Kashmiris or Indians?

CD,

As usual you run away from the main issue by making preposterous statements. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Indian_Parliament_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks

Read who is responsible for these attacks and what their primary aim was. 

You cannot deny ground reality even though you try that again and again.

Yes. Kashmir costs India money, so does Tibet to China, and Balochistan to Pakistan.  For reasons bigger than immediate dollar, countries hang on to their troubled children. 

As I said before, Kashmir's latest insurgency is 40 years old and so is India's bend but not break policy. Take time to read what Musharaff  said about Pakistan's policy of 1000 cuts. 

After 1971 war, defeated Pakistan Army took some lessons. It understood that it cannot defeat larger and better equipped Indian army. So it decided on a strategy of 1000 cuts. It wanted to foment trouble (read civil war) using India's internal dissensions. The Afghan war a gift delivered from heaven. Jehadis learned latest western techniques and organizations for several years in Taliban wars. After the retreat of Russians , Jehadis were directed to India's kashmir by their mentor Pakistan Army.  Kashmir's unresolved questions were their base issue. Rajiv Gandhi presented them a golden opportunity with a foolish tactic of dissolving local assembly in 1986. 

From then on the confluence of local issues, jehadi activities, religious emotions, and Pakistani army support combined to make a forest fire that still burning. Adding fuel to fire is Chinese financial support to Pakistan to enhance its  strategy of surrounding nd containing India.

This Kashmiri fire is burning for decades with short periods of tremendous intensity and years of slow burning. 

This is an expensive Indian policy and it remains to be pursued till the ground reality changes to India's advantage.

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

What is your criteria for self contained unit that can ask for independence?  Can Old city muslims rise in revolt asking to be united with Paksitan?  Their population may be larger than some of the Indian border states. What if the muslims of HYD, mumbai and bangalore combine to ask for non contigous muslim nation? Can religious fervor alone be sufficient to create new nations? 

If Kashmiri view point needs to be taken into account because they lived there for few hundred years, what about the rest of India views about it? Kashmir has been part of Indian religious and political history forever. Why does it have no weight in your view point?

Related questions were, Kashmir insurgency's strength lies in a small geographical area within Kashmir. What about the rest of Jammu and Kashmir?  Should Kashmir remain one unit or split into several parts based on different religions? 

If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count? 

What is basis of this national sentiment?  What is politically palatable at the moment?

This is all mere speculation with no real basis whatsoever. I don't recall the perpetrators of '93 Mumbai blasts or Gokul Chat or Dilsukhnagar demanding for Azadi, nor do I recall any of these areas being under strict military vigilance for an extended period let alone for 26,27 years.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

What is your criteria for self contained unit that can ask for independence?  Can Old city muslims rise in revolt asking to be united with Paksitan?  Their population may be larger than some of the Indian border states. What if the muslims of HYD, mumbai and bangalore combine to ask for non contigous muslim nation? Can religious fervor alone be sufficient to create new nations? 

If Kashmiri view point needs to be taken into account because they lived there for few hundred years, what about the rest of India views about it? Kashmir has been part of Indian religious and political history forever. Why does it have no weight in your view point?

Related questions were, Kashmir insurgency's strength lies in a small geographical area within Kashmir. What about the rest of Jammu and Kashmir?  Should Kashmir remain one unit or split into several parts based on different religions? 

If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count? 

What is basis of this national sentiment?  What is politically palatable at the moment?

This is all mere speculation with no real basis whatsoever. I don't recall the perpetrators of '93 Mumbai blasts or Gokul Chat or Dilsukhnagar demanding for Azadi, nor do I recall any of these areas being under strict military vigilance for an extended period let alone for 26,27 years.

Comrade, do you believe the follwing people need their own country?

1) Northern Ireland(they want to merge with Eire)

2)Kurds

3) Tibetans

4) Baluchs

CD,

You ignore the major terrorist activities (parliament attack and Mumbai taj attack).  

As I explained above all islamic terrorism in India is Pakistan ISI directed. Their aim is to create civil war between muslims and hindus.  They are part of the same strategy. Why is it difficult for you to understand? Because you refuse to acknowledge that Pakistan is behind all these activities. It is more convenient for you to believe Modi is the cause of all Indian muslim terrorism. Why? it will benefit your narrow political interests.  

Terrorists every where use local issues and troubles to their advantages. 

The question is not whether HYD or WB independence questions are real or not, the question is what is your criteria to define an independence movement? By not defining the criteria, you are performing Trump like policy jumping "whatever looks palatable at the moment'.

Just to make it clear, there were demands HYD muslim independence as late as 1950 under the grandfather of current MIM (leaders) owners. They will come it at the appropriate time. Waiting for the first domino to fall.

truthbetold wrote:CD,

You ignore the major terrorist activities (parliament attack and Mumbai taj attack).  

As I explained above all islamic terrorism in India is Pakistan ISI directed. Their aim is to create civil war between muslims and hindus.  They are part of the same strategy. Why is it difficult for you to understand? Because you refuse to acknowledge that Pakistan is behind all these activities. It is more convenient for you to believe Modi is the cause of all Indian muslim terrorism. Why? it will benefit your narrow political interests.  

Terrorists every where use local issues and troubles to their advantages. 

The question is not whether HYD or WB independence questions are real or not, the question is what is your criteria to define an independence movement? By not defining the criteria, you are performing Trump like policy jumping "whatever looks palatable at the moment'.

Just to make it clear, there were demands HYD muslim independence as late as 1950 under the grandfather of current MIM (leaders) owners. They will come it at the appropriate time. Waiting for the first domino to fall.

In your last 3 or 4 posts, you've essentially proved the very point of this thread that Indians never consider Kashmiris as fellow citizens of India; then what's the point of hanging on to that piece of land, beats me.

CD,

You do not understand India's point of you, because it is not convenient to your political view.

That is no different than your support for corruption king Jagan Reddy.

truthbetold wrote:CD,

You do not understand India's point of you, because it is not convenient to your political view.

That is no different than your support for corruption king Jagan Reddy.

LOL. Loser's argument; show me one post in this thread where I blamed BJP or Modi.

A Kashmiri narrative very well narrates the state and agony of common Kashmiris; once upon a time there was a fisherman, starvation and misfortune had caught him very badly. One day his mother succumbed to misfortunes and hardships of life. The poor fisherman did not burry the corpse his mother and decided to sustain on the flesh of his mother. The people living nearby smelled “meat” and interpreted that fisherman was enjoying fried fish.

The fellow citizens while sitting in luxurious air-conditioned rooms watching Kashmiris participating in protests and stone pelting, most of which are mourning, funerals, or reaction to atrocities of “security” forces, do not look at these gatherings beyond anti India demonstrations. They curse, curb and labeled all Kashmiris as traitors, Pakistanis and what not.

What is happening in Kashmir and response to it from the rest of country is not different from the narrative. All the Kashmiris are like the fisherman who ate the dead corpse of his mother to survive and the fellow citizens are like the neighbors who mesmerized the event and “thought” he enjoyed fried fish.

https://www.countercurrents.org/2016/08/21/kashmir-a-cry-from-hell/

TBT et al, nicely fit into the description of fellows sitting in luxurious air-conditioned rooms..

confuzzled dude wrote:

A Kashmiri narrative very well narrates the state and agony of common Kashmiris; once upon a time there was a fisherman, starvation and misfortune had caught him very badly. One day his mother succumbed to misfortunes and hardships of life. The poor fisherman did not burry the corpse his mother and decided to sustain on the flesh of his mother. The people living nearby smelled “meat” and interpreted that fisherman was enjoying fried fish.

The fellow citizens while sitting in luxurious air-conditioned rooms watching Kashmiris participating in protests and stone pelting, most of which are mourning, funerals, or reaction to atrocities of “security” forces, do not look at these gatherings beyond anti India demonstrations. They curse, curb and labeled all Kashmiris as traitors, Pakistanis and what not.

What is happening in Kashmir and response to it from the rest of country is not different from the narrative. All the Kashmiris are like the fisherman who ate the dead corpse of his mother to survive and the fellow citizens are like the neighbors who mesmerized the event and “thought” he enjoyed fried fish.

https://www.countercurrents.org/2016/08/21/kashmir-a-cry-from-hell/

TBT et al, nicely fit into the description of fellows sitting in luxurious air-conditioned rooms..

CD,

do you even realize the irony of you sitting in US lecturing the Indians about sitting in A/c rooms.

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

What is your criteria for self contained unit that can ask for independence?  Can Old city muslims rise in revolt asking to be united with Paksitan?  Their population may be larger than some of the Indian border states. What if the muslims of HYD, mumbai and bangalore combine to ask for non contigous muslim nation? Can religious fervor alone be sufficient to create new nations? 

I am not in favor of a low bar for secession. I am also strongly opposed to colonialism, oppression and military rule. In my view, any group needs to be sufficiently large for it to make sense as an independent nation, with a reasonable economy and history of political institutions. Kashmir makes the size cut with a population of over 10 million. Examples of countries smaller in population than Kashmir: Begium, Greece, Portugal, Sweden, Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Israel, Libya, Tajikistan, Jordan. Its economy was quite strong and independent of India's, although the years of terrorism and  military occupation have destroyed that. It has the potential to rebuild a robust economy dependent on tourism and exports to India and Pakistan. Kashmir has had its own institutions for a while although they have been severely sabotaged and curtailed by New Delhi. '

At the end of the day, it boils down the wishes of the Kashmiri people. If they are determined to chart their own course independent of India, India should allow that to happen. Using the Indian army as a colonial occupation force to oppress civilians only erodes India's military readiness for war; this is why China encourages Pakistan to keep Kashmir festering. India's constitutional democracy unravels with this forced military rule of Kashmir.

truthbetold wrote:If Kashmiri view point needs to be taken into account because they lived there for few hundred years, what about the rest of India views about it? Kashmir has been part of Indian religious and political history forever. Why does it have no weight in your view point?

The very fact that you talk about a Kashmiri viewpoint and an Indian viewpoint should tell you that you don't think of Kashmiris as Indians. India can choose what it wants to do: keep playing colonial oppressor in Kashmir or get the hell out and let them deal with the diktats from Rawalpindi. As long as it chooses the role of oppressor, it cannot claim to be a real democracy. Just like Israel is not a real democracy because it occupies the lands of people who don't want their rule.

truthbetold wrote:Related questions were, Kashmir insurgency's strength lies in a small geographical area within Kashmir. What about the rest of Jammu and Kashmir?  Should Kashmir remain one unit or split into several parts based on different religions? 

I think the old princely state of J&K has already been split up into four pieces: "Northern Areas" of Gilgit-Baltistan incorporated into Pakistan proper, POK, COK, and the piece India rules. I think the piece India rules will need to be divided; Jammu and Ladakh will choose to stay with India in a referendum, and the valley will vote to join "Azad Kashmir" and be under effective Pakistani rule.

truthbetold wrote:If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count? 

Refugees are not citizens and they do not have votes. Western UP does not have districts with 95% Muslim majorities like Kashmir valley.

truthbetold wrote:What is basis of this national sentiment?  What is politically palatable at the moment?

As an Indian, the basis for me is the terrible waste of Indian blood and treasure in holding territory that is not useful to us. It is the prolonged subversion of Indian democracy, and the degradation of the Indian army into oppressors of civilian populations, that compels me to take this point of view. Enough is enough; they don't want to be part of India so let them get lost. India is better off spending all that money on modernizing its military to compete with China, rather than waste it fighting the population of the valley.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

What is your criteria for self contained unit that can ask for independence?  Can Old city muslims rise in revolt asking to be united with Paksitan?  Their population may be larger than some of the Indian border states. What if the muslims of HYD, mumbai and bangalore combine to ask for non contigous muslim nation? Can religious fervor alone be sufficient to create new nations? 

If Kashmiri view point needs to be taken into account because they lived there for few hundred years, what about the rest of India views about it? Kashmir has been part of Indian religious and political history forever. Why does it have no weight in your view point?

Related questions were, Kashmir insurgency's strength lies in a small geographical area within Kashmir. What about the rest of Jammu and Kashmir?  Should Kashmir remain one unit or split into several parts based on different religions? 

If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count? 

What is basis of this national sentiment?  What is politically palatable at the moment?

This is all mere speculation with no real basis whatsoever. I don't recall the perpetrators of '93 Mumbai blasts or Gokul Chat or Dilsukhnagar demanding for Azadi, nor do I recall any of these areas being under strict military vigilance for an extended period let alone for 26,27 years.

Comrade, do you believe the follwing people need their own country?

1) Northern Ireland(they want to merge with Eire)

2)Kurds

3) Tibetans

4) Baluchs

I know the question was for CD, but here is my view. All four of these groups should have the ability to vote in a free and fair referendum so they can choose to continue in their current politial units or form an independent country. The bar should be high for a change (perhaps a minimum turnout requirement and a bar higher than 50% for changing the status quo).

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD,

Searching for escape routes already.  Adding that stock answer makes really stupid and clueless.

My dear TBT, escape route was your previous post. Kashmiris want freedom, they don't want to be a part of India. How difficult is it to understand?

CD,

Your inability to state your side of equation clearly is the problem. Sentiment of religiously charged islamic Kashmiris is well understood. The policies of 40 years Indian govt are bend but not break.  Kashmir problem has gone up and down in religious intensity and terrorist violence over these 40 years based on local factors and international instigation. 

The hypocrisy of congress supporters like you is that you are painting the current turmoil as suddenly bigger than at any other time (remember 1986 or 19991 or 2001parliament attack  to 2008 - mumbai Taj terrorism) because such perception is hoped to Modi politically.  Your intense hatred for Modi does not change ground reality.
The Indian govt position is not much different from 3 years ago. The so called kashmiri sentiment is decades old. (Read BBC's) . The only difference is that cong supporters are openly coming out for Kashmir secession. Congress will be happy to see Kashmir simmer through UP elections to gather more muslim votes to their side. 
Foreign interests have been stoking national sentiments along Indian borders for several decades and making those areas vulnerable. Congress that ran govt all those years used bend but not break. It will not change under Modi.  Remember Kashmir problem is in existence as long as Palestine issue. 

Kashmir problem can only be solved if India is defeated or Pakistan disintegrates or China reconciles itself to better relations with India and accepts the idea that it is worth pushing Pakistan aside. None of those events are on cards for few more decades.

Comparison of other terrorist activities with Kashmir issue makes me wonder about your knowledge of the state of India, Are you really this dumb or trying hard to be a dumb dude? My support for kicking Kashmir out of the union (India) has got nothing to do with BJP or Congress. My point is that Kashmir has been a drag on India for decades, sucking out enormous resources - financial, military or otherwise. When a country has no qualms bifurcating (or even trifurcate) several states based on economic/development agenda what's wrong with breaking ties with this state for the future of India.

india cannot let go of kashmir in the same way that china cannot let go of tibet. the chinese know that if tibet goes, then there is a serious danger of xinjian, inner mongolia and other provinces also saying sayonara to china.

in india, if kashmir goes  then we can say goodbye to the north-eastern states to begin with and other states would follow suit. there would be no india (as we know it) left.

one more point: abraham lincoln had gone to war when the southern states in the US wanted to secede. "You will not be allowed to secede" was Lincoln's stern message to the secessionists.This historical example should be taken into account when contemplating on whether Kashmir should be allowed to secede together with my earlier point about India breaking up into fragments if Kashmir is allowed to go.

Finally we cannot forget that ethnic cleansing has taken place in Kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s; Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out of the valley.

Rashmun wrote:
one more point: abraham lincoln had gone to war when the southern states in the US wanted to secede. "You will not be allowed to secede" was Lincoln's stern message to the secessionists.This historical example should be taken into account when contemplating on whether Kashmir should be allowed to secede together with my earlier point about India breaking up into fragments if Kashmir is allowed to go.

Finally we cannot forget that ethnic cleansing has taken place in Kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s; Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out of the valley.

How long did the American civil war last? and how long has this Kashmir issue been going on? If all these Indian administrations, after all these decades and after several wars are unable to put a closure to this issue, it tells me that it is much bigger than a few groups of separatists or militants playing identity politics. And about your other point about NE states wanting to go their ways, if Indian union is so fragile then it doesn't deserve to be continued as an [artificial] union, it does no good to nobody.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
one more point: abraham lincoln had gone to war when the southern states in the US wanted to secede. "You will not be allowed to secede" was Lincoln's stern message to the secessionists.This historical example should be taken into account when contemplating on whether Kashmir should be allowed to secede together with my earlier point about India breaking up into fragments if Kashmir is allowed to go.

Finally we cannot forget that ethnic cleansing has taken place in Kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s; Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out of the valley.

How long did the American civil war last? and how long has this Kashmir issue been going on? If all these Indian administrations, after all these decades and after several wars are unable to put a closure to this issue, it tells me that it is much bigger than a few groups of separatists or militants playing identity politics. And about your other point about NE states wanting to go their ways, if Indian union is so fragile then it doesn't deserve to be continued as an [artificial] union, it does no good to nobody.

the difference is that foreign powers are now involved in Kashmir, and also in North-Eastern India, in giving arms to the separatists. Otherwise this problem would have come to an end quickly.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

What is your criteria for self contained unit that can ask for independence?  Can Old city muslims rise in revolt asking to be united with Paksitan?  Their population may be larger than some of the Indian border states. What if the muslims of HYD, mumbai and bangalore combine to ask for non contigous muslim nation? Can religious fervor alone be sufficient to create new nations? 

If Kashmiri view point needs to be taken into account because they lived there for few hundred years, what about the rest of India views about it? Kashmir has been part of Indian religious and political history forever. Why does it have no weight in your view point?

Related questions were, Kashmir insurgency's strength lies in a small geographical area within Kashmir. What about the rest of Jammu and Kashmir?  Should Kashmir remain one unit or split into several parts based on different religions? 

If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count? 

What is basis of this national sentiment?  What is politically palatable at the moment?

This is all mere speculation with no real basis whatsoever. I don't recall the perpetrators of '93 Mumbai blasts or Gokul Chat or Dilsukhnagar demanding for Azadi, nor do I recall any of these areas being under strict military vigilance for an extended period let alone for 26,27 years.

Comrade, do you believe the follwing people need their own country?

1) Northern Ireland(they want to merge with Eire)

2)Kurds

3) Tibetans

4) Baluchs

A referendum was held for Northern Ireland's cause but there was no such thing happened to Kashmir and the other issues are not part of democracies (Pak being a pseudo-democracy) so I don't think the comparison is valid.

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
one more point: abraham lincoln had gone to war when the southern states in the US wanted to secede. "You will not be allowed to secede" was Lincoln's stern message to the secessionists.This historical example should be taken into account when contemplating on whether Kashmir should be allowed to secede together with my earlier point about India breaking up into fragments if Kashmir is allowed to go.

Finally we cannot forget that ethnic cleansing has taken place in Kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s; Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out of the valley.

How long did the American civil war last? and how long has this Kashmir issue been going on? If all these Indian administrations, after all these decades and after several wars are unable to put a closure to this issue, it tells me that it is much bigger than a few groups of separatists or militants playing identity politics. And about your other point about NE states wanting to go their ways, if Indian union is so fragile then it doesn't deserve to be continued as an [artificial] union, it does no good to nobody.

the difference is that foreign powers are now involved in Kashmir, and also in North-Eastern India, in giving arms to the separatists. Otherwise this problem would have come to an end quickly.

This sort of blind rhetoric continues to draw ire of native Kashmiris; with statements like this you're basically dismissing Kashmiris' view point. If you guys are so sure about that why not hold a plebiscite?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
one more point: abraham lincoln had gone to war when the southern states in the US wanted to secede. "You will not be allowed to secede" was Lincoln's stern message to the secessionists.This historical example should be taken into account when contemplating on whether Kashmir should be allowed to secede together with my earlier point about India breaking up into fragments if Kashmir is allowed to go.

Finally we cannot forget that ethnic cleansing has taken place in Kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s; Kashmiri Pandits have been driven out of the valley.

How long did the American civil war last? and how long has this Kashmir issue been going on? If all these Indian administrations, after all these decades and after several wars are unable to put a closure to this issue, it tells me that it is much bigger than a few groups of separatists or militants playing identity politics. And about your other point about NE states wanting to go their ways, if Indian union is so fragile then it doesn't deserve to be continued as an [artificial] union, it does no good to nobody.

the difference is that foreign powers are now involved in Kashmir, and also in North-Eastern India, in giving arms to the separatists. Otherwise this problem would have come to an end quickly.

This sort of blind rhetoric continues to draw ire of native Kashmiris; with statements like this you're basically dismissing Kashmiris' view point. If you guys are so sure about that why not hold a plebiscite?

i am happy to note your concern and sympathy for the native kashmiris. too bad you do not show similar concern and sympathy for the kashmiri pandits who were kicked out of kashmir at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. if you think the stoic calm and indifference you show in the face of ethnic cleansing of kashmiri pandits from kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s is something laudable then you are mistaken.

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

What is your criteria for self contained unit that can ask for independence?  Can Old city muslims rise in revolt asking to be united with Paksitan?  Their population may be larger than some of the Indian border states. What if the muslims of HYD, mumbai and bangalore combine to ask for non contigous muslim nation? Can religious fervor alone be sufficient to create new nations? 

I am not in favor of a low bar for secession. I am also strongly opposed to colonialism, oppression and military rule. In my view, any group needs to be sufficiently large for it to make sense as an independent nation, with a reasonable economy and history of political institutions. Kashmir makes the size cut with a population of over 10 million. Examples of countries smaller in population than Kashmir: Begium, Greece, Portugal, Sweden, Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Israel, Libya, Tajikistan, Jordan. Its economy was quite strong and independent of India's, although the years of terrorism and  military occupation have destroyed that. It has the potential to rebuild a robust economy dependent on tourism and exports to India and Pakistan. Kashmir has had its own institutions for a while although they have been severely sabotaged and curtailed by New Delhi. '

At the end of the day, it boils down the wishes of the Kashmiri people. If they are determined to chart their own course independent of India, India should allow that to happen. Using the Indian army as a colonial occupation force to oppress civilians only erodes India's military readiness for war; this is why China encourages Pakistan to keep Kashmir festering. India's constitutional democracy unravels with this forced military rule of Kashmir.

If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count? 

Refugees are not citizens and they do not have votes. Western UP does not have districts with 95% Muslim majorities like Kashmir valley.

truthbetold wrote:What is basis of this national sentiment?  What is politically palatable at the moment?

As an Indian, the basis for me is the terrible waste of Indian blood and treasure in holding territory that is not useful to us. It is the prolonged subversion of Indian democracy, and the degradation of the Indian army into oppressors of civilian populations, that compels me to take this point of view. Enough is enough; they don't want to be part of India so let them get lost. India is better off spending all that money on modernizing its military to compete with China, rather than waste it fighting the population of the valley.

A very myopic and half-baked view!

rawemotions wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

What is your criteria for self contained unit that can ask for independence?  Can Old city muslims rise in revolt asking to be united with Paksitan?  Their population may be larger than some of the Indian border states. What if the muslims of HYD, mumbai and bangalore combine to ask for non contigous muslim nation? Can religious fervor alone be sufficient to create new nations? 

I am not in favor of a low bar for secession. I am also strongly opposed to colonialism, oppression and military rule. In my view, any group needs to be sufficiently large for it to make sense as an independent nation, with a reasonable economy and history of political institutions. Kashmir makes the size cut with a population of over 10 million. Examples of countries smaller in population than Kashmir: Begium, Greece, Portugal, Sweden, Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Israel, Libya, Tajikistan, Jordan. Its economy was quite strong and independent of India's, although the years of terrorism and  military occupation have destroyed that. It has the potential to rebuild a robust economy dependent on tourism and exports to India and Pakistan. Kashmir has had its own institutions for a while although they have been severely sabotaged and curtailed by New Delhi. '

At the end of the day, it boils down the wishes of the Kashmiri people. If they are determined to chart their own course independent of India, India should allow that to happen. Using the Indian army as a colonial occupation force to oppress civilians only erodes India's military readiness for war; this is why China encourages Pakistan to keep Kashmir festering. India's constitutional democracy unravels with this forced military rule of Kashmir.

If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count? 

Refugees are not citizens and they do not have votes. Western UP does not have districts with 95% Muslim majorities like Kashmir valley.

truthbetold wrote:What is basis of this national sentiment?  What is politically palatable at the moment?

As an Indian, the basis for me is the terrible waste of Indian blood and treasure in holding territory that is not useful to us. It is the prolonged subversion of Indian democracy, and the degradation of the Indian army into oppressors of civilian populations, that compels me to take this point of view. Enough is enough; they don't want to be part of India so let them get lost. India is better off spending all that money on modernizing its military to compete with China, rather than waste it fighting the population of the valley.

A very myopic and half-baked view!

Thank you for the far-sighted and fully-baked critique.

Rashmun wrote:
i am happy to note your concern and sympathy for the native kashmiris. too bad you do not show similar concern and sympathy for the kashmiri pandits who were kicked out of kashmir at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. if you think the stoic calm and indifference you show in the face of ethnic cleansing of kashmiri pandits from kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s  is something laudable then you are mistaken.

I'm not sure if I understood your point. What is your solution? Would  "keep harping about it" help Pandit community? I'd say seceding of Kashmir will bring the focus back to Pandits and the govt can divert all those resources to help displaced Pandits.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
i am happy to note your concern and sympathy for the native kashmiris. too bad you do not show similar concern and sympathy for the kashmiri pandits who were kicked out of kashmir at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. if you think the stoic calm and indifference you show in the face of ethnic cleansing of kashmiri pandits from kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s  is something laudable then you are mistaken.

I'm not sure if I understood your point. What is your solution? Would  "keep harping about it" help Pandit community? I'd say seceding of Kashmir will bring the focus back to Pandits and the govt can divert all those resources to help displaced Pandits.

Kashmiri pandits have been residing in kashmir for thousands of years. they do not wish to give up the land of their ancestors even though many of them have become refugees after the ethnic cleansing that took place at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. the only permanent solution to the kashmir problem is the reunification of india and pakistan under a strong secular leadership. if east and west germany can reunite then so can india and pakistan.

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
i am happy to note your concern and sympathy for the native kashmiris. too bad you do not show similar concern and sympathy for the kashmiri pandits who were kicked out of kashmir at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. if you think the stoic calm and indifference you show in the face of ethnic cleansing of kashmiri pandits from kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s  is something laudable then you are mistaken.

I'm not sure if I understood your point. What is your solution? Would  "keep harping about it" help Pandit community? I'd say seceding of Kashmir will bring the focus back to Pandits and the govt can divert all those resources to help displaced Pandits.

Kashmiri pandits have been residing in kashmir for thousands of years. they do not wish to give up the land of their ancestors even though many of them have become refugees after the ethnic cleansing that took place at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. the only permanent solution to the kashmir problem is the reunification of india and pakistan under a strong secular leadership. if east and west germany can reunite then so can india and pakistan.

From what I've read over the years majority of Pandits do not want to go back to the valley.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
i am happy to note your concern and sympathy for the native kashmiris. too bad you do not show similar concern and sympathy for the kashmiri pandits who were kicked out of kashmir at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. if you think the stoic calm and indifference you show in the face of ethnic cleansing of kashmiri pandits from kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s  is something laudable then you are mistaken.

I'm not sure if I understood your point. What is your solution? Would  "keep harping about it" help Pandit community? I'd say seceding of Kashmir will bring the focus back to Pandits and the govt can divert all those resources to help displaced Pandits.

Kashmiri pandits have been residing in kashmir for thousands of years. they do not wish to give up the land of their ancestors even though many of them have become refugees after the ethnic cleansing that took place at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. the only permanent solution to the kashmir problem is the reunification of india and pakistan under a strong secular leadership. if east and west germany can reunite then so can india and pakistan.

From what I've read over the years majority of Pandits do not want to go back to the valley.

thats because they fear a threat to their life if they go back.

Idefix,

Idefix,

I expected better from you.

I asked: "If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count?" 



Your evasive answer: Refugees are not citizens and they do not have votes. Western UP does not have districts with 95% Muslim majorities like Kashmir valley.

(1) You did not answer the question about WB border district muslims demanding independence.

(2) Then you played cute with facts.  Bangla muslim refugees do not live as non citizens without votes. You know that as well as I do. Refugees mix into local population with active support from Congress, CPM and now Mamata and live as voting citizens.  So the local muslim population grows exponentially. Your evasive answers betrays your inability to come up with an answer that you can live with.

(3) You moved goal post in UP creating a new requirement of 95% muslim districts.

Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

It is naive to suggest that all this is happening only because of Pak's interference and Kashmiris do not want to secede. You think that 30 years of agitations sustained only because of external influence? all those 70,000 (as opposed to 700 Pandits) killed were terrorists/jihadis?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

It is naive to suggest that all this is happening only because of Pak's interference and Kashmiris do not want to secede. You think that 30 years of agitations sustained only because of external influence? all those 70,000 (as opposed to 700 Pandits) killed were terrorists/jihadis?

CD,

Your constant attempts to mischaracterize other people's opinions is really cheap.  I have stated more than once,  Jehadists and terrorists usually take advantage of local fires.  In third world, problems survive for decades. 30 year problem is not the exception, it is the norm.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

It is naive to suggest that all this is happening only because of Pak's interference and Kashmiris do not want to secede. You think that 30 years of agitations sustained only because of external influence? all those 70,000 (as opposed to 700 Pandits) killed were terrorists/jihadis?

CD,

Your constant attempts to mischaracterize other people's opinions is really cheap.  I have stated more than once,  Jehadists and terrorists usually take advantage of local fires.  In third world, problems survive for decades. 30 year problem is not the exception, it is the norm.

and your constant attempts of my character assassination are strokes of TBT genius, right? When did I deny Pak's hand, pray tell.

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
i am happy to note your concern and sympathy for the native kashmiris. too bad you do not show similar concern and sympathy for the kashmiri pandits who were kicked out of kashmir at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. if you think the stoic calm and indifference you show in the face of ethnic cleansing of kashmiri pandits from kashmir in the 1980s and 1990s  is something laudable then you are mistaken.

I'm not sure if I understood your point. What is your solution? Would  "keep harping about it" help Pandit community? I'd say seceding of Kashmir will bring the focus back to Pandits and the govt can divert all those resources to help displaced Pandits.

Kashmiri pandits have been residing in kashmir for thousands of years. they do not wish to give up the land of their ancestors even though many of them have become refugees after the ethnic cleansing that took place at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. the only permanent solution to the kashmir problem is the reunification of india and pakistan under a strong secular leadership. if east and west germany can reunite then so can india and pakistan.

From what I've read over the years majority of Pandits do not want to go back to the valley.

thats because they fear a threat to their life if they go back.

So, what's your solution? Another war?

P.S: Reunification of India and Pakistan, really! I'd like to smoke whatever you're smoking.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not sure if I understood your point. What is your solution? Would  "keep harping about it" help Pandit community? I'd say seceding of Kashmir will bring the focus back to Pandits and the govt can divert all those resources to help displaced Pandits.

Kashmiri pandits have been residing in kashmir for thousands of years. they do not wish to give up the land of their ancestors even though many of them have become refugees after the ethnic cleansing that took place at the barrel of a gun in the 1980s and 1990s. the only permanent solution to the kashmir problem is the reunification of india and pakistan under a strong secular leadership. if east and west germany can reunite then so can india and pakistan.

From what I've read over the years majority of Pandits do not want to go back to the valley.

thats because they fear a threat to their life if they go back.

So, what's your solution? Another war?

P.S: Reunification of India and Pakistan, really! I'd like to smoke whatever you're smoking.

LoL!

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

Oh yes. Now it's clear. After all the love and munificence we have been showering on them for decades, it can't possibly be Kashmiri people coming out in their thousands, defying curfew every day for the last 45 days, to throw stones at our brave and heroic representatives who are there only to help children and old ladies cross the roads, rescue drowning kashmiris etc.

And if it can't be Kashmiris, those violent terrorists faking their pellet injuries must all be Pakistani / jihadi hordes from across the border. QED. You are a genius, sir.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

Oh yes. Now it's clear. After all the love and munificence we have been showering on them for decades, it can't possibly be Kashmiri people coming out in their thousands, defying curfew every day for the last 45 days, to throw stones at our brave and heroic representatives who are there only to help children and old ladies cross the roads, rescue drowning kashmiris etc.

And if it can't be Kashmiris, those violent terrorists faking their pellet injuries must all be Pakistani / jihadi hordes from across the border. QED. You are a genius, sir.

RNI Loin,

Does India shower extra love to Keralites or Tamils? Then why should Kashmiris expect extra love? I don't see Tamils throwing stones or Marathis throwing stones every day. Are Kashmiris special? Why?

Why should Kashmiris think themselves any different than you?

Looks like Kashmiri pellet injuries has put a bigger scar on you. 

BTW! Would you risk an eye to mourn a terrorist death? Why?

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

Idefix,

I expected better from you.

And I from you. I made several points in response to your questions. You haven't responded to any of them.

truthbetold wrote:I asked: "If so called kashmiri wishes were granted, why can't west bengal border district muslims and western up muslims cannot claim independence?  IN WB, border districts have received huge influx of Bangladesh refugees. Should their vote count?" 



Your evasive answer: Refugees are not citizens and they do not have votes. Western UP does not have districts with 95% Muslim majorities like Kashmir valley.

(1) You did not answer the question about WB border district muslims demanding independence.

(2) Then you played cute with facts.  Bangla muslim refugees do not live as non citizens without votes. You know that as well as I do. Refugees mix into local population with active support from Congress, CPM and now Mamata and live as voting citizens.  So the local muslim population grows exponentially. Your evasive answers betrays your inability to come up with an answer that you can live with.

(3) You moved goal post in UP creating a new requirement of 95% muslim districts.

Let me expand on what I said about Bangladeshi refugees and UP Muslims. You are right, refugees sometimes acquire ration cards and more through falsified papers. They are people who have chosen to leave Bangladesh and move to India in search of employment and other opportunities. The border districts they live in wouldn't be a viable independent country. The only thing then is to worry about those refugees doing the following:

• Become an outsized majority within their districts
  
• Vote overwhelmingly to merge their districts with Bangladesh, the very country they voluntarily left in droves
  

Both of these are rather difficult. This would be like Mexicans who arrive in the US clamoring to become part of Mexico after they become US citizens! The refugees are in India because they want to be in India.

On UP Muslims -- please see the point I made in my previous post about having a high bar for secession. I don't believe a 50.1% vote to secede should be adequate. The bar needs to be higher for a change in the status quo. Also, if you look at Western UP as a block, Muslims are not a majority of the population. In fact, if you look at the district-wise population (census link below), just one district has a Muslim majority in UP, Rampur at 51%. Rampur by itself doesn't make a viable independent country -- or even a viable exclave of Pakistan.

http://www.census2011.co.in/data/religion/state/9-uttar-pradesh.html

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

I don't ignore Pakistani interference. Neighbors may try to interfere in your family's affairs if you they overhear you fighting loudly. If everything seems fine there is no chance for neighbors to butt in. It is when you have a member in the household who doesn't want to live there, and is being held hostage against their will, that the neighbors may try to get into your business. The wise thing is to resolve issues within the family so there is no such opportunity for neighbors. Through a long series of missteps right from independence, India has failed to resolve its problem amicably with the Kashmiris.

As for jihadi terrorism, the problem of foreign fighters was largely under control for many years. The issue right now is not foreign-born (Pakistani and Afghan) jihadis. It is mostly Kashmiri young men out on the streets and taking up arms against the Indian army.

Yes, religion is one of the main arguments used by the secessionist movement. (There are other reasons too, including claims of a Kashmiri identity distinct from the Indian identity -- claims that are borne out by the attitudes of most Indian people on this thread, BTW). As an atheist, I think it is stupid and dangerous that people should choose to make religion part of politics. But I don't arrogate to myself the right to dictate to anyone how they should think; the Kashmiri people get to choose for themselves whether they want to use religion, caste, race, or anything else as a factor in how they see themselves.

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

I don't ignore Pakistani interference. Neighbors may try to interfere in your family's affairs if you they overhear you fighting loudly. If everything seems fine there is no chance for neighbors to butt in. It is when you have a member in the household who doesn't want to live there, and is being held hostage against their will, that the neighbors may try to get into your business. The wise thing is to resolve issues within the family so there is no such opportunity for neighbors. Through a long series of missteps right from independence, India has failed to resolve its problem amicably with the Kashmiris.

As for jihadi terrorism, the problem of foreign fighters was largely under control for many years. The issue right now is not foreign-born (Pakistani and Afghan) jihadis. It is mostly Kashmiri young men out on the streets and taking up arms against the Indian army.

Yes, religion is one of the main arguments used by the secessionist movement. (There are other reasons too, including claims of a Kashmiri identity distinct from the Indian identity -- claims that are borne out by the attitudes of most Indian people on this thread, BTW). As an atheist, I think it is stupid and dangerous that people should choose to make religion part of politics. But I don't arrogate to myself the right to dictate to anyone how they should think; the Kashmiri people get to choose for themselves whether they want to use religion, caste, race, or anything else as a factor in how they see themselves.

Yeah, ax+b = 0 works only in simple situations!

The recent behaviour of India is related to a strategic adjustment in the region. Uncle Sam is leaving and the Afghan forces are not yet well equipped. So, the US commander visited India a few months ago and agreed to India supplying "lethal" weapons to Afghans. The US also told India that it will set aside the embargo on Russia if Russian spares and aircrafts, etc., are supplied to Afghans via India. Russia agreed to this arrangement. The Afghan military leader is coming soon to India with a shopping list. In other words, now that the US mission in Afghanistan is winding down, it is not aversive to India, Afghanistan and (to some extent) Iran encircling PakiSatan. Modi's statement on Balochistan and Gilgit is made in this context. Afghanistan and Bangladesh are quick to endorse India's position on Balochistan. Other countries will announce their support soon. I don't know what China will do. Their strategic position for the region will be recalculated. PakiSatan will re-evaluate its active support to trouble makers in Kashmir.

However, Modi should be careful in dealing with the youth in Kashmir. He should make all efforts to help them join the development process. He should also talk to all stakeholders in Kashmir.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Afghanistan and Bangladesh are quick to endorse India's position on Balochistan. Other countries will announce their support soon. I don't know what China will do. Their strategic position for the region will be recalculated.

China has a strong strategic interest in Baluchistan being part of Pakistan. They have invested heavily in the port at Gwadar, and connecting it to the road network that allows it to move goods via the Karakoram Highway into Tibet.  This allows for shipment of Iranian and Saudi oil to China bypassing the Malacca straits where the US and Indian navies have influence. If China decides to up the ante in the South China Sea, the natural US move would be to try to blockade Chinese ships carrying crude through the Malacca straits. Gwadar being connected to the Karakoram Highway is critical for China in that scenario.

Looks like China is actively working on a naval base in Gwadar. So not just logistics but also an active base in the Indian Ocean to counter US dominance of the Persian Gulf, and counter India in the Arabian Sea.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1258570

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Afghanistan and Bangladesh are quick to endorse India's position on Balochistan. Other countries will announce their support soon. I don't know what China will do. Their strategic position for the region will be recalculated.

China has a strong strategic interest in Baluchistan being part of Pakistan. They have invested heavily in the port at Gwadar, and connecting it to the road network that allows it to move goods via the Karakoram Highway into Tibet.  This allows for shipment of Iranian and Saudi oil to China bypassing the Malacca straits where the US and Indian navies have influence. If China decides to up the ante in the South China Sea, the natural US move would be to try to blockade Chinese ships carrying crude through the Malacca straits. Gwadar being connected to the Karakoram Highway is critical for China in that scenario.

Yes. The US and India are making their plans with that in mind. The arena is being shifted from Afghanistan to Balochistan. Can PakiSatan handle it (even with China's support)? We just have to wait and see. It would also be interesting to see how the China-SCS scenario will play out. If China is fortunate, the militancy by the Uyghurs won't intensify when PakiSatan becomes destabilized. Also, both India and the US can rake up the Tibet issue and needle China. I have a feeling that when the time is right, India will change its mind on Tibet and question China's hold on it.

Idefix,

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. That makes it easier to discuss an issue. (CD are you listening).

WB border district muslim problem:  You have assumed what is in the minds of people. You said BD refugees left BD and would not want to rejoin BD with new districts. In other words, you are assuming these refugees are acting in their economic self interest.  Not an unreasonable argument. It does not take a lot of common sense to understand that Kashmiris would be economically better off in India than the failed state of Pakistan. But religious fanatics of Kashmir whipped up such jihadi frenzy that economic self interest is pushed into dustbin to support terrorist elements. If islam can generate such frenzy what makes you so sure that BD refugees and local muslims at some near future point not fall prey to the same sentiments.

Kashmiri problem was ignited in mid 1980s and reached its peak in early 1990s. That is the time afghan jehadis moved to Kashmir.  Your declaration that foreign jihadi involvement was mostly controlled ignores major events. The ability of Pakistan to do certain activities was severely restricted in the aftermath of Mumbai Taj attack.  That lull ended few years later. Now Pakistan army and jihadi's are fully reengaged in Kashmir.  Your description of current problem as somehow Kashmiri only or more Kashmiri than previous outbursts is purely your assessment.  Current crisis will run its course. Indian strategy will not change. Indian tactics should improve.

You and CD, instead of presenting arguments for your POV, are trying pose as morally superior. Such imagined moral superiority leads to comments like "claims that are borne out by the attitudes of most Indian people on this thread".

Who is exploiting the Kashmiri people most? Pakistan Army.

truthbetold wrote:Idefix,

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. That makes it easier to discuss an issue. (CD are you listening).

WB border district muslim problem:  You have assumed what is in the minds of people. You said BD refugees left BD and would not want to rejoin BD with new districts. In other words, you are assuming these refugees are acting in their economic self interest.  Not an unreasonable argument. It does not take a lot of common sense to understand that Kashmiris would be economically better off in India than the failed state of Pakistan. But religious fanatics of Kashmir whipped up such jihadi frenzy that economic self interest is pushed into dustbin to support terrorist elements. If islam can generate such frenzy what makes you so sure that BD refugees and local muslims at some near future point not fall prey to the same sentiments.

Kashmiri problem was ignited in mid 1980s and reached its peak in early 1990s. That is the time afghan jehadis moved to Kashmir.  Your declaration that foreign jihadi involvement was mostly controlled ignores major events. The ability of Pakistan to do certain activities was severely restricted in the aftermath of Mumbai Taj attack.  That lull ended few years later. Now Pakistan army and jihadi's are fully reengaged in Kashmir.  Your description of current problem as somehow Kashmiri only or more Kashmiri than previous outbursts is purely your assessment.  Current crisis will run its course. Indian strategy will not change. Indian tactics should improve.

You and CD, instead of presenting arguments for your POV, are trying pose as morally superior. Such imagined moral superiority leads to comments like "claims that are borne out by the attitudes of most Indian people on this thread".

Who is exploiting the Kashmiri people most? Pakistan Army.

Really! you're the one that routinely calls me a jihadi apologist (wonder who was acting superior then), exposing flaws in your logic is not posing morally superior but calling someone names definitely is. All I said was, given the time and money wasted, parting ways with Kashmir is the best course of action and that is my opinion. If Telangana was under military rule for close to 30 years and their women were gang-raped and kids were shot for wanting to bifurcate I'm pretty sure that Telanganites would've reacted in a similar fashion. You & I know very well that Telangana wouldn't have come to fruition if it was a wish of political class only, there was strong Telangana sentiment among normal folk which helped their case tremendously. Similarly, if it was just Pak agents/militants pushing for independent Kashmir the movement wouldn't have sustained for this long. What Indian govt has been doing is insanity, doing the same thing (sending military) over and over and expecting different result.

southindian wrote:
RNI Loin,

Does India shower extra love to Keralites or Tamils? Then why should Kashmiris expect extra love? I don't see Tamils throwing stones or Marathis throwing stones every day. Are Kashmiris special? Why?

Why should Kashmiris think themselves any different than you?

Looks like Kashmiri pellet injuries has put a bigger scar on you. 

BTW! Would you risk an eye to mourn a terrorist death? Why?

Were any of the states you mentioned have been under military rule for 25+ years? If not then Kashmir's case is certainly special and unique.

The youth who defy curfew, pelt stones and fight pitched battles with security forces in the Valley are veritable family drop-outs. Their parents have no control over them. They might follow the Hurriyat’s ‘calendar’ of protests. But they aren’t exactly at the separatists’ beck and call.

Be they teenagers, sophomores or university alumnus, the mood is defiant; the anger so palpable that one can slice it with a butter-knife. “I’m unable to convince my son; this generation isn’t in our control,” bemoaned a Kashmir University professor. “What you see is a mass movement driven by boys as young as 12 to 16….They hold the trigger.”

The university’s faculty comprises teachers from across the valley. One among them quoted students from South Kashmir, the worst affected among all regions, as telling him that each youth now was a militant. Some had guns, some didn’t.
On August 16, a boy was killed in police action at Batamaloo. Next day, a group of fifty assembled at the same spot to take on the forces, recalled another teacher. “Their generation only saw violence. They don’t dream of building careers. They’re ready to die,” he said.

The uprising is the result of accumulated anger compounded by ‘excessive use’ of force after Burhan Wani’s killing. It has to it an unmistakable religious dimension feeding on the shenanigans of Hindu supremacists elsewhere in India.

One heard slogans in support of Pakistan and against India at the SMHS hospital where scores of injured youth are under treatment. But to entirely attribute the agitation—that has unprecedented mobilisation in the countryside-- to an external conspiracy would be a costly folly.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/kashmir-can-autonomy-be-the-meeting-ground-for-lasting-solution/story-8oETjEByLTJQoXVRBGviiJ.html

Indian govt., rather than repeating the same old Pak conspiracy mantra (which ain't taking us nowhere) should make an attempt to understand the ground realities and change course as they see fit.

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Both Idefix and CD do not mention the big picture facts. They ignore Pakistani interference, and jihadi terrorism's role in Kashmir. India was called colonial power in Kashmir. Is there a colonial power anywhere in the world that did not steal resources from its colony?  Economic facts show that it is Indian people money that is pumped into Kashmir in the hope they will see reason after looking at the failed state of Pakistan.

Both idefix and CD try to completely hide the fact that the entire Kashmir argument is based on their being muslim and India being Hindu. Then they call themselves secularists.

I don't ignore Pakistani interference. Neighbors may try to interfere in your family's affairs if you they overhear you fighting loudly. If everything seems fine there is no chance for neighbors to butt in. It is when you have a member in the household who doesn't want to live there, and is being held hostage against their will, that the neighbors may try to get into your business. The wise thing is to resolve issues within the family so there is no such opportunity for neighbors. Through a long series of missteps right from independence, India has failed to resolve its problem amicably with the Kashmiris.

As for jihadi terrorism, the problem of foreign fighters was largely under control for many years. The issue right now is not foreign-born (Pakistani and Afghan) jihadis. It is mostly Kashmiri young men out on the streets and taking up arms against the Indian army.

Yes, religion is one of the main arguments used by the secessionist movement. (There are other reasons too, including claims of a Kashmiri identity distinct from the Indian identity -- claims that are borne out by the attitudes of most Indian people on this thread, BTW). As an atheist, I think it is stupid and dangerous that people should choose to make religion part of politics. But I don't arrogate to myself the right to dictate to anyone how they should think; the Kashmiri people get to choose for themselves whether they want to use religion, caste, race, or anything else as a factor in how they see themselves.

While the roots of the current Agitation supporting a terrorist is Islamism, with the misguided youths being used as cannon fodder, there is a nefarious design behind the Political Islamists and their Pakistani masters to fuel this agitation. That is to derail the establishment of Sainik Colonies and re-establishment of Kashmiri Hindu Colonies. If that had happened, that would be the end of Pakistan's potential success in the future to take control of Indian territory in J&K. With BJP in power, they could not completely stop it using Political Islamist elements in administration.

It is idiotic to assume that everyone supports it wholeheartedly the violent agitations, just because a few local youths want to shout, throw stones & use acid bombs.  46% of J&K Population and about 25% of the population currently living in the valley of Kashmir, want nothing to do with Pakistan or for that matter the unattainable goal of being a separate country. These include most Gujjar, Paharis, Shias, and off course the exiled population of Hindus and Sikhs.  I am pretty sure, there are also some Sunni Muslim folks, including the families of Policemen killed by the terrorists, who want nothing to do with Pakistan. The youths are participating because compared to previous generation the education system has been completely oriented towards Political Islam similar to the Islamization Zia ul Haq initiated in Pakistan. 

Pakistan controls the agitations. They enlarge it by inciting violence. They provide support for the agitation including intimidation of those who want peace and oppose Pakistan Sponsored Agitations OR those who question Pakistan's blatant demographic invasion of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The foot soldiers might be local youths, the instigators are still Pakistanis and their Political Islamist supporters in the Valley.

CD,

What can Indian govts do differently other than accepting defeat and allow them to go their way?

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:
RNI Loin,

Does India shower extra love to Keralites or Tamils? Then why should Kashmiris expect extra love? I don't see Tamils throwing stones or Marathis throwing stones every day. Are Kashmiris special? Why?

Why should Kashmiris think themselves any different than you?

Looks like Kashmiri pellet injuries has put a bigger scar on you. 

BTW! Would you risk an eye to mourn a terrorist death? Why?

Were any of the states you mentioned have been under military rule for 25+ years? If not then Kashmir's case is certainly special and unique.

CD Dude, no military rule in J&K. If you check you'll find, your mehbooba is running the state.

As far as India is concerned, there's nothing special about Jammu & Kashmir. J&K students study across India in different universities and fly all over the world with Indian passports. 

Stop living in a Paki bubble.

southindian wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

southindian wrote:
RNI Loin,

Does India shower extra love to Keralites or Tamils? Then why should Kashmiris expect extra love? I don't see Tamils throwing stones or Marathis throwing stones every day. Are Kashmiris special? Why?

Why should Kashmiris think themselves any different than you?

Looks like Kashmiri pellet injuries has put a bigger scar on you. 

BTW! Would you risk an eye to mourn a terrorist death? Why?

Were any of the states you mentioned have been under military rule for 25+ years? If not then Kashmir's case is certainly special and unique.

CD Dude, no military rule in J&K. If you check you'll find, your mehbooba is running the state.

As far as India is concerned, there's nothing special about Jammu & Kashmir. J&K students study across India in different universities and fly all over the world with Indian passports. 

Stop living in a Paki bubble.

...and the really aggrieved party is the Kashmiri Pandits. The oppressors are farting about their rights and are using violence while the Pandits meekly moved on, don't get support from national or international bodies and don't resort to violence. Similarly, PakiSatan and Chinamen are the aggressors and India meekly goes about talking about democracy, freedom and rights. Both Pakis and Chinamen are quietly giggling.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/kashmirs-reemerging-militancy/

The public outpouring of grief and support for militants is worrying as it is evoking memories of the early 1990s when anti-India militancy was at its peak in Kashmir. In its early years, militants and militancy enjoyed enormous mass support. Militants were looked upon as heroes. Civilians braved batons, bullets and harassment – even torture by security forces – to protect their “boys.”

However, as Pakistan’s stranglehold over the militancy tightened, it not only became more Islamist and pro-Pakistan but the easy access to money and weapons resulted in the “cause” receding to the background while criminal activities took center-stage. Kashmiri support for the militants and the militancy waned and Pakistan was blamed for their woes.

By the mid 1990s, militancy was clearly in decline. Bitter internecine fighting among the militant groups and India’s counterinsurgency operations weakened the militants. But also, with public support evaporating the militancy lost its justification. The people in whose name the militants had picked up arms had deserted them.

Violence-weary Kashmiris turned their backs on the militancy. Some turned to the democratic process, others to mass protests in the hope of addressing their grievances. Even during the 2010 protests that saw many Kashmiri youngsters shot dead or grievously injured, militancy was not seen to be an option; calls for a return to arms evoked little public response.

But things appear to have been changing in the Valley over the past year. As the crowds at funerals indicate, militants are emerging heroes again and worryingly for India’s security establishment, Pakistani militants operating in the Valley are gaining popularity too.

Thousands of young Kashmiris study, work and live in cities outside J&K. They are deeply conscious of the prejudice that colors the way other Indians and Indian institutions perceive and treat them. As a Kashmiri student in an engineering college in Bengaluru pointed out to The Diplomat, while protests in Srinagar, even peaceful ones, result in the deployment of soldiers who shoot to kill, violent demonstrations in other parts of India are dealt with by police who use batons or water cannons.

More background on my statement about foreign vs. local fighters. Article from a year ago. Lashkar-e-Toiba was the big Pakistani group in the valley (Harkat-ul-Ansar and Jaish-e-Mohammad before that). LeT it has declined in influence, and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, which is a Kashmiri group, has grown in prominence.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-jammu-and-kashmir-tough-times-ahead-as-local-militants-outnumber-pakistani-2110476

The emerging new trend in Kashmir of local militants outnumbering the foreign militants (read Pakistani) has increased the worries of the security agencies and they are bracing up for a fresh spate of violence in the valley. According to census of active militants done by the J&K police, for the first time in last one decade, the local boys have swelled up the ranks of militants constituting a whopping 62 per cent of the total militants present in the valley.

Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) tops the list with most number of recruits in the valley, relegating Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) to the second place.

Some more facts...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/static/the-young-militants-of-kashmir/

Naseer Ahmed Pandit, a young Jammu and Kashmir Police constable was the first to cast his vote. During an India-Pakistan match, he stood out for being amongst the few who cheered for India. And on polling day, he went out of his way to feed cups of tea to paramilitary forces that fanned out across villages to provide security to polling staff.

Yet, one sudden day, Pandit disappeared and took his service weapons with him. His father realised he’d joined the ranks of terrorists after a press release issued by the Hizbul Mujahideen claimed him as a trophy.

The ground reality in Kashmir is changing slowly but surely and it can be gauged even from plain statistics. If in 2013, 31 local youths joined militancy, the number for 2015 (till September-end) jumped to 66, according to police records.

After the first rush in 1989, when insurgency took root, the locals are once again outnumbering what the security establishment refers to as ‘foreign terrorists’. According to official figures, north Kashmir has 66 local and 44 foreign terrorists and in south Kashmir, locals number 109 and foreign terrorists are a mere seven.

Warned a senior police officer who did not want to be named, “The utterances of senior BJP leaders are having a direct impact on the ground situation here. Beef was never an issue here and is hardly consumed but after the Haryana chief minister told Muslims they could live in India provided they stopped eating it, anger is growing and people are fearing the rise of the BJP."

truthbetold wrote:
Kashmiri problem was ignited in mid 1980s and reached its peak in early 1990s. That is the time afghan jehadis moved to Kashmir.  Your declaration that foreign jihadi involvement was mostly controlled ignores major events.

I have posted a few articles that clearly back up my statement. I am not ignoring any major events.

truthbetold wrote:
Your description of current problem as somehow Kashmiri only or more Kashmiri than previous outbursts is purely your assessment. 

My description is fully validated by the data put out by the J&K police.

One last piece on this local vs. foreign fighter dimension. This is not from the media but from a thinktank led by retired Indian Army officers.

http://www.claws.in/1426/shifting-profile-of-militancy-in-kashmir-valley-shashank-ranjan.html

After several years of relative peace, from the year 2013 there has been an increase in terror-related incidents in the Valley, with majority of them occurring in South Kashmir and marked by participation of local youth. This trend of local youth joining terrorist ranks acquired vigour since 2013, ushering in a peculiar trend in the terror dynamics of Kashmir. As per a recent police census, presently, local terrorists outnumber foreign terrorist. Until now, north Kashmir was the traditional base of militants in the valley, owing to the feeder route of infiltration from Pakistan. However, presently, out of 33 youth who joined militancy till June 2015, 30 were from south and three from north, with none from central region of Kashmir. While the total number of militants is still the largest in north i.e. 69, only 25 of them are locals. The south, which has 60 militants, has only local presence.

This north to south shift tells the story of revival of homegrown militancy – with Pulwama, Shopian and Kulgam districts emerging as the strongholds. As per AS Dulat, former R&AW Chief and the Kashmir pointsman during the Vajpayee administration, the Valley today witnesses the pre 1996 era when the militancy had a predominantly a local colour. A renewed fascination with the gun among a section of youth could be one of the most worrying features of militancy dynamics in Valley, today. This emerging trend is charecterised by active participation of well-educated, even professionally qualified men in attacks over past two years.