If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
I received this email from Texas A&M’s International Office couple of days back:
Dear Students from the earthquake affected areas,
I am sorry that this message is so late in coming to you. Due to some unexpected issues and other unavoidable difficulties that our office has been recently dealing with, I was unable to respond to your tragedy immediately.
The staff of International Student Services would like to join me in expressing our sympathy for what happened in Afghanistan, Pakistan India and Kashmir. We are thinking of you and of the victims and their families in this awful time. We have our fervent hope that you and your
loved ones are safe. Hopefully, neither you nor your families were impacted, but if you were, please let us know. If we can be of any assistance to you, please call 979-XXX-XXX or e-mail at XXXXX@tamu.edu.
I was completely pissed off by the separate mention of Kashmir and wanted to dash off an angry email to the International Office but held off for a while. But by the time, I remembered again to do so, several desi students already had flooded their inbox and they had to issue another statement; this time removing the Kashmir reference altogether.
by Patrix | on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005 at 1:44 pm | 
Politicking . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:20 pm reply
Why the anger at the separate mention of Kashmir? Under international law you currently have Pakistan administered Kashmir and Indian administered Kashmir.
At the same time, most Kashmiris probably regard themselves as an independent people and long for self-determination even though this may not be possible.
Under both analysis, I see no problem as mentioning Kashmir separately.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:51 pm reply
Kashmir is a disputed area. It is your blind loyalty to your country that makes you forget or ignore this simple fact.
Julien Sorel,
India
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:15 pm reply
Reformist Muslim, kindly note that the other entities mentioned are nations. Kashmir is a region and placing them in that group doesn’t even make logical sense. Kashmiris consider themselves independent? Whoa! speak for yourself. I wonder then why “Azad” Kashmir is part of Pakistan.
Julien, It is a disputed area but that doesn’t give it an independent nation rank. As far as my personal feelings are concerned (as is with rest of the stuff that you find here), Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:13 pm reply
If I were the person receiving that email, I would reply with - “Grow Up Kid”
November 3rd, 2005 at 6:14 am reply
Dear College Administrators from the European Union, United States and Texas,
Thank you for your kind words.
November 3rd, 2005 at 6:28 am reply
Dear reformist muslim,
International law, that’s a nice one. Why Kashmiris, citizens from various parts of India consider themselves independent people, not just in states and districts but in housing estates and housing colonies too. Many of them long for self-determination, so that they are free from the clutches of an exploitative state and its failing public utilities. Heck, imagine if Hiranandani Gardens could run its own captive power plant, telecom network, satellite station and air force.
Julien,
Can you let us know your home address? Patrix will then claim it belonged to him, and was snatched away in the 60s due to the Indian governments land redistribution act, which he considers illegal because he was not allowed to vote against it. For good measure, I will file another claim, because it is rightfully mine as I am the sole legal heir of the person who had been given the land by the Mughal Emperor Akbar. See, it’s that easy to create a disputed area.
Apologies for the sarcasm, especially if you don’t appreciate it. But you two are missing the point. Regardless of dispute or no dispute, there’s no de facto sovereign entity called Kashmir.
November 3rd, 2005 at 7:40 am reply
Nitin,
Your “biting sarcasm” apart, what’s your point mate?.
P.S: It usually ceases to be sarcasm when you have to explain the damn thing.
November 3rd, 2005 at 7:42 am reply
Sorry, I typed Nitin in the name column by mistake in my previous comment. That sure as hell was no attempt at sarcasm….
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:55 pm reply
I think that this thread has gotten out of hand. The thrust of my point was that there was no good reason to get angry over an innocent and well-meaning email which pedantics aside couldn’t be considered false or incorrect.
I agree with Nilu in that I don’t think that the sarcasm really helped develop the discussion and with that I retire from this discussion although I look forward to commenting on future posts.
November 4th, 2005 at 12:07 am reply
Nilu and reformist muslim,
Regardless of what you think about the value of sarcasm in debate, I think I’ve made my points. I see no reason why those who feel offended should have reason not indicate their displeasure. That the motives are innocent mitigate the offence, but in no way remove it.
Taiwan is in every way an independent country — it issues its own currency, runs it own government, issues its own passports (that are accepted by everyone else) etc. But just let any institution formally mention Taiwan as a country and see what happens.
You can call this pedantic, or childish etc. So what?
November 4th, 2005 at 2:00 am reply
Nitin,
No one here is questioning the right to protest. The point is the logic behid it.
If you are going to use the “right to….” argument, when did I deny Patrix his right to stupidity? The point here is that its stupid - nothing more.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:43 am reply
Reformist Muslim, You have a chance to debate rationally here. There is much truth in Nitin’s word sarcasm aside.
Nilu, to paraphrase One man’s stupidity is other’s intelligence. To each his own, I guess. Another discovery, when one runs out of “logic”, resort to ad hominem arguments. Nice!
November 4th, 2005 at 1:32 pm reply
Exactly Pat. I do not intend to reduce this to mudslinging. My point was and is, your right to protest was never in question. But the rationale behind it was - I thought that was obvious.
Again, if you are using the argument “I did because I could”, no one in his right mind is going to question that. But there is an implicit assumption in having your opinion on public domain - that your rationale is open to questions. If it is not, it makes little sense - though you still retain the right to do what you do, obviously.
And why am I being forced to state the obvious here? The ownership issues are settled. What ‘reformist muslim’ or I do not understand and find laughable is that you have exactly ventured into territory that Nitin and yourself have accused me of.
November 4th, 2005 at 2:26 pm reply
Nilu, let me get this straight. I oppose Kashmir being called a separate entity (accorded the rank of an independent nation) and you do not. If the ownership issues are settled as you claim, why is blood still being spilled in Kashmir? My personal opinion would be to accept the LOC as the international border (wouldn’t happen if Nehru had bungled in 1947)but guess Pakis won’t accept that. So Kashmir still remains part of India, disputed or not.
November 4th, 2005 at 2:49 pm reply
Pat,
1. The ownership alluded to here was this blog and your email. Not territory in Kashmir.
2. No you did not get it straight - you have a problem with something and choose to take an issue with someone in TAMU. I find that silly - that does not give away one bit of my thoughts on Kashmir itself.
November 4th, 2005 at 2:56 pm reply
Nilu, thanks for clarifying. Let me address your points:
1. Of course, you are free to disagree with my thoughts on my blog and we can argue endlessly on the validity of our individual opinions. I do not mind anyone commenting on my blog as long as they add to the conversation and not indulge in irrelevant banter, which so far you have not.
2. My point of contention with that original email from TAMU was that the international office of a large university that gets hundreds of students from the subcontinent would at least take the efforts to make themselves aware of the political realities of the countries the students come from. They seemed to realize the mistake and corrected themselves without much argument.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:07 pm reply
No idea how this debate went off in a totally different direction!
My point was that it was not a “geo-political mistake” to bring the name of Kashmir separately from India or Pakistan because much as your blinkered patriotism makes you believe, Kashmir is still a disputed territory and its status is still undecided. I am sure TAMU will have many students from pakistan and indeed from kashmir who will have views different from yours. What about them?
I think we need to grow up and be little detached from things so that we can see them in right perspective, which was exactly what was missing in the tone in which you wrote your post.
November 5th, 2005 at 11:58 am reply
Julien, the fact that TAMU instantly rectified the mistake shows where their priorities lie if nothing else. “Growing up detached” might be akin to apathy and might even suggest each time someone asks for a separate homeland, we hand it to them on a platter, even if is a tiny minority that makes the demand. Remember, the squeaky wheel always gets the most attention; don’t mistake it as the voice of the majority.