So massacring, raping, torturing and maiming civilians is something that they are ordered to do by the Indian military command & government I assume.
Much like Osama Bin Laden and Baghdadi gave the orders to the foot soldiers of Al Qaeda & ISIS to carry out attacks on innocent civilians.
Haven’t seen anyone stop calling the foot soldiers of ISIS or AQ ‘terrorists’.
@Joe Shearer
If not terrorism, what word would you prefer to use for acts of murder, maiming, torture & rape perpetrated by Indian Security Forces upon a population occupied through force?
Your comparison with Yogi and his band of bigots is a good one, except that you mixed up the actors. Yogi is just another extension or political side of the terrorism perpetrated by India - Muslims, whether directly in IoJK or indirectly through Yogi’s hatemongering in India, are the victims in both cases.
But you would prefer that we just sugarcoat the atrocities by Indian Security forces in IoJK because ... because why? A uniform?
Instead of going after us for calling a spade a spade, take it up with the Indian political leadership as to why honorable men in the Indian military uniform are being made to do dishonorable things in IoJK.
First.
Starting backwards, do you think there is anything left unsaid, not just by me but by many other Indians, about those aspects that we consider to be done wrong in the erstwhile J&K?
Second.
My dilemma is a very simple one, and very stark.
If you are right, and the majority determines what is the moral nature of a situation, then so too is the Sangh Parivar; they too have the same position, that they, being in the majority, 'know', beyond the capacity of the law of the land, how to determine morality.
Now, if you are right, AND the Sangh Parivar is right, what is my position? Whom should I stand with?
Third.
For what you have said, acts of murder should be called murder; it is a crime under the statutes, and what other name but the statutory nature of the crime should be used?
Acts of maiming are grievous bodily injury; what else need they be called, and why?
Acts of torture are acts of torture; I do not remember the exact definition, but there is ample provision for it.
So, too, acts of rape are acts of rape.
My question to you is this: why is there a need for a special nomenclature for any of these crimes, other than a political need for a political purpose? And if it is a political need and a political purpose, then where is this to be resolved, in a court of law or by negotiation between two sets of opposing advocates, whatever we call them, diplomats or other?
It goes further.
I am told that this is a reprehensible state of affairs, and am also told that force will be exercised to correct this, and that this use of force is legitimate. It is a puzzle to me: has force never been used before by one party to impose its wishes on the other party? If this is a perpetual position, to use force to resolve the matter, and to aid and abet those who, as individuals, take it upon themselves to set things right, then what is new, and why should this fresh effort be called for? If you have decided on a course of action right at the start, we have on our side of the border nothing to contribute, besides wringing our hands. And agitating for human rights, but that is again not exactly new.
Fourth.
Wherever there has been occasion, there has been, in the years that have passed, efforts made by Indian individuals and groups, authorised and unauthorised, legally empowered by courts of law and by government authority, to get to the bottom of things. I ask this plainly, to all reading this, have any of you, ANY of you, gone through those proceedings? Or is it the Red Queen's solution - Execution first, Trial afterwards?
If it is anyone's case that there has never been retribution exacted for offenders, I can confidently tell you, with no fear of contradiction, and on the basis of public records that appeared at the time, that it is not so.
Fifth.
Until 2014, this pack that is at the helm of affairs had NO influence. It needs to be thought about clearly and said clearly - is it being argued that this state of affairs was always so, or is it being argued that it has been so since 2014? What they have done since 2014 in the sphere of constitutionality has evoked outrage not merely in me, but in the minds of a great many Indians.
To end my submission, make of this what you will; from where I stand, there is no reason, no justification, no moral or legal foundation to select politically loaded terms that have a context only in an effort to reclaim the ground lost by listless diplomacy in the past, and in an attempt to make the most of the singularly uncivil government that we have to suffer.
Needless to add, I will doubtless presently, like my Nigerian exemplar, have it explained to me very clearly.
