I was wondering how long it would take before somebody posted this foolish reply. Not surprising though.
Before bashing me back I encourage you to read the UN definition of Genocide - it's there in the Genocide convention but here is a link in case your Google does not work
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf
So what about the deaths in Kashmir? Even assuming your number is accurate that's about a lakh deaths in 27 years - or about 3,700 deaths a year - not a very good evidence of genocide. Those deaths you quote come from many causes
- shelling from across the border
- outright terrorism
- [Indian] army/police killings
Let's assume some fraction of that 92,000 is on account of army / police atrocities. Is that a tragedy ? Of course. Is that a human rights violation by the army/police - Certainly, if they were not acting in self defense. Is that genocide - certainly not as there has never been any allegation, much less evidence that the killing [of this fraction of 92,000] over 27 years is done to target a specific ethnic group. I don't condone or excuse or feel proud about lives lost due to police or army high handedness or criminal behaviour but what has happened in Kashmir is very far from genocide.
Now you might ask -- why is it that the victims are mostly Muslim? Well - most of the population in the districts close to the LOC are muslims so its unsurprising that victims will likely be muslims. Most of the Hindus have long since fled so there just are not enough of them left to die in reportable numbers.
Every human right violation is not genocide. The Kashmir issue is a political problem and also a military problem to a much lesser extent. But to call it genocide discredits both the tragedy as well as your knowledge and understanding of history.
Btw here's what the Dhaka embassy of your cold war ally (the US) had to say about the situation in 1971 - in a telegram to DC (the famous Blood telegram). It's quite remarkable because Nixon was a staunch supporter of Yahya Khan at the time and was unconditional in his support.
Our [US] government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak[istan] dominated government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy (...) But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely an internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional civil servants, express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected.
So please don't forget that I wasn't the first to call 1971 a genocide by Pakistan.
[On a related note 1971 was the culmination of 25 years of attempts to block east pakistanis from getting a majority power in the assembly. You should read about the many ways the drafting of the constitution was stalled as every legal trick was attempted to accomplish that end.]
I don't blame you personally for this - but it was a real tragedy - estimates range from 300,000 to 3,000,000, plus 40,000 women raped. That's many times the Kashmir deaths and what's remarkable is that it was perpetuated in a period of months.
