Yasin Malik threatens fast unto death against land transfer in occupied Kashmir

[Flintlock]

You know what the great part is?

Indian Government has special packages for Haj pilgrims, along with accommodation, travel arrangements, special passports and special flights.

Kashmiri muslims do avail these facilities every year.

Here's Haj House in Mumbai (Yep, Bang in the middle of the purported Bal Thackeray Stronghold)
I wonder how the separatists would react if the Amarnath Board decided to construct something on this scale.

[Vinod2070]

Kashmiri Muslims also study and work all over India in their thousands.

Just exposes the intolerance of these terror groups.

The state government should deal with the issue firmly but with patience.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

And I think the people of Jammu should be included in any dialog as well. In fact Musharraf recognized that concern when he suggested that the Kashmir valley could be looked at separately from Jammu.

Separatism is separatism, calling it communal doesn't mean it is any worse than cultural, ethnic or racial separatism. Were the people of the subcontinent racist for wanting to separate from the British?

People can identify themselves on multiple levels and in some situations one set of identifiers prevails over others, due to whatever dynamics are affecting that situation. At first South Asians wanted to separate from the British Empire, then Muslims wanted to separate on a "religio-cultural basis (Pakistan), then Bengalis wanted to separate on a "ethno-cultural" basis (Bangladesh), and so on.

There were very concrete reasons for the Independence movement of India.
Please don't brand it an ethnic/religious movement because it never was.

Indians were racially discriminated against and not given adequate representation.
In short India was a colony. I wonder why I have to go through all of this with you.

[malaymishra123]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

The problem as I see it is that India, going by past behavior, is not really interested in involving any of the other parties and resolving the issue - the policy on your side is essentially one of "keep developing and ignoring Pakistan and the Kashmiris demands for talks towards a final settlement and eventually the Kashmiris might fall in line".

In my view that is what India's plan is as well.

But Agno i dont see any flaws in that. You have seen, or if you have not, let me tell you. The indigenous population in the Kashmir militancy was sizeable in the beginning, now it is totally dependent on foreigners namely Pakistani's and Afghans. The number of local people have declined not just marginally but substantially. At one point of time, the entire Kashmir valley sympathized with the 'cause' or the struggle, and actively supported it, now the support for terrorists remains only in some pockets.

Initially, Pakistan only gave the spark to an very flammable situation. And i agree, India was not putting any money in Kashmir, and there were indeed genuine problems. Pakistan only gave the spark, the fodder you can say was our own. The situation was pretty volatile, with or without Pakistan.
But now, a very small portion of the local people support the insurgency, even fewer are actively involved in it.

Things have changed completely in the valley. This could be because the people are really tired of the militancy which has brought nothing but more and more problems for them, a desire for peace, or a better situation prevalent now.Reasons, whatever they maybe, but the facts are undisputable, the ones i have mentioned regarding the tapering off of the insurgency and the local support.

The insurgency NOW, is almost completely dependent on Pakistan, with very very little local content. The lifeline is in Pakistan's hands, the day they stop the support, it will die. Things are extremely favourable to India, there has been development in the rest of the country even during the pinnacle of the Kashmir insurgency, the country is far from being cash strapped as it was in the old socialist days, and money is actually being put in Kashmir for development.

The Army has put more and more sophisticated equipments in use their, with no small help from Israel. The govt is increasingly buying more and more technologies from Israel to monitor the LoC and Pakistan be it the LORROS or Aerostats, and more and more militants are dying-infact Hizb has almost been eliminated. The Army has been exclusively targetting commanders and high level members of Hizb-one of the Principle militant groups in the valley.

You tell me how are things wrong with all this from the Indian perspective? I think its a good strategy.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

There were very concrete reasons for the Independence movement of India.
Please don't brand it an ethnic/religious movement because it never was.

Indians were racially discriminated against and not given adequate representation.
In short India was a colony. I wonder why I have to go through all of this with you.

So Indians would have been fine living as part of the British Empire, or part of the United Kingdom, had there been no discrimination? There was no "nationalism" involved at all, all your claims of a dream of a Bharat from hundreds of years ago?

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

So Indians would have been fine living as part of the British Empire, or part of the United Kingdom, had there been no discrimination? There was no "nationalism" involved at all, all your claims of a dream of a Bharat from hundreds of years ago?

If Indians were made equal stake holders in the empire then why not?

After all, India is part of the commonwealth. India is also part of the UN.

However, the framework of the empire made it impossible for colonies to have equal status as the mother country.

This is what distinguishes an empire from a federation.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

You tell me how are things wrong with all this from the Indian perspective? I think its a good strategy.

In terms of countering militancy it is an excellent strategy, but I disagree with your analysis in that it omits one extremely important part of the dynamic, which is exactly what the Indian government does, that the Kashmir dispute, the claim of Pakistan, teh claim of independence, has become part of the ideology of the Kashmiris - that doesn't mean that every Kashmiri will take up arms, but that does mean that until the issue is settled with Pakistan, the region will continue to be viewed as disputed internationally and in the UN, and Pakistan will continue to raise the issue.

So it perpetuates the ideological disconnect - especially when part of Kashmir is with Pakistan, and the relationship between the two parts is strong.

Just to play the devils advocate, most people know from my posts that I do not support Pakistan supporting any militant movement at this point, if India's position has been to ignore the other two parties with a claim to Kashmir, why should it be surprised and complain when the other parties resort to violence? When you shut the door on dialog, what is left except to pick up the gun to make your voice heard?

India, because of its above mentionedpolicy in Kashmir, is in that sense responsible for the militancy there.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

If Indians were made equal stake holders in the empire then why not?

After all, India is part of the commonwealth. India is also part of the UN.

However, the framework of the empire made it impossible for colonies to have equal status as the mother country.

This is what distinguishes an empire from a federation.

So the whole thing about the idea of a "United Bharat" and what not was really nothing, since a "British Federation" would have been enough?

Remember that it would have been multiple provinces (Punjab, Sindh etc.) as part of the British Federation, not one large province of "India" (which would have been fine with me too), though I wouldn't have it any other way now - Pakistan Zindabad!

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

So the whole thing about the idea of a "United Bharat" and what not was really nothing, since a "British Federation" would have been enough?

It couldn't have been a "British" federation.

It would have to be, just a federation, which means that technically, an Indian could also become the head of the federation.

Bharat would still be united. However, it would have been a part of a larger organization, transnational, secular and non-racist in character.

Remember that it would have been multiple provinces (Punjab, Sindh etc.) as part of the British Federation, not one large province of "India" (which would have been fine with me too).

Technically, it would be "India" as an autonomous body, with several states within it. Same arrangement as today.

Think of the federation as an EU type body with a single Armed Forces.

It would have tremendous advantages for everybody involved.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Edited the post, one extra "not" in there - what I meant was that we would be part of the United Kingdom of GB, W, S, I, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, TN, etc. Our identity/nationality would be British, and then whatever ethnicity we were - English, Scottish, Punjabi, Tamil etc. and not "Indian".

[dabong1]

Originally Posted by malaymishra123

In my view that is what India's plan is as well.

But Agno i dont see any flaws in that. You have seen, or if you have not, let me tell you. The indigenous population in the Kashmir militancy was sizeable in the beginning, now it is totally dependent on foreigners namely Pakistani's and Afghans. The number of local people have declined not just marginally but substantially. At one point of time, the entire Kashmir valley sympathized with the 'cause' or the struggle, and actively supported it, now the support for terrorists remains only in some pockets..

Huge protests continue in Kashmir.
The BBC's Altaf Hussain says that it appeared as if the entire population of the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley had taken to the streets.

It is the fifth consecutive day of protests over the land transfer.

In the summer capital, Srinagar, at least 30,000 people converged on the historic Lal Chowk monument.

Similar protests have taken place across the Kashmir valley, with many shouting "We want freedom!" and "Stop the sale of Kashmir

Originally Posted by malaymishra123

Initially, Pakistan only gave the spark to an very flammable situation. And i agree, India was not putting any money in Kashmir, and there were indeed genuine problems. Pakistan only gave the spark, the fodder you can say was our own. The situation was pretty volatile, with or without Pakistan.
But now, a very small portion of the local people support the insurgency, even fewer are actively involved in it...

After the first election drama in 1957, India's intelligence Chief, Mr. B.N Mullick, exposed India's method of rigging the elections: Nomination papers of most of those who could form an opposition were rejected".
Noted Indian jurist of the Bombay High Court A.G Noorani, wrote in The Statesman, "Sheikh Abdullah rigged the polls with merciless efficiency, drawing grateful applause from Nehru. His advice to the Sheikh's successor, Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad, was not to refrain from rigging, but to leave just a few seats for the Opposition and thus provide a fig-leaf to cover the nudity of ravaged credibility".

The election farce has been captured succinctly by none other than B.K. Nehru, who was Governor of Kashmir from 1981 to 1984, in his memoirs published in 1997.

From 1953 to 1975, Chief Ministers of that State [of J&K] had been nominees of Delhi. Their appointment to that post was legitimised by the holding of farcical and totally rigged elections in which the Congress party led by Delhi's nominee was elected by huge majorities."

Originally Posted by malaymishra123

Things have changed completely in the valley. This could be because the people are really tired of the militancy which has brought nothing but more and more problems for them, a desire for peace, or a better situation prevalent now.Reasons, whatever they maybe, but the facts are undisputable, the ones i have mentioned regarding the tapering off of the insurgency and the local support....

Once mushy goes and the pakistani govt realizes that indians have not budged 1 inch the jihad will be back in full swing.......its like a tap...pakistan can turn it on or off when it wish's.

[Vinod2070]

Debong, poll rigging was (and perhaps is) a reality in South Asia.

Pakistan is not immune to it. Musharraf's referendum was massively rigged. Benazir feared the rigging of these polls too. It just shows that democracy in India was imperfect. Poll rigging happened in Bihar and it happened in Kashmir too as per you. But Biharis did not take to the guns against the country.

Once mushy goes and the pakistani govt realizes that indians have not budged 1 inch the jihad will be back in full swing.......its like a tap...pakistan can turn it on or off when it wish's.

And that is the reason many Indians don't trust Pakistan. Because the terror infrastructure is still there and the tap can be turned on at will, as you acknowledged.

But what can you do now that you couldn't earlier when the international situation was more favorable? I think nothing other than giving Pakistan a bad name and increasing the problems for the average Kashmiri.

[malaymishra123]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

In terms of countering militancy it is an excellent strategy, but I disagree with your analysis in that it omits one extremely important part of the dynamic, which is exactly what the Indian government does, that the Kashmir dispute, the claim of Pakistan, teh claim of independence, has become part of the ideology of the Kashmiris - that doesn't mean that every Kashmiri will take up arms, but that does mean that until the issue is settled with Pakistan, the region will continue to be viewed as disputed internationally and in the UN, and Pakistan will continue to raise the issue.

With due respect, tell me what exactly has Pakistan been able to achieve with regards to raising the issue at every oppurtunity? No country ever tells India to go for plebicite or meet the demands of the Kashmiris. Have you EVER heard ANY country(apart from Arab Nations) ask India to settle things with Kashmir, or hold talks with Kashmiri people? No, its always settle things with Pakistan, not Kashmir.

Even though technically its a disputed area, most countries regard it as Indian territory and tell us to talk with Pakistan rather than Kashmir or have trilateral talks. Do you understand what im trying to say here, cuz im not able to express exactly what i want to somehow!

Raising of the issue by Pakistan has been useless, there is no international pressure on India, most governments go consider Kashmir as Indian territory and all jump one over another to do business with India. Their own nations interests come first, and their interests dictate that they have the best of relations with India. Even the OIC is not as bold in making statements as they used to be. KSA, etc never talk to us about Kashmir, the max they do is give statements about supporting or appreciating Pakistan's role in Kashmir, not like the old days.

So it perpetuates the ideological disconnect - especially when part of Kashmir is with Pakistan, and the relationship between the two parts is strong.

And it can be strong once again, if the terrorism stops, there can be open borders with free movement of goods and people! But for that the insurgency has to stop, there is no way around it.

As things stand, Pakistan has tried to militarily take Kashmir many times, it has failed on all occasions, Kashmir cannot be taken militarily, either through insurgency or through war.

Just to play the devils advocate, most people know from my posts that I do not support Pakistan supporting any militant movement at this point, if India's position has been to ignore the other two parties with a claim to Kashmir, why should it be surprised and complain when the other parties resort to violence? When you shut the door on dialog, what is left except to pick up the gun to make your voice heard?

India, because of its above mentionedpolicy in Kashmir, is in that sense responsible for the militancy there.

I mentioned in my first post in this thread, that the situation in Kashmir was of our own making, there were genuine problems and the situation was already volatile, Pakistan only gave the spark. But NOW, its all going downhill for the insurgency. The local supported was vaned, the local participation has waned, the insurgency is alive today ONLY because of active support of Pakistan, else it would be dead. The Army is getting more and more gear and makes their situation even more solid in Kashmir. The border peace b/w the 2 countries has been a boon for India, the fence was put up, advanced sensors and other equipments were setup on the LoC to monitor intrusion, etc, etc. So how is just waiting and pumping money in Kashmir a bad strategy? The country is growing economically very sound now, and money can and is being expended there...Developing the area will lead to even lesser number of people joining these radical groups, more employement etc is the key, and the government has realised that.

[malaymishra123]

The last elections in Kashmir were internationally watched, and the government mad it doubly sure that there was no rigging the LAST time ONLY. There were viewers from all nations, and it went off without a hitch. The Last elections were indeed not rigged.

[SMustafaMoiz]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Jammu does not have a Muslim majority, or at least less of a majority than Kashmir (without Jammu).
As the esteemed author Brian Cloughley has stated in his book (A History of the Pakistan Army), can not Kashmir be given to Pakistan and Jammu to India? Geographically, as well as religiously, this makes sense for both countries.