9 Indian Soldiers killed,16 hurt around Srinagar

[aam_bandha]

Seems like India is waiting for Kashmiris to pop the lid, that is when you will see Kashmiri militants on the Delhi RTS or parliament building or busy shopping areas. And that is when it will be too late for India to do anything, it will probably reply with a surge in the valley, which will just gain more international recognition for the self determination of the people of Kashmir and independence will be imminent.

If all fails, then you can atleast threaten to widen the scope of terrorism...... is that what you are hinting at .... let me tell you this, India cannot be pushed into a corner by force ..... this is something the policy makers in Paksitan has also understood and hence the desire for a peacefull existance.

In regards to Pakistan being a failed state or not, it is in India's interest that Pakistan does not fail. So they will be mindefull of that.

[abdelyuuki]

Re: 9 Indian Soldiers killed,16 hurt around Srinagar

^ I'm not threatening anyone, lol, I'm just saying what could happen if things keep deteriorating, which I don't think they are, they've plateaued out at just being very very bad :/. All that needs to be done is to get the troops out, push them to the LOC.

[infiniti]

lol, no country will want to let what it conceives a 'part' of it go, but time and the ground realities wont allow it to go any other way, just look at Kosovo as the newest example, and surprise surprise, India doesn't recognise it, as doing so will legitimise the Kashmiri freedom struggle. America, EU, UK all have recognised Kosovo.

All I will say is that, Kashmir need not be independent, it can work within India, but India doesnt want it to work, Kashmir people themselves are not a fighting people, they just want to be left alone, and India wont even give them that!

Seems like India is waiting for Kashmiris to pop the lid, that is when you will see Kashmiri militants on the Delhi RTS or parliament building or busy shopping areas. And that is when it will be too late for India to do anything, it will probably reply with a surge in the valley, which will just gain more international recognition for the self determination of the people of Kashmir and independence will be imminent.

Pakistan isn't failing, they're doing fine, they have kept on par with a much larger, wealthier and resourceful India. Up until 1991, India was close to bankruptcy just as Pakistan was, both were in a mess. Pakistan has been falling behind India though 1995 onwards, I think.

If Pakistan was not involved with Kashmir, do you think India would have had close to a million soldiers posted there. It's Pakistan's interference which has led to the current situation. India did have the opportunity to win over the Kashmiri people before the insurgency started in 1989 and it wasted that opportunity.

Abdel Yuuki, from your account how much weight do Kashmiris give to religion to matters apart from personal life. Is it as pronounced as in Pakistan, which was created because muslims could not conceive living in a country where they are not a majority and are not the rulers of the country.
Because, if it is then I cannot think of any peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem.

Larger, yes, but wealthier and resourceful, compared to Pakistan, yes, but India has a long long way to go.

[janab-e-ali]

Who talked about E Pakistan???

Like I said, I was just wondering if you were as willing to look the other way when other nations commit war crimes in the name of maintaining their territorial integrity...or if that's just a special privilege you reserve for India. Judging from your defensive response, my guess would be the latter.

I did ask you a question though in my previous post.

No, you didn't. You simply mentioned that there was once a time when there were no Muslims in Kashmir...I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there. The current Muslim population is by and large descended from the "original inhabitants" and were politically independent from the rest of the Subcontinent for over 1,300 before the Mughal invasion. None of that necessitates any allegiance to the modern-day nation of India, or changes the fact that said nation invaded and occupied Kashmir against the will of the people.

If Pakistan was not involved with Kashmir, do you think India would have had close to a million soldiers posted there. It's Pakistan's interference which has led to the current situation. India did have the opportunity to win over the Kashmiri people before the insurgency started in 1989 and it wasted that opportunity.

Deny it all you want...the current independence movement is entirely homegrown. The rebellion started with native Kashmiris responding to a particularly egregious incident of Indian repression [the debacle that was the '87 elections]. Pakistan may have provided the rebels with arms and training, but that doesn't change the fact that this was, in essence, a Kashmiri movement. If this was just another Pakistani attempt at taking over the state, India would have successfully suppressed it by now as it has in the past. If anything, it's the homegrown nature of the movement and popular support it has gotten from from an increasingly embittered population that distinguishes it from the '65 war and whatnot.

[infiniti]

Like I said, I was just wondering if you were as willing to look the other way when other nations commit war crimes in the name of maintaining their territorial integrity...or if that's just a special privilege you reserve for India.** Judging from your defensive response**, my guess would be the latter.

Now, before I spend a few minutes of mine responding to your post, you need to explain what made you think my response was a defensive response?

This is a question you need to answer if you want to continue the discussion coz my discussions dont make assumptions and dont involve name calling, and that is why I did not want to enter into a discussion with you in the first place.

[janab-e-ali]

Janab there is no comaprison between the situation in East Pakistan and Kashmir. There is much more political space in Kashmir then was ever there in East Pakistan.

Based on what? During the half of its history under democratic rule, a number of Bengalis became Prime Ministers, Presidents, and Governor Generals of Pakistan...including candidates representing the Bengali-dominated Awami League. And as far as martial law is concerned, I fail to see how thats any more repressive than the 60 years of lip-service to democracy with puppet governments installed in Kashmir by New Delhi.

Now quoting out of context and without bearing in mind the timeline, anything can be given a negative connotation.

I'm sure when Gandhi was describing black people as lazy savages who had less right to their land than European & Indian settlers and who needed to be kept out of Indian neighborhoods at all costs, he meant it in the best way.

Of course no mention of Kashmir ... but then that is not my point. The way he has described the creation of Paksitan, an enclave for muslims ..... carved from India. But today if you look at history of Paksitan, they will go around saying they were always separate from Indian and the Arabs were their saviours....... However he doesn't think so ....Specifically refering to Arab imperialism, which in current Pakistan history you find no mention of.

Your comparison makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, there is a personality cult around Allama Iqbal in Pakistan...and yes, many Pakistanis don't understand his writings very well, which is why everyone from the secularists to the Islamists try to claim that their beliefs are consistent with "Iqbal's vision of Pakistan." But unlike your beloved Gandhi, I don't see any glaringly bigoted statements (in context or out of context) in Iqbal's writings...nothing shameful that people are trying to gloss over [in fact, Iqbal's rather shady lovelife is openly discussed in Pakistan...unlike Gandhi's quirky (if not slightly perverse) sexual practices]

So what exactly are you trying to prove here?

Also, on a somewhat unrelated point, Iqbal also believed in the separateness of the Indian Muslim identity...though he considered it more of a social/cultural divide.

[aam_bandha]

The current Muslim population is by and large descended from the "original inhabitants" and were politically independent from the rest of the Subcontinent for over 1,300 before the Mughal invasion. None of that necessitates any allegiance to the modern-day nation of India, or changes the fact that said nation invaded and occupied Kashmir against the will of the people.

.

This is something all Pakistani's and their backers in Kashmir always harp on .... Kashmir was independent from the sub-continent. As if the sub-continent (good play of word as you did not want to say India) was a monolith entity which then came and invaded Kashmir.

Present day Pakistan, India and Kashmir have their origins in the same history and even geography. The " sub continent" was a group of smaller nations which was brought together during the british period. So i dont understand how a punjabi or a sindhi or a gujrati is different as a nation from Kashmiri's. Even if a go to teh UN resolutions, again there is no mention as an independent entity. Though i must add at different time, both India and Pakistan have used this independence platform for their own gains.

Now that Pakistan has lost interest in the " Kashmiri cause" so you have some leaders talking about the independence formula. Maybe another 10 -20 years of similar situation before they realize that this is not going to work.

[aam_bandha]

Deny it all you want...the current independence movement is entirely homegrown. The rebellion started with native Kashmiris responding to a particularly egregious incident of Indian repression [the debacle that was the '87 elections]. Pakistan may have provided the rebels with arms and training, but that doesn't change the fact that this was, in essence, a Kashmiri movement. If this was just another Pakistani attempt at taking over the state, India would have successfully suppressed it by now as it has in the past. If anything, it's the homegrown nature of the movement and popular support it has gotten from from an increasingly embittered population that distinguishes it from the '65 war and whatnot.

The people who can normalize the situation in Kashmir are still in Pakistan. The network of militants still gets its support from across the border in Pakistan and till that is not neutralized, the situation will not change significantly.

This has happened in Punjab also, in the days of militancy there ...... it was similar to what is happening in Kashmir. The same tunes were heard human right voilation, people's right , independence ....... once the network in Pakistan was neutralized it took a few years for noramlization on ground.

The situation in Kashmir is no different ...... once the terror network is neutralized, the political situaiton will change. A lot has changed since the 90's......

[aam_bandha]

Based on what? During the half of its history under democratic rule, a number of Bengalis became Prime Ministers, Presidents, and Governor Generals of Pakistan...including candidates representing the Bengali-dominated Awami League. And as far as martial law is concerned, I fail to see how thats any more repressive than the 60 years of lip-service to democracy with puppet governments installed in Kashmir by New Delhi.

.

Yes once the west pakistani's realized that they are not going to get a chance to rule .... Pakistan turned into a militayr state. What was the core reason for the seperation of East Pakistan? Mujib had won the elections, so instead of supporting the civilan elected leader, Bhutto's was busy trying to supress the bengali's. He realized that the only way he can get a chance to rule is by supressing the population of East Pakistan........ I can continue on this but for now this much will suffice, but if you want we can carry on with this, i can open a new thread ..... Bangladesh and Kashmir ... the two opposites....

As for the elections in Kashmir, it is just a few people in Kashmir valley who have trouble with this ....... and valley is not the state

[aam_bandha]

I'm sure when Gandhi was describing black people as lazy savages who had less right to their land than European & Indian settlers and who needed to be kept out of Indian neighborhoods at all costs, he meant it in the best way.

Your comparison makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, there is a personality cult around Allama Iqbal in Pakistan...and yes, many Pakistanis don't understand his writings very well, which is why everyone from the secularists to the Islamists try to claim that their beliefs are consistent with "Iqbal's vision of Pakistan." But unlike your beloved Gandhi, I don't see any glaringly bigoted statements (in context or out of context) in Iqbal's writings...nothing shameful that people are trying to gloss over [in fact, Iqbal's rather shady lovelife is openly discussed in Pakistan...unlike Gandhi's quirky (if not slightly perverse) sexual practices]

So what exactly are you trying to prove here?

Also, on a somewhat unrelated point, Iqbal also believed in the separateness of the Indian Muslim identity...though he considered it more of a social/cultural divide.

Whatever you have mentioned about Gandhi is from his writing only !!!!!! so where is the question of glossing over or trying to hide. The situation you have mentioned is from his early life and formative years.

As i have said it is what he did in his role as a freedom fighter and a leader that you have to judge a person. That is the reason today Gandhi is a world renowed figure and an icon for a lot of people ... including black people.

[abdelyuuki]

If Pakistan was not involved with Kashmir, do you think India would have had close to a million soldiers posted there. It's Pakistan's interference which has led to the current situation. India did have the opportunity to win over the Kashmiri people before the insurgency started in 1989 and it wasted that opportunity.

Abdel Yuuki, from your account how much weight do Kashmiris give to religion to matters apart from personal life. Is it as pronounced as in Pakistan, which was created because muslims could not conceive living in a country where they are not a majority and are not the rulers of the country. Because, if it is then I cannot think of any peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem.

Larger, yes, but wealthier and resourceful, compared to Pakistan, yes, but India has a long long way to go.

Kashmiri muslims arent fanatic, they all accept and recognise their hindu/bhuddist past. They have lived side by side with KP's and bhuddists for centuries. And unlike the majority of Pakistan do not claim Arab ancestry (A proud Pakistani Rajput Punjabi or Chaudhry with arab ancestors always makes me want to laugh).

What Janab says is mostly right too, except I can't be bothered to argue in such detail, all I want really is peace in the valley, and for the KP's to return (my grandparents always say good things about their old KP neigbours) being muslim though, they still agreed with Mahjoor when he said 'Zauv jan vandha Hindustanas dile chuum Pakistanas Kun' something which I don't think Kashmiris agree with anymore, Janab might still agree with the second part of that though, I dont know lol xD.

[janab-e-ali]

@aam_bandha

This is something all Pakistani's and their backers in Kashmir always harp on .... Kashmir was independent from the sub-continent. As if the sub-continent (good play of word as you did not want to say India) was a monolith entity which then came and invaded Kashmir.

Present day Pakistan, India and Kashmir have their origins in the same history and even geography. The " sub continent" was a group of smaller nations which was brought together during the british period. So i dont understand how a punjabi or a sindhi or a gujrati is different as a nation from Kashmiri's.

1. Thank you for effectively stating that modern-day "India" is nothing more than a post colonial hodgepodge made up of the remnants of the British Indian Empire. Most Indians seem to get rather offended when I point that out, at least you recognize the artificiality of the Indian state and its lack of a real political/historic basis prior to the colonial era.

2. As far as Kashmir's historic connection to the Subcontinent is concerned, if you go look at historical timeline, you'll see that states like Punjab and Bihar don't really have much of an independent history prior to the transitional era between Mughal and British rule. For most of their history, they have been subhas (albeit culturally distinct ones) in various South Asian kingdoms, sultanates, and empires [the Guptas, the Delhi Sultanates, etc). Political developments in Kashmir were largely independent of those in the Subcontinent following the Kushan period (around 300 AD).

@aam_bandha

The situation in Kashmir is no different ...... once the terror network is neutralized, the political situaiton will change. A lot has changed since the 90's......

You can try throwing out these analogies all you want...it doesn't change the fact that the situation in Kashmir is unique. To start out with, Punjab was not forcibly incorporated into the the Indian union. More importantly, the Khalistan movement rapidly failed and fizzled out because it was ultimately an outside attempt to incite a rebellion where there was none...enjoying more support from the Sikh diaspora and the ISI than the actual people of Punjab. I'm sure the fact that Sikhs have historically been a particularly wealthy and socially powerful group in India didn't help the Khalistan movement either.

Now compare that to the more successful/long-lived separatist movements in the Subcontinent. India didn't just decide to train a few Bengali militants and launch a separatist movement...rather, it waited till there was enough latent resentment against the Pakistani authorities in E. Bengal, and then started training militants and fermenting the rebellion that ultimately became the 1971 war. As for Kashmir, only the most delusional Indians would deny that we've resented Indian occupation since day one. The '87 elections were simply the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back...the watershed when the people of Kashmir realized that India had no interest in resolving the issue through political means, and would never deal with them democratically. It's why, 20 years later, the movement lives on, and all it takes is a news story about Indians trying to establish direct ownership of Kashmiri land to make the entire Valley erupt in protests, and get Pakistani flags flying all over Srinagar.

@aam_bandha

As for the elections in Kashmir, it is just a few people in Kashmir valley who have trouble with this

A baseless generalization, coming from someone who has never even set foot in Kashmir.

@aam_bandha

Whatever you have mentioned about Gandhi is from his writing only !!!!!! so where is the question of glossing over or trying to hide. The situation you have mentioned is from his early life and formative years.

So then accept it.

Accept that at least during his African years, Gandhi wrote terrible things about Black people, and encouraged Indians to openly participate in the colonial suppression of the African people.

[gesto]

The KASHMIR issue will remain as it is for another five hundred years.Does anyone think that India will have to relieve Kashmir areas under their control and Pak will give up POK or Azad Kashmir?

Eversince 2001,I have been watching numerous guppies expessing their anger,obsession and hopes on this issue and even after seven years no chnge has taken place,leave alone the sixty years of stand off between the two countries.

The so called seperatists,I think have done a bloody mistake by resorting to violence.That deprived them off all internationa support and reiterated India's claims and also knowingly or unknowingly various Kahmir militant organizations names have been named after many subversive attacks in India,which resulted in spoling these organizations names and even their reason for exisit in other countries.(For ex:LET got bAnned in U.S).

I personally believe that had the so called separatism assimilated a peaceful tack from the begining ,or soon after it began,it would have been able to gain some international support as no peaceful remonstration carried out anywhere in the world has gone unnoticed.But to the best of India's stands,one agency was quite swift and rash in their acts of training the terrorists,aiding and abetting them,which proved fatal in the comng years and still now.

[gesto]

The longest independent freedom struggle which is on in India is the one going on in Nagaland and see the results.Even after fifty yers of armed struggle the ship is at the same port and now the hostilities between the separatists and the government is coming to cease and there is a full scale ceaefire.Since seperatists can not aford to wage another fifty years war,each time the truce expires the date,they come for a renewal :D

The so called Kasahmir Jihad wil find the same point one day or it might go on for another five hundred years without any result.But keeping an eye on the developments,one can easily see that the mood for separatism is on ever time low now .

[aam_bandha]

Deleted

[aam_bandha]

It suits your opinion so you call it a colonial “hodgepodge” (you convent education is showing) …. If only you had read carefully what I had written - India, Pakistan and Kashmir share a common history !!!!!!! There is a common link in all the national identities (I am talking of Punjabi / sindhi / kashmiri as a national identity) with in India or even Pakistan, so frankly I don’t know what you are really talking about it not having a real political / historic basis

Infact what has failed is the historic basis on why Pakistan was formed. Did it provide a home for the muslims of sub-continent - .No it has miserably failed in that. Mind you India got its independence from the British …. But Pakistan was “created” from an Indian entity for the muslims. What has happened in the last 60 years has shown that this premise has been wrong. You cannot have a country based only on religious identity – then you would have had a common Arabistan …… I mean in the middle east they have a much more common history / culture / language then Pakistan. Funny that the national language of Pakistan is a language spoken by the people from the Indian part ….. Punjabi’s / Sindhi’s / Baluch and Pathans have their own language ….. anyway don’t want to deviate too much from the topic

Now if you look at the history of Kashmir, never in history was it in the shape as it is today. The disputed area we can call the “princely state of Jammu & Kashmir”. So the identity of Kashmir as a nation ( to use your words) has been as fluid as perhaps Punjab and Sindh. In fact you would have to thank the dogra’s on getting Kashmir in the shape that it is now.

On top of this you still have Kashmiri’s calling Dogra’s the foreign occupier’s …… it seems they don’t mind the land mass of Jammu but they would not consider the people

The tone of discussion changes with time …….. at the height of militancy it was argued that Kashmir had link to Pakistan … and my favourite …. Link to central asia. Now that Pakistan has ruled itself out … now the “flavour of the season”is that Kashmir was independent.

Well as I have said before let this “flavour” also run its course and then Kashmir was be back on track. The sentiments of Kashmiri’s have been used to the full extent in the last 20 years …… Kashmiri’s have always been scared by this leadership that they will be run over by people from outside (same as Sindhi’s or Marathi’s leadership in India and Pakistan). This is a ploy used by local leaders for their own political gains and that is something people are seeing through. That is why after the land issue was over you don’t find people on the road ….. even though Geelani sahib (he has also changed his tactic tone on joining Pakistan) had called for the struggle to continue ….

The people are sentimental about some issues but they are not going to be fooled any more ….. you will see a sea change in a few months

[abdelyuuki]

Re: 9 Indian Soldiers killed,16 hurt around Srinagar

.............................,-~¯lllllll~,....................
.................,-~lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯-,..............................
............,-~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll-,.............................
.........,-lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll................................
.......;lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\...........................
........\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-~-,.....................
.........\lllllllllllllllllllll,-...........~-~-,...(.(¯,,...............
..........\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*;..)...............
...........\,-¯,*)............,-~`~................/.............
............|/.../.../~,......-~,-~`;................/...............
.........../.../.../.../..,-,..~,.*~*................*...\.............
..........|.../.../.../.*..............................)....)¯~,...... ............
..........|./.../..../.......)......,.)~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.............
........././.../...,-,.....-,.......,---......\..../...../..|.........¯``~-,,,,
.........(..........)*~-,....`.,-~.,-......|.../..../.../....................
..........-,.......*-,...~,..`.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
.............*,.........-,...)-,..............,-`...,-....(-,............\.......
................f-,.........-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...-,..................

All they want is the troops out of the valley, o_O why are you people obbsessed with the 'Independence' issue? ffs just the damn troops, get them out, that would be a good start, that will stop all the stupid militants, as they ONLY try to kill security forces NOT civilians, but unfortunately civilians get caught in the cross fire. So READ carefully... get the damn troops out of the valley, train local security forces, and the militants will have no one to attack, we will have peace ant that will make most people not care much about independence!!

Edit, didnt mean for all the caps,

[siddhantkumar]

Re: 9 Indian Soldiers killed,16 hurt around Srinagar

I don't know what's fuse about kashmir. after British left, Maharaja of J&K Harisingh decided to be independent. India wanted them to join as part of country like other states. He refused, but pakistani entered J&K to occupy what present day is POK.

Harisingh realized the problem and joined J&K with India.

Now war, but Nehru went to UN and UN said okay we will think about it (60 yr back no wonder they are still thinking) and suggested india to pull back from land which was occupied by pakistan before merging of J&K to india.

If pakistan do not want Kashmir, why they are bothered? Tibet is fighting for independence from china too, why not support them and attack China?

Now the solution? big question nobody knows the answer..
1) India can't loose control of kashmir
2) pakistan haven't declared POK as independent country yet and will never do that
3) No body bothers about J&K people now I bet they might have fed up with india-pak but i don't see they could sustain as independent State (no economy, and cost to maintain border secure from India, Pakistan and China will be too high)

My way would be let everyone rest in peace, Pakistan enjoy POK while India controls rest of part. After few decades of peace J&K public may take their own decision as they will be able think of their own future without any pressure (and bombing, firing, killing etc).

[siddhantkumar]

@gesto

The KASHMIR issue will remain as it is for another five hundred years.Does anyone think that India will have to relieve Kashmir areas under their control and Pak will give up POK or Azad Kashmir?

Eversince 2001,I have been watching numerous guppies expessing their anger,obsession and hopes on this issue and even after seven years no chnge has taken place,leave alone the sixty years of stand off between the two countries.

The so called seperatists,I think have done a bloody mistake by resorting to violence.That deprived them off all internationa support and reiterated India's claims and also knowingly or unknowingly various Kahmir militant organizations names have been named after many subversive attacks in India,which resulted in..

True. when India and Pakistan can get independence from British (most powerful in world) without violence why can't other's too?

Take example of LTTE in sri lanka, they are fighting with all arms and military tactics and have guns, tanks everything but still no solution for conflict.

[siddhantkumar]

@abdelyuuki

All they want is the troops out of the valley, o_O why are you people obbsessed with the 'Independence' issue? ffs just the damn troops, get them out, that would be a good start, that will stop all the stupid militants, as they ONLY try to kill security forces NOT civilians, but unfortunately civilians get caught in the cross fire. So READ carefully... get the damn troops out of the valley, train local security forces, and the militants will have no one to attack, we will have peace ant that will make most people not care much about independence!!

When East Pakistani people were against west Pakistan military rule, did pakistan just pulled out their troops? NO. why? B'cos east Pakistan was still integral part of Pakistan. So why you want India to keep their troops out of their own territory?

When J&K was princely state, Pakistani kabayli entered J&K, J&K army was not strong enough to fight them, Maharaj of Kashmir decide to merge to india to protect Kashmir from Kabaylee And that's y indian troops are in vally since then. What's guarantee that once India reduce troop presence in kashmir, pakitan military/kabaylee wont enter kashmir? They did so in Kargil during winter when india's military presence was nearly zero.