The decision of Kashmir may look insensitive or undemocratic!
But has India only taken the contract of being democratic in the World?
Whereas Pakistan and China have also been arbitrary on their occupied Kashmir. Why are we silent on Aksai-chin and Gilgit Baltistan? Did Pakistan do the legal work while giving a disputed land to some other country? And, how could any other country accept it? Why did not a single voice arose from lutiyan’s India ever on those incidents?
Didn’t Pakistan create new states on the POK? Was giving India’s occupied land to China a part of any democratic step? Do the leaders of India’s opposition parties see the armies of neighbouring countries as the highly noble character of a Ramayana?
Today, the opposition is talking about democracy, has it forgotten Assam and Sikkim as how the game of dictatorship was played behind curtains of emergency by holding the king hostage?
Personally, I am a supporter of the individual’s freedom, but this you can ideate only when there is an imitation of noble-mindedness in the world. Ironically, the world is not utopia, the new baby of India has no correlation with Nehru’s high moral discovery of India.
At least not when the enemy in front of you is sitting on all sins, now waiting for creating more international pressure to occupy more parts.
There is a divergence between practicality and bookish things. If the world was as simple, Jesus would not have climbed the cross.
If Indira Ji did not make a decision on Sikkim, today Sikkim would have been under any other extraneous control.
Do we have any better alternative in Kashmir? Some people also talk about a referendum, don’t we think that India can lose some more villages, city or part with the idea of the referendum? I think the people of Kashmir are not prudent enough if we take them as citizens like the united kingdom.
Undoubtedly, Kashmiris is the most beautiful heart that ever I have witnessed in India. They are innocents and real gold, and why not, after all, they belong to Jannat. And I’m among those too, who wants to protect this Jannat from any other external malady.
But apart from this, We should also scan the mind of common people, and remember this saying that if you do not eat the lion, it is not necessary that the lion will also not eat you.
In Kashmir itself, many separatist leaders have become such lions, who have nothing to do with the democratic process.
My sympathy is with Kashmiri people, and of course, the decision on Kashmir was their own right.
But the concept of this idealism and the practical truth of our elevated morality is that we have not only lost the land of Kashmir in the last 72 years but have also failed to regain the reliance of Kashmiris, which can only be developed if we reconnect the lost bridges of 5000 years old history.
Forget about Aksai Kashmir, Pak also created a separate state in POK.
If what happened in Kashmir has never shown you in Sikkim, Assam, Hyderabad, Junagadh, or Goa, Balochistan, pok, Aksai China, then either you are blind, or your definition of democracy is subjective.
Any institution in the world stands against the freedom of subjective humanity, whenever a person starts taking shape of the institution, it starts to be against the freedom of man.
Free Individual man is like a farmer’s cow, everyone wants to frighten it whether for milk or meat, but the choices are not of a cow.
Therefore, whosoever gets the opportunity, that institution wants to establish its authority according to its nature.
Modi Ji is also a representative of an institution, whether political or ideological, so it is impossible for him to be an exception in this matter.
A person running a small political party also thinks that the ideology of the party. People of the party should be part of his consent and he will never ever going to allow exceptions for the sake of any internal democracy.
The school of democracy of idealism starts from this. But whenever a person starts thinking about being a part of any institution, from there, he will start to stand against human freedom.
And this has been happening in every society, whether it is a communist society, capitalist, socialist society or the so-called democratic system.
Because No society wants to produce a free man.
So, if we really like to make people free, liberal, then we have to free them from all kind of institutions, which is practically not possible, because if one institution trying to free them, then either human will search for another institution, like Dr Ambedkar who wants to free himself but forget to free from institutions, he made himself free from one religious institution but on next door trapped by other religion’s institution.
And when the person wants to free himself then the institution will catch him, so ultimately, in today’s practical world, talking about the individual’s freedom is still a utopia, thus better than a person’s freedom trapped by the institution which at least believes in democracy, rather autocracy.