Arundhati Roy calls for end to Indian ‘occupation’ of Kashmir

[toxic_pus]

The English says the 700,000 troops went there, & are still there today.

Does it now?

EDIT: Anybody care to explain how Kashmir's accession to India was in violation of law.

 

[harshad]

it would be fun if all the countries in the world listen to one general individual and decides its policies
it was pakistan who attacked kashmir in the first place,we are ready for plebicite but you should read the condition for that which pakistan will not do

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You are almost right except that you forgot to mention the chinese arming Pakistan so that both the countries fight each other and the Chinese can surge ahead.

LOL don't be biased, the country you are living in (USA) contributes by FAR the largest amount of money to the Pakistani Army every year.

And they justify it like this:

US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’ - Indian Express

Though no one really believed that those F-16's were for fighting terrorists anyway.

 

[53fd]

WHAT???????????????????????????

Come on ..cant laugh on jokes this lame.

I'm glad you find it funny that you find 'the people she stands up for' effectively control 1/3rd of India (at the expense of the Indian government).

 

[toxic_pus]

I'm glad you find it funny that you find 'the people she stands up for' effectively control 1/3rd of India (at the expense of the Indian government).

She stands up for herself, and herself only. Occasionally she talks sense. But mostly it's 'me, myself and I'. Essentially, she is a casuist.

 

[Aryavart]

She is getting paid from ISI, ******* lady

 

[SpArK]

I'm glad you find it funny that you find 'the people she stands up for' effectively control 1/3rd of India (at the expense of the Indian government).

As always your post didnt make any sense. Jump from Roy to poor people to voice and blah blah...

I met Roy in a literary meet not so long ago and yes she is from my state and I also know what "state of mind " she is in, more than a "keyboard hate monger" sitting comfortably miles away "defending" his nation online without know a thing and debates on basis on whats been spoon-feed on hate articles.

 

[harshad]

I'm glad you find it funny that you find 'the people she stands up for' effectively control 1/3rd of India (at the expense of the Indian government).

the people she stand for dont want to destroy india,they are just fed up of the govt. policies which dont help them economically so if you think the naxals support giving up of kashmir you are mistaken

 

[Developereo]

read UN resolution then..its the pre condition..

I thought Indian position was that the UN resolution is no longer relevant?

In any case, what I am saying has nothing to do with the UN resolution. It is simple 'The Right Thing To Do' for a democracy. Canada and the US showed how real democracies handle such a situation.

It doesn't matter what Pakistan does or doesn't do. This is a test of Indian democracy.

no..you sent tribals on the bases of the muslim majority..i never heard this b4 that they needed you..there was no terror inside kashmir b4 1989...even king was forced to join india when u ppl attacked..you did mistake at first step..my be you could get it without attacking it first..

It's not a question of what happened 60 years ago, but what is happening on the ground right now. They are flying the Pakistani flag -- not necessarily because they want to join with Pakistan, but simply to ask for our support against Indian occupation.

Kashmir [PoKashmir and J&k] are one Part that is Divided or Occupied by 2 nations , so the thing you are saying is Inappropriate

My Point is That People from Pakistan bark a lot about Kashmir and Indian brutal Occupation but they forget how they themselves are Handling Pokashmir

why dont Pakistan first take the Initiative to Leave its part of Kashmir then talk about India doing same

You people care about Kashmiris , I dont think so

Addressed just above.

This is not about Pakistan; it's purely about Indian democracy in a land under its occupation.

well this figure is used by pakistanis..they increase zeros or multiply it by 2or 3..
few paksitanis says in gujrat riots 10000 muslims killed ,few says 30000 killed..

upto maximum,2-3 lakh soldiers are there including police or paramilitary force but they say 700000..3 times

India Withdraws Troops From Kashmir, Spurring Hopes - Global - The Atlantic Wire

This week, India announced it had pulled 30,000 troops from Kashmir, the largest draw-down since 1999. It is a small step, given that up to 500,000 Indian troops remain in the region

The actual figure is obviously confidential. 500K, 700K; it's all in the same league.

 

[53fd]

As always your post didnt make any sense.

It make sense for the Indian people the Indian government is fighting, not you.

 

[RazPaK]

No Indian could answer/respond to what I've provided, because they are liars. True story.

 

[53fd]

As always your post didnt make any sense. Jump from Roy to poor people to voice and blah blah...

I met Roy in a literary meet not so long ago and yes she is from my state and I also know what "state of mind " she is in, more than a "keyboard hate monger" sitting comfortably miles away "defending" his nation online without know a thing and debates on basis on whats been spoon-feed on hate articles.

Why are you talking about me on a thread that has got nothing to do with me? Reverting to your old habits it seems, eh?

 

[Vinod2070]

So NATO, with all its vast resources, only committed 150K troops against an entrenched adversary in an active war zone, and you are telling me India placed 700K troops to intercept the occasional interloper across the border?

Like I said, the troops are there to terrorize the native Kashmiris and to break their spirit.

It should be surprising that you don't see the obvious.

But for obvious reasons, it is not really surprising.

NATO is in a state of war. They don't mind using heavy weapons of war, fighter planes, artillery against their adversaries. They try to minimize the collateral damage but only so much.

We have two models. One the Pakistan model used in Balochistan and tribal areas like Bajour.

This model is, use heavy weapons of war. Don't bother about the collateral civilian deaths. Create hundreds of thousands of IDPs.

This does minimize the army casualties though.

This is the easier and cheaper method but is not so friendly to the civilians. They bear the brunt.

The other method is Indian one. No heavy weapons. No aircraft and artillery in civilian areas. try and protect the dispersed civilians from the cowardly terrorists using small weapons and minimize the collateral damage.

Very difficult. Needs more manpower. Much more expensive. But comparatively much more civilian friendly.

We made our choice.

 

[Developereo]

Anybody care to explain how Kashmir's accession to India was in violation of law.

India's occupation of Kashmir valley is illegal.

Two thirds in Kashmir want independence

About two thirds of residents in India-administered Kashmir want independence for their region, with less than one in 10 seeking a merger with Pakistan, a survey shows.
[...]
The desire for independence for the state is not shared in the Jammu and Ladakh parts however, where 76 per cent and 70 per cent wanted a "complete merger" of the state into India.


Forget the history, look at it this way: if tomorrow, 66% of Tamils wanted to secede from India and India sent in 500K troops to subdue them, it would be an occupation force.

 

[Vinod2070]

You are almost right except that you forgot to mention the chinese arming Pakistan so that both the countries fight each other and the Chinese can surge ahead.

Except that facts say that it has barely made a dent in India's progress.