What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
The author of the article is Lord Nazir Ahmed.

Lord Nazir Ahmed is a member of the House of Lords, having become the United Kingdom's second Muslim life peer in 1998. He is also chair of the All Parties Parliamentary Group for Kashmir.

He was born in Azad Kashmir (The part of Kashmir under Pakistan).

David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom....

As PM of UK, he presides over the House of Lords and all things UK....

Below is what he had to say about Pakistan.....

I think scissor beats paper!

And I can guarantee you that Camerons "Contacts on ground" are more sound than those of Mr.Lord of Flies here.....

In words which will be greeted with alarm in Islamabad, the Prime Minister also suggested that Pakistan had links with terrorist groups, and was guilty of double dealing by aligning itself with both the West and the forces it was opposing.



David Cameron: Pakistan is promoting the ‘export of terror’ - Telegraph
 
it isnt that it's a ''non-story''

it just doesnt get the coverage since the world seems to think that LoC is a permanent border and that the dispute is either solved or on back-burner

Maybe it doesnt get coverage because of the fact that the world having faced the horrors of exported terror themselves are now aware of what India has had to face for the last two decades.......the world now understands who has been responsible for formenting trouble in Kashmir and why the army's role is nothing more than a re-action.......India is fighting its own WOT....Unfortunately...the fight happens to be with the same enemy the world is fighting...
 
Is Islamabad out of sync with the new generation of freedom fighters in Kashmir?

Kashmiri-women-freedom1-300x268.jpg

Images of Indian military brutality in occupied Kashmir are giving way to a new perception of India: 'The Ugly Indian'.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Pakistan lost a friendly Afghanistan after 2001. Now it looks set to lose Kashmir eight years later.

You’d think the latest uprising in Kashmir against Indian occupation is a godsend for Pakistan, which has been championing the cause for three generations.

But all signs indicate that Pakistan is losing the respect and trust of Kashmir’s younger generation. This is similar to the way Islamabad lost the admiration and trust of the Afghan Pashtun during the last eight years, and the trust of a large chunk of Pakistani Pashtun, who remain loyal despite severe setbacks.

Kashmir was never India’s despite the forced annexation. So it’s a lost cause for India anyway. But the danger is that it could turn into a lost cause for Islamabad as well.

Unlike India, Pakistan still has time to stop that from happening.

If the gap widens between Pakistan and Kashmir’s new generation of young freedom leaders, third parties might try to hijack the movement away from its essentially pro-Pakistan character. Many of Pakistan’s antagonists believe that if Kashmir can’t be India’s, it shouldn’t also be Pakistan’s.

Pakistan’s dilemma can be traced to the bad strategic choices that its leadership made in the eight years since 9/11, putting the interests of others before its own.

Pakistani officials, civilian and military, can see that this policy has strategically impaired Pakistan. And there’s no better example than Kashmir.

By now, Pakistan should’ve been on top of the courageous popular uprising where kids, women and young men are unanimous in rejecting an Indian occupation army of rapists and killers.

Islamabad should have moved beyond the verbal to the practical, smuggling in food supplies and medicines and allowing freedom fighters from within the Kashmiris in Azad (Free) Kashmir to cross into the occupied portion to help their brethren face the Indian tyranny in self defense.

But so bad is Pakistan’s strategic environment that mere talk of this brings embarrassing smiles in Islamabad’s power corridors these days. Pakistan’s leadership has never been as impotent as it is today.

We have already alienated large segments of Kashmiris when former president Pervez Musharraf ended Pakistani support for Kashmiri freedom fighters in the hope that India would buy his Kashmir formulas and help him emerge as the superman of peace [India didn’t, thank God, a decision it now regrets]. He also allowed India to build tens of small- and medium-sized dams on Kashmiri rivers by ordering Pakistani military units along LoC to stand down enough for Indian construction workers to proceed.

And now we have his successor government, led by President Zardari, which takes its cue on Kashmir from Richard Holbrooke who says he can’t be seen uttering what he degradingly calls ‘the K-word’.

What has gone unnoticed in this grim picture is that Pakistani diplomats and military officials have quietly reversed many of the policy wrongs listed above. Kashmir now is an urgent international dispute and Pakistan won’t follow any dubious formulas for its resolution and would stick to the many UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir.

That taken care of, Pakistan now needs to catch up with the kids of Kashmir.

Young Kashmiris are maximizing the power of Internet and social media to break the wall of Indian censorship.

Pakistan has several news agencies, like the Kashmir Media Service, exclusively focused on spreading the word on Kashmir internationally. But despite their good intentions, they live in the 20th century.

Pakistan Foreign Office has no public diplomacy sections, no hired talent that can pick a cause like Kashmir and turn it into a catchword in the trendy worlds of television and cyberspace.

Pakistan’s giant state-run media and the private 80+ television news channels are incapable of conveying Kashmir’s voice to a global audience in an attractive way. Compare that to how young Kashmiris are creating compelling videos of Indian military atrocities and posting them to YouTube.

Pakistan should also get out of the post-9/11 apologetic mode on Kashmiri freedom groups. The United States blackmailed the Pakistani government in 2002 to lump these groups together with al Qaeda. Recently, Washington has been fronting for India on a Kashmiri group, Lashkar e Tayyiba, or LeT, comparing it to al Qaeda and talking about the Kashmiri group’s ‘global reach’. Indo-American attempts to link Kashmir to terrorism should also be smartly countered.

It is time Pakistan drew a red line: Kashmiri resistance to Indian terrorism targeting civilians is legitimate under international law.

As a last option, let’s recall China’s lesson on Hong Kong: Stick to your claim and never settle.

Our choices are clear and time is short: Pakistan can either win Kashmir’s young guns, or lose them forever.


Is Pakistan Losing Young Kashmiris?
 
Kashmir Is Too Small For Azadi

Headline on CNN about Leh floods: Death toll from Kashmir flooding rises to 112
Correction: Leh is not in Kashmir. There was no flooding in Kashmir.

A Vaishno Devi Pilgrim: I just returned from Kashmir. Things are peaceful there.
Correction: Jammu is not in Kashmir. There is no jehad in Jammu.

A University of Texas Website Article: refers to the 1999 war in Kargil, Kashmir
Correction: Kargil is not in Kashmir. It is in Ladakh province.

One of the frequent gripes that Kashmiris have about people from mainland India is that they don’t understand Kashmir and Kashmiris. That is true to a large extent. One of the myths that needs to be broken is that “Kashmir is J&K”, because it is actually only a small part of it – 6.98% to be exact. Even the saying that “From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, India is one” is not correctly worded because Kashmir is not the Northernmost part of India; Ladakh is. And if you believe in the official Indian map, then Gilgit and Aksai Chin are the Northernmost parts, none of these being part of Kashmir. Kashmir is well South of the Northern tip of India, so it is a natural part of India. Even Azad Kashmir or *** (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) is not Kashmir. In this blog post I will explain why this discussion is important, considering the existing imbroglio going on in the Kashmir valley.

It has served some of the players in the game well to confuse the issue of Kashmir’s location and boundaries as much as possible. Most people, when asked about where Kashmir is on a map, will point to the “head” shape on the top of an Indian map and say “here it is!” (see the black arrow in the map below). They could not be farther from the truth. Look at the following map and see for yourself where Kashmir actually is.

kmap1.jpg
kmap3.jpg


The above official Indian map shows the complete state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India, and the rough boundaries of Kashmir are shown in red. For a more “non-partisan” view, click the map on the right from Wikipedia, showing the Kashmir valley within a red boundary line.

Now, what is the difference between Kashmir and the state of Jammu and Kashmir? Well, Kashmir is the dispute and J&K is not. Kashmir is the Muslim majority area and other parts of J&K are not. Kashmir is what is shouting “Go India Go” (This is not a cheer in Kashmir!) and other parts are happy being India. Kashmir is a small part of Jammu and Kashmir. Compare the following land areas:
Area of Kashmir: 15,520.3 sq km
Area of J&K under Indian Control: ~101,400 sq km
Total Area of Undivided J&K: 222,236 sq km

Thus Kashmir is about 7% in area of undivided J&K, and about 15% of J&K under Indian control.

So, how do you define Kashmir? Well, the best way to define it is to ask Kashmiris themselves. In Kashmiri language, everything outside the valley is called “nebar”, i.e., outside or foreign. Kashmir is a geographically smaller portion of the larger state of Jammu and Kashmir, which comprises the provinces of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh. Kashmir is Kashmir province only, comprising of previously undivided districts of Anantnag, Baramulla and Srinagar (now divided into 10 smaller districts). Kashmir is where Kashmiris natively live and where Kashmiri language is natively spoken. It is also this region of Kashmir that has dominated the politics of the region for the last 63 years.

Now, why is this distinction between Kashmir and J&K always fudged and why is this distinction important? It is this small part of the state that is a pain in the neck for India, because it is this Muslim majority portion that is holding the whole state and region to ransom. It is this Muslim majority portion of 7% of the state that cannot see itself fitting in a non-Muslim India. Jammu in the South of the state has a Hindu majority population, ethnically similar to neighboring states of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh; Ladakh in the North of the state has predominantly Buddhist and Muslim population, ethnically similar to neighboring Tibet. Both are fine being India. It is just Kashmir that is inhabited by a large majority of Muslims (97%) that cannot see itself being India. The small population of non-Muslims has diminished with each migration and a history of conversions over decades and centuries. It is this geographically small portion that is the tinderbox of violence. It is this beautiful valley that was called Heaven on Earth and has now been turned into hell by the Islamic separatist violence. It is the majority of inhabitants of this small area (not of the state) who are clamoring for azadi (independence) for this small land of Kashmir. The diversity of the state fits perfectly well within diverse India, but this diversity does not belong to the green-flag waving, stone pelting separatists of Kashmir.

It has been a political compulsion for every party in the game to keep the disparate parts of this former princely state cobbled together. Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh have nothing at all in common. Each has its own dominant ethnicity, its own dominant religion, its own topography, its own climate, its own diverse culture, its own distinct major language. No other state in the region has such intra-state diversity. Even India’s linguistic reorganization of states in the 1950s did not result in a division of J&K because of its “special status”. India apparently wants to keep the state together because Jammu and Ladakh act as a bond between Kashmir and the rest of India. India perhaps thinks that separating Kashmir out will be the first step towards its complete secession from India. Pakistan, on the other hand also keeps J&K clubbed together so that it can lay claim to the whole state and perhaps negotiate away the non-Muslim areas if it comes to a negotiation. For the same reason, apparently, they named the area they occupied as AJK (Azad Jammu Kashmir) when it is neither Azad nor Jammu nor Kashmir. The languages spoken in *** are Pahari, Mirpuri, Gojri, Hindko, Punjabi, Pashto (Wikipedia) and none of these languages is even close to Kashmiri. The people living in *** are ethnically different from Kashmiris. This also means that the LoC has created no divided families.

But what is the compulsion of Kashmiri separatists to keep talking about J&K, when they actually are only bothered about Kashmir? Kashmiri Muslims, in their arguments against Indian rule say that they are ethnically different, they have a different dominant religion, and so on. Most of them don’t see themselves as Indians. But then, it is exactly those things that set them apart from Ladakhis and Jammuites, who do see themselves as Indians. In fact, Kashmiri Muslims have been fighting against the rule of Dogra King from Jammu even before they started fighting against Indian rule. So, how do they resolve this paradox? How can they lay claim to other conquests or purchases of the Dogra king when they fought against being under the Dogra king himself. Ladakh, Baltistan, and Gilgit were not even part of the state when Dogras purchased it from the British. Apparenlty, Kashmiris have two main reasons for talking about J&K, rather than Kashmir — one, since Pakistan no longer remains a flauntable destination, and with Islamic extremism having lost its flavor the world over, they need to be seen as desirous of a “secular azadi”, rather than an “Islamic accession to Pakistan”; secondly, it gives them something to bargain for with India.

The fact that Kashmir is actually a very small part of Jammu and Kashmir has other ramifications too. Since Jammu and Ladakh are happy being part of India, it makes no sense to impose so called “azadi” on them. Now that leaves Kashmir with its 15000 sq km area as one of world’s smallest land locked countries – bigger than only Vatican City, Luxembourg and couple of other non-countries. How valid and how long-lived will this “independence” driven by Islamic fanaticism be? Obviously, since they will have just divorced India, they will be absorbed into Pakistan in no time. This is what some of the Kashmiri leaders want in the first place, but is that what most Kashmiris are bargaining for? Will they get a special status like Article 370 in Pakistan? Does such a small land area have enough resources to sustain itself as a country?

The fact that Kashmir is actually a small part of Jammu and Kashmir also negates the “democracy logic” for separation of Kashmir from India. Yes, majority is authority in a democracy, but the majority concentrated in a 7-15% area of a state taking or influencing a decision for the whole state is equally undemocratic for the rest of the state. Why would a Dogra person living in Kathua want to live under Nizam-e-Mustafa? Kashmir is flanked on three sides by areas which are definitely India, and on the fourth side by an area occupied by Pakistan. For a sovereign democratic country, how large does a locality have to be to give its residents a right of self-determination? For the sake of democracy, does it make sense to ask a Muslim majority mohalla in Hyderabad or Meerut whether they want to stay in India? In fact, if we give any credence to Kashmiri Hindu’s demand for their piece of the homeland (Panun Kashmir), which they want to be an integral part of India, Kashmiri separatists are left with even less of a “country”.

In retrospect, the only solution that would have made more sense would have been, in 1947, to carve out the valley and give it to Pakistan. That did not happen because of the incongruent composition of the state — a Hindu king ruling a state composed of Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim regions. If that had happened, the region would have been much more peaceful. My community (the Kashmiri Hindus) would have been settled in other parts of India, just like other migrants from Pakistan were. Whether Kashmiri Muslims would still have been happy, it is hard to tell. But I am sure there would have been no “freedom movement”. Now, with hindsight being 20/20, Kashmiris should thank heavens for the incidents of 1947 and be happy they are not part of the failed state of Pakistan.

Azadi just doesn’t make any sense to me. If Kashmiri Muslims see themselves primarily as Muslims aligned with Pakistan, then accession to Pakistan makes sense. If they see themselves as secular, inclusive people, then what is wrong with being part of India? All others in the state, other than Muslims of the valley, see themselves as Indians.

As an Indian, I see it clearly that the trouble in the valley has reached cancerous proportions. Although it is hard to stop the rest of the country from bleeding in case of an extreme measure, it may make more sense to either cure it completely or cut it off. Either integrate the valley completely into India (no Article 370, no autonomy, no special status) or cut it off. Blast the Banihal Tunnel and let them go to…. heaven. Kashmiris should however stop the hypocrisy of secularism, azadi and caring about Jammu and Ladakh. Go be “independent” or join Pakistan and see if your future generations are thankful to you for that. Given the small size of Kashmir, and the size of area already with Pakistan and China, it won’t make much difference to India’s map. And then, who is to stop us from keeping showing it in India’s map? :-)

It is painful to see the violence, the killings, the inconveniences in Kashmir. But why are people getting killed? Is the presence of army in Kashmir the reason, or the consequence of the separatist movement? If the religion inspired protests end in Kashmir, would anyone be hurt? Kashmiri separatists know the answer to this. They know they can stop getting their children killed any day, but then, how will they get Sharia and Nizam-e-Mustafa?

However, no-one in the Indian government has the willpower to facilitate either of the extreme solutions — full integration or full severance. So, it is in the interest of Kashmiri Muslims to go for status quo ante: give up fighting, stop the anti-India jihad and start going to schools, offices, cinemas, gyms, even bars. Go into pre-1989 mode, sans Hindus. Hindus have already been pushed out – they will never return. They have never returned in the past — just keep renewing your fake invitations. You can continue dominating the rest of the state. With Article 370 intact, you make sure you can settle down anywhere in India, but no outsider settles down in Kashmir. So, you can have the best of everything. Just drop the stones.
 
Lord Nazir Ahmed is British of Kashmiri descent. Yes all Kashmiris are Pakistanis so you can say he is a Pakistani.

descent hardly matters...by that logic all Pakistanis are Indians.

He's supporting Pakistan with his half-true writings...pretty much a Pakistani for me.
 
When someone says "Kashmir"

They mean that entire state.

The circled region is just where the population is concentrated.
 
descent hardly matters...by that logic all Pakistanis are Indians.

He's supporting Pakistan with his half-true writings...pretty much a Pakistani for me.

The vast majority of Pakistanis were never born in india.

Lord Nazir Ahmed was born in Azad Kashmir. He is originally from Azad Kashmir. Azad Kashmir is also Kashmir, so that makes him of Kashmiri descent.

Lord Nazir Ahmed was born in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir and is a nephew of late Kalyal Mohammand Yousaf who was also a member of Mahraja Hari singhs's perjah Sabah in 1944, but soon after his birth his family migrated to the UK, where he was brought up.
 
Last edited:
Lame excuse. The whole of Kashmir region including Ladakh is a disputed territory and up for negotiation when the right time comes. A small population of Ladakh cannot override the wishes of a larger population of IOK and Azad Kashmir. J&K is historically a united state and its future will have to be decided on that basis.
 
Good one, I agree to this and see how they are trying to fool the world. 7% people voice cannot be majority.
 
The recent violence in Kashmir has made sure nobody will care for them. No one wants to side with people of Jehadi mentality.
 
When someone says "Kashmir"

They mean that entire state.

The circled region is just where the population is concentrated.

That is the notion the writer is trying to dispel. In geographical terms the use my be not a problem, but when the demand for Azadi is considered, only the valley demands it. Their demand for azadi is not supported by the other regions, why should they be dragged into the religious fanaticism?

Kashmiris in the valley do not own Ladakh or Jammu, people from Ladakh and Jammu do, it will be their choice.
 
Lame excuse. The whole of Kashmir region including Ladakh is a disputed territory and up for negotiation when the right time comes. A small population of Ladakh cannot override the wishes of a larger population of IOK and Azad Kashmir. J&K is historically a united state and its future will have to be decided on that basis.
punjab was historically united too. Valley is the only place there is unrest, and don't you remember how Jammuites have blockaded the Valley, after the kashmiris acted like idiots when giving land to lease for a temple (no wonder they have successfully executed a genocide).

They are not one people.
 
When someone says "Kashmir"

They mean that entire state.

The circled region is just where the population is concentrated.

Beg to differ here...
Geographically you can claim the whole of J&K as Kashmir... but Ethnically you only call the Kashmiri Muslims as your brothers.... what about the rest of the Hindus and Buddhists in the state of J&K... I doubt you would really care about them... would you. Then, Why drag them into this discussion? They are more than happy to be a part of India and contributing to the economy as the rest of us.

Now about the people of Kashmir Valley... the only possible solution that I see is to carve it our as an autonomous entity under the Indian constitution and merge the rest of J&K into a Jammu & Ladakh. This ensures Kashmiri interests (both majority and minority) are honoured and respected.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom