KS
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 12,528
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Your claim of ethnic cleansing is just an extremely exaggerated and invalid claim the sole purpose of which is to simply malign the Muslim Population of Kashmir and justify whatever brutality they are subjected to.
However we may look at it, the fact remains that the Kashmir Valley was overwhelmingly Muslim more than a century ago and remains so today, this rules out any barbaric ethnic cleansing which has made Muslims into majority via carnage and bloody murder.
The population percentages have been fairly consistent with 1901.
The same way , murder and intimidation of the Hindu Pandits by the Islamic separatists seems exxagerated to you,the claims of brutalities by the Indian Army sounds like hyper-exxageration to me.
So lets agree to disagree and you will not be able to convince any Indian that only Muslims have been subjected to brutalities.The Hindu Pandits have undergone far worse condition during those burning 90s.
Now regarding your following statement
There is no better way than to authorize state brutality than by sending troops and police in with the indoctrination that the local population needs to paid in their own coin since they have always been doing wrong unto others and are traitors towards the state.
The Kashmiris are no traitors, they simply had no say in the accession of Kashmir to India and have become more and more isolated due to mishandling of the issue.
Neither in Most of the princely states,if not all, did the people have a choice.It was the choice of the ruler that mattered and the power at your disposal during a period of free for all.
So no use in harping about that now.
Regarding Junagadh, i do not care whoever it was that wrote a letter.
The matter of accession was to be decided by the ruler, yet here the ruler was Muslim and the Non Muslim population was cited as a reason for India to demand a plebiscite.
When the Ruler of Junagadh decided in favor of Pakistan the Indian State seized the land anyways.
So effectively the population mattered in the end and this has been proven by history since Kashmir is the one place where the Indian state has failed to appease the local population.
"Might is Right" mate.The Indian state at that time had the power to enforce its rule in Junagadh,while the same thing when imitated by Pakistan in Kashmir fell on its face.
The reason is that there is an overwhelming Muslim majority here which has not reconciled with India but rather has become more and more alienated due to a troubled history with a lot of empty promises.
You talk of collateral but the concept of collateral has long been lost when Kashmir as a whole is seen as a nest of extremists.
The mindset here is that most Kashmiris are extremist, violent and terrorists or sympathetic to such , so it is lovely to pay them back in their own coin.
You have defined a whole people as the enemy because majority of them are not at all in love with India but rather have a strong dislike for the Indian state apparatus which has been wronging them on many accounts.
Here most of the population feels wronged by the Indian state, so it is not a case of rescuing the population from some insurgents but rather a standoff between the locals and the State apparatus.
If they feel they as Muslims,they cant live in Hindu India they can very well move on to Pakistan like the millions who did during Partition on both sides.No one really stops them.
Regarding the all time low insurgency resulting in more and more accountability of Troops...you could not be more wrong.
When you avidly deny occurrences of r ape and torture despite judicial inquiries stating otherwise, you absolutely negate the purpose of accountability and reconciliation with the locals.
The Kashmiris who protest are thrashed around since they are anti Indian Muslim extremists with an agenda.
Those whose daughter, wives etc are raped are called separatists with an agenda who are trying to entice population against the Indian state.
Those who raise arms are all called terrorists who are terrorizing the locals at behest of Pakistan, yet no light is shed on the Indian policy breeding hatred which is evident in the streets of Kashmir.
Who is the state protecting in Kashmir and from whom?
The state is protecting the silent majority who get played upon by the separatists for their own narrow gains and more importantly there for protecting something called "Territorial Integrity" from external and internal aggressors.
Only a fool would think that no Kashmiri youth would take up arms in wake of all the injustices and cover ups happening in the valley.
Overall this is called a Pakistani sponsored movement so that all punitive actions are justified without accepting the Kashmiri Population's Standoff with the State as the major problem in Kashmir.
When there is zero percent recognition of the genuine Kashmiri Muslim sentiments and instead tales are fabricated about their past brutality against non Muslims, there is no hope but for the rapes, killings and torture to continue unchecked and be swept under the carpet.
If the Kashmiri Muslims want any respite from these so called rapes and other claims,let them agree to the INdian constitution.
Lets face it - both you and I know very well that India will not budge on Kashmir for anything in the world.If lives have to be sacrificed/taken for that..It will be.
The sooner all parties come to terms with the reality the better for all.
Last edited: