India is Losing Kashmir

Kashmir has been simmering in decades of conflict since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The violence reached its peak in the 1980s and ‘90s, when the Pakistan-backed Kashmiri insurgency was at its strongest. By the early 2000s, however, the violence seemed to have abated, and there was hope for a peaceful settlement of the issue. But now, optimism for such a peaceful settlement is dwindling. As Kashmir has seen a resurgence in violence, public support for the insurgency also seems to be increasing. India is losing whatever support it had among the general Kashmiri public, and this trend will continue unless it brings about a radical change in its Kashmir policy.

These kinds of reprehensible policies that the Indian establishment says are important to maintain peace in Kashmir have produced a disaffected Kashmiri population. And although it may appear to have strengthened its hold, India is losing popular support in Kashmir by sticking to its policy of focusing solely on economic development while maintaining the security status quo. In a vivid illustration of the problem, just a day after Indian Prime Minister Modi visited Kashmir last November and unveiled a $12 billion economic development package for the state, a 22-year-old Kashmiri man, Gowhar Nazir Dar, was killed by the Central Reserve Police Force. The resulting demonstrations carried on for days, with protesters across Kashmir combining to outnumber the attendees of the rally where Modi spoke.

At a time when the Islamic State is threatening to expand into Kashmir ­– even though it has found no buyers there for its message, thus far – there still remains a chance that the angry and agitated people who turn out in huge numbers at militant funerals could fall prey to its propaganda in order to fight the Indian establishment. For India to end this long quagmire of armed conflict with Kashmiris, it must shift away from its current policy and allow political space for Kashmiris. It should repeal its draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Public Safety Act and punish soldiers involved in human rights violations. And, finally, India should work with Kashmiris and Pakistan alike to reach a viable solution so that peace may prevail. But until India realizes the damage it has done, the streets of Kashmir will reverberate with chants in support of its supposed martyrs, much like they did during the funeral procession of Abu Qasim.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kashmir has been simmering in decades of conflict since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The violence reached its peak in the 1980s and ‘90s, when the Pakistan-backed Kashmiri insurgency was at its strongest. By the early 2000s, however, the violence seemed to have abated, and there was hope for a peaceful settlement of the issue. But now, optimism for such a peaceful settlement is dwindling. As Kashmir has seen a resurgence in violence, public support for the insurgency also seems to be increasing. India is losing whatever support it had among the general Kashmiri public, and this trend will continue unless it brings about a radical change in its Kashmir policy.

These kinds of reprehensible policies that the Indian establishment says are important to maintain peace in Kashmir have produced a disaffected Kashmiri population. And although it may appear to have strengthened its hold, India is losing popular support in Kashmir by sticking to its policy of focusing solely on economic development while maintaining the security status quo. In a vivid illustration of the problem, just a day after Indian Prime Minister Modi visited Kashmir last November and unveiled a $12 billion economic development package for the state, a 22-year-old Kashmiri man, Gowhar Nazir Dar, was killed by the Central Reserve Police Force. The resulting demonstrations carried on for days, with protesters across Kashmir combining to outnumber the attendees of the rally where Modi spoke.

At a time when the Islamic State is threatening to expand into Kashmir ­– even though it has found no buyers there for its message, thus far – there still remains a chance that the angry and agitated people who turn out in huge numbers at militant funerals could fall prey to its propaganda in order to fight the Indian establishment. For India to end this long quagmire of armed conflict with Kashmiris, it must shift away from its current policy and allow political space for Kashmiris. It should repeal its draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Public Safety Act and punish soldiers involved in human rights violations. And, finally, India should work with Kashmiris and Pakistan alike to reach a viable solution so that peace may prevail. But until India realizes the damage it has done, the streets of Kashmir will reverberate with chants in support of its supposed martyrs, much like they did during the funeral procession of Abu Qasim.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/05/india-is-losing-kashmir/

Like I said before, I, for the life of me, don't understand why India puts up with stupid people and stupid state. Let them secede, these idiots have been a drag on India forever.

garam_kuta wrote:
I always wondered on the 'justification' of the budget and the disproportionately spent taxpayers money on this. sales pitch probably was the sentimentality of nehru family's roots there, but strategically the inner agenda originally must have been to have a buffer for collateral damages.

These are telling facts. The whining and whimpering of the first family notwithstanding, Jammu and Kashmir is the most pampered state in India.

Since the beginning of militancy in 1990, the state has managed to get the lion's share of Central resources - over Rs 35,571.3 crore in grants and assistance.

In 2001-2, for instance, Jammu and Kashmir got Rs 4,577 crore from the Centre or over 10 per cent of the assistance to states. It has got more than any other state every year since 1995. Add to this projects in the state worth over Rs 25,000 crore being funded by the Centre.

A Kashmiri gets eight times more money from the Centre than citizens from other states. While per capita Central assistance to other states moved from Rs 576.24 in 1992-93 to Rs 1,137 in 2000-1, that of the Kashmiri spiralled from Rs 3,197 to Rs 8,092.

To get a perspective, translate the numbers: if this cash, managed by the state Government, were to be despatched by money order, each Kashmiri family (with five members on an average) would get Rs 40,460 every year.

For all that talk of autonomy or azadi, the fact is that Jammu and Kashmir cannot sustain itself without the Centre's support. In 2001-2, the state spent Rs 7,516.6 crore of which Rs 4,577 crore-or 60 paise of every rupee spent-came from the Centre.

The state's non-development expenditure was Rs 2,829 crore including a salary bill of Rs 1,193 crore while its own revenues were barely Rs 1,095 crore. The state could not have paid even the wages of its employees without the Centre's help.

Years ago, Pakistan pushed thousands of militants across the border as a proxy army to wreak havoc in the Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir. Now, the resistance inside the Indian areas is overwhelmingly homegrown.

The conflict today is probably driven less by geopolitics than by internal Indian politics, which have increasingly taken an anti-Muslim direction. Most of the fighters are young men like Sameer Tiger from quiet brick-walled villages like Qasbayar, who draw support from a population deeply resentful of India’s governing party and years of occupation.

“This is what’s different,’’ said Siddiq Wahid, a Kashmiri historian who earned his Ph.D from Harvard. “Before, in the 1990s, many Kashmiris felt we can negotiate this, we can talk.’’

“But nobody wants to be part of India now,” he said. “Every Kashmiri is resisting today, in different ways.’’

“Let’s be realistic: India’s never going to give up this land,” said one young Kashmiri who asked that his identity not be revealed because he could be labeled a collaborator.

“I can say such things in my house. But as soon as I step outside, even into my own street, I can’t say that. It has to be ‘Azadi! Azadi! Azadi!’ ” he said, using the word for freedom. “It’s like you have to be two different people, all the time.”

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Well, if Kashmir is handed on a platter to Pakis, Indian union will start disintegrating. Tamils, Assamese, Telugus, Kannadigas, Goans, Bengalis, Odiyas, Marathas, etc., etc., will start separatist movements. The only India that will be left becomes quite BIMARU.

Here is a more gentle approach - get BIMARUs out of ignorance and inculcate progressive thinking. Provide free education to Muslim girls and create employment opportunities (an educated and employed Muslim woman will become the biggest enemy of Mullahs). Muslim women will then lead the debate on uniform civil code...... Meanwhile, S Arabia will go back to smelling camels and wiping their butts with pebbles. They won't have the financial clout to support monomania elsewhere. PakiSatan will disintegrate into Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Pushtoonistan, etc. Some will convert into other religions and the rest will fight with each other.......

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Well, if Kashmir is handed on a platter to Pakis, Indian union will start disintegrating. Tamils, Assamese, Telugus, Kannadigas, Goans, Bengalis, Odiyas, Marathas, etc., etc., will start separatist movements. The only India that will be left becomes quite BIMARU.

Here is a more gentle approach - get BIMARUs out of ignorance and inculcate progressive thinking. Provide free education to Muslim girls and create employment opportunities (an educated and employed Muslim woman will become the biggest enemy of Mullahs). Muslim women will then lead the debate on uniform civil code...... Meanwhile, S Arabia will go back to smelling camels and wiping their butts with pebbles. They won't have the financial clout to support monomania elsewhere. PakiSatan will disintegrate into Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Pushtoonistan, etc. Some will convert into other religions and the rest will fight with each other.......

If that is the fear then India doesn't deserve to be an union, does it?