Why India Must Change Its Kashmir Policy - the Diplomat

[Hamza913]

Secular Indian Muslim

WTH is that supposed to mean? You do realise that not believing in Sharia means you're not a Muslim, right?

it simply sounds funny when someone from the other side of the border feels that India will someday simply vacate Kashmir for the Pakistanis or the terrorists.

what they don't understand is that there is not a single reason for India to do that. we can maintain this low level of terrorism for centuries, keep on killing all the terrorists and do the business as usual. as long as the 1.4 billion people of India are fine with that, few thousand lives in kashmir does not really matter to bigger schemes of things.

that is the rude reality of the current situation ...

No reason to expect the militancy will remain low level. If low level insurgency doesn't work, they can and will eventually use more aggressive means.

You will eventually be forced to evacuate people from the area, just like Israel was eventually forced to leave Gaza.

The real question is, what happens next?

 

[Indus Priest King]

Like I said...let them remain with this policy. When protests are erupting in Kargil and Drass you know you're in trouble. A point will come where public pressure will force Kashmiri politicians to support unilateral secession...similar to Kosovo.

Sit back and enjoy the drama. The more Kashmir spirals out of control, the more drastic measures will be taken.

International opinion will automatically swing in Kashmir's favour.

 

[Peshwa]

Like I said...let them remain with this policy. When protests are erupting in Kargil and Drass you know you're in trouble. A point will come where public pressure will force Kashmiri politicians to support unilateral secession...similar to Kosovo.

Sit back and enjoy the drama. The more Kashmir spirals out of control, the more drastic measures will be taken.

International opinion will automatically swing in Kashmir's favour.

The tea leaves must’ve been strong! lol

 

[Indus Priest King]

The tea leaves must’ve been strong! lol

You folks are hilarious. Your soldiers keep getting killed or pelted with stones, you take revenge on Kashmiri civilians and then cheer...only to isolate more Kashmiris.

You seem to think Kashmiris will only resort to militancy. For your sake pray that Kashmiris like Shehla Shora, Basharat Ali and Umar Khalid don't get into politics.

You'll be screwed.

Kashmiris practically went on TV and said "We are not Indian". Lol. What are you smoking.

 

[Peshwa]

You folks are hilarious. Your soldiers keep getting killed or pelted with stones, you take revenge on Kashmiri civilians and then cheer...only to isolate more Kashmiris.

You seem to think Kashmiris will only resort to militancy. For your sake pray that Kashmiris like Shehla Shora, Basharat Ali and Umar Khalid don't get into politics.

You'll be screwed.

Kashmiris practically went on TV and said "We are not Indian". Lol. What are you smoking.

You’re under the misconception that we want to live with people that don’t want to be part of the nation. They are free to leave and we wouldn’t blink an eyelid. So let’s make that clear.

Kashmir the state is a part of India. It starts and ends there. Land stays, those who want to be part of Pakistan can go settle there for all we care if they have such love to be part of your nation. Migrations have happened in both directions in the past, this won’t be any different.
It’s quite simple actually.

But your predictions of dooms day scenario for India is quite laughable to say the least.

 

[Amalek]

WTH is that supposed to mean? You do realise that not believing in Sharia means you're not a Muslim, right?

Sharia. Laws for Muslims, and a constitution for Muslim lands. It is outdated and unfit for the modern world, because it is discriminatory towards non-Muslims. A truly modern state can only be secular, where all people, irrespective of religion, are equal.

 

[gutto786]

On June 14, the United Nations Human Rights Office published a 49-page report on the human rights violations in both India as well as Pakistan-administered parts of Kashmir. It called for the “respect of the right of self-determination” of the people of Kashmir and inquiries into the allegations of abuse.

I dont know if anyone noticed it or not. At every forum every one tries to tag Pakistani Kashmir along with indian side. Desparate lies to make it look like problem exist on both sides. When in fact its very clear how kashmiris can live in peace ...and that is by joining Pakistan and use Azad kashmir as an example

The United Nations has repeatedly been deniedunconditional access to both parts of Kashmir.

Lies again UN has full access from Pakistani side where they come and look at enslaved indian occupied kashmir anytime

 

[Lasit Borphukan]

t

WTH is that supposed to mean? You do realise that not believing in Sharia means you're not a Muslim, right?



No reason to expect the militancy will remain low level. If low level insurgency doesn't work, they can and will eventually use more aggressive means.

You will eventually be forced to evacuate people from the area, just like Israel was eventually forced to leave Gaza.

The real question is, what happens next?

there is no way the level of militancy can go to the high level.. there is no support for a mass rebellion across all the regions of kashmir, nor the people have the ability to face the might of the Indian state. it should be clear to everybody. even counties like Syria managed to contain and defeat an extremely organized civil war.

Honestly, this low level insurgency has kept the other section of the moderate militants alive. any divergence to a high-intensity insurgency will give India the free hand to crush them in mass.

by the way, who is going to support the militants financially and militarily ??

 

[Kompromat]

Kashmir wants Azadi from #HinduRaj

 

[El Sidd]

India has no policy on Kashmir to begin with.

 

[Hamza913]

t

there is no way the level of militancy can go to the high level.. there is no support for a mass rebellion across all the regions of kashmir, nor the people have the ability to face the might of the Indian state. it should be clear to everybody. even counties like Syria managed to contain and defeat an extremely organized civil war.

Honestly, this low level insurgency has kept the other section of the moderate militants alive. any divergence to a high-intensity insurgency will give India the free hand to crush them in mass.

by the way, who is going to support the militants financially and militarily ??

Never say never, you cannot predict the future. Unless the insurgency is eventually quelled, it will in all probability start getting worse.

An insurgency is different to a conventional war, your raw military strength alone will not be sufficient for you to obtain a victory, you need to win hearts and minds whilst completely demoralising your enemy, something I doubt you are capable of.

Syria also got crippled in the process, is that really the example you wish to follow?

Hindustan crushing them in large quantities will result in civilian casualties, and as a result there will only be more insurgents.

As is the usual, militants will be supported by countries who consider them desirable. In this case, Pakistan.

Sharia. Laws for Muslims, and a constitution for Muslim lands. It is outdated and unfit for the modern world, because it is discriminatory towards non-Muslims. A truly modern state can only be secular, where all people, irrespective of religion, are equal.

If you truly believe that Allah's (The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful) laws are inferior to man's laws, you are not Muslim, since you clearly seem to believe you possess an intellect superior to his, which is not only an insult but also a pretty dumb line of thought.

 

[Indus Priest King]

Oh great...here come the Allah boys.

 

[El Sidd]

Oh great...here come the Allah boys.

Allah is Enough.

 

[Lasit Borphukan]

Never say never, you cannot predict the future. Unless the insurgency is eventually quelled, it will in all probability start getting worse.

An insurgency is different to a conventional war, your raw military strength alone will not be sufficient for you to obtain a victory, you need to win hearts and minds whilst completely demoralising your enemy, something I doubt you are capable of.

Syria also got crippled in the process, is that really the example you wish to follow?

Hindustan crushing them in large quantities will result in civilian casualties, and as a result there will only be more insurgents.

As is the usual, militants will be supported by countries who consider them desirable. In this case, Pakistan.

L

Never say never, you cannot predict the future. Unless the insurgency is eventually quelled, it will in all probability start getting worse.

An insurgency is different to a conventional war, your raw military strength alone will not be sufficient for you to obtain a victory, you need to win hearts and minds whilst completely demoralising your enemy, something I doubt you are capable of.

Syria also got crippled in the process, is that really the example you wish to follow?

Hindustan crushing them in large quantities will result in civilian casualties, and as a result there will only be more insurgents.

As is the usual, militants will be supported by countries who consider them desirable. In this case, Pakistan.

Kashmir is land locked with tightly controlled borders, highly militarized with world's second largest army, and more importantly, the insurgency is confined to a very small portion of the state in South Kashmir.. there is no way that there can be a large scale insurgency that can be sustained and managed. even at its peak in early 90s with thousand of fighters and open borders, it was managed and crushed by the Indian Army. hence the scope for a new heightened insurgency is nill.

IN case of Pakistan supporting it openly, i don't think Pakistan has the resource and ability to support it the way Saudi Arabia or some other ME states did. moreover now India has the means and assets to retaliate in kind inside Pakistan as demonstrated in between 2008-2014.. What India lacked after the 2008 Mumbai attack was the ability to punish Pakistan militarily without taking much of casualties on her side.. but fortunately what India developed was the ability to punish pakistan with its assets ... example is 40000 Pakistani deaths in the hands of non state actors ..

Any Pakistan sponsored terrorism casualties will have its revenge not on the borders or LOC, but in the markets of Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Peshawar..

 

[Hamza913]

L


Kashmir is land locked with tightly controlled borders, highly militarized with world's second largest army, and more importantly, the insurgency is confined to a very small portion of the state in South Kashmir.. there is no way that there can be a large scale insurgency that can be sustained and managed. even at its peak in early 90s with thousand of fighters and open borders, it was managed and crushed by the Indian Army. hence the scope for a new heightened insurgency is nill.

IN case of Pakistan supporting it openly, i don't think Pakistan has the resource and ability to support it the way Saudi Arabia or some other ME states did. moreover now India has the means and assets to retaliate in kind inside Pakistan as demonstrated in between 2008-2014.. What India lacked after the 2008 Mumbai attack was the ability to punish Pakistan militarily without taking much of casualties on her side.. but fortunately what India developed was the ability to punish pakistan with its assets ... example is 40000 Pakistani deaths in the hands of non state actors ..

Any Pakistan sponsored terrorism casualties will have its revenge not on the borders or LOC, but in the markets of Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Peshawar..

Hindustan never crushed the insurgency, it remains active.

Currently, no. But as Pakistan's economy grows the militants will only get stronger and receive more support from the Pakistani military.

No, Hindustan has displayed quite the opposite, it cannot retaliate in kind. The only Pakistani insurgents that co-operate with Hindustan are the Baluchi separatists who don't really do much. The rest view Hindustanis as inferior mushrik daal khors, and would consider it degrading that anyone would think they are allies with Hindustan. If Hindustan really had it's own militants to use, it wouldn't have to make up stories about surgical strikes or threaten to invade Pakistan. Hindustan is militarily incapable of dealing with Pakistan, all it can do is fire shots at the border and send in undercover agents to sabotage the place, meanwhile Pakistan can not only do that but also support insurgents that can launch devastating attacks and send its special forces on cross-border raids. And if Hindustan escalates things with a full scale war, it will either become subject to a nuclear holocaust or a stalemate, depending on several different factors.

The only way for Hindustan to combat Pakistan is economically, but that's easier said than done.

Oh great...here come the Allah boys.

You can piss off to Hindustan with your Vedic BS, Mr wannabe-Hindu.