Strict Curfew Imposed In Most Of Indian Kashmir

[Chak Bamu]

There is seperatism but not on the scale of Kashmir in any region. This is proof:

“63 percent Baloch oppose independence” | The News Tribe

Personally I see this situation as very grave in Balochistan despite majority being against freedom. ^^^^^^
I mean 37% of all Baloch is not a small number. @Irfan Baloch.

In Kashmir 87% want freedom and 4% ascension with Pakistan- that is only according to one survey though there are more in this regard, one stating 92%

However India is so large it can easily absorb a secessionist region like Kashmir fully. Kashmiris are only 7 Million in India and the total population of India is a billion plus so ignore them or choose to help them it does not matter. This is why the Kashmiris wanting freedom will only dream. Reality can only be made with a nation like Pakistan's help which itself is in a situation. So thats a neutral take though given my Ansari heritage I do feel the need to say things like callous oppression which I will not allude to in respect for you Ayush.

Give them rights. 60 years is enough for them to stop wanting freedom.

Havi, the Kashmir numbers do not make sense to me. Is it IOK? If so, I can understand. But most Kashmiris in Azad or Pakistan adminsitered Kashmir are well-intgrated because there is not compulsion upon them that they have to be forced to be a part of Pakistan. I have come across Kashmiris wanting to be independent of both Pakistan and India, but apart from some activity from Yasin Malik's JKLF on our side, there is hardly any voice calling for separation from Pakistan.

I hope Ayush understands that Pakistan's approach towards Kashmiris on this side has been better. I have never come across any report of violence on Azad, or Pakistan administered Kashmir.

 

[Ayush]

Regionalism is a shared problem for both India and Pakistan. If regionalism triumphs in one country, it would likely triumph in the other also.

Leaving aside the Kashmir problem for being a disputed territory, we can look at interference from BOTH countires as a foolish and dagerous game.


The regional nationalists on both sides have been supported by the neighboring country in the past. The first step was taken by India when separatism inside Pakistan was encouraged by successive Indian governments. East Pakistan, and the erstwhile NWFP province were targetted from the very beginning. Ghaffar Khan, used to receive financial support from India. The negative sentiment in East Pakistan was abetted by India. There is no secret in these things, it is common knowledge in Pakistan. Ghaffar Khan's grandson heads ANP which is a coalition partner in GOP, so that problem has been taken care of. However during late 1970s and throughout 1980s Indian support for separatism in Singh was evident. These days the separatist sentiment in Balochistan has Indian blessing. The RAW activity has been receiving press coverage since 2006 (as far as I know).

On Pakistan's side, We cultivated contacts in Indian Punjab and exploited those in 1980s to answer Indian efforts in NWFP and Sindh. There could be other activities from Pakistan, but I have not come across any solid evidence.

So you see both the countries have been encouraging regional separatism in the other. For tose Paksitanis who focus on Islam as a unifying factor for the country, it is easy to ignore the effect of separatism in India upon Pakistan itself. Since Pakistan of today is the country of Indus, it may well hold together better in case India fragments. But such a scenario is unimaginable for someone like me who sees a great human catastrophe in India's breakup. But being a student of History, I can well understand that it is a matter of 'when' not 'if'. Sorry to hurt your feelings buddy, but this is how I see things, not how I want them.

Peace is an impossible necessity. We in Pakistan feel its necessity better than India, but we also know the impossibility given the Indian mind-set as of Today.

Kashmir is the key. It shall be the undoing of one or the other, or (more likely) BOTH.

your opinion buddy.ok.

 

[Ayush]

Havi, the Kashmir numbers do not make sense to me. Is it IOK? If so, I can understand. But most Kashmiris in Azad or Pakistan adminsitered Kashmir are well-intgrated because there is not compulsion upon them that they have to be forced to be a part of Pakistan. I have come across Kashmiris wanting to be independent of both Pakistan and India, but apart from some activity from Yasin Malik's JKLF on our side, there is hardly any voice calling for separation from Pakistan.

I hope Ayush understands that Pakistan's approach towards Kashmiris on this side has been better. I have never come across any report of violence on Azad, or Pakistan administered Kashmir.

i accept that there have been fewer problems in *** than j &k .
but this is due to the fact that we have more seperatists than you.this is due to the demographics of kashmir.it is muslim majority,and thus they see us as hindu india going against purely islamic pakistan.
thus,we have to take these steps.
whereas in your part,the population is overwhelmingly muslim(not just majority) and they have no problem in accepting islamic pakistan.

do you agree guys?????????
@Chak Bamu.
@haviZsultan.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Oh sorry @Ayush, I overlooked your reference to violence in Pakistan.

Apart from feelings of separatism in Balochistn, today's Pakistan does not suffer at the hands of regional separatists. The separatists of yesterday are well-integrated into the political dynamics of Pakistan.

The Shia-Sunni violence is not a separatist movement or a concern from that angle. The only issue could be co-operation between Baloch separatists and Sunni extremists just because they are both nuisances and terrorist in their approach. I suspect some covert support from outside powers one of whom has a record of active support for Iranian Baloch Separatists who happen to use Sunni-Shia dynamic / rhetoric (Jundullah).

Prominent Baloch leaders have questioned the wisdom of succession from Pakistan, and the separatist organizations themselves are alligned along tribal lines. I do not foresee the separatists succeeding in foreseeable future.

I forgot to mention the support and training provided by RAW to MQM related terrorists and eager response by India to overtures by Altaf Hussain while under duress in Pakistan. Indians could have chosen to ignore him, but did not. If Pakistanis see India as an existential threat, then of course there is a reason for it.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

There is seperatism but not on the scale of Kashmir in any region. This is proof:

“63 percent Baloch oppose independence” | The News Tribe

Personally I see this situation as very grave in Balochistan despite majority being against freedom. ^^^^^^
I mean 37% of all Baloch is not a small number. @Irfan Baloch.

In Kashmir 87% want freedom and 4% ascension with Pakistan- that is only according to one survey though there are more in this regard, one stating 92%

However India is so large it can easily absorb a secessionist region like Kashmir fully. Kashmiris are only 7 Million in India and the total population of India is a billion plus so ignore them or choose to help them it does not matter. This is why the Kashmiris wanting freedom will only dream. Reality can only be made with a nation like Pakistan's help which itself is in a situation. So thats a neutral take though given my Ansari heritage I do feel the need to say things like callous oppression which I will not allude to in respect for you Ayush.

Give them rights. 60 years is enough for them to stop wanting freedom.

Exactly what rights do you propose be extended to the Kashmiris? Currently they have many protectionist legislation passed in the National Assembly which offends many Indians on the basis that Kashmiris are free to engage in the rest of India but not vice versa. That however is a matter for another debate. A curfew is a temporary limitation of rights instrumental for state security purposes and is not a permanent suppression of rights. Kashmiris are not the only subject of curfews in India since curfews are used widely and freely by state officials in most of India whenever there is unrest for any reason. As for the wish of Kashmiris, it has been argued too and fro that Kashmiris must accept that Kashmir is a territory of India. There is also argument that the current Kashmiri population is not indicative of the true Kashmiri population since the Pandits need to be resettled in Kashmir. Once that is done and there is stability in the state, one can give regard to the wishes of all Kashmiris. Not the wishes of the 90% of the current population. You are indeed correct when you say that the 90% represents 90% of 7 million of a total population of 1,2 billion. The end result is that it is for Kashmiris to accept that they must live within the rules of the country. Even if absorbed in Pakistan, and if they rebel against the laws of Pakistan, I am certain that the Pakistani authorities will unleash the same measures as the Indian authorities are doing, if not more harsh measures.

 

[Chak Bamu]

i accept that there have been fewer problems in *** than j &k .
but this is due to the fact that we have more seperatists than you.this is due to the demographics of kashmir.it is muslim majority,and thus they see us as hindu india going against purely islamic pakistan.
thus,we have to take these steps.
whereas in your part,the population is overwhelmingly muslim(not just majority) and they have no problem in accepting islamic pakistan.

do you agree guys?????????
@Chak Bamu.

Yes and no.

See from either the Islamic perspective or the politico-human perspective, Pakistan's approach is better.

You have to dig a little deeper into history of Kashmir around 1947 to find the answers. For Indians it is a very simple matter of ascribing the problems of Kashmir to interference from Pakistan. What is totally overlooked is the suppression from Dogra-raj that precipitated a rebellion in Parts of Kashmir that are now called Azad Kashmir. In the environs of Jammu there were mass killings. The campaign of ethnic cleansing was countered by Muslims of Poonch, Mirpur, etc.. who had served in British Indian Army. This is well reported, but often burried under all else that happened in 1947. The memories of those government sponsored pogroms drove Kashmiris to Pakistan. Some of them may pay lip service to independence from both India and Pakistan, but based on my interactions I can tell that this is a minority opinion.

A small point Ayush. Pls do appreciate the difference between status of IOK and Azad Kashmir. Pakistan has never assimilated Kashmir as part of Pakistan, but India has. So, while it may be correct to call Azad Kashmir as Pakistan Administered Kashmir, P-O-K is not quite correct. You can not point to a single incident of local Kashmiris considering Pakistan as an occupier. It is Indian sentiments I can see, but not quite correct in light of ground realities and sentiments of the majority of people concerned. Thanks.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

This is in fact, what secularism is..religious freedom of an individual never, triumphs National security.

u mean in an area where more then 80% r muslims.

But where was that ''freedom of an individual was when u had falsely given the decision of Babri masjid to both parties when Muslims were clear winners??

Where was it when u had arrested a 21 year old Young Muslim women just because she had expressed her individual frustration on Curfew in yr biggest city n commercial hub on the eve of death of a Hindu terrorist n also arrested her non muslim friend just because she had liked the comment.

So much for democracy and secularism!!!!

 

[haviZsultan]

Havi, the Kashmir numbers do not make sense to me. Is it IOK? If so, I can understand. But most Kashmiris in Azad or Pakistan adminsitered Kashmir are well-intgrated because there is not compulsion upon them that they have to be forced to be a part of Pakistan. I have come across Kashmiris wanting to be independent of both Pakistan and India, but apart from some activity from Yasin Malik's JKLF on our side, there is hardly any voice calling for separation from Pakistan.

I hope Ayush understands that Pakistan's approach towards Kashmiris on this side has been better. I have never come across any report of violence on Azad, or Pakistan administered Kashmir.

The poll is incomplete. 87% is for IOK and includes Jammu and Ladakh:

The CSDS conducted a special poll in Srinagar and Jammu city by interviewing 226 and 255 persons respectively.

This is a link:
'87% in Valley want Independence' - Express India

I agree with the rest of what you said. I was confused about the poll earlier but Azad Kashmir was not included. The people there want straight ascension with Pakistan. @A1Qaid can confirm. Perhaps even @Armstrong.

 

[Ayush]

Yes and no.

See from either the Islamic perspective or the politico-human perspective, Pakistan's approach is better.

You have to dig a little deeper into history of Kashmir around 1947 to find the answers. For Indians it is a very simple matter of ascribing the problems of Kashmir to interference from Pakistan. What is totally overlooked is the suppression from Dogra-raj that precipitated a rebellion in Parts of Kashmir that are now called Azad Kashmir. In the environs of Jammu there were mass killings. The campaign of ethnic cleansing was countered by Muslims of Poonch, Mirpur, etc.. who had served in British Indian Army. This is well reported, but often burried under all else that happened in 1947. The memories of those government sponsored pogroms drove Kashmiris to Pakistan. Some of them may pay lip service to independence from both India and Pakistan, but based on my interactions I can tell that this is a minority opinion.

A small point Ayush. Pls do appreciate the difference between status of IOK and Azad Kashmir. Pakistan has never assimilated Kashmir as part of Pakistan, but India has. So, while it may be correct to call Azad Kashmir as Pakistan Administered Kashmir, P-O-K is not quite correct. You can not point to a single incident of local Kashmiris considering Pakistan as an occupier. It is Indian sentiments I can see, but not quite correct in light of ground realities and sentiments of the majority of people concerned. Thanks.

yes and no.i accept the hidden truths, they are quite true.

and officially iok is iak and *** is pak.
but being an indian, I will go with my sentiments and you go with yours.

peace.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

u mean in an area where more then 80% r muslims.

But where was that ''freedom of an individual was when u had falsely given the decision of Babri masjid to both parties when Muslims were clear winners??

Where was it when u had arrested a 21 year old Young Muslim women just because she had expressed her individual frustration on Curfew in yr biggest city n commercial hub on the eve of death of a Hindu terrorist n also arrested her non muslim friend just because she had liked the comment.

So much for democracy and secularism!!!!

I can understand your gripe with the Indian system of secularism and democracy considering that you live in a country whose constitution endorses a theoratic system. You do seem to miss the mark of democracy and secularism though. I don't know about the case in point which you refer to regarding the Muslim lady. It is however trite that all democracies and secular nations will err and have random cases of disregard for the system by either the officials or the system itself. It happens in all secular countries and for any Indian to claim otherwise when it comes to India will be plain foolish. However the principle which you seem to lose sight of is the daily application of the system when it comes to the lives of Indian citizens and the application of the law to all Indian citizens. There is no prevention in law of any Indian citizen accessing any Indian state resource or positon based on religion or culture. That is the hallmark of a secular state. In fact, India goes a step further in promoting affirmative action for its minorities which include minority religions. That is a hallmark of a democracy. We could argue till the cows come home about many issues but it will surely be an exercise in futility for you to suggest that India is neither a democracy nor a secular state. Even the founder of your nation, Mr Jinnah resented India being called India and constantly referred to it as Hindustan, even proposing on many occassions that the nation changes its name. Unfortunately the craving by Pakistanis to see India turn to a theocratic Hindu state thus justifying the existence of Pakistan at times becomes too obvious

 

[haviZsultan]

Curfew in lands of Muslims is only hindu seclurism.

Hindu army shall leave Kashmir.

Stop these rants against Hinduism please.

 

[karan.1970]

Curfew in lands of Muslims is only hindu seclurism.

Hindu army shall leave Kashmir.

Are you ok if Muslim Jawans of Indian army stay back

 

[haviZsultan]

yes and no.i accept the hidden truths, they are quite true.

and officially iok is iak and *** is pak.
but being an indian, I will go with my sentiments and you go with yours.

peace.

I accepted there is only a minor slim chance of Indian Kashmir getting freedom and it is close to 1%. I also said Pakistan's Balochistan policy was wrong. Now you can be the first Indian to take the moral ground and say rights violations should not occur and a people should have a choice to choose their own destiny. Comeon. Be truthful here. I was truthful and took neutral stand with proof's and everything despite my background and links with Hyderabad, Lucknow, Delhi and other parts.

Small concession. Be truthful. Is it right to force a people to stay in a federation forcefully if they don't like it

 

[ares]

Is there a reason, why a your brain can not process beyond a person's religious affiliation?

u mean in an area where more then 80% r muslims.

But where was that ''freedom of an individual was when u had falsely given the decision of Babri masjid to both parties when Muslims were clear winners??

LOL ..you think..with your limited knowledge and cloured opinion..you are in any position to second judge a courts decision!!
Courts give judgment based on facts presented to them and not as per, whims of biased parties.

Where was it when u had arrested a 21 year old Young Muslim women just because she had expressed her individual frustration on Curfew in yr biggest city n commercial hub on the eve of death of a Hindu terrorist n also arrested her non muslim friend just because she had liked the comment.

You axed your own feet here, because as per your own admission her non- Muslim friend was also arrested for a much lesser slight..clearly their religion had nothing to with their arrest!!

Had your bigotry not triumphed your judgment ..you would also mentioned...how both the girls were released and.how the local police were severely reprimanded by the center for their callous actions.

Mumbai: Police under fire for girls' arrest over anti- Thackeray FB post- Maharashtra- India-IBNLive

So much for democracy and secularism!!!!

As you have neither in your country nor a longing for one ..your opinion on it, matters very little.

 

[BATMAN]

Are you ok if Muslim Jawans of Indian army stay back

No true Muslim will join hindu army controlled by shiv sena, burning trains and raiding schools.

No state calling it self 'Islamic state' would support what you are doing to Kashmiris, from last 6 decades.