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

G-W,

We have gone over the UN resolutions many times over. We know what it says and Pakistanis also know about it. But they have no respect for any of it. They only want to pick those aspects that suit their needs and have resorted to drumming up enough noise. Most Pakistanis I comes across have no idea what they are talking about. They beat the same slogan repeatedly – stop genocide in Kashmir, hold plebiscite in Kashmir etc. This is what they have been brainwashed into believing. Now they have added the water treaty, India’s Afghan consulates, Balochistan, TTP etc. Pak military is not interested in just taking over Kashmir. It is a big thing for them settling the score over East Pakistan with India. That is all they are after, at whatever cost. They do not realize that it has cost them their very existence as a country. These are very emotional people and are driven by blind rage. They believe in miracles. That is why there has been no attempt to build a normal nation in them. They have no agenda of what to do with Kashmir either, if they get it. Their only goal is to avenge the shameful defeat in East Pakistan. Beyond that there are no plans. They themselves do not have a good set up for comfortable living. How are they going to provide it for Kashmiris. Kashmir will become another strategic location for launching further into India. These guys have nothing constructive in their minds. They believe in might, violence and quick results. They have no patience and compassion for anyone. They showed it in East Pakistan already. All the more reason India should simply refuse to sit for any negotiations on Kashmir with Pakistan. I saw a bunch of pictures in “The Hindu” a few weeks ago where they showed how the brick throwers were assaulting the CRPF men. I wondered who is hurting whom. Kashmir is being rattled from outside again. India has to hold firm and wait it out. There is not much juice left in Pakistan to sustain its grip.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@tupak,

pretend you are a soldier…if some guy was throwing a brick at your head, are you going to defend yourself, with the means and training that you were given as a soldier, or get down on your knees and beg forgiveness for upsetting the brick thrower?

Get real…a soldier is allowed and fully authorized to use any means necessary to stop the assailant, because the soldier has a primary duty of protecting his own self..anybody throwing a brick at a police or soldier is committing an illegal and criminal act and will be punished accordingly.

So when you see guys with bricks in their hands, just realize that this is illegal and criminal behavior.

When that guy chooses to confront a soldier or an officer with such a weapon, they invite the law to do justice upon them, this has nothing to do with muslims or religion, this is basic civil law.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@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

–Tupak, well you have been proven wrong that India is NOT an option considered by Kashmiris.

Now you may want to dig deep and actually read the report and will find surprising findings that will prove you wrong second time. Pakistan is not a second option—both by shear percentage and if you add weight criteria into the equation, the numbers looks terrible.

Perosonally speaking that is childish to discuss who is 2nd or 3rd when it is this close. However if you are into ratings then Pakistan is shockingly 3rd. I mean “100,000 killings” by Indian Army and 20yrs of “moral support” by Pakistan, and Muslims being the majority in Kashmir, Pakistan still stands as 3rd (or so close to India)—there must be something terribly wrong with Pakistan and its policies over this period. Time to ‘ponder over”. I am serious.

Does this has to do with Kashmiri fear that Pakistan may sell or gift off a piece to China like they did in the past (Aksai Chin) or something else? After all in the end, it can be described as “done in the best interests of Pakistan”.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

rajeev, redo the poll with only 2 options pak or india then you will find out who is ahead pakistan or india. independence options takes away more from pak-support than indian-support. the minority definitely wants india… no doubt about that.

why do you have indians “killed” in quotes. is there some dispute to this fact that every human rights organization in the world doesn’t know about?

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Tupak and all guys:

This is the report I am indicating at my posts.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/166 64_0510pp_kashmir.pdf

Here are the numbers: Ref: Table 6, Page#19 in the above mentioned report

Combined % AJK districts plus J&K
Independence 43
To join India 21
To join Pakistan 15

% in J&K
Independence 43
To join India 28
To join Pakistan 2

% in AJK
Independence 44
To join India 1
To join Pakistan 50

Take home message:

1. Equal % of kashmiris from Indian and Pakistani Kashmirs want independence.
28% Kashmiris from India want to join India
50% Kashmiris from Pakistan want to join Pakistan

2. Clearly Muslim Kashmir (AJK being a model) has not worked for Kashmiris and they are split between independence and being with Islamic Republic Pakistan.
In J&K only 2% wants to join Pakistan (Shocking!). Why?

3. If equal % of kashmiris want independence in bith countries, what is Pakistan doing about that? WE discuss India pretty often.

4. Finally, does it not tell that religion-based movement must be stopped?

I am trying to get at the answer. I sensible discussion is expected here.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

i have never heard anyone other than indian complain about uninhabited strip of land ceded to china certainly not kashmiris.

pakistan understands that not every territory that was consolidated by the british belongs to india or pakistan.

neither india nor pakistan can lay claims to burma or nepal or british raj somalia. pakistanis understand that, indians don’t.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Tupak:
@why do you have indians “killed” in quotes
–I am always doubtful of even numbers.

No doubt about the killings. I doubt # hence quotes. # may be higher or lower. Since last 1yr # has not changed must tell u why it must be in quotes.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Take home message:

1. Equal % of kashmiris from Indian and Pakistani Kashmirs want independence.
28% Kashmiris from India want to join India
50% Kashmiris from Pakistan want to join Pakistan

— My ‘take home’ message:
kashmir is definitely not an integral part of India as claimed by india.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Clearly Muslim Kashmir (AJK being a model) has not worked for Kashmiris and they are split between independence and being with Islamic Republic Pakistan.

— the fact kashmir wants independence is well known to us. to me it is perhaps the only way out of south asia’s misery. 50% is actually an excellent score. if you polled my neighborhood — 99% would be unhappy with pak government. we don’t equate approval of our govt. with patriotism.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 
 

Tupak:
@— My ‘take home’ message:
kashmir is definitely not an integral part of India as claimed by india.
-My take home message was based on the report. Where do you disagree that India and Pakistan are the #2 and #3 options? Yeah sure you can throw your hands up like you did.

Pakistan turned free Kashmir into a war zone and now Kashmir is split.

@i have never heard anyone other than indian complain about uninhabited strip of land ceded to china certainly not kashmiris.”
–Who else will and should complain? what you gave was part of kashmir. What better way to complicate the situation than gifting a disputed property! so you attach no value to uninhabited land? Could Indian get a piece of yours then?

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

@. 50% is actually an excellent score. if you polled my neighborhood — 99% would be unhappy with pak government.”
–The # is 28% in India. Not a stark difference. This despite “100,000 killings” by Indian Army and 20yrs of “moral support” by Pakistan, and Muslims being the majority in AJK. Does it not make you ask question why they want to separate other than a lazy YES.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

@My ‘take home’ message:
kashmir is definitely not an integral part of India as claimed by india
—How Azad is Azad? Why 50% from already Azad JK want to be Azad? May be you also know the constitution of AJK and how leaders are elected—need for Kashmir banega Pakistan oath as pre-requisite and the remainder not allowed to participate. This is from UN report not from some false propaganda site.

@ 50% is actually an excellent score. if you polled my neighborhood — 99% would be unhappy with pak government. we don’t equate approval of our govt. with patriotism.”
—Well, unhappy people fix the country, not vote for another country. Probably these ones are very very unhappy for certain reasons.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

@ —– 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?

Posted by tupak_shakir

There was actually no (or negligable) conflict in J&K prior to 1989. They valley was harmonious & all it’s inhabitants (muslims, hindus & sikhs) lived peacefully with each other. Then in 1989, your army, emboldened by the american victory in the afghan war, plush with american money & weaponary and tens of thousands of idle mujahadeen at it’s disposal, decided to implement it’s policy of ‘bleeding India’ & started the proxy war in kashmir. So, If anyone should be blamed for destroying the peace in kahmir & the lives of kashmiris, it’s your EVIL army.

Posted by BlackSabbath3 | Report as abusive
 

The biggest mistake that India has made in the past 63 yrs, is to give ‘special settlement rights’ to Kashmiris in J&K. While India has been trying to woo it’s kashmiris with special privilidges, Pakistan has been busy altering the map & demographics of PoK by integrating more & more of the so-called “Azad kashmir” into the northern areas & settling more & more Punjabis in PoK.

Posted by BlackSabbath3 | Report as abusive
 

If India would have also settled it’s Punjabis, north Indians etc in J&K and integrated the state into the Indian union, I would imagine that things would be quite different today. But it’s not too late & they should begin the process now. Those who would oppose this action, should be offered free transportation to “Azad Kashmir”.

Posted by BlackSabbath3 | Report as abusive
 

@tupak

pregnant woman throwing bricks: ”

>> I feel like applauding your zeal but I can’t go beyond pitying you. You, gentleman, will post link to a news story published in 2008 to give the impression that it has happened today. Furthermore, its women police checking the curfew-pass of a family who is in medical emergency. How would any other country’s police do it differently?

In toto, your stupidity brings more shame to your cause, no matter if its “right” or “wrong”.

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

Whatever.
We ain’t handing over even an inch of land, piece of dirt in Kashmir to any one. Those who refuse to live peacefully should be asked to migrate to “pakistan”.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 
 

Kashmiris believe that all the protests are spontaneous….but we have enough of proofs to suggest that its a well planned action taken from across the border…and Kashmiris are supporting it..http://www.indiapolitiks.blogspot.co m/

Posted by Real_Indian | Report as abusive
 
 
 
 

Interestingly no one talks about the Simla accord of 1972. Even authors like Myra McDonald do not include in their articles. The 1972 accord basically states that the conflict between India and Pakistan are resolved regarding Kashmir and both countries would devote their energies on constructive ways:

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Agree ment

There is an explicit statement I am quoting from the agreement:

“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.”

Pakistan simply ignored this agreement between the two countries and started the armed conflict in Kashmir in 1989 right after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.

Here is an excerpt from “Nuclear Deception,” by Adrian Levy and Catherine Clark (pages 181- 182):

“With his connections to the Islamic throng, (Hamid) Gul argued that the madrasahs could be militarized to make India bleed. He had a vision of creating an Army of God, with Pakistan’s religious schools transformed by the ISI into training camps where the instructors would be war-hardened jihadis from Afghanistan and the pupils soldiers of Allah. General (Aslam) Beg agreed and planned to place the training camps out of sight, high up in the hills of Muzaffarbad, the capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir.

Gul recalled: “We wanted to mirror the mujahideen’s success in Afghanistan by sending them into Indian-administered Kashmir to manipulate the Kashmirir people’s anger at India’s refusal to grant them autonomy. We would train the freedom fighters. We would arm them.” It was for Hamid Gul a campaign that worked on every level: turning the screw on India, reviving the Pakistani military, while promoting an increasingly zealous and chauvinistic home-grown Islamic movement.”

Further down the page:

“Gul argued that Pakistan had to wield the (nuclear) bomb that the US enabled it to build, refining missiles and other delivery systems that would leave India in no doubt about Pakistan’s capabilities”

Pakistan started a new conflict in Kashmir in 1989 and has sustained it using global geo-political issues as a leverage. I am very surprised that none of these authors have ever referred to this book or even include Simla accord into their writings. I clearly sense clouding of facts so that a biased view can be projected to support pro-Pakistani views. Some of these people do not realize that cold war days are over. Yet their hearts are still filled with the old memories that put India in the wrong light. Kashmir is not about freedom struggle or Islam. It is clearly a conflict raised to sustain Pakistani military’s hold on power and grip in the region. I have not seen one criticism from these esteemed authors about the wrong-doings of the Pakistani establishment. Everything from the Indian side is declared as “alleged.”

Hope this piece of my comment does not get deleted.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

KPSingh,
Your latest post explicitly exposes the hypocrisy of westerners and their support for pakistani terrorism all along. Good work…Keith’s attempts to discredit you…notwithstanding…

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

KP Singh:
Good points. you mentioned “Nuclear Deception,” by Adrian Levy and Catherine Clark and Simla Agreement.

Myra:
Really, why would you not mention Simla Agreement in your article? Seriously, keeping quite is one option for you,
Regards

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

why is myra, victoria schofield or any other respectable author that does not follow the indian line immediately gets branded as biased?

what motive would these people possibly have to support hapless pakistan?

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

@why is myra, victoria schofield or any other respectable author that does not follow the indian line immediately gets branded as biased?
what motive would these people possibly have to support hapless pakistan?
Posted by tupak_shakir


Tupak:

R E L A X and
Do not misrepresent Indian poster’s position.

I do not think that asking an author a relevant question can be called branded an author “biased”? The best I can say is that the sentence should have been framed differently.

Both Indians and Pakistani posters have done it. Pakistanis have attacked directly the Reuters author in the past where I had to jump in to say not to shoot the messenger. Indians have exercised this internal control mechanism where one Indian cautioned the other. Would u like to see fine examples from pakistani posters attacking Reuters posters? Just let me know. I will have it for you.

i respect Myra as an author her. In response to her pic she once posted wearing Pakistani jacket and holding a gun(??) at Siachen, I was joking with her why not Indian jacket and Rifle. She promised me to post it and I am getting older waiting for that. All this does not mean we do not respect her as an author and that she works for PA.

khuda hafiz

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Tupak:

Now you can deal with the actual point raised!

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Indian leaders are unlikely to come to terms with the reality of kashmiris. A large number of Kashmiris are living in Europe for several decades now and like Palestinians they are asking for their home land. Pakistan got involved in view of their past failures to take the whole terrotary in their domain.
India wants to habg on to the teerritory as long as they can. From the comments on this forum one notes the Indian people feel attached to the Kasdhmir territory, regardless of the Kashmiri citizens political demands. They are more worried about the safety of the Indian soldiers. The kashmiris are more or less peaceful people and their resistance groups operating in Kashmir are not strong enough. Pakistan military has been stationed on the pakistan side of the border to prevent resistance groups intrusion into the Indian held kashmir. This sruggle is going to last for several decades, and I see a link of their fate with Pashtoons. Sooner than later the Pashtoons are likely to leave their bunkers of the tribal territories in so called Afghanistan and Pakistan and spread across the subcontinent as their forefathers did. They have the means and the weaponry hithertoo unused to defeat the Indian armada, for in my view as long as it exists the peace in the subcontinent is unlikely to come.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

@ Keith

You wrote: ” So you expect the Russians of all people to give up a part of their country without so much as a peep? Come on.”

1) So you expect the Chechens of all people to give up their bid for independence without as much as a peep. Even a casual glance over their history will tell you that they are a fiercely proud and independent people. Just because Moscow invaded and annexed Chechnya (and the surrounding areas) in the 1800s through brute force does not make it a part of Russia. One country or nation becomes a part of another, only when its people willingly want the union.

2) The First Chechen war was not the first time the Chechens had tried to regain their independence. They repeatedly revolted in the 1800s and the 1900s. It took decades of fighting, mass deportations and mass executions before the Chechens were temporarily subdued. The last of these mass deportations occurred I believe in either 1943 or 1944. By this time over a century of Russian atrocities had entered the collective memory of the Chechens. You remember what I had written about the importance of unaddressed ‘historical grievances’. Well, here is more proof of what I said.

3) The Russians DID give up vast chunks of their empire without a peep. Armenia, Estonia, Kyrgyzstan, etc etc etc. They gave those areas up because they were in no position to exert control over them. Chechnya, on the other hand, seemed like an easy target. The Russians thought that by putting the Chechens in their place they would tell the world that they were still strong; that they were still the boss in the region. Instead they ended up with the most humiliating defeat in their history (First Chechen war).

You wrote: 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).

1) Thank you for validating my original position. There was a violent insurgency AFTER the Russians invaded and performed their ‘humane’ deeds. My original position was that there was no ‘violent separatist insurgency’ before the First Chechen war, which started when the Russians invaded.

2) A declaration of independence is not the ‘kicking off’ of an insurgency as you have falsely imply. Kindly look up their definitions and you will realize that those are two separate things.

You wrote: ” 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).”

1) What the Chechens went through starting in the early 1800s and throughout the Soviet repression was far, far worse than what the Kashmiris or Kosovars have faced so far. Read up on it or better yet, just ask a Chechen.

2) I will not sit in judgment of whether what the Chechens went through justified a bid for independence or not. The Chechens were in a better position to know that. All I know is that they tried.

3) The Americans under George Washington did exactly what your saying should not be done and that too over far smaller grievances when compared to the Kosovars or the Kashmiris. The next time you meet one of your southerly neighbors perhaps you should tell them to their face that you do not approve of their independence.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

****continued****

You wrote: ” 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.”

1) I can assure you that there has ‘never’ been an appetite in the West (or India) to resolve Kashmir peacefully. The Kashmir conflict predates Kosovo by exactly half a century. The West did not make any substantial effort to bring the conflict to a peaceful end during that time period. Therefore, you cannot use Kosovo to explain why the West is not doing the right thing in Kashmir currently since they have never done anything in the past anyway. Nor do the Kashmiris expect them to.

2) Using bad governance in Kosovo as an excuse for not wanting to do the right thing in Kashmir (today) beats all other excuses I have heard so far. What will the next excuse, the lack of gay rights in Kosovo? Animal rights perhaps?

3) There have been instances where the West has successfully intervened in conflicts with the end result coming out positive. Why are you not using those examples to justify doing the right thing in Kashmir? Why this selective and exclusive focus on Kosovo?

4) Kashmir and Kosovo are two different regions, inhabited by two different ethnic groups, who have vastly different histories. What is the basis of this illogical connection you have created in your mind between Kosovo and Kashmir? What’s the common factor?

You wrote: “ 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. 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.”

1) From 1947-48, till the time Nehru passed away there was no terrorism or any other activity which is being used today as an excuse. Nor was there a ‘Kosovo problem’ which is what you are disingenuously trying to connect with Kashmir. So what was the excuse in the West then? More importantly what was the Indian excuse for not coming to the table to resolve the dispute peacefully?

You wrote: ” With Pakistan running a not too distant second when it comes to failed states.”

1) We are undoubtedly going through a difficult time in our history. But that’s okay. Pakistanis are born survivors. We are a tough and honorable people and we will see these difficulties through to the end.

2) I think you will find out soon enough who has actually ‘failed’ in Af-Pak. A few decades from now you may even realize the true magnitude of that failure when it dawns on you that the end game in Af-Pak effectively marked the start of the Chinese century.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

****continued****

You wrote: “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?”

1) Pakistan was supposed to be composed of Muslim ‘majority’ areas plus any princely states that acceded to Pakistan (Junagadh did accede, Hyderabad was about to before the Indian invasion)

2) The 160 million Muslims (minus the ones in Kashmir) are Indian citizens.

3) Pakistanis care about all Muslims everywhere. When our help is required and asked for we go out of our way to provide it (e.g. commandos, weapons, medical supplies sent to Bosnia). We are also one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping efforts and have therefore served and defended people regardless of their faiths.

4) We care about Muslims in Kerala (and other parts of India) but it is the duty of the government of India to take care of them because they are citizens of India. When something bad like the Babri masjid or Gujrat incident happens, it is upsetting to us, but it is India’s internal matter.

You wrote: “And the framework you cite, can be disputed when it comes to Kashmir. They were independent when the Brits left.”

1) Incorrect. The partition framework I have cited cannot be disputed because that is what was agreed upon by all parties before the British left.

2) Kashmir was independent but it had not announced whether it would ‘remain’ independent or not. Hyderabad was also independent and was about to accede to Pakistan before being illegally invaded by India. Junagadh was also independent but it acceded to Pakistan and was subsequently invaded by India (essentially an unprovoked act of war on Pakistan).

3) Using coercion and force India took away (from Hyderabad and Junagadh) the options of (i) accession to Pakistan (ii) independence. That basically meant that as far as India was concerned, the princely states had to choose between accession to India or an Indian invasion. Therefore the princely state of Kashmir no longer had the protection of being ‘independent’, since as far as India was concerned, there was no such choice.

4) Even if the maharaja had declared independence, it would be legally invalid since neither Hyderabad nor Junagadh were allowed to exercise that same option. Additionally, since the partition framework was destroyed his so called ‘accession’ to India holds no legality whatsoever no matter how many times India gets it rubberstamped.

You wrote: ” 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.”

1) Pakistan’s intervention was justified because of the complete destruction of the partition framework by India. We had no choice but to invade given the fact that, as I have pointed out above, the only choice India gave the princely states was accession to India or invasion by India.

2) If Pakistan had not ‘pre-empted’ the inevitable Indian annexation of Kashmir we would not have the part of Kashmir we do today.

You wrote: ” 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.”

1) The underpinnings of the framework have not been refuted; they have been altered using time delay, double standards and brute force.

2) By adopting the line of reasoning above, you are acknowledging that Indian actions from independence up till now are valid, which essentially means that you believe that aggression, subversion and terrorism are valid foreign policy tools. I find this to be unbelievably disgusting not to mention hypocritical since the majority of your time seems to be spent in blaming and badmouthing Pakistan for doing the exact same thing. Pakistan was a target of Indian aggression and terrorism from its very birth and that is what essentially shaped post-independence history.

3) Since the Kashmiri ceasefire, the Pakistani position has not followed the line that ‘the Muslim majority areas should go to Pakistan’. This was a part of the wrecked partition framework. Since the ceasefire, Pakistan has held the position that Kashmir is a disputed territory and its fate is to be decided by a free and fair plebiscite. Further more, the UN agrees with us. Whenever the parties involved become serious they can sit down and work out the modalities (troop withdrawal, format and timetable, peacekeeping force composition etc etc) so that the Kashmiris can finally have some peace.

3) India’s territorial claims w.r.t China are based on colonial era maps and treaties regarding the region. According to your line of reasoning, Indian claims on those territories are negated because since the time of those maps and treaties, large chunks of territory have broken away from India itself and want absolutely nothing to with it anymore (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

4) If the events of 71 had any impact whatsoever on the status of Kashmir then that would have been reflected in a change in the UN designation of Kashmir away from a disputed territory. Why has that not happened yet?

You said: “ 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?”

The most acceptable solution is to follow the spirit of UNSCR 47 and hold elections/plebiscite on the whole of Kashmir and let the people decide their own future.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

skipped all long posts/rants.
Wars-didn’t work
terorism-didn’t work
lies/propaganda-didn’t work
blogging now-will not work

Indian economy started taking off precisely since Kashmir jihad was started in 1989.
“Pakistan ” has tanked, literally the wheels are coming off. barely surviving through begging and getting ransom money for terrorism.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

***continued***

You wrote: ” 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.”

1) Pakistan is facing difficulties today due to economic mismanagement, destruction of law and order and a lack of social services.

2) If anything, it is our ‘religious lens’ that keeps the ordinary Pakistani focused on doing the right things and this keeps the country chugging along. For example, an independent study by the Agha Khan Foundation discovered that Pakistanis are the most charitable nation on earth (on a per capita basis). We have less wealth when compared to other nations, but we willingly share more of it. This is besides the obligatory religious charity that we pay every year. Were it not for this charitable nature, Pakistan would not be able to take of its poor.

You wrote: “Was Chechnya about Muslims or about Chechens revolting? I doubt ……………………. with similar political values on its periphery. What’s Islam got to do with it?”

1) My very first post on this blog entry was in response to a bigoted moron who was maligning my people and our religion. I used extreme sarcasm to put a few points across to him and perhaps you have read too much into it.

2) I do not believe that a war is being waged deliberately against any religion. There are currently a lot of conflicts in and around the Muslim world but I believe they initially have more to do with geo-politics than religion. However from the defenders point of view they inevitably take a religious color. You have pointed out how Jews saw themselves as Germans first until the Nazi oppression. It was only then that they fell back on their faith because it gave them the strength to suffer and resist. Apply the same logic to Muslims in Chechnya; Kashmir, Palestine etc.

3) The world obeys the law of the jungle. When you factor in the overall weakness of the Muslim world and the strategic location of Muslim lands which are filled with unextracted resources, you basically have a recipe for a very long period of war and turmoil in the Islamic world.

4) It is irrelevant whether you and I believe that there is no war against Islam. As I’ve said before, in politics the general perception determines reality. So if the majority of Muslims hold this belief then decision makers in the East and West better pay attention and factor it into their politics. In this case, ignorance is definitely not bliss.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

It is Indians – all Indians, all 1.1 billion of them – who will decide the fate of Kashmir. Not a few million Kashmiri muslims full of hatred towards the kufr democracy call India and hatred towards kufr hindus – which they demonstrated by ethnic cleansing their Kashmiri Pandit brothers 2 decades back.

Who are the 1 million Indian soldiers who are fighting Kashmiri separatists, killing them, sending them via speed post to their 72 virgins ? Sons of farmers, small time businessmen, traders, school teachers in rural India and semi-urban India. You kill one, 100 more will compete to take his place.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

shuqaib,
wonderful rebuttal to the orientalist. you have the knowledge, intellect and energy to set the record straight. Shabaash, shabaash, luggay ruho!

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

It is Indians – all Indians, all 1.1 billion of them – who will decide the fate of Kashmir. Not a few million Kashmiri muslims full of hatred towards the kufr democracy call India and hatred towards kufr hindus – which they demonstrated by ethnic cleansing their Kashmiri Pandit brothers 2 decades back.

Who are the 1 million Indian soldiers who are fighting Kashmiri separatists, killing them, sending them via speed post to their 72 virgins ? Sons of farmers, small time businessmen, traders, school teachers in rural India and semi-urban India. You kill one, 100 more will compete to take his place.

—- It is this attitude of Indians that even if you are a peace-leaning individual, it makes one want to teach this hegemonic monster a lesson. when a kashmiri reads this, he is simply emboldened.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

My previous post was copy and paste from another blog. It looks like Tupak is enjoying it. Here is the rest…

“Kashmiri separatists and their friends like Shivam and the rest of the gang who populate this website are not fighting the “Indian state” or the “Indian government”. They are fighting the Indian people. The Indian people. All 1.1 billion of them.

You think you can beat us ? Try it. Try your best to defeat the Indian people. Lets see what you got. Can you beat the Indian people ? Let us see.

Infact you have been trying for 2 decades. With a lot of support from across the border. But with no success. So try harder, if thats possible. We look forward to it.”

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

1. hegemonic monster a lesson.

2. luggay ruho!
Posted by tupak_shakir

===

1. 63 years of “teaching lessons” have taken to you now where you are..in rags with a begging bowl!! The fact you still think you are “teaching lessons” only reflects your megalomaniac lessions.

2. Is this the chaste Hindi you said you are capable of?

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

typo..megalomaniac delusions.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

@seekeroftruth

Your anger, although justified, is somewhat misdirected. The culprit here is not kashmiri muslims but the ‘failed terrorist state’ of Pakistan. Kashmir was peaceful until Pakistani terrorists started crossing over & the people who killed kashmiri hindus & sikhs were not kashmiris but Pakistani punjabis. Don’t confuse Pakistani ranters like this tupak_shakir fellow with Indian kashmiris. They can rant & whine all they want but they DON’T speak for kashmiris, who have absolutely no love for Pakistan. The only villain here is Pakistan!

Posted by BlackSabbath3 | Report as abusive
 

Kashmir was peaceful until Pakistani terrorists started crossing over & the people who killed kashmiri hindus & sikhs were not kashmiris but Pakistani punjabis. Don’t confuse Pakistani ranters like this tupak_shakir fellow with Indian kashmiris.


I agree Blacsabbath. I don’t write things like that, it was copy and paste from another blog.

It is not a coincidence all the 10 terrorists who came to Mumbai were Punjabis.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

They (pakistanis) can rant & whine all they want but they DON’T speak for kashmiris

— I agree with you 100%. Let us hear from kashmiri blogs/authors/magazines/diaspora/editori als instead.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

ethnic diaspora are speaking:

http://www.pashtunistan.net/vzwatch.php? id=1

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

another source could be the kashmiri flags being waved in london during pak/australia match everytime boom-boom hit a boundary…

what are these ISI planted agents doing at a cricket match?

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

ethnic diaspora are speaking:

http://www.pashtunistan.net/vzwatch.php? id=1

— these are kashmiris?? nice subject change.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Shaqib Bhutto:

“Pakistanis care about all Muslims everywhere. When our help is required and asked for we go out of our way to provide it (e.g. commandos, weapons, medical supplies sent to Bosnia). We are also one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping efforts and have therefore served and defended people regardless of their faiths.”

Lies repeated a thousand times begin to resemble truth. If Pakistanis cared about fellow Muslims, why were they massacred in East Pakistan? Do they not matter because it is in the past? How conviniently you are window washing facts!

Did Pakistanis raise hue and cry when Chinese brutally suppressed the Uighur Muslim agitation? I did not see even on Pakistan raise a hair on that.

I have not seen Pakistanis send in commandos and mujahideen to fight for Kurdish Muslims who have been seeking independence from Muslim Turkey and Iraq. Do they not count as suffering Muslims? Saddam Hussein dropped chemical weapons on them.

When Afghan men, women and children were oppressed by the Taliban, without any human rights and took them back to stone age, what were you Pakistanis doing? If it is all right for fellow Muslims to suffer at the hands of a brutally primitive Taliban, why is your military fighting a Taliban in South Waziristan and FATA?

Be honest. You guys are hypocrites. You have no special love for Kashmiris because they are Muslims. But you do have special hate for Indians and that is why Kashmir is burning.

“We care about Muslims in Kerala (and other parts of India) but it is the duty of the government of India to take care of them because they are citizens of India. When something bad like the Babri masjid or Gujrat incident happens, it is upsetting to us, but it is India’s internal matter.”

But East Pakistan does not matter. Uighur Muslims do not matter. In Kerala, the Muslims get along very well with fellow citizens in general. Kindly do not inject your jihadi poison there. In India, a Pathan can be the number one movie star and can make a movie called, “My name is Khan.” In Islamic Pakistan, Ahmadis and Shia Muslims will need to adjust themselves to the brutal treatment of Sunni Muslims. Fellow Muslims in Balochistan can be slaughtered at will to keep them under control. But India cannot keep law and order in Kashmir. Come on, do not expose your double standards more. We all know what your countrymen are up to.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

tupac-shakir: “another source could be the kashmiri flags being waved in london during pak/australia match everytime boom-boom hit a boundary…

what are these ISI planted agents doing at a cricket match?”

No. But the ISI sowed the seeds of alienation and hatred in 1989 when the last Soviet tank rolled out of Afghanistan. It takes years for hatred to grow and establish its roots well. Then it does not matter where the Pakistani flag flies. There is so much poison injected by the ISI into the soil that Pakistanis have to play their home cricket matches in England. Have you ever given it a thought? Or you also fell for the ISI injected poison and believe that RAW is behind that.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

what are these ISI planted agents doing at a cricket match?
==
Tupak, you are very entertaining. In 1948 if Sheikh Abdullah had chosen to wave Pakistani flag we wouldn’t be here discussing this. And in 1965 when Pakistan Army launched “Operation Gibraltar”, the Kashmiris sided with Indian army and helped them capture the infiltrators. LOL! Incovenient change of subject?

And after you had surrenedered with 90,000 pakistani soldiers to be POWs at the mercy of India, Bhutto begged Indira Gandhi not to insist on declaring LOC to be international border.

Your empty bravado doesn’t impress us! You couldn’t take even a piece of dirt in 1999 either. LOL!

Posted by Seekeroftruth | 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/
  •