Why are Kashmiris sticking to failed strategies (namely militancy and Indo-Pak war)?

[Thorough Pro]

Are you blind and deaf, or just an indian......I mean idiot

why every time you guys live in Hindu/muslim dilemma. actually reality is that religious mind set is destroying yourself , it is not harming india.

for every single issue, you look from religious angle. then you also know what is happening with you guys from so called muslim brotherhood.

and lets come on kashmir issue: yes he has very legitimate question from 70 years they are doing again n again same tactics. there is nothing change? so if you have answer then go ahead , if not then ignore. simple is that. it is sad to bring everytime hindu/muslim etc etc.

 

[Gregor Clegane]

Well as N.Y. Times said back in 1999 during peak of Kashmir terrorism that being a mighty nation India can keep fighting Kashmir terrorists indefinitely and weaker Pakistan cannot take kashmir

Pakistan lacks the power to wrest Kashmir from Indian control, but its active support enables the insurgency to continue indefinitely. India lacks the healing touch to solve the Kashmir conflict, but can withstand a low-intensity insurgency indefinitely.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/02/...ntractable-conflicts-in-a-nuclear-shadow.html

 

[adil_minhas]

In the final analysis, Pakistan cannot afford Kashmir.

Sure they can keep fingering. Probably indefinitely.

But the downside from Indian retaliation is what Pakistan is slowly but surely going to run out of internal currency for.

Even if externally funded currency keeps pouring in to leverage a ready populace.

Versus that is an India that is not hostile and somewhere down the line probably even friendly. Dare I say, brotherly.

But Pakistani awam will never be allowed to steer towards that obvious understanding ....

 

[dreamer4eva]

India prefer status quo. IMO, counting on Kashmiris to become Indian and Pakistanis in longer run.
It does not want to go with Chinese strategy of changing demographic. No matter what people say, democracy is ingrained in Indian political leadership, and they are sensitive about public unrest. Changing demography will bring lots of bloodshed in Kashmir, and Indian government will only use it as a last resort if they think Kashmir is slipping away. Due to its resources and more importantly population size, India is in much better situation to sustain the war of attrition.

 

[313ghazi]

Militant tactics stand no chance against a military giant in the battlefield; occupation becomes a costly objective over time (on the other hand) due to non-stop flow of investment in logistics, operations and rebuilding effort in a region mired in internal strife and corruption.

In short, rebuilding effort does not succeeds in a state that is mired in corruption and internal strife. Militancy contributes to its destabilization and cultivates an environment of fear and projection, discouraging foreign investment in this manner. Eventually the occupation is called off.

Now, some history lessons:

War in Korea was conventional in nature; US lost in Korea due to full-scale Chinese military intervention at a later stage when US had almost conquered entire Korean peninusula. However, US was able to convert this defeat into a stalemate by pulling out of North Korea but holding its ground in South Korea. Chinese forces could not advance through the border. And contrary to popular belief, North Korea was a powerful state during this time with a highly disciplined and professional army. South Korea stood no chance against North Korea back then.

War in Vietnam is one of its kind. Terrain in Vietnam is largely unsuited for large-scale conventional thrusts and WW2 era technology was not netting good results there either. On top of this, bureaucratic hurdles, political instability and racial tensions at home had a trickle down effect on the cohesion of US military units. Mounting casualties were not helping the situation either. Conversely, Vietcong was a highly motivated, disciplined and organized resistance movement with full backing of China and USSR. This front against the Communist bloc turned out to be a disaster for the US.

Heck:

- France failed in Vietnam
- US failed in Vietnam
- China failed in Vietnam

Vietnam is an Asian tiger in true sense of the word in modern times.

However, US military is an entirely different beast now. It will soundly defeat Vietnam in a war today.

Finally, American (conventional) military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been success stories. However, occupations did not work out due to reasons cited above.

Highly organized militant forces like Mahdi Army in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan utterly failed to handle US forces in the battlefield and suffered tremendous losses in such campaigns. They simply switched their tactics to sabotaging American rebuilding effort; the regimes that propped up in both states, bore the brunt of such attacks. In this manner, Mahdi Army and Taliban gave the impression that war is far from over in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively and such propaganda convinced American people to push for de-escalation in these fronts.

The war in Kashmir has never been about taking and holding territory. No militant group can defeat an army at that. The tactics have always been about causing harm to the enemy. India feels it has to have a police and military presence in Kashmir. Constant attacks on those forces and the infrastructure that supports and houses those forces has frustrated the Indian army to such a degree in the past they stopped holding some territory where they felt the cost of holding it was too much. If you stand against a giant like the Indian army and try to go toe to toe, you will be defeated but geurilla tactics have been successful against all occupation forces around the world.

 

[sameerin]

agreed, India prefer status quo. even India has no intention to look for P-O-K land. even it will increase the cost. I think Pakistan is also not serious regarding kashmir, speaking in UN and giving a dossier is not enough. I guess Both nations prefer status quo.
But question is what is next?. Damn sure Kashmiries are not going to get anything from militancy & this unrest. even this is hurting their cause by doing so, even loosing their youth, destroying their generations and wealth. means they are loosing everything. Now world look all this from terrorism angle.

 

[LeGenD]

The war in Kashmir has never been about taking and holding territory. No militant group can defeat an army at that. The tactics have always been about causing harm to the enemy. India feels it has to have a police and military presence in Kashmir. Constant attacks on those forces and the infrastructure that supports and houses those forces has frustrated the Indian army to such a degree in the past they stopped holding some territory where they felt the cost of holding it was too much. If you stand against a giant like the Indian army and try to go toe to toe, you will be defeated but geurilla tactics have been successful against all occupation forces around the world.

I don't think situation is that black and white.

Militant organizations such as ISIS, Taliban and Mahdi Army - during their hayday - comprised of highly trained and battle-hardened soldiers and were heavily armed and disciplined enough to challenge a conventional army in the battlefield.

Some examples:

1. TTP (under leadership of Baitullah Mahsud) was able to contend with Pakistan Army in Waziristan to the extent that it was able to defeat Pakistan Army in a number of pitched battles. TTP lost that kind of effectiveness when US assassinated Baitullah and it fractured in the aftermath.

2. Taliban captured much of Afghanistan during its war against Northern Alliance (comprised of groups that were able to contend with the Red Army in Afghanistan earlier).

3. ISIS (easily) defeated the new Iraqi Army in-spite of its resourcefulness (equipment and manpower) and managed to capture large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. In Syria, Syrian Army was not able to stop advances of ISIS.

4. Mahdi Army turned several cities in Iraq into fortresses/no-go areas.

---

US military machine has unparalleled power projection and its counter-terrorism capabilities are truly formidable. American forces toppled Taliban from power in Afghanistan in a span of 2 months, defeated Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan and Pakistan in a span of 9 years, defeated Mahdi Army in Iraq in a span of 3 years and are now hammering ISIS in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. US forces also have assassinated a large number of militants in Pakistan (including the feared Baitullah Mahsud) via state-of-the-art drones, softening their resistance and making it easier for Pakistan Army to defeat them. However, this is not to say that only US is good in asymmetric operations:

1. German Wehrmacht soundly crushed state-wide Polish resistance movement during WW2 even though it was very well organized and severe.

2. The original Iraqi army (under Saddam Hussein) effectively neutralized uprisings in Shia and Kurd dominated regions in Iraq in 1993.

3. Sri Lankan armed forces completely eliminated Tamil Tigers in a span of 30 years.

Therefore, performance of a militant organization in the battlefield depends upon what kind of foe it is up against and its own capabilities. Similarly, every army does not have a potent counter-terrorism capability.

Indian Army might have suffered significant losses in Kashmir but it continues to endure. Though resistance in Kashmir is insignificant when compared to what US forces encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq and what German forces encountered in Poland.

 

[BlackIndian]

Why are Kashmiris sticking to failed strategies (namely militancy and Indo-Pak war)?

They should know that the strategies they have hitherto used have failed. Kashmiris have been trying these two options for 6 decades. It hasn't produced the result. Yet they are sticking to useless plans like hoping for a war and joining militancy in hordes. It doesn't work when Pakistan is so tiny and India is so big. Why then are Kashmiris sticking to failed strategies? Why aren't Kashmiris doing something that works?

Pakistanis may not agree with this angle but the answer may be that the Kashmiri leadership may be covertly on India's payroll. The likes of popular Kashmiri leaders like Geelani and Yasin Malik may all be India's agents. These Indian agents who are hawks in public might actually be intentionally serving India's interests by misleading the Kashmiri youth and masses into doing something that doesn't work. Just as Gandhi was British agent and was used by British to lead India's entire population astray, Hurriyat and other popular Kashmiri leaders may be Indian agents who might be successfully teaching Kashmiri youth to adopt bad ideas in their struggle.

How else would you explain that Kashmiris are still into stupid ideas like militancy against the giant country of India and hoping for India-Pakistan war?

I think you are right. Because families of separatists are living lavishly.
Even the army accepted few years back that they pay separatists.

Most of the separatists are double agents who are playing both sides.

Look at the case of Burhan Wani. Internet censorship is high in Kashmir. But they let Burhan Wani spread his propaganda on social media. His content was never blocked. Before his encounter he was never popular. But after he was killed he became a hero. Something shady is surely going on behind the scenes.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Why are Kashmiris sticking to failed strategies (namely militancy and Indo-Pak war)?

They should know that the strategies they have hitherto used have failed. Kashmiris have been trying these two options for 6 decades. It hasn't produced the result. Yet they are sticking to useless plans like hoping for a war and joining militancy in hordes. It doesn't work when Pakistan is so tiny and India is so big. Why then are Kashmiris sticking to failed strategies? Why aren't Kashmiris doing something that works?

Pakistanis may not agree with this angle but the answer may be that the Kashmiri leadership may be covertly on India's payroll. The likes of popular Kashmiri leaders like Geelani and Yasin Malik may all be India's agents. These Indian agents who are hawks in public might actually be intentionally serving India's interests by misleading the Kashmiri youth and masses into doing something that doesn't work. Just as Gandhi was British agent and was used by British to lead India's entire population astray, Hurriyat and other popular Kashmiri leaders may be Indian agents who might be successfully teaching Kashmiri youth to adopt bad ideas in their struggle.

How else would you explain that Kashmiris are still into stupid ideas like militancy against the giant country of India and hoping for India-Pakistan war?

@Kaptaan @django @DESERT FIGHTER @save_ghenda

@RealNapster

 

[django]

@Kaptaan @django @DESERT FIGHTER @save_ghenda

@RealNapster

They are yearning for freedom, no matter how hard Gangadeshis like you try to inhibit their thirst for freedom you will never ever quench it!!!

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

They are yearning for freedom, no matter how hard Gangadeshis like you try to inhibit their thirst for freedom you will never ever quench it!!!

Brother,

Kashmir is everything...

Kashmiris just want to be at home.. they want to be part of their own civilisation.

And NO..it is nothing to do with religion... it is a Civlisational difference.

Kashmiris will be part of their own Civilisation.... Indus Civilisation....After all how can Indus Civlisation can even exist without Kashmir?

From Kashmir to Gawadar... all part of Great Human Civlisation....

If Pak elite's haven't betrayed Kashmiris time after time... they would have been free in 1965.

You take good care!

SPF

 

[django]

Brother,

Kashmir is everything...

Kashmiris just want to be at home.. they want to be part of their own civilisation.

And NO..it is nothing to do with religion... it is a Civlisational difference.

Kashmiris will be part of their own Civilisation.... Indus Civilisation....After all how can Indus Civlisation can even exist without Kashmir?

From Kashmir to Gawadar... all part of Great Human Civlisation....

If Pak elite's haven't betrayed Kashmiris time after time... they would have been free in 1965.

You take good care!

SPF

Absolutely bro, we are the jugular vein of the Indus lands and throughout history civilizations in Indus have only thrived because of Kashmir and it is also culturally separate than Ganga/Dravid region.Kudos

 

[ito]

There is a problem in Pakistani thinking here. Unlike the cases put forward here, India thinks Kashmir as integral part and would go to any extent to defend it's territorial intergity. So no militant tactics will work. Moreover, majority of unrest is confined to 3 and half districts out of 22 districts of Kashmir, and India has the ability to quell the unrest.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

They are yearning for freedom, no matter how hard Gangadeshis like you try to inhibit their thirst for freedom you will never ever quench it!!!

They will go down thirsty.

 

[Bharat Muslim]

Actually the strategy works perfectly. If anything it needs to be re-ignited.

For 40 years we Kashmiri's endured violence and oppression and hoped for a diplomatic solution. There was none. It is clear that we don't have support from the international community for our freedom struggle - other than lip service. As the years have gone by even lip service is disappearing.

Only in the 80's as a response to extreme violence by the Indian occupiers did Kashmiri's turn to violence. The violence was successful. It pushed Indian occupiers onto the back foot - instead of harming Kashmiri's they were busy looking to protect themselves from freedom fighters. At the turn of the century huge swathes of the Kashmir valley were actually no-go areas for the Indian army. India regularly would call for ceasefires to then sit down at the table and talk. It was only because Pervez Musharraf buckled under pressure that the freedom fighting operations were reduced in scale.

Conflicts around the world since then have shown how new militant tactics can defeat huge powerful occupying forces. In the past we saw Guerilla tactics successfully defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Chechnya (even now they only had peace once they did a deal with the father of Ramzan Kadyrov). The same is true of the US defeat in Korea and Vietnam. In the post 911 evolved versions of these tactics have been equally effective in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.

The Kashmiri freedom movement doesn't have a salafi flavour to it, you won't see the likes of Al Queda and ISIS attracted towards it, however there is no reason why the use of guerilla tactics cannot cause catastrophic damage to the Indian armed forces in Kashmir, forcing them to come to the negociating table.

Now those days will return. Why?

1. The US is defeated in Afghanistan and is no longer a threat to Pakistan
2. China is investing in Pakistan therefore an attack by the US or India against Pakistan increases the chance of directly harming Chinese interests, risking a wider conflict.
3. The Russians are wanting to get closer to Pakistan due to CPEC which will mean India is less likely to get political support from them in a conflict with Pakistan.
4. Indian proxies in Afghanistan are being routed, our western border is becoming safer than ever.

This means we have time and resource to focus on the east again.

To win big you need to risk big. 911 was unfortunate for the Kashmiri cause and it resulted in a roll back. That time is over. Tipu Sultan said a day as a lion is better than a life as a jackal, we Kashmiri's have the same mentality. We won't be happy living as second class citizens.

Actually the resistance in Vietnam started in 1887; against all odds in a series of protests, riots, revolts and many 'full rebellions' - they finally achieved total independence.

It is not an ideal solution. Bloodshed is the last resort, nobody wants to see young men and women die, to see children orphaned, Indian, Kashmiri, whatever - they are all humans.

Unfortunately in the absence of any other effective solution, what choice do the people of Kashmir have? Diplomacy has failed time and time again because there is no pressure on India and Pakistan to move this forward.

If the international community was serious, they could organise a peace keeping force tomorrow and arrange a post by post simultaneous pull back of Pakistani and Indian forces from the LoC and then Kashmir as a wider area. This would then set the platform for all people of Kashmiri origin who can prove their residence from partition to return to Kashmir and then have a referendum on the future of Kashmir.

They don't get, Kashmiri's are not worth the political capital to the wider world community. Instead our only option is the military approach.

If we can raise the body count it will make it politically difficult for India to hold onto Kashmir, even more so if the conflict leads to the risk of a wider indo-pak conflict. As the stage sets for nuclear war, the international community will intervene to make both parties back down. It won't help Kashmiri's, only attrition will do that.

Militant tactics stand no chance against a military giant in the battlefield; occupation becomes a costly objective over time (on the other hand) due to non-stop flow of investment in logistics, operations and rebuilding effort in a region mired in internal strife and corruption.

In short, rebuilding effort does not succeeds in a state that is mired in corruption and internal strife. Militancy contributes to its destabilization and cultivates an environment of fear and projection, discouraging foreign investment in this manner. Eventually the occupation is called off.

Now, some history lessons:

War in Korea was conventional in nature; US lost in Korea due to full-scale Chinese military intervention at a later stage when US had almost conquered entire Korean peninusula. However, US was able to convert this defeat into a stalemate by pulling out of North Korea but holding its ground in South Korea. Chinese forces could not advance through the border. And contrary to popular belief, North Korea was a powerful state during this time with a highly disciplined and professional army. South Korea stood no chance against North Korea back then.

War in Vietnam is one of its kind. Terrain in Vietnam is largely unsuited for large-scale conventional thrusts and WW2 era technology was not netting good results there either. On top of this, bureaucratic hurdles, political instability and racial tensions at home had a trickle down effect on the cohesion of US military units. Mounting casualties were not helping the situation either. Conversely, Vietcong was a highly motivated, disciplined and organized resistance movement with full backing of China and USSR. This front against the Communist bloc turned out to be a disaster for the US.

Heck:

- France failed in Vietnam
- US failed in Vietnam
- China failed in Vietnam

Vietnam is an Asian tiger in true sense of the word in modern times.

However, US military is an entirely different beast now. It will soundly defeat Vietnam in a war today.

Finally, American (conventional) military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been success stories. However, occupations did not work out due to reasons cited above.

Highly organized militant forces like Mahdi Army in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan utterly failed to handle US forces in the battlefield and suffered tremendous losses in such campaigns. They simply switched their tactics to sabotaging American rebuilding effort; the regimes that propped up in both states, bore the brunt of such attacks. In this manner, Mahdi Army and Taliban gave the impression that war is far from over in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively and such propaganda convinced American people to push for de-escalation in these fronts.

The war in Kashmir has never been about taking and holding territory. No militant group can defeat an army at that. The tactics have always been about causing harm to the enemy. India feels it has to have a police and military presence in Kashmir. Constant attacks on those forces and the infrastructure that supports and houses those forces has frustrated the Indian army to such a degree in the past they stopped holding some territory where they felt the cost of holding it was too much. If you stand against a giant like the Indian army and try to go toe to toe, you will be defeated but geurilla tactics have been successful against all occupation forces around the world.

Reason why Pakistan has no chance of winning these particular types of war

Pakistan may win nuclear war with India but what's the reason it has no chance of winning conventional war, insurgency-on-enemy war (supporting insurgency on enemy territory) and economic espionage and sabotage war, diplomatic war with India? Answer is size – population size, geographic area and material resources. Soviet Nation was a great country and produced great individuals but Afghanistan shattered and vanquished Soviet Union because Soviet Union's population was tiny and it's material resources were scarce – most of Russia is nothing but cold desert. India is not Soviet Union. India has a dense population and is rich in material resources. It is said that a single state of Uttar Pradesh has a population bigger than the entire population of Pakistan. A common refrain of 1965 war is that it was a war of quality versus quantity. But quality has a limitation. One Pakistani soldier may kill dozen Indian soldiers but he has no chance against two dozen Indians. Probably this pattern holds in most walks of life except in contests like sports where only equal number of individuals can represent their respective countries.