Did pro-India militias kill Western tourists in Kashmir?
A government human rights commission in Kashmir on Tuesday evening said it will review records from the 1995 abduction of Western tourists after a new book claimed that four of six foreign tourists were murdered by a pro-India militia to discredit India’s arch-rival Pakistan.
On July 4, 1995, Americans Donald Hutchings and John Childs, as well as Britons Paul Wells and Keith Mangan were kidnapped by the little known Al-Faran militant group while trekking in the Himalayas near Pahalgam, 97 km (60 miles) southeast of Srinagar.
Four days later, Childs escaped. On the same day, the captors abducted German Dirk Hasert and Norwegian Hans Christian Ostroe. Ostroe was found beheaded in August 1995. The others were never found.
Journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, whose book “The Meadow: Kashmir 1995 – Where the Terror Began” is about the abduction, claim that the four Westerners were murdered by a pro-government militia group who worked for Indian security forces.
After Ostroe was beheaded, Al-Faran was ready to strike a monetary deal to free the hostages and might have released them for £250,000, the authors claim. They say the deal was deliberately sabotaged.
“It appeared that there were some in the Indian establishment who did not want this never-ending bad news story of Pakistani cruelty and Kashmiri inhumanity to end, even when the perpetrators themselves were finished,” the book says.
Will Indian army’s charm offensive work in Kashmir?
When thousands gathered in an Indian army camp in Kashmir recently, people started asking questions: Is this another protest against New Delhi’s rule?
The answer came as a surprise to many and as a shock to some.
Nearly 10,000 youth had gathered to try their luck in a recruitment drive by the Indian army in the disputed region and not to protest against alleged excesses by security forces.
A BBC report said that by taking part in the Indian army’s recruitment rally, Kashmiri youth have disregarded the region’s “struggle for independence which has been ongoing for the last 20 years.”
Tens of thousands have died since 1989 in Kashmir, which is claimed both by India and Pakistan.
“The week-long rally is being held barely a few months after last year’s widespread public unrest during which more than 100 people were killed,” the BBC report said.
Last year, the death of a teenage boy by a police teargas shell triggered massive protests, the biggest since a separatist revolt against Indian rule broke out.
“You have trouble distinguishing between Tribalism and Casteism”Posted by Matrixx
===
No. You are having difficulties in your efforts to project a fake image of Pakistan in this forum 
I am sure you know the extent of prevalence of castesim in Pakistan. I’m posting this for the benefit of non-Pakistanis.
Ms. Shahbano Aliani works with the Thardeep Rural Development Programme and is based in Karachi, Pakistan. This is what she has to say on the topic.
http://reddiarypk.wordpress.com/2009/08/ 25/caste-in-pakistan/
EXCERPT:“Syeds (also known as Shahs in Sindh) claim to be the descendants of the prophet Muhammad (SAW) and are the highest caste in most places. In Punjab, the Ranas (Rajpoots), Chaudhurys and Maliks are considered higher caste, whereas the Kammis (workers), Chuhras (“untouchable” sweepers who are mostly Christian), Mussali (Muslim shaikh – menial workers) and Miraasi (musicians) are considered lower caste. In the NWFP, “lower castes” are referred to as Neech Zaat (low caste) and Badnasal (of bad lineage). In Balochistan the “lower castes” include Ghulams (slaves), Lohris (musicians), and Lachhis (Dalits). In Sindh, “high-caste” Muslims, in addition to Shahs and Syeds, include the Akhunds, Effendis, Soomros, Talpurs, and Pirs. Hajjams (barbers), Dhobis (washers), Kumbhars (potters), Maachis/ Mallahs (fisherfolk) and Bhajeer (Dalit converts to Islam) are considered “low caste”. In places like Swat, the Quom system is comparative to the Hindu caste system. Here, groups are divided rigidly according to occupation. Quoms do not intermarry or live together.
The fact that caste is an important social identity for Pakistani Muslims is reinforced in matchmaking/ marriage services, where caste is one of the key attributes mentioned by prospective brides and grooms.”
Kashmir seeks return of hanged separatist leader’s remains
Mohammad Maqbool Bhat, the pioneer of Kashmir’s separatist struggle, was hanged in New Delhi’s Tihar jail on February 11, 1984.
Bhat, also the founder of Kashmir’s influential separatist group Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), was executed on the charge of killing an Indian intelligence officer. His body was buried in the jail.
Five years after Bhat’s hanging, Kashmiri militants including JKLF launched an insurgency against Indian rule in the Muslim-majority region and the bloodshed has continued ever since.
Each year on February 11, Kashmir goes on strike to mark the anniversary of the hanging of its leader, widely respected in the disputed region.
Life across the Kashmir valley was affected on Friday by a separatist shutdown called to observe the death anniversary of Bhat.
But JKLF, which declared a ceasefire with Indian forces in 1994 and is fighting politically for the independence of Kashmir from both India and Pakistan, says it will intensify its protests and demand the return of Bhat’s mortal remains.
“The denial of mortal remains of leader to his people is a grave human rights violation,” the JKLF said. “Bhat is the identity of Kashmiris and symbol of our unity.”
Its very surprising fact that what made maqbool bhat form JKLF in 1977???what was the motive behind it .There was no oppression of any kind on Kashmiris at that time.In any case with the kind of crimes committed by him(murdering an intelligence officer,bank manager and planning kidnaping of a diplomat) are unpardonable under any constitution in world.
Should forces responsible for over 100 killings be praised for restraint?
India’s Prime Minister praised the work of security forces in disputed Kashmir on Tuesday, in a show of support for troops that killed over 100 separatist protesters last year that risks angering those that resent India’s large military presence in the state.
The remarks represent a seal of approval for security forces that are cited by many Kashmiris as an element of the violence, rather than the preventers of it, and come as a team of interlocutors enters its fifth month of talks in the troubled region, and almost two months after Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said that a political solution to the troubles was likely to emerge “in the next few months.”
But can Manmohan Singh’s praise for the “tremendous restraint” of Indian forces in Kashmir be applauded considering they have been responsible for the death of over 100 separatist protesters in months of violent clashes since last summer?
“It is really unfortunate and sad that despite tremendous restraint shown by the security forces, many young people died,” Singh told a conference of state chief ministers in New Delhi on Tuesday. “As we meet today, the situation in the valley has improved.”
Such rhetoric — regularly trotted out by New Delhi and military leaders — is reviled by many in Kashmir by those who resent the perceived heavy-handed treatment by India’s security forces.
Last month, India appeared to be moving towards a reduction in ground forces in the state, while discussions roll on regarding the removal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act — much-maligned by Kashmiri citizens.
@Oppressed 1947
***I am curious why kidnapping and killing two teenage sisters by militants did not raise as much hue and cry as the rape and killing in Shopian case where people in the valley were protesting.
Why not protest like that now?
A Republic Day to forget for India’s opposition party
As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh watched India’s 61st Republic Day parade in the New Delhi sunshine on Wednesday morning, senior opposition leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley were in a Jammu prison, where they had spent a night under arrest.
Detained for attempting to lead thousands of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers into India’s northern state of Jammu & Kashmir to provocatively raise the national flag in the state that has been racked by unrest by Muslim separatists opposed to Indian rule, Swaraj and Jaitley’s politically-driven mission had ended in failure.
The BJP appear to have thought that the nationalism-drenched plan to hoist the flag in the centre of Srinagar, the state capital, would galvanize their Hindu support base, and show the ruling Congress party as ineffective in defending the disputed state from separatists who rile against New Delhi’s rule.
Thursday’s media post-mortem strongly suggested that they failed on both counts.
“Omar steals a march as BJP flag mission foiled,” summed up Mail Today on Thursday, as the opposition’s plan to paint the Congress-backed state chief minister as a weak leader spectacularly backfired.
The provocative rhetoric that accompanied the march also risked alienating moderate Hindus and a large section of secular voters, as newspaper editors strongly criticized the brazen attitude to stirring tensions in the unstable region where more than 100 people were killed last year.
Zeal outdoing sanity is more acceptable than PM of the nation saying hoisting national flag is “divisive”
Does the Indian media overplay Indo-Chinese tension?
New Delhi’s flat-out denial of the most recent reports by state authorities of Chinese military incursions across its border with India in Jammu and Kashmir may show a tendency to gloss over such seemingly insignificant events — in favour of bigger strategic and trade interests — that the media appears to ignore.
On Monday afternoon, amidst a lull in the seemingly endless Indian news cycle, all major TV news channels flashed a breaking story of Chinese troops crossing the Indian border in the disputed northern state.
Local news providers in the state declared fears of a “hotting-up of the border”, and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah was moved to issue fiery rhetoric and even threats of retaliation, which the mainstream media duly published.
Despite the reported incursions taking place in September of last year, the story rapidly found its way to the top of the headline pile, and in the apparent context of a disputed border between unstable bedfellows armed with nuclear weapons, several international newswires even jumped on the reports.
Back in New Delhi, however, India’s ministry of external affairs described the media reports as “baseless”, rubbishing claims from state authorities, and re-printed by news organisations that Indian workers were “threatened” by Chinese troops.
Chief of the Army Staff General V.K. Singh even went as far to defend Chinese troops involved in the alleged border crossings, saying that the local residents on the Indian side of the border were to blame for ignoring government advice over ceasing construction projects. Chinese officials made no remarks on the issue.
Reports of so-called incursions are nothing new, and a high-pitched domestic media debate that routinely raises fears of increased Chinese influence on Indian territory only further muddles a murky and ambiguous history of boots purposefully, or not, crossing borders.
What do you expect when money is involved? Who wants to read headlines like ‘China did NOT cross the border today’?
If I was a journalist and I had to sell stories or starve, I would spend the entire day writing rubbish too.
Kashmir calms down, but peace still distant
Winter has come to Kashmir, a scenic valley deep in the Himalayas, cooling tensions in the disputed region after months of violent anti-India demonstrations.
At least 110 people have been killed since June. Dozens were wounded, mostly by police bullets, during the protests – the biggest since a revolt against Indian rule broke out in 1989.
A separatist strike, curfew and security lock-down, that dragged on for over four months and closed much of the region, have ebbed away and the streets across Kashmir are abuzz with activity again.
Authorities say the arrest of some “hard-core” protest organisers and the onset of winter helped to calm the protests.
But there is no optimism across Kashmir valley that peace has returned.
Nayeem Akhtar, chief spokesman of the state’s main opposition People’s Democratic Party says the weakening of anti-India protests should not be mistaken for an end to the problem.
“You cannot expect Kashmiris to be in permanent agitation mode. People are exhausted, they have suffered deaths, injuries, financial losses,” Akhtar told The Hindu newspaper.
Arundhti Roy has talked about it, Pandit Nehru said the same, freedom for Kashmiris can be delayed, but it can not be stopped for ever.
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Will Obama refer to Kashmir in public in India?
Will President Barack Obama make some public remarks on Kashmir during his trip to India next month?
At a White House press briefing, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes refused to be pinned down on specifics, beyond saying that the United States would continue to express support for India and Pakistan to pursue talks.
"I wouldn’t -- I don't want to get into prefacing with precision what his comments are, in part because he’ll be answering a lot of questions there in the town hall and press conference and we haven’t -- we’re still working through his remarks on certain things," he said.
Yet it is a question that cannot -- and will not -- be left to chance.
Indian is deeply sensitive about foreign visitors talking about Kashmir -- as British foreign ministers have learned to their cost on earlier trips. It regards Kashmir as an integral part of India and refuses even to recognise the territory at the heart of more than 60 years of enmity with Pakistan as disputed. Moreover, it has consistently rejected outside interference, saying that its disputes with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally.
Obama, who raised hackles in India during his presidential election campaign by suggesting the Washington should try to help resolve the Kashmir dispute, is hoping to use the trip to help U.S. business tap into India's growing economy. With a flagging economy at home, he cannot afford to offend his hosts.
But at the same time, the biggest foreign policy challenge of his administration is over how to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan cannot be ended without Pakistan's help. And Pakistan itself faces serious instability -- potentially a much bigger worry than Afghanistan with its 180 million people and nuclear bombs. Pakistan's identity in turn is intimately bound up with India - its past support for Islamist militants was driven by its belief that this was the only way to neutralise the influence of its much bigger neighbour both in Kashmir and in Afghanistan. Depending on who you listen to, it either will not, or can not, tackle Islamist militants based in Pakistan without a peace settlement with India, including on Kashmir.
Myra,
Refer Kashmir in public? Why?! Should Manmohan ask Obama about the Alaska secessionist party in public? What nonsense write up is this?
India takes calm approach to Arundhati Roy’s Kashmir remarks
After initial signs that India’s government might move to censure controversial remarks by novelist and activist Arundhati Roy, it appears New Delhi has sidestepped a potential political minefield with U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to the country only a week away.
On Sunday, Roy told a conference in New Delhi that Kashmir has “never been an integral part of India”, sparking a strong backlash.
Opposition politicians called for “the strongest possible action” against her “seditious” remarks and Law Minister Veerappa Moily declared the comments “most unfortunate”.
Responding to the charges against her, Roy countered: “Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds.”
With its recent election to the United Nations Security Council with a view to making it permanent and Obama’s arrival next Saturday, India appears to have concluded — as influential Indian newspaper The Hindu wrote on Tuesday — that the media furore over Roy’s remarks is “essentially much ado about nothing”.
Indeed, after winning the 1997 Booker Prize for The God of Small Things, Roy has become a serial controversy-inciter. Whether it’s stirring the ire of India’s nationalist right with an over-zealous defence of the insurgent left, or standing shoulder-to-shoulder with displaced residents in criticism of the industrialist central government, stirring debate is her current raison d’être.
Roya has simply reminded the chauvanist Indean leaders of the truth. She is perfectly correct, Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. She could have also qualified by stating that India has never been a single country.
It was under the british that India became a single unit and a colony. Before any one you try to deny this reality please read fully the history, before and after the muslim conquerers.
Rex Minor
Ps I must say the lady is very smart, nothing unusual in India!
from Afghan Journal:
Obama in India next month; ripples in the region
U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to India is still a couple of weeks away and there is the huge U.S. election before then, but it has already set off ripples in the region. The Chinese have especially cottoned onto Obama's Indian journey, fretting over what they see as a U.S. attempt to ring fence China by deepening ties with countries around it. And continent-size India with a population of over a billion and an economy growing at a clip just behind China's is seen as a key element of that strategy of containment.
Qui Hao of the National Defense University, writes in the Global Times that while U.S. military alliances with Japan and South Korea form the backbone of the "strategic fence" around China, the "shell" is the partnership that Washington is building with India, Vietnam and other nations that have territorial disputes with China.
India, Qui cautions, would do well not to blindly follow America's policies in the region, especially if it really wanted to be a global player. India, China and the United States were bound up in a triangular relationship, and as the two weaker parts of that relationship, it was important that they maintained stable ties so that Washington didn't exploit their differences, Qui wrote.
Quite remarkable, since for decades and especially so in recent years, the Chinese have hardly seen India as little more than a regional player locked in disputes with its neighbours, much less an equal in a three-way relationship involving the United States.
Qui is not alone. Du Youkang who heads the center for South Asian studies at Fudan University said the rise of India and China was the 21st century's biggest development, and both countries must work to deepen ties. Some Western countries and the media were trying to drive a wedge between the two neighbours , Du said in the China Daily, urging both to be vigilant against elements inside their countries and outside trying to stir trouble and derail a growing relationship. There was much that was common between the two countries, not least their desire to meet the challenges globalisation in a Western-dominated international economic system.
China and India share a lot of common views on many major international issues such as a multi-polar world, reform of the international economic and financial system, South-North relations, democratization of international relations, climate change and World Trade Organization talks. In recent years, the two sides have enhanced coordination and cooperation over these issues to protect their as well as the entire developing world's interests.
China is not the only one watching Obama's passage to India. Arch rival Pakistan will be closely following the trip, beginning from Mumbai and indeed the very hotel which was one of the centres targeted by Pakistan-based militants in deadly attacks in 2008. Pakistan, and by extension Afghanistan, will by themselves be the elephants in the room when Obama sits down for talks with his Indian hosts. Any tilt, or a perceived slight or remarks such as the one made by British Prime Minister David Cameron when he was visiting India, saying Pakistan couldn't look both ways in the fight against terrorism, run the risk of further souring U.S.-Pakistan ties.
Strategic games like this are far more complex and subtle than it may appear at first.
Now the main topic is about “containing” China through an alliance between the United States and India but this is just one possible outcome.
Most people may know that the United States’ influence extends deep into Japan and South Korea as a result of the Cold War (switching to North Korea as of recent) and now is a convenient force against “threats” in the region but what is to say that the United States won’t use the “China Threat” to gain influence into India and surrounding regions in a similar fashion.
In this triangle relationship, let’s say that the US-India grouping wins, then what is stopping the US from turning against India. Is there something inherently special about the US-India relationship that it “works” or is it just a strategic relationship based on function but not substance, in which case there runs a risk of a “fallout” once there is no more need.
Also, many may remember that the United States ran a covert operation to resist Soviet influence in Afghanistan back in the 80′s and at first that was deemed a huge success but as can be witnessed in today’s ongoing war in Afghanistan, that success manifested into unintended conflict. Can the same thing happen here?
Let’s say the US “interferes” in the Indian region against “Chinese influence” then after the operation is deemed a success, can the same unintended conflict inflict the Indian region. Afghanistan came to bite the US in the behind many years after so what is to say that the current agenda won’t come back to haunt the US in another 20 years?
Do people in India see the United States as treating India as an equal or is the US just using India like a pawn in the “Great Game” of the 21st Century? How many actually think the US would empower India because there is very little chance that the US would allow India grow beyond the United States’ own power.Thus this alliance would only be a short term solution since if it were India on top it would be using another country (Pakistan?) to “contain” India.
As a side note I would like to hear some Indian opinion on some issues in reply.
KINGFISHER you said: “India is a divided Sub Continent already many states are waiting for an opportunity to secede like once it was the condition in Russia”
Is there any other sources for this? Can any Indians give an opinion on the truth (or false) of this? KINGFISHER if I were to ask you to give the probability of fracture of the states what would you say and are there sources to back up your claim?
Also, can any Indians comment on the tensions between India and Pakistan? I want to hear some real Indian opinions about what are the causes of conflict and where do they see the relationship in the future. Thanks
Whatever the truth of that state of affairs, what is at issue is that tourists are also prime targets for ethnic conflicts. Tourists represent the nation state in a quasi sense, and so pay the high price if caught in ethnic conflict.