

 

I'd say the entire lot of them.

[west_london_red]

Ah, yes.

Would heve been better if they'd all died/been driven into exile, and Sheikh Abdullah had been in charge prior to partition

I’m going back further to the 1840’s and how the ancestors of Hari Singh obtained their kingdom. The Dogras as the Kashmiri royal family were known somehow weaselled themselves very high up into the Sikh Empire, assassinated various members of the Sikh royal family along the way with all other kinds of unexplained ongoings that are generally assumed to be the handy work of the Dogras, then betrayed the Sikh Empire on the battlefield in its wars against the British (think Braveheart, Robert the Bruce, William Wallace and the Battle of Falkirk type of situation) and which eventually lead to annexation of the Sikh Empire by the British, for which in return the British sold the Dogras the maharaja’ship of Kashmir using money they had taken from the treasury of the Sikh Empire.

[west_london_red]

BBC now reporting the Adani story too:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64431235

[Bullet500]

BBC now reporting the Adani story too:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64431235

Adani shares ~20% down.

[deano2727]

Appreciate the responses on the Kashmir question, lads.

I get the point about Pakistan getting closer to Delhi, because for sure, they would both would want to link up if India did release Kashmir. On the other hand, I think it would reduce the conflict. At the end of the day, it's a bigger problem if Pakistan (the hypothetical former Indian controlled Kashmir) start causing trouble with the Indian military. They would think twice about it. Pelting stones as an Indian citzen at police is one thing, confrontation from inside Pakistan opens up a whole different can of worms.

[west_london_red]

When all else fails, wrap yourself up in the flag

Adani Group says short seller’s report was ‘calculated attack on India’

https://www.ft.com/content/f0403ce4-98f9-4aed-8af7-a7f0b3ad1445

[Bullet500]

"Hindutva Pop: Soundtrack of Hate" - https://twitter.com/dw_hotspotasia/status/1620030100912717825

[Rawkybalboa]

Sad people. When anything goes wrong they blame it on Pakistan. Lol

[Nobby Reserve]

"Hindutva Pop: Soundtrack of Hate" - https://twitter.com/dw_hotspotasia/status/1620030100912717825

Hindu fascism is very ugly.

[west_london_red]

Hindu fascism is very ugly.

Fixed it for you

[ChaChaMooMoo]

Hindu fascism is very ugly.

As opposed to other forms of fascism thats pleasant and welcoming.

[Nobby Reserve]

As opposed to other forms of fascism thats pleasant and welcoming.

[Bullet500]

"Adani rout hits $92b as fight with Hindenburg intensifies" - https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/adani-rout-hits-92b-as-fight-with-hindenburg-intensifies-20230130-p5cglw

[west_london_red]

"Adani rout hits $92b as fight with Hindenburg intensifies" - https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/adani-rout-hits-92b-as-fight-with-hindenburg-intensifies-20230130-p5cglw

If it all goes tits up for him I could well see this having a massive impact on Modi’s popularity, Adani has borrowed an awful lot of money that Indian government will end up having to swallow (most banks in Indian are state owned).

[Bullet500]

If it all goes tits up for him I could well see this having a massive impact on Modi’s popularity, Adani has borrowed an awful lot of money that Indian government will end up having to swallow (most banks in Indian are state owned).

The two biggest state owned institutions - LIC and SBI will lose money, but they will be alright. Moreover, most banks in India aren't state owned anymore. Smaller state owned banks have been merged and two private banks have even outgrown SBI.

> [1] LIC said that it has invested ₹ 364.7 billion ($ 4.47 billion) in Adani companies, about 1% of its assets under management. It is going through the group’s 413-page reply and if it feels that the concerns are not being addressed, it shall seek further clarification from the Group.

> [2] The CLSA report estimates that banking exposure to Adani Group is 0.55 per cent of system loans, as bank debt stands at less than 40 per cent of total group borrowing. Within this, PSU banks’ exposure as a share of their loans is 0.7 per cent, with the figures for some banks potentially at more than 1 per cent of loans, while for private banks the exposure is 0.3 per cent of loans, CLSA said.

[1] https://tradebrains.in/features/should-lic-and-sbi-investors-be-worried-about-their-exposure-in-adani-group-stocks/
[2] https://indianexpress.com/article/business/banks-reviewing-adani-exposure-sbi-says-no-devolvement-worry-8411698/
https://scroll.in/article/1042820/explained-how-lics-exposure-to-the-embattled-adani-group-has-implications-for-middle-class-savings
https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/sbi-underwrites-the-entire-debt-of-12770-crore-of-adanis-navi-mumbai-airport/article65271859.ece

[west_london_red]

When did all this happen?!?! I know HDFC for example was privately owned and was pretty big and growing just from my previous visits in terms of the number of branches appearing and adverts, didn’t realise they’d overtaken SBI!

[ScouserAtHeart]

HDFC is ridiculous. I have three branches within a 2-km radius from my house

[Bullet500]

When did all this happen?!?! I know HDFC for example was privately owned and was pretty big and growing just from my previous visits in terms of the number of branches appearing and adverts, didn’t realise they’d overtaken SBI!

In terms of market cap, HDFC overtook SBI a decade ago. In terms of the value of assets, still a long way to go for HDFC and ICICI. SBI is the only bank that has more assets than HDFC and ICICI.

Of late, credit cards are becoming a fad in India. Private banks are better in tune with the times.

Most of my money is still in state-owned banks though. 

[Bullet500]

> Adani calls off FPO, says will return money to investors

> The company said it is working with its Book Running Lead Managers (BRLMs) to refund the proceeds received by it in escrow and to also release the amounts blocked into investors' bank accounts for subscription to this issue.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/adani-enterprises-cancels-follow-on-public-offering-9985231.html

Let's see what happens tomorrow.

[west_london_red]

HDFC is ridiculous. I have three branches within a 2-km radius from my house

They haven’t hit the big time of having a branch in Hounslow or Southall yet!

Although we do have PNB, Bank of Baroda, SBI and ICICI branches around here now which is handy

[Jiminy Cricket]

"Adani rout hits $92b as fight with Hindenburg intensifies" - https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/adani-rout-hits-92b-as-fight-with-hindenburg-intensifies-20230130-p5cglw

https://archive.is/nsqH9 (for non-paywalled version).