Diet of mud and despair in Indian village

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

India spends so much on defence, if there is peace in region this could be diverted to helping the poor get education, jobs and feed them.

There is Food and Water crisis in India. Food prices have shot up that many people cant afford. There is shortage of water and electricity.

There would be mass protests and riots if this persists.

“We live on a day-to-day basis,” Suraj says, as the faint sound of hammering echoes across the village. “What we earn is what we spend on our families in a day.”

In Ganne, just off the main road about an hour south of the city of Allahabad, this is a simple fact of life.

It is home to members of a poor tribal community, who live in small huts clustered around a series of shallow quarries.

Inside one of the huts sits a little girl called Poonam. She is three years old, and in the early stages of kidney failure.

Like many children in Ganne she has become used to eating bits of dried mud and silica, which she finds in the quarry. Tiny children chew on the mud simply because they are hungry - but it is making them ill.

When reports first emerged of children eating mud here local officials delivered more food and warned the villagers not to speak to outsiders. But Poonam’s father, Bhulli, is close to despair.

“What can I say,” he shrugs. “We can’t afford to eat properly, so how can I afford to buy medicines for her?”

“I am really worried about my daughter, but I don’t know what to do next. The poor need the government’s help - if we had it, we wouldn’t be in such a desperate state.”

People like Bhulli and Suraj make their money filling lorries with bits of rock. It takes about eight hours for five men to fill one load. They carry the stones up from the quarry in plastic washing-up bowls balanced on their heads.
One of the women in the village, Phulkari, approaches to tell us about her little boy.

“My son’s name is Suraj, and he’s started eating mud too,” she says. “What can we do? We eat the mud from the quarry when we feel hungry.”
“Where do we get the money?” she asks. “We usually eat food only once a day. Last night we went to bed without eating anything at all.”

Food protests

The World Bank estimates that one third of all the very poorest people in the world live in India, and stories like those from Ganne have now inspired a national Right To Food campaign.

2

As I have repeatedly argued in the past, perhaps it would be better all parties involved if the Indian government withdrew its armed forces from areas where the overwhelming majority have no interest in being a part of India. Those resources would be far better used to improve the lot of the hundreds of millions of impoverished people who actually want to be a part of India.

3

saregamapa from some of your earlier post I noticed that you are from India,

It is commendable to bring to peoples attention the plight of your country’s children, and Pakistan is not any better either in some rural areas.

On the other hand India just bought has intentions to buy 10 C-17 Military Heavey Lift Aircraft from Boeing, these airplanes cost $200,000,000.00 each

May be you should advise your govt to spend that 2 Billion Dollars on all the surplus Food that USA has in our Food Banks.

Heck USA produces more Pet Food than many countries produce human food.

4

Nehru diverted all available funds to building dams, industries, education etc. but neglected the Indian army.

China attacked India in 1962 and captured thousands of kilometers of India. People felt humilated & Nehru lost all credibility thereafter.

If Pakistan had attacked India in 1962 - They would have captured whole of Kashmir. Unfortunately for Pakistan, they waited too long and attacked in 1965 - by that time it was too late, Indian Army had been restructured, funds diverted from Investment and put in the Army.

So the crux of the matter is, that if it was not for the land grab & expansionist attitude of Pakistan & China, India would have merrily been spending all its funds to better the lot of its population.

5

If you would give up your occupation of Kashmir, then you would be shooting two birds with one stone. You would eliminate the prime source of all grievances against India, hence less need to spend on defense. And as Janab-e-Ali posted up there, you would have more money diverted to the betterment of your own people, who actually want to be Indian, as opposed to wasting it on the forced occupation of those who dont want you.

6

Med911 - If it was not for the land grab & expansionist attitude of Pakistan & China, India would not have a need to build it's military.

Did W Pakistan give freedom to East Pakistan. Yes, but the Bengalis fought & millions were killed.
Does Pakistan want to give freedom to Balochistan - No, they rather bomb it with planes & tanks..

Pakistan wants Kashmir, not to give them Independence, but to occupy it..
(For Kashmiri's it's "from the frying pan into the fire"!!)

7

Kashmir is Pakistan.its only a matter of time.

8

The problem isn’t Pakistan/China/Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia/etc…it’s that India insists on occupying territory where the general population wants nothing to do with Indian rule. The Indian army itself admits that there are no more than a few hundred militants in Kashmir at any given time:

Then why, pray tell, does India need 700,000 soldiers posted in Kashmir? Is India’s army so wildly incompetent that it takes 1,000 Indian soldiers to deal with 1 militant? No…the problem is that 5.5 million Kashmiris also hate the Indian occupation and need to be suppressed and bludgeoned into submission on a daily basis if the occupation is to continue.

As I said before, perhaps the massive resources India is wasting on maintaining control over an area that represents 0.5% of its total land mass, with less than half the population of Delhi, could be better spent on feeding and educating the teeming, impoverished masses of UP and Bihar.

9

Both pakistan & india has strategic interest in j&K. All their water comes from it. Do u really believe that the lives of 150m+ muslims in pakistan and 1b+ (muslim,hindu,sikh etc.) is less important than pathetic 2m+ in the vale of K. Either u go with pak or india, thats it.
I think both pakistan and india have **wasted **enough $$ to get vale of kashmir on their side.

10

India has plenty of freshwater resources that originate outside of Kashmir. As for Pakistan, it neither controls Kashmir now, nor will it ever in the foreseeable future. It could enter into water-sharing treaties with an independent Kashmir the same way it has with India. In any case, I fail to see how an independent Kashmir would jeopardize the lives of all of Pakistan and India - if anything, the biggest threats to life and property throughout South Asia lie within Pakistan itself.

I agree. Let us part ways and be done with it.

11

For Pak not all and most of its water does not come from IOK.

12

Thats bs, both punjabs are bread basket of their individual countries and much of its water comes through J&K.
As far as pak making water treaty with tiny mini independend J&K is concerened, why shoud it? u guys cant even fight urself for independence without...hmmm u know, external help?.
Also, from what i know, the hindu pundit were/are the original inhabitants of vale of K. Didnt u kick them out of their homes? U think 1b hindu india is gonna let u get away with it? like it or not its either pak or ind for u.
That reminds me of a bollywood song:
Gaali huzoor ki to, laagti dua o jaise, aap ka kya hoga janab-e-ali, aap ka kya hoga janab-e-ali :D

13

It's evident that you don't know what you're talking about. Agriculture in East Punjab and Haryana is sustained by the Rivers Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas - all three of which originate in the mountains of Himachal Pradesh, and never cross through J&K. Like I said, India doesn't need Kashmir for water.

As for Pakistan, its main water supplies come from the Indus; the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, and Sutlej also provide water to West Punjab. Of those rivers only the Jhelum originates in the Kashmir Valley. The Chenab (which originates in India) briefly passes through a Kashmiri-dominated district. Other than that, all of Pakistan's water supplies are independent of Kashmir.

Why shouldn't it? It has no problem negotiating water rights with the same huge, hostile India that its gone to war with 4 times. I don't see why it couldn't potentially extend the same courtesy to a smaller, and likely friendlier neighbor.

Oh please. As you've so eloquently demonstrated, Pakistan's so called "help" was entirely for its own selfish reasons. In any case, shunting left-over wannabe Jihadis from the Afghan War across the border at this point isn't help. Thanks, but you can keep them in FATA where they belong.

We've already established that isn't very much.

Most of the Muslims of Kashmir are converted Pandits; they are as much the "original inhabitants" as any Pandit. We also never "kicked them out" - some left when the violence began (along with tens of thousands of Kashmiri Muslims); the rest were evacuated by the Indian government to make way for the unmitigated civilian massacres of the 90's.

14

... So india is going to** briefly** take that part of kashmir?

u answered ur own question. If pakistan can take punga with huge, hostile India that its gone to war with 4 times. What was all that waste for..so that it can negotiate with tiny miny independ j & K? Why the hell not take over?

Well, u should have thought of it in early '80s. U asked for help u got it. got it? U know that there are quite a few of ur kind of guests who picked up guns living in pak.

Thanks for the compliment!

I guess denial is river called janab-e-ali.
So they left because they were longing for change of weather after centuries?
They had sudden desire to be with their hindoo brotherens? They were killed,kidnapped, thier property looted and they had feared for their lives!
u know that no govement in hindu majority india is going to give vale just to the muslims.

15

Pakistan didn't win any water rights from India through war. In fact, it didn't win anything from India after the 1948 War. Whatever it has, it got through negotiations. Your entire, misspelled, grammatically incorrect argument seems to be that Kashmir would be "too small" to enter into treaties with...which, frankly, is just plain stupid and really carries no water.

Because Pakistan can't, and has repeatedly failed to do so. An independent or de facto independent Kashmir, formed through negotiations and UN involvement, is 1000 times more likely than India ceding an inch of territory to Pakistan, or Pakistan managing to take any territory through war. As for the possibility of Pakistan invading an independent Kashmir, I doubt there would be much public support for that in Pakistan. Considering the fact that Pakistan is on the brink of civil war, and (hopefully) isn't run by total buffoons, I think the leadership also realizes that starting another war (against international opinion) would be ill-advised and would only serve to further destabilize the nation.

No one asked for foreign jihadis or Pakistani occupation.

Like I said, you have no idea what you're babbling about.

In the early days of the conflict, the militants killed Pandits...mostly those who were connected to the Indian government. They also targeted and killed far more Muslims...again mostly those who were well connected to the Indian government. The Indian government's own figures claim that a total of 219 Pandits were killed over the entire 20 years of the conflict...I'm sure it contributed to the Indian government's attempts to build up mass-paranoia among the Hindu communuty, but I imagine if there had been a specific campaign to kill off the Pandits, the number would have been much higher. Moreover, the Sikh and Christian minorities in Kashmir have managed to stay put without any mass-migration.

Like I said, thousands of affluent Pandits (and Muslims for that matter) left when the violence began. As for the rest of them, Jagmohan, the Indian governor of the state at the time, ordered the mass evacuation of the remaining Pandits. I suggest you read Wahajat Habibullah's (a senior Indian bureaucrat in Kashmir at the time) book on Kashmir, where he explains how he tried to convince Jagmohan to increase security for the Pandits and try to keep them in their homes. Jagmohan completely refused and was intent on evacuating them. Apparenly even people in Pakistan now are buying the Indian propaganda completely...so I guess the GoI got what it needed out of the Pandits.

In any case, militancy is at an all-time low, and for years, poll after poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of Kashmiri Muslims (~95%) support the return of the Pandits. There's no logical reason for them to remain in refugee camps, other than the fact that they provide invaluable propaganda for India and other anti-Kashmir elements like yourself.

16

janab-e-khali,
Follow me very very slowly...if .... vale of K is independent..then pak does not need to negotiate about water with mini me K..why bother..Pak can surely take over independent K, got it? **
**Now ..very very slowly to ur next diatrabe..

What can i say.. i did not have previledge to go to indian goverment funded school :)

If handful of ur invited guests can tie down 500,000+ indian soldiers. Why invade 2-3 m people mini me independent country. A few uninvited guests will do, no?

Grasping at straws,ru? So according to ur logic there were less than 219 pundits connected to India goverment? Thats all?

That explains why only 219.238460 (i think u rounded off the figure u pulled out of ur hat) pundits were killed..because they had already left!

Its like telling people in swat to stay put when TTP was beating women and chopping people's hands off, Stay, u will be provided security. If 500k india soldiers could not prevent blast going off in sri nagar, how were they going to protect them?

Sure they want them back just like indian govement wants them to stay where they are. "they provide invaluable propaganda" as u had aptly put*.*

An entire generation of pundits have grown up outside of vale. Once trust is lost, its hard to get it back. I am pretty sure they are longing to hug their ex-neighbours (NOT!), who not so long ago were vying for their blood.
Btw, those invited guests( now terrorists, how convenient!) u keep moaning about. Remenber that if the tribal lashkar had not invaded during hari singh's rule. We would not be having this conversation or u jumping with joy for independece for that matter.i Remeber how kashmiris supported/prayed for pak cricket teams victory over india, flying of pak flags and longing to join us. aab talak chhaiye?

Just because some tom,dick and janab-e-ali wants independence they cant have it.
Pakistani establishment has came to term with the notion that UN resolution is useless. Thats why they are making northeren areas as settled/controlled part of pakistan.
Since 9/11 world has no sympathy for any movement that is based on ethnic cleansing or in the name of religion (thats how world views kashmir problem). If u claim that u want an independent secular democratic state for all kashmiris regardless of their religion (i am sure pundits and buddhist will disagree)..world would say thats what india is and u being part of it u have no loci standi (hence no sympathy for ur cause, not to mention india has more economic muscle now than before).
Sorry to wake u up from ur dream. Its either pak or india. May be a soft border between AJK and Vale to have free movement of good and people, however, u dont seem to be too excited about them. Pakistan has spend so much resources and blood to woo urungrateful kashmiris.
India has developed ur infrastructure at the cost of her own poor people. If u are indepedent u think india is going to take dams/hydro power, sri nagar airport, colleges and road infra-structure with her?
ur somewhere between gay san francisco and gaya (bye bye) sri nagar.

17

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard of late. Under what international law can Pakistan "take over an independent k"? Last I checked it is the 21st century not the 18th. A country cannot invade and occupy a country now, much less a newly independent one. In case you missed it, Iraq, eyeing the vast oil resources of Kuwait, tried to invade Kuwait but that didn't go very well, did it? Even more than three decades ago not even, geographically speaking, "mini me" Bangladesh became part of India even though, lets face it, East Bangal was part of British India and there were lots of similarities between Bangalis and Bangladeshis.

Also there is no need to inflate ad nauseum the importance of just one river, which starts in Kashmir, to Pakistan. Besides, unless you live in a cave you should know that negotiation between two states, irrespective of their areas, populations or power dynamics, is perfectly possible and unremarkably frequent.

18

With all do respect. The option of independance was never an option when the two countries were formed...

I however would not favor a complete union of Kashmir with Pakistan as things stand today.
The sole reason why I would not support the union of Kashmir wtih Pakistan is the fact that Pakistan has yet to get its house in order. Hence, as it currently stands, Pakistan can offer little more to Kashmiris in occupied Kashmir then the option of not being bludgeoned, as you put it, by an occupying army of Thousands.

But I see no reason why a Kashmir free of Indian domination, would not profit from a stable and prosperous Pakistan. Culturally, Kashmiris arent that far removed from Pakistanis. Im sure you share ethnicity with one group of Pakistanis or another. And as a Landlocked state, that is far better conected to Pakistan then to India, as far as I know, you would profit from having access to Pak.

19

I agree completely with you except that I think the British did allow the autonomous princely states of South Asia to accede to either dominion or stay independent. In reality, of course that was not a very feasible option as the case of Hyderabad state attests. I also agree that Kashmiris would be better off in an independent Kashmir although, as you said, an independent Kashmir would benefit from a stable Pakistan.

20

I believe they would be better of independant as things stand right now. Currently Pakistan simply cannot be looked on as an option.

But in a Pakistan that is stable, and prosperous, not an impossible feat, I see no reason why Kashmir should be averse to union with Pak. Given the right situation, Kashmir would be a natural fit. There is a big difference between Benglis and Pakistanis, but Kashmiris are practically our own.