J & K news and discussion

[CRamS]

TSP seems to be getting desparate with this BS warning from TSPA. Looks like they are preparing for something big as Obama arrives.

Indian political classes are neglecting the fact that at this point in time the Kashmiri intifada, for all intents and purposes, has entered what appears to be the final stage; and if not taken to its logical conclusion would prove to be deadly for India. If the Indian security forces are committing atrocities on a daily basis including extra-judicial killings as part of state terrorism and indeed directly in line with the wishes of the government, the Kashmiris have a right to retaliate. And, indeed, they cannot be blamed for paying the Indians back in a befitting manner. The Indian political circles as well as the general public have failed to realise that they are getting increasingly paranoid owing to their collective misdeeds in Kashmir. Unfortunately the Indians are also not realising that they are only signing their own death warrant by denying the Kashmiris their right to decide their fate. There is reason to believe that the Mumbai attacks would not have happened in the first place had New Delhi given up its brutal occupation of the valley. Of course there is a divine system of reward and punishment and India is simply suffering the consequences for its wrongdoing.

Interesting that they are brazenly taking credit for Mumbai after so many denials.

[abhishek_sharma]

Okay, some pro-Paki paragraphs from his article:

In late October 2008, on the eve of the election that would elevate him to the White House, Barack Obama made some of the most expansive comments about the Kashmir conflict that have ever come from an American presidential candidate. In an interview with Joe Klein of Time magazine, Obama acknowledged that Kashmir’s disputed territory was “obviously a potential tar pit diplomatically,” and yet, he continued:

For us to devote serious diplomatic resources to get a special envoy in there, to figure out a plausible approach, and essentially make the argument to the Indians, you guys are on the brink of being an economic superpower—why do you want to keep on messing with this? To make the argument to the Pakistanis, look at India and what they are doing—why do you want to keep on being bogged down with this particular [issue] at a time when the biggest threat now is coming from the Afghan border? I think there is a moment when potentially we could get their attention. It won’t be easy, but it’s important.

It was refreshing to hear an American politician speak honestly and seriously about Kashmir. Since 1989, when a popular rebellion erupted against Indian misrule, Kashmir’s violence has often been enshrouded by silence. Partly that is because neither the Indian nor the Pakistani government wishes to call attention to its contributions to the conflict. Pakistan’s intelligence service has stoked a low-intensity guerrilla war by funding and arming Islamic radicals and infiltrating them into the Kashmir Valley. India has responded with a brutal counterinsurgency campaign which at its height involved the systematic use of torture and extrajudicial killing. That campaign has lately eased, and the human rights performance of India’s government has improved, but not enough. Protests set off this summer by the shooting deaths of unarmed demonstrators have been the most intense in several years. By mid-August, at least fifty-five people had been killed. Kashmiri rioters have provoked and committed violence this summer, but much of the blame for the high death toll rests with the unprofessional performance of the Indian paramilitaries, whose approach to riot control too often involves indiscriminate firing at crowds.

At least 45,000 people have died violently in Kashmir since 1989. Local human rights groups continue to discover hundreds of unmarked graves containing the bodies of young men either shot in battle or murdered in Indian custody. The victims have left behind 30,000 orphans, according to the International Crisis Group, as well as thousands of widows and at least one thousand “half-widows,” whose husbands are among the missing but have not been proven dead.1

The conflict has again and again spilled outside Kashmir. Just a month after Obama’s interview, on November 26, 2008, ten armed men came ashore in dinghies on Mumbai’s waterfront and embarked on a three-day made-for-television killing spree that left 175 people dead, including nine of the gunmen. Evidence presented in Indian and Pakistani courts has made clear that the attackers had ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the largest of the Islamic groups that Pakistan’s army and intelligence service had built up to fight in Kashmir. The Mumbai attack demonstrated that the most radical jihadi groups active in the Kashmir conflict are becoming bolder. Some of them may intend to provoke an Indo-Pakistani war.

Nonetheless, President Obama has never acted on the analysis he mentioned as a candidate. Early on, his administration caved in when India objected to an exploratory plan to include Kashmir among the responsibilities of Richard Holbrooke, the President’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since then the Obama administration has worked quietly to encourage peace talks between India and Pakistan, but without any breakthroughs. As the months have passed, the President’s national security team has become preoccupied by the deteriorating war in Afghanistan and the Taliban-led insurgency in Pakistan. Amid such difficulties, the idea of thinking afresh about a conflict as old and complex as Kashmir’s might seem preposterously ambitious.

But it is essential nonetheless. Mumbai was a warning. American policy has long sought to compartmentalize Kashmir as a problem separate from Afghanistan’s war, the threats posed by al-Qaeda, or Pakistan’s internal violence. That policy is no longer consistent with the facts, and this failure directly threatens American security. In a number of recent cases when radicalized Muslims living in the United States have traveled to Pakistan for training or inspiration, they have connected with groups or networks active in Kashmir. American policy is also outdated with respect to conditions within Kashmir itself. Kashmiris continue to challenge India’s oppressive military presence in the region, and yet overall, the guerrilla war in Kashmir has changed and quieted during the past decade, and new possibilities for a permanent negotiated settlement have emerged.

...


At the same time, without much fanfare, India has largely prevailed in its counterinsurgency campaign in the Kashmir Valley, at least provisionally. More than a thousand civilians died in Kashmir in 2001; last year, the figure was seventy-two. The number of dead will climb in 2010 because of this summer’s rioting and the indiscriminate shootings by Indian paramilitaries, but even so, the death toll will remain a small fraction of what it was during the 1990s. Islamist guerrillas stage occasional attacks and have prevented tourism and economic activity from returning to normal, but the guerrillas have been isolated militarily. State elections late in 2008 drew a turnout of more than 60 percent overall, although less in the disputed heart of the valley. Even there, political participation has increased and popular support for Islamist guerrillas from Pakistan is fading.

India has drawn down some of its troop deployments and turned greater responsibility for security over to the locally recruited police. Yet not only has India’s government failed to professionalize its methods for riot control in Kashmir and elsewhere, it has left in place draconian emergency laws and has granted de facto immunity to Indian commanders for appalling human rights violations in the past. This summer’s rioting has demonstrated the persistent resentment toward India felt by many Kashmiris. Overall, conditions in the valley have improved and India has established a position of control, but these achievements are not likely to prove sustainable in the absence of a broader settlement.

Nor should the United States or its European allies become complacent about the conflict. Kashmir retains an important place in Pakistan’s sense of grievance; as an enduring cause, it is a source of radicalization and recruitment, one that offers to jihadis international legitimacy and even Pakistani state sanction. The authors of a recent International Crisis Group report describe the present danger:

Another Mumbai-like attack would have a devastating impact on bilateral relations [between India and Pakistan] and could conceivably bring the nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink of war. Moreover, the militants pose an equal threat to the Pakistani state and its citizens.

The Kashmir conundrum is comparable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the sense that the outlines of a permanent two-state settlement have already been negotiated; what’s missing is the political leadership, the public confidence, and the security conditions required to conclude that settlement and to defend it against the violent reaction it would inevitably provoke from Islamist and Hindu nationalist extremists.

For all of Kashmir’s unrest, the Line of Control has provided a remarkably stable basis for a settlement. As Howard Schaffer points out in The Limits of Influence, a thorough and intelligent history of American diplomatic intervention in the Kashmir dispute, the valley, with a population of just under five million, is today “the only part of the pre-1947 state in which the majority of the population is so seriously discontented with the status quo that it wishes to break its link with the country that administers it.” Whether even the valley today is the exception Schaffer describes is debatable; Kashmiri separatist leaders continue to talk sporadically with New Delhi and Islamabad about forms of autonomy that might be established within the Indian and Pakistani constitutions.

As recently as January 2004, the former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and then Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee agreed to launch talks that would lead to “a permanent settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides.” To assure India that he would not revert to Pakistan’s historic practice of talking peace in public and fomenting guerrilla violence in secret, Musharraf pledged that he would not “permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to support terrorism in any manner.” Since then, Indian and Pakistani leaders have made fitful, incomplete, but nonetheless remarkable progress in defining the terms of a settlement of Kashmir and other territorial disputes. Some of this negotiation has occurred at periodic high-level summits staged in public, but Indian and Pakistani envoys have carried out much of the serious work in secret back-channel talks held in hotels in Dubai, London, Bangkok, and elsewhere.3

Before he was forced from office in 2008, Musharraf seems to have concluded that Pakistan might achieve more of its goals in Kashmir through peaceful political negotiations than by continuing to infiltrate Islamic radicals. India’s surging economic growth and Pakistan’s desire to benefit in an atmosphere of normalized relations and growing trade were also factors in his willingness to seek compromise, according to Pakistani officials involved. In any event, under Musharraf, cross-border infiltration of guerrillas into Kashmir from Pakistan slowed to a virtual trickle by late 2006.

By early 2007, according to Indian and Pakistani officials involved, the two sides had completed the outline of an agreement on Kashmir. It remains unclear which provisions had been agreed on and which issues had been designated for future negotiation, but at the heart of the breakthrough lay an emphasis on autonomy and special status for residents of the valley and Azad Kashmir, including the right to move freely across the Line of Control. Before the deal could be announced, however, Musharraf’s grip on power slipped; as Islamist violence within Pakistan intensified in mid-2007, it became implausible to announce such a risk-taking peace deal, for which neither the Indian nor the Pakistani public was prepared. Musharraf has since been succeeded by a weak elected government in Pakistan as well as new army leadership that appears more focused on quelling internal revolt and managing Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan.

The specific settlement proposals developed three years ago remain sound. Schaffer’s history traces in rich detail the roots of these ideas. As far back as 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower proposed an American role in negotiations that would divide Jammu and Kashmir, in a settlement linked to expansive aid and investments in Indian and Pakistani economic development by the United States and other wealthy countries. More recently, official envoys and nongovernmental organizations such as the Washington-based Kashmir Study Group have debated and refined ways to grant substantial autonomy to Kashmiris while preserving Indian and Pakistani sovereignty. The technical provisions of a final deal are less important than how its balance is ultimately perceived by the Indian and Pakistani publics. To be workable, an agreement must be favorable enough to Kashmiris for Pakistan’s army to save face, but not so favorable as to provoke an unmanageable backlash from Hindu activists in India.

Schaffer describes the elements of an agreement that he believes are necessary: the Line of Control should become an international border; the border should be “sufficiently porous to allow for the easy movement of people and goods across it”; all populations in the original Jammu and Kashmir state should enjoy some measure of autonomy; and “joint institutions” should be established “on an all-Kashmir basis [to] play a role in managing noncontroversial matters affecting Kashmiris on both sides of the line.”

Schaffer also adopts the traditional view that the United States should advance these ideas, if at all, only through “quiet diplomacy.” He is an accomplished retired diplomat; his profession overvalues discretion. The rationale for caution is that a more active American approach would produce an unfavorable reaction within India from Hindu nationalist politicians, the media, and even the secular Congress Party–led government, which would likely feel compelled to assert its nationalist credentials to defy perceived American meddling. Therefore, this thinking goes, the costs of American visibility on Kashmir will outweigh any benefits.

These assumptions are outdated for three reasons. First, the emerging strategic alliance between the United States and India is becoming strong enough to withstand media noise and political disagreements that earlier would have been more consequential. American presidents and negotiators helped bring peace to Northern Ireland by openly advocating positions that British leaders did not always accept, without consequence to the Anglo-American alliance. Fundamentally, it was in the shared interest of the United States, Ireland, and Britain to end Irish Republican Army terrorism, just as it is in the shared interest of India, Pakistan, and the United States today to end terrorism by Kashmir-driven groups based in Pakistan.

Second, because the outlines of a Kashmir settlement have already been identified by India and Pakistan, but would require political cover to be announced and implemented, it is essential that the United States, Europe, Japan, Middle Eastern governments, and other nations prepare to strongly support any final agreement, and to consider how to invest in its success, economically and otherwise. Only by open discussion and active advocacy for a political solution that protects the interests of Kashmiris, Pakistan, and India can such a preparatory atmosphere be created.

Finally, the interests that the United States has in the Kashmir conflict are greater now than at any time in the postwar period. American efforts to prevent a second Taliban revolution in Afghanistan and to quell Islamist rebellion within Pakistan are unlikely to succeed if ISI continues its three-decade practice of using jihadi groups to wage their own brand of war against India. The only way to gradually reduce ISI’s influence within the Pakistani establishment and to strengthen more progressive civilian leaders is to pursue a broader normalization of economic and political ties between Pakistan and India. That in turn will require a durable settlement in Kashmir. Silence and indirectness about the conflict is no longer workable.

A reconsidered American approach to Kashmir should return first of all to the tone of Obama’s Time interview: honest talk about an admittedly difficult problem. More such straight talk is now required. The United States and India share an interest in the emergence of a stable, economically successful Pakistan with an army that believes it is in Pakistan’s national interest to stop fomenting jihadi violence in Afghanistan and India. It is difficult to imagine that such a Pakistan will evolve if groups such as Lashkar are not disarmed, delegitimized, and defunded. And it is difficult to imagine that such an achievement would be possible in the absence of a political settlement that satisfies the great majority of Kashmiris and delivers economic benefits to Pakistan, such as preferential access for textiles to American markets, as well as water and energy security. President Obama and his foreign policy team should articulate this alternative to the status quo before Indian and Pakistani publics, without embarrassment.

...

Kashmir offers a rare case where the ISI’s conduct can be measured. Pakistani forces maintain a security zone on their underpopulated side of the Line of Control that makes it all but impossible for guerrillas to cross into India-controlled Kashmir without army cooperation. According to the latest annual report of the Indian Ministry of Defense, between April 2009 and February 2010, Indian forces defeated attempted infiltrations thirty-three times, suggesting a rate of just less than one attempt per week, not including successful crossings. Even this relatively modest number should be unacceptable to the United States. If the Indian reporting of infiltration rates is inflated, then the United States, Britain, or NATO should undertake independent monitoring and announce the results. If Pakistan’s performance is judged to be unacceptable, then the Pakistani army should be held accountable and transparent reports made available to the Indian and Pakistani publics.

A similar public assessment should also be made of ISI support for the Afghan Taliban. Public exposure is not only the best disinfectant against the poison the ISI spreads in South Asia; such reporting would also advance American interests. India has justifiably been dissatisfied with the extent of Pakistan’s crackdown on Lashkar and similar groups since the attack in Mumbai. If another such attack occurs, American credibility as a source of reliable information, and as a vehicle for effective pressure on Pakistan to cease illegal support for terrorist groups, will be important to defuse a potential war crisis. That credibility should be established now, before such a crisis occurs.

The United States should speak out with equal clarity about continuing Indian human rights violations—and the immunity of the security forces—inside Kashmir, and more broadly about the benefits that would flow from a final political settlement and the normalizing of Indo-Pakistani relations. The US should acknowledge the legitimacy of Pakistan’s historic concerns about the rights of Kashmiri Muslims while insisting that only a peaceful political process to secure those rights is legitimate.

The United States does not need to intervene directly in Kashmiri negotiations to support the Indo-Pakistani peace process. It does, however, need to rediscover the sense of urgency and international leadership that characterized its engagement with Kashmir in the 1950s and early 1960s. Schaffer reports that in 1956, President Eisenhower wrote identical letters to the leaders of India and Pakistan, urging them forward. In the absence of a Kashmir settlement and the removal of other obstacles to normalized Indo-Pakistani relations, Eisenhower wrote, “the peaceful, progressive economic development which each nation desires…cannot succeed.” That has not changed.

[CRamS]

abhishek_sharma:

Thanks. Basically he saying TSP must be rewarded for its terrorism or else it has a legitimate right to create mayhem. I say shove a cigarett butt into Steve Coll's butt. This bloody ass hole is considered an "expert" on the region. Thoo.

[Pratyush]

CRS,

Reading the thoughts of bestern experts suggests that you need to surgically remove your brain in order to become and expert on any Issue.

[svinayak]

abhishek_sharma:

Thanks. Basically he saying TSP must be rewarded for its terrorism or else it has a legitimate right to create mayhem. I say shove a cigarett butt into Steve Coll's butt. This bloody ass hole is considered an "expert" on the region. Thoo.

From his point of view and geo politics it make perfect sense to take care of their interest.

Who is taking care of India;s national interest.

[jamwal]

It's good to see Indian media finally giving some coverage to the demands of people of Jammu and Ladddakh along with other non-Kashmiri muslims. Otherwise all these years, it's just been the sickening reports of "people of Kashmir, secular Kashmiris with their Kashmiriyat" BS, as if whole state was populated by these Islamist thugs only. Even now most Indians have very limited knowledge about the real conditions, but things are finally changing.

[Nihat]

Kashmir unrest India's internal issue, says Obama Administration

[CRamS]

From his point of view and geo politics it make perfect sense to take care of their interest.

Who is taking care of India;s national interest.

Indeed if the Chutiya wanted to be even a fraction objective, he would have taken pains to learn the Indian viewpoint, the Islamic fascism prevailing in the valley, and why Kashmir is impirtant to India. Its obvious that he has been hobknobbing with TSP RAPE at eh Eiwan Al Sadr and sipping scotch with TSPA/ISI top brass.

Now if his puke is indicative of TSPA/ISI, note the cleverness. He (and TSPAISI) have not advocated complete secession; rather, some bogus autonomy and "joint mechanisms". This is exactly what Mush was selling to a willing MMS, and this is the kind of crap that can easily be easily sold to Indian public throught the likes of Sagarika and Bakara. And see how the slime ball talks of "Hindu extremists" opposing this diabolical game plan; in other words anybody opposing this sell out is a Hindu extremist. His prescription is an out and out US/TSP gameplan which Obama will deliver to MMS in a sealed envelope. Remember, Coll is a DC insider.

[CRamS]

Kashmir unrest India's internal issue, says Obama Administration

Man, this was already posted. Please go back & read othre posters' posts before hitting the submit button .

[abhishek_sharma]

Indeed if the Chutiya wanted to be even a fraction objective, he would have taken pains to learn the Indian viewpoint, the Islamic fascism prevailing in the valley, and why Kashmir is impirtant to India. Its obvious that he has been hobknobbing with TSP RAPE at eh Eiwan Al Sadr and sipping scotch with TSPA/ISI top brass.

He is hobnobbing with Basharat Peer and Pankaj Mishra. The video is at fora.tv
I did not watch the video after I saw these names.

[rohitvats]

The POK and TSP illegal occupation point raised by MEA and now Congress spokesperson seems to be me a new strategy. But the objectives evade me at present. Most probably (and this may be optimistic) to drive home the point to the Chinese and not accept their presence as fait accompli. Let us see where this line of argument goes and for how long.

And I'm yet to comprehend the timing and import of US Statement.

[Chinmayanand]

Kashmir stone-pelters to be freed: Chidambaram

[eklavya]

Steve Coll's reasoning is that if Pakistan gets what it wants, the Pakistani's will help the Americans in Afghanistan.

A couple of points in this regard:

First, even if this were true, the US has no means of persuading India to gift Kashmir to Pakistan. But this point isn't new. It is the reality which the whole world recognises.

Second, just how weak has the US become that they need India's 'help' to solve their Afghan problem. Obviously they will not receive any 'help' from India of this nature, but its a bit pathetic to even ask.

No wonder the administration in DC quickly clarified that J&K is an "internal" matter for India. Boeing, GE and Lockheed Martin must surely agree.

[chaanakya]

The POK and TSP illegal occupation point raised by MEA and now Congress spokesperson seems to be me a new strategy. But the objectives evade me at present. Most probably (and this may be optimistic) to drive home the point to the Chinese and not accept their presence as fait accompli. Let us see where this line of argument goes and for how long.

And I'm yet to comprehend the timing and import of US Statement.

Its standard official line though not articulated publicly so often. KKH and GB is old story presented as new one.

[sunnyP]

Kashmir stone-pelters to be freed: Chidambaram

In a bid to reach out to the masses, the Centre also advised the J&K government to release students and youth who have been arrested or detained for stone pelting and similar violations of law during the Valley unrest, and withdraw all charges against them.

The state government has also been advised to review cases of all Public Safety Act (PSA) detenues and withdraw detention orders in appropriate cases.

"Government will appoint a group of interlocutors under the chairmanship of an eminent person to begin the process of sustained dialogue with political parties, groups, students, civil society," Chidambaram said.

Feeding the Crocodile, yes that will work.

[Anujan]

^^^^

I am ambivalent about this. Those morons now probably know how it feels to see the insides of a Jail cell and think twice before picking up a stone again. The ones that do it & get caught again can get a boot up their musharraf.

Holding them longer only brings them into contact with all the undesirable types in jail -- which is usally the perfect breeding ground for criminals for form alliances and get hardened.

[sum]

^^ Could be that the jails were anyways getting full and so, the least troublesome dudes were let off and maximum PR was taken out of that by mentioning "HM orders release of stone pelters"!!

* Chankian hat off*

[CRamS]

Steve Coll's reasoning is that if Pakistan gets what it wants, the Pakistani's will help the Americans in Afghanistan.

A couple of points in this regard:

First, even if this were true, the US has no means of persuading India to gift Kashmir to Pakistan. But this point isn't new. It is the reality which the whole world recognises.

Second, just how weak has the US become that they need India's 'help' to solve their Afghan problem. Obviously they will not receive any 'help' from India of this nature, but its a bit pathetic to even ask.

No wonder the administration in DC quickly clarified that J&K is an "internal" matter for India. Boeing, GE and Lockheed Martin must surely agree.

Both Steve Coll like US strategists and TSP RAPE are too smart to expect that India will gift away Kashmir. What TSPA has impressed upon its freinds like Steve Coll in Washington is a change in status quo in the interim. Conditions that would favor TSP to pursue its terror strategy under the backdrop of a nuclear war. Hence all this talk of de-militarization, autonomy, and joint control. Under MMS, such a formula can be sold to India.

Fundamentally, at the very least, MMS who receives such fawning condescending adulation, must emphasize to his American admirers that TSP's use of terror as an instrument of state policy against India cannot be rewarded, and there absolutely no linkage between AfPak & Kashmir. Its an artificial constrct by TSP RAPE to use its importance to USA in AfPak to extract concessions on Kashmir. If at all there is a linkage, it is that in both cases, violent Isalmic fascists like hard core Taliban and LET must be eliminated. Then, a process of normalization can begin. I would add de-nuking of TSP in addition, but I doubt that is something US will even listen to much less take seriously.

[Sanjay M]

(NYT)India Makes Major Shift in Policy in Kashmir

[rohitvats]

Its standard official line though not articulated publicly so often. KKH and GB is old story presented as new one.

My point exactly. When was the last time someone said anything about TSP occupation of Kashmir and issues wrt that? And as a rebuttal to the Paki propaganda? Hence, my assertion that something is brewing. Will wait and watch.

[eklavya]

Steve Coll's reasoning is that if Pakistan gets what it wants, the Pakistani's will help the Americans in Afghanistan.

A couple of points in this regard:

First, even if this were true, the US has no means of persuading India to gift Kashmir to Pakistan. But this point isn't new. It is the reality which the whole world recognises.

Second, just how weak has the US become that they need India's 'help' to solve their Afghan problem. Obviously they will not receive any 'help' from India of this nature, but its a bit pathetic to even ask.

No wonder the administration in DC quickly clarified that J&K is an "internal" matter for India. Boeing, GE and Lockheed Martin must surely agree.

Both Steve Coll like US strategists and TSP RAPE are too smart to expect that India will gift away Kashmir. What TSPA has impressed upon its freinds like Steve Coll in Washington is a change in status quo in the interim. Conditions that would favor TSP to pursue its terror strategy under the backdrop of a nuclear war. Hence all this talk of de-militarization, autonomy, and joint control. Under MMS, such a formula can be sold to India.

Fundamentally, at the very least, MMS who receives such fawning condescending adulation, must emphasize to his American admirers that TSP's use of terror as an instrument of state policy against India cannot be rewarded, and there absolutely no linkage between AfPak & Kashmir. Its an artificial constrct by TSP RAPE to use its importance to USA in AfPak to extract concessions on Kashmir. If at all there is a linkage, it is that in both cases, violent Isalmic fascists like hard core Taliban and LET must be eliminated. Then, a process of normalization can begin. I would add de-nuking of TSP in addition, but I doubt that is something US will even listen to much less take seriously.

The US and those who lead it are fully aware that the Pak Army is an islamist terrorist drug-dealing nuclear-proliferating genocidal organisation lead by uneducated idiotic thugs. Pak Army agents, i.e. Taliban, kill far more American soldiers each year than Indian soldiers. Yet the US indulges Pakistan's Kashmir 'grievance', at least supericially, because they need Paskistan's cooperation and land routes to supply their 100,000+ garrison in Afghanistan. If the US [ever] pulls out of Afghanistan, Pakistan will return to the doghouse (the one for rabid flea-eaten mongrels).

MMS / 'Delhi' is not about to compromise Indian interests in any way. No one that matters in the US is even asking us to do so.

Everyone knows what happens to 'demilitarised' bits of J&K, e.g. Siachen pre 1984, and Kargil heights in the winter of 1998/99, i.e. they get militarised by whichever military can get there quickest and hold on to it. J&K is India and the Indian military is there to stay.

[Nihat]

Its standard official line though not articulated publicly so often. KKH and GB is old story presented as new one.

My point exactly. When was the last time someone said anything about TSP occupation of Kashmir and issues wrt that? And as a rebuttal to the Paki propaganda? Hence, my assertion that something is brewing. Will wait and watch.

You are right, even though it has been the official stance ever since the parliment resolution but still not used often enough. Everytime a Paki has khujli wrt to Kashmir, we must (as a matter of protocol) remind them to vacate illegally occupied territories.

[Rangudu]

Re Steve Coll's article, it appears that he is saying that Unkil should force "both sides" to agree to LoC = IB.

[ramana]

How do you conclude? And what will it do to Indian society? Please think it over.

MMS already has the CWG fiasco millstone/shackle to his persona.

[brihaspati]

The declared outline of steps, as read out by PC, shows that any earlier pressure to go for "autonomy" immediately has had to be shelved because of possibly strong internal fighting. However this is only round one. Overkill from the separatist side made those who were behind them rather embarrassed and lost for words. But the lobbying will start all over again after some more immediate face-saving action needed over CWG and the mosque-issue. The judiciary may help out in the latter, but CWG is a different ball-game with international legitimate authority sitting tightly on spot. Once attention shifts to these, renewed planning and action will start behind the scenes about "autonomy" and "azaadi".

Opening the unis and schools may not work out well. Most of them work under pressure from terrorists, and the security forces will be faced with even more difficult task of neutralizing moves now apparently coming out "spontaneously" by "kids" who have only "gone to learn" and from "places of learning".

MMS-ji may not be there in the long haul for the rest of the term. But the replacement is not ready either. The likely candidate with experience and ability will therefore be deemed unqualified because of his very qualifications. Interesting "no-man's-land" in politics. That may not be enough to stave off round two as a tie again.

[Prem]

There is one difference this time .Armed Forces have made public statement and it wont be easy for DIE/RNI to ignore the national security risk as they loose credibility in public. problem of Sunni Wahabi Jihadi of K will go away with time, in maximum 3 -4 years . India can and will wait all of them and many MMSs out. Then whole panga statred with the false assumtion that Indian Armed forces are weak and wont be able to stand the onslaught. Indian interests dont hurt if Wahabi Jihadi keep the pot boiling there in Valley. The news of muslims migrating to other parts of state and country is proof enough that whole agitation is going fail without accomplishing anything. In fact none of the violent insurgency have ever succeded getting concession from GOI till they accepted the supremacy of Constitution.

[krisna]

Decisions Taken by CCS Regarding Jammu & Kashmir on Saturday

1. Appoint a group of interlocutors under the chairmanship of an Eminent person to begin the process of a sustained dialogue with all sections of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, including political parties/groups, youth and student organizations, civil society organizations and other stakeholders.

2. Advise the State Government to immediately release all students and youth detained or arrested for stone pelting or similar violations of law and to withdraw the charges against such students and youth.

3. Advise the State Government to immediately review the cases of all PSA detenues and withdraw the detention orders in appropriate cases.

4. Request the State Government to immediately convene a meeting of the Unified Command and to review the deployment of security forces in the Kashmir Valley, especially Srinagar, with particular reference to de-scaling the number of bunkers, check-points etc. in Srinagar and other towns, and to review the notification of areas as ‘disturbed areas’.

5. Grant ex-gratia relief to the families of the deceased persons at Rs. 5 lakhs per person killed in the civil disturbances since June 11, 2010.

6. Appoint two Special Task Forces, one each for Jammu region and Ladakh region, to examine the developmental needs of the two regions, with particular reference to deficiencies in infrastructure and make suitable recommendations.

7. Request State Government to take steps to immediately reopen all schools, colleges, universities and other educational institutions; hold special classes/lectures, if necessary; and to ensure that the examinations for the current academic year (2010-11) are conducted.

8. Provide to the State Government a sum of Rs. 100 Crore as Additional Central Assistance (ACA) in order to make grants to schools and colleges for improvements and additions to the existing infrastructure such as class rooms, auditorium, laboratory, library, play ground, toilet complex etc.

6) 7) 8 ) are really good moves by GOI.
6) develop Jammu and Ladakh and not just concentrate on kashmir only.
7) & 8 ) by opening more educational institutions wean youth from destructive tendencies of their leaders.
The state govt should implement the policies effectively. This can help in the long run. Hope more kashmiris become more educated and look for job opportunities elsewhere in India.
Wonder what can be done to open more industries in J&K so that more people are gainfully engaged in economic activities other than removal of article 370.

[krisna]

Centre’s package an eyewash, says Geelani

Terming the Centre’s concessions as an eyewash, separatist hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani said there would be no review of the current protests in the Valley unless New Delhi responds positively to his five conditions. However, the moderates led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik chose to hold back their response for the present.

The spokesman for his Hurriyat faction, Ayaz Akber, said the starting point for any engagement with the Centre was the five demands laid down by Geelani, which includes the acknowledgement of Kashmir as an international dispute and beginning the process of demilitarisation. The faction has issued a fresh 10-ten day protest.

Meanwhile, the mainstream parties have welcomed the Centre’s move. “It is a good beginning and needs follow-up that could lead to final resolution of the issue,” said senior NC leader Mehbooba Baig.
Saying this was a good beginning, PDP spokesman Nayeem Akhtar said: “However, the initiative needs to be built upon. We will seek larger political measures that could lead to final resolution of the problem.”

As expected as any acknowledgement will weaken TSP claims and hold on some wahhabis. There should be a media campaign and sow doubts among the hurri rats-- they are against education of youth and job opportunities etc. are against development of Kashmir valley, interested in killing youth thru terrorism for their own benefits, take money from TSP ..... so on.

[CRamS]

Re Steve Coll's article, it appears that he is saying that Unkil should force "both sides" to agree to LoC = IB.

Sort of, but the devil is in the details. What are those "joint mechanisms" BS? The whole scheme is a scheme is a subterfuge to weaken India's soverignty over the valley.

[abhishek_sharma]

Separatists keep kin away from stone throwing

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Separatis ... 04625.aspx

[abhishek_sharma]

Mehbooba Mufti Interview

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/omar- ... me/688139/

It is the failure of the state and the central leadership that they have not been able to accommodate that feeling. India is a great country, it’s a great democracy, there is enough scope to accommodate the feeling for freedom that Kashmiris, especially the youth, have. We are living in the 21st century, not 1947. Kashmir has been choked after 1947. Our land routes, which connected Kashmir to other parts of the world, central Asia, have been closed. We need to relook that. Our Kashmir has been divided into two parts, thanks to both our country and Pakistan though we did not play any part in the Partition of our country. We need to see how we can get both the Kashmirs together without changing the borders, without changing the boundaries. Autonomy can be a part of the solution but cannot be the solution in totality. If you ask me what I want in autonomy, I will say give me an elected governor. I want him once from Jammu, once from Kashmir so that we can keep the state together and share power with each other. I want to renegotiate our water resources with the Central government so that we become financially self-sufficient. I want Jammu and Kashmir as a whole to become a stepping stone for SAARC cooperation. Why can’t we make Jammu and Kashmir a model where you have an international airport and a visa office of all the countries? Then a young chap who is educated goes to the visa office, takes a flight and goes to any part of the world and finds a job. That is freedom for me. Why can’t we push back the security forces from the civilian areas and lift the siege? This is my vision of freedom. It may differ from the one that is on the street but we can find a midway.

I think this can go to BENIS dhaaga

[chetak]

There is one difference this time .Armed Forces have made public statement and it wont be easy for DIE/RNI to ignore the national security risk as they loose credibility in public. problem of Sunni Wahabi Jihadi of K will go away with time, in maximum 3 -4 years . India can and will wait all of them and many MMSs out. Then whole panga statred with the false assumtion that Indian Armed forces are weak and wont be able to stand the onslaught. Indian interests dont hurt if Wahabi Jihadi keep the pot boiling there in Valley. The news of muslims migrating to other parts of state and country is proof enough that whole agitation is going fail without accomplishing anything. In fact none of the violent insurgency have ever succeded getting concession from GOI till they accepted the supremacy of Constitution.

Failed pretty boy omar is back to castigating the IA again before the unified command meeting.

Just like a brat denied a lollipop by his rich and indulgent father.

Without the IA, omar and his dad are prime candidates for a public lynching given their extreme popularity among the WKMs as also the security forces!!

There has long been suspicion about what passports they may be holding.

[Venkarl]

Mehbooba Mufti Interview

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/omar- ... me/688139/

It is the failure of the state and the central leadership that they have not been able to accommodate that feeling. India is a great country, it’s a great democracy, there is enough scope to accommodate the feeling for freedom that Kashmiris, especially the youth, have. We are living in the 21st century, not 1947. Kashmir has been choked after 1947. Our land routes, which connected Kashmir to other parts of the world, central Asia, have been closed. We need to relook that. Our Kashmir has been divided into two parts, thanks to both our country and Pakistan though we did not play any part in the Partition of our country. We need to see how we can get both the Kashmirs together without changing the borders, without changing the boundaries. Autonomy can be a part of the solution but cannot be the solution in totality. If you ask me what I want in autonomy, I will say give me an elected governor. I want him once from Jammu, once from Kashmir so that we can keep the state together and share power with each other. I want to renegotiate our water resources with the Central government so that we become financially self-sufficient. I want Jammu and Kashmir as a whole to become a stepping stone for SAARC cooperation. Why can’t we make Jammu and Kashmir a model where you have an international airport and a visa office of all the countries? Then a young chap who is educated goes to the visa office, takes a flight and goes to any part of the world and finds a job. That is freedom for me. Why can’t we push back the security forces from the civilian areas and lift the siege? This is my vision of freedom. It may differ from the one that is on the street but we can find a midway.

I think this can go to BENIS dhaaga

Are Kashmiris this demanding from historical times?{I feel bad generalizing them...why aren't they like Dr. Shah Faisal?} what have they given to Valley? except giving shelter to terrorists? if they publicly denounce supporting paki sponsored terrorism and separatism....why can't they have some sense of responsibility towards Govt property and civic sense for peace?{like people in any other Indian state?}...GoI will of course withdraw all the forces except borders if they think they are Indian first and then Kashmiri just like any person from any Indian state thinks of himself/herself ....International Airport...IT companies...tourism...apples business...skiing...and what not....fultu enjoyment will be on their way....I know...many here(including me) hope to holiday in a peaceful Kashmir in this life time

[Pratyush]

Whats with target AFSPA by all the morons of the Cashmier ghati.

[Anindya]

Pratyush - a well-informed journalist friend of mine had told me a couple of years ago, about the "Pakistanization of Kashmiri politics" thanks to lots of dollars available to the Musharraf regime (mainly US funds to Pakistan for their questionable support to the war on terror).

The effects of this Pakistanization is what we're beginning to see - at all levels of Kashmiri politics - they're hardly any good guys left. Politicians, leaders and people of any visibility left who objected to this overt Islamization and Pakistanization have been killed off, intimidated, bought off etc. - as Praveen Swami's articles on this in the Hindu attest to.

MJ Akbar also gets into this focus - by raising the issue of Omar's specific obsession with AFSPA:

After 90 deaths in 90 days, the dilution of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has become the fulcrum of his (Omar's) political fortunes. He did not offer to leave because of the complete collapse of governance and total absence of ideas. He threatened to resign if the Union government did not punish the Indian Army.

For which sin? Not a single death in the present crisis has resulted from an Army bullet. Those bullets came from the guns of the J&K police and CRPF. Why has everyone chosen to obscure this fact with silence and raise dust against the Army?

This question has disturbing dimensions. Why have separatists and militants never demanded that the state government disband the local police and send back the CRPF for taking such a toll? Why is the secessionist, and alas political, verbiage targeted at the Army and no one but the Army? The Indian Army came into the picture for the first time only on the evening of September 15. That was during discussions with the Fifth Corps on how to respond to the next stage of a carefully designed strategy — sit-ins before Army camps, meant to sustain the focus on the Army and weaken its presence in the valley. The Army has not been deployed in the demonstrations, and is concentrating only on its counter-insurgency role.

Why is the Indian Army the one-point target of those who want to break India? The answer is uncomplicated. The police, whether state or central, cannot defend the territorial integrity of India. The Indian Army can. It is therefore in the interest of secessionists and their mentors in Islamabad to create discord between the Indian Army and the Indian state.

Why is the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir lending his voice to this cacophony? Which gallery is a desperate Omar Abdullah playing to?

This crisis did not begin 90 days ago or a hundred days ago. It began in the minds of people who had an agenda and whose intricate planning was propelled onto the street by the Kashmir Jamaat e-Islami and its leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The Kashmir Jamaat has never made any secret of its objective, which is to merge the valley with Pakistan. It has financial and ideological links with Pakistan. It has deliberately disassociated itself from the Jamaat e-Islami in the rest of India. This slings-and-stones model was crafted to elicit world sympathy, and create a David versus Goliath confrontation. (David is a prophet of Islam as well, and lauded as a supreme instance of a jihadi in the holy Quran.)

The timing was certainly influenced by President Barack Obama’s scheduled November visit to India. Both Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton have said, at some point in their campaigns, that Palestine and Kashmir required resolution. Pakistan wants Kashmir on Obama’s must-do list as part of its pay-off for helping in Afghanistan, and protest builds pressure.

[Anindya]

From http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sy ... ls_1443743

With educational institutions all set to reopen tomorrow in Kashmir Valley, the hardline Hurriyat Conference, led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, today asked parents not to send their wards to schools and colleges.

"No right thinking person can deny the importance of education in society, but to think that they (government) are concerned about the future of our children is like a mad man's dream," Geelani said in a statement in Srinagar.

The Hurriyat hawk alleged most of the youths killed in the ongoing unrest in the valley were students.

Many more were injured and hundreds were languishing in jails, he further alleged.

Geelani appealed to people to strictly observe civil curfew tomorrow when schools and colleges would resume their normal functioning in the valley.

The separatist leader also appealed to teachers and the non-teaching staff to stay at home.

[RamaY]

The declared outline of steps, as read out by PC, shows that any earlier pressure to go for "autonomy" immediately has had to be shelved because of possibly strong internal fighting. However this is only round one. Overkill from the separatist side made those who were behind them rather embarrassed and lost for words. But the lobbying will start all over again after some more immediate face-saving action needed over CWG and the mosque-issue. The judiciary may help out in the latter, but CWG is a different ball-game with international legitimate authority sitting tightly on spot. Once attention shifts to these, renewed planning and action will start behind the scenes about "autonomy" and "azaadi".

Opening the unis and schools may not work out well. Most of them work under pressure from terrorists, and the security forces will be faced with even more difficult task of neutralizing moves now apparently coming out "spontaneously" by "kids" who have only "gone to learn" and from "places of learning".

MMS-ji may not be there in the long haul for the rest of the term. But the replacement is not ready either. The likely candidate with experience and ability will therefore be deemed unqualified because of his very qualifications. Interesting "no-man's-land" in politics. That may not be enough to stave off round two as a tie again.

Could "Ramjanmabhoomi for autonomous-Chashmere" be a possibility???

[RamaY]

Decisions Taken by CCS Regarding Jammu & Kashmir on Saturday

Can GOI form a committee with people like APJ Kalam, Premji etc., to visit Cashmere and offer a comprehensive policy? My hope is that it will convince the "silent majority" in cashmere...

[RamaY]

[quote="abhishek_sharma"]Mehbooba Mufti Interview

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/omar- ... me/688139/


land routes, which connected Kashmir to other parts of the world, central Asia, have been closed.
A. This goal will be achieved when POK is recaptured by India.

b]how we can get both the Kashmirs together[/b] without changing the borders, without changing the boundaries.
A. By destroying TSP.

give me an elected governor.
A. How can he be different from elected CM. As an elected CM, how did you hindered by a Governer?

renegotiate our water resources with the Central government
A. Which central govt, India? River waters are already a state subject. If you are talking about negotiating with TSP, don't worry about it. GOI took care of it.

stepping stone for SAARC cooperation.
A. What do you want from SAARC? You are part of India that is a founding member of SAARC.

international airport and a visa office of all the countries?
A. An international airport can be build in Jammu once the separatism is destroyed. Work for that first.Visa offices of all countries will not be setup in every village. First develop JK state to international standards and then other countries will be interested in setting up visa offices in JK.

push back the security forces from the civilian areas and lift the siege
A. Security forces are not in every village of India. They are in JK villages to protect the villages from terrorists. Once the terrorism is defeated, security forces can focus on border security.


In summary it looks like Mehbooba Mufti is calling for destroying terrorism and recapturing of POK.

[chetak]

Whats with target AFSPA by all the morons of the Cashmier ghati.

It is pakistan army and the ISI who are main backers of this "remove AFSPA" idea. They are the ones hurting the most and sometime ago had publicly asked for this very idea to be implemented as as a confident building measure.

The IA has had nil confrontation with stone pelters.
It is very mystifying that omar has taken on the IA like this.

I think that he has entirely misunderstood the civilian control over the Army concept and has caused deep misgivings with his management by absence technique.