World Agenda: Kashmir - the elephant in the room

[Contrarian]

The Muslim states that are being attacked by them do want to control them.

The one fallout of extremism in nations is the attempt to gain power in the host country - you see it in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia even. Where the extremism bleeds into other countries is where the extremism sees major causes, primarily due to 'western interventions', or perceived 'Muslim occupation/suppression'. That was the case for the movement of extremism into Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Sinkiang, Philippines etc.

In the majority of these cases it is the 'dispute' that drives the 'intervention by extremists', otherwise they woudl be primarily focused on overthrowing the regimes in their respective countries.

One question:

Why do the funds for madrassas all around the globe and PRIMARILY in South Asia continue to come from Saudi Arabia and UAE?

 

[Flintlock]

As if anyone would care what that ***** salman rushdie says. Moderators remove the link no one wants to hear salman rushdie...the face of india.

He is one of the greatest authors of modern times, a great thinker, and a highly respected man.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

He is one of the greatest authors of modern times, a great thinker, and a highly respected man.

He is all of that, but his views on the Muslim world are many times distorted by his ardent atheism, and result in extremely flawed analysis, such as the one on Kashmir I criticized.

His irrational dislike of religion, and Islam specifically, led him to make an argument that was easily disproved and utterly contradictory of history and facts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

One question:

Why do the funds for madrassas all around the globe and PRIMARILY in South Asia continue to come from Saudi Arabia and UAE?

Saudi Arabia more than any other, and I'll comment on Saudi Arabia only.

The majority of the money for proselytism comes from Saudi becasue the religious organizations involved are well funded and have state support. They have state support becasue the Saudi State uses them to maintain themselves in power.

They are of course fighting their own internal militant movement that seeks to overthrow the Saudi system.


Nonetheless, whether the funds come from Saudi or UAE is besides the point. My argument was that extremism needs 'causes' and 'disputes' to actually flourish in 'external areas', such as Kashmir and Iraq, and it can be denied that 'fuel' by resolving those disputes

 

[Vinod2070]

My argument was that extremism needs 'causes' and 'disputes' to actually flourish in 'external areas', such as Kashmir and Iraq, and it can be denied that 'fuel' by resolving those disputes

I don't quite agree. Please refer to the post earlier in the thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...genda-kashmir-elephant-room-3.html#post281549

If you look at the terrorist organizations all over the world, very few are linked to any external "cause".

Kashmir is not an Islamic issue for anyone except Pakistan. Pakistan wants the territory and therefor tried to make it an "Islamic" cause which has only backfired in the long term.

Tell me out of the terror organizations in our region, which are fighting for the "external" causes and how strong they are compared to those who have only Pakistan and Afghanistan as their current targets?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't quite agree. Please refer to the post earlier in the thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...genda-kashmir-elephant-room-3.html#post281549

If you look at the terrorist organizations all over the world, very few are linked to any external "cause".

Kashmir is not an Islamic issue for anyone except Pakistan. Pakistan wants the territory and therefor tried to make it an "Islamic" cause which has only backfired in the long term.

Tell me out of the terror organizations in our region, which are fighting for the "external" causes and how strong they are compared to those who have only Pakistan and Afghanistan as their current targets?

I am not saying that extremism will only flourish in external causes, I am suggesting that external causes can be used as a flash point.

But however you look at it, Kashmir has violence, from internal and external sources, religious insurgents and not so religious, becasue the dispute remains unresolved and the occupation continues - the dispute causes the violence, not the other way around as some have suggested.

 

[DarkStar]

The Violence in Kashmir started in the late 80s, with the JKLF arming itself after the hanging of its leader, Maqbool Butt by Bharat. This is an avowedly secular Nationalist group, counting prominent godless communists as its leaders. It was only later, that religiously inspired groups came into the fray.

The early terrorists in Palestine, such as the DFLP, PFLP, etc were also socialists, christians, communists and muslims who had come together for a nationlist cause. The Islamists did not come into the equation until maybe the late 80's and 90's.

Political disputes and violence are fertile ground for the sort of radicalisation that we have seen recently, with desperate people seeking solace in religion, and then using religious iconography and iedologies to further the cause they wish to fight for.

 

[Vinod2070]

I am not saying that extremism will only flourish in external causes, I am suggesting that external causes can be used as a flash point.

But however you look at it, Kashmir has violence, from internal and external sources, religious insurgents and not so religious, becasue the dispute remains unresolved and the occupation continues - the dispute causes the violence, not the other way around as some have suggested.

Yes, Kashmir is causing a part of the violence. That can not be denied.

However, the violence in Kashmir is only a fraction of the overall violence in our countries. In India, we have the Naxals and some other minor movements and in Pakistan you have had the sectarian gangs earlier and now the likes of Taliban that are mainly internally focused.

They are much stronger than those causing the Kashmiri violence. Much much stronger and more numerous.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, Kashmir is causing a part of the violence. That can not be denied.

However, the violence in Kashmir is only a fraction of the overall violence in our countries. In India, we have the Naxals and some other minor movements and in Pakistan you have had the sectarian gangs earlier and now the likes of Taliban that are mainly internally focused.

They are much stronger than those causing the Kashmiri violence. Much much stronger and more numerous.

In almost all cases there is a rationale behind the violence that can be addressed - Baluchistan is lack of development (and we believe Indian support, otherwise it woudl have die out a long time ago), Kashmir is the unresolved dispute.

The taliban in Pakistan spawned in the aftermath of the US invasion, so the situation in Pakistan is directly connected to an 'external factor'. It has since morphed into a movement with a local goal as well, imposing some form of 'Shariah' or whatever. But the original component exists primarily becasue of the US presence in Afghanistan.

I suppose every situation has different dynamics to it, and it would be incorrect to merely paint them all with the same brush, as Rusdie did, and as the GoI wishes to do by tying the Kashmir freedom movement into the GWOT.

Violence in Kashmir can be easily removed with India and Pakistan acting to resolve the issue.

 

[Vinod2070]

In almost all cases there is a rationale behind the violence that can be addressed - Baluchistan is lack of development (and we believe Indian support, otherwise it woudl have die out a long time ago), Kashmir is the unresolved dispute.

The taliban in Pakistan spawned in the aftermath of the US invasion, so the situation in Pakistan is directly connected to an 'external factor'. It has since morphed into a movement with a local goal as well, imposing some form of 'Shariah' or whatever. But the original component exists primarily becasue of the US presence in Afghanistan.

So, basically the proponents of the morphed movement are using American aggression as a proxy for some other goals. Similarly many are possibly exploiting the other "causes" for issues much closer home.

The point is the issues are being picked based on convenience to get recruits. If there is not an cause available, it can always be manufactured. That is the reason I feel that the resolution of longstanding disputes should not be linked to all forms of terrorism.

This is not to dilute the importance of resolving disputes but to deny the terrorists any legitimacy.

I suppose every situation has different dynamics to it, and it would be incorrect to merely paint them all with the same brush, as Rusdie did, and as the GoI wishes to do by tying the Kashmir freedom movement into the GWOT.

Again I feel it was linked to GWOT because Pakistan used the Afghan rebels in Kashmir and sundry other militants from Pakistan too got into the game with official support.

If it were only the local Kashmiris who were involved, India won't be able to make that linkage with any credibility.

Violence in Kashmir can be easily removed with India and Pakistan acting to resolve the issue.

I hope to live to see that day.

 

[Flintlock]

He is all of that, but his views on the Muslim world are many times distorted by his ardent atheism, and result in extremely flawed analysis, such as the one on Kashmir I criticized.

His irrational dislike of religion, and Islam specifically, led him to make an argument that was easily disproved and utterly contradictory of history and facts.

I find that to be completely untrue and just another excuse to avoid countering his perfectly logical arguments.

His understanding of the muslim world isn't based on some sort of prejudice against Islam or religion, that's the wrong way of thinking. I would phrase it differently , say, that his views on the Kashmir conflict are made even more accurate by the fact that he has no religious affiliations. His views are perfectly rational, without bias towards any one religon.
The fact that he is an atheist means, quite simply, that his understanding of religion is excellent.

Infact, your views are biased towards the terrorists' because of your own affiliations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I find that to be completely untrue and just another excuse to avoid countering his perfectly logical arguments.

I did counter his arguments, that is essentially the direction the conversation took, especially Vinod and my last posts - you are the one who hasn't responded since.

This is how you summarized his views:

What he's saying, is that the terror groups are a force unto themselves, and they will find some cause or the other to keep themselves going as long as the Pakistani state turns a blind eye towards their activities.

First, he is wrong becasue he is lumping in groups fighting the Indian occupation with terrorists, that alone betrays his bias.

He is true to the extent that any force other than the State that is armed and organized will need to be dismantled by the state, otherwise it is entirely possible that such a force will find it hard to give up the power it enjoys. By the dismantling of such forces once Kashmir is resolved is a given, since Pakistan's only reason for supporting them is the fact that India unilaterally walked away from the agreements and commitments on peacefully resolving Kashmir - once resolve, the need for these groups vanishes, and their continued existence as an armed force will threaten the writ of the state, and the state will take them down, as in the case of the Taliban.

But he seems to be implying that Kashmir should not be resolved, since it won't make a difference - that is a very shallow analysis.

His understanding of the muslim world isn't based on some sort of prejudice against Islam or religion, that's the wrong way of thinking. I would phrase it differently , say, that his views on the Kashmir conflict are made even more accurate by the fact that he has no religious affiliations. His views are perfectly rational, without bias towards any one religon.
The fact that he is an atheist means, quite simply, that his understanding of religion is excellent.

Infact, your views are biased towards the terrorists' because of your own affiliations.

He is an ardent atheist, and I have heard him talk - just like Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I consider him to be the other side of the coin to religious fanatics.

Ardent atheists insult and denigrate the 'other ideology' - faith. They show complete intolerance towards those of faith, and ridicule them. If you substituted the word 'Muslim' with atheist in the above argument, you would be calling them bigoted religious extremists. Just becasue they claim to follow no God, or believe in the existence of one, does not make their intolerance and hatred any more justifiable.

You distort my arguments yet again. I support the struggle by Freedom Fighters against Indian occupation, not terrorists. I do not support those who as a matter of policy target civilians, and many of the Kashmiri groups fighting Indian occupation do not target civilians as a mater of policy.

As I pointed out elsewhere, there are revered figures in India who struggled against British occupation with violence as there revered figures in the US who did so - I view the occupation of Kashmir by India in the same light.

 

[Omar1984]

PHILADELPHIA: Former President Pervez Musharraf, speaking at Franklin Institute on Tuesday, urged United States to pressurize Pakistan and India to resolve all longstanding issues including Kashmir dispute.

Musharraf was of the view that Kashmir and other disputes between both archrivals were root cause of extremism in the region and added, “Radicalism can never be abolished from the region until the resolution of Kashmir dispute and other differences between India and Pakistan.”

He termed it legitimate and the need of hour to use army in overcoming terrorism but added that army operations cannot succeed in exterminating terrorism.

Musharraf indicated the substantial and swift growth of extremism in India and presented racial violent incidents in Indian Gujrat and Babri Mosque tragedy as examples that claimed scores of innocent lives.

Extremism in India cannot be ignored, he maintained.

Discussing Dr. Abdul Qadeers’ home confinement he said, Dr. Qadeer is the hero of a common man as he turned Pakistan nuclear power.


http://www.apakistannews.com/us-must-force-indo-and-pak-to-resolve-kashmir-issue-musharraf-102880

 

[Nihat]

There are many reasons why India will never cede territory

1.)India believes it has a strategic advantage in Kashmir , the rivers , the high peaks , highways etc. and ceding these to Pak will make it very disadvantageous in a future mountain conflict.

2.)A viscous cycle as follows makes it impossible to find a solution.

Frustration in Kashmir -Ext. and Int. Militancy - Army - Use of Force - more frustration - more terror - more army - more frustration.

2.)India also probably does not want to fuel further freedom movement in other parts by making Kashmir as an example for "Militancy can be used to get freedom".

3.)As a rising power , India fears that ceding territory will be a serious hit to it's power and image in the world.

4.)Any territory ceded will Isolate that political party from the scene for another 50-60 years + Right wing here is quite strong.

5.)Kashmir is a very small land area compared to entire India , as economy and technology boom , it becomes easier to maintain status quo and reduce monetary expenditure and human attrition as a % of the total.

6.) GoI has no guarantees that if Kashmir is given away ,there will be no more externally fuelled terrorist activities in In India , there infact maybe a rise in such activities in other states (corroborating with Point 2.)

Any member here can pick out each point and say how it's against ethics , human rights , UN etc etc etc but truth being that these are bare facts and reason enough for India to never hold a plebiscite.

A solution has to be found around these issues , India is happy and contended if situation remains the same over the next 50-100 years in Kashmir and will continue to grow , protests will emerge and go down with time , editorials and articles will be written but nothing concrete will happen.

As India gains more global acknowledgment , there is only so much that other countries will be able to pressure India on Internal matters.

It's majorly upto Pakistan and those people in Kashmir who want independence to push for a solution , India and GoI is happy to sit on this issue like an elephant for the next many decades.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

PHILADELPHIA: Former President Pervez Musharraf, speaking at Franklin Institute on Tuesday, urged United States to pressurize Pakistan and India to resolve all longstanding issues including Kashmir dispute.

Musharraf was of the view that Kashmir and other disputes between both archrivals were root cause of extremism in the region and added, “Radicalism can never be abolished from the region until the resolution of Kashmir dispute and other differences between India and Pakistan.”

He termed it legitimate and the need of hour to use army in overcoming terrorism but added that army operations cannot succeed in exterminating terrorism.

Musharraf indicated the substantial and swift growth of extremism in India and presented racial violent incidents in Indian Gujrat and Babri Mosque tragedy as examples that claimed scores of innocent lives.

Extremism in India cannot be ignored, he maintained.

Discussing Dr. Abdul Qadeers’ home confinement he said, Dr. Qadeer is the hero of a common man as he turned Pakistan nuclear power.


U.S. Must Force Indo And Pak to Resolve Kashmir Issue: Musharraf

US intervention in some way is possibly the only way to move on Kashmir.

Some people in India have unfortunately been brainwashed to the extent, like some on this forum, to where they will gleefully acknowledge that India is wrong morally and legally on Kashmir, but will continue to occupy it. That pretty much reflects the attitude of the Indian government.