Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[ajtr]

Kashmiri separatism is bogus​

Without too much of debate, one can propose seven steps that can make or mar peace in that area.
Stop giving undue importance to the valley Jammu and Kashmir is not just a few cities in the valley but also consists of Jammu, Kargil, Rajouri-Poonch and Ladakh. Please disabuse the gulli mohalla leaders of their notions.

Identify people who spread disaffection and incite violence and send them to jails outside the state, preferably Jodhpur.

Do not ban Pakistan television. Let the average Kashmiri see what awaits him on the other side of the border.

Take on the separatists on an ideological ground Kashmiri separatism is bogus and a creation of post-independence politics. Kashmir was very much a part of India in ancient times, the middle ages and the modern era.

How was it different from 400-odd princely states? Except that it had a Muslim majority, but do we in India discriminate on the basis of religion?

If not, what is the rationale for the so-called 'uniqueness' of Kashmir? This ideological battle is far more important than all other measures like economic goodies et al.

Let us face it: It is not Kashmiri separatism but Islamic separatism that we face in the valley.

Establish a dialogue with non-politicised religious leaders. Urge them to work for peace. The church in the North-East played this role and helped bring peace. Point out to them the travails of the people of Pakistan. Do they want Kashmiri Muslims to suffer the same fate?

Ask internal supporters as to whether the 20 per cent Shia, 40 per cent Hindus and 5 per cent Buddhists of the state have any future in a Sharia-based entity?

Establish institutional mechanisms. Like an independent commission for police oversight and an armed forces independent office of civil complaints to make sure that the security forces operate within the law and citizens have a forum to redress their grievances. The model in Northern Ireland is worth looking at.

Along with this, post a governor with defence or intelligence background who is proactive. (The incumbent, with his pure bureaucratic background, is an unmitigated disaster, though he claims a military background having been in the military academy for some time).

Such a governor must play a role as a liaison between the government and security forces.

Establish institutions of local self-government While there is constant talk of more autonomy from the Centre, there is virtually no devolution of power to the local levels.

Much of the grievances are essentially of a local nature and this measure will go a long way in Kashmir enjoying the fruits of democracy.

On the one hand there is realisation that unemployment is the cause of unrest, yet on the other xenophobia rules the roost when it comes to investment from other parts of the country If Kashmiris want to stew in their own juice, let them do so but why must the Jammu division or Ladakh or Kargil suffer from this due to Article 370 and the valley people's allergy to anything Indian?

Establish district councils and permit them to invite investments in tourism and other sectors.

These simple steps, if taken, will not solve the Kashmir issue. But they will certainly deal with the present crisis and forestall its repetition.

For a long-term solution to the whole Kashmir problem, there is no substitute to opening a mass debate with the participation of representatives of all regions of the state and not just the valley.

The dialogue must be open and public. Experience teaches us that all the 'quiet' talks behind closed doors generally come to naught when dealing with deep-rooted conflicts. Any agreement arrived at through this is quickly denounced as a sellout and another extremist faction takes birth.

This has been the experience the world over and there is no substitute for a widely-based open dialogue for ushering in durable peace.

 

[eric_cartman]

That is what the best and brightest "American" capitalist enslaved minds have to reason with??? Seriously if such was the reason Pakistan would not have come into being. The Afghans shouldn't be revolting, the Palestinians should be happy in merger with Israel, the Iraqis should welcome Americans with flower petals and finally the dutch shouldn't be campaigning for division of Belgium. There are whole lot of other reasons people aspire for. Jobs and standard of living is one of them.

Pakistan inherited the most poor and backward part of Asia yet thousand of refugees flocked to it. There was something on offer which aspired them.

Times have changed Sir, everyone wants iPhone in their hands.

 

[ajtr]

its not, go check your facts before posting.

then counter it with ur facts dont fart away like morning constipated gas.

 

[desiman]

Nobody can say for certain, but I think It won't take Generations if the current level of escalations continue. Sooner or later the Indian security forces won't have any cover from stones being hurled at them.

or the stone throwers will crumble out of existence if things go the way they are. Dont they say that people living in glass houses shouldnt throw stones at others, thats the case with Pakistan.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Yes we supply heroine and 500rs to each stone throwing protester, wow indian media truely SUCKS BIG TIME.

 

[desiman]

then counter it with ur facts dont fart away like morning constipated gas.

please look at this -

List of Indian states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have more figures if you are interested. Next time learn to respect members more senior that you.

 

[whocares]

screw this. pissing match all over again.

 

[banned]

Dude lets get over with the facts that there was no India before the British colonization. You are very well refuting the Kashmir history much like Indian official state policy against which the Kashmir's are revolting. Kashmir was an independent state even during the colonial era. So what gives India claim over it?? Going back in history and calling Kashmir part of India is in a senseless, the correct phrase would be Indian continent of 400+ princely states.

 

[ajtr]

please look at this -

List of Indian states by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have more figures if you are interested. Next time learn to respect members more senior that you.

J&K's dependency on Centre alarming

While Jammu & Kashmir continues through an endless cycle of calm-confrontation-curfew, it is facing a disastrous financial situation. Recently released Reserve Bank of India data on state finances shows how highly dependent J&K is on the central government's support.

In 2009-10, J&K received Rs 13,252 crore as grants from the Centre, which constitutes nearly 60% of the state's total expenditure. In fact, for the past two decades since the separatist movement spread in the Kashmir valley, the centre has been propping up the state through similar doles. In all, J&K has received grants amounting to Rs 94,409 crore between 1989-90 and 2009-10.

For over a decade, from 1994-95 to 2005-06, the state received 10-12% of all grants disbursed by the central government to the states. In 2009-10, this proportion had dipped slightly to about 8%. This is way above J&K's share of India's population, which is a mere 1%.

Is the Centre providing similar support to the other hotspot of insurgency in India — the northeast? Not quite. According to the RBI report, in 2009-10, the eight northeastern states received grants and loans worth Rs 29,084 crore from the Centre, which was 44% of their combined total expenditure, which is significantly lower than in J&K. These figures raise two questions about J&K: one, how is this money being spent, and two, why is it not helping in soothing the discontent that is obviously so widespread?

Spending on the social sector — schools, health, rural development, etc — in J&K is surprisingly low at about 30% of aggregate expenditure. That is the fourth lowest proportion among all states. The all-state average is 40% and states like Chhattisgarh (54%), Maharashtra (50%) and Rajasthan (46%) do much better. What is even more surprising in the case of J&K is that it has been stagnating at this level for nearly thirty years.

As can be expected for a mountainous region wracked by insurgency, administrative expenditure is high in J&K, working out to about 12% of all expenditure. But Himachal and Sikkim, other Himalayan states, spend only about 6% on administration. So, perhaps J&K's high administrative costs are largely due to the disturbed situation. But Tripura with 16% and Mizoram with 14% of funds spent on administration have managed to attain stability and peace. Obviously, the high expenditure on administration in J&K is not really working.

A clue to this conundrum can be found in the per capita spending by state governments. Three mountainous border states, Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, which have had militancy problems, but have been relatively stable for a long period, spent Rs 59 lakh, Rs 35 lakh and Rs 38 lakh per capita in 2009-10.

In J&K, the annual per capita spending by the state is far short of this, at about Rs 20 lakh. Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland — all states wracked by insurgency to varying degrees — have similar spending levels ranging between Rs 18 to 21 lakh per capita per annum. So, part of the answer to the question as to why pouring money into J&K is not solving the problem lies in the fact that not enough money is being spent, because the state itself is not generating enough revenue. The other part, of course, is whether money shown as spent is really reaching the people. What's your guess?

Read more: J&K's dependency on Centre alarming - India - The Times of India J&K's dependency on Centre alarming - India - The Times of India

 

[eric_cartman]

Dude lets get over with the facts that there was no India before the British colonization. You are very well refuting the Kashmir history much like Indian official state policy against which the Kashmir's are revolting. Kashmir was an independent state even during the colonial era. So what gives India claim over it?? Going back in history and calling Kashmir part of India is in a sense no different that 400+ imperial princely states being part of India.

The Raja who was ruling over it handed Kashmir to India, I know you will say Hyderabad's Raja wanted to be independent or be with Pakistan.
But what fun it would have been flying like 1000kms to eat a plate of Hyderabadi biryani, better take cooks to Pakistan which I think did happen.

 

[desiman]

J&K's dependency on Centre alarming

While Jammu & Kashmir continues through an endless cycle of calm-confrontation-curfew, it is facing a disastrous financial situation. Recently released Reserve Bank of India data on state finances shows how highly dependent J&K is on the central government's support.

In 2009-10, J&K received Rs 13,252 crore as grants from the Centre, which constitutes nearly 60% of the state's total expenditure. In fact, for the past two decades since the separatist movement spread in the Kashmir valley, the centre has been propping up the state through similar doles. In all, J&K has received grants amounting to Rs 94,409 crore between 1989-90 and 2009-10.

For over a decade, from 1994-95 to 2005-06, the state received 10-12% of all grants disbursed by the central government to the states. In 2009-10, this proportion had dipped slightly to about 8%. This is way above J&K's share of India's population, which is a mere 1%.

Is the Centre providing similar support to the other hotspot of insurgency in India — the northeast? Not quite. According to the RBI report, in 2009-10, the eight northeastern states received grants and loans worth Rs 29,084 crore from the Centre, which was 44% of their combined total expenditure, which is significantly lower than in J&K. These figures raise two questions about J&K: one, how is this money being spent, and two, why is it not helping in soothing the discontent that is obviously so widespread?

Spending on the social sector — schools, health, rural development, etc — in J&K is surprisingly low at about 30% of aggregate expenditure. That is the fourth lowest proportion among all states. The all-state average is 40% and states like Chhattisgarh (54%), Maharashtra (50%) and Rajasthan (46%) do much better. What is even more surprising in the case of J&K is that it has been stagnating at this level for nearly thirty years.

As can be expected for a mountainous region wracked by insurgency, administrative expenditure is high in J&K, working out to about 12% of all expenditure. But Himachal and Sikkim, other Himalayan states, spend only about 6% on administration. So, perhaps J&K's high administrative costs are largely due to the disturbed situation. But Tripura with 16% and Mizoram with 14% of funds spent on administration have managed to attain stability and peace. Obviously, the high expenditure on administration in J&K is not really working.

A clue to this conundrum can be found in the per capita spending by state governments. Three mountainous border states, Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, which have had militancy problems, but have been relatively stable for a long period, spent Rs 59 lakh, Rs 35 lakh and Rs 38 lakh per capita in 2009-10.

In J&K, the annual per capita spending by the state is far short of this, at about Rs 20 lakh. Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland — all states wracked by insurgency to varying degrees — have similar spending levels ranging between Rs 18 to 21 lakh per capita per annum. So, part of the answer to the question as to why pouring money into J&K is not solving the problem lies in the fact that not enough money is being spent, because the state itself is not generating enough revenue. The other part, of course, is whether money shown as spent is really reaching the people. What's your guess?

Read more: J&K's dependency on Centre alarming - India - The Times of India J&K's dependency on Centre alarming - India - The Times of India

First decide what you want to argue on then we can argue, do you want to talk about the poorest state, GDP, or the fiscal expenditure of a government. You are mixing issues here without knowing a zit about economics. Your point that Kashmir is the poorest state in India is wrong and I dont know what you trying to prove. Please be clear with your statements.

 

[ajtr]

First decide what you want to argue on then we can argue, do you want to talk about the poorest state, GDP, or the fiscal expenditure of a government. You are mixing issues here without knowing a zit about economics. Your point that Kashmir is the poorest state in India is wrong and I dont know what you trying to prove. Please be clear with your statements.

i said least poor sate.not the poor

 

[whocares]

The Raja who was ruling over it handed Kashmir to India, I know you will say Hyderabad's Raja wanted to be independent or be with Pakistan.
But what fun it would have been flying like 1000kms to eat a plate of Hyderabadi biryani, better take cooks to Pakistan which I think did happen.

lets not discuss the past but instead the future.

 

[ajtr]

Moreover karshmir riots have less to do with economics.if thats the case Laddak would ve been up in arm first.

 

[ajtr]

lets not discuss the past but instead the future.

Future is claim the rest of kashmir there only way left.