Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[civfanatic]

After effective withdrawal of Part A and B, exactly which part of that resolution still remains in moral support of your right to self-determination. To forward your point you had quoted B7, remember. If you don't here is the post.



What you can't get your head around is the fact that changed political circumstances also changed the perception on plebiscite. Try as you may, you will not find any support for your right to self-determination in any of the UN resolutions.

So You are arguing that UN dropped the idea of Plebiscite but strangely still wanted a mechanism for plebiscite administration ..

 

[civfanatic]

After two months of almost continuous clampdowns and lockdowns, 60 systematic killings, and hundreds of incarcerations, the debate in India about protests in Kashmir has continued to hover between bleeding-heart liberal talk and state attempts at dissimulation. While state deception, and the Hindu right racket, is obvious, expected, and nothing new, the increased space for liberal discourse has given a false impression that there is a change in heart. The liberal discourse in India on the question of Kashmir is not open, fair, or objective, but often borders on, and oftentimes overlaps, the more popular, explicitly nationalist polemics.

From news shows to newspaper articles every death in Kashmir is slyly or openly justified. Since the day some protestors in Pampore and Srinagar burnt a few police jeeps and a couple of decrepit old, low-level government office structures, fit not even to be cowsheds, the Indian media suggested that people are shot because they attack public property. They tried to conceal the fact that most of the victims were killed before those structures were burnt down. But then even before the Pampore incidents big media in India tried to create a moral equivalence between intentional murders of dozens of unarmed Kashmiri protestors and Indian paramilitary soldiers not getting enough rest, or their jeeps getting a few bumps.

India’s “Kashmir experts” (some of them from Kashmir as well), who fall over each other to get a place on noisy and bogus talk shows in Delhi, have been bandying about that the current series of protests began with the June 11 killing of Tufail Mattoo. The fake encounter killings of three young men in Machil and of a 70-year-old man in Kupwara, the fatal shooting of another man in Keller forests, the wanton killings of Zahid and Wamiq in Srinagar, and numerous others preceded Tufail’s death. Not only were these other killings deliberately forced to recede from the public view, but the immense suffering, the daily grind, humiliation and torture that marks life in Kashmir under military occupation continues to be glossed over. The gloss often is the much-abused fabrication that Kashmiris live off Indian taxpayers’ money. Somehow it is assumed that Kashmiris don’t pay taxes, or that Kashmir doesn’t have an economy of its own beyond the government dole. The fact deliberately obscured is that the very thin slice of Kashmiri society that does benefit from Indian handouts is the one the Indian state has actively promoted as a class of collaborators in Kashmir. These are mostly the people who appear on TV shows in Delhi, and their view is projected as the countervailing view to the Indian hawks, who saturate the public sphere in Delhi newsrooms. The problem is that these same people openly announce that common Kashmiris will lynch them if they went out of their security cocoons.

Then there are the nauseating media pundits who, on one side, show injured young children with bullet marks on their chests and, on the other, bring heavy mustached ex-military generals to offer their views on why children get shot. They implicitly announce that if Kashmiri children have to live, their parents better keep them inside their homes. This is the liberal Indian media. On the more popular platforms, like Rediff News or Times of India, respondents openly call for genocide of Kashmiris. It is crucial to read the low ethical barometer of this Delhi based media since it directly generates much Indian public opinion about Kashmir. How do societies become so pachydermic to gulp down with eager credulity such moral depravity? Even in the left–liberal big media, the systematic nature of deceit is clearly visible to the point that it has become farcical. The Hindu published an editorial that unscrupulously tried to make a case for curtailing Internet services to Kashmiris, one of the few places where the Indian government has not been completely successful in muzzling dissent. So disgruntled was this calumnious piece’s author that he created fictitious names to smear all the protest Kashmiris express online.

For long the existence of Kashmiri protest was shrugged off as directed by Pakistan. Now after those theories have fallen flat, attempts are made to mystify what Kashmiris want. Isn’t it truly baffling that, while the rest of the world clearly know what Kashmiris want, India’s liberal experts have a hard time comprehending this resounding reality? For the last 20 years these experts have repeatedly asked the question: “But what do Kashmiris want?” Kashmiris have declared what they want in clear, succinct slogans (always in English, and in Hindustani) over microphones, on banners, and in protests, by raising fists, throwing stones, and firing guns, through their tears, cries, and wails, through burnt homes, imprisoned lives, and wounded, life-deprive bodies.

The ones, who have finally managed to read the writing on the bloodied wall, fulminate in self-righteous anger that India will never give azadi to Kashmiris. This rejection of Kashmir’s freedom takes supercilious forms. They tell us Kashmiris to see ‘reason.’ Free Kashmir is not viable. In return, we ask them, if unfree, occupied Kashmir is viable for Kashmiris? They tell us Kashmir will become another playground for Great Power politics, and we ask them if India’s denial of Kashmir’s right to self-determination has not already turned Kashmir into one. Some of them warn us that independent Kashmir will be taken over by the U.S. But we ask them, have India and Pakistan not been ‘taken over’ by the U.S. already? Didn’t India eagerly, and without being asked, offer the U.S. its bases to attack Afghanistan? Don’t India and Pakistan race to Washington to get a little smile, a nod, a shoulder brush, an acknowledgement from Americans? They even tell Kashmiris that we will not survive, because we are landlocked, as if through history, which we successfully survived, we weren’t landlocked. (Are there no landlocked countries in the world?) And when these arguments sound all speculative, they tell us that Muslims in India will come under great threat from the majority Hindus if Kashmir separates from India. And, in the same breath they hasten to add that Indians are a tolerant, pluralist nation.

Only in the end they tell us that we need to see the “harsh reality” of India’s power. Well, this is an argument that is shorn of fake sympathy for Kashmiris, of moral self-righteousness, and of the supercilious concern for the viability of an independent Kashmir. This is an argument, which one can grant a degree of objectivity, if not morality. The argument that uses the rationale of India’s superior military power against the logic of the Kashmiri struggle for freedom, however, also lays bare the irreconcilable interests of the present nature of the Indian state and those of the Kashmiri people. To that question, however, we ask them, who more than Kashmiris has faced, and knows about, the “harsh reality” of India’s power? According to their argument it is clear that Kashmiris should live with the occupation, if they must at all. Some even point out that gradually the “perception” of military occupation will go away.

For instance, in a number of circles in India, it has falsely been argued that killings happen in reaction to protests, rather than the other way round. It is claimed that if protests were to stop, the so-called “cycle of death” will stop as well—a thesis India’s prime minister also delineated while asking Kashmiris to end protest. The fact is that the killings, protest or no protest, are intimately tied to the grating reality of the military occupation. This occupation, which lets half a million military personnel, along with a chain-link network of dark operatives of intelligence agencies, sit atop a dissenting population as a force for suppressive pacification, has uses for these regular killings. Regular killings, maiming, rapes and molestations, random raids and arrests, merciless beatings, forced labor, daily dishonor, are all employed to destroy our social bonds, to pulverize our sense of self, to create utter disillusionment and despondency, to demolish the basis for any claim to self-respect, and ultimately to tear apart being political from being Kashmiri and achieving the death of these feelings of belonging. Or better, kill politics and turn us Kashmiris into artifacts of our presumed culture. Is this in the Kashmiri national interest, one may ask those who justify it all in the name of “Indian national interest”?

Occupation is a vicious process. It has gradually entered, and continues to enter, all aspects of Kashmiri life. Mass protests are outbursts, impassioned attempts to wriggle free. Freedom from this occupation is not just an aspiration, a wish, or a longing for a pipedream, but a desperate need. The struggle for life in Kashmir is the struggle for freedom. The protests surely intensify the occupation, but they also render the beast more visible, and easier to grasp. Ending protest will definitely not end the occupation, only it will be a sure, if slow route to a form of death down the road. The liberal discourse covers up all the contradictions present in the forced relations between India and Kashmir, and sells the dream of the Great Indian Democracy, a dream which large number of Indians themselves hardly believe in any more. This liberal discourse, which is too close to power, doesn’t mediate between Kashmiris and the Indian state. It is often just a face of the latter, even if a more slippery one.

http://www.countercurrents.org/junaid110810.htm

 

[RamGorur]

So You are arguing that UN dropped the idea of Plebiscite but strangely still wanted a mechanism for plebiscite administration ..

Nope. I am arguing that UN is acting as a neutral agent between the two countries. UN proposed the mechanism for plebiscite, because plebiscite is what both the countries had agreed to.

Look at it this way. If both the countries had agreed to a match of kickboxing to resolve their dispute, then UN's role would have been that of a referee.

 

[Bhairava]

Nope. I am arguing that UN is acting as a neutral agent between the two countries. UN proposed the mechanism for plebiscite, because plebiscite is what both the countries had agreed to.

Look at it this way. If both the countries had agreed to a match of kickboxing to resolve their dispute, then UN's role would have been that of a referee.

but the key difference here is ..if one player doesnt agree to "box" the referee cant automatically grant the match to the other player.

 

[GUNNER]

New death sparks protests in Indian Kashmir

SRINAGAR — Thousands of people poured on to the streets of Indian Kashmir summer capital Srinagar on Wednesday after another protester died, taking the toll of two months of violence to 64, police said.

The teenager who died in a Srinagar hospital on Wednesday had been admitted on Monday. Witnesses said he had been beaten by federal paramilitary forces during a protest against Indian rule.

Police said they were investigating the death that brought hundreds of locals out on the streets of Srinagar's Soura district chanting slogans.

"More and more people are joining them," a resident Farooq Ahmed told AFP over the telephone.

An AFP photographer said police fired several warning shots in the air to disperse the protesters who were carrying the corpse.

The scenic Kashmir region has been under rolling curfews to contain deadly protests that were sparked by the killing June 11 of a teenage student in the Srinagar by a police tear-gas shell.

Most parts of Srinagar were under strict curfew on Wednesday after Muslim separatists opposed to Indian rule in the region called upon the residents to hold anti-India protests across the region.

In Pampore town, 15 kilometres (nine miles), south of Srinagar, a young protester was wounded Wednesday when security forces opened fire to quell a demonstration, police said.

 

[rameez ahmed]

Indian terrorist army in Kashmir deserves far more worse fate than this... Hope Indian army gets even worse protest in Kashmir...

 

[Durran3]

How is this any different than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict... sure its on a much smaller scale but its pretty much the same thing..

 

[IBRIS]

After two months of almost continuous clampdowns and lockdowns, 60 systematic killings, and hundreds of incarcerations, the debate in India about protests in Kashmir has continued to hover between bleeding-heart liberal talk and state attempts at dissimulation. While state deception, and the Hindu right racket, is obvious, expected, and nothing new, the increased space for liberal discourse has given a false impression that there is a change in heart. The liberal discourse in India on the question of Kashmir is not open, fair, or objective, but often borders on, and oftentimes overlaps, the more popular, explicitly nationalist polemics.

From news shows to newspaper articles every death in Kashmir is slyly or openly justified. Since the day some protestors in Pampore and Srinagar burnt a few police jeeps and a couple of decrepit old, low-level government office structures, fit not even to be cowsheds, the Indian media suggested that people are shot because they attack public property. They tried to conceal the fact that most of the victims were killed before those structures were burnt down. But then even before the Pampore incidents big media in India tried to create a moral equivalence between intentional murders of dozens of unarmed Kashmiri protestors and Indian paramilitary soldiers not getting enough rest, or their jeeps getting a few bumps.

India’s “Kashmir experts” (some of them from Kashmir as well), who fall over each other to get a place on noisy and bogus talk shows in Delhi, have been bandying about that the current series of protests began with the June 11 killing of Tufail Mattoo. The fake encounter killings of three young men in Machil and of a 70-year-old man in Kupwara, the fatal shooting of another man in Keller forests, the wanton killings of Zahid and Wamiq in Srinagar, and numerous others preceded Tufail’s death. Not only were these other killings deliberately forced to recede from the public view, but the immense suffering, the daily grind, humiliation and torture that marks life in Kashmir under military occupation continues to be glossed over. The gloss often is the much-abused fabrication that Kashmiris live off Indian taxpayers’ money. Somehow it is assumed that Kashmiris don’t pay taxes, or that Kashmir doesn’t have an economy of its own beyond the government dole. The fact deliberately obscured is that the very thin slice of Kashmiri society that does benefit from Indian handouts is the one the Indian state has actively promoted as a class of collaborators in Kashmir. These are mostly the people who appear on TV shows in Delhi, and their view is projected as the countervailing view to the Indian hawks, who saturate the public sphere in Delhi newsrooms. The problem is that these same people openly announce that common Kashmiris will lynch them if they went out of their security cocoons.

Then there are the nauseating media pundits who, on one side, show injured young children with bullet marks on their chests and, on the other, bring heavy mustached ex-military generals to offer their views on why children get shot. They implicitly announce that if Kashmiri children have to live, their parents better keep them inside their homes. This is the liberal Indian media. On the more popular platforms, like Rediff News or Times of India, respondents openly call for genocide of Kashmiris. It is crucial to read the low ethical barometer of this Delhi based media since it directly generates much Indian public opinion about Kashmir. How do societies become so pachydermic to gulp down with eager credulity such moral depravity? Even in the left–liberal big media, the systematic nature of deceit is clearly visible to the point that it has become farcical. The Hindu published an editorial that unscrupulously tried to make a case for curtailing Internet services to Kashmiris, one of the few places where the Indian government has not been completely successful in muzzling dissent. So disgruntled was this calumnious piece’s author that he created fictitious names to smear all the protest Kashmiris express online.

For long the existence of Kashmiri protest was shrugged off as directed by Pakistan. Now after those theories have fallen flat, attempts are made to mystify what Kashmiris want. Isn’t it truly baffling that, while the rest of the world clearly know what Kashmiris want, India’s liberal experts have a hard time comprehending this resounding reality? For the last 20 years these experts have repeatedly asked the question: “But what do Kashmiris want?” Kashmiris have declared what they want in clear, succinct slogans (always in English, and in Hindustani) over microphones, on banners, and in protests, by raising fists, throwing stones, and firing guns, through their tears, cries, and wails, through burnt homes, imprisoned lives, and wounded, life-deprive bodies.

The ones, who have finally managed to read the writing on the bloodied wall, fulminate in self-righteous anger that India will never give azadi to Kashmiris. This rejection of Kashmir’s freedom takes supercilious forms. They tell us Kashmiris to see ‘reason.’ Free Kashmir is not viable. In return, we ask them, if unfree, occupied Kashmir is viable for Kashmiris? They tell us Kashmir will become another playground for Great Power politics, and we ask them if India’s denial of Kashmir’s right to self-determination has not already turned Kashmir into one. Some of them warn us that independent Kashmir will be taken over by the U.S. But we ask them, have India and Pakistan not been ‘taken over’ by the U.S. already? Didn’t India eagerly, and without being asked, offer the U.S. its bases to attack Afghanistan? Don’t India and Pakistan race to Washington to get a little smile, a nod, a shoulder brush, an acknowledgement from Americans? They even tell Kashmiris that we will not survive, because we are landlocked, as if through history, which we successfully survived, we weren’t landlocked. (Are there no landlocked countries in the world?) And when these arguments sound all speculative, they tell us that Muslims in India will come under great threat from the majority Hindus if Kashmir separates from India. And, in the same breath they hasten to add that Indians are a tolerant, pluralist nation.

Only in the end they tell us that we need to see the “harsh reality” of India’s power. Well, this is an argument that is shorn of fake sympathy for Kashmiris, of moral self-righteousness, and of the supercilious concern for the viability of an independent Kashmir. This is an argument, which one can grant a degree of objectivity, if not morality. The argument that uses the rationale of India’s superior military power against the logic of the Kashmiri struggle for freedom, however, also lays bare the irreconcilable interests of the present nature of the Indian state and those of the Kashmiri people. To that question, however, we ask them, who more than Kashmiris has faced, and knows about, the “harsh reality” of India’s power? According to their argument it is clear that Kashmiris should live with the occupation, if they must at all. Some even point out that gradually the “perception” of military occupation will go away.

For instance, in a number of circles in India, it has falsely been argued that killings happen in reaction to protests, rather than the other way round. It is claimed that if protests were to stop, the so-called “cycle of death” will stop as well—a thesis India’s prime minister also delineated while asking Kashmiris to end protest. The fact is that the killings, protest or no protest, are intimately tied to the grating reality of the military occupation. This occupation, which lets half a million military personnel, along with a chain-link network of dark operatives of intelligence agencies, sit atop a dissenting population as a force for suppressive pacification, has uses for these regular killings. Regular killings, maiming, rapes and molestations, random raids and arrests, merciless beatings, forced labor, daily dishonor, are all employed to destroy our social bonds, to pulverize our sense of self, to create utter disillusionment and despondency, to demolish the basis for any claim to self-respect, and ultimately to tear apart being political from being Kashmiri and achieving the death of these feelings of belonging. Or better, kill politics and turn us Kashmiris into artifacts of our presumed culture. Is this in the Kashmiri national interest, one may ask those who justify it all in the name of “Indian national interest”?

Occupation is a vicious process. It has gradually entered, and continues to enter, all aspects of Kashmiri life. Mass protests are outbursts, impassioned attempts to wriggle free. Freedom from this occupation is not just an aspiration, a wish, or a longing for a pipedream, but a desperate need. The struggle for life in Kashmir is the struggle for freedom. The protests surely intensify the occupation, but they also render the beast more visible, and easier to grasp. Ending protest will definitely not end the occupation, only it will be a sure, if slow route to a form of death down the road. The liberal discourse covers up all the contradictions present in the forced relations between India and Kashmir, and sells the dream of the Great Indian Democracy, a dream which large number of Indians themselves hardly believe in any more. This liberal discourse, which is too close to power, doesn’t mediate between Kashmiris and the Indian state. It is often just a face of the latter, even if a more slippery one.

your 2 cents are copied and pasted from a India hater here called MBI Munshi, nice way of ripping paragraphs from different articles.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=17101.0

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Ramazan 14, 1431

New Death Sparks Protests in Kashmir​

SRINAGAR: Thousands of people poured on to the streets of Srinagar on Wednesday after another protester died, taking the toll of two months of violence to 64, police said.

The teenager who died in a Srinagar hospital on Wednesday had been admitted on Monday. Witnesses said he had been beaten by federal paramilitary forces during a protest against Indian rule.

Police said they were investigating the death that brought hundreds of locals out on the streets of Srinagar's Soura district chanting slogans.

“More and more people are joining them,” a resident Farooq Ahmed told AFP over the telephone.

An AFP photographer said police fired several warning shots in the air to disperse the protesters who were carrying the corpse.

The Kashmir region has been under rolling curfews to contain deadly protests that were sparked by the killing June 11 of a teenage student in the Srinagar by a police tear-gas shell.

Most parts of Srinagar were under strict curfew on Wednesday after separatists opposed to Indian rule in the region called upon the residents to hold anti-India protests across the region.

In Pampore town, 15 kilometres, south of Srinagar, a young protester was wounded Wednesday when security forces opened fire to quell a demonstration, police said.

Militants have fought a 20-year insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir against rule from New Delhi.

The mountainous region, held in part by Pakistan and India but claimed in full by both, has been the cause of two of the three wars the countries have fought since independence from Britain more than half a century ago.

DAWN.COM | World | New death sparks protests in Kashmir

 

[civfanatic]

Nope. I am arguing that UN is acting as a neutral agent between the two countries. UN proposed the mechanism for plebiscite, because plebiscite is what both the countries had agreed to.

Look at it this way. If both the countries had agreed to a match of kickboxing to resolve their dispute, then UN's role would have been that of a referee.

It is strange that you have been reduced to prove your assertion by repeating that assertion .

 

[RamGorur]

It is strange that you have been reduced to prove your assertion by repeating that assertion .

Alternatively, you remain just as clueless as ever about how UN works and conducts its affairs under Chapter VI. The status UN assumes in case of complaints filed under Chapter VI is always that of a referee.

@Gounder

That is correct.

 

[Gucci]

99% of the atrocities in East Pakistan were caused by Indian Army trained terrorists against those who were loyal or potentially loyal to pakistan. this had the double benefit (for the indians) of provoking retaliation from loyal citizens of pakistan.

AS I said earlier, all terrorists deserve equal punishment. this should include the Indian Army officers who trained the terrorists - the Indian Army officers are on record as having admitted to training the Muktis.

Include the the Indian Army trained SOG (special operations group - the only thing special about these renegades is their inhumanity) in Kashmir.

99% of the atrocities in East Pakistan were caused by Indian Army

ur army was responsible for the rape of thousands of ppl in bd.

Bangladesh Genocide Archive

 

[InPhilTraitor]

99% of the atrocities in East Pakistan were caused by Indian Army trained terrorists against those who were loyal or potentially loyal to pakistan. this had the double benefit (for the indians) of provoking retaliation from loyal citizens of pakistan.

AS I said earlier, all terrorists deserve equal punishment. this should include the Indian Army officers who trained the terrorists - the Indian Army officers are on record as having admitted to training the Muktis.

Include the the Indian Army trained SOG (special operations group - the only thing special about these renegades is their inhumanity) in Kashmir.

we are responsible for jewish holocaust and armenian genocide.. if you did not know before.

 

[Bhairava]

How is this any different than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict... sure its on a much smaller scale but its pretty much the same thing..

Nope they are as different as different can get.

Posted by myself in another thread.

Palestine - UN recognised right to indpendence,Kashmir - Un doesnt recognise independence

Palestine - Did any ruler formally accede to Israel - NO ; Kashmir - the Maharaja formally signed the instrument of accession to make it a part of India.

Palestine - are the Palestinians chased out from Palestine- yes ; Kashmir - are the Kashmiris chased outfrom Kashmir - no (if the Hindus/Sikhs/Jains qualify as "Kashmiris" then maybe Yes)

Palestine - is their territory being occupied by settlers - yes : Kashmir - is territory being occupied by Hindu settlers from rest of India - NO

Palestine - do Tanks ,bulldozers regularly demolish homes,buildings - YES ; Kashmir - Have Tanks even come once inside SriNagar - NO

Palestine - Do attack Helicopters regularly fire missiles at anything moving - YES ; Kashmir - Does that thing happen here - NO

Palestine - IS any HAMAS leader safe from MOSSAD - NO ; Kashmir - IS any hair on the head of a separatist leader harmed - NO .Infact they are given treatment at the taxpayers expense in Delhi and Mumbai


Palestine - Do the Israeli police calmly bear all the stones thrown on them - NO ; Kashmir - Poor CRPF not even allowed to fire and given only a lathi in hand.

Palestine - IS there a shortage of basic materials - YES ; Kashmir - one of the least poor states in India with annual assitance going into thousands of crores.

Palestine - IS there any blockade of essential supplies in place - YES ; Kashmir - NO

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

all references NOT related to Kashmir should be deleted......if you want to troll, go take it to bharat-rhatgarbage.com