UN urges Kashmir investigations

[dr.umer]

No, I don't. I don't feel compelled to prove myself right, since I realized sometime back that its impossible to do so over the internet. So why bother?

Come on man. No hard feelings. ok

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, I don't. I don't feel compelled to prove myself right, since I realized sometime back that its impossible to do so over the internet. So why bother?

There really is no point debating over the Internet at all then, if you don't want to prove your points in debates.

 

[Flintlock]

There really is no point debating over the Internet at all then, if you don't want to prove your points in debates.

I have a right to express my opinion though.

But seriously, has anyone, ever proven his point in an internet debate?

I, for one, have never encountered such a thing.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Peaceful Protests In Kashmir Alter Equation for India​

Tough Response Criticized as Outmoded

By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, August 28, 2008; A08

SRINAGAR, India -- Inside dozens of cramped kitchens in this Kashmiri city on Saturday, mothers and daughters prepared to make packets of rice for the hundreds of thousands expected at a sit-in two days later. Outside, their sons and brothers collected change from motorists to buy water and juice.

Drumbeats echoed through the Kashmir Valley as college students chanted "Azadi," or freedom. In middle-class neighborhoods, Internet-savvy students blogged about their views and posted videos of the preparations on YouTube.

But early Sunday, Indian security forces blanketed the region, preventing demonstrators from reaching the center of Srinagar, summer capital of Kashmir. Authorities announced an indefinite curfew, blocked Internet access and arrested three prominent Muslim separatist leaders. At least 15 journalists were beaten.

Despite the government's use of force, many Muslims in Indian-controlled Kashmir seem determined to find peaceful ways to voice their separatist aspirations. The slogans of the fighting in the 1990s, such as "I'm going to Pakistan to get an AK-47," have disappeared as the nonviolent movement flourishes, especially among the young.

"For the young generation, it's our moment now," said Malik Sajad, a 20-year-old political cartoonist for the Greater Kashmir newspaper who was raised during the war. "Nobody here saw a childhood. We were always kept indoors. But we don't believe that the solution is in the gun. Now we want to show the world that Kashmiris deserve peace."

The unrest this summer in Kashmir has left nearly 40 people dead, all unarmed protesters, and more than 600 injured in the biggest demonstrations since an uprising against Indian rule by the region's Muslim majority broke out in 1989. On Wednesday, troops fired on protesters in two towns outside Srinagar, killing two people and injuring more than a dozen.

Political analysts and human rights activists say the Indian government has failed to adjust its strategy to deal with a separatist movement committed to nonviolence. Some Indian political leaders, even those who disagree with the push for Kashmir's independence, are beginning to wonder whether India's democracy is mature enough to handle such widespread but peaceful dissent.

"India calls itself the world's largest functioning democracy. But if we are really a democracy, can't we let people express their dissent?" asked Omar Abdullah, a Muslim member of India's Parliament and president of the National Conference, a mainstream political party in Kashmir. "In every other part of the country, police or army fire tear gas or rubber bullets during agitations. Why do they shoot first and ask questions later in Kashmir?"

This scenic valley has long been the battleground between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, with each country claiming Kashmir soon after India's partition in 1947. The two nuclear-armed countries have waged two wars over Kashmir, and Indian security forces and separatist fighters skirmish almost daily. Fighting has left up to 77,000 dead since the early 1990s, according to human rights groups.

The current uproar began nearly two months ago over a land transfer that would have given nearly 100 acres of forest to a trust that runs a Hindu shrine. After a month of street protests by Muslims, the state government revoked the land grant. That sparked weeks of counterdemonstrations by Hindus in Jammu, a predominantly Hindu region of the state. Hindu protesters blockaded roads leading out of Kashmir, economically suffocating thousands of Kashmiri farmers during the peak of apple harvest.

The issue has moved beyond the land deal for Kashmir's Muslims, igniting a people's movement calling for self-rule.

The movement is "purely indigenous, purely Kashmiri," Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, one of the arrested separatist leaders, said in an interview before he was detained. "Even we were surprised by the force of it."

Muslim Kashmiris say they are tired of the daily humiliations at the hands of India's 500,000-member security force, posted in apple orchards, saffron farms and hospitals. Many say they are subjected to constant identification checks, car searches and arrests without reason by soldiers armed with assault rifles and wearing flak jackets.

A senior leader in India's government defended the curfew in Kashmir, saying that "possible militant elements could take advantage of the crowds."

"One can understand when there are reasons for people to assemble. But there is no logic for people to gather in public places without any valid reason," said Union Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta.

But the nonviolent movement in Kashmir has won over many in India's intellectual class. And in New Delhi, India's capital, public opinion on the issue of Kashmir has been mixed for the first time in decades.

Prime-time television shows have hosted debates on whether Kashmiris should be allowed to vote on their independence. A column in the Hindustan Times, titled "Think the Unthinkable," asked: "Why are we still hanging on to Kashmir if the Kashmiris don't want to have anything to do with us? The answer is machismo."

Booker Prize-winning author and social commentator Arundhati Roy has become a hero in Kashmir for demanding that the Indian government rethink its policy and calling for more international attention to the issue.

"The reaction of the people in Kashmir is actually a referendum," she said recently. "India needs freedom from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs freedom from India."

Peaceful Protests In Kashmir Alter Equation for India - washingtonpost.com

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill
and mountain shall be made low, and rough places will be made plains,
and the crooked places will be made straight,and the glory of the Lord
shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the
south. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of
despair a stone of hope. With this faith will be able to transform
the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of
brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to
pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand
up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing
with a new meaning "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of
thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride,
from every mountainside, let freedom ring...

..."Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at
last!"

-MLK

 

[dabong1]

The Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley has been beset with violence as Indian security forces confront huge rallies by Kashmiris calling for independence from India. The BBC's Soutik Biswas in Srinagar speaks to families and friends of some of the victims.

In a picture taken on a mobile phone 10 days before his death, 25-year-old Imran Ahmed Wani fixes a shy gaze at the camera with a disarming smile.
As his friends tell it, Imran was an average young Kashmiri man, working hard, playing cricket, and watching Bollywood films.


He also exemplified those in the region's new generation, trying to make the best of opportunities thrown up by a modest economic boom during the years of relative calm since Indian and Pakistan signed a ceasefire in Kashmir.
Imran recently quit his job as a field officer with a mobile telephone service company to work as a building contractor in his hometown, Srinagar, which has seen a frenzied real estate boom.
His sisters were on their way to what looked like promising careers: Aniza, 27, had begun work as an engineer in the irrigation department; and 22-year-old Shabila, was working as an accountant.


In his middle-class Baghibehtab neighbourhood, Imran's big ambition was to finish constructing the family home.
All that was before 13 August, when Imran died, shot in the chest by Indian security forces. He joined some 26 others who were shot dead as the forces battled to restore order in the troubled Muslim majority Kashmir valley.


What began as a reaction to a controversial row over transfer of land to a Hindu trust has now snowballed into a fully-fledged nationalist uprising in the valley.

There have been massive rallies calling for independence from India

"Look at the bricks, look at the stone chips. These are the last things he bought," says his friend, Sheikh Suhail, 24, standing on the dusty second storey of the house.
Two unfinished rooms, some bricks, a heap of stone chips - that's what are left of the last memories of his friend.
"He was a sportsman, he was a good worker. He was never interested in politics. But he had to die," says Suhail, his eyes welling up.

Why did Imran Ahmed Wani die?

Truth in Kashmir is often subjective - it is home to a conflict which is, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Cohen says, "a clash between identities, imagination, and history as it is a conflict over territory, resources and peoples".

Imran's friends and family say that he was standing on the side of the main road that skirts their neighbourhood. He was watching retreating protesters who were being chased by soldiers.
Then the shots rang out and Imran slumped. He lay on the road bleeding till an ambulance arrived.

Sheikh Suhail and a few others dragged him inside the ambulance. On the way, they say, it was stopped by more troops, its passengers hit by them, and only then allowed to proceed. Imran had bled to death by the time he reached the hospital.
Imran's friends show local newspaper photographs of the ambulance surrounded by security forces - it is obvious that there is a scuffle going on - with the dying man's legs dangling outside the vehicle.


The security forces tell a different story.
A spokesman for the federal paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force, Prabhakar Tripathi, says that its soldiers retaliated after somebody in the mob had fired on them.
And no, he insists, the forces have not attacked any ambulances.
"Of course, some innocents can get killed. When mobs attack us and we are forced to open fire as a last resort, some people who get killed may not be militants," says Mr Tripathi.

So the circumstances of Imran Ahmed Wani's may always be disputed.



BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | The families grieving in Kashmir

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

I've posted this video before, its the best ever made my western media.

I'm watching the video again for the 8th, 9th, maybe 10th time and every time I watch it I become more angrier. When will these people have their peace?

Shyt Shylock.. I have pointed to you earlier that the video is nothing more then comparable to a student project. Western media? did you read the words in opening of the video. Which reporter on earth will fill the frame 40 % of the time of the video that too with extreme close ups all the time trying to look serious. Do you guys even have an idea about Video journalism.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

I certainly hope UN sends a HR team to investigate the killings and do something about it.

We often throw stones from glass houses don't we. 300000 Bangladeshis dead, an entire gneration in Afghanistan has lost its innocence and a cycle of human development skipped thanks to your great game of cards. Wonder how your government does not face condemnation nor any investigations.... Its strange world we live in..

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Couple this with MMS's comments and its not hard to figure out whats in store for innocent people with the media blacked out by a country with pretensions to being a continuation of a 'great and tolerant civilization'.

India is tolerent and benevolent to anyone who believes in the idea called India irrespective of caste, creed , color, race, sexual orientation and any kind of political beliefs. Any one who does not beileve in the idea called India cannot expect the same treatment as who believe in India.

IPF

 

[Spring Onion]

India is tolerent and benevolent to anyone who believes in the idea called India irrespective of caste, creed , color, race, sexual orientation and any kind of political beliefs. Any one who does not beileve in the idea called India cannot expect the same treatment as who believe in India.

IPF

AS you brought the issue of tolerence so let us see how much India is tolerent irrespective of caste, creed etc.

If so why this happens in India




Identity crisis: Converting back to Hinduism couldn't save his life
29 Aug 2008, 0245 hrs IST, Sandeep Mishra,TNN


PHIRINGIA (KANDHMAL): Gayadhar Digal paid the price for taking matters of religion in a communally troubled part of the state too lightly. He was born a Hindu and died a Hindu, but in between he proclaimed his liking for Christianity. This cost him his life at his native Kasinipadar village in Phiringia block of Kandhmal district.

On Tuesday afternoon, Sangh Parivar men, enraged over the killings of senior VHP leader Swami Laxmananda Saraswati and his disciples, attacked his house. Gayadhar, with his wife and son, ran for safety only to be hacked one km away in the field. Gayadhar succumbed. Raimati and Baisnab, a school student, are battling for lives in hospital. Attackers set ablaze many of the 350 houses in the village, with the Digals suffering the most: losing their breadwinner.
Why was the family targeted? The reasons offered by their relatives and villagers would shock even the stoic. "My uncle was a Hindu. I don't know why they attacked him and his family. Possibly, it was due to confusion over his religious identity," said niece Malati. Saroj Kumar Digal tried to clear the air. "All the Christians had left the village and moved into the jungle, fearing violence. The attackers perhaps mistook Gayadhar to be a Christian and vented their ire on him."

Why him? And a villager whispered: "He practiced Christianity for sometime, but was back to the Hindu-fold later. Maybe those in the mob who were from nearby areas, didn't know about his reentering Hinduism."

"The situation in Kandhmal is such that Christians have started claiming to be Hindus to escape communalists' rage. As such, it's difficult to ascertain religious affiliation of people. Many people, even after embracing Christianity, choose to remain Hindus in official records for SC/ST benefits," said a police officer.


Identity crisis: Converting back to Hinduism couldn't save his life-India-The Times of India

 

[roadrunner]

We often throw stones from glass houses don't we. 300000 Bangladeshis dead, an entire gneration in Afghanistan has lost its innocence and a cycle of human development skipped thanks to your great game of cards. Wonder how your government does not face condemnation nor any investigations.... Its strange world we live in..

well that's a silly example. Bangladesh was legally part of Pakistan, not disputed territory like Kashmir. Pakistan had a legal responsibility to maintain peace there. I'm glad you didn't put down some silly figure like 3 million this time, but 300,000 is still too much. One cannot blame the situation of Afghanistan on covert policies of just countries. For example, India has been a constant supporter of anti Pashtun groups within Afghanistan and of seperatist groups within Pakistan for a very long while now.

The UN should be investigating any killings that occur, regardless of what the politics is.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

well that's a silly example. Bangladesh was legally part of Pakistan, not disputed territory like Kashmir. Pakistan had a legal responsibility to maintain peace there. I'm glad you didn't put down some silly figure like 3 million this time, but 300,000 is still too much

Dear Roadrunner
Read the context of the reply, I was plainly rebuking Neo's "we are holier then thou" attitude. The only one who can critisize us and you should hail from luxembrough or Denmark.

As regard to Bangladesh, having lagality over the state entitiles you to mass genocide?

You have also made my work easier by bringing in legality issue of BD. If a legal entity(according to partition) which is under your rule, can seccede and be recognised as an Independent nation, I don't think the legality(again based on parition rules) Kashmir holds any water. Did the people pf Bangladeh have referendum and seperate or would you have allowed seperation had you been able to ward off India in 1971. Thus the whole notion of Kashmir and arguments based on parition accord is nothing short of a hollow argument.

As regards to numbers, most credible sources have a range from 300,000 to 3 million or a median value, however most of them don't go below 300,000.

One cannot blame the situation of Afghanistan on covert policies of just countries. For example, India has been a constant supporter of anti Pashtun groups within Afghanistan and of seperatist groups within Pakistan for a very long while now.

Yes, that is the whole point every country has dirtied her hands sometime or the other based on various considerations and Pakistan is no saint either. What made you support or prop up one of the most atrocious regimes in recent times when the whole world left Afghanistan to ruins. Now you will argue about the reasons leading to Pakistans support for Taliban and Afghanistans destruction , frankly I don't care, you did what you saw deemed fit at that time based on certain reasons that affect your nation, this brings me to my primary argument that sometimes doing the right thing is not the right thing at all for ones own good.

The UN should be investigating any killings that occur, regardless of what the politics is.

Apart from international development, UN is becoming more and more irrelevant in recent times, the reason being it was designed and groomed at a time where major powers had beated the pulp out of each other and were reading for another round(cold war). So UN was effectiely designed to work on such major conflicts and not designed to be an effective arbitrator for low level policing and regional conflicts. Sad but true...

IPF

 

[dabong1]

As regard to Bangladesh, having lagality over the state entitiles you to mass genocide?

So your allowed to commit mass genocide in kashmir with no questions asked?

You have also made my work easier by bringing in legality issue of BD. If a legal entity(according to partition) which is under your rule, can seccede and be recognised as an Independent nation, I don't think the legality(again based on parition rules) Kashmir holds any water. Did the people pf Bangladeh have referendum and seperate or would you have allowed seperation had you been able to ward off India in 1971. Thus the whole notion of Kashmir and arguments based on parition accord is nothing short of a hollow argument.

The UN demands a free vote in kashmir to let the people choose what they want........they didnt say the same thing about bangladesh did they.

Yes, that is the whole point every country has dirtied her hands sometime or the other based on various considerations and Pakistan is no saint either. What made you support or prop up one of the most atrocious regimes in recent times when the whole world left Afghanistan to ruins. Now you will argue about the reasons leading to Pakistans support for Taliban and Afghanistans destruction , frankly I don't care, you did what you saw deemed fit at that time based on certain reasons that affect your nation, this brings me to my primary argument that sometimes doing the right thing is not the right thing at all for ones own good.

The taliban have not gone around the world and killed millions like the US army.
The taliban bought peace to afghanistan and security to pakistan.
The taliban did not ruin the country, it was already smashed when they came into power.

Apart from international development, UN is becoming more and more irrelevant in recent times, the reason being it was designed and groomed at a time where major powers had beated the pulp out of each other and were reading for another round(cold war). So UN was effectiely designed to work on such major conflicts and not designed to be an effective arbitrator for low level policing and regional conflicts. Sad but true...

If the UN is irrelevant why you indian jumping through hoops to get onto the security council..?

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

So your allowed to commit mass genocide in kashmir with no questions asked?

Why was there no mass killings(as you accuse) pre 1985 period. It was you who fermented the issue and in the process we got succed in, unfortunately we as a nation is not rich enough to develop doctrines or weapons systems that can prevent collaterol damage. If it Was a genocide, what prevents your brethen, who jump at any chance anywhere to go for Jihad, forego Kashmir. First sell your arguments to your own brethen(Islamic world) and your friends(US yesterday and China and turkey today) and then you can sell us pious plattitudes. Ever wondered why Saudis nor Chinese nor any of your Islamic brethen nor your friends as individual nations condem or sanction India over Kashmir. Think....

The UN demands a free vote in kashmir to let the people choose what they want........they didnt say the same thing about bangladesh did they.

UN of yesterday is not UN of today, UN is an entity of powerful nations as far as politics is concerned and their politics ultimately becomes UN policies so why should we be sucked into their ever changing policies. No, nation whatsover can follow UN blindly, sometimes unilateral interests come before multilateralism. If you believe so strongly in UN why did you recognise Taliban in the first place, Taliban was not recognised by the UN. If you recognise UN then you shpuld have had complete faith over UN over settling the dispute, rather then doing so you jumped the gun by trying to settle the dispute through armed coventional and non conventional conflict, altering the demographics of territory under your control. If you want us to respect UN resolution(in this matter) or want the UN (resolutions) to settle the dispute, you as a nation should have placed your complete trust over UN and should not have acted unilaterally. UN does not work based on your convenience...

The taliban have not gone around the world and killed millions like the US army.
The taliban bought peace to afghanistan and security to pakistan.
The taliban did not ruin the country, it was already smashed when they came into power.

Yeah yeah .. Taliban were next only to Mandela....

If the UN is irrelevant why you indian jumping through hoops to get onto the security council..

Dabong read my post again. the irrelevencey I mentioned is with regards to smaller regional conflicts and political upheavels, for which the UN was never designed in the first place. UN still retains considerable influence as far as greater international politics, trade, strategy etc . A permanent seat in the UN entitiles a lot of benifit to the member.. Kindly read my post again or try to understand the explaination I have given.

IPF

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You have also made my work easier by bringing in legality issue of BD. If a legal entity(according to partition) which is under your rule, can seccede and be recognised as an Independent nation, I don't think the legality(again based on parition rules) Kashmir holds any water. Did the people pf Bangladeh have referendum and seperate or would you have allowed seperation had you been able to ward off India in 1971. Thus the whole notion of Kashmir and arguments based on parition accord is nothing short of a hollow argument.

Pakistan was forced to allow Bangladesh to secede. First, by Indian sponsoring of terrorism and militants within EP that exacerbated the destabilization of the region, and then its invasion.

The final result was that of 'might is right', Pakistan not being able to defend militarily in the East, and therefore being forced to surrender. And in that surrender as well there is legality, in that it was a sovereign nation (Pakistan) agreeing (under coercive means no doubt, but nonetheless agreeing) to remove all rights to govern East Pakistan, and give up the territory. So it was in the end a 'legal' secession.

Kashmir remains disputed territory between Pakistan and India, and its inclusion into either country has been clearly indicated to be subject to a referendum, both in the conditions attached to the instrument of accession and in the subsequent UNSC resolutions, both of which the GoI agreed to implement, and it did so after Independence.

In fact the continued aspersions cast on the conditions of partition agreed to by both sides are, again, an implicit refusal to recognize Pakistan - because if you are going to argue that the conditions of partition are flawed in the case of Kashmir, then what is to stop India from claiming other territory of Pakistan, through any means, as its own because the 'conditions of partition do not apply'.