Fierce gun fight rages in Kashmir

[ajpirzada]

The intention of muslims helping other muslim is great. However, it would be lot better if these helps come in a non-violent way. Looking at the recent history, the so called helps is only resulting in more people dying everywhere, not to mention the interal rivalries between the muslims.

The point is, if only people leaves the so called sufferes to sort out the problem themselves, a lot of issues would have been solved by now. This is 21st century, and it's high time peple throws out conspiracy theories against a particular religion out of their mind. This is a era, where all can leave peacefully, i.e., if they want to. All problems in the world can be sorted out without violence.

its unfortunate that today rich muslim doesnt help a poor muslim but that doesnt mean one should stop helping at all. if i go by wat u r suggesting then today bosnians would have no place to live in, palestine would have long disappeared, iraq would have become another base of americans in middile east which now it wont, afghanistan would have long been defeated and now americans would have been thinkin of attacking someother country and world would have long forgotten about kashmir issue.
problems could have been sorted without violance if world wished to raise its voice against killings of innocent in palestine, iraq, afghanistan. today somalia annoys everyone but y didnt anyone raise his voice when europe was busy dumping their nuclear waste in their seas.
i do respect gandhi for his character but i dont agree with his ideology. armed struggle or diplomacy alone can never solve any problem. their has be a mixture of both.

 

[dabong1]

Exactly the point. If pakistan wants they can send the soldiers for a war for kashmir. But sending armed non-military personal across is like trying to hit below the belt in a boxing match. If you want to play, play fair and square, there are rules for warfare as well.

We took a leaf out of your book......bangladesh Mukti Bahini

 

[Proud2Indian]

as if you will move out of afghanistan!!!!!! and dont be emotional. pakistan wasnt the initial aggressor and i dont wanna go back to 1971 and remind you of ur involvement. and mind you indian gov only talks when such incidents start happenin otherwise they give statements lik one we read few days back. and if u are so confident about kashmiris being happy then y dont u give them the right to choose bw india and pakistan which is their right according the UN resolution. well how could u do that when u know they ll never vote in favour of india so lets not talk about that. 'nothing speaks like money' loooollll...... bro nothing speaks lik freedom and not money.

I am talking of 1947-48 and not 1971....I going at the root...when all this began...but sending Razakars in Kashmir which started all this.....and No I not emotional.....Thats between India and Kashmir ...why you are getting excited....


tx

 

[Proud2Indian]

that proof has been shown to ur new natural ally (US) many times. ur agencies tried their best to somehow link mumbai attacks with ISI but they failed miserably again refuting indian claim of pak army providing weapons or any other kind of help

What happened??? You went to 2 diff US administration ...what was response...Zilch...well that speaks volume about the proof you are talking about....

For ISI.....whoever is planting these stories...there is enough noise in Western media abt ISI helping terrorism.....

tx

 

[iamunique]

Coming back... the technical aspects of this latest incident seems to indicate that the Indian Army is STILL not capable of effectively fighting small-scale incursions and limited
conflicts. Inspite of battling insurgency in J&K,Punjab & the north-east for 20 odd years,
and the Kargil debacle, the Indian Army still doesn't seem to have learnt it's lessons well.

The average Indian Army soldier still looks (with respect to weapons, equipment & uniform) like some Somali militiaman rather than part of the armed forces of a budding 'regional power' with nuclear weapons. It is clearly this deficiency in terms of weapons, equipment & training which leads to blunders and bloody noses such as Kargil and the present 'gunfight'.

Unfortunately, instead of addressing the needs of the infantryman - who ultimately wins the war, the Army seems to be more obsessed with tanks, artillery guns and missiles costing millions and billions. Can tanks, artillery guns and missiles be used in the current gunfight? Then why waste money there instead of equiping the soldier first?

Sadly, the indian army soldier still just serves one purpose - of being gun fodder! How many more young men will be sacrificed until the infantry forces are given the proper respect and attention it deserves? God alone knows.



P.S: My grandfather, father and 2 uncles were infantry men in the Army. Hence the reason for my bias.

 

[Gabbar]

Kashmiri Shia hail slain India patriot

The funeral north of Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir was just like those of countless others who have died violently in the insurgency over the past 20 years.

A son of the the soil was laid to rest in his ancestral graveyard in the village of Dub, north of Srinagar, on Tuesday, surrounded by thousands of mourners.

What made the ceremony unusual was that this was no militant who had died fighting the Indian army.

This was a Kashmiri who served with the Indian army and died fighting the militants.

Shabir Ahmed Malik was among eight Indian soldiers killed in a gun battle earlier this week with separatist militants in Kupwara.

'Pained'

Over the past two decades, hundreds of Kashmiris have died while fighting for India.


Mr Malik was a dedicated soldier of the Indian army

Among them are police officials and Ikhwanis, or "renegade" militants who have been persuaded or coerced - depending on who you believe - to abandon militancy and instead work for the Indian security forces. Most Ikhwanis were or are pariahs.

But Shabir, 21, joined the Indian army after passing his 12th class examination. He studied at the Sainik (army) School at Ganderbal.

Shabir's family and neighbours are proud of his service.

"He has become a hero. He died an honourable death. I am so happy, although I am also pained at his separation," says Mohammad Yasin, a neighbour and friend of the dead man.

Mr Yasin says he still regrets not being able to join the Indian army with Shabir.

"I too went with him that day. But only three boys were selected. I was not taken because I was over age. I still feel so bad about it.

"Even now, I have a passionate desire to do something for my country like Shabir has done."

Mr Yasin says that the moving send-off given to Shabir has inspired many more youths in the village to join the army.

'Fulfilled'

"I am 28," says Showkat Ahmed. "I have never in my life seen such a funeral. Such death is pride-worthy."


Mr Malik's village showed huge pride in his army service

Such well-attended funerals are usually the preserve of militants killed by Indian troops.

Shabir's body was kept outside the "imambara" (Shia place of worship) and the villagers mourned beside it.

They beat their chests but unlike at the funerals of militants there was no slogan shouting.

The fact the villagers are minority Shia may in part explain their pro-India loyalties. Kashmir's insurgency over the past two decades has mostly been waged by Sunni militants.

Part of the Shia community has stayed away from the separatist campaign, although some leaders of the separatist movement do belong to the Shias.

The coffin was draped in India's tricolour before it was carried to the graveyard.

Shabir's brother, Ghiulam Mohammad, says: "I wanted him to become a doctor. But he had a passion for joining the army and was determined to complete his graduation so he could become an army officer.

"He was patriotic from his childhood. He wanted to do something for his country. His ambition has been fulfilled."

The villagers have been sharing the family's grief as well as its pride in what Shabir fought for.

"Every family here is bereaved. Every family is mourning," one villager said.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Kashmiri Shia hail slain India patriot

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What you will say to what happened in Mumbai, Blasts in UP, Delhi and otehr parts of India.....

You know there no black & white in life everything is Grey...This thread is on Kashmir and I will stick to Kashmir....There were other case where Pakistan helped terrorist outside Kashmir against India......

Don't expect less in return I will say again....

tx

You raised the issue of Baluchistan - I corrected you, now you are off on a different tangent. The Pakistani government has not supported the actions of groups outside Kashmir. Kashmir is disputed territory and that is where our focus is.

I also laid down chronologically what led to Pakistan supporting the freedom movement starting in the 1990's, that is fact.

The argument of 1947 does not apply to your case either, and your facts on the 1947 situation in kashmir are also selective an incorrect.

The first seeds of instability and violence were laid down by the Maharajah Hari Singh, when he viciously and violently put down a revolt by Muslim Kashmiris in the Poonch district (at this point there was no Pakistani or Tribal involvement in Kashmir). Entire villages and families were gutted, combatant and non-combatant, women and children. The result was thousands of refugees into the bordering areas of Pakistan.

This violence and the refugees bringing back stories of atrocities occurred at the same time as the Sikh atrocities and massacres of Muslims migrating to Pakistan. You had stories of entire trains being massacred by Sikh rebels, men, women and children.

The combination of the two was the spark that ignited the Tribal movement into Kashmir to prevent the Maharrajah from further bloodshed. Pakistan's entry into this movement was delayed and extremely limited in the beginning, and only came about because the situation on the Pakistani side was extremely volatile and tense with the Tribesmen and others outrage over the atrocities committed on two fronts - they were going to go ahead and stop Hari Singh regardless of whether the GoP (swamped with its own problems due to refugees, no government infrastructure and violence) assisted them.

Unfortunately history taught in India has been distorted and simplified to the point of absurdity to paint Pakistan as the bad guy here, when the person that should be condemned was the Maharajah.

In any case, Pakistan was completely willing to stop hostilities, and did, and allow the UN to arbitrate, which the GoI accepted as well. The UNSC determined, and India and Pakistan agreed, that Kashmir was disputed and that it would be resolved by resort to a fundamental and basic principle of human rights - the decision of the people of Kashmir through plebisicte.

From that point on Nehru was the villain of the piece, and to validate my point I referred to his quotes posted in the UN resolutions thread, where his duplicity is completely exposed - he lied to the world and to Pakistan - he never had any intention of holding a plebiscite as he, India, Pakistan and the UN had determined and agreed to.

 

[godsavetheworld]

Unfortunately history taught in India has been distorted and simplified to the point of absurdity to paint Pakistan as the bad guy here, when the person that should be condemned was the Maharajah.

In any case, Pakistan was completely willing to stop hostilities, and did, and allow the UN to arbitrate, which the GoI accepted as well. The UNSC determined, and India and Pakistan agreed, that Kashmir was disputed and that it would be resolved by resort to a fundamental and basic principle of human rights - the decision of the people of Kashmir through plebisicte.

From that point on Nehru was the villain of the piece, and to validate my point I referred to his quotes posted in the UN resolutions thread, where his duplicity is completely exposed - he lied to the world and to Pakistan - he never had any intention of holding a plebiscite as he, India, Pakistan and the UN had determined and agreed to.

And yet again we have to tell you, that UN Resolution on Kashmir was never binding on India. If he didnt carry out his promise, you could have approached UN to make him do it. But no, none of you bothered instead began sending in terrorists creating a havoc in the valley. And now you say, that because India didnt agree on non-binding agreement that you never insisted on getting enforced in Kashmir, we will send in thousands of militants to kill people in India. What sort of frivolous logic is that?

And the hillarious duplicity in your entire point of view is that you say that GOP only supported terrorism in Kashmir, and not in rest of the country. Then you could as well explain to me the fact that it is these groups like LeT, JeM that kill innocents in other parts of India, their own Muslim brothers whom they are fighting for in Kashmir, and if your government supports them in Kashmir, one doesnt need einstein to figure out that your state agencies also support them to carry out attacks like 26/11.
Which leads the world to believe that since Pakistan cannot fight a conventional war with India, it indulges in dirt cheap tactics of killling innocents to make a point.

And I dont understand why you want world to believe you are enough to counter terrorism, when infact you are supporting terrorism? Just stand up and scream "We love terrorists, its going to save you so much pain and you can "be yourself"? Either case be clear what "kind" terrorism you love and what kind you hate.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And yet again we have to tell you, that UN Resolution on Kashmir was never binding on India. If he didnt carry out his promise, you could have approached UN to make him do it. But no, none of you bothered instead began sending in terrorists creating a havoc in the valley. And now you say, that because India didnt agree on non-binding agreement that you never insisted on getting enforced in Kashmir, we will send in thousands of militants to kill people in India. What sort of frivolous logic is that?

And the hillarious duplicity in your entire point of view is that you say that GOP only supported terrorism in Kashmir, and not in rest of the country. Then you could as well explain to me the fact that it is these groups like LeT, JeM that kill innocents in other parts of India, their own Muslim brothers whom they are fighting for in Kashmir, and if your government supports them in Kashmir, one doesnt need einstein to figure out that your state agencies also support them to carry out attacks like 26/11.
Which leads the world to believe that since Pakistan cannot fight a conventional war with India, it indulges in dirt cheap tactics of killling innocents to make a point.

And I dont understand why you want world to believe you are enough to counter terrorism, when infact you are supporting terrorism? Just stand up and scream "We love terrorists, its going to save you so much pain and you can "be yourself"? Either case be clear what "kind" terrorism you love and what kind you hate.

Again you dissemble and distort the facts, really the only way you can defend what is clearly an immoral and illegal occupation by India in Kashmir. Pakistan started supporting the Kashmiri Freedom Movement in the early 1990's - what had Indian done in the run-up to that decision by Pakistan?

In the early fifties Nehru reneged on India's commitment in the UNSC to carry out a plebiscite to determine the status of a disputed territory - I have pointed out how he never had any intention of fulfilling that commitment, and lied to the world. In the late sixties through 1971 India destabilized and supported terrorists in East Pakistan and then invaded EP to dismember it. In 1984, in blatant violation of the Simla Agreement, India invaded and occupied Siachen.

The trail of Indian culpability is long and clear, and at no point in your interaction with me have you chosen to address any of these points, on how India is responsible for bringing the situation to this point, choosing instead to go off on this or that tangent - Baluchistan, 1946, 26/11 whatever.

Your position is dishonest and flawed, and pushed entirely out of jingoism and hatred for Pakistan, which makes you incapable of recognizing the policies of India, going all the way back to Nehru, that created this entire mess.

The moral, ethical and right answer remains the same as always - the innocent people of Kashmir should be allowed to exercise their right to determine which nation they wish to be a part of, as was promised them.

 

[Proud2Indian]

You raised the issue of Baluchistan - I corrected you, now you are off on a different tangent. The Pakistani government has not supported the actions of groups outside Kashmir.
Kashmir is disputed territory and that is where our focus is.

If you corrected me from the viewpoint that Kashmir is disputed and Baluchistan not disputed...well I believe in this and I will say again...Life is Grey..there is no black or white...India will respond in ways which will fit to her goals...Don't expect to behave India like some good boy and limit the conflict to Kashmir only...and I was pointing to Punjab terrorism....and people like Hamid Gul...these are not related to topic and I will live them out for now

I also laid down chronologically what led to Pakistan supporting the freedom movement starting in the 1990's, that is fact.

The argument of 1947 does not apply to your case either, and your facts on the 1947 situation in Kashmir are also selective an incorrect.

The first seeds of instability and violence were laid down by the Maharajah Hari Singh, when he viciously and violently put down a revolt by Muslim Kashmiris in the Poonch district (at this point there was no Pakistani or Tribal involvement in Kashmir). Entire villages and families were gutted, combatant and non-combatant, women and children. The result was thousands of refugees into the bordering areas of Pakistan.

I read somewhere on this forum that Kashmir was Muslim dominated area in '47...with ratio of 80:20 in favour of Muslim and you are telling me that minority oppressed the majority that too by force...now thats some logic...

This violence and the refugees bringing back stories of atrocities occurred at the same time as the Sikh atrocities and massacres of Muslims migrating to Pakistan. You had stories of entire trains being massacred by Sikh rebels, men, women and children.

don't raise unrelated topics....you are bringing up partition....we have also seen trains coming from pakistan full of dead bodies....can you tell me why majority of Muslims stayed in India while Majority of Hindu and Sikhs have to leave Pakistan......I am not sure about status in 2009 but till 2000 India had more muslims than Pakistan....that tells loads about how much muslims were threatened in India during Partition....

The combination of the two was the spark that ignited the Tribal movement into Kashmir to prevent the Maharrajah from further bloodshed. Pakistan's entry into this movement was delayed and extremely limited in the beginning, and only came about because the situation on the Pakistani side was extremely volatile and tense with the Tribesmen and others outrage over the atrocities committed on two fronts - they were going to go ahead and stop Hari Singh regardless of whether the GoP (swamped with its own problems due to refugees, no government infrastructure and violence) assisted them.

And coming back to Kashmir.....whatever happened there in '47 was internal matter of free state...Neither India not Pakistan has to do anything with that...You forced the hand of HS buy helping the Razakars and caused Kashmir its freedom...

Unfortunately history taught in India has been distorted and simplified to the point of absurdity to paint Pakistan as the bad guy here, when the person that should be condemned was the Maharajah.

History or no history...what Pakistan was doing in free state??? Pakistan openly violated the sovereignty of state and you are claiming moral high ground...Facts are simple...its Pakistan which need to teach correct history....and people of Pakistan need to ask their military\political parties what have Paksitan achieved in last 62 years in name of religion and with hatred against India...Pakistan was responible for forcing Kashmir fiasco....making India realize in '65 that having 2 borders with Pakistan will be problem in longterm......with Kargil making sure that India never trust Pakistan in future....You talk about intentions of India and I see actions of Pakistan .....

In any case, Pakistan was completely willing to stop hostilities,

Don't trivialize the issue of interfering in internal matters of free state..

and did, and allow the UN to arbitrate, which the GoI accepted as well. The UNSC determined, and India and Pakistan agreed, that Kashmir was disputed and that it would be resolved by resort to a fundamental and basic principle of human rights - the decision of the people of Kashmir through plebisicte.


From that point on Nehru was the villain of the piece, and to validate my point I referred to his quotes posted in the UN resolutions thread, where his duplicity is completely exposed - he lied to the world and to Pakistan - he never had any intention of holding a plebiscite as he, India, Pakistan and the UN had determined and agreed to.

Its good that you raised the UN...well to tell you the truth ....and this is my personal thought...UN does not worth 2 cents today...its passed its expiry date long back...China licks tibet...Iraq is destroyed by one man arrogance and heck it cann't do anyhing about somalia....why India will take UN seriously...for better good of this world we need new system.....its has nothing to do with Kashmir or anyhing...UN is incapable its drain on world resources....If you want to take moral highground and talk about UN....good luck ...keep living in dream world.. or it will be good if you wake up from your sleep and relaize that UN does not have any teeth...its better to resolve the issue with today's reality...rather than living in past...


tx

 

[hembo]

its unfortunate that today rich muslim doesnt help a poor muslim but that doesnt mean one should stop helping at all. if i go by wat u r suggesting then today bosnians would have no place to live in, palestine would have long disappeared, iraq would have become another base of americans in middile east which now it wont, afghanistan would have long been defeated and now americans would have been thinkin of attacking someother country and world would have long forgotten about kashmir issue.
problems could have been sorted without violance if world wished to raise its voice against killings of innocent in palestine, iraq, afghanistan. today somalia annoys everyone but y didnt anyone raise his voice when europe was busy dumping their nuclear waste in their seas.
i do respect gandhi for his character but i dont agree with his ideology. armed struggle or diplomacy alone can never solve any problem. their has be a mixture of both.

My reference to non-violent help was actually meant for everybody. I don't support countries like US trying to help other countries with violent approach either. Historically, they too, had only been able to ruin the people that they were supposedly helping.

You are probably right about the mixture of armed struggle and diplomacy bit. Especially in todays context, when everyone else is ready to deal a deadly blow with minimum of provocation. However, in view of the weapons that the world possess today, we must try and maximize the diplomatic option.

 

[hembo]

We took a leaf out of your book......bangladesh Mukti Bahini

Great then!! keep on learning from other's mistake and correct it by repeating it and hope that two wrongs will make one right. Also welcome to the stalemate on Kashmir, because, in case you haven't realized, things are not same here with BD struggle.

Also, Mukti Bahinis were people from BD and Indian Army took active part in the war. That's precisely why I said send you army for active participation too.

 

[duhastmish]

FUnnay man !!! we talk of helping NATO forces in afghan ????? lol what a joke .
we cant handle a bunch of terrorist trying to jump in our land ????
There is something seriously wrong here. doesn't it tell us how bloody ridiculously - inefficant force is there ??????
we cant handle 20 teens - fighting with local made guns, mind washed , unreligious , uncouth fighters. What will we do - in afgan ????
When will the government or authority wake up and stop playing with life of our soldiers ???

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I read somewhere on this forum that Kashmir was Muslim dominated area in '47...with ratio of 80:20 in favour of Muslim and you are telling me that minority oppressed the majority that too by force...now thats some logic...

Yes that is exactly what happened- Hari Singh Massacred entire villages and civilians.

Your statement above is an indication of the sort of distorted history Indian s are taught - Kashmir was ruled by a Mahrajah, a tyrant and a despot, who happened to be Hindu. You obviously cannot understand even this simple fact going by your statement above.

As for intervention against despots massacring their people, justification for intervention was given in Kosovo by NATO, in Somalia, in Rwanda, and people have been arguing for intervention in Sudan (Darfur genocide).

In any case, I have supported my arguments and provided the chronology of Indian policies and actions that led to the Pakistani support for the freedom Movement in disputed territory in the 1990's. You have offered nothing except poor and inaccurate opinions. What you think of the UN does not change the facts around the commitments made there, nor do your opinions change the reality of Indian transgressions or the Maharajah's atrocities.

Facts are facts, and it is clear that India has been on the wrong side, on the side of despots, occupation, atrocities and violations of commitments made to the people of Kashmir and the world community, all for the sake of greedy territorial expansionism.

Good day to you.

 

[Proud2Indian]

FUnnay man !!! we talk of helping NATO forces in afghan ????? lol what a joke .
we cant handle a bunch of terrorist trying to jump in our land ????
There is something seriously wrong here. doesn't it tell us how bloody ridiculously - inefficant force is there ??????
we cant handle 20 teens - fighting with local made guns, mind washed , unreligious , uncouth fighters. What will we do - in afgan ????
When will the government or authority wake up and stop playing with life of our soldiers ???

Not sure whats the reference....but I guess you need to look the way our DF work...They are surely not Proactive...but they have very good learner....insurgency in Kashmir and else where are good material for understanding this....In past for ex we have seen Terrorist taking refuge in Mosque and this becoming emotional issue...Army devised ways to deal such situations so later not only they can neutralize the terrorist hidding in Mosque religious feeling of local people are not hurt....similar case with terroris taking refuge in buildings, what happened in Mumbai was not new from Kashmir insurgency...there were many incidence where terrorist took control of the building and gunfight went on for days.....If you have seen that that last few encounters are in forest near the border area....this clearly means that army is able to keep tab on infiltration....but they are ill prepared for neutralizing them quickly and efficiently ....they will fill this gap...its looks bad...but then we don't know the ground zero...and as past has shown they learn from their mistake.....

tx