Beneath All Its Masks, The Kashmir ‘Conflict’ Was Always About Islam

[ito]

Kashmir was never about independence. It was just a land grab plan of Pakistan. Pakistan expected people of Kashmir valley to side with them for being Muslims but got a rude shock when people of Kashmir valley did not oblige. Then Pakistan tried to forcibly take control of the Kashmir valley by bringing in pushtoon tribes who were kicked out by Kashmiris (Sheikh Abdullah's NC + Congress).

Pakistan again started this land grab plan using the taliban jihadis in 1989. First they indulged in genocide and ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims of the valley and later started killing the Muslims who favored India.

In spite of these these acts, majority of Kashmirs are still with India. The jihadi cross border terrorists would be defeated.

That land grab plan proved heavy for Pakistan. Now Pakistan is in a catch22 situation. It cannot get Kashmir nor it can leave Kashmir.

 

[Kuru]

You mean the natives pushed out the invaders from the South and are now being held morally responsible for freeing themselves from the Hindutva extremism?

No ... sorry... but kashmir always belonged to the kashmiri people.

You mean Kashmiri Muslims only ? Because the Hindu Kashmiri Pandits were driven out from the valley by the "Muslim Freedom Fighters." They even announced it on the mosque loud speakers that Kashmiri Hindus should get out of Kashmir.

The moment Kashmiri Hindus started living as refugee in their own country, the so called Freedom struggle died it's own death.

 

[Burhan Wani]

Kashmir conflict was started in 18th century against sikhs and their pets known as Dogras. Syed Ahmad Shaheed brelvi and Shah Ismail Shaheed were the founder of resistance movement both were martyred fighting on the outskirts of the valley.
There was no base camp that time but Allah willingly we have freedom base camp in Muzafarabad from where we can easily launch attacks on occupiers.
@Azlan Haider @DESERT FIGHTER @Zarvan

If Muslims were the butchers of than please justify why Maharaja Gulab Singh skinned alive dozens leader of my tribe in 1832?
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mina...edom-fighters-were-skinned-alive-1832.435026/

 

[krash]

In spite of these these acts, majority of Kashmirs are still with India.

Even your government has given up on peddling this excreta and your journalists have accepted it as such. What decade do you think this is? lol!

http://www.risingkashmir.com/news/dearest-modiji-this-is-the-truth-about-kashmir

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26847362

http://indianexpress.com/article/op...hat-kashmiri-wants-azadi-indian-army-2928306/

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Heres-What-The-Children-Of-Kashmir-Have-To-Say-About-India/#.g9m0dul7s

 

[Burhan Wani]

That land grab plan proved heavy for Pakistan. Now Pakistan is in a catch22 situation. It cannot get Kashmir nor it can leave Kashmir.

Your ancestors were land grabbers. They illegally occupy princely states such as Poonch Kishtwar etc for their lust for wealth and forcefully merged them with Kashmir Valley.
You guys habitually bypass timeline of this conflict to hide sins of Kashmir Maharajas.

 

[Logicaldude]

Kashmir conflict was started in 18th century against sikhs and their pets known as Dogras. Syed Ahmad Shaheed brelvi and Shah Ismail Shaheed were the founder of resistance movement both were martyred fighting on the outskirts of the valley.
There was no base camp that time but Allah willingly we have freedom base camp in Muzafarabad from where we can easily launch attacks on occupiers.
@Azlan Haider @DESERT FIGHTER @Zarvan

If Muslims were the butchers of than please justify why Maharaja Gulab Singh skinned alive dozens leader of my tribe in 1832?
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mina...edom-fighters-were-skinned-alive-1832.435026/

By your logic the TTP struggle started when the Pathans fought the British.

 

[StraightShooter]

That land grab plan proved heavy for Pakistan. Now Pakistan is in a catch22 situation. It cannot get Kashmir nor it can leave Kashmir.

This is the quintessential case of ' Lene Ke Dene Padana'.

Pakistan had its chance to resolve the Kashmir issue in 1971 but Bhutto/Pakistan acted clever by half. Later, they thought they could use the Taliban to grab Kashmir but the world has moved on and has no appetite for such BS after 9/11. Now Pakistan by not settling the Kashmir issue has committed as strategic blunder as the unsettled border gives the advantage to India make a move across the LOC compromising their CPEC plans. No wonder China is seriously pushing Pakistan to settle the issue with India. Status quo perfectly works for India.



Did Bhutto outwit Indira Gandhi?

To Understand the political climate prevalent in the subcontinent in June-July 1972, when the Simla Conference was held, it is necessary to recall the events that preceded it - events that altered some basic perceptions that the Pakistan leadership had held dear. The emergence of Bangladesh as a sovereign state had starkly shown the inadequacy of religion as the sole basis of nationality. It also repudiated the two-nation theory and struck a deadly blow to Pakistan's claim, implicit as well as explicit, that it spoke on behalf of the Muslims of the subcontinent. Bhutto was acutely conscious of this fundamental change of context and he stated this frankly in his preliminary conversation with Indira Gandhi. He referred critically to his own views on these subjects, which he had articulated in extremely bellicose language earlier. He even lamented the tripartite division of the Muslim community in the subcontinent and hoped that, in the new circumstances, the community would become a strong force for peace and stability in the region.Furthermore, Bhutto said he was convinced by the events of 1971 that Pakistan could not acquire Kashmir via military intervention. In March 1972, a month before the meeting of emissaries in Murree, he told Indian journalists that a settlement of the Kashmir issue would emerge on the basis of a "line of peace" and that the right of self-determination, in his view, was not to be exported from outside. "Kashmir troubles me a lot," Bhutto said. He did not want its dark shadow looming over Indo-Pak. relations. He wanted his countrymen to get over the trauma of the emergence of its eastern wing as a separate independent state as quickly as possible and concentrate on making the now smaller Pakistan a prosperous country. He told Indira Gandhi in his meeting with her on July 1: "I have been saying in Pakistan: how can we fight for rights of Kashmiris? I have prepared public opinion for days ahead. But we cannot do it under compulsion." Bhutto was personally inclined to accept the status quo as a permanent solution to the Kashmir problem. However, he had several constraints in this regard which he spelt out as follows:

(a) His political enemies at home, especially the army bosses, would denounce him for surrendering what many in Pakistan considered their vital national interest. This would endanger the democratic set-up which had emerged after fourteen years of army rule. In this context, Bhutto repeatedly talked about his fear of what he called the Lahore lobby, though he never clearly explained what it was.

(b) He was anxious to obtain the support of all political elements in Pakistan in favour of any agreement that might emerge at Simla. He made this point at the beginning of the conference, while apologising for bringing with him an unusually large delegation, consisting of about 84 members, who represented the entire political spectrum of Pakistan. He wanted all members of the delegation to support and be committed to the outcome of the conference. He said there should be no dissenters in his delegation when he left Simla. He was probably thinking of his own negative role vis-a-vis Ayub Khan after the Tashkent Declaration in 1966.

Bhutto was very keen on the support of Aziz Ahmed, who led the Pakistan negotiating team. Ahmed was Pakistan's senior-most civil servant and carried great weight in the ranks of its bureaucracy. He also had the reputation of being a hardliner. Ahmed's support would secure Bhutto the support of Pakistan's officialdom, which constituted a very powerful segment of the country's political elite.

Aziz Ahmed was against enlarging the agenda to include Kashmir. But he yielded ground when the Indian side explained it was not insisting on an immediate and formal acceptance of the status quo, which they believed could be looked upon as the imposition of harsh terms by the victor in war. P. N. Haksar, who had assumed the leadership of the Indian team when D. P. Dhar suddenly took ill, felt that such a move might nurture a revanchist ideology in Pakistan. He reminded his colleagues of the consequence of the Treaty of Versailles and persuaded them against doing anything which could be the basis of another war. The Indian side therefore put their proposal in a low key and in an indirect manner by proposing that the name of the line dividing India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir be changed from the "cease-fire line" to the "line of control". Aziz Ahmed objected to this. He pointed out quite rightly, that the proposed change in terminology would mean a change in the status of the line. He put forth this view vehemently and said he was not prepared to accept the change in nomenclature.

* * *

In the afternoon meeting on July 2, which was to consider the third and last Indian draft agreement, Aziz Ahmed said: "This is our last meeting... Pakistan cannot accept that the ceasefire line has ceased to exist. That is the main reason why we are not accepting the Indian draft." For the Indian side this was a retreat from the statement made by Bhutto in his previous day's meeting with Indira Gandhi in the presence of officials. In that meeting, after Aziz Ahmed's remark that "We have agreed to everything except Kashmir", Bhutto intervened and said: "I have, in a way, agreed to Kashmir being resolved by peaceful means... As regards the Kashmir dispute, an agreement will emerge in the foreseeable future. It will evolve into a settlement. Let there be a line of peace; let people come and go; let us not fight over it."

The transformation of the ceasefire line into the line of control was the core of the Indian solution to the Kashmir problem. The de facto line of control was meant to be graduated to the level of a de jure border. Since no agreement was reached on this point, negotiations were called off and the curtain came down on five days of hectic negotiations which had begun with great hopes throughout the subcontinent. This was the afternoon of July 2. The Pakistan delegation was scheduled to leave Simla the next morning.

Soon, word spread that the conference had failed. Media men rushed off to announce the failure. In the midst of this enveloping gloom Bhutto asked to see Mrs. Gandhi and a meeting was fixed for 6 p.m. at the Retreat, where she was staying. When Bhutto came to see Mrs. Gandhi, he met P.N. Haksar and myself briefly and said: "You officials give up too easily". Mrs. Gandhi and Bhutto then met for an hour while Haksar and I waited in the adjoining room. Emerging from his tete-a-tete with Mrs. Gandhi, Bhutto looked pleased and said, "we have settled the matter and decided to give you some work to do before dinner." After we saw Bhutto off, Mrs. Gandhi briefed us on what had transpired.

Mrs. Gandhi elaborated the merits of the Indian proposal in the following terms: It was the only feasible solution. An important feature of the proposal was that neither country was gaining or losing territory on account of war. It did not involve transfers of population from one side to the other. Kashmiris as an ethnic community were left undivided on the Indian side. The line of control was therefore largely an ethnic and linguistic frontier. In fact in 1947, at the time of partition, it was also an ideological frontier, being the limit of the political influence of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah and his National Conference party. True, there were some anomalies in this otherwise neatly etched picture, but these, Mrs. Gandhi pointed out, could be removed by mutual consent.

Bhutto resounded with feeling and apparent sincerity. After long reflection he had come to the conclusion that the Indian proposal was the only feasible one. But he could not agree to incorporating it in the agreement for the reasons he had stated earlier. He would, however, work towards its implementation in practice and over time. Mrs. Gandhi herself was worried that a formal withdrawal of the Indian claim on Pak-occupied Kashmir could create political trouble for her. She agreed that the solution should not be recorded in the agreement for the reasons advanced by Bhutto, but it should be implemented gradually, as he had suggested.

It was also agreed that the understanding would not be a written one. The insertion of secret clauses in the agreement was considered inconsistent with the desire to build a structure of durable peace. It was decided, however, that the agreement would be worded in a manner that would not create difficulties of implementation for Pakistan. This resulted in some last-minute negotiations which were carried on during the return banquet of the president of Pakistan on the eve of his departure for his country. Thus, some clauses included in the draft agreement had to be deleted to accommodate Bhutto.

The most important part of the agreement, sub-clause 4(ii), says: In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line. The phrase "without prejudice" to the recognised position of either side was a concession to Bhutto to save him from domestic critics. The second and third sentences were assumed to prevent the abuse of this concession and to lay the foundation for a future settlement of the Kashmir issue.

* * *

Bhutto also knew that the Government of India had opened a dialogue with Sheikh Abdullah. He realised that India was in effect meeting the demand of separatist Kashmiris for representation at India-Pak negotiations on Kashmir via simultaneous but separate talks with Sheikh Abdullah. From his own sources and from reports in the Indian press he was aware of the probability of the Sheikh joining Indian mainstream politics. He knew that the ban on the Sheikh's entry into Kashmir was about to be removed. And when it was removed, three weeks after the Simla conference, the Sheikh told his audience in Srinagar that the tragic events of Bangladesh had proved how correct Kashmiris were in rejecting union with thecoratic Pakistan. The Sheikh's withdrawal of his demand for a plebiscite was expected to help Bhutto face the criticism of people at home.

* * *

Bhutto agreed not only to change the ceasefire line into line of control, for which he had earlier proposed the term "line of peace", he also agreed that the line would be gradually endowed with the characteristics of an international border (his words). The transition was to take place in the following manner. After the resumption of traffic between India and Pakistan across the international border had gained momentum, the movement of traffic would be allowed at specified points across the line of control. At these points of entry, immigration control and customs clearance offices would be established. Furthermore, Pakistan- occupied Kashmir would be incorporated into Pakistan. To begin with, Bhutto's party would set up its branches there, and later the area would be taken over by the administration. India would make proforma protests in a low key (This is what actually happened in 1974, when Bhutto made Azad Kashmir constitutionally a province of Pakistan without much protest from India). It was thought that with the gradual use of the line of control as the de facto frontier, public opinion on both sides would become reconciled to its permanence. In the meanwhile, the opening of trade and commerce and cooperation between India and Pakistan would result in easing tensions between the two countries. When Mrs. Gandhi, after recounting their points of agreement, finally asked Bhutto: "Is this the understanding on which we will proceed? He replied, "Absolutely, aap mujh par bharosa keejiye (you can rely on me).

One of Bhutto's aides, who was also very close to the Americans, fully briefed James P. Sterba (the New York Times correspondent) on the understanding that this leader had reached with Mrs. Gandhi. In his news analysis, which appeared within hours of the signing, Sterba, after referring to the inflexible positions of the two governments on the Kashmir problem, wrote: "these positions have been drummed into the minds of the peoples of each side to the point where any compromise would be viewed largely as a "sell out" in both countries. And for years, such a sell out would have probably toppled the rulers who agreed to it". Sterba added:

President Butto, Pakistan's first civilian leader in fourteen years, came to Simla ready to compromise. According to sources close to him, he was willing to forsake the Indian held two- thirds of Kashmir that contains four-fifths of the population and the prized valley called the 'Vale', and agree that a ceasefire line to be negotiated would gradually become the border between the two countries. The key word is 'gradually' (emphasis added)... President Bhutto wants a softening of the ceasefire line with trade and travel across it and a secret agreement with Mrs. Gandhi that a formally recognised border would emerge after a few years, during which he would condition his people to it without riots and an overthrow of his Government.

This was the understanding between the leaders of the two countries and this was the Simla Solution of the Kashmir problem. The agreement that was signed at Simla in the first hour of July 3, 1972 was the launching pad for an implementation of the Simla Solution. Some Pakistanis maintain that recent events in Kashmir have overtaken the agreement, while Indians insist that the dispute should be resolved through bilateral negotiations, as stipulated under it. This debate misses the crucial point that the Simla Agreement provided not only a mechanism for the solution of the Kashmir problem but also envisaged the solution itself.

The Simla Solution seemed the only way in which the political leadership of the two countries could resolve their conflicting claims over Kashmir. It is still the only way that remains open to them. To be sure, the aspirations of Valley Muslims need to be satisfied. The Indira-Abdullah Accord, which was an answer to this question, has come unstuck due partly to New Delhi's hamhandedness and largely due to the growth of Muslim fundamentalism in the Valley, as also because of the massive intervention of Pakistan, in flagrant violation of the Simla commitments. Had the Simla understanding been converted into the final solution of the problem, the Kashmir issue would have simply become an internal problem for India, namely one of altering the existing centre-state relations in a manner that would satisfy the Kashmiri demand for greater autonomy.

* * *


It was in the context of an utter disregard for the Simla commitments by Pakistan that I decided to make public the substance of the Simla understanding. I did this through a two- part article which was published in the Times of India in April 1995. Pakistani response to this came in an avalanche of statements and comments from the government, political leaders, columnists, and editorial writers questioning the veracity of what I had said. About the only person in authority who did not react was Pakistan's Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto.

The expressions of disbelief in the existence of a verbal understanding between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were often accompanied by high praise of what Humayun Gauhar called Bhutto's diplomatic artistry. Writing on this subject in the Political and Business Weekly of May 15, 1995, Gauhar wrote:

If it took a private talk between Mr. Bhutto and Mrs. Gandhi in which he made certain commitments to her but which he was clever enough not to have written down in the Simla Agreement or on a separate piece of paper, then it was diplomatic artistry of the highest order. He would have known wn better than anyone else that such a private secret agreement, which is only verbal, was worthless. Face it Mr. Dhar, even if we accept what you say, Mr. Bhutto fooled your Prime Minister.

Gauhar explains the nature of Bhutto's artistry in Bhutto's own words. Three months before the Simla Conference Bhutto told Oriana Falaci, the Italian journalist: "Well, in politics you sometimes have to have light and flexible fingers... have you ever seen a bird sitting on its eggs in the nest? Well, a politician must have fairly light, fairly flexible fingers, to insinuate them under the bird and take away the eggs. One by one . Without the bird realising it."

Commenting on Pakistani rejoinders to my article, Alistair Lamb, the well-known author of several books on the Kashmir question (in which he has vigorously supported Pakistan's point of view), says: "Pakistani refutations of P. N. Dhar's claims (that Z. A. Bhutto did privately agree with the Indian Prime Minister that this was exactly the way in which the Kashmir problem would be settled, with the line of control being allowed to evolve gradually into an international border) have not to date been particularly impressive or convincing though circumstances have removed over the years any significance they may ever have possessed... Its essential veracity has been implied by Akram Zaki, former Pakistan Secretary General, Foreign Affairs". In India too my article was widely noted by the media and the predominant view was not very different from that of Humayun Gauhar, namely that India had lost on the negotiating table what its armed forces had gained in the battlefield.

Extracted from: Indira Gandhi: The Emergency and Indian Democracy,


P. N. Dhar, Oxford University Press, Rs.545.

http://www.thehindu.com/2000/02/06/stories/1306067g.htm

 

[Burhan Wani]

By your logic the TTP struggle started when the Pathans fought the British.

Do not post nonsense posts. Those who fought against British are still fighting against them in Afghanistan and they are all our friends. TTP are your funded thugs who kill innocent civilians and children. Shame on you.

 

[Kraitcorp]

First of all Islam was foreign invaders who killed and raped the poor Hindus. Basically Kashmir was a Hindu region

In the first half of the 1st millennium, the Kashmir region became an important centre of Hinduism and later of Buddhism; later still, in the ninth century, Kashmir Shaivism arose.[4] In 1339, Shah Mir became the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir, inaugurating the Salatin-i-Kashmir or Shah Mir dynasty.[5] Kashmir was part of the Mughal Empire from 1586 to 1751,[6]and thereafter, until 1820, of the Afghan Durrani Empire.[5] That year, the Sikhs, under Ranjit Singh, annexed Kashmir.


Time to systematically eradicate all the sunnis from the 4 districts just like Pakistan a systematically eradicated the minorities.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The truth of Kashmir and the terrorism inflicted on Hindus.

https://swarajyamag.com/politics/beneath-all-its-masks-the-kashmir-conflict-was-always-about-islam

The lynching of deputy superintendent (DSP) of Jammu and Kashmir police Mohammed Ayub Pandith was shocking and reprehensible. He had spent almost 30 years in the force and risen slowly but surely through the ranks. His family, like many others from downtown Srinagar, were followers of the Mirwaiz clan, whose latest scion is the separatist leader Mirwaiz Umer Farooq; Pandith was part of Farooq’s security detail.

The journalist Rahul Pandita has described the incident, which took place on the intervening night between 22-23 June, on his Twitter timeline.

https://twitter.com/x/status/878248268278267907

What emerges from a perusal of these tweets and accounts of the incident compiled by other observers is chilling. Pandith, a practising Muslim and a member of the Jammu and Kashmir police force, was lynched on the twin suspicions of being (a) a Kashmiri Pandit and (b) an Intelligence officer. The man whose security Pandith was in charge of, did not even deign to meet the family of the deceased.

The slain DSP’s family had been ‘bakras’, as supporters of the Mirwaiz clan are known, for a few generations now. One is told that even as the lynching was carried out, Mirwaiz – supposedly the ‘spiritual’ head of the Kashmir Valley – continued his ‘sermon’ unabated.

To my mind, this incident and the declaration of the former Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Zakir Musa that the movement in Kashmir was meant primarily to enforce ‘Shariah’ law are crucial. There is a veritable industry of peaceniks and assorted ‘intellectuals’ in Delhi as well as ‘pro-India mainstream’ politicians in the Valley who like to tell us that the unrest in Kashmir is more political than anything else, and that if the government does not talk to the ‘establishment’ separatists, there is a real danger that the jihadis might take over what has hitherto been a political movement. This messaging, done through a well-oiled public relations machinery, is swallowed hook, line and sinker by the Congress party’s managers as well as its ecosystem of journalists and academics. As a next step, this narrative finds expression in the form of op-eds in newspapers with ominous headings, all of which seem to suggest that India has “lost Kashmir” or that it needs to hold dialogues with “all stakeholders”.

In its own way, this incident provides an opportunity for the Indian government to show to its citizens, and the world at large, that this narrative is bunkum.

The Islamist face of the ‘Azad Kashmir’ movement today has been exposed to the world. The ‘paradise’ for the Ghazis, described in Firstpost as Robin-Hood-type figures, is identical to what the Islamic State has already created in Mosul and Raqqa. The likes of Mirwaiz and Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik are merely ‘taquiyyah’ practitioners who are engaged in lulling the gullible soft-hearted Indian liberals into some sort of false sense of security by repeating that their ‘tanzeem’ is essentially political in nature. The reality, as discussed, is far from the lies that have been peddled to us over the years. Pandith was killed for no reason but that a mob, abetted by the spiritual head of the Kashmir Valley, thought he belonged to a faith that was not Islam. How is it different from the treatment the Islamic State metes out to Yazidis or Shia Muslims?

I also have little doubt that our chattering ‘liberal’ class shall try and draw some sort of equivalence between what happened in downtown Srinagar to the depredations of the cow vigilantes in Rajasthan and Haryana. They are wrong here as well. The position of every enlightened Indian with respect to the latter is clear and unequivocal – the self-styled ‘gaurakshaks’ should be put behind bars and strict police action should be taken to ensure that such incidents are not repeated in the future. In fact, in several of these cases, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments in various states made sure that the guilty were arrested.

What is further disheartening and exasperating is that the Kashmiri political establishment, including members of mainstream parties, has ensured that those who murdered Kashmiri Pandits still roam free. The infamous Farroq Ahmed Dar, alias Bitta Karate, is one example. The chilling details of his crimes have been documented both by Newstrack as well as Pandita in his book, Our Moon has Blood Clots. The wife of this murderer is, in fact, a senior bureaucrat with the state administrative service!

I hope all of this serves as a wake-up call to our bleeding hearts. It is all very well to sympathise with those who have suffered in the Valley. It is also very easy to blame the unrest on the BJP. However, it is equally important to keep in mind that in the 1980s, youth from the Valley cheered the West Indian team during a cricket match against India when the BJP did not even have two seats in its kitty. In another incident, some miscreants exposed their genitalia to Indira Gandhi during a political rally. In view of this and recent incidents, two things are clear:

(i) What the proponents of azadi in the Kashmir Valley want is a separation from India because the majority of its population is not Muslim and it has a secular Constitution. (Does anybody remember the slogan, ‘Pakistan se rishta kya la ilaha illalah’?) And this sentiment predates the BJP, the mosque-temple controversy and gaurakshaks.

(ii) What these people want to establish is Islamic State Raj and hence, there can be no scope for a dialogue with them.

The establishment of the legal system alluded to above would, inter alia, entail the imposition of a binary choice upon the non-Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir – convert or die. The evidence for this proposition is the recent incident, described and analysed earlier in copious detail.

The way forward for the Indian government is clear. It must dismiss the Mehbooba Mufti government if the situation does not improve within a specified time frame. It should also impose President’s Rule. I had argued two years ago that the scope for manoeuvring for the BJP, as part of the Alliance, is quite narrow. Our security establishment should keep at whatever it is doing at the moment – eliminating terrorists. The late former director general of police of Punjab, K P S Gill, once said in the context of terrorism in Punjab that the moment insurgents realise that they will not survive for more than a month after making it to the government’s hit list, the insurgency dies out on its own. This template succeeded in Punjab and quite spectacularly at that. There is no reason why it should not succeed in the Valley.

India’s diplomatic establishment should also expend painstaking effort to convey the true murderous Islamic State-esque nature of the azadi sentiment that prevails in the Valley to foreign capitals like London, Paris and Washington, DC. The separatists, of all stripes, and their sympathisers should also be confronted with a binary – either stay as equal citizens of a democratic country or vote with your feet and leave! It is about time that we as a nation put an end to this tomfoolery once and for all.

Some people may feel offended and become defensive.

But this is true. It was always about Islam. And that is nothing to be ashamed about. Revolutions in Iran, Arab Spring etc were all based on Islam.

Both sides accept this largely, hence the rest of the world cares so little about the place now.

 

[StraightShooter]

Even your government has given up on peddling this excreta and your journalists have accepted it as such. What decade do you think this is? lol!

http://www.risingkashmir.com/news/dearest-modiji-this-is-the-truth-about-kashmir

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26847362

http://indianexpress.com/article/op...hat-kashmiri-wants-azadi-indian-army-2928306/

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Heres-What-The-Children-Of-Kashmir-Have-To-Say-About-India/#.g9m0dul7s

You are confusing politics with separatism. Kashmirs in the valley support India but want to retain their autonomy. Abdullahs & Muftis would fight BJP tooth & nail on Article 370 but they DO NOT want to join Pakistan at all. They have nothing in common with Pakistanis. Heck Kashmiri language is not even spoken across the LOC. AJK is full of Punjabis. Don't even bother asking the Shias if they want to join Pakistan or not.

Jammu region:

Hindus - 66% (Pro-India)
Muslims - 30% (20% Shias, 10% Sunnis. Both are Pro-India)
Others - 4% (Pro-India)

Ladakh region:

Buddhists - 52 % (Pro-India)
Shias - 45% (Pro-India)
Others - 3 % (Pro-India)

Kashmir region:

Sunni Muslims - 60% (33% Autonomy under India, 18% Pro-India, 6% Pro-Independence, 3% Pro-Pakistan)
Tribes - 20% (Staunchly pro-India tribes likes Gujjars, Bakkarwals, Paharis, Baltis and Shins.)
Hindus/Sikhs - 15% (Pro-India)
Shias - 5% (Pro-India. Declared only. Many Shias declare themselves as Sunnis due to fear)

 

[Logicaldude]

Do not post nonsense posts. Those who fought against British are still fighting against them in Afghanistan and they are all our friends. TTP are your funded thugs who kill innocent civilians and children. Shame on you.

Pakistan is the successor state of British and have the same policies - destroying markets and homes, collective reprisals, extrajudicial murders, using artillery and planes against the pathans. TTP is an extension of that same struggle.

 

[HRK]

Beneath All Its Masks, The Kashmir ‘Conflict’ Was Always About Islam

So IOK is facing religious oppression by Indian Government ....???

 

[Logicaldude]

OMG, I didn't knew Maharaja Gulab Singh was the ONLY ruler who was brutal to his enemies who rose against his rule back in the days.

He was Hindu that was he fault. If he was a muslim ruler then controlling fasad using standards of the day would be his duty wink wink. Nothing to do with religion wink wink.

 

[Burhan Wani]

Pakistan is the successor state of British and have the same policies - destroying markets and homes, collective reprisals, extrajudicial murders, using artillery and planes against the pathans. TTP is an extension of that same struggle.

You are wrong. Every heard about Faqeer of Ipi and how we neutralize him. If TTP were his heirs then they frequently discuss about him in lectures and videos. I am sure even not a single member of TTP heard about Faqeer of Ipi. BTW why you are discussing them they have been finished.