An Indian civilian should be killed for the death of each Kashmiri civilian.
What will it achieve? Except that the valley will be empty and India will have less population which will be made up in next 24 hours?
Somebody has to do it..make Indian blood cheaper.
Who will do that? Pakistan? Unlikely seeing the state of affairs in your nation and the cost in terms of human lives being extracted daily.
Pakistan in the current situation has the political nor the military will or might to do it.
Proxy war is the way to go.Agencies have to be more proactive..but that requires support from political leadership which isn't there.Something has to be done.
Costs will rise for you too, significantly and exponentially; you might not be able to bear them! The more the violence is stoked in valley the greater will be the resultant crackdown .. the more the people will suffer.
You are just not able to get it. India has already won the diplomatic war of Kashmir, no one in the world cares a damn except for the obligatory lip service from OIC once in a while. All India needs to do now, is to win the emotional war, that will take a long time. And that is where Pakistani support can only delay not defeat India.
If you truly care for the Kashmiris, then let peace reign and then have faith in democracy. If Kashmir wants to be independent, it has to strengthen democracy, if it wants to better integrate with India, it has to strengthen democracy. And in democracy, employment of force(violence) rests exclusively with Government and none other. Whatever future Kashmir wants is through peace and democracy, not violence. The days are gone wherein anyone will invade India over Kashmir or you will be able to exact unmanageable economic or human costs from India. Simply not happening.
@hellfire , I want to raise my fear with you, not to sensationalise it, but to point out a reality, that there is a lot of the old school tie business happening, a tendency to brush bad things under the carpet, and that is bad for us. It is for the officer corps to set an example, and it is increasingly difficult in today's fluid and messy situation, but it is all the more a demand that has to be made of the leadership of the Army.
Sir, the unfortunate aspect of social liberalisation in India is that today the forces are an increased reflection of the society we live in - disorganised, lawless and uncontrollable. In words of PG Wodehouse "downright bad eggs".
Sadly, the easing of norms under guise of social justice and equality has ensured that certain strata of officer corps exist in both forces and civil services, which may not have had an ideal grooming in their varied background and which did not assimilate the lessons of education or training that was imparted into their professional (and even personal) lives.
That being said, there is an increased confusion as to the task for the armed forces in Kashmir today. The objective to bring down level of violence has been achieved. But what else has to be done, and why is army being employed continuously in an environment wherein the police forces need to be bolstered and act decisively in civil management, is something that needs to be answered.
A small example. On a particular date (I will not quote it for apparent reasons) an army convoy was ambushed at a particular spot a few years back. The bus ferrying the troops was targeted. The officer in the bus, could see the militants who were targeting the bus, and had the option to engage and neutralise the militants involved as he was pretty confident of his firing capabilities (marksman). But he chose not to. Reason:
1. The militants were firing from the courtyard of a roadside house and there were women and children lined up behind them with fear on their faces.
2. Firing from inside the bus would have required opening of windows and other measures which would have allowed the militants to toss in grenades unimpeded. A sure recipe for disaster.
The result was that the militants fled the scene. Thankfully no casualties were sustained on the bus.
Now if we analyse the actions of this officer, he could have got his kills, been hailed a hero and ensured no loss of his men, all, had he chosen to engage and neutralise the militants (they were closely placed hence would have been engaged and neutralised with an initial fire itself). He would have also denied the militants a PR victory had they been killed.
But by not doing so, he ensured he didn't loose any men, and most importantly didn't loose the women and children who were directly behind the militants and may have been coerced to stand there for potential collateral damage and to serve as a propaganda tool in case army retaliated. In the process, the officer was lauded by the army and his superiors for this action, inspite of a clear PR victory for militants. (they were killed within a month; were part time militants). Had he got the kills, would have been decorations and career advancement, now, just another lucky SOB to survive an ambush.
When I quote this example, I want to emphasise that there are thousands of these type of young men and women in our armed forces still. Inspite of the despair we feel after seeing our officer cadre at times, things are not that bad.
The second point is that the Army is getting an increasingly unpleasant reputation due to the utter incompetence of the CRPF, for instance, and even on occasion the BSF, although these latter to a lesser extent than the former. What I am talking about is the gap between the RR and the Kashmir Police, who need backup in riot situations, that the RR simply cannot provide. Why can't the Ministry of Home Affairs build a cadre of dedicated policemen specifically for specialised management of these situations? I can name a dozen things that have to go into the playbook, which is not happening because of the bad training that these officers and men receive.
Couldn't agree with you more. There is a requirement to upgrade the JKP and CRPF skills for effective yet non-lethal crowd management in kashmir. Why it is not taking place, is something that beats me.