What's new

UN urges Kashmir investigations

Why was there no mass killings(as you accuse) pre 1985 period.

Thats how long the kashmiris people gave the indian govt to sort a vote out on the issue and you did nothing.....thats why they took up arms.
You rigged all the elections and started killing the people that why they took up arms.



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 OIC has condemed india on numerous occasions as have other world bodies.
Our brothers in the islamic world have helped the kashmiris in there fight for freedom......how many times have we heard from you indians thats its foreign fighters doing the damage in kashmir and not the locals........make your mind up!



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........


What has that got to do with you implementing UN resolutions?
Pakistan was not the only country to recognize the taliban govt.
How long did it take the UN to recognize the chinese govt..?



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

Mullah Omar is on par with Mandela as great leader.



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


Keep jumping through those hoops........kashmir is a international nuclear flashpoint....so you trying to downgrade the kashmir freedom fight to a "small regional conflict" is way of the mark and will be laughed at by the world.
Every news channel in the west is showing the seige of kashmir on tv and the oppression commited the indian army to the worlds public.
 
.
Pakistan was forced to allow Bangladesh to secede, by first 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.

You try to jump over one point or the another. On one ocassion you have based your argument based on UN legalities ie the right to determination of people, yet on the other hand your nation did not follow what it is preaching today untill it was forced to do so.A nation being soverign does not have anything to do with this, soverign states live and disintegrate, understand this simple fact first. Just because you are soverign does not mean your borders don't change due to variable factors. If Bangladesh as a seprate entity could be accepted as a reality. Kashmir, if legally integrated into India by scraping Article 370 (Mind you I dont care about Kashmiris , I am referring to the landmass), slowly but surely it will too move from disputed to undisputed one.

As far as legality of Pakistan's recognition of BD is concerned, you yourself have pointed out that it was done through coercive means and was not free from influence. This is exactly what I have been pointing out to you i.e the same pressures and influences were there during parititon agreement and thus the partition agreement cannot be taken as the be all and end all for dispute resolution. If so the conflict will never end. Both sides will have to make sacrifices you accepting IK and us accepting AJK as reality and moving one. Now you will tell me that IK is not ours in the first place, frankly I Don't care. If you need to visit IK you need an Indian visa which says it all and I don't see that ending for a long time to come. To sum it up, why should I sitting in south and you sitting in far away place, both not related by blood to any Kashmiris be fighting over them when all thry could do was feed from our tax payers money.

Kashmir remains disputed territory, 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.

I have clearly explained above as to why Instrument of accession cannot be the sole basis for solution.

I have also explained to you several times as to why UNSC or UN resolutions don't necessarily need to be the norm and you cannot impose it upon us, as you as a nation did not trust the UN resolution in the first place historically.

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'.

Wrong, I merely stating that condition of partition cannot be the only sole basis of modern conflict resolution between the two nations. Agreements are always signed, violated and ratified and then again violated. There is no such thing as the ideal agreement that one should follow. So your argument that my argument leads to indications of not recognising the legality of Pakistan is flawed, infact the agreement of parititon was relevant at that frame of time.

As far as invasion of territry is concerned, your argument is higly illogical. Of course invasions and counterinvasions are a regular occurance, historically speaking and also in modern times, like I pointed out borders are fluid and are not permanent in the first place, whether you have a parition agreemnt or you don't with your neighbour.
 
.
Thats how long the kashmiris people gave the indian govt to sort a vote out on the issue and you did nothing.....thats why they took up arms.

Bollocks, that was how long it took your government to realise that Kashmir cannot be taken through conventional means and needs non conventional approach to score a win against India.

The OIC has condemed india on numerous occasions as have other world bodies.

Read properly, I have clearly pointed out that no Individual Islamic nation have condemned nor have raised the issue of Kashmir in any major international bodies, nor have they even given a thought about placing trade restrictions or embargoes. Ever wonder why don't they treat us like they do to Israel.. Think ......

Our brothers in the islamic world have helped the kashmiris in there fight for freedom......how many times have we heard from you indians thats its foreign fighters doing the damage in kashmir and not the locals........make your mind up!

Err by foreign millitants we mean Pakistanis and Pushto fighters ..

Now go to Bosnia or Chechenya or Palestine or Iraq, heck even Indonesia and Philipines, you have a huge convergence of your Islamic brethen all over the world. In Kashmiri case I don't find any of them interested in your cause except your citizens and your nation whose psyche atrtains happiness on scoring brownie points against Indians.

What has that got to do with you implementing UN resolutions?
Pakistan was not the only country to recognize the taliban govt.
How long did it take the UN to recognize the chinese govt..?
It means that weather we implement UN resolutions or not depends on our choosing and not on yours.

Mullah Omar is on par with Mandela as great leader.

Ok If this the kind of argument you are putting forth, you can ignore me .. It will save a lot of time for both of us.

Keep jumping through those hoops........kashmir is a international nuclear flashpoint....so you trying to downgrade the kashmir freedom fight to a "small regional conflict" is way of the mark and will be laughed at by the world.

Frankly the world dosen't even care..

Every news channel in the west is showing the seige of kashmir on tv and the oppression commited the indian army to the worlds public.

Guess what Bolivian and Thai protests got more coverage than Kashmir. Kashmir does not even figure in the ticker of CNN anymore....Kashmir does not sell, you have done a poor job of sellling Kashmiri issue. Period
 
.
Bollocks, that was how long it took your government to realise that Kashmir cannot be taken through conventional means and needs non conventional approach to score a win against India.

By "conventional means" you mean a fair election.
By"non conventional approach" you mean occupation.

When will you indian understand......we dont want to be a part of india...never have never will.


Read properly, I have clearly pointed out that no Individual Islamic nation have condemned nor have raised the issue of Kashmir in any major international bodies, nor have they even given a thought about placing trade restrictions or embargoes. Ever wonder why don't they treat us like they do to Israel.. Think .......

The OIC is a group of islamic countries that has condemed india......what do you want each and every minister to come and condem india..?
You point about an embargoe is not valid.......did the muslim countries place a embargo on the US for its attacks on iraq/afghanistan.....no
Does jordan or egypt have a embargo on israel...no

Allah willing once the muslim nations unite under a single government then you will see embargo's being placed.



Err by foreign millitants we mean Pakistanis and Pushto fighters .

You must be very naive to believe that only pakistan's and afghans helped the freedom fighters.

Now go to Bosnia or Chechenya or Palestine or Iraq, heck even Indonesia and Philipines, you have a huge convergence of your Islamic brethen all over the world. In Kashmiri case I don't find any of them interested in your cause except your citizens and your nation whose psyche atrtains happiness on scoring brownie points against Indians..


Once you have been to jumma prayer in a few muslim countries then tell me if the kashmir issue is not mentioned by the vast majority of masjids around the world.
Its a global issue no matter how much you dont want to believe it.


It means that weather we implement UN resolutions or not depends on our choosing and not on yours...

At least you accept that there are UN resolutions to implement.



Ok If this the kind of argument you are putting forth, you can ignore me .. It will save a lot of time for both of us....

Mullah omar got rid of drugs,warlords,insecurity ect......a modern day great leader.
Afgahnistan was a lot better off under him them karazai.
The USA offered the guy all sorts and then came the threats.......like a true hero he told the US f*ck off and is at the current moment kickig US as*.



Frankly the world dosen't even care...

Off course it doesnt care..:rofl::rofl:



Guess what Bolivian and Thai protests got more coverage than Kashmir. Kashmir does not even figure in the ticker of CNN anymore....Kashmir does not sell, you have done a poor job of sellling Kashmiri issue. Period

I dont know what channel your watching but it been all over the international media...al jazeera,BBC,CCN ect.
Check my recent post on the issue and you will see all the links are from well known western media outlets.

You just go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
 
.
You try to jump over one point or the another. On one ocassion you have based your argument based on UN legalities ie the right to determination of people, yet on the other hand your nation did not follow what it is preaching today untill it was forced to do so.A nation being soverign does not have anything to do with this, soverign states live and disintegrate, understand this simple fact first. Just because you are soverign does not mean your borders don't change due to variable factors. If Bangladesh as a seprate entity could be accepted as a reality. Kashmir, if legally integrated into India by scraping Article 370 (Mind you I dont care about Kashmiris , I am referring to the landmass), slowly but surely it will too move from disputed to undisputed one.

As far as legality of Pakistan's recognition of BD is concerned, you yourself have pointed out that it was done through coercive means and was not free from influence. This is exactly what I have been pointing out to you i.e the same pressures and influences were there during parititon agreement and thus the partition agreement cannot be taken as the be all and end all for dispute resolution. If so the conflict will never end. Both sides will have to make sacrifices you accepting IK and us accepting AJK as reality and moving one. Now you will tell me that IK is not ours in the first place, frankly I Don't care. If you need to visit IK you need an Indian visa which says it all and I don't see that ending for a long time to come. To sum it up, why should I sitting in south and you sitting in far away place, both not related by blood to any Kashmiris be fighting over them when all thry could do was feed from our tax payers money.



I have clearly explained above as to why Instrument of accession cannot be the sole basis for solution.

I have also explained to you several times as to why UNSC or UN resolutions don't necessarily need to be the norm and you cannot impose it upon us, as you as a nation did not trust the UN resolution in the first place historically.



Wrong, I merely stating that condition of partition cannot be the only sole basis of modern conflict resolution between the two nations. Agreements are always signed, violated and ratified and then again violated. There is no such thing as the ideal agreement that one should follow. So your argument that my argument leads to indications of not recognising the legality of Pakistan is flawed, infact the agreement of parititon was relevant at that frame of time.

As far as invasion of territry is concerned, your argument is higly illogical. Of course invasions and counterinvasions are a regular occurance, historically speaking and also in modern times, like I pointed out borders are fluid and are not permanent in the first place, whether you have a parition agreemnt or you don't with your neighbour.

There is no jumping around here - the two situations are not analogous.

I am not suggesting that India's involvement in the EP issue was legal, or correct, but that Pakistan legally gave up its right to the territory of EP.

That situation is not comparable to Kashmir, in which both sides agreed to the instrument of partition, not just the agreement over conditions related to the accession of states, but the entire partition. To question that agreement, that was not liked in entirety by either side (thats what happens with compromises between parties) is to question the existence of the Pakistani State, since the rejection of the conditions and legality of the instrument of accession of Kashmir (on whatever grounds) also calls into question the entire framework of partition - and that is unacceptable.

The UN resolutions are completely valid, since both nations agreed to them.

Furthermore, it is not so much that the conditions of the IoA or the UNSC resolutions must be followed to a T, but that they lay out the only moral and ethical way to resolve the territorial dispute - that of the people of Kashmir deciding for themselves which nation they wish to join.
 
.
By "conventional means" you mean a fair election.
By"non conventional approach" you mean occupation.

When will you indian understand......we dont want to be a part of india...never have never will.

When I meant conventional means I mean Pakistan's inability to take Kashmirby conventional millatary means

By uncoventional means I mean Pakistans inability or apparent failure to take Kashmir through millitancy, terrorism and violence.

As far as you willingness to stay with India, I concurr with you. Indian government shoud allow Indian Kashmiris to move to Pakistan or anywhere in world if they don;t want to live in India.

When will you indian understand......we dont want to be a part of india...never have never will.

You (Indian kashmris) have eaten my tax money shamelessly, If you did not want to be with India yo should not have accepted the free lunch we have been providing you. Period....
You must be very naive to believe that only pakistan's and afghans helped the freedom fighters.

The insurgents are primarily from Pakistan and from Pushto background...


The OIC is a group of islamic countries that has condemed india......what do you want each and every minister to come and condem india..?

Yeah because each and every one does not want to be seen anti India individually... They have more to loose taking anti India stand indivdually then behind OIC which incedentally is a toothless organisation anyways.

You point about an embargoe is not valid.......did the muslim countries place a embargo on the US for its attacks on iraq/afghanistan.....no
Does jordan or egypt have a embargo on israel...no

There are Islamic nations that have condemned US or Israel individually ... so my point is pretty much valid....I haven't seen anyone of them condeming us ..

Allah willing once the muslim nations unite under a single government then you will see embargo's being placed.

Call me when it happens...

Once you have been to jumma prayer in a few muslim countries then tell me if the kashmir issue is not mentioned by the vast majority of masjids around the world.

Whatever, like I said it does not even sell among your own brethen to come out of mosques...

At least you accept that there are UN resolutions to implement.

I accept that there are UN resolutions because there are, but whether to implemet it or not is our choosing and not yours.

Its a global issue no matter how much you dont want to believe it.
You are free to have your beliefs... the reality seems different...

Mullah omar got rid of drugs,warlords,insecurity ect......a modern day great leader.
Afgahnistan was a lot better off under him them karazai.
The USA offered the guy all sorts and then came the threats.......like a true hero he told the US f*ck off and is at the current moment kickig US as*.

Yeah .... Mullah omar was Cheguvera ... yaaawnnn

Off course it doesnt care..

Yeah it doesn't care...

I dont know what channel your watching but it been all over the international media...al jazeera,BBC,CCN ect.

Like I said the coverage was nothing compared to events in some nations. Georgia, Bolivia, Thailand, Gustav occupied major channels predominantly, heck Kashmir did not even appear in the ticker after a few days...
 
.
There is no jumping around here - the two situations are not analogous.

I am not suggesting that India's involvement in the EP issue was legal, or correct, but that Pakistan legally gave up its right to the territory of EP.

How come two situations are not anologous? though not perfect they are anologous to a good degree..

If given an option Pakistan would not have given up EP legally, so you accept that when right force is used the rules of partition can be changed?

That situation is not comparable to Kashmir, in which both sides agreed to the instrument of partition, not just the agreement over conditions related to the accession of states, but the entire partition. To question that agreement, that was not liked in entirety by either side (thats what happens with compromises between parties) is to question the existence of the Pakistani State, since the rejection of the conditions and legality of the instrument of accession of Kashmir (on whatever grounds) also calls into question the entire framework of partition - and that is unacceptable.
The situation is absolutely comparable to Kashmir. A population that did not want to live under you, a country which wouldn' recognise the aspersions of the people. Yet you never gave up EP untill you lost it, thus it brings into the debate, flintlock's argument as to how nation's don't surrender their territorial integrity based on the wants of a few and estoric moral and ethical principles unless it has to be taken by force.

As far as questioning the agreemnt is concerned, I am questioning its validity as the sole guiding principle for both the nations. It was relevent at the time frame it was signed. Now this brings to the fore an interesting question(purely hypothetical), what if tommorow with the American help people of SWAT or NWFP or Balochistan declare indpendence and millitarily resist of Pakistan and the international community is quick to recognise these states, now waht wll you do with the piece of paper called Partition agreement? can that piece of paper make you get back seceded states?.. Think... Thus my argument that it is highly impossible that any document will stay as the sole guiding principle for demarkation of borders, as borders have always been fluid.

The UN resolutions are completely valid, since both nations agreed to them.

But then you never tusted the UN relsolutions to work in the first place and took other means and now that thoe means don't work for you, it is your(Pakistan) hypocracy that you now suddenly want a solution based on UN. Why should we base a solution on your choosing.

Furthermore, it is not so much that the conditions of the IoA or the UNSC resolutions must be followed to a T, but that they lay out the only moral and ethical way to resolve the territorial dispute - that of the people of Kashmir deciding for themselves which nation they wish to join.

You did not follow such moralities and ethics in EP unless you were forced to, so why should we do what according to you is moral..
PS.:Sorry for fragmenting this part.
 
.
How come two situations are not anologous? though not perfect they are anologous to a good degree..

If given an option Pakistan would not have given up EP legally, so you accept that when right force is used the rules of partition can be changed?

The situation is absolutely comparable to Kashmir. A population that did not want to live under you, a country which wouldn' recognise the aspersions of the people. Yet you never gave up EP untill you lost it, thus it brings into the debate, flintlock's argument as to how nation's don't surrender their territorial integrity based on the wants of a few and estoric moral and ethical principles unless it has to be taken by force.

How can you say that two situations are anologus?

Kashmir was a disputed territory since 1947. Was EP a disputed territory in 1947?

In Kashmir approx 90% of population are Muslims but Kashmir is currently occupied by Hindu dominated India. Where as EP was a Muslim dominated territory & it was part of Muslim dominated country Pakistan? Do you see the difference?

EP was part of Pakistan never ever been declared as disputed territory by UN. That's why Pakistan had to fight for EP and would and should had never given away EP legally. In the end the use of force & mukti bahni (creation of india) made it possible.

Now coming back to Kashmir, instead of the fact that Kashmir became part of India through instrument of accession, it also remained a disputed territory between India, Pakistan & China since 1948 with UN acknowledgment.

The situation is absolutely comparable to Kashmir.

Already answered above.

A population that did not want to live under you, a country which wouldn' recognize the aspersions of the people. Yet you never gave up EP untill you lost it, thus it brings into the debate, flintlock's argument as to how nation's don't surrender their territorial integrity based on the wants of a few and estoric moral and ethical principles unless it has to be taken by force.

You said that nations don't surrender their territorial integrity based on the wants of a FEW. How many few are we talking about here? About Muslims right? Those few make up about 90% of the total population of the disputed territory recognized by UN.

What Flintlock said is true for Assam & struggle of United Liberation Front of Assam fighting for sovereign Assam via an armed struggle. Its true for Khalistan movement India crushed but not for Kashmir because none of the mentioned states except Kashmir are disputed.

The fact is that nations can't hold long to surrender their territorial integrity when 90% of population is against the govt by realizing the fact that they are living in disputed territory and there are other possible solutions as well.

Also please consider your comments below you made in another reply.

You (Indian kashmris) have eaten my tax money shamelessly, If you did not want to be with India yo should not have accepted the free lunch we have been providing you. (source)

It happens when you occupy a territory and day dream that they will never wake up and demand their promised rights. You feed them whatever possible. You give them huge grants. But in the end if that occupied nation wakes up... A great sense of frustration appears at national level of occupying country. Your comments are one of the example. But whose fault is that? India's. Why didn't policy makers adopted an issue solving strategy?

If Kashmir strategy was well thought of and taken care of in the very beginning, you (India) would not be saying that.

Remember, frustrated decisions are never wise. Think you know that... don't you?

As far as questioning the agreemnt is concerned, I am questioning its validity as the sole guiding principle for both the nations. It was relevent at the time frame it was signed.

If the agreement was relevant at the time frame it was signed, good enough. Go to UN & ask her to destroy it or remove it. Try to prove it there my friend. Why India always shoot this argument is because she don't have anything else to say. Why doesn't India go to UN & prove it there that this agreement is not valid now. As long as it's in UN resolution, not only Pakistan but every country in the world has the right to speak about it.

Now this brings to the fore an interesting question(purely hypothetical), what if tommorow with the American help people of SWAT or NWFP or Balochistan declare indpendence and millitarily resist of Pakistan and the international community is quick to recognise these states, now waht wll you do with the piece of paper called Partition agreement? can that piece of paper make you get back seceded states?.. Think... Thus my argument that it is highly impossible that any document will stay as the sole guiding principle for demarkation of borders, as borders have always been fluid.

Again, SWAT, NWFP or Balochistan are not disputed states. Not disputed for Pakistan, neither disputed for India and UN. Now this is where flintlock's argument fits that as to how nation's don't surrender their territorial integrity based on the wants of a few and moral and ethical principles unless it has to be taken by force.

Pakistan reserves all rights to tackle the situation arising in its UNDISPUTED territory, either by force or by dialogs just like India is dealing in Assam & number of other states. Why Balochistan (Pakistan) & Assam (India) are not internationally hot issues? Because whatever is happening in these states are only concern of their own Govts. Why? Because they are undisputed part of respective countries.

But then you never tusted the UN relsolutions to work in the first place and took other means and now that thoe means don't work for you, it is your(Pakistan) hypocracy that you now suddenly want a solution based on UN. Why should we base a solution on your choosing.

Not Pakistan only, Kashmiris also want a solution based on UN.

I read somewhere that history shows that no mighty power has ever been successfully enslaved a nation for more than their three generations. Fourth generation of enslaved nation rises up and change the course of history.

If India hangs on to Kashmir, then she would be the first one in history.
 
Last edited:
.
brings into the debate, flintlock's argument as to how nation's don't surrender their territorial integrity based on the wants of a few and estoric moral and ethical principles unless it has to be taken by force.

I agree.........the indians will never give kashmir on the basis of a legal,moral or ethical principles,it has to be taken by force.
The GoP needs to get fully behind a version of hezbollah for kashmir.......forget the thousand cuts,we need a knockout puch!
 
.
Indian government mounts brutal campaign of repression in Kashmir

By Kranti Kumara

WSWS - 2 September 2008

India’s Congress Party-led Union government has launched a brutal crackdown in the north Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in an effort to stamp out widespread, open defiance of India’s decades-long de facto military rule over the state.

So as to preempt a potentially gigantic mass rally called by Kashmiri separatist organizations for Monday, August 25 in Srinagar, the state capital, the J&K state Governor, N.N. Vohra, deployed hundreds of thousands of heavily-armed police, paramilitary, and military forces beginning Aug. 23 and imposed an indefinite, round-the-clock curfew.

The 24-hour curfew, which remains in effect in all 10 districts of the Kashmir Valley, is exacting a terrible toll on the Valley’s overwhelmingly Muslim population.

People have been prevented from purchasing food. All schools have been closed. The sick, elderly, and pregnant women have been unable to seek medical care. Economic life has been paralyzed, depriving workers, petty-hawkers and other toilers of even the “right” to eke out a living. Tourists, meanwhile, have been left stranded.

All the media, including mainstream corporate dailies and private television stations, have been unable to publish or forced from the air. The only exceptions are the Indian government-run Doordashan television network and the state-owned Radio Kashmir.

The Indian state has also sought to bar internet access to some news websites.

The Indian government, which invariably touts India as the world’s largest democracy, has claimed that it is not prohibiting media from operating in the Valley. But this is belied not only by the authorities’ refusal to grant journalists and other media personnel with passes exempting them from the curfew regulations, but also by the arrest and/or manhandling of a score or more journalists by security personnel.

In breaking up anti-government protests and otherwise enforcing the blanket curfew, security forces have used deadly force against unarmed civilians. At least ten people, including a teenage girl, have been killed by security forces since August 25. This brings the total death-toll in the state during the past two months of anti-government agitation and counter-agitation to at least 40. Hundreds more have been injured, many of them by gunshot.

Security forces have also staged frightening, dead-of-the night raids to take several prominent Kashmiri nationalist politicians into custody.

India’s only Muslim-majority state is being subjected to “the most brutal crackdown ... in almost two decades,” reports The Hindu, a liberal Chennai-based daily. Yet Washington, London, and other western governments who frequently posture as defenders of human rights have failed to make any criticism of New Delhi’s actions.

The wave of repression in Kashmir was ordered, and is being directed, by the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and India’s security establishment.

According to an article in the August 26 Hindu, plans for the crackdown, including the blanket curfew, were drawn up at a meeting chaired by National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan two weeks ago. Narayanan, who heads India’s National Security Council, and Intelligence Bureau Director P.C. Haldar, then flew to Srinagar to inform the local security-force chiefs of their plans.

The central government was reportedly persuaded not to immediately implement the crackdown by local officials, who argued that the anti-Indian government agitation was waning. But New Delhi was rattled when hundreds of thousands of people showed up for an August 22 rally called by Kashmiri nationalists and thereafter moved quickly to crush the anti-government agitation.

”Meltdown” in Indian-administered Kashmir

The crackdown is the response of the Indian elite to the political crisis that was triggered by the decision of the state’s now-defunct Congress Party-led coalition government to give 100 acres of Kashmir Valley forest land to the board that manages the Hindu Amarnath shrine. (See Indian government resorts to armed repression in Kashmir, killing 21 and wounding hundreds )

The government’s ostensible aim was to provide better facilities to the hundreds of thousands of Hindu pilgrims who visit the shrine every year. The real reason was that the Congress Party wished to curry favor with Hindu communalist groups in the state ahead of assembly elections slated for later this year.

The land-grant provoked widespread protests by Kashmiri nationalist and Islamicist groups and on June 28 the Congress’ coalition partner, the People’s Democratic Party, withdrew from the government, depriving it of its parliamentary majority. Three days later the Congress government rescinded the land grant, but the PDP refused to rejoin the government.

Hindu communal and supremacist groups, including the VHP and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), responded by mounting a counter agitation in Jammu, the only one of the state’s three regions that has a Hindu majority, to force the government to abide by its original decision. Ultimately this took the form of an “economic blockade” that cut the Kashmir Valley off from the rest of India, disrupting the transport of essential goods to the Valley and threatening the Valley’s economically pivotal fruit exports.

The blockade in the state’s southern Jammu region triggered mass protests in the Kashmir Valley, where the population has long endured savage repression at the hands of a massive Indian army force. A number of paramilitary posts were overrun or burnt to the ground.

Under these conditions, Narayanan and the Indian security establishment, says the Hindu, concluded that Jammu and Kashmir—which for the past six decades has been at the center of the geo-political rivalry between India and Pakistan—was rapidly approaching “meltdown.’

Government denials notwithstanding, there is no question that the burden of the current crackdown is falling almost exclusively on the state’s Muslim population. Initially the curfew did cover some parts of Jammu, but it was soon lifted there.

This is in keeping with the way the local Congress Party, the UPA government, and the Indian security forces have acted throughout the shrine-land controversy. When compared with the vicious repression unleashed in the Kashmir Valley, the state response to the agitation by Hindu-communal groups in the Jammu region has been relatively muted. For example, during comparable confrontations, there have been far-fewer instances when security forces have resorted to live-fire. There have also been fewer arrests and far fewer curfews in Jammu.

The Congress Party’s state unit has openly supported the Hindu communal agitation over the land-shrine issue. The approach of the UPA government, meanwhile, has been governed by its concern that the Hindu supremacist BJP not be allowed to cast itself as the better defender of the “Hindu” and “national” cause against “Muslim separatists.”

While it loudly proclaims its support for a secular India, the Congress party has a long and unseemly history of pandering to, and conniving with, Hindu communal forces stretching back at least to the 1947 partition of the subcontinent into an expressly Muslim Pakistan and a predominantly Hindu India.

On Sunday, J&K Governor Vohra announced a “settlement” of the land shrine issue that caves into the demands of the Hindu communal forces. Under the settlement reached with the Shri Amarnath Yatra Sangarsh Samiti or shrine board, the government has agreed to place the land at the board’s disposal with the proviso that it only be used for a few months during the pilgrimage season, that no permanent structure be built, and that the J&K government retain title to the land. As a result of the deal, the Hindu communalists have called off their two-month long agitation in Jammu.

India angrily dismisses UN Commissioner’s concerns

So brutal has been the repression in Kashmir that even the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) issued a statement of concern, “calling on the Indian authorities and in particular security forces to respect the right to freedom of assembly and expression.”

It urged the Indian authorities to “comply with international human rights principles in controlling the demonstrators” and called for “thorough and independent investigations into all killings that have occurred in Indian-administered Kashmir.”

The Indian government, which in two decades of military occupation of J&K has accumulated an atrocious record on human rights by killing and disappearing tens of thousands, reacted with predictable bluster and defiance. A statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs admonished the OHCHR: “We regret that the OHCHR has issued a statement on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. This is uncalled for and irresponsible.” It further thundered that “India does not need any advice in respect of the protection and promotion of human rights of its citizens.”

Famed Indian writer Arundathi Roy has noted that prior to 1989 the Amaranth shrine attracted only about 20,000 people per year. By 2008 the number had swollen to over 500,000. While some of this increase is likely due to better transportation and the increased income of sections of the middle-class, many of the pilgrims, says Roy, have had their passages paid for by Indian businesses that patronize Hindu communal groups that promote travel to the shrine as both a religious and “Hindu national” duty.

1989 was a turning point in the history of Kashmir. The national Congress government rigged the state elections and, when large sections of the population protested, Indian authorities resorted to bloody repression. These events, chronic economic backwardness, and the rise of Hindu chauvinism across India, led a section of Kashmiri youth to take up arms against the Indian government.

Pakistan, which took control of the northern half of the princely state of Kashmir in 1947-48, had long sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to foment opposition in Indian-controlled Kashmir. It now used political and military support to the insurgents to tie them to its reactionary geo-political agenda and to propel into the leadership of the insurgency the most communally-minded elements.

India, in turn, has used Pakistan’s involvement to claim that the unrest in Kashmir is nothing but a foreign-exported terrorist problem.

A rude shock

The events of the past month have come as a rude shock to the Indian establishment. It had thought it had succeeded in pacifying Jammu and Kashmir through savage repression and by pressing Pakistan, with Washington’s support, to deny the Kashmiri separatists military-logistical support.

There is no question that the insurgency has declined sharply in recent years. While repression has undoubtedly played a role in this, so too has the revulsion of ordinary Kashmiris at the communal atrocities Islamacist insurgents have perpetrated and the Kashmiri nationalists’ manifest failure to advance any program that seriously addresses the socio-economic problems facing people across that state, whatever their religion.

The Indian elite, as National Security Advisor Narayanan conceded, mistook the success of its recent pacification efforts for a strengthening of its base of popular support in the state. “I think the [situation is] is far less serious than what is being portrayed,” Narayanan told a television intervieiwer. “But at the same [it is] time certainly something that we are very unhappy about.

“What is causing us concern is that [after] four years of improvement in the situation, [we] believed that we [had] reduced levels of alienation, [there were] substantial signs of normalcy in the State. People had forgotten about issues.”

The occupation of the Jammu and Kashmir and more particularly the Kashmir Valley by a huge contingent of Indian security forces for two decades has made life for ordinary people unbearable. Further fuelling the popular anger and frustration is the fact that the Indian government refuses to undertake any serious investigation of the innumerable rapes, disappearances, and other human right abuses committed by its security forces.

Given the reactionary role played by Stalinism and Maoism in the subcontinent, it is retrograde nationalist and separatist groups that have benefited from the pent-up mass anger in Kashmir.

In the final analysis it is the Indian ruling elite and their imperialist sponsors that are responsible for the ongoing nightmare that is Kashmir, and for the myriad of other national-ethnic and communal conflicts that afflict the country.

A progressive solution to the Kashmir crisis will be found only when the working class leads a movement of the toilers of the subcontinent aimed at overthrowing capitalism and the reactionary nation state-system imposed on South Asia by imperialism and the aspirant national bourgeoisies of India and Pakistan in 1947.

Indian government mounts brutal campaign of repression in Kashmir
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom