Kashmir reeling from worst violence since 2010 as 30 killed

[Pandora]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-from-worst-violence-since-2010-as-30-killed/

Thirty people have been killed in Kashmir's worst unrest since 2010, as the Himalayan region remained on army-enforced lockdown for a third day on Monday.






This is a massacre of innocent Kashmiris. Indian army is now directly involved in killing of kashmiri civilians.

 

[jamal18]

So nothing new then?

 

[hassamun]

More UN Resolutions maybe needed...

 

[hussain0216]

Its up to Kashmiris to become aware of the murder of their people, suppression of their rights, occupation of their home and lands

Every funeral should be a political message where azaadi is the central message and indian crimes are discussed and condemned

 

[AKD]

If you don't follow law of the land you are liable to get shot

 

[hussain0216]

If you don't follow law of the land you are liable to get shot

Its not their law that they should follow it or be loyal to a occupier

 

[Joe Shearer]

Its not their law that they should follow it or be loyal to a occupier

It's their law. It's their constitution, not the Indian constitution. It's the Kashmir Police in the first instance. They do not have to be loyal to an occupier, which is your term, with which I do not agree. They do have to be obedient to the rule of law. If they disobey, they are criminals. They are then liable to restraint, by violent means if necessary. Society cannot function by people taking the law into their own hands. They cannot dictate how those who do not agree with their views should behave. They cannot arrogate the power of making rules to themselves. At the conceptual level they can do all they want. At the intellectual level, they are free. It is not free, and it is not acceptable to break the law.

 

[hussain0216]

It's their law. It's their constitution, not the Indian constitution. It's the Kashmir Police in the first instance. They do not have to be loyal to an occupier, which is your term, with which I do not agree. They do have to be obedient to the rule of law. If they disobey, they are criminals. They are then liable to restraint, by violent means if necessary. Society cannot function by people taking the law into their own hands. They cannot dictate how those who do not agree with their views should behave. They cannot arrogate the power of making rules to themselves. At the conceptual level they can do all they want. At the intellectual level, they are free. It is not free, and it is not acceptable to break the law.

Its law forced upon them by a occupying power

 

[hassamun]

It's their law. It's their constitution, not the Indian constitution. It's the Kashmir Police in the first instance. They do not have to be loyal to an occupier, which is your term, with which I do not agree. They do have to be obedient to the rule of law. If they disobey, they are criminals. They are then liable to restraint, by violent means if necessary. Society cannot function by people taking the law into their own hands. They cannot dictate how those who do not agree with their views should behave. They cannot arrogate the power of making rules to themselves. At the conceptual level they can do all they want. At the intellectual level, they are free. It is not free, and it is not acceptable to break the law.

Lets not downplay the fact that many Princely States joined India forcefully...by India invading them...

 

[hussain0216]

Disobeying the laws of a occupying power has always been a act of resistance throughout history from dumping tea into Boston harbour to Gandhi's hippy sit ins

 

[Grevion]

Title of the thread does not matches with the title of the article op posted.
Peaceful protest are allowed in India as a democracy. Security forces has to retaliate if the locals provokes them by stone pelting and by the attacks on the establishment.

 

[hassamun]

Peaceful protest are allowed in India as a democracy. Security forces has to retaliate if the locals provokes them by stone pelting and by the attacks on the establishment.

So the Indian Army responds by using live ammunition in the protests??? Tear Gas or Rubber Bullets might be enough...

 

[Grevion]

So the Indian Army responds by using live ammunition in the protests??? Tear Gas or Rubber Bullets might be enough...

Live ammunitions are only used in a violent protests after the tear gas and rubber bullets fails to push back the protesters

 

[hassamun]

Live ammunitions are only used in a violent protests after the tear gas and rubber bullets fails to push back the protesters

Forgive me if I'm mistaken...but I cant find this information in the article. Only live ammunition is mentioned...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Lets not downplay the fact that many Princely States joined India forcefully...by India invading them...

You are joking, right? Which are these many? Perhaps I could help sort things out for you on this point at least?

Forgive me if I'm mistaken...but I cant find this information in the article. Only live ammunition is mentioned...

SOP, for a very long time now. Live ammunition is the last step. Not your fault; the writer might have egged up his article keeping this out.