shaukhat ali/khan (i couldn’t care less) – he’s the prime minister of pakistan (i think, that doesn’t matter either). news channel interviews him as he surveys the earthquake hit parts of kashmir – the pakistan side. was intrigued by his choice of words. he called this side of kashmir ‘india occupied kashmir’. nothing quite wrong with that, we call the other side ‘pakistan occupied kashmir’. (it hurts at times when these terms get used so frivolously) what set it apart was he referred to pok as ‘azad kashmir’. he may be just a politician trained to talk that way, whether he believes in it or not. but even that doesn’t matter. it’s the inherent underlying assumption that hits.
i am not an authority in history, so don’t know what the status of kashmir ought to be. neither do i recollect the outcome of the plebiscite. but what do they mean by ‘azad kashmir’!? of course, they would want to make kashmir independent of india, but would they let it stay that way? just a thought. scratching this one gives me a headache.
the more pro-hindu parties (or their leaders, because they want to stay popular with their party followers) believe that we need a temple at ayodhya. so out goes a mosque. did we hindus have a dearth of temples to visit? or is it that this particular temple will provide us with some special powers that will deliver us from all our sins? (once we manage to segregate what acts comprise sin) with the temple made, are they now going to force us to visit it, just ’cos its been made? damn it! we’ve slogged our butts out on this one! you better pray there! what happened to all the altruistic options of an education institute or a hospital? too condescending for their egos?
there’s something i surely fail to notice. i agree.
"We are all ignorant, only about different things" - Mark Twain.