Kashmir protests: another tragedy of timing

July 6, 2010

morekashmirAnother three people have been killed in Kashmir in the biggest anti-India demonstrations in two years, bringing the death toll to at least 14 in the last three weeks. You can see some video of the protests in the Kashmiri capital Srinagar here – please watch it and remember that only a few years ago peace had returned to the streets of Srinagar after more than a decade of violence.

While Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram has suggested the violence is being whipped up by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, our correspondent in Srinagar says that many local Kashmiris believe the protests are largely spontaneous.

If that is the case, it is a tragedy of timing. As discussed nearly two years ago on this blog, Kashmir has an entire generation of young people who have grown up knowing only what it is to live in the midst of an insurgency.  Then, after India and Pakistan re-opened a formal peace process in 2004, violence began to drop dramatically (something that has usually gone unacknowledged by Delhi but was obvious to anyone who regularly visited Kashmir).

The sense you picked up was of a shift away from what was at most tacit tolerance for Pakistan-backed militant groups (anyone who questions this should first read Basharat Peer’s Curfewed Night) into a belief in peaceful protests, led by the younger generation. It is that younger generation who are throwing stones today, and seeing their own being killed. That is what makes the latest round of violence in Kashmir so dangerous. If the youth of Kashmir are radicalised anew, as happened when an earlier generation protested against Indian rule in 1989, the cycle of rage begins again.

One of the most telling comments in the latest round of violence in Kashmir came from separatist leader Mirwaiz Omar Farouk, when he said that the protests were not about Muslim Kashmir vs Hindu India. He would not have had to say that before – the Kashmir separatist revolt at the start was always more about nationhood than religion. That he now has to deny the communal undertones highlights how far these have grown.

The latest protests also come as India and Pakistan have begun a tentative attempt at peace-making after a long diplomatic limbo following the November 2008 attack on Mumbai. Their foreign ministers are due to meet on July 15 to take the process forward. Both have an interest in trying to reduce tensions, if nothing else but because the uncertainty over U.S. policy in Afghanistan threatens new instability in the region. Yet neither country will find it politically easy to accommodate each other if Kashmir is going up in flames.

The protests in Kashmir also coincide with some fresh soul-searching in Pakistan over the role of militant groups – some of whom were once nurtured to fight India in Kashmir – following  last weeks suicide bombing of one of the country’s most popular Sufi shrines in Lahore. A perception of “Indian oppression” against fellow Muslims in Kashmir has always fed into popular support for militants fighting for its “liberation” – so in another tragedy of timing, the crackdown in Srinagar is likely to make it harder for those voices within Pakistan who want to win backing against Islamist militant groups.

Anyone who has ever studied the history of India and Pakistan – right back to pre-partition days – will know that their tortuous relationship has been based on misunderstandings and bad timing. And Kashmir has always been caught in the middle. Yet even the most optimistic cannot resist the impression that the regional environment is worsening. 

As one person commented on my last post – albeit in a different context about the relationship between India, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan – using language  that perhaps expressed more than a journalist can in thousands of words:

“It is all one bloody mess … isn’t it. Every one is caught in every one else’s web..”

(Reuters photo/Fayaz Kabli)

Comments

India needs to bring in accountability for police acts. Currently the law allows for unlimited freedom for the security forces and they go unpunished by the system whenever they engage in brutal acts. Security forces across most of Asia, Middle East and Africa are brutal. They follow the same methods. None of these countries are angels in this regard.

India should let Kashmiri police deal with their people and keep the security forces confined to the borders with Pakistan, along the LoC. That would help in reducing the stress.

Things appear coincidental. In 1989, a “genuine” struggle emerged in Kashmir out of the blue that led to the influx of Afghan war hardened militants into the valley that burnt it for a decade. Once 9/11 happened, slowly peace began to return to the place. Musharraf was forced to tell his militant cronies that he would be shutting down camps in Azad Kashmir. Now again protets have started out of the blue. Nothing has changed as far as Indian securty’s brutality is concerned. That is why P Chidambaram’s statement that LeT is rattling the cage from behind prior to the next Jihad offensive seems correct. Pakistani military is making the next move with the assumption that the Americans are defeated already and the Taliban will get back to power soon. So Kashmir is being warmed up.

This is going to be a bloody proxy war in Kashmir. It might be a ploy to keep India occupied in Kashmir while weakening its presence in Afghanistan.

Whatever is happening for the innocent civilians is unfortunate. But India has no choice but to hold on to this piece of land at this time due to geo-political reasons.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

The Indians seem to have some odd logic when it comes to Kashmir. They emphasize the Pakistani backed nature of the insurgency (and there’s plenty of evidence to back them up) there but they focus on cracking down on the folks who live there rather than working to cut off infiltration and blunt Pakistani influence.

They should be working to push the Army out to the border and fully indigenize the state’s police and security services. Kashmiris are the people best equipped to deal with militant Kashmiris. This way Kashmiris would gain more autonomy too and more confidence about their role in the Indian Union. The current approach is extremely counter-productive.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

By and large muslims all over the world have a problem living in harmony with people of other faiths. That in my opinion is because of the brand of islam propogated by the current crop of preachers. Everything and anything can be termed as anti islam – like keeping long hair. Unless Islam accepts other religions on an equal footing and learns to see the good propogated by all religions, accept people of all faiths, all efforts to bring peace to troubled muslim areas will be futile.

Posted by rrdas | Report as abusive
 

Those bloody muslims. How dare they protest the seizure of their lands and the killing of their people. They cannot live in peace with anyone in the world. Everybody knows that.

After all, it was the Palestinian muslims who invaded the ghettos of Europe and provoked the peaceful Zionists into counterattacking them in Palestine. The Zionists then had no choice but to ethnically cleanse out all the terrorists. Everybody knows that.

It was those savage Afghan muslims who invaded USSR and provoked the peace loving communists into retaliating by carpet bombing their villages. The communists even went to the extent of gang raping Afghan women in front of their families to teach those savages about the benefits of collectivism. But these Quran thumping ignoramuses did not want to learn anything. Same story with those bloodthirsty Chechens. If these jihadis had’nt butchered their way into Moscow then the Russians would never have attacked them and flattened their country into smithereens.

Not even great powers are safe from this bearded menace. Everybody knows that on September 11 2001, ninteen Iraqi hijackers attacked and destroyed the WTC twin towers. They shouted ‘Long Live Mullah Saddam Hussein’ before they did it. So why are they crying now that the US has liberated their oil fields and sent over a million of them to meet their Allah. Iraq is the most stable and democratic government in the muslim world right now thanks to Americans. Everybody knows that.

As for the Kashmiris, what can I say about those ingrates. The Maharaja did them the supreme honour of buying them for three rupees a piece, which I must remind you is a full rupee more than what he paid for the minority sikhs and hindus. And they did’nt even thank the Maharaja for that. Instead they complained and bad mouthed him when he blessed them with an increase in taxation. Then they had the nerve to try to join with their fellow musla terrorists in the terrorist state of Pakistan even though the honourable Maharaja wanted to join India. When the muslim rulers of Junagadh and Hyderabad wanted to join Pakistan against the wishes of their hindu majority, did secular India object? No, not at all, India very peacfully let them join with their terrorist brothers in Pakistan…everybody knows that.

So why did these Kashmiri terrorists not allow the hindu maharaja from joining secular India? And now they have the nerve to protest because Indian security forces tortured and killed thousands of their men and raped a few thousand of their women.

And check out how silly they are. I mean only an idiot brings a knife to a gunfight but do you know what these Kashmiri terrorists bring to their protests? Absolutely nothing. LOL. And the Palestinian muslim terrorists are even dumber. They actually bring rocks to fight Israeli tanks. LMAO. Dumb muslims, I swear they are the dumbest people in the world. Everybody knows that.

They are great at acting though, thats for sure. After the Iraqi terrorists destroyed the world trade center, these muslims pretended to hold candlelight vigils in Islamabad, Karachi, Tehran and other terrorist safe havens. But the free media of the world saw through their dirty muslim trick and saw the real story, which was those filthy Palestians dancing on that one street in Palestine. They represented how all 1.5 billion muslims felt that day…..everybody knows that.

Unless muslims accept to live under other peoples foot and learn to see the good propogated by occupation armies, accept state sponsored terrorism and the subjugation of all their rights, until then all efforts to bring peace to occupied muslim areas will be futile. Its all Islams fault…everybody knows that.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

I hope this is bad timing, because different militant organizations have been carrying out their operations in Kashmir in the past. If Pakistan has to resume talks with India then it will have to control the militant organizations.

Posted by SZaman88 | Report as abusive
 

Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan, time has now arrived for India to recognize the right of self determination of Kashmiri people and end the occupation of Kashmir. Otherwise another intifada will be underway. Free Kashmir!

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

This summer too shall pass.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

Exchange of fire reported at India-Pakistan border

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-p akistan-accuses-india-of-border+fire-ss- 02

ISLAMABAD: An exchange of fire at the Indian-Pakistan border near Pakistan’s Punjab province has killed two Indian troops, and wounded a Pakistani soldier and several villagers, officials said on Wednesday.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

It is no good reffering all Muslims as jihadis.We are peaceful people and remember the past history of other religious people living peacefully under Muslim rule.Indians are always ready to blame Pakistan for their troubles in Kashmir.
But if they are senseble and free from LeT phobia,will realise that to keep people under their occupation by force is no good at all.
Let Kashmiris have a plebicist under UN [as promised by nehru to UN] and of free will and accept the verdict and Free Kashmir from brutal use of force.Then the region will be a peacefull place for ever.
Long live Kashmiris strugle for FREEDOM.

Posted by bahadur | Report as abusive
 

Shuqaib,

While I don’t agree with the argument that Muslims can’t live peacefully anywhere, I strongly disagree with your Islam under attack narrative too.

Several of your examples have more nuance than you are willing to admit. For example would the Chechens have suffered as much has they not launched a violent separatist insurgency? Or the did the Russian Army just come romping through there for fun?

Was the invasion of Afghanistan about Islam? That’s news to me and probably for the Russians. I thought it had to do with the spread of communism (or more appropriately Leninst-Marxism). What does being Muslim have to do with it?

I also notice you left out the struggles where the West helped Muslims. How convenient of you to set aside Kosovo where NATO troops helped break up a country after Muslim insurgents started an insurgency.

If you wonder why there’s no apetite for the world to tackle Kashmir, just look at Kosovo. You know what they say, “Fool me once….”

As for they Muslim world’s sympathies post9/11…how come you don’t cite the surveys that show a majority of Muslims think that 9/11 was a false flag op executed by a bunch of Jews or that quite a few Muslims (even many resident in the West) think that the USA “deserved” it. Given those surveys are we in the West wrong to assume that the Muslim world’s sympathies lie with those that want to kill us?

As for all your other historical grievances. They are just that. And the problem for South Asia is that the region cannot move forward unless they are recognized as such. After all, if you want to settle every historical issue in the region, why stop with Kashmir? Why not fully complete the population transfers of partition? I am sure Pakistan will have no issue absorbing another 160 million Muslims. Why weep only for the Kashmiris?

While I take exception to the argument that Muslims can’t live peaceably with their neighbours, I also take exception to this victimhood narrative that says every conflict with a Muslim must be because of his/her religion. Sometimes there just are other reasons.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

bahadur,

It’s quite simple really. Ditch the terrorists and you might have a shot. At least you’ll get more global sympathy. Right now, globally, you are viewed as no better than the Tamils with their LTTE freedom fighters. And you know how much sympathy they got in the halls of power after having butchers of people speak for them.

As long as Kashmir harbours terrorists and Kashmiris play footsie with them, the Indians will have a legitimate argument that the struggle in the state is not indegenous and that an independent Kashmir poses a security threat to India as it will become Jihadi central. Show them they are wrong.

As for the plebiscite pledge. That’s out the window. The demographics have been altered significantly. Kashmiri pandits have been ethnically cleansed. And Pakistan has moved in way too many “settlers” on their side of the valley. Not to mention their splitting off, of the Northern areas.

You want a plebiscite? Track down every family who originally lived in Kashmir. Give them the ballots. That’s the only way to have a valid result. Then, as per the original requirements, have Pakistani troops fully vacate the territory (including the Northern Areas) with Indian troops drawing down to a minimal posture as was intended by the UNSC. Do you think it’s possible? If you say no, then you can’t have a plebiscite. Simple as that.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

http://www.bso-na.org/2010/June/001.html

Baloch leader meets Vice President
Joe Biden, draw his attention to the
Balochistan’s situation.

Dr.Wahid Baloch has met with vice president Joseph Biden and highlighted the colonization and brutalization of Balochi people by punjabis.

If you compare the separatist struggles in Kashmir on one side, Blaochistan and Tibet on the other side ethnic cleansing has been different.

Kashmir muslims have indulged in genocide and expelled the Kashmiri Hindus from their ancestal homeland.

Whereas in Balochistan and Tibet, the native populations are being reduced to a minority status by Punjabis and Han chinese respectively.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

I was once travelling on a bus to Manali with a group of college friends. Amongst other things, we started talking about Kashmir & how great it would be if India & Pakistan can sort out their differences & peace returns to the valley for good. There was an elderly gentleman sitting one row ahead, listening to our conversation & suddenly he turned around & said that Kashmir will never get resolved. I asked him the reason of his pessimism & what he told me has stuck in my head to this day. He said that a dispute between two friends can be resolved & a dispute between two enemies can also be resolved but a dispute between two brothers over their father’s land, who died without making a will, can never get resolved.

Posted by jordan23 | Report as abusive
 

The republic of India has complementary logical explanations, moral upper ground and legal backing to all territorial acquisitions.

This includes Junagarh, Kashmir, Hyderabad, Goa, Bangladeshi enclaves, Forward policy north of McMahon line, Nepalese enclaves, Sikkhim, Gurduspur, Siachen.

All other parties such as Pakistan, China, United Nations, Kashmiri freedom fihgters whether secularist or militant, Kashmiri protesters whether peaceful or violent, OIC, Amnesty International, Asia Watch, Human Rights Watch, BBC, Portugal, Bangladesh, Nepal are ALL WRONG. Indeed it is India that is both right and righteous in every single dispute.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has the license to support terrorism around the world in the name of “freedom struggle” through their state actors & famous “non-state actors”. They have the absolute authority to cherry pick the “freedom struggles” they wish to support, as per their interests while completely looking the other way for the ones that are detrimental to their interests.
They have every right to endlessly whine about the action of the Indian army in kashmir & not utter ONE word about the persecution of the uighers by their Chinese friends. They have every right to bring about past ethnic clashes & riots in India and not utter ONE word about their state sponsored genocide of 3 million in east pakistan.
They have every right to bring up non-issues like Goa or Nepalese enclaves & Bangladeshi enclaves while not uttering ONE word about the very real issues of the plight of the Baluchis, Pashtuns, Muhajirs & other minorities in Pakistan.
They have every right to talk about the Indian support of the LTTE in Sri lanka more than 20 yrs ago while their army supports a dozen odd terrorist outfits TODAY, against it’s neighbors.
Since they have this license, everybody needs to just SHUT UP!

Posted by BlackSabbath3 | Report as abusive
 

In the context of Kashmir, it is fascinating to note how ethnic nationalities are facing struggles in the region. …

I was (pleasantly) surprised to read about one such story filled with ethnic pride and their heat warming, brave and inspiring struggle:

http://www.balochwarna.com/modules/artic les/index.php?cat_id=9

If you see the flag of Pakistan in Balochistan, you are either on the Balochistan University campus in Quetta or at the provincial assembly – or, more alarmingly, within metres of a checkpost manned by the Frontier Corps (FC), the paramilitary force that controls the province. Nowhere else in this, the country’s largest province by area, will you see the national flag. On the contrary, flags of Azad Balochistan are a dime a dozen, adorning shops, houses, streetlights and random poles. Schools in the province – even those administered by the government – start their day not with ‘Pak ser zameen’ (the national anthem), but with ‘Ma chukki Balochani’, the anthem of Azad Balochistan. Here, the Pakistani state, army and paramilitary forces are figures of hate, while the sarmachar (Baloch ‘freedom fighters’) are considered heroes.

Ma chukki Balochani!

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

Balochistan is a few fair and wise central govt. decisions away from being a fully integrated province of pakistan.

even after indian concessions, investment, kashmir has shown for 60 years, it wants absolutely nothing to do with india.

balochistan is an internationally recognized by the world as part of pakistan.

kashmir is an internationally disputed territory. nobody considers it an integral part of india except one country… india.

Balochistan is a product of bad governance and unfairness.

Kashmir is a full blown liberation, self-determination movement active for 60 years.

a 100,000, mostly civilians have been killed in kashmir by India. 10,000 women have been raped.

Comparing kashmir to balochistan is a fantasy.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

The Balochis never ever subscribed to Pakistani ideology/ jihadi terrorist ideology. To the Balochi muslim, a Balochi Hindu is his blood brother and Punajbi muslim is his mortal enemy.

Dr.Wahid Baloch explains this to Vice President Joe Biden in this heart warming letter:

Date: June 25, 2010

To,

The Honorable Vice President Joseph R Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Vice-President
We, the Baloch people, like Kurds of Iraq, are secular and natural ally of U.S in the war on terror. We support and defend the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan against Taliban and Al-Qaida terrorists who are hiding in sanctuaries provided to them by the Pakistan army
and the ISI. A Balochistan ruled by secular forces is in the interest of the peoples of the world, including the United States.

We urge Obama administration to not support Pakistan, a terrorist State, but extend a helping hand to the Baloch people in Balochistan, their true and
natural ally in the war on terror and against Islamic extremism ans Terrorism.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Dr. Wahid Baloch, President
Baloch Society of North America
1629 K Street NW, Suit 300
Washington D.C., 20036
Tel: (202) 349-1682
Fax: (202) 331-3759
E-Mail: Contact@bso-na.org
Website: http://www.bso-na.org/

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

@ Myra
The following is a digression from the topic of this blog entry. My apologies to you but I feel some of kEiTHZ questions need answering.

@ kEiThZ.

Salaam

You wrote: ” For example would the Chechens have suffered as much has they not launched a violent separatist insurgency? Or the did the Russian Army just come romping through there for fun?”

1) There was no ‘violent separatist insurgency’ by Chechen Muslims before the First Chechen war. There was a Chechen declaration of independence and a Russian attempt to crush that independence using brute force.

2) As for the Russian Army ‘romping through there for fun’, if you do not know what the Russians did to Chechnya’s infrastructure and its civilians (Chechen as well as Russian civilians residing there) then I would urge you to read up on it. There were a few conscientious Russian commanders, but they were either ignored or sidelined in favor of the ‘rompers’.

You wrote: ” Was the invasion of Afghanistan about Islam? That’s news to me and probably for the Russians. I thought it had to do with the spread of communism (or more appropriately Leninst-Marxism). What does being Muslim have to do with it? ”

I think you failed to pick up on the ‘teaching collectivism’ bit I wrote about in that paragraph.

You wrote: ” I also notice you left out the struggles where the West helped Muslims. How convenient of you to set aside Kosovo where NATO troops helped break up a country after Muslim insurgents started an insurgency.”

1) The actions of the west (particularly America) in Kosovo have been appreciated by the Kosovar Muslims and this is one reason why groups like Al-Qaeda have never been able to penetrate that area. The actions of the west have also been repeatedly highlighted by Muslim leaders (including former Pakistani president Musharaf) to show Muslims that the west is not at war with the Islamic world. I agree with Musharaf but for different reasons altogether.

2) Kosovo was an exception, and exceptions do not make the norm. If one compares the net effect of Western policies on the Muslim world, then the balance is overwhelmingly in the negative.

3) I don’t believe it is the West’s responsibility to defend Muslims (unless they fall under their jurisdiction). Having said that, what other ‘struggles’ has the West helped Muslims in besides the belated intervention in the Balkans?

You wrote: ” If you wonder why there’s no apetite for the world to tackle Kashmir, just look at Kosovo. You know what they say, “Fool me once….”

1) You’re telling me that from 1948 till the 1990s, the leaders of the world had a collective premonition that sometime in the future, the Kosovars will rise against the Serbians, and therefore nobody should bring pressure to bear on India to resolve the Kashmir dispute. What’s the connection here and exactly what kind of logic are you using?

2) No, I do not wonder why there is no appetite for the world to tackle Kashmir because there has never been any ‘appetite’ to tackle Kashmir. This conflict will be resolved by the Kashmiris themselves.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

…continued….

You wrote: ” As for they Muslim world’s sympathies post9/11…how come you don’t cite the surveys that show a majority of Muslims think that 9/11 was a false flag op executed by a bunch of Jews or that quite a few Muslims (even many resident in the West) think that the USA “deserved” it. Given those surveys are we in the West wrong to assume that the Muslim world’s sympathies lie with those that want to kill us? ”

1) I can point out just as many Americans (and Westerners) who believe in the exact same things about 9/11 (false flag, Mossad, chickens coming home to roost etc etc). Given that particular fact, are we in the Muslim world to assume that the west’s sympathies bizarrely lie with those that want to kill them?

2) I wonder if you’ve ever seen the surveys which show that the majority of Muslims do not hate the west (they hate western policies in their region), that they appreciate a lot of western ideals (particularly America’s), that they admire western thirst for knowledge as well as the way civil rights are upheld in western countries (particularly in America). If you had, then you would never have posted this weird rhetorical question.

3) Please read that paragraph again (from my original post). I was talking about how the media zoomed in on one story to the exclusion of all others on that fateful day. Over the years, the unofficial western narrative has transformed those few Palestinians dancing on that ONE street on 9/11 into ‘millions of Muslims dancing on the streets on 9/11′. These imaginary dancing millions have become etched in the western psyche and therefore influence their collective behavior towards us. The candle light vigils and the prayers are all but forgotten.

You wrote: “ As for all your other historical grievances. They are just that. And the problem for South Asia is that the region cannot move forward unless they are recognized as such.”

1) In that case, 9/11, 7/7, Mumbai etc are all ‘historical grievances’ as well. The problem for certain countries is that they cannot move forward unless they recognize these events as such and get over it. Matter of fact, the next time there is a terrorist attack, please follow your own logic and advise your government not to do anything. If you wait a couple of years, then the terrorist attack and the loss of innocent lives will become ‘just another historical grievance’, worthy only of being forgotten. Do I sound patronizing and inhumane? Good…because that’s how you came across to me.

2) Historical grievances which have not been rectified will negatively affect present events which in turn will give birth to future conflicts. Unless historical grievances are rectified, bad blood will continue into the present and spillover into the future. In other words, historical grievances matter. You know what they say, “ Those who ignore history are……”.

3) Afghanistan/Pakistan’s grievance against the Russians was ‘settled’ when we sent the Ruskies packing with their tails between their legs. Do you see any Af-Paks performing violence against the Russians today despite the carnage they caused? I wonder why?

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

Keith:
“I also notice you left out the struggles where the West helped Muslims. How convenient of you to set aside Kosovo where NATO troops helped break up a country after Muslim insurgents started an insurgency. ”

-Keith please stop depicting your Victorian Colonial attitude typical Canadian style. Pakistan is not a colony of Canada and is an independent soverign nation. Firstly.

Secondly, where was the NATO when the coward Dutch Army as Part of UN peacekeeping force surrendered to Gen. Ratko Mladic and turned over the UN safehouses protecting unarmed innocent Bosnian Muslims in 1995 in Srebrenica to the war criminals like Mladic and Radovan Kradic? who murdered them in cold blood. That led to the massacre of Srebrenica.
And just remember the later Pakistan Army deployment in Mostar and Bosnia Herzigovina and the stability and protection they brought to the Bosnian Muslims. Also on record ISI helped ship Anit-tank missiles to Muslims to break the 43 month siege of Sarajevo by Serb artrillery.

Just accept until the west honestly look at the Kashmir dispute and Indian and Pakistani positions, there is no chance of a just resolution.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

…continued…

You wrote: “ After all, if you want to settle every historical issue in the region, why stop with Kashmir? Why not fully complete the population transfers of partition? I am sure Pakistan will have no issue absorbing another 160 million Muslims”

1) This statement of your is eerily similair to the genocidal blackmail that Indians typically resort to when they run out of all the other excuses on Kashmir. In doing so, they take of the mask of secularism and flush it down the toilet. Quite frankly, it is disturbing to know that there are westerners out there who think that ethnic cleansing is a valid counter argument.

2) The framework for partition was as follows
- Muslim majority areas go to Pakistan. Hindu majority areas go to India.
- People may choose to remain in Pakistan or India and become citizens of those countries regardless of faith, or they may choose to migrate.
- The princely states may join Pakistan, India or remain independent.

Population transfers between Pakistan and India continued until around 1954 after which they tapered off to a natural end. Present day Indian Muslims ‘chose’ to be Indian, just as present day Pakistani Sikhs, Hindus and Christians ‘chose’ to be Pakistanis. Therefore I do not understand how having minorities in either country is a historical issue or grievance. Both India and Pakistan typically go out of their way to make sure that minorities are taken care off. Muslims in India are not an ‘issue’ for the Indians (except the Hindutva dharm yodha wannabes), and the Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and Parsees of Pakistan are certainly not an issue or grievance for us (except perhaps the takfiri muslims).

The Kashmir conflict arose from India’s violation of the partition framework (Junagadh and Hyderabad). India has no moral or legal grounds for holding on to Kashmir. Therefore, every decade, it comes up with new excuses to do so (‘akhand bharat’, terrorism, democracy, secularism etc etc etc). These fake issues were not present when the conflict first began, so why bring them in now. There was no ‘terrorism’ from the time of Nehru’s promise till the time that he passed away. Why did India not show any interest in resolving the conflict during that substantial time period? Every Pakistani move towards a dialogue on Kashmir was rebuffed; all efforts to bring them to the table were ignored. When the doors of peace are forced shut, the doors of war are automatically forced open.

You wrote: “While I don’t agree with the argument that Muslims can’t live peacefully anywhere, I strongly disagree with your Islam under attack narrative too.
While I take exception to the argument that Muslims can’t live peaceably with their neighbours, I also take exception to this victimhood narrative that says every conflict with a Muslim must be because of his/her religion. Sometimes there just are other reasons.”

1) Your disagreement won’t change the fact that in the vast majority of recent and present conflicts involving Muslims; it is the Muslims, living peacefully on their own lands (alongside non Muslims) that have been invaded and brutalized.

2) In politics, perception is reality and if the general Muslim perception is that of ‘Islam under attack’ then that’s the way it is. It would be politically unwise to ignore this perception.

Having said all of the above, the fact is that there is only one party to blame for these events. And that is the Ummah. Let me explain that a little more.

The one undeniable lesson history teaches us is that ‘weakness is a sin’. The world as it is set up today follows the law of the jungle. And the law of the jungle states that the weak will perish and only the strong will have their way (the invasion of Iraq is a living proof of that). Vultures do not descend from all directions on those who are strong and capable of fighting back. They only feast on those who are too weak to do so. One cannot blame a vulture for following its instincts. Weakness invites aggression and therefore I do not blame any aggressor.

Would the Darfurians be suffering today if they were well armed and organized? Would the Jews have suffered in Europe for centuries if they had collectively resisted from the start the violence that was directed towards them? I think not.

Allama Iqbal stated that the Ummah was suffering from the malaise of apathy. Before him Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Shah Wali ullah said the exact same thing. I believe that the Muslims today are fast asleep and we have nobody to blame for that except ourselves. Mistaking this slumber for weakness or death the vultures have descended and have started to peck away. Its gonna be fun to watch what happens once Muslims collectively wake up though. Because once they do….. :) :) :)

Salaam alaikum (Peace be with you)

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

The recent Kashmir turmoil seems very timely. Something is brewing prior to a massive strike by Pakistan based proxy elements. I think Pakistan has assumed that the Americans are on their way out and the region will be theirs soon. So Kashmir is being warmed up in preparation for diverting all elements in the region away from Pakistan and into India. See this article that mentions about intercepting conversations between the elements.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India  /Did-separatists-plan-instigate-Kashmir -violence/articleshow/6143623.cms

We Indians know very well the symptoms and can read what is going on underneath. This Kashmir struggle will result in the demise of Pakistan itself as it is already on the brink and a “defeated” US will not back them this time.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Shuqaib

Let’s take your points bit by bit

1) Chechnya. You say there was no violent insurgency just a “declaration of independence.” So you expect the Russians of all people to give up a part of their country without so much as a peep? Come on. And you really think that there was no violent insurgency after the Russian showed up to quell that “declaration of independence” (in essence an official statement kicking off the insurgency).

I will concede that the Russians were extremely heavy-handed. And I certainly don’t agree with their tactics. But lets be clear here. The Chechnyas were neither innocent or naive. You can’t just declare independence, split off a chunk of the country (for grievances by the way that are far less severe than say what Kashmiris or Kosovars faced).

2) Kosovo

You didn’t understand my statement. Several politicians now say “We bombed the wrong side.” Why? After the fact, it’s emerged that it really was the Kosovars who first agitated and started the violence. And since getting independence, they have proven themselves utterly incapable of establishing a decently democratic state with a strong rule of law. There’s a sense that NATO basically handed over a country to a Kosovar mafia.

I can assure you that there is no apetite in the West to support a repeat of that history in Kashmir. Kashmiris who want an independent state had better show that they are capable of running an independent state. Kosovo has become pretty much an Afghanistan on Europe’s periphery. South Asia already has Afghanistan on its periphery. With Pakistan running a not too distant second when it comes to failed states. There’s no apetite for yet another failing state in South Asia. The Kashmiris might gain some credibility if they ditch the terrorists or at least have the terrorists focus solely on Kashmir instead of killing Mumbaikars, NATO troops in Afhganistan and plotting to attack the US homeland.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

-Keith please stop depicting your Victorian Colonial attitude typical Canadian style. Pakistan is not a colony of Canada and is an independent soverign nation. Firstly.
-Shuqaib.

Sorry. You gotta take the advice with the money. The Americans aren’t the only ones pumping billions into your country.

We do not think of Pakistan as a colony. However, we are genuinely concerned with the direction your country is heading. Especially we find terrorists in Canada, who’ve trained in Pakistan. Shut down Jihad central, and you won’t have to hear from us (or anybody else in the West) ever again.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

1) This statement of your is eerily similair to the genocidal blackmail that Indians typically resort to when they run out of all the other excuses on Kashmir. In doing so, they take of the mask of secularism and flush it down the toilet. Quite frankly, it is disturbing to know that there are westerners out there who think that ethnic cleansing is a valid counter argument.

2) The framework for partition was as follows
- Muslim majority areas go to Pakistan. Hindu majority areas go to India.
- People may choose to remain in Pakistan or India and become citizens of those countries regardless of faith, or they may choose to migrate.
- The princely states may join Pakistan, India or remain independent.
======

Shuqaib,

You didn’t get my point. If Pakistan was supposed to be composed of the Muslim areas, then what of the 160 million odd Muslims in India today? Does Pakistan only care about Muslims resident in land areas that border Pakistan? Do Pakistanis not care about Muslims in Kerala?

And the framework you cite, can be disputed when it comes to Kashmir. They were independent when the Brits left. Now arguably, you can make the case that since they were a Muslim majority area, that Pakistan’s invasion (and that’s exactly what it was viewed by the UNSC as) was justified.

However, subsequent history has certainly overtaken events from 60+ years ago. How can you argue today that all Muslim areas should be a part of Pakistan when one half of Pakistan’s population post independence wanted no part of Pakistan after the fact? Surely that blunts the argument that the post-independence framework is valid today. At best that means Kashmir has a claim to independence (like Bangladesh). At worst, Kashmir has no claim since the underpinnings of the framework have been thoroughly refuted with post-independence history.

Bub I want to go back to this point about the Muslim majority. Now we know that the demographics have been significantly altered on both sides. But I think it’s fair to say that the valley definitely has a Muslim majority. So with that in mind, where does that leave the rest of Kashmir? If Pakistan’s concern is the right of Muslims only, then surely India can lay similar claims to the non-Muslim parts of Kashmir. This means that India would probably retain Jammu and Ladakh while turning over the valley. Would that be acceptable to Pakistanis?

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

1) Your disagreement won’t change the fact that in the vast majority of recent and present conflicts involving Muslims; it is the Muslims, living peacefully on their own lands (alongside non Muslims) that have been invaded and brutalized.

2) In politics, perception is reality and if the general Muslim perception is that of ‘Islam under attack’ then that’s the way it is. It would be politically unwise to ignore this perception.
….
Would the Darfurians be suffering today if they were well armed and organized? Would the Jews have suffered in Europe for centuries if they had collectively resisted from the start the violence that was directed towards them? I think not.
=============

And this is exactly what I am talking about. You look at everything through a religious lens. And that’s exactly why Pakistan is in the straits it is in today.

Was Chechnya about Muslims or about Chechens revolting? I doubt the Russians would have reacted differently if the Chechens were Christians who declared independence. Did the Soviets invade Afghanistan because Afghans were Muslim or did they invade Afghanistan to impose Communism on the Afghans? You see it as Islam under attack. I see it as an attempt to crush a revolt in the case of Chechnya and an attempt by a superpower to impose a friendly government with similar political values on its periphery. What’s Islam got to do with it?

In the post-cold war era though, the problem as I see it, is that quite often Muslims feel they need their own countries simply to live as Muslims. This insistence on their own states, inevitably brings them into conflict with their neighbours. Chechnya is an example. Kosovo is another one.

And where they have their own state, there seems to be a significant effort to minimize or malign minorities. From Pakistan’s own minorities (there isn’t even token religious rights like allowing non-Muslims to be elected to high public office) to the Darfurians and the Christians of Nigeria.

Now, I can’t say if this is right or wrong. Different parts of the world have different values. But it’s certainly a source of conflict.

As to your last point about weakness bringing harm. It’s interesting to note that Europeans Jews never saw themselves as Jews first until Hitler came along. A German Jew saw himself/herself as German. Judaism was just their faith. That’s why they saw no need to arm themselves and take up conflict with their neighbours. Ditto for the Darfurians. Until the Janjaweed showed up, and they were being hounded out of their homelands, so the Sudanese could keep all the oil wealth for themselves, they essentially saw themselves as part of Sudan. However, just like the Germans, the Sudanese have now emphasized their Arab and Muslim heritage, turning the Darfurians into second class citizens, bringing them into conflict.

Yet, where is it globally that you’d find Muslims under threat simply for being Muslim as the Darfurians are today, for simply being non-Muslim and non-Arab? Is the violence in Kashmir because Kashmiris are Muslim or because there’s separatists trying to break Kashmir off? Just look at the similar problems in India’s North-East and you’ll have your answer.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

A question for the Pakistanis about Kashmir:

Are Pakistanis concerned about the aspirations of Kashmiris or are they concerned about absorbing Kashmiri territory?

I ask this because it brings up a lot of issues. Pakistani posters always bring up the partition framework. However, Kashmiri separatists emphasize independence rather than union with Pakistan. This brings Kashmiri aspirations and Pakistani intentions and desires into conflict.

What would Pakistan do if Kashmiris demand an independent state? Would Pakistan let AK and the Northern Areas seceede and join an independent Kashmir?

So is it about Kashmiris or Kashmir?

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

@Umair, Shaqaib,

You guys continue to use Islam under attack for every ill that a muslim country has, including your own.

You can’t just accept that there is huge rampant corruption and that is all closely tied with the politicization of Islam. Politicization of any religion is like serving two masters…..you cannot serve two masters and call yourself religious, nor can you call your self a person of god. Nobody is perfect here and nobody is claiming to be, but you have to admit to yourself, that troubles in muslim countries are mostly because of the way that you perceive the problem, yourself and the perpetrator.

I truly is a psychological mindfxxk to use religion in such a politicized manner and claim that the entire religion is under attack. As long as some muslims keep thinking this way, they will always find an enemy to keep making themselves feel that they are under attack and that they are victims somehow of non-muslims.

As strange as that may seem the dominant beliefs in your mind, are the ones that manifest most solidly into actions and reality on the ground…that is the nature of the universe. In other words, much of the misery in pakistan, believe it or not, is because of the collective thoughts and action/inaction of the people that live in Pakistan.

If you understand this concept, you are one step closer to shedding your previous life of ignorance.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

The entire af-pak region can be changed if even some people start taking responsibility for their own lives, their families, their communities, their places of prayer, their politics and learn to separate Islam from politics.

The two are quite distinct domains and have no place together.

The Army, mullahs and your politicians are choosing to keep the people chained to the shackles of ignorance and the real war is on your mind…the constant attack on your mind, to never let it conceive of, or think of in other ways to never let it step outside of the mental prison, which has been created for you.

Unfortunately, stepping out of a mental prison can be scary because people would not know what to do, if they became aware and self-awakened.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

On Kashmir, Paks are welcome to continue what they have been doing for 63 years…Indians will continue what we have been doing for 63 years. We are game.

Cheers!

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

keith,

pakistanis are not averse to kashmir’s independence. since you are an orientalist, in every sense of the word, you don’t know that. it’s not your fault, this information was likely not available in a neatly packaged report.

you indictment against the islamic civilization regarding wars would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragically misguided. might i recommend a cursory glance at any book on european history? you will find a few savage wars..

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

for a change my government has done something remotely intelligent:

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/news/business/fair -share-perks-up-hopes-in-balochistan-jd- 01

Again I reiterate, I would not compare balochistan to indian northeast let alone kashmir.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

GW,

your thoughts on world’s biggest democracy voting RSS inspired BJP and it’s hinduvta agenda into power?

i don’t keep up with india as much as you do pakistan. isn’t bjp india’s second most popular party even now?

Mullahs have never been popular in any pakistani election (when we have them that is)

however i do agree with your comment about infestation of religion in everything in pakistan and the muslim world in general.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Kashmir majority wants:

First) independence

Very Distant Second) pakistan

There is no 3rd option.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Here is another link that mentions about the triggers emanating from POK.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Transcript s-show-Hizb-activist-seeking-details-fro m-PoK/H1-Article1-569818.aspx

The protests inside Kashmir appear very sudden and out of the blue. Until recently things had gone quiet as the US clamped down on Pakistan to curb infiltration and sabotage inside Kashmir. India even withdrew 30000 troops from there. Now all of a sudden, stone pelting and violent protests have started. This looks exactly like the days in 1989. Pakistan then termed as a genuine struggle for freedom and began to unleash its Afghan war trained militants into Kashmir. Now that the US has shown signs of weariness and there are talks of “face saving exit”, Pakistan has started the next round of disturbance in the valley. We have been there before. We had handled them well. And we will continue to hold on to Kashmir. The more violence, the more the resistance will be. If Kashmiris want anything at all, they should first try to distance themselves from Pak sponsorship. They are making a big mistake by relying on India’s sworn enemy and expect India to come to the negotiation table. Things are different now. Pakistan will not enjoy the privileges it did in the 1990s. It is more isolated now and is on the brink. India has grown stronger. Kashmiris must think hard and not get emotional. The more stones they pelt at our security men, the more brutal it would become for them. It is time to wave the white flag and sincerely make an effort to distance yourselves from Pakistan, a country that is on its tail spin. If you rely on them, you will go down with them. Taliban will spread into Pakistan and into Kashmir as well. At that time, oppression will get no justice.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Tupak:

@Kashmir majority wants:

First) independence

Very Distant Second) pakistan

There is no 3rd option.

—-Tupak, we know what you want but that does not matter. See what Kashmiris want for a minute before posting. Those who want Kashmir do not have the luxury to wave Indian flags in Kashmir.

Back to you point:
Read this quote and link:

“”Twenty one percent of the population said they would vote for the whole of Kashmir to join India, and only 15 percent said they would vote for it to join Pakistan.”"

http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/05/2 9/in-kashmir-nearly-half-favour-independ ence/

Would you be kind enough to tell us May I know why you did not include Very Distant Second) India as an option.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Cauldron of ethnic identity based struggles are bubbling in the region presently being called “pakistan” …

In heart-warming, moving petition here are Jinnahpuris pouring out their hearts against oppression by Punjabistanis…

http://www.petitiononline.com/mohajir/pe tition.html

To: The People of Karachi
FORMATION OF REPUBLIC OF JINNAHPUR

According to my proposed plan, the Southern port city of Pakistan called Karachi shall become the Republic of Jinnahpur. This proposed formation of Republic of Jinnahpur shall be in line with the anticipated plan towards Pakistan’s disintegration in the best interest of world’s peace and elimination of terrorism……

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

RajeevK: “May I know why you did not include Very Distant Second) India as an option.”

Kashmiris love pelting with stones. And they want to join the Islamic paradise called Pakistan where milk and honey flow non-stop.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul  /08/iran-death-stoning-adultery

This is the vision they have for Kashmir, where stone age values like beheading, chopping arms and legs, stoning people death etc provide the moral code for the society. If Kashmir goes now, Pakistan will fill it up with its Jihadi monsters. Pakistan is trying to run Taliban style governments in Afghanistan and Kashmir (if it could get in there fast). This way it can evade all accusations of training militants on its soil and claim that Afghanistan and Kashmir are not under Pakistan’s control etc. As far the people of Kashmir or Afghanistan, Pakistan does not really care. It would let them rot so that it can have a vibrant society, where people would follow Sufi style Islam, have rock music groups and fun. Kashmiris are blinded by emotions and do not see what they are walking into.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@KPSingh01

this tupak-shakir fellow is a pakistani, not a kashmiri.

It is unrealistic for kashmiris to dream of an independent state, given it’s size & strategic location. Neither India nor Pakistan will be willing to give back an inch of the territory they control. One of the 2 options would be to make borders irrelevant but given the mistrust & hostility between india & pakistan, this also seems like a pipe dream at this point. That leaves the only option to make the current LoC a permanent border. If Pakistan wants to maintain the status quo & continue the proxy war in kashmir, so be it. India should just wait it out (like it has for 2 decades) & let pakistan bleed itself to death. Pakistan is already a rapidly failing state, let it fail completely.

Posted by BlackSabbath3 | Report as abusive
 

@Shuqaib, Umairpk,

Guys, time and again, Keithz has owned you wholly, lock as stock and barrel. Neither of you guys can touch his arguments, or nor give any true, legitimate reasons for any claims you have.

Keithz, a guy like you really need to be a part of the internal NATO discussions, I think your straight up talking style and strategic approach to things, coupled with your unique training and experience could make you a formidable force in smashing and crushing terrorism.

You should never pass up the opportunity if it comes along.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Keithz,

At least for God’s sake send that resume along to Indian Army or Petraus, there could be a tremendous benefit. You would be tremendous asset to anyone one of them if they got you.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

BlackSabbath03:

I agree with your views. Kashmir today is a geo-strategic issue. India and Pakistan have been fighting over a barren Siachien glacier for more than three decades now. Why would India give up Kashmir when that is the case? Pakistan’s agenda in Kashmir is not for the welfare of Kashmiris. It is to settle the score for the secession of East Pakistan. Pakistan cannot even manage itself as a country and has turned Afghanistan into a graveyard. Extend this further and imagine what it would do to Kashmir. I never trusted that Musharraf fellow. He is the worst double dealer and back stabber. All his back channel diplomacy would have been to walk India into another trap and hit it hard. This is the guy who fought India over Siachien glacier and launched the Kargil war. Why would anyone expect him to suddenly change his plans and work for a solution. Musharraf launched Harkut Al Ansar and Hizb Ul Mujahideen. This guy is supposed to be secular. India simply cannot trust Pakistan. There is only one solution left – declare LoC as international border and abrogate all special privileges to Kashmir. Let it become a normal Indian state. If our leaders had done that over the past 60 years, Kashmir issue would not be there today. Let them pelt stones if they want. Or they can migrate to Pakistan which is specially created for Sunni Muslims following Wahabbi faith. India is not holding Kashmir because they are Muslims. A lot of things have changed over the years and we have to look at things from today’s perspective. I agree with you that India should just stay put and hold on to Kashmir. Pakistan no longer has the support it enjoyed from the Western powers in the 1990s. They are about to fall big time. Look at the number of suicide bombs there. This is a point of no return. This is not the time to make big regional decisions. Kashmiri Muslims can decide if they want to stay in India or not. If they do not want, they can migrate to Pakistan. That is the only option left at this time. Pakistan offers tremendous employment opportunities for everyone. It is the richest nation in the world and the most powerful one at that. Everyone is equal. So Kashmiri Muslims will find it a paradise on earth.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Just a thought,

After checking many images on Google, my opinion is that
stone-pelting is the wrong term to use while referring to Kashmir demonstrations. It is usually BRICK-pelting.

Use of the word stone does not give a good idea to the reader about the size and lethality of the stone being thrown. Bricks, on the other hand, come in standard sizes and one can easily visualize the damage it can cause to its victim.

Ponder over it:
Half-a-brick can kill a man almost every time if taken on head. Same can’t be implied when using the word “stone”.

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

@Keithz,

You know depending on stress levels on both either the Indian or Pak side, based on what I have read, they seem to have about 250,000 minimum soldiers on either side of the Indo-pak border at any one time and this has been as high as 1 million the Indian side, during Kargil, I believe.

You since India will always conventionally outgun and outsoldier Pakistan, they have resorted to this sort of “assymetric” warfare, using Kashmir and other forms of terrorism in the hopes of keeping some sort of strategic parity against India.

In the light of Mumbai, Kargil and other LeT based attacks and the Kashmir violence now, on this basis of wanting to keep parity, through asymmetry, when will this low-level war reach its breaking point? and if it did, what kind of troop response do you think both sides would respond with, especially given that Pakistan is fighting on its western border, using its low-level frontier rangers?

My last point, I do agree with you, the Indian method of response in Kashmir is probably needs to be revised, as it may be causing alienation of Kashmiri’s but i do agree, Indian Army needs to bring the pile driver down on militants in Kashmir, in a surgical manner and increase security alone its border.

Another tactical thing India can do is to get RAW IT to filter all cellular, Facebook and Twitter type traffic to and from Kashmir to root out militants in Kashmir, as many of them are communicating commando style, I have read, using the web.

Pakistan is resorting to stop web traffic to protect Islam, why should India not do much the same thing to maintain security and stability in Kashmir?

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Violent protests inside Kashmir might be a ploy to draw troops to the interior and then hit on the periphery with militant infiltration. I think the ISI is setting up a massive offensive in Kashmir. Unlike before, they might try to hit very hard this time.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@singh,

As said in my earlier post, the Kashmir unrest is actually Pakistan’s asymmetric warfare upon India. Pakistan did asymmetric warfare using the politicization of Khalistan and at that time the Sikhs were caught in the middle, now they are trying to get Kashmiri’s caught in the middle in the same way.

Another name for assymetric warfare, simply put, is terrorism. Assymetric warfare is a desperate type of war, where the lesser side will eventually lose, but not without killing lots of innocents.

As I said, to bring some rest to Kashmir, the internet and cellular traffic needs to be watched, or even brought down to a crawl. These radicalized youth are drunk on blind rage and don’t know that they are actually caught up in a guerilla war by pakistan upon India.

Pakistan’s goals is to keep asceding land or continue the everlasting fight to dismembering India due to their continued loser mentality over 1971.

I agree India needs to “Drain the swamp” in Kashmir, this referring to a strategic army doctrine and bring Kashmir in as a naturalized state of India and declare the LOC as the new Pak-India border. While in the short term, this maybe very turbulent, in the long run, it would take the wind out of the proxy terrorist’s sails and any subsequent border incursions would be declared an act of war on a sovereign nation, also it will make India more secure and save many lives in the long run and bring about a cessation of Kashmiri terrorism. Pakistan would think twice of misadventures upon India, if the new border were drawn. This may even force Pakistan to fix its own country for good.

Secondly, India needs to more aggressively court the Kashmiri’s and incentivize them to become educated, build more services there, infrastructure and promote more friendship building activities such as cultural exchanges and such. Finally, the border with Pakistan should be sealed with a 30 foot high concrete fence. Those Kashmiri’s who are unwilling to compromise and continue the choice to challenge police and security forces with weapons, bricks and rocks, are not better than common criminals and will accordingly reap what they sow.

From everything I have read, Pakistani’s will keep using the Kashmiris as pawns, as they have already settled most of PoK, standard of life for muslims in PoK is no where near it is in Indian Kashmir. It is time that India set in motion, to bring Kashmir into proper Indian statehood.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@singh, here is the UN Resolution of 1948, copied and pasted straight from the UN website:

Since Kashmir has come up again, it is fair for bloggers to be reminded of the past UN resolution regarding Kashmir and Pakistan:

” As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission. ”

–>What this is saying is, that Pakistan MUST first:

1)withdraw from Kashmir
2)remove all Pakistani settlers from there
3)remove all agitators, militants, fighters, terrorists/Jihadis from Kashmir
4)remove the Pakistani Forces from Kashmir,

THEN

1)India will also remove itself from Kashmir.

As you see, Pakistan is illegally occupying Kashmir and is in violations of the UN Resolution. Instead, Pakistan knows that Kashmir issue will be resolved if they ever move Army out of Pakistani Kashmir.

Pakistan in fact does not want to resolve the Kashmir issue, they could have done so very easily, if they complied with the resolution, Pakistan pulls out and then India pulls out.

It therefore stands that their goals are sinister and devious in nature, that being to use Kashmir as a staging ground for terrorist attacks into India and radicalize the local population to waste their time into a separatist movement as tool to wage the asymmetric war upon India and use its own citizens to attack their own security forces. Their eventual goal is to wreak as much terrorism, damage and dismemberment on India that they can, using any means necessary.

The truth is, that Pakistan never has any intention of ever leaving Kashmir and leaving Kashmiri’s in peace.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan, time has now arrived for India to recognize the right of self determination of Kashmiri people and end the occupation of Kashmir. Otherwise another intifada will be underway. Free Kashmir!
Posted by Umairpk

—I hope you realize that Kashmir was FREE before your country took a decision to attack it, snatch a piece of it that led to Indians take control of the remaining.

Basically a trouble maker is asking for a solution.

And which Kashmir are u talking about? Just Indian Kashmir or POK also.

Did you ask yourself why Kashmiris in Pakistan would like to have an Independent Kashmir? What has gone wrong in Pakistan model of Azad Kashmir? Pakistan has not killed 100,000 kashmiris so what is the equivalent of Indian atrocities. You may want to tickle your brain over this.

Intifida is a Muslim thing abd till today you have not realized that religion factor is a problem wherever and whenever you bring that in. What does that has to do with Kashmir which has Kashmiris belonging to different religions.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Ponder over it:
Half-a-brick can kill a man almost every time if taken on head. Same can’t be implied when using the word “stone”.

—– furthermore, if the teenager throwing the 100 pound brick strikes the automatic weapon carried by the indian security force, his finger could touch trigger , the bullet can ricochet off walls and dent the soldier’s helmet.

—– kp, if the only reason pakistan’s kashmir stance is payback for bangladesh, what was the reason for the kashmiri conflict prior to 1971, was it cashmere sweaters?

standard of life for muslims in PoK is no where near it is in Indian Kashmir. It is time that India set in motion, to bring Kashmir into proper Indian statehood.

—– yes indian boots on kashmiri throat must be a wonderful way to live. you fellows are out of your mind.

—- rajeev, even your preferred poll would indicate the majority 45% want independence. if that majority were to rank their options, independence would be first, pakistan second.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •