Mirwaiz urges international community to shun double standards on Kashmir

[ares]

So you're proud of the fact that the Indian State follows totalitarian measures in order to keep its hold on Kashmir going by interference in people's rights to freedom of speech, movement and association? If democracy is power to the people, then democracy has not been extended to the people of Kashmir as power rests with the Indian State and not with the people.

People's right and freedom of speech?
Is it the right of Kashmiri people to murder the Hindu minority amongst them ? Is it their right to force the minorities to flee their homes and lives as refugees all over India?

The fact is it was certain set Kashmiri people who took up the gun went on rampage and army had to be deployed to subdue them.

However Kashmir is not unique in this regards, other part of India also similar incident happen and the govt in power reacted in similar fashion by sending in the army.
eg In Gujrat after three day of riots against the minorities, army had to be deployed to bring the state under control.

The difference is, in other parts of country, these sectarian forces disbanded as soon as army arrived and civilian govt were able to handle law on order situation from there. However in Kashmir, these sectarian forces organised them selves in to small militant organisations and entered into guerrilla warfare with army.

And finally when some of these local militant forces gave up the gun the baton was picked up international terrorist organisation from across the border.

No country in the world will want to bind such a large section of its army, in a single state for such a long period of time. The Army is trained to fight country's enemies, on its border and not to fight some two bit militant organisation in the cities and villages.

The fact is 'the gun' came to Kashmir first and not the army.

If we could, we would take out the army out from Kashmir in a heartbeat.But what are the guarantees, that these militants who have been subdued after such a long and hard fight (and finally there is some peace in the valley) will not resurface and overwhelm the local law enforcement agencies??...especially when Pakistan remains as committed as it ever was to rest Kashmir from India.

We want, perhaps even more , than you for Kashmir to return to its pre-militancy/pre-army days..become once again as it once was(as immortalised in Hindi movies of 60s and 70s).. "a paradise".

 

[MilSpec]

To all members ... before UN security council resolution gets dragged on as in every kashmir thread. Please do read
http://www.defence.pk/forums/centra...lebiscite-un-security-council-resolution.html

 

[A1Kaid]

Mirwaiz Farooq is doing an excellent job he needs to be supported more and Pakistan should send him to the UN assembly and Security Council to speaks about his experience and situation in IoK. World needs to know failure to resolve Kashmir conflict can lead to nuclear war which will impact the world.

 

[Contrarian]

World needs to know failure to resolve Kashmir conflict can lead to nuclear war which will impact the world.

Surely you jest!

There is going to be no war over Kashmir. For war you need to have a Pakistan willing to fight with India - that is not going to happen anytime soon. Pakistan is not willing to fight with India over Kashmir, heck let alone fight, your leaders are ready to put Kashmir on the 'backburner'.

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

Surely you jest!

There is going to be no war over Kashmir. For war you need to have a Pakistan willing to fight with India - that is not going to happen anytime soon. Pakistan is not willing to fight with India over Kashmir, heck let alone fight, your leaders are ready to put Kashmir on the 'backburner'.

Can you not accept the fact that injustices are being done on the people of Kashmir by the Indian Army? Don't you think the UN should intervene to at least protect freedoms and liberties which your own leaders and forefathers promised to their own people after the oppression of the British?

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

People's right and freedom of speech?
Is it the right of Kashmiri people to murder the Hindu minority amongst them ? Is it their right to force the minorities to flee their homes and lives as refugees all over India?

The fact is it was certain set Kashmiri people who took up the gun went on rampage and army had to be deployed to subdue them.

However Kashmir is not unique in this regards, other part of India also similar incident happen and the govt in power reacted in similar fashion by sending in the army.
eg In Gujrat after three day of riots against the minorities, army had to be deployed to bring the state under control.

The difference is, in other parts of country, these sectarian forces disbanded as soon as army arrived and civilian govt were able to handle law on order situation from there. However in Kashmir, these sectarian forces organised them selves in to small militant organisations and entered into guerrilla warfare with army.

And finally when some of these local militant forces gave up the gun the baton was picked up international terrorist organisation from across the border.

No country in the world will want to bind such a large section of its army, in a single state for such a long period of time. The Army is trained to fight country's enemies, on its border and not to fight some two bit militant organisation in the cities and villages.

The fact is 'the gun' came to Kashmir first and not the army.

If we could, we would take out the army out from Kashmir in a heartbeat.But what are the guarantees, that these militants who have been subdued after such a long and hard fight (and finally there is some peace in the valley) will not resurface and overwhelm the local law enforcement agencies??...especially when Pakistan remains as committed as it ever was to rest Kashmir from India.

We want, perhaps even more , than you for Kashmir to return to its pre-militancy/pre-army days..become once again as it once was(as immortalised in Hindi movies of 60s and 70s).. "a paradise".

It seems most Indians in support of the status-quo in Kashmir, and the Indian State's policies in Kashmir are delusional and refuse to accept two things which I have re-iterated on multiple occasions:

1. Those within the 1947 borders of Kashmir are Kashmiri. Regardless of religion, creed or cast. When you say the "Kashmiri people against the Hindu minority" you're implying the Hindus in Kashmir (mainly Pandits) aren't Kashmiri; they are and have as much right to the land as any other Kashmiri. I condemn all actions against the minorities of Kashmir without a single exception - period.

2. The Indian State is guilty of human rights violations and war crimes in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Look at the data around you - the Indian State has prevented bringing to court soldiers that rape, torture and murder innocents; this is true of some groups which "fight for the liberation of Kashmir" but I condemn them the same I condemn the Indian State. However, this isn't the same - these groups aren't acting in the wishes of the people, whereas the Indian State has a duty to protect the people and has failed and in many cases, infringed upon the very rights it guarantees to protect under its constitution.


There are no sectarian forces in Kashmir that struggle for the people, neither is Kashmir "the same" as any other state in India or Pakistan. History reminds us of this. Kashmir has had a long history of oppression, whether it be by the Maharajas, or the newly-independent States of India/Pakistan - let us not confuse the monsters with the religions of peace of the people. I find it disgusting that we compare people that are ready to kill and rape with the peaceful religions of Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Terrorism is terrorism, whether you fly the colours of one religion or another, regardless of whether you clothe yourself in a uniform or not.

A large part of India's forces are in the borders of Kashmir, but answer me this - why is there a large concentration of them in civilian areas, more so than any other state of India? The effects of this are exemplary, apart from atrocities and human rights violations, PTSD has spread to 800,000 Kashmiri women; this is unacceptable, and if you do wish that Kashmir return to its pre-militantcy/pre-army days, then you should, as an Indian, condemn this.

You are indeed correct when you say that the gun came to Kashmir first - it came in the form of the rebellion against Hari Singh's brutal and inhumane rule. Due to the interests of both India and Pakistan in absorbing Kashmir into their territories, a revolution was snubbed and smouldered. The same problems that plagued Kashmir then plague Kashmir now; injustices based on religion and oppression still exist, and it doesn't matter whether you're Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh now.

 

[Contrarian]

Can you not accept the fact that injustices are being done on the people of Kashmir by the Indian Army? Don't you think the UN should intervene to at least protect freedoms and liberties which your own leaders and forefathers promised to their own people after the oppression of the British?

Well if the people of Kashmir dont want the IA to be stationed there, then they should simply not take the AK-47 up.

If Pakistani's dont want the IA in Kashmir, atleast in the cities, then they should not have given the AK's or sent people across the border.

You cannot have it both ways, that you arm and send across terrorists, and the IA should also not be present. Its a very clear situation.

 

[jbond197]

No one cares about paid agents cries!!

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

Well if the people of Kashmir dont want the IA to be stationed there, then they should simply not take the AK-47 up.

If Pakistani's dont want the IA in Kashmir, atleast in the cities, then they should not have given the AK's or sent people across the border.

You cannot have it both ways, that you arm and send across terrorists, and the IA should also not be present. Its a very clear situation.

1. Nothing excuses the murder of innocent men, women and children, or their torture and molestation. Especially by a nation-state with a constitution and a rule of law. This either happens by the Indian Army or it doesn't - which one is it? Yes or no? Answer this question.

2. If the people of Kashmir picked the AK up, then there is a reason they picked it up (a political one) - they weren't happy with Indian Rule. If that is the case - or even if it isn't and it's a handful of miscreants - India has the substantial advantage of conducting a plebiscite in its part of Kashmir on whether or not the Kashmiris want to be part of India.

 

[Contrarian]

1. Nothing excuses the murder of innocent men, women and children, or their torture and molestation. Especially by a nation-state with a constitution and a rule of law. This either happens by the Indian Army or it doesn't - which one is it? Yes or no? Answer this question.

Well, no one wishes the murder on people who are not involved. But COIN is such that over prolonged periods of time, it becomes hard to distinguish and other factors come into play.

2. If the people of Kashmir picked the AK up, then there is a reason they picked it up (a political one) - they weren't happy with Indian Rule. If that is the case - or even if it isn't and it's a handful of miscreants - India has the substantial advantage of conducting a plebiscite in its part of Kashmir on whether or not the Kashmiris want to be part of India.

Well, you would know that by all estimates, there were more Pakistani terrorists in Kashmir than Kashmiri's themselves. All the arms came from there. Democracy within limits of the Indian constitution - that is the bottom line.

So if Pakistan truly wished for no deaths in Kashmir, they should not have armed and sent their people. If you do that, then IA will kill. You cannot wave the flag of democracy. Democracy within limits.

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

Well, no one wishes the murder on people who are not involved. But COIN is such that over prolonged periods of time, it becomes hard to distinguish and other factors come into play.


Well, you would know that by all estimates, there were more Pakistani terrorists in Kashmir than Kashmiri's themselves. All the arms came from there. Democracy within limits of the Indian constitution - that is the bottom line.

So if Pakistan truly wished for no deaths in Kashmir, they should not have armed and sent their people. If you do that, then IA will kill. You cannot wave the flag of democracy. Democracy within limits.

The adverse impacts of COIN cannot be matched with a blunder in ignorance in terms of observing human rights, further which "democracy within limits of the Indian constitution" have guranteed. Insurgency aims to topple the State and cause a demise in the rule of law, whereas the functions of the State are to implement law and order in its territorial boundaries.

So this argument on the basis that "democracy within the limits of the Indian constitution" is limited on two fronts: 1. You're suggesting that the Indian constitution doesn't contain human rights and their protection. 2. By the Instrument of Accession which Jammu and Kashmir succeeded to India, it holds that J&K is self-governing within India; thus, the Indian constitution is not the sole supreme legislative piece of the land - but it is supreme only to the extent which it collaborates with the J&K constitution.

India considers J&K part of its territory, not an alien land piece (hence the comparison of COIN in Afghanistan is void in the case of Kashmir).

Regarding insurgency itself, not all insurgents were Pakistani (neither is there credible proof to debunk the logical conclusion of the vast majority of the insurgents being from the Valley in the history of the insurgency) - the JKLF was an indigenous movement, as were the uprisings of 1948 against Maharaja Hari Singh's rule, which only serve to weaken the credibility of the mandate on which the Indian State bases his accession of Jammu and Kashmir and its peoples to India (unless you wish to base your argument on feudalism rather than freedom and equality, democracy and tolerance).

 

[Contrarian]

The adverse impacts of COIN cannot be matched with a blunder in ignorance in terms of observing human rights, further which "democracy within limits of the Indian constitution" have guranteed. Insurgency aims to topple the State and cause a demise in the rule of law, whereas the functions of the State are to implement law and order in its territorial boundaries.

So this argument on the basis that "democracy within the limits of the Indian constitution" is limited on two fronts: 1. You're suggesting that the Indian constitution doesn't contain human rights and their protection.

In many instances suspects who wish to subvert the authority of the Indian Union in Kashmir need to killed. That is the express reason why AFSPA has been enacted. To enable the security forces to do their job efficiently. If some terrorists use human shields - as terrorists in Kashmir routinely do - then the shields are killed as well if no alternative exists. Protection of the integrity of Indian Union trumps all other laws as is also implied in the Indian Constitution.

2. By the Instrument of Accession which Jammu and Kashmir succeeded to India, it holds that J&K is self-governing within India; thus, the Indian constitution is not the sole supreme legislative piece of the land - but it is supreme only to the extent which it collaborates with the J&K constitution.

Completely wrong. Indian Constitution is supreme. J&K is self governing as is almost every State within the territory of India. They have a right to elect a CM running their affairs - bar the subjects listed in the Union List. The Constitution of India also expressly declares that should there be a clash of laws between a State and the Union, the Union laws are given precedence every time.

Please clear this notion in your head that Constitution of India is not supreme over J&K. It is over every inch of land within India.

India considers J&K part of its territory, not an alien land piece (hence the comparison of COIN in Afghanistan is void in the case of Kashmir).

It is Indian territory, however COIN by nature is same globally. The difference being an attempt to not be heavy handed - as Pakistan Army is in its own COIN ops by using arty and gunships. IA does not do that in an attempt to minimize collateral damage.

Regarding insurgency itself, not all insurgents were Pakistani (neither is there credible proof to debunk the logical conclusion of the vast majority of the insurgents being from the Valley in the history of the insurgency) - the JKLF was an indigenous movement,

Please post that credible proof, else there is also credible proof that the majority of the terrorists are Pakistan born and bred and funneled into Kashmir after the need for them in Afghan theater ended. JKLF was an indigenous movement, that does not absolve the fact that the majority of the foot soldiers came from Pakistan.

The answer is simple, if Pakistan sends terrorists, India will enact the AFSPA to give powers to the Armed Forces to do their job most efficiently. IF Pakistan cared about the well being of Kashmiri's then they would not have sent militants. After all, the Indian Army presence and the allegations of abuses only surfaced after the terrorists started entering the Valley. IA was not there for COIN before 1989. That means Pakistan only wished to take Kashmir by hook or crook without actually caring for the people of Kashmir - that was just a facade.

Even the Indian Kashmiri's obtained arms, training and funds from Pakistan. That initself means cross border terrorism, and by extension implies that any and all means will be used to end it.

as were the uprisings of 1948 against Maharaja Hari Singh's rule, which only serve to weaken the credibility of the mandate on which the Indian State bases his accession of Jammu and Kashmir and its peoples to India (unless you wish to base your argument on feudalism rather than freedom and equality, democracy and tolerance).

The uprising against Hari Singh was not in any way indigenous unless you count a Pakistani Polity and Army backing the tribals as still being an 'Indian movement'.

The Constitution of India is freely available over the Internet. You are free to examine it, it is a quasi federal structure with self government - and is practiced in 35 political entities of India.