In its struggle to subdue Kashmir, India is stripping it of liberties(economist.com)
economist.com
In its struggle to subdue Kashmir, India is stripping it of liberties
https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/08/17/in-its-struggle-to-subdue-kashmir-india-is-stripping-it-of-liberties
40 comments
Liberties are certainly an issue. By shutting down media and networks people are being stripped of their visibility. This is being done to avoid responsibility for currently actions being taken. Not being able to openly discuss what you are doing is a clear sign you shouldn't be doing that.
Will there be a time when in the modern world, no territory will be forcefully occupied? Or do homosapiens lack the mental maturity to reach that point in their evolution?
It's also useful to point out that Kashmir was neither a part of India nor Pakistan after independence from the British in 1947.
It was only after Pakistan launched an operation to capture Kashmir, that the then ruler of Kashmir signed an "Instrument of Accession" with India, in exchange for military assistance.
It was only after Pakistan launched an operation to capture Kashmir, that the then ruler of Kashmir signed an "Instrument of Accession" with India, in exchange for military assistance.
Homo Sapiens has evolved to the currently dominant species partly due to its tendency to conquer and subdue - others of the same species, other species or the landscape. If Homo Sapiens were to reach this "mental maturity" it would most likely stagnate and, eventually, make space for another species to rise in its place. War and strife may lead to suffering and loss but they also provide a huge impetus to innovate on all fronts.
> Homo Sapiens has evolved to the currently dominant species partly due to its tendency to conquer and subdue
GP asked whether it was in the cards to have a world where no territory is forcefully occupied. No forceful occupation means that the people who live in a region get a say in choosing their government. Nobody is really arguing we cede Kashmir to a competing species.
> If Homo Sapiens were to reach this "mental maturity" it would most likely stagnate and, eventually, make space for another species to rise in its place.
Are you arguing that science and other problem solving strategies at peace are dooming the species to extinction, and that only war and suffering can ensure our continued existence and progress?
GP asked whether it was in the cards to have a world where no territory is forcefully occupied. No forceful occupation means that the people who live in a region get a say in choosing their government. Nobody is really arguing we cede Kashmir to a competing species.
> If Homo Sapiens were to reach this "mental maturity" it would most likely stagnate and, eventually, make space for another species to rise in its place.
Are you arguing that science and other problem solving strategies at peace are dooming the species to extinction, and that only war and suffering can ensure our continued existence and progress?
Are you suggesting we need to keep a balance between war and peace? That too much peace will lead to our extinction?
Not necessarily to extinction but to loss of control - I mean, becoming peaceful often means not investing in defence capability thus becoming weak, and becoming weak means inviting violence by opportunistic neighbours or inside groups.
It's a coordination problem - as any subgroup of homo sapiens that unilaterally abstains from violent power risks simply being overtaken by another subgroup that doesn't; you can abstain from using violence, but you can't unilaterally abstain from participating in violence started by someone else. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" will be true while humans are built the way we are.
It's a coordination problem - as any subgroup of homo sapiens that unilaterally abstains from violent power risks simply being overtaken by another subgroup that doesn't; you can abstain from using violence, but you can't unilaterally abstain from participating in violence started by someone else. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" will be true while humans are built the way we are.
A good example is Tibet.
BBC and Al-Jazeera are alleged to have used footage from inside POK and claiming it as from Srinagar. Also clips from within Kashmir valley have no evidence of protest against the revoked bills, rather a generic call for "Azadi"(Freedom). It is not clear if the protest is representation of ground reality.[Reference sadly only in Hindi, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV5w1BQCzi0]
Also the other protest accepted by India could be a different one altogether, hence pictured differently and was possibly an actual one which happened days after BBC released their video.
Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech. The region has been constitutionally provided for a democratic government, despite the split. This piece of information somehow passes through the crevices of fractured media into oblivion. China and Pakistan's stance is understandable since it is also a measure to tackle the Roadway China has been building through Pakistan to reach the ports and open up its trade routes. All of this with a funding of terrorism and extremism.
Also the other protest accepted by India could be a different one altogether, hence pictured differently and was possibly an actual one which happened days after BBC released their video.
Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech. The region has been constitutionally provided for a democratic government, despite the split. This piece of information somehow passes through the crevices of fractured media into oblivion. China and Pakistan's stance is understandable since it is also a measure to tackle the Roadway China has been building through Pakistan to reach the ports and open up its trade routes. All of this with a funding of terrorism and extremism.
> Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech.
It's curbing freedom of speech just as much if it is a security measure. The pretext, however valid it might be, doesn't alter the essential character of the act. Of course, calling a location “terrorist, separatist, and rebel” because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it, and using that to justify suppressive policy targeting the region as a whole is a sure sign of the mindset of—even if the suppressive policies don't yet reach the level of—collective punishment, a war crime in the context of interstate war and a crime against humanity otherwise.
It's curbing freedom of speech just as much if it is a security measure. The pretext, however valid it might be, doesn't alter the essential character of the act. Of course, calling a location “terrorist, separatist, and rebel” because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it, and using that to justify suppressive policy targeting the region as a whole is a sure sign of the mindset of—even if the suppressive policies don't yet reach the level of—collective punishment, a war crime in the context of interstate war and a crime against humanity otherwise.
" because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it". You agree? This is to counter the spread of fake news, rumours and minimize the stone pelting. Because all of those things would happen in a place where these elements are growing by the day, infiltrated and brainwashed. and then if you use tear gas, pellet guns and other means to slow down mobs, then people will cry again. I'd rather have people cry like this than some people getting injured, hurt or worst killed, because they became a part of a mob that became impossible to control.
I don't think the Government seeks to make this a lockdown permanent and felicitate any kind of suppression. There's a provision for government the and the place can continue to have it's own powers, just that it can't become bigger than the country itself, which had become the norm.
The context does justify certain restraining measures. What sort of argument is it that claims if you're wrapping someone in a blanket in the summer, it's a crime, not looking at the fact that the person is burning? You have to take certain measures till the situation calms down and people come to the level of responding instead of reacting. If this becomes a constant thing like for years or decades like the two bills had become, then yes, I see your concern. A temporal restrain cannot be exaggerated to "war crimes".
I don't think the Government seeks to make this a lockdown permanent and felicitate any kind of suppression. There's a provision for government the and the place can continue to have it's own powers, just that it can't become bigger than the country itself, which had become the norm.
The context does justify certain restraining measures. What sort of argument is it that claims if you're wrapping someone in a blanket in the summer, it's a crime, not looking at the fact that the person is burning? You have to take certain measures till the situation calms down and people come to the level of responding instead of reacting. If this becomes a constant thing like for years or decades like the two bills had become, then yes, I see your concern. A temporal restrain cannot be exaggerated to "war crimes".
I think you would agree that you're assessing the situation with a whole lot of bias.
> Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech
This is harsh. One could equally argue that the Hindustani and Pakistani governments are terrorizing the Kashmir valley, with their security measures and counter-measures. There's more to this issue than misplaced nationalism with countless layers and nuances, though, I agree it is in India's interest to deal with the Kashmir dispute in a way it sees fit and call it a day, since the agreed plebiscite isn't acceptable to it, at all.
> Lockdown in a terrorist, separatist and rebel location is a security measure more than a curbing of Freedom of speech
This is harsh. One could equally argue that the Hindustani and Pakistani governments are terrorizing the Kashmir valley, with their security measures and counter-measures. There's more to this issue than misplaced nationalism with countless layers and nuances, though, I agree it is in India's interest to deal with the Kashmir dispute in a way it sees fit and call it a day, since the agreed plebiscite isn't acceptable to it, at all.
You are absolutely correct that there are nuances, which is exactly what I wanted to bring to fore. There is politics, terror and even economics: both strategic, in the region and hidden in terms of the weaponry.
Thus, desperate times, desperate situations, desperate measures. If you feel it is harsh, I prompt you to consider the case when separatists would use the means to spread rumours, fake news and instigate mobs. We know that they are capable of that and the scrapping of these bills signifies essentially a stop to their powers. Better to nip it in the bud than starting violent protests which need more physical force to keep the law and order intact.
Thus, desperate times, desperate situations, desperate measures. If you feel it is harsh, I prompt you to consider the case when separatists would use the means to spread rumours, fake news and instigate mobs. We know that they are capable of that and the scrapping of these bills signifies essentially a stop to their powers. Better to nip it in the bud than starting violent protests which need more physical force to keep the law and order intact.
Hackernews always has such a strong pro-Modi bias. I wonder why that is because it doesn't seem to be the case on any other social media like this one.
Really? Either you don't see the comments or maybe because you see orange on the site :D :D :D
> BBC and Al-Jazeera are alleged to have used footage from inside POK and claiming it as from Srinagar.
This is bullshit. Even the Home Ministry has walked back from the There were no protests line. Source: https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/08/14/the-truth-about-bbc-a...
This is bullshit. Even the Home Ministry has walked back from the There were no protests line. Source: https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/08/14/the-truth-about-bbc-a...
Guess you were too busy with your opinionated columns to look at the video marked as a reference.
The Kashmir issue is an impasse. Neither will Pakistan relent its stake, nor will India relinquish its position any further and unfortunately the Kashmiris aren't going to get their freedom from either of these nuclear superpowers, at least not without a lot of pain (they have been subject to too much, already). The blood-shed and injustice is simply not fair, and it can't go on forever.
Despite autonomy granted by Pakistan to mountainous region of Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, they have allowed settlement of Pakistanis from other parts of the country diluting the native population. Though revenue and governance is legally kept aloof from Islamabad, the overarching influence of the occupiers cannot be understated. Pakistani administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, for all intents and purposes, is a fully integrated territory. The Pakistani constitution doesn't allot right to independence and pro-independence political parties aren't allowed to contest elections. 'Azad Kashmir', as Pakistani administered Kashmir is commonly known, is a misnomer.
India, in comparison, had afforded more political and legal leeway to the Jammu and Kashmir apparatus. They curbed down on it heavily after the insurgency of millitants in 1990s by slapping the territory with a god awful special powers military act viz. AFSPA. Since things aren't going to change in the short term, it completely makes sense for the Indian interests to begin to integrate Jammu and Kashmir along with adjoining buddhist regions of Leh and Ladakh into the constitution. The protests from Kashmiris are valid, justified, and correct; but I can't see India backing down from this. They need to stabilise the region than leave it in a perennial limbo flanked by oppressive and terrible military control on one side and the insurgent, violent struggle on the other.
It is sad that erstwhile Indian PM, Morarji Desai and the then Pakistani President, Zia ul Haq couldn't put this issue to bed in 1980s when they had the chance. It will take leaders of incredible will, power, audacity, and sway on both sides of the border to bring this issue to bed for once and for all: Allegories will be written, songs will be sung, statues will be built, and peace will return to this beautiful land. Someday. The Kashmiris deserve it.
Refs:
https://rediff.com/news/2001/jul/11spec.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_(Special_Powers)_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Kashmir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_mediation_of_the_Kashmir_di...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_st...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir
Despite autonomy granted by Pakistan to mountainous region of Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, they have allowed settlement of Pakistanis from other parts of the country diluting the native population. Though revenue and governance is legally kept aloof from Islamabad, the overarching influence of the occupiers cannot be understated. Pakistani administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, for all intents and purposes, is a fully integrated territory. The Pakistani constitution doesn't allot right to independence and pro-independence political parties aren't allowed to contest elections. 'Azad Kashmir', as Pakistani administered Kashmir is commonly known, is a misnomer.
India, in comparison, had afforded more political and legal leeway to the Jammu and Kashmir apparatus. They curbed down on it heavily after the insurgency of millitants in 1990s by slapping the territory with a god awful special powers military act viz. AFSPA. Since things aren't going to change in the short term, it completely makes sense for the Indian interests to begin to integrate Jammu and Kashmir along with adjoining buddhist regions of Leh and Ladakh into the constitution. The protests from Kashmiris are valid, justified, and correct; but I can't see India backing down from this. They need to stabilise the region than leave it in a perennial limbo flanked by oppressive and terrible military control on one side and the insurgent, violent struggle on the other.
It is sad that erstwhile Indian PM, Morarji Desai and the then Pakistani President, Zia ul Haq couldn't put this issue to bed in 1980s when they had the chance. It will take leaders of incredible will, power, audacity, and sway on both sides of the border to bring this issue to bed for once and for all: Allegories will be written, songs will be sung, statues will be built, and peace will return to this beautiful land. Someday. The Kashmiris deserve it.
Refs:
https://rediff.com/news/2001/jul/11spec.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_(Special_Powers)_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Kashmir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_mediation_of_the_Kashmir_di...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_st...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir
Thank you for giving such a fair overview. I feel there's a lot of chest beating in both countries because of whatever they see in the other. However, I do feel that Kashmir needs peace and as you said, I hope it comes there someday
Absolutely correct. The Kashmiris deserve peace and quiet, the closest both sides came to an agreement was ca. 2003 between Vajpayee and Musharraf. Unfortunately the stakes are too high for India to give up this strategic place.
I think whatever strategic value Kashmir had to India is greatly outweighed by its emotional value - much like Pakistan.
For India, Kashmir has been an enormous drain on its resources, both financially & in lives lost. To accept that muslim Kashmiris are somehow distinct from other Indians is to revive the Two Nation Theory that tore the subcontinent apart, and flies in the face of the lived experience of the multitude of diverse peoples who coexist in relative peace in India.
The supposed secret deal that Vajpayee & Musharraf had agreed to was to finalize the Line of Control as the International Border, permanently bifircating Kashmir between the two. I doubt it would have found much support in either country, if the plans had been public.
For India, Kashmir has been an enormous drain on its resources, both financially & in lives lost. To accept that muslim Kashmiris are somehow distinct from other Indians is to revive the Two Nation Theory that tore the subcontinent apart, and flies in the face of the lived experience of the multitude of diverse peoples who coexist in relative peace in India.
The supposed secret deal that Vajpayee & Musharraf had agreed to was to finalize the Line of Control as the International Border, permanently bifircating Kashmir between the two. I doubt it would have found much support in either country, if the plans had been public.
This is an utterly stupid comment because it ignored Pakistan is a Muslim country and India is a Hindu majority one. Trying to ignore religion as a factor makes absolutely no sense. You're trying to equate natural movement of Muslims into Azad Kashmir to systematic Hindu population replacement in IOK.
Unfortunately, the issue requires a significant historical context, which is carefully stripped from most of these media articles to control the narrative. :-/
Do you really need context when a country is stripping its citizens of the right of communication, movement, and religion?
Religion? Thought you'd just sneak that past huh? How did India deny the right of religion? A temporary shutdown of communication, movement for public safety can be argued as justified for an area that's historically prone to violence resulting in loss of life and property. Kashmiri's themselves have lost the most in this Pakistan inspired violence.
40 people ended up dead in the aftermath of killing of the terrorist leader, Burhan Wani, when there were no curbs of speech and assembly.
Right now, the number of casualties stand at 0 [7].
Article 370, was a discriminatory law which treated everyone but the Sunni Muslim males of the valley, as second class citizens.
Kashmir and it's political elite did nothing with the autonomy, and left the state in a more backward legal condition than India, where the law has at least (painfully) slowly evolved to decriminalise homosexuality, yielded greater property rights to women, and provide (controversial) affirmative action to disadvantaged sections of the population, among other things. Not to mention, democratic institutions governing elections, and investigating corruption have also been established, but not in Kashmir because of 370.
Instead the elites have only used their autonomy to provide cover to terrorists, create corrupt patronage networks, dodged investigative agencies building anti-corruption cases, enable nepotistic official appointments etc [6].
In spite of these things, the valley's Muslim population supports 370, because they have significantly bought into radical Islamic ideology, to the extent that their struggle against India is now religious and seeks to establish an Islamic state, rather than freedom from India for ethnic Kashmiris (which only is only around 60% Sunni Muslim and the rest include Buddhists, Shias - who are in favour of 370 abrogation, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs).
Their most popular slogan, which you can also hear in the video released by BBC is:
"Hum kya chahte? Azaadi! Azaadi ka matlab kya? La illaha il allah!"
which translates to ~>
"What do we want? Freedom! What does freedom mean? There is no god but Allah!"
In that video you can also hear them chanting the names of killed ISIS and Al Qaeda leaders and you can see people carrying ISIS and Jaish-e-Mohammed flags.
In my opinion, any action taken by the government to eliminate these guys is fully justified, and any ground ceded to them will only result in more escalation of the conflict. See the current US negotiation with Taliban amidst daily attacks, suicide bombings and no ceasefire [4], [5]. Islamist tactics are the same everywhere, especially in this case, since they have both been supported by Pakistan.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38454483
[2]: https://www.bolantimes.com/pakistan-armed-forces-have-allege...
[3]: https://www.dawn.com/news/1150066
[4]: https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/why-are-the-taliban-reluctan...
[5]: https://time.com/5645984/afghanistan-taliban-suicide-car-bom...
[6]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/indias-move-kashmir-unpacking-do...
[7]: https://twitter.com/BDUTT/status/1161969318088699904
Right now, the number of casualties stand at 0 [7].
Article 370, was a discriminatory law which treated everyone but the Sunni Muslim males of the valley, as second class citizens.
Kashmir and it's political elite did nothing with the autonomy, and left the state in a more backward legal condition than India, where the law has at least (painfully) slowly evolved to decriminalise homosexuality, yielded greater property rights to women, and provide (controversial) affirmative action to disadvantaged sections of the population, among other things. Not to mention, democratic institutions governing elections, and investigating corruption have also been established, but not in Kashmir because of 370.
Instead the elites have only used their autonomy to provide cover to terrorists, create corrupt patronage networks, dodged investigative agencies building anti-corruption cases, enable nepotistic official appointments etc [6].
In spite of these things, the valley's Muslim population supports 370, because they have significantly bought into radical Islamic ideology, to the extent that their struggle against India is now religious and seeks to establish an Islamic state, rather than freedom from India for ethnic Kashmiris (which only is only around 60% Sunni Muslim and the rest include Buddhists, Shias - who are in favour of 370 abrogation, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs).
Their most popular slogan, which you can also hear in the video released by BBC is:
"Hum kya chahte? Azaadi! Azaadi ka matlab kya? La illaha il allah!"
which translates to ~>
"What do we want? Freedom! What does freedom mean? There is no god but Allah!"
In that video you can also hear them chanting the names of killed ISIS and Al Qaeda leaders and you can see people carrying ISIS and Jaish-e-Mohammed flags.
In my opinion, any action taken by the government to eliminate these guys is fully justified, and any ground ceded to them will only result in more escalation of the conflict. See the current US negotiation with Taliban amidst daily attacks, suicide bombings and no ceasefire [4], [5]. Islamist tactics are the same everywhere, especially in this case, since they have both been supported by Pakistan.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38454483
[2]: https://www.bolantimes.com/pakistan-armed-forces-have-allege...
[3]: https://www.dawn.com/news/1150066
[4]: https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/why-are-the-taliban-reluctan...
[5]: https://time.com/5645984/afghanistan-taliban-suicide-car-bom...
[6]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/indias-move-kashmir-unpacking-do...
[7]: https://twitter.com/BDUTT/status/1161969318088699904
Yes?
I disagree and say that when human rights are removed, it doesn't matter what the context is.
1. Terrorists deserve the same human rights as normal people.
2. The removal of liberties is extended upon all citizens making this province an open air jail.
The fact that the situation in Kashmir changed so rapidly as well doesn't bode well for the reasoning behind this crackdown as well.
1. Terrorists deserve the same human rights as normal people.
2. The removal of liberties is extended upon all citizens making this province an open air jail.
The fact that the situation in Kashmir changed so rapidly as well doesn't bode well for the reasoning behind this crackdown as well.
The question was not if having context justifies the action, but rather if having context helps better understand the reasons this happened.
Is it justified to temporarily suspend rights/privileges of 100 people to stop some 2 people from creating a situation where 2 other people lose their lives?
kashmir has been a breeding ground for islamic terrorists from quite some time now. some consider it an achievement that there has not been any loss of life (as a result of recent restrictions). there are vested political interest at work from all sides involved and nobody cares about anybodys rights.
kashmir has been a breeding ground for islamic terrorists from quite some time now. some consider it an achievement that there has not been any loss of life (as a result of recent restrictions). there are vested political interest at work from all sides involved and nobody cares about anybodys rights.
I'd say that it's justified if and only if that community fof 100 people agrees to willingly suspend these rights and liberties (the word 'privileges' isn't appropriate here) because they consider that it's for a good cause that they support.
But if you come in from the capital and take away their rights from innocent people (i.e. anyone other than the "2" you mention in your example) without the consent of that community, then that's evil oppresion - and the factors you mention are weak excuses, they certainly are not valid justification for that.
But if you come in from the capital and take away their rights from innocent people (i.e. anyone other than the "2" you mention in your example) without the consent of that community, then that's evil oppresion - and the factors you mention are weak excuses, they certainly are not valid justification for that.
The question should have one added word.
>Is it justified to temporarily suspend rights/privileges of 100 innocent people
Which the answer is always no. Saying otherwise opens the door to more police state factors encroaching upon the rights of the others. The same thing is happening in Xinjiang against innocent muslims there and in no case is unlawful detention without reasoning ever justified.
>Is it justified to temporarily suspend rights/privileges of 100 innocent people
Which the answer is always no. Saying otherwise opens the door to more police state factors encroaching upon the rights of the others. The same thing is happening in Xinjiang against innocent muslims there and in no case is unlawful detention without reasoning ever justified.
you missed my point - rights went down the drain a long time ago.