History is written by seculars, you know

Genocide Suzie says:

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, Kashmir—Kashmir was an independent sort of kingdom in 1947 at the time of independence and partition. And when—I mean, just to cut a very complicated story short, when partition happened, both India and Pakistan fought over it and hived off parts of it, and both now have military presence in this divided Kashmir. But to give you some idea of the military presence, it’s—you know, let’s say the US has 165,000 troops in Iraq. India has 700,000 troops in Kashmir.

Kashmir used to have a Hindu king and a largely Muslim population, which was very, very backward and so on at the time, because at the time, you know, Muslims were discriminated against by that princely—in that princely state.

But now, for—I mean, in 1990, after a whole series of events, which culminated in a sort of fake election, a rigged election in 1987, there was an armed uprising in Kashmir. And really, since then, it’s been convulsed by militancy and military occupation, encounters, disappearances and so on. Last year, there was a—you know ... [link]

The "you know" count of the entire transcript is a whopping 82. No, we don't really know.

These people have it really good. They hate us and make money off of us. Normal rules do not apply to them - they can make treasonous and traitorous comments, spread communal hatred and propaganda which often include grotesque and false stories. When it comes to their own cabal, they put their blinkers on. What has happened and still openly happening in Kerala, Andhra, Assam, parts of UP, West Bengal, Orissa etc. is nothing short of systematic genocide and ethnic cleansing. Yet these transparently evil and bigoted people never bother to speak about those victims.

Stranger still is their reading of history. Perhaps she gets her facts from Noam Chomsky & Co. Even if one were to stipulate that the Kashmiri Muslims, who are perpetually on a short fuse these days, actually accepted a brutal discriminatory regime of a Hindu king while help was readily available for liberation, why stop there? The history of Kashmir doesn't just extend to the Hindu kings and stops there. But for the likes of genocide Suzie, that's enough to rake in book sale percentages.

Forget history, aside from picking up her anecdotes (we suspect she makes up a lot of those), she has very little understanding of what is going on in Kashmir. If she did, she would have to conclude that India is no constraint for the Azadi issue.

Just a few days ago, a young Kashmiri woman retaliated and killed militants when they attacked her home to forcibly "marry" her. In her articles, Genocide Suzie has rhetorically considered whether Kashmiris would perhaps favor a theocratic society to Indian rule. Clearly that young Kashmiri woman does not. That is the essence of Kashmir situation today - there are simply too many undecided people.

Of course a bigger problem for Kashmir people is Genocide Suzie's favorite country Pakistan. It is a given that they will gobble up Kashmir as soon as it is liberated. Given the current geopolitical situation, they will get the full backing of China.

Genocide Suzie does not speak for Kashmiri people. She speaks against a certain people she hates. And it shows in each syllable she utters.