India Shut Down Kashmir’s Internet Access(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
India Shut Down Kashmir’s Internet Access
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/technology/india-kashmir-internet.html
301 comments
Or imagine an island hit by a hurricane. The lack of sufficient physical cash on-island in Puerto Rico after Maria in our telecomms-free condition was paralyzing for a couple of weeks.
And that's the US, no weird third-world phone-only transactions, just no Visa network for a while.
And that's the US, no weird third-world phone-only transactions, just no Visa network for a while.
While it is a territory, I wouldn’t categorize it to be similar to Hawaii. They are essentially autonomous compared to US states. This also means (whether anyone likes it or not) they are placed on a separate priority than a place like Hawaii or Alaska. Could you imagine Hawaii shutting down? Internet would be back up in 1 day.
Well what do you think of Modi’s demonetization and epayment drive now?
I'm not Indian or Kashmiri, and haven't been following this closely until very recently. So I don't really have the information I need to form an opinion, and it would be inappropriate for me to pollute the internet with my thoughts on the subject.
Given what you just wrote in your top-level comment, that's an odd take. You wrote, "it's yet another example of why none of us should rely on the internet as our sole means of doing anything".
if the leader of a society is driving that society toward a Internet-based, cashless system, it doesn't much matter what you as an individual want to do, it's a matter of what the people around you can accept.
Ergo, based on your statement above, Modi's drive toward a electronic, cashless monetary system is a bad idea.
(as a personal aside, it's pretty clear now why someone with authoritarian tendencies would like a centralized, electronic payment system. it makes control of a population much easier.)
if the leader of a society is driving that society toward a Internet-based, cashless system, it doesn't much matter what you as an individual want to do, it's a matter of what the people around you can accept.
Ergo, based on your statement above, Modi's drive toward a electronic, cashless monetary system is a bad idea.
(as a personal aside, it's pretty clear now why someone with authoritarian tendencies would like a centralized, electronic payment system. it makes control of a population much easier.)
While I understand where you’re coming from, I don’t agree with this sentiment.
Imagine saying this about electricity or gasoline. Modern cities would be completely shut down without these resources, and we should treat the Internet in the same way - as a vital resource that we simply accept as present except in the most egregious or catastrophic circumstances.
Imagine saying this about electricity or gasoline. Modern cities would be completely shut down without these resources, and we should treat the Internet in the same way - as a vital resource that we simply accept as present except in the most egregious or catastrophic circumstances.
In many previous conflicts, electricity and gasoline were cut off or in short supply. Being able to keep infrastructure running without them was an important part of the war effort.
Kashmir wasn't independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with India, but presumably some individuals did.
Kashmir wasn't independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with India, but presumably some individuals did.
> Kashmir wasn't independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with India
This is like saying Maine is not independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with USA.
This is like saying Maine is not independent enough to be able to make state-wide preparations for a conflict with USA.
Internet is far more critical than gasoline or even electricity. Everything is IP based, and processes for just about everything are dependent on some random service in AWS.
In a significant civil unrest event, it would be very feasible for a prepared party to create widespread disruption on a regional level.
In a significant civil unrest event, it would be very feasible for a prepared party to create widespread disruption on a regional level.
Tell me: how do you get the internet without electricity?
The relevance of electricity depends on the scope.
Most institutions have continuity plans that allow them to function, perhaps in a degraded state, with widespread power failures. Hospitals will be functioning, cellular towers will be running, first responders will function and at least basic commerce can carry on. That “limp along” period ranges from days to weeks.
There are also different types of electrical outages. A hurricane or earthquake can wipe out infrastructure. Civil unrest may cause disruption. Open warfare will cause more strategic disruption and limit restoration.
Most institutions have continuity plans that allow them to function, perhaps in a degraded state, with widespread power failures. Hospitals will be functioning, cellular towers will be running, first responders will function and at least basic commerce can carry on. That “limp along” period ranges from days to weeks.
There are also different types of electrical outages. A hurricane or earthquake can wipe out infrastructure. Civil unrest may cause disruption. Open warfare will cause more strategic disruption and limit restoration.
With enough IoT, you may not be able to get electricity without the internet either.
> Imagine saying this about electricity or gasoline
You can store both in dunks and batteries.
If someone invents a way to bottle spare internet, that's the next unicorn for sure :)
You can store both in dunks and batteries.
If someone invents a way to bottle spare internet, that's the next unicorn for sure :)
Satellite internet, with batteries or a generator, works even when local conflict shuts down pretty much everything else.
Satellite Internet access would also be shutdown in a scenario like this, since it would be the government permitting or denying who operates a satellite to provide such services and the associated spectrum used...unless other countries or individuals are able to put up satellites to help people in oppressive regimes (slightly similar to the concept of Tor). Is there something like this? Perhaps neighboring countries that do not agree with the regime's decisions (like Pakistan in this case) could help. India demonstrated the ability to bomb low orbit satellites a few months ago. With the current regime showing no hesitation to bring two nuclear countries close to a war, all bets are off for such efforts by Pakistan.
Blocking satellites is much harder than shutting off the internet by ordering the telcos to. Jamming is possible, but takes a large commitment. Destroying satellites from unaligned countries is an even larger commitment, and not a great plan if you want to keep them unaligned.
In practice satellite very often works when nothing else does.
In practice satellite very often works when nothing else does.
Shooting down foreign satellites is an act of war, and very few countries have that capability.
Iridium is an existing satellite phone system that will technically work anywhere on the planet.
It won't complete calls to certain countries, and they warn that the phone might get confiscated in a few others: https://globalcomsatphone.com/support7/
Iridium is an existing satellite phone system that will technically work anywhere on the planet.
It won't complete calls to certain countries, and they warn that the phone might get confiscated in a few others: https://globalcomsatphone.com/support7/
The thing is, only the few rich will be able to afford this kind of backup. This is Kashmir we're talking about, essentially a third world country still.
Satellites are extremely directional. A foreign entity can’t just launch a satellite over night. You could move a satellites trajectory hypothetically, but at what cost and what loss to the current users of that satellite. It’s just not realistic. US satellite internet providers are telcos. If cable is shutoff, it’s easy to shutoff satellite by a government. If it’s just power outage by a 3rd party, then satellite is the best option. However...how would you pay for it??
Not bad. Thanks!
[deleted]
> If someone invents a way to bottle spare internet, that's the next unicorn for sure
Internet's architecture is already like this (See Alan Kay). You can create your own local networks, Problem is the centralized applications built on top of it.
Internet's architecture is already like this (See Alan Kay). You can create your own local networks, Problem is the centralized applications built on top of it.
Won’t work in total war. Internet will be sabotaged and maybe also power plants.
At least not centralised cashless transactions. A mesh network using some kind of crypto is even better at avoiding government interference than cash.
Don’t all cryptos rely on a global network consensus for operation? How would Kashmir’s forked chain resynchronize with the larger chain once back online?
Bitcoin has a Lightning Network which can work independently and only uses the main blockchain to settle disputes, so it could keep operating for as long as there was non-disputed capacity left in the isolated segment.
Adding capacity would require some way of accessing the consensus, but it could be done by the parties updating their blockchain by just importing new blocks from a trusted source (not necessarily the same), like a friend with a USB drive.
Adding capacity would require some way of accessing the consensus, but it could be done by the parties updating their blockchain by just importing new blocks from a trusted source (not necessarily the same), like a friend with a USB drive.
It doesn't work. It is still relying on centralized internet architecture we have.
Mesh nets with singular remaining internet access would crumble under the load too.
I guess a lot of economy instantly switches to IOU, barter and banknotes. (Including gold and other assets for the rich.) The old and tried ways.
Mesh nets with singular remaining internet access would crumble under the load too.
I guess a lot of economy instantly switches to IOU, barter and banknotes. (Including gold and other assets for the rich.) The old and tried ways.
Mesh networks can still connect up to the internet. "The internet" is a concept and isn't really owned or controlled by anyone. It's more about the ledger itself being distributed. It'll definitely be much slower. though.
"The internet" may be a concept, but the router your part of the mesh connects to is a physical machine that may be out of power. The GP's questions remain valid and unanswered.
If the government wanted to cripple cryptocurrency in a country, all they'd have to do is turn off the electricity.
Sure, some people would have off-grid power, but enough to have a reasonably functioning economy? Unlikely.
Sure, some people would have off-grid power, but enough to have a reasonably functioning economy? Unlikely.
Not even that, it's enough to take down a few backbone routers. The same reliability that prevents forging it would break any used cryptocurrency in two, if it even works at all.
Haha, cryptocurrencies are banned in India, anyone found dealing with them can be jailed up to 10 years.
Except that's false. Only RBI certified institutions are forbidden from trading in crypto, everyone else is free to do as they please.
Am Kashmiri. Was born there. Have family there. My parents were born and raised there. This is scary even for a region marked by persistent curfews, border clashes between two nuclear powers, and an ongoing series of conflicts between insurgents and the Indian Army.
We have extended family from whom we haven’t heard any news since this went into effect. It’s all just anxious waiting.
What could possibly be the endgame from this unless you’re trying to actively foment rebellion? How can this have any widespread support?
What could possibly be the endgame from this unless you’re trying to actively foment rebellion? How can this have any widespread support?
Why didn’t PDP grant permanent residency to the Sikh and Hindu refugees in Jammu from Poonch, Rawalakot, etc? No one is saying they would have gratefully voted for them but BJP talking point would have gone. Did they think they would demand the assembly seats from Muzaffarabad, Bagh etc?
What's the status of other forms of communication, like postal mail or shortwave radio?
Shutting down the internet in an effort to "keep the peace" is really dystopian: how do Indian citizens stand for it?
Shutting down the internet in an effort to "keep the peace" is really dystopian: how do Indian citizens stand for it?
Maybe they're used to it?
FTA: "While Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promoted the rapid adoption of the internet, particularly on smartphones, to modernize India and bring it out of poverty, the country is also the world leader in shutting down the internet.
The country has increasingly deployed communications and internet stoppages to suppress potential protests, prevent rumors from spreading on WhatsApp, conduct elections and even stop students from cheating on exams. Last year, India blocked the internet 134 times, compared with 12 shutdowns in Pakistan, the No. 2 country, according to Access Now, a global digital rights group, which said its data understates the number of occurrences."
Maybe they're used to it?
FTA: "While Prime Minister Narendra Modi has promoted the rapid adoption of the internet, particularly on smartphones, to modernize India and bring it out of poverty, the country is also the world leader in shutting down the internet.
The country has increasingly deployed communications and internet stoppages to suppress potential protests, prevent rumors from spreading on WhatsApp, conduct elections and even stop students from cheating on exams. Last year, India blocked the internet 134 times, compared with 12 shutdowns in Pakistan, the No. 2 country, according to Access Now, a global digital rights group, which said its data understates the number of occurrences."
They're not used to it. Most of them have been fed state propaganda through virtually all media for decades. The rest don't really care and a small minority are going mental over this trying everything they can to pressurize the Government but it isn't working.
Any country that has been paying attention in recent years knows that the internet allows the opposition to organize, coordinate, and recruit effectively.
The US and China deal with this by ensuring they have leverage over the platforms that people use to communicate. Other countries that do not have this leverage, have to resort to shutting down the internet in areas of unrest.
The US and China deal with this by ensuring they have leverage over the platforms that people use to communicate. Other countries that do not have this leverage, have to resort to shutting down the internet in areas of unrest.
You know what, that "resort to" will probably cause more uprising.
Some people maybe don't care about what ever is happening outside, but now they cannot connect to Steam anymore.
China was disconnected Xinjiang from the network in the past. During that time, some Xinjiangers traveled to neighboring province so they can take care their business in some online game. I guess they were the people who received the most piss from the disconnect, not those "uprising organizers".
Some people maybe don't care about what ever is happening outside, but now they cannot connect to Steam anymore.
China was disconnected Xinjiang from the network in the past. During that time, some Xinjiangers traveled to neighboring province so they can take care their business in some online game. I guess they were the people who received the most piss from the disconnect, not those "uprising organizers".
> The US and China deal with this by ensuring they have leverage over the platforms that people use to communicate.
By leverage, you mean the Prism project in USA?
By leverage, you mean the Prism project in USA?
Yes, but presumably people have a say in the laws that let this happen?
Indian citizens, at least the progressive thinking ones, do not stand for shutting down the Internet connectivity for any purpose, more so since the governments (central and state) have been doing it without transparency and without strong laws or enforcement to protect freedoms.
Internet Freedom Foundation [1][2] has been trying to make this a thing of the past, but it's very early days. As a tangential example, postal services are stopped in Kashmir now. Nobody is able to find the exact government order that made this possible. This is despite having RTI (Right to Information, the equivalent to the US FoIA). That's the sad level of governance going on for a long time in the country.
Majoritarian views — that prefer less freedom — on social media and broadcast media like TV don't help the situation much.
[1]: https://internetfreedom.in
[2]: https://twitter.com/internetfreedom
Internet Freedom Foundation [1][2] has been trying to make this a thing of the past, but it's very early days. As a tangential example, postal services are stopped in Kashmir now. Nobody is able to find the exact government order that made this possible. This is despite having RTI (Right to Information, the equivalent to the US FoIA). That's the sad level of governance going on for a long time in the country.
Majoritarian views — that prefer less freedom — on social media and broadcast media like TV don't help the situation much.
[1]: https://internetfreedom.in
[2]: https://twitter.com/internetfreedom
I appreciate what Internet Freedom Foundation is doing. But they are not responsible for law and order in Kashmir.
I don't think you are aware about Kashmir's situation prior to the abrogation of the article. Stone-pelting(sponsored by seperatists) and murder of civilians by terrorists were common. There is also significant amount of Pakistan-backed propaganda in the valley. Pakistanis have already flooded the internet with photos/videos from Syria, Palestine etc. and are claiming them to be from Kashmir. Considering this, what do you think would've happened if communication was fully open?
Is the communication blockade bad? Yes.
Is it necessary to keep the peace? Yes.
Is the communication blockade bad? Yes.
Is it necessary to keep the peace? Yes.
> I don't think you are aware about Kashmir's situation prior to the abrogation of the article.
I'm no expert, of course, but I am generally aware of some of the issues in the region (disclaimer: I may not be a neutral source–none of my family members are Pakistani). I'm still of the opinion that shutting down the internet is a government overreach.
I'm no expert, of course, but I am generally aware of some of the issues in the region (disclaimer: I may not be a neutral source–none of my family members are Pakistani). I'm still of the opinion that shutting down the internet is a government overreach.
I agree that blocking communication lines and the internet is not good. But again, none among is responsible for law and order in the region.
Hmm if the Pakistani people and media are lying keeping the internet open and showing their lies should be the reaction. Keeping it closed and hiding what is happening inside Kashmir will make the situation worse.
You can't debunk each and every Twitter and Facebook post. And while one does that, some of it will already have its effect on the masses.
You cannot have peace by coercion. Period.
It will either be an illusion or delusion.
There are many instances in history where coercion was required to bring peace, especially in "bad situations" ranging from war to insurgencies to domestic terrorism. Most notable examples: Germany in 1945, Japan in 1945, counterinsurgency in Iraq in 2007-08, rooting out LTTE in Sri Lanka in 2009.
May be I should have clarified a bit more. I am talking about coercion of the native populace of an internal region by its own government. The first two were global conflicts. The last one may qualify but again it is a self-serving cycle. You create a situation which leads to a region revolting and then you need to pacify it through force.
Heard of https://peacekeeping.un.org/en ?
The only people complaining about it are the ones who aren't benefited by it.
The only people complaining about it are the ones who aren't benefited by it.
In my city Jaipur, there was internet shutdown for last 3 days in some areas because communal tensions flared up and situation had to be brought under control. I stand by it because putting myself in the administration's shoes, I know for a fact that you WILL have a lot of casualties if you don't do that. It's a sad reality.
Something I find very hilarious is that come election time,
these same stupid people somehow become magically smart enough to elect the very same said administration.
"We are doing this to protect you from yourself."
"We are doing this to protect you from yourself."
What are you gonna do if the government did the same in your country? Let it be any first world country.
Complain on Twitter? Oops, you can't.
Take it to the streets? So?
Complain on Twitter? Oops, you can't.
Take it to the streets? So?
I live in a country where I hope something like this would be illegal, so I'm not necessarily the best person to ask. I might complain when internet access is blocked for people who aren't me, though.
Not just internet but mobile phones and even landlines. Only a handful out of 100s of newspapers are being published and that too with restricted pages. Mainstream pro-India political leaders have been arrested along with lawyers, professors, activists and general public.
Majority support annexing of the region
Kashmir is already part of India, since 1947. No question of 'annexing'. It was given 'special' privileges, which lead to nothing for 70 years. Now they were revoked.
Imagine if Florida had special privileges like No Federal Tax , and yet continued to remain a s*ithole like, say Missisippi? How would other states take it?
Imagine if Florida had special privileges like No Federal Tax , and yet continued to remain a s*ithole like, say Missisippi? How would other states take it?
They don’t like it very much at all - see Puerto Rico
Note that I'm talking about shutting down the internet in general, not this specific issue. I've heard that India has done this in the past for other things as well.
That's the thing though right? You can support annexing a region but not also letting the area fall into chaos/have civilians killed. If the "practical" way to do this is to shut down the internet and prevent chaos from spreading, the argument that this is the "right" thing to do isn't too far off.
Not that I condone this line of thought necessarily.
Not that I condone this line of thought necessarily.
Region doesn't support being Annxed.
Majority support implementation of law and establishment of peace which is already very well recognized as Indian territory.
Mesh networks please! Briar, Meshenger , heck maybe we need to make a cell phone app to provide internet connection sharing over WiFi and or Bluetooth ad hoc networks.
Can it replace full isps? Almost never. Can it enable light text based things like emails, ordering supplies or cashless trxns? Maybe...
The biggest problem is scale of course, having such a large geographic area would require most of the population to have this mesh app active at once plus several 'exit nodes' with access to actual isp traffic somewhere in other regions.
IDK this is a spitball reaction that I considered not posting as it doesn't seem very thought provoking like normal HN comments but if it Sparks discussion then it will have done its job.
Can it replace full isps? Almost never. Can it enable light text based things like emails, ordering supplies or cashless trxns? Maybe...
The biggest problem is scale of course, having such a large geographic area would require most of the population to have this mesh app active at once plus several 'exit nodes' with access to actual isp traffic somewhere in other regions.
IDK this is a spitball reaction that I considered not posting as it doesn't seem very thought provoking like normal HN comments but if it Sparks discussion then it will have done its job.
[deleted]
Until recently, I had a strongly positive impression of India, as an outsider: rapidly modernizing, forward thinking and tolerant. Indians I meet in real life certainly tend to reinforce that position. However, I stumbled upon Indian Twitter during the election campaign, and I have been shocked by the vicious hatred and massive troll armies, that exceed anything I’ve noticed elsewhere. I imagine that WhatsApp is worse. The shocking behaviour has greatly diminished my opinion of the country, and it now strikes me as a powder-keg of hate.
The article mentions that the internet is being promoted as a way of advancing the country...if that’s advancement, it may be better for India to hit the brakes.
The article mentions that the internet is being promoted as a way of advancing the country...if that’s advancement, it may be better for India to hit the brakes.
> I have been shocked by the vicious hatred and massive troll armies, that exceed anything I’ve noticed elsewhere
Mutual distrust and animosity was always there underneath the surface. The internet is just making it a lot more visible to outsiders.
Don't forget that India itself was born during violent and widespread Hindu-Muslim clashes that displaced some 10+ million people from their homelands and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others. The past history of India has been quite violent if you think about it. We have had several insurgencies fueled by ethnic hatred and real or imagined grievances. The 80s and the 90s were very violent years. We had the Gujarat riots (or pogrom, depending on whom you ask) as late as 2002.
The freewheeling, anonymous nature of the internet just makes ideas fueling hatred to spread fast. Now it is easier for skilled rhetoricians to infect others. Everyone is getting radicalized - Hindus, Muslims, various caste and ethnic groups, you name it.
All this is not even counting any bots and propaganda armies on the internet working overtime to project a certain narrative. I fear that things might get worse, much worse, before they get better.
Mutual distrust and animosity was always there underneath the surface. The internet is just making it a lot more visible to outsiders.
Don't forget that India itself was born during violent and widespread Hindu-Muslim clashes that displaced some 10+ million people from their homelands and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others. The past history of India has been quite violent if you think about it. We have had several insurgencies fueled by ethnic hatred and real or imagined grievances. The 80s and the 90s were very violent years. We had the Gujarat riots (or pogrom, depending on whom you ask) as late as 2002.
The freewheeling, anonymous nature of the internet just makes ideas fueling hatred to spread fast. Now it is easier for skilled rhetoricians to infect others. Everyone is getting radicalized - Hindus, Muslims, various caste and ethnic groups, you name it.
All this is not even counting any bots and propaganda armies on the internet working overtime to project a certain narrative. I fear that things might get worse, much worse, before they get better.
You judged a country of a billion people by two small subsets. No country has as diverse a people as India. It comes with its own set of problems. "don't use the internet" reeks of such privilege.
That’s a reasonable point, and I do try to keep some perspective. The number of “likes” and retweets for the hateful posts does seem to scale for India’s massive population.
India also has a long history of deadly “communal violence”, something that doesn’t really happen in other democracies. If questioning whether it’s wise for companies like Twitter and WhatsApp to allow incitement for violence to exist in such an environment is regarded as “privilege”, so be it.
India also has a long history of deadly “communal violence”, something that doesn’t really happen in other democracies. If questioning whether it’s wise for companies like Twitter and WhatsApp to allow incitement for violence to exist in such an environment is regarded as “privilege”, so be it.
There is a reason for proliferation of hate on Twitter and that is the skewed form of secularism that the Indian state has followed all these years. Those who have lived in India know that most of the time the state is lenient towards minorities even when they commit crimes. Even history has been whitewashed to portray invaders as benign rulers so as to not offend minorities. In some ways the Indian Natinal Congress turned the country's polity into minoritarianism because they realized they could continue winning elections with just their votes (this statement is a bit of a simplification). The majority which has silently been observing this got a voice with the advent of social media. For someone who doesn't have this context, Indians will of course look hateful and communal.
Thanks for that forthright answer, and it does seem to match the themes I’ve seen on Twitter. I think to many people, the idea that hatred and violent threats could be seen as a valid response to grievances, even if justified, is beyond the pale, especially in a democracy. As I said, I had a very different understanding of India prior to being exposed to it on Twitter. I appreciate your honesty.
Every party panders to their vote bank. It isn't different from anywhere. Just so you know my original point wasn't proBJP or pro INC. Secularism and diversity is hard. That doesn't mean we forget our tenets
I am not taking any sides either. I am just giving the context for current events.
India is preventing the fate of Yugoslavia.
It would have been occupation if Kashmiris had lesser rights but that's not the case. People don't ask what rights did people of Kashmir didn't have that people of India had since 1947.
India is a country of diverse religions, and ethnic groups. If a minority group demands separate nation should you give autonomy to it? If London becomes Muslim majority, and demands separation, should England give in to that demand?
If India gives away Kashmir, it means you can never trust minority of your country because they can ask for separate nation and the world will support that demand.
Do we really think that helps the cause of minorities in India or any other country in the world?
It would have been occupation if Kashmiris had lesser rights but that's not the case. People don't ask what rights did people of Kashmir didn't have that people of India had since 1947.
India is a country of diverse religions, and ethnic groups. If a minority group demands separate nation should you give autonomy to it? If London becomes Muslim majority, and demands separation, should England give in to that demand?
If India gives away Kashmir, it means you can never trust minority of your country because they can ask for separate nation and the world will support that demand.
Do we really think that helps the cause of minorities in India or any other country in the world?
It's not just about the religion. Pakistan will most likely use Kashmir as a terror launchpad against other regions of India. From India's perspective, the region is strategic than anything else.
For your sake I hope not - when Kosovo autonomy was revoked all other republics became afraid. If I were Mamata Didi right now I’d be up late at night worrying about how many seats my assembly victory margin has to be for it not to be taken away with Darjeeling being made a UT.
At what point is a region so distinct from the state in which it resides that the best course of action would be secession? When I read the news I see conflicts in integration every where: Hong Kong, Kashmir, Kurdish Syria / Turkey. My general feeling is that due to a number of factors (imperialism, war, etc.) that our current global map just doesn't reflect the reality of international relations, unfortunately border disputes are rarely resolved peacefully...
Balkanization has been tried, you know. Thousands of times. That doesn't work so well either. It sounds glib and naive, but at the end of the day the path to peace is just for people to stop fighting, forgive past sins and learn to live with each other.
And generally that happens only after they get wealthy. Which makes shutting down core civil infrastructure deeply counterproductive.
And generally that happens only after they get wealthy. Which makes shutting down core civil infrastructure deeply counterproductive.
I think the reality is that while politicians draw borders, and governments like them not to move, people move, ideals change, cultures spread and any region eventually doesn't match its lines on a map.
Sometimes it's messy (Yugoslav Wars), sometimes it's more civil (Virginia/West Virginia). But change happens. It's how we react and manage that change that helps define us as a people.
Sometimes it's messy (Yugoslav Wars), sometimes it's more civil (Virginia/West Virginia). But change happens. It's how we react and manage that change that helps define us as a people.
Well India has 20-30 odd states that are each, as distinct as countries in Europe. So answers to your questions lie in understanding how they have stayed integrated inspite of all the differences.
[deleted]
>Kashmir, an area of 12.5 million people that is claimed by both India and Pakistan and has long been a source of tension.
There is also a portion of the area that is claimed by China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir#/media/File:...
There is also a portion of the area that is claimed by China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir#/media/File:...
Given to China by Pakistan who didn't have right to it in the first place as per UN
Shakshagam valley has been ceded to China by Pakistan as it not was contiguous territory, so Pakistan got Brownie points. Aksai Chin was not given by Pakistan to China.
I generally try to stay away from threads related to Kashmir across social media because they tend to be toxic with people having absolutely no regard for democracy and basic human decency towards others. I thought HN discussion would be better and while it was a little better, it turned out to be more or less the same. In retrospect, I shouldn't have expected otherwise.
Speak for people who are silenced. Don't let overwhelming propaganda demotivate you, the article stands for itself. Propaganda in here is actually transparent and future visitors will be able to discern it. Make their job easier.
I am sorry we let you down. I tried my best for my part.
If anybody wants to read in detail about Kashmir issue from outsider, check this
https://www.lawfareblog.com/indias-move-kashmir-unpacking-do...
Hindu Chauvinist party. Really? There are dozens of countries with Islamic constitutions. Do we call all their leaders Islamic nationalists? There is a serious effort to malign democratic norms in India unless it is only for Islam, which was the state of affairs for J&K. Hindus in Jammu and Ladakh which were part of the state of J&K were second class citizens. That has been removed. Property rights of females is also restored unlike the Kashmiri Sharia influenced constitution.
Kashmiri separatism is another in the line of Islamic jihadi separatism. It was co-opted by the Pakistanis because they only consider that Muslims can live ruled by Mullahs and Sharia and an Islamic constitution.
You will probably find 75% people in India or more in agreement with Modi's action. The whip of the largest opposition party quit his party because he agreed with BJP's actions. Remember that the resolutions passed parliament with 66% of votesin the Rajya Sabha and 84% in the Lok Sabha. That is greater than the numbers of the BJP so many other parties joined them in this.
India's 1.3 billion people will have no problem fighting another war with Pakistan if again attacked over Kashmir.
The international media might as well get used to it.
Kashmiri separatism is another in the line of Islamic jihadi separatism. It was co-opted by the Pakistanis because they only consider that Muslims can live ruled by Mullahs and Sharia and an Islamic constitution.
You will probably find 75% people in India or more in agreement with Modi's action. The whip of the largest opposition party quit his party because he agreed with BJP's actions. Remember that the resolutions passed parliament with 66% of votesin the Rajya Sabha and 84% in the Lok Sabha. That is greater than the numbers of the BJP so many other parties joined them in this.
India's 1.3 billion people will have no problem fighting another war with Pakistan if again attacked over Kashmir.
The international media might as well get used to it.
I hear that Janata party trying to get Jan Sangh people to resign their affiliations went over like a lead balloon in the seventies. BTW, Kashmiris liked them. RSS people can keep their membership and be called secular?
Hinduism is secular. Where have historically persecuted people of the world gone? To Hindu India. Indian Hindus are why Zorastrian people still exists as a religion. They had to flee Iran and Islamic domination hundreds of years ago.
Hindu India has its share of casteism, which is a real problem. That I can agree with.
Hindu India has its share of casteism, which is a real problem. That I can agree with.
There is a zorastrian presence in Iran.
In fact, Iran hosts the greatest number of the world minorities than any other country. Even those that have been thought of as extinct.
In fact, Iran hosts the greatest number of the world minorities than any other country. Even those that have been thought of as extinct.
I somewhere read that Zorastrianism was once the primary religion of Perisan Empire? Would like to know what exactly has caused their numbers to dwindle so much.
[deleted]
As far as Indian Constitution written by Ambedkar goes, I believe you. I am not sure RSS agrees on that basis.
That can be rectified by actually trying to read and understand about it. Don’t fall for the narrative.
'Hinduism is secular.' followed by 'Hindu India'
How is religion even called secular? Secular pertains to character of a state, not of a religion.
How is religion even called secular? Secular pertains to character of a state, not of a religion.
Hinduism is/was the culture of the Indian subcontinent. Western society defined religion as a matter of faith. In India faith was not exactly part of your culture. That was in addition to your culture.
Hinduism is a religion in modern times, defining it as culture of India is one of the stated aims of Hindu Nationalist movement. Culture is a pluralistic adventure, and winds across religious divide. Defining it as Indian culture means subjugating other religions, which is a Hindutva endeavour. In Punjab, after Aryan migration Punjabis didn’t have any stated religion until Islam and Sikh religion came along, co-opting the no religion stance before as Hinduism is a grave stance to take.
Exactly how many people does she think are going to vote in panchayat elections in Baramulla, Anantnag, Sopore, Shopian, etc? Has she checked the turnout last time?
We have so many satellites up there that can stream photos of specific locations.
Can those companies fund a few days' worth of live streaming of key areas? It gives everybody an option to see the reality/facts instead of opinions.
Nobody knows whom to trust in these crisis times and everything appears as an opinion of an individual or a small group.
Can those companies fund a few days' worth of live streaming of key areas? It gives everybody an option to see the reality/facts instead of opinions.
Nobody knows whom to trust in these crisis times and everything appears as an opinion of an individual or a small group.
> Can those companies fund a few days'
I assume these companies dont want any trouble from the Indian Govt if they have business in India.
I assume these companies dont want any trouble from the Indian Govt if they have business in India.
Planet’s satellites use Indian launch vehicles due to their economic viability. They were muted in their response to Debris in outer soace due to Indian anti satellite test.
Any support for your statement? If not, can you stop commenting on this thread? IMO you have degraded this thread enough.
Degraded? Oh, is it looking bad for India? Then India should stop doing bad things. 10 Million people are caged right now, while you can express yourself and you have the audacity to try to mute me too now.
Here's your source, I am not into bullshit:
“While Planet enjoys a great working partnership with agencies of India’s government — like ISRO — we categorically condemn the anti-satellite missile intercept recently conducted by India’s defense department,” the San Francisco-based company tweeted March 27. “Space should be used for peaceful purposes, and destroying satellites on orbit severely threatens the long-term stability of the space environment for all space operators. Planet urges all space-capable nations to respect our orbital commons.”
Planet will still not be boycotting ISRO and using them for the upcoming launch of 5th series of Dove satellites.
Here's your source, I am not into bullshit:
“While Planet enjoys a great working partnership with agencies of India’s government — like ISRO — we categorically condemn the anti-satellite missile intercept recently conducted by India’s defense department,” the San Francisco-based company tweeted March 27. “Space should be used for peaceful purposes, and destroying satellites on orbit severely threatens the long-term stability of the space environment for all space operators. Planet urges all space-capable nations to respect our orbital commons.”
Planet will still not be boycotting ISRO and using them for the upcoming launch of 5th series of Dove satellites.
In a historical sense, when a government shut off communications out of some place somewhere, has there been a time they were just doing good things? In a Bayesian sense, I feel like any time someone is saying "Nobody from inside here can tell anyone outside anything", that someone isn't really doing good things.
I wonder if it's worthwhile to install some sort of LibertyWeb that forms a meshnet+satellite internet that allows text through, just in case governments turn authoritarian.
I wonder if it's worthwhile to install some sort of LibertyWeb that forms a meshnet+satellite internet that allows text through, just in case governments turn authoritarian.
The shutdown is because 10% of the population of Indian Kashmir is hardcore wahabi sunni and holding the rest of it to ransom. People forget the 45% non muslim population suffering and the rest muslim population who dont turn up to these stone pelting protests.
Get a load of this:
https://twitter.com/AdityaRajKaul/status/1161161663493464064
If J&K Police has some cell in Srinagar writing form letters to Twitter in San Francisco every time someone posts something they don't like God help them when the Internet comes back on.
If J&K Police has some cell in Srinagar writing form letters to Twitter in San Francisco every time someone posts something they don't like God help them when the Internet comes back on.
Wow. Matters always get heated up when J&K comes up. Folks, chill out. This is HN, not one of the toxic comment cesspools around the internet.
IMO, the removal of article 370 was a good move because:
- Article 370 was originally meant to be temporary. Central governments before the current one did not have the will, numbers and political spine to get it done.
- Kashmir, as it was, would have been fine if it was a progressive and developing state. Yes, it has developed compared what the situation was before, but give the amount of money that is poured in there per capita, compared to the rest of the country, is a lot! And it does not reach the people.
- The traditional Federal and State government model works decently well but it does not work with Kashmir and the local government could pick and choose only the new rules and amendments they liked. Anecdote: Kashmir government has a tenure of 6 years, the rest of India: 5 years. India had made that provision for a short time and was rolled back. Since it was more convenient for Kashmiri politicians, it was adopted and kept.
- Indian Supreme Court rulings did not always apply to Kashmir.
- The new Union Territory of Ladakh wanted to be so for a long time.
- Local politicians loved article 370. It gave them the autonomy to get more money and leverage to keep themselves in power. They often walked a diplomatic line so as to keep the money lines open from India and keep Pakistan engaged and enticed.
- Regional and religious Separatists thrives in J&K, often getting financed by Pakistan and inciting the people and youth in J&K. These money sources are being cut off since months now, slowing reducing the illicit finances to these activities.
- From what I have seen from interviews of locals, people are happy to angry about the change, while some are just unhappy with the ‘change’ as they had adapted to the conditions.
Now, about the way it was done: - the central government did the necessary groundwork to identify threats and risks. - recalled all tourists, pilgrims and out of state students from the area. - Sent in army platoons to maintain law and order situation. - clamped down on local leadership - took down the internet services - increases alertness along the Pakistan border.
Though I would personally hate to be in this situation, I think I understand and appreciate why it was done.
Absence of even some of the above measures would have resulted in the spread of massive misinformation or even propaganda and resulted in violent incidents on scale. Local politicians and separatists would be the ones to provoke this as removal of article 370 had a direct impact on their power and influence. The situation could have been dire and the same opposition parties would have been singing a different tune as to ‘why were adequate measures not taken’?
The restrictions are already being phased out and I hope the life for general population normalizes soon.
All this is done, but what next?
The removal of article 370 has had multiple challenges in the Supreme Court, so it has yet to be seen how it plays out. Also, there is a lot of work that needs to be done there in the coming years to win over the trust of the local populace. Security threats may increase - as it can be easily seen how unhappy Pakistan is with the removal of article 370. Those have to be tackled.
How this move actually works out depends on how the government tackles the upcoming hurdles, and J&K being a UT would certainly help them.
This is my opinion about the situation and the way it was tacked. Hope I am not downvoted into oblivion for this. Oh, well. :shrug:
IMO, the removal of article 370 was a good move because:
- Article 370 was originally meant to be temporary. Central governments before the current one did not have the will, numbers and political spine to get it done.
- Kashmir, as it was, would have been fine if it was a progressive and developing state. Yes, it has developed compared what the situation was before, but give the amount of money that is poured in there per capita, compared to the rest of the country, is a lot! And it does not reach the people.
- The traditional Federal and State government model works decently well but it does not work with Kashmir and the local government could pick and choose only the new rules and amendments they liked. Anecdote: Kashmir government has a tenure of 6 years, the rest of India: 5 years. India had made that provision for a short time and was rolled back. Since it was more convenient for Kashmiri politicians, it was adopted and kept.
- Indian Supreme Court rulings did not always apply to Kashmir.
- The new Union Territory of Ladakh wanted to be so for a long time.
- Local politicians loved article 370. It gave them the autonomy to get more money and leverage to keep themselves in power. They often walked a diplomatic line so as to keep the money lines open from India and keep Pakistan engaged and enticed.
- Regional and religious Separatists thrives in J&K, often getting financed by Pakistan and inciting the people and youth in J&K. These money sources are being cut off since months now, slowing reducing the illicit finances to these activities.
- From what I have seen from interviews of locals, people are happy to angry about the change, while some are just unhappy with the ‘change’ as they had adapted to the conditions.
Now, about the way it was done: - the central government did the necessary groundwork to identify threats and risks. - recalled all tourists, pilgrims and out of state students from the area. - Sent in army platoons to maintain law and order situation. - clamped down on local leadership - took down the internet services - increases alertness along the Pakistan border.
Though I would personally hate to be in this situation, I think I understand and appreciate why it was done.
Absence of even some of the above measures would have resulted in the spread of massive misinformation or even propaganda and resulted in violent incidents on scale. Local politicians and separatists would be the ones to provoke this as removal of article 370 had a direct impact on their power and influence. The situation could have been dire and the same opposition parties would have been singing a different tune as to ‘why were adequate measures not taken’?
The restrictions are already being phased out and I hope the life for general population normalizes soon.
All this is done, but what next?
The removal of article 370 has had multiple challenges in the Supreme Court, so it has yet to be seen how it plays out. Also, there is a lot of work that needs to be done there in the coming years to win over the trust of the local populace. Security threats may increase - as it can be easily seen how unhappy Pakistan is with the removal of article 370. Those have to be tackled.
How this move actually works out depends on how the government tackles the upcoming hurdles, and J&K being a UT would certainly help them.
This is my opinion about the situation and the way it was tacked. Hope I am not downvoted into oblivion for this. Oh, well. :shrug:
lol, the pakistani propaganda train has reached ycombinator now.
> Jammu and Kashmir, an area of 12.5 million people that is claimed by both India and Pakistan
It would seem that India has the more practically demonstrable claim.
It would seem that India has the more practically demonstrable claim.
Would your opinion lead you to believe that India should act quickly and remedy the unacceptable state of affairs in which the residents find themselves?
[deleted]
This article shows that Internet has to be seen as a basic human right. It's so sad what India is doing to the Kashmiri people.
What would happen when starlink comes to existence? Would a country ask the company to shut off that part of satellites?
Paywalled in India. Text/tldr?
Does the article cover urban and rural areas of Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh?
Does the article cover urban and rural areas of Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh?
What laws changed with the removal of Article 370? This is a extremely detailed Before vs Now list. I need your help to make it better.
The only people who are really unhappy with the new law is Terrorists, Three powerful families, Pakistanis and people who don't know what changed. Let me put it in simple words. I have mentioned sources for all the points I made.
Before- You can marry a child in Kashmir legally and have sex with her. [Yes, Child marriage was legal there]
Now - Child marriage is illegal. There is an age limit for marriage just like anywhere else in India. [This made a lot of paedophiles angry as they won't be able to have sex with kids legally like before.]
Before - If a Kashmir girl marries a person from anywhere else in India, she will immediately lose all her properties in Kashmir. It means she will no longer be the owner of her own house and land. Also, her children can't inherit any properties and they cannot even get admission in the educational institutes of Kashmir. This practically means they are systematically banished from Kashmir forever.
Now - No matter who a Kashmiri girl marries, she will get to keep her own properties. [This made several people angry that now girls also have right to property]
Before - Poorest people and low caste discriminated people do not have any protection laws or reservation or scholarship while all other states of India had this.
Now - Poorest people and lower caste discriminated people will get very strong protection laws and reservation and scholarships. [This made landlord like people angry as they will no longer be able to legally abuse their servants[read slaves]]
Before - A man can divorce his wife by just saying three words "Talak Talak Talak" and wife will not get any maintenance money. [This usually means the wife will be homeless with nowhere to go and no income to survive. Many women were living as wives even under torture by their husbands in fear what will happen if her husband says these three words.]
Now - Divorce by "Talak Talak Talak" is a punishable offence, and Maintainance laws apply. [This made old-minded men and bad husbands angry that their wives now have rights and is no longer their dependent slave]
Before - The politics in J&K revolved around 3 families holding all the power. Think like the "Lords" in Game of thrones. These three families live like kings looting all money. Corruption was at the highest.
Now - The domination by these 3 families are gone, and ground-level new leaders can emerge. New Anti-corruption laws apply. [This made these 3 families with a net worth in billions of dollars angry that they will be under probe of anti-corruption laws]
Before - If a person becomes the chief minister of Kashmir, It is legally required to make a multi-million dollar bungalow at posh locality plus maintenance plus luxury car plus dozens of servants. All expense to be paid by the taxpayer of course. And, this person gets to keep all these things for the entire lifetime. Over $10million was spent for "renovation of bungalow" by the previous chief minister in the last couple of years.
Now - Chief Minister will not get such special benefits. They will have to vacate their official residence once they are not in power. And, these previous chief ministers may be asked to give-back these ill-earned properties. [These people are angry that they will lose their $50million+ worth bungalows and other benefits. All the chief ministers were from the three families I mentioned above, and they were the one who made this law that they should get bungalows]
Before - There were no laws protecting the minorities in J&K. This lead to the minorities being forced out of their own homes by the majority group over the past few decades. These majority people did a genocide of minorities in 1990s and 80s leading to the minorities having to flee for their life.
Now - Minority protection laws apply. [Some majority group is angry that minorities now have rights]
Before - Homosexuality is illegal and banned.
Now - LGBT laws protect Homosexual people. [Religious people are angry that homosexuality is being legalized]
Before - Over 100,000 people whose ancestors migrated from Pakistan to J&k state of India in 1947 did not have voting rights till now. They were practically stateless. People migrated to any other state in India has full voting rights, but not for people who migrated to J&K.
Now - Everyone has voting rights. The democratic rights of a person in Kashmir is the same as the person in India's capital Delhi. [Some politicians are angry that their lopsided discriminatory politics will no longer work and may backfire because of these people getting voting rights.]
Before - People of J&K can buy land/do-business/study/settle anywhere in India, but people of India can't buy land in J&K. This lead to no businesses being able to invest in J&K thus it remained under-developed while rest of India progressed. The biggest employer in J&K is the government itself as there is no way to start businesses, thus no employment. There was also no private hospitals, no good educational facilities etc.
Now - Both people of J&K and people of rest of India can buy land/do-business/study/settle anywhere in India including J&K. A lot of companies have already promised investment in J&K. A lot of big educational institutions are coming up. Two cities of J&K are getting Metro-trains for easy transportation. This will give a lot of employment and bring people out of poverty...
Now - Right to education is a right of every child. No matter if they are poor or not, they get access to education. It is compulsory by law for the government to give education opportunities to each and every child. If a child is poor, he/she gets free education.
We are talking about over 500 such barbaric laws which will be gone with the removal of 370. I have only mentioned a few important ones over here, so now you can get an idea on how gigantic this change is. There are powerful people who are unhappy with this as it takes away their power, thus they will do whatever it takes to stop this change.
As a precautionary measure, a lot of police personal from around India was sent to Kashmir to maintain peace knowing very well that terrorists, Pakistani army and these politically powerful people will definitely try to disrupt peace.
Regarding communication blackout, that is the standard policy applied to all places which have chances of peace-disruption due to people misusing it to create violence using fake-news and instant-reaction without thinking rationally. In the previous year itself, at two places in India, the same policy was applied. That is, one during Jat Riots in Haryana{Near Delhi} and Sterlite Protest in Tamil Nadu[Southern India]. In the case of Kashmir, communication blackout of as long as 4 months has happened in 2010 after a terrorist attack. This is nothing new.
Jammu and Kashmir is also a place with a lot of terrorist activities from reputed terrorist organizations including ISIS, Lashkar-e-Taiba, JEM, Osama Bin Laden etc.
So, I suggest everyone to think it through on what they think is important. In my opinion, this is the best thing that has happened in J&K. This will bring lot of stability, investment and development. There is a risk of terrorist strikes, even Pakistan's Prime Minister has hinted it.
The only people who are really unhappy with the new law is Terrorists, Three powerful families, Pakistanis and people who don't know what changed. Let me put it in simple words. I have mentioned sources for all the points I made.
Before- You can marry a child in Kashmir legally and have sex with her. [Yes, Child marriage was legal there]
Now - Child marriage is illegal. There is an age limit for marriage just like anywhere else in India. [This made a lot of paedophiles angry as they won't be able to have sex with kids legally like before.]
Before - If a Kashmir girl marries a person from anywhere else in India, she will immediately lose all her properties in Kashmir. It means she will no longer be the owner of her own house and land. Also, her children can't inherit any properties and they cannot even get admission in the educational institutes of Kashmir. This practically means they are systematically banished from Kashmir forever.
Now - No matter who a Kashmiri girl marries, she will get to keep her own properties. [This made several people angry that now girls also have right to property]
Before - Poorest people and low caste discriminated people do not have any protection laws or reservation or scholarship while all other states of India had this.
Now - Poorest people and lower caste discriminated people will get very strong protection laws and reservation and scholarships. [This made landlord like people angry as they will no longer be able to legally abuse their servants[read slaves]]
Before - A man can divorce his wife by just saying three words "Talak Talak Talak" and wife will not get any maintenance money. [This usually means the wife will be homeless with nowhere to go and no income to survive. Many women were living as wives even under torture by their husbands in fear what will happen if her husband says these three words.]
Now - Divorce by "Talak Talak Talak" is a punishable offence, and Maintainance laws apply. [This made old-minded men and bad husbands angry that their wives now have rights and is no longer their dependent slave]
Before - The politics in J&K revolved around 3 families holding all the power. Think like the "Lords" in Game of thrones. These three families live like kings looting all money. Corruption was at the highest.
Now - The domination by these 3 families are gone, and ground-level new leaders can emerge. New Anti-corruption laws apply. [This made these 3 families with a net worth in billions of dollars angry that they will be under probe of anti-corruption laws]
Before - If a person becomes the chief minister of Kashmir, It is legally required to make a multi-million dollar bungalow at posh locality plus maintenance plus luxury car plus dozens of servants. All expense to be paid by the taxpayer of course. And, this person gets to keep all these things for the entire lifetime. Over $10million was spent for "renovation of bungalow" by the previous chief minister in the last couple of years.
Now - Chief Minister will not get such special benefits. They will have to vacate their official residence once they are not in power. And, these previous chief ministers may be asked to give-back these ill-earned properties. [These people are angry that they will lose their $50million+ worth bungalows and other benefits. All the chief ministers were from the three families I mentioned above, and they were the one who made this law that they should get bungalows]
Before - There were no laws protecting the minorities in J&K. This lead to the minorities being forced out of their own homes by the majority group over the past few decades. These majority people did a genocide of minorities in 1990s and 80s leading to the minorities having to flee for their life.
Now - Minority protection laws apply. [Some majority group is angry that minorities now have rights]
Before - Homosexuality is illegal and banned.
Now - LGBT laws protect Homosexual people. [Religious people are angry that homosexuality is being legalized]
Before - Over 100,000 people whose ancestors migrated from Pakistan to J&k state of India in 1947 did not have voting rights till now. They were practically stateless. People migrated to any other state in India has full voting rights, but not for people who migrated to J&K.
Now - Everyone has voting rights. The democratic rights of a person in Kashmir is the same as the person in India's capital Delhi. [Some politicians are angry that their lopsided discriminatory politics will no longer work and may backfire because of these people getting voting rights.]
Before - People of J&K can buy land/do-business/study/settle anywhere in India, but people of India can't buy land in J&K. This lead to no businesses being able to invest in J&K thus it remained under-developed while rest of India progressed. The biggest employer in J&K is the government itself as there is no way to start businesses, thus no employment. There was also no private hospitals, no good educational facilities etc.
Now - Both people of J&K and people of rest of India can buy land/do-business/study/settle anywhere in India including J&K. A lot of companies have already promised investment in J&K. A lot of big educational institutions are coming up. Two cities of J&K are getting Metro-trains for easy transportation. This will give a lot of employment and bring people out of poverty...
Mukesh Ambani promises investment in Jammu & Kashmir, says Reliance will set up special team.
Article 370 gone, investor summit planned in Jammu and Kashmir to boost industry, healthcare.
Now - Right to education is a right of every child. No matter if they are poor or not, they get access to education. It is compulsory by law for the government to give education opportunities to each and every child. If a child is poor, he/she gets free education.
We are talking about over 500 such barbaric laws which will be gone with the removal of 370. I have only mentioned a few important ones over here, so now you can get an idea on how gigantic this change is. There are powerful people who are unhappy with this as it takes away their power, thus they will do whatever it takes to stop this change.
As a precautionary measure, a lot of police personal from around India was sent to Kashmir to maintain peace knowing very well that terrorists, Pakistani army and these politically powerful people will definitely try to disrupt peace.
Regarding communication blackout, that is the standard policy applied to all places which have chances of peace-disruption due to people misusing it to create violence using fake-news and instant-reaction without thinking rationally. In the previous year itself, at two places in India, the same policy was applied. That is, one during Jat Riots in Haryana{Near Delhi} and Sterlite Protest in Tamil Nadu[Southern India]. In the case of Kashmir, communication blackout of as long as 4 months has happened in 2010 after a terrorist attack. This is nothing new.
Jammu and Kashmir is also a place with a lot of terrorist activities from reputed terrorist organizations including ISIS, Lashkar-e-Taiba, JEM, Osama Bin Laden etc.
Kashmir war fears grow as Pakistan cleric close to Osama bin Laden tells followers to wage jihad against India.
"We Still Have 30,000-40,000" Terrorists, Admits Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan
Article 370 : Imran Khan warns of another Pulwama terrorist attack[Pak pm threatening a terror strike subtly]
So, I suggest everyone to think it through on what they think is important. In my opinion, this is the best thing that has happened in J&K. This will bring lot of stability, investment and development. There is a risk of terrorist strikes, even Pakistan's Prime Minister has hinted it.
I think it is pretty clear that the Indian Government rushed into this because this is what their Hindu-nationalistic base wants - subdue the only Muslim Indian majority state. However, just like their ill-fated demonetization policy from 2016, they haven't given a whole lot of thought to what happens the day after. How long will they keep these restrictions? How far are they prepared to go if there is a mass uprising?
> I think it is pretty clear that the Indian Government rushed into this because this is what their Hindu-nationalistic base wants - subdue the only Muslim Indian majority state.
Abrogation of Kashmir's special status has been a top agenda of the BJP for the past few decades. They are pretty big on "national unity", and they see the special status for Kashmir as going against this principle. They want Kashmir fully integrated into India once and for all. They also consider the indecision about Kashmir's status in India as being a prime cause for terrorism in that region. Kicking the muslims has very little to do with it.
Whether this step will backfire remains to be seen. Indians will have to ask some very tough questions about what kind of nation they want India to be, and whether the vision they come up with will be viable at all given the nature of the Indian society.
Abrogation of Kashmir's special status has been a top agenda of the BJP for the past few decades. They are pretty big on "national unity", and they see the special status for Kashmir as going against this principle. They want Kashmir fully integrated into India once and for all. They also consider the indecision about Kashmir's status in India as being a prime cause for terrorism in that region. Kicking the muslims has very little to do with it.
Whether this step will backfire remains to be seen. Indians will have to ask some very tough questions about what kind of nation they want India to be, and whether the vision they come up with will be viable at all given the nature of the Indian society.
You know what else has been a top agenda for BJP? Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan. That is, single language, single religion, single nation.
BJP is a Hindu Nationalist party, and just because it is in their manifesto doesn’t mean it should have been fulfilled. The question to ask is, why is in their manifesto when there are other regions in India with similar laws? It is in their manifesto because Kashmir is a Muslim majority region. And BJP considers, Muslims and Christians as invaders and pests. This manifesto point is just utter bunkum to placate their Hindu Nationalistic base since 1950s, they finally got to fulfill it since they have the numbers and money power now. For the first time since India gained independence.
BJP is a Hindu Nationalist party, and just because it is in their manifesto doesn’t mean it should have been fulfilled. The question to ask is, why is in their manifesto when there are other regions in India with similar laws? It is in their manifesto because Kashmir is a Muslim majority region. And BJP considers, Muslims and Christians as invaders and pests. This manifesto point is just utter bunkum to placate their Hindu Nationalistic base since 1950s, they finally got to fulfill it since they have the numbers and money power now. For the first time since India gained independence.
“Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan”, this takes Hindu as identity like American and not a religion.
“When there are other regions ...”, no, laws passed by the parliament were applicable everywhere except in Kashmir. So you had gems like child marriage not outlawed.
It’s lazy and biased journalism to just label them Hindu nationalists and portray them like some sort of evil overlords. India for centuries has been the most inclusive place in the world. Let’s not try and paint the majority as some kind of a clan of idiot oppressors.
“When there are other regions ...”, no, laws passed by the parliament were applicable everywhere except in Kashmir. So you had gems like child marriage not outlawed.
It’s lazy and biased journalism to just label them Hindu nationalists and portray them like some sort of evil overlords. India for centuries has been the most inclusive place in the world. Let’s not try and paint the majority as some kind of a clan of idiot oppressors.
iamshs(1)
> You know what else has been a top agenda for BJP? Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan. That is, single language, single religion, single nation.
BJP's top leadership includes Modi, Amit Shah, Nirmala Sitaraman, Venkaiah Naidu, Nitin Gadkari etc. that come from non-Hindi states. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
BJP's top leadership includes Modi, Amit Shah, Nirmala Sitaraman, Venkaiah Naidu, Nitin Gadkari etc. that come from non-Hindi states. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
When I look at "What are the Most Spoken Languages in the World?"[0], I see so many in or around India, I can understand the need for unification of languages.
[0] https://www.fluentin3months.com/most-spoken-languages
[0] https://www.fluentin3months.com/most-spoken-languages
Unification of languages movement in India has an incredibly bitter experience for minorities. Just one example, a Hindu Nationalist group in Punjab opposed Punjabi as a language of Punjab, and if not acceptable, as a compromise they wanted Punjabi to be written in Devnagri, same script as that of Hindi. Same group led a very successful campaign in 1960s for Punjabi Hindus to change their mother tongue to Hindi instead of Punjabi in national census. They opposed Punjabi on religious lines.
Let's not bulldoze diversity with the sole aim to unify. The consequences are disastrous.
Let's not bulldoze diversity with the sole aim to unify. The consequences are disastrous.
That's pure lies and propaganda. The brutal atrocities in past by invaders should not be forgiven, however, this doesn't mean to hate the descendents.
It is BJP which abolished Tripple Talaq, it is BJP which decriminalized homosexuality (Congress did not because it would hurt their voter base of Muslims), it is BJP, which is giving benefits on the basis of income, etc. Kashmir was and is integral part of India and it's culture. While we are on this no news outlets dared to talk about the genocide of thousands of Hindus, Buddhists and Suffis in Kashmir since 1989 by the Pakistan sponsored Islamic Terrorists.
If one comes on the ground instead of reading propaganda from news outlets dominated by Hinduphobic pessimists, it'll be better.
And to be clear NYT, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Bloomberg and even DW have anti-India sentiments because of lobbying and the vested interests.
It is the Hindu philosophy which is the most inclusive and that is why India was and is most diverse nation on the planet and not any Western nation.
Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark. The change is not like demonetisation rather a well thought and long-held demand of the present government. It has been there in the election manifesto since they started publishing election manifesto.
The new york times is entitled to its view on how India's elected government ought to run the country but that does not mean the government is going to forgo one of THE demands of the party founders.
The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is bad in any environment.
I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley?
Edit:
"Intorelent Minority" comes from Taleb's essay/book on the skin in the game
here is the link here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
The new york times is entitled to its view on how India's elected government ought to run the country but that does not mean the government is going to forgo one of THE demands of the party founders.
The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is bad in any environment.
I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley?
Edit:
"Intorelent Minority" comes from Taleb's essay/book on the skin in the game
here is the link here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
> Preventative measures are necessary for the kind of thing it can spark.
To prevent what exactly? Political dissent?
Why can't people in Kashmir right now talk to each other over phone? Why can't they call their loved ones outside the region? Why isn't anyone else allowed to contact them? Why are lawyers, professors and activists being jailed? Why are some people not being allowed to leave the country? Why can't Indian politicians visit the region without being detained and sent back?
What exactly is all this preventing?
To prevent what exactly? Political dissent?
Why can't people in Kashmir right now talk to each other over phone? Why can't they call their loved ones outside the region? Why isn't anyone else allowed to contact them? Why are lawyers, professors and activists being jailed? Why are some people not being allowed to leave the country? Why can't Indian politicians visit the region without being detained and sent back?
What exactly is all this preventing?
My point of view is this:
India has always been bad at communicating effectively, clearly and loudly. Just read that Pakistan is claiming that India will attack AJK etc. I do not know the internal plans of Indian Army etc but I strongly believe India is not going to do it. But Pakistan make up so much stuff, put up fake videos, get embarassed but still they do not stop talking negatively about India and everybody else. The crying baby gets a lot of attention though even if it is crying for silly or fake reasons. So, for the Indian government, it has to make more noise than the crying baby, but also presenting supporting facts.
Now, the moment the controls in Kashmir are suddenly lifted, forget Pakistan, the opposition politicians and everyone whose wallet/influence is going to get lighter themselves will talk so much against the current government and create/add fuel to the negative sentiment in the Kashmiris. So, it is better to have controls to prevent violence. Better to not lose precious lives than otherwise.
Having said that, as some one above pointed out above, it is also mandatory for the government to ensure the availability of necessities. It is easy to criticize, not that we should not. But any big action like this will have something not going according to plan. Not every thing to extreme detail can be planned perfectly. So, I do want and hope that the government gets to know the ground realities, ensure availability of the necessities and also, with proof, talk about it wherever it can.
India has always been bad at communicating effectively, clearly and loudly. Just read that Pakistan is claiming that India will attack AJK etc. I do not know the internal plans of Indian Army etc but I strongly believe India is not going to do it. But Pakistan make up so much stuff, put up fake videos, get embarassed but still they do not stop talking negatively about India and everybody else. The crying baby gets a lot of attention though even if it is crying for silly or fake reasons. So, for the Indian government, it has to make more noise than the crying baby, but also presenting supporting facts.
Now, the moment the controls in Kashmir are suddenly lifted, forget Pakistan, the opposition politicians and everyone whose wallet/influence is going to get lighter themselves will talk so much against the current government and create/add fuel to the negative sentiment in the Kashmiris. So, it is better to have controls to prevent violence. Better to not lose precious lives than otherwise.
Having said that, as some one above pointed out above, it is also mandatory for the government to ensure the availability of necessities. It is easy to criticize, not that we should not. But any big action like this will have something not going according to plan. Not every thing to extreme detail can be planned perfectly. So, I do want and hope that the government gets to know the ground realities, ensure availability of the necessities and also, with proof, talk about it wherever it can.
> To prevent what exactly? Political dissent?
Listen to statements from Kashmiri leaders like Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. They've routinely threatened violence over any attempt to the abrogation of the article. What do you think they would've done after the abrogation was anounced? And unlike other states, political dissent in Kashmir is not anywhere close to peaceful. It includes stone pelting , murdering policemen and what not.
Listen to statements from Kashmiri leaders like Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. They've routinely threatened violence over any attempt to the abrogation of the article. What do you think they would've done after the abrogation was anounced? And unlike other states, political dissent in Kashmir is not anywhere close to peaceful. It includes stone pelting , murdering policemen and what not.
Okay, let's say they lift the ban here is how things will transpire.
First, Pakistan's ISPR would start a massive disinformation campaign aided by the separatist who lost all their influence with the present government but has a great following among the Kashmiri Youth.
Then there would immense violence with many dead while the "leaders" and there loved ones stay in a five-star hotel in Delhi.
To prevent a loss of life they had to do it. But it's slowly being downgraded and the curfew is absent in all but 4 districts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir
Edit:
I agree with you, that it is bad for people to have no communication channel.
First, Pakistan's ISPR would start a massive disinformation campaign aided by the separatist who lost all their influence with the present government but has a great following among the Kashmiri Youth.
Then there would immense violence with many dead while the "leaders" and there loved ones stay in a five-star hotel in Delhi.
To prevent a loss of life they had to do it. But it's slowly being downgraded and the curfew is absent in all but 4 districts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir
Edit:
I agree with you, that it is bad for people to have no communication channel.
Immense violence started in Kashmir back in 1989 when India pulled off something like this the last time. It started dying out by 1995-96 as India adopted a more democratic and less militaristic approach to Kashmir (Vajpayee's Kashmiriyat, Insaniyat, Jamburiyat) right until the current Government came in and started going back to the militaristic approach by quelling protests by brute-force. This move is not going to go well in Kashmir and the Government knows it. People are going to revolt and that is why the valley has been completely locked down. This is not about saving lives. If that was the case the forces wouldn't shoot protestors every years in Kashmir. This is about suppressing the voices of those who object.
India had made a lot of progress democratically in Kashmir and had actually won over a lot of Kashmiris. A lot of them either supported or tolerated Indian rule as long as their daily lives went on peacefully. With this move, they've lost all popular support they had in the valley. All pro-Indian Kashmiris I know personally are feeling betrayed and regretting that they supporting Indian rule in Kashmir.
Even elected pro-India politicians have been jailed and their voices suppressed. IMO this is going to result in people losing their belief in Indian democracy. Over the next few years, I expect number of militants in the Kashmir valley to grow rapidly. I think the valley will go back to where it was in early 90s. I hope it doesn't come to that but I don't see this playing out any other way unfortunately.
Showing military might is not the solution.
India had made a lot of progress democratically in Kashmir and had actually won over a lot of Kashmiris. A lot of them either supported or tolerated Indian rule as long as their daily lives went on peacefully. With this move, they've lost all popular support they had in the valley. All pro-Indian Kashmiris I know personally are feeling betrayed and regretting that they supporting Indian rule in Kashmir.
Even elected pro-India politicians have been jailed and their voices suppressed. IMO this is going to result in people losing their belief in Indian democracy. Over the next few years, I expect number of militants in the Kashmir valley to grow rapidly. I think the valley will go back to where it was in early 90s. I hope it doesn't come to that but I don't see this playing out any other way unfortunately.
Showing military might is not the solution.
This time things will be different. Any militant movement needs money to grow - traditionally money (made using selling drugs) came from ISI [3]. Pakistan narrowly avoided FATF sanctions [1] (now in grey list but can be moved to black list this October) Now Pakistan's economy is tanking [2] and it clearly knows military options are not workable. No foreign governments except for China support them. Only option left is disinformation campaign aided by leftist media. [1] https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/watchdog-pakistan-co.... [2] https://herald.dawn.com/news/1398616
[3] https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b6fe2d2d.pdf
This is BS. Pakistani jihadis are not overcome with any kind words. The isolation of Kashmir was the problem and the government has taken the solution that the majority of the country agrees with.
The only people complaining are English language media who Modi has never cared about.
The only people complaining are English language media who Modi has never cared about.
Calm down. Too much emotion here. Current government position was always a possibility and is the main reason why Kashmir remained isolationist.
Does majority of the state agree with the decision?
If the majority of the state wants Sharia law, that will still not happen. India is a country of 1.3 billion with at least 10 different languages. There are so many sub cultures in India that the people of India do not think a few Kashmiri separatists deserve independence. It will never happen.
The state is called Jammu and Kashmir and it is part of India's cultural heritage. Integration efforts may take time, but the alternatives are not an option for India. There are many pockets of Muslim majority around India, Kashmir will be no different. Despite the border with Pakistan.
The state is called Jammu and Kashmir and it is part of India's cultural heritage. Integration efforts may take time, but the alternatives are not an option for India. There are many pockets of Muslim majority around India, Kashmir will be no different. Despite the border with Pakistan.
You fight ideas with ideas.
C'mon, stop bringing Pakistan into this. India has mismanaged Kashmir so badly that the majority of the population wants to leave India -- and not to join Pakistan, mind you, but to be independent.
Pakistan is a big part of problem here by supporting militants and terrorists. Material, money and training support. Let’s not absolve Pakistan here. They invaded independent Kashmir in 1947 and Kashmir had to let go its independence to get support from India against Pakistan’s war.
They never invaded. Locals rebelled against the ruler for being independent. And asked to become part Pakistan. Army came in upon request from locals.
Nah, tribals were armed by Pakistan. Tribals from Pakhtun invaded Kashmir. Locals actually helped repel the tribal attacks. Let’s not overlook stated facts.
haha .. if you can see the irony in your comment.
So a resourceless Pakistan miraculously recovered from the bloody partition in mere three months to not only plan an insurgency, but also had the resources to execute it. Go Pakistan then? right?
So a resourceless Pakistan miraculously recovered from the bloody partition in mere three months to not only plan an insurgency, but also had the resources to execute it. Go Pakistan then? right?
Please do not post flamewar comments to HN, and especially not nationalistic flamewar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Go learn your own history, Pakistan has given their highest bravery awards to these tribal invaders. Resourceless doesn't mean bereft of guns. British Army resources were divided among India and Pakistan.
You broke the site guidelines frequently and egregiously in this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules while posting here, regardless of how wrong or bad you think other comments are? And please don't use HN for nationalistic flamewar.
lol. Pakistan was meant to get 1/3rd, never go that.
Like you said, let's not overlook the facts.
The fact is, India and Pakistan had visa on arrival up until 1974.
The fact is, people from both sides of the border could still get naturalised citizens across the border up until early 70s.
The fact is, both India and Pakistan did exactly the same things. Just look at the accession of Junagadh and Hyderabad estate into India. India got away with it because both the states were land locked and Pakistan couldn't help. If accession of Kashmir's raja is right, so was the declarations by nawab of junagadh and hyderabad.
The fact is, the 1947 war ended with UN intervention which demanded plebiscite for kashmir. India had agreed, but so far failed to conduct that. Not only that, India doesn't even allow UN observers, while Pakistan do.
I can throw in a lot of facts in here.
Hyderabad was a land locked pocket, and one of the conditions of partition was states aligning with Pakistan to be contiguous. How is Hyderabad contiguous to Pakistan? Junagadh claimed to be contiguous to Pakistan through bullshit reasoning of sea. So viability of these pockets was not feasible. India took over Goa the same way too. But Pakistan invaded Balochistan and Kashmir and forcibly occupied these territories, so it is not 'exactly the same things'. BTW, Pakistan did try to send weapons to Hyderabad through America.
First condition of plebiscite is withdrawal of Pakistani forces from occupied territories, 73 years and still waiting. India doesn't allow UN observers because they have outlived their utility, as LoC has been codified between Pakistan and India through Simla Agreement in 1971.
First condition of plebiscite is withdrawal of Pakistani forces from occupied territories, 73 years and still waiting. India doesn't allow UN observers because they have outlived their utility, as LoC has been codified between Pakistan and India through Simla Agreement in 1971.
The exact pre-conditions for the UN mandated plebiscite are impossible to meet. Anyway, the UN resolution is superseded by the Shimla Agreement.
If Pakistan is not part of problem then why is it so much agitated by internal affairs of India?
Let's be clear here the call for 'Gajawa E Hind' (which means complete destruction of Kafirs in India and establishment of a Islamic rule) runs in most of the Pakistanis, though they can't do anything for this, the emotions are clear. On the other hand Pakistan is a military autocracy. Without enemity with India and a cause for fighting, their existence and dominance is threatened. For them the conflict is their oxygen.
Ofcourse, why blame Pakistan? Pakistan has only invaded the region few times and has made several inflitration attempts. Nothing more.
Huh what? Are you even aware of the history? Being independent has been their goal from day 1; that's the reason for the conflict. It's not because India has "mismanaged" Kashmir.
Staying away from hindu extremist dictatorship has been their goal and why they never conformed.
There was Hindu extremist dictatorship in 1947 when the conflict started? They originally wanted a separate country because they felt they are ethnically and culturally different to Indians. It didn’t become a religion issue until the 80s.
On what basis do you imagine that any resistance or disinformation campaign by Pakistan and other interests would die down soon enough within days or weeks and make the central government allow bringing back Internet and mobile connectivity? It seems like it can never come back unless the concentration of armed forces increases manifold and punishments doled out as lessons for anything that looks like an infringement.
To me it seems like the situation cannot go back to how it was a month ago for a long time (several months, at the minimum).
To me it seems like the situation cannot go back to how it was a month ago for a long time (several months, at the minimum).
Kashmir is a part of India and India is not an occupational force. Also India doesn't want another Syria/Afganistan/Pakistan/Sudan/Libya/Iraq happening next to it.
I look forward to the no doubt imminent abrogation of the Articles 371 that deal with the other integral parts of India such as Mizoram, Manipur (how's that AFSPA going over there btw), Nagaland, etc because all integral parts of India should be treated the same, right? If Kashmir is atoot ang why are you treating it differently like it has cancer?
A democratically elected Indian government has exercised it's mandate to update a temporary constitutional provision (370 and 35A and NOT 371 as mentioned above - these were granted 70 years ago) I'm not sure why foreign governments and media are getting fixated over it. Any armed struggle or insurgency movement against India will be crushed regardless. Also no other state or union territory has/had provisions for having separate flag, flawed property ownership and citizenship rights (currently a women loose her right as kashmiri citizen if she marries an outsider)
After denying the people of J&K the chance to democratically elect a government, a constitutionally dubious Presidential order was used to fundamentally alter the state. As an Indian, I find it concerning that our media is not fixated on this and instead is toeing the government line.
There are no fair elections in Kashmir. Only three families rule there, who receive money from both sides of the border.
I'm sure people of Kashmir would shout this at the top of their lungs if the communication blockade was lifted.
I'm sure, people of Gilgit/Baltistan, Balochistan and Pashtonistan will have similar opinions. Also, please don't forget how thankful Bangladesis are.
> What exactly is all this preventing?
Simply put, it's preventing deaths. Kashmir is volatile and massive government decision like scrapping Article 370 is sure to create violent protests in the region. See Kashmir protests circa 2016 on how violent it can get.
Simply put, it's preventing deaths. Kashmir is volatile and massive government decision like scrapping Article 370 is sure to create violent protests in the region. See Kashmir protests circa 2016 on how violent it can get.
‘Intolerant minority’
Bigoted thoughts do come out eventually. Minorities always need to be taught a lesson in World’s largest democracy.
Bigoted thoughts do come out eventually. Minorities always need to be taught a lesson in World’s largest democracy.
here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
In Indian Kashmir the minorities were Hindus. They were kicked out by the Islamists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
Terrorist organizations like ISIS, JEM and ISI took over and now the talk of independence has been missing for a long time. It is all about Islam.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
Terrorist organizations like ISIS, JEM and ISI took over and now the talk of independence has been missing for a long time. It is all about Islam.
Rebuttal of this propaganda by a noted academic who is a Kashmiri Hindu herself.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/11614847374096...
https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/11614847374096...
You can Cherry pick this one and ignore the million others stating the truth.
See here - https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo
See here - https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo
Do you think separatists would win an election in Balochistan? (and I don't mean BNP). The situation isn't comparable to Kashmir. Balochistan wasn't one state in 1947 (accession of Kalat is separate case). iamshs is right to be sarcastic.
Well that sure educates me a lot about Kashmir.
You're denying expulsion of Kashmiri Pundits? There is a dedicated Wikipedia page on their exodus: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
So nobody who is Muslim is ever allowed to have thoughts that aren't communal? They're not allowed to ask for independence as human beings? My God, is this what you all would have done to Cabinet Mission Plan?
Here come the apologists. How can such a step be justified when the 12 million people did not vote for the said election manifesto? It's like saying UK is justified in annexing all of Ireland because people in England voted for it.
If you are not aware please read the following article to get a complete picture - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
Oh god, Wikipedia has been taken over. Just look at the language and sources. All actions by India have been sugar coated with flowery language. Governor’s rule and Marshall Law is written as, “This allowed Governor Jagmohan to rule directly”. Not mentioning the fact that he dismissed a democratically elected government on a ruse.
A more brutal and widespread ethnic cleansing, which India conveniently likes to brush under the carpet, was that of Muslims from the Jammu in 1947. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres
Mehr Chand Mahajan quoted in that article went on to Supreme Court of India. 370 allowed 100K of those refugees to be rehabilitated. When there was the possibility of more returning in 1980s, Indira Gandhi showed up and accused NC of bringing in 'anti-nationals'. But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary.
> But please, Modi bhakts, tell us more about how 370 isn't necessary.
Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again.
Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again.
Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
"But please, Modi bhakts", treat differing opinions with a bit of tolerance and respect, shall we?
Taking a page from Indira Gandhi and calling Muslim refugees anti national (preventing rehabilitation) is not worthy of respect
How about the part where in 1986 75% of preprofessional admits, government jobs, etc were going to the minority community? Isn’t that a failure of government at some level? Do you expect that to persist in a democracy or that India should defend that setup? None of this is to be construed as an attack on KPs.
The whole world knows about this. I'm not sure how this is a reply to what I said. Also, https://scroll.in/latest/933560/j-k-group-of-kashmiri-pandit...
I think Prem Nath Bazaz' daughters were out protesting in Delhi too
Be careful: this is the exact same line of reasoning the alt-right uses to conclude ethnostates.
Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
I think you misunderstood my comment or I failed to explain what I was trying to say. My point was that any nation state unilaterally revoking the autonomy of a region is undemocratic unless the people of that region vote for it. Imagine the Spanish military marching into Catalonia, shutting down all means of communication, arresting most Catalan politicians, lawyers and activists, and then unilaterally dismantling the Catalan parliament and constitution, just because people in Madrid felt so. I can't imagine anyone on HN trying to justify such a hypothetical event. I don't understand how anyone can justify this.
> Imagine the Spanish military marching into Catalonia, shutting down all means of communication, arresting most Catalan politicians, lawyers and activists, and then unilaterally dismantling the Catalan parliament and constitution, just because people in Madrid felt so
I can't tell if you're being ironic. Because many similar things happened to Catalonia two years ago: arresting Catalan leaders, suspending parliamentary rule and autonomy, violently suppressing protests and dissent, censoring the Internet, imposing martial law.
Many of Catalonia's political leadership and activists are still in jail, and facing years of prison: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/12-catalan-leaders-fa... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41678086
The only thing that categorically did not happen from your list was an incursion by the Spanish military into Catalonia, although even that seemed possible for a period of time.
I agree with your stance re: autonomy, but Catalonia was a rather poor example.
I can't tell if you're being ironic. Because many similar things happened to Catalonia two years ago: arresting Catalan leaders, suspending parliamentary rule and autonomy, violently suppressing protests and dissent, censoring the Internet, imposing martial law.
Many of Catalonia's political leadership and activists are still in jail, and facing years of prison: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/12-catalan-leaders-fa... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41678086
The only thing that categorically did not happen from your list was an incursion by the Spanish military into Catalonia, although even that seemed possible for a period of time.
I agree with your stance re: autonomy, but Catalonia was a rather poor example.
I know similar things happened in Catalonia but no where near to this extent. AFAIR, Catalonian parliament was planning to hold a referendum on it's own and the Spanish police used force against protestors. That said it was no where as bad as what India has done. If Catalonia was cut off from the rest of the world, military deployed everywhere and no voices could be heard from them, Europe and the test of the would would go crazy over it. Also, don't forget Indian forces history in Kashmir.
May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example but I wanted to cite something that felt a bit more real and relatable.
May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example but I wanted to cite something that felt a bit more real and relatable.
> Also, don't forget Indian forces history in Kashmir.
Yes, this is the major difference between the two regions. But in terms of recent events, the main difference between Kashmir and Catalonia -- other than the lack of military involvement in Catalonia -- is the greater degree of oppression in Kashmir. Similar strategies and tactics were used by the more powerful polity in both crises.
> May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example
Yes, I originally wrote that in my comment, but deleted it because it seemed too rambling. In any case, I wouldn't hold up the reaction of the Spanish government to Catalonia's moves toward greater autonomy to be some kind of democratic ideal.
Yes, this is the major difference between the two regions. But in terms of recent events, the main difference between Kashmir and Catalonia -- other than the lack of military involvement in Catalonia -- is the greater degree of oppression in Kashmir. Similar strategies and tactics were used by the more powerful polity in both crises.
> May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example
Yes, I originally wrote that in my comment, but deleted it because it seemed too rambling. In any case, I wouldn't hold up the reaction of the Spanish government to Catalonia's moves toward greater autonomy to be some kind of democratic ideal.
And more importantly Catalan is a economically output generating region and not a consumer.
Let's see, a challenge!
Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states.
But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it.
But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities.
The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.
Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states.
But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it.
But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities.
The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.
> I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley?
As long as a peaceful referendum is not held that lets the people of the region decide their own future?
As long as a peaceful referendum is not held that lets the people of the region decide their own future?
To know more about the referendum read this -- See what Para 5 says.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1...
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1...
Is this the official position of Indian Government right now? I don't think so. When was the last time India said they are eager or even open to holding a plebiscite if Pakistan military vacated it's part of Kashmir? AFAIR, India has always said Kashmir is it's internal matter and integral part and they proved it by literally annexing it 10 days ago. So no, Indian Government does not believe in paragraph five at all or any of the UN resolutions passed on Kashmir. If it did, instead of unilaterally "deleting" the Kashmiri parliament and constitution, it would have held talks with Pakistan about how to hold the referendum.
Also, if you cite UN sources then you must also agree with the reports about human rights violations in Kashmir by the UN and organizations like Amnesty International, right? If so, then you shouldn't be justifying what is happening right now but opposing it as that is the position of the UN. Otherwise you are just selectively citing things that re-affirm your point of view.
Also, if you cite UN sources then you must also agree with the reports about human rights violations in Kashmir by the UN and organizations like Amnesty International, right? If so, then you shouldn't be justifying what is happening right now but opposing it as that is the position of the UN. Otherwise you are just selectively citing things that re-affirm your point of view.
Two factual errors
1. Amnesty International is not a UN organisation.
2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
Stop shifting goal post when you can't argue the point.
1. Amnesty International is not a UN organisation.
2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
Stop shifting goal post when you can't argue the point.
> 1. Amnesty International is not a UN organisation.
I never claimed it was.
> 2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
> 3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
India literally annexed Kashmir 11 days ago by sheer military force. It unilaterally torn up the legal instrument on the basis of which Kashmir's Maharaja joined the Indian Union. Literally in one move nullified the constitution of Kashmir and their parliament without even consulting the Kashmiri parliament or people. India's own politicians, activists, journalists and Kashmiri Pandits have cited the move as illegal and unconstitutional.
> 4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
And I did not deny that source. I just pointed out that Indian Government does not actually abide by what you pointed out.
I never claimed it was.
> 2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
> 3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
India literally annexed Kashmir 11 days ago by sheer military force. It unilaterally torn up the legal instrument on the basis of which Kashmir's Maharaja joined the Indian Union. Literally in one move nullified the constitution of Kashmir and their parliament without even consulting the Kashmiri parliament or people. India's own politicians, activists, journalists and Kashmiri Pandits have cited the move as illegal and unconstitutional.
> 4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
And I did not deny that source. I just pointed out that Indian Government does not actually abide by what you pointed out.
Can you just answer one question?
Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers?
If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself.
If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation.
And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.
Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers?
If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself.
If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation.
And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.
I've been hearing this for last 3 decades and this is so patronizing. "Kashmiris don't know whats best for them so we'll rule them instead, because obviously they are incapable of Governing themselves". That is not for India or Pakistan to decide. Stop patronizing an entire people. 16 million of them.
> The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for
This is a poor view of how areas should be funded. Governments are responsible for common welfare of a people, not to be run as a business that expects kickbacks and profit or returns on investment.
This is a poor view of how areas should be funded. Governments are responsible for common welfare of a people, not to be run as a business that expects kickbacks and profit or returns on investment.
The fact is general population never received the money sent from Central government. Many have vested interests in autonomy of Kashmir, one of which are the elite three political families. They are the ones who have sucked all of that money.
I can't understand how anyone who stands for gender equality and minority rights can support Kashmir being autonomous.
This move by the Indian government is objectively good for minorities (Christians, Hindus, Jains etc) and women in the state.
https://www.dailyo.in/voices/article-35a-women-in-kashmir-fu...
Kashmir had 70 years to rectify this after Independence but to chose to double down on ethnic cleansing of minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
This move by the Indian government is objectively good for minorities (Christians, Hindus, Jains etc) and women in the state.
https://www.dailyo.in/voices/article-35a-women-in-kashmir-fu...
Kashmir had 70 years to rectify this after Independence but to chose to double down on ethnic cleansing of minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
Because gender equality and minority rights points are being used as a greenhorn to subjugate an entire minority. Article 370 giving them autonomy is gone, and not only their autonomy is gone but the state has been degraded as a Union Territory directly under Federal control.
A law which has been abrogated by locking down 10 Million people, and not allowing them the right to protest. I think we all know why the law has been forced in.
A law which has been abrogated by locking down 10 Million people, and not allowing them the right to protest. I think we all know why the law has been forced in.
Kashmir wasn't exactly a peaceful paradise before the abrogation of the article. Stone pelting was a regular affair and long term curfew has been enforced previously in 2008 and after Burhan Wani's death. The Federal Government has to ensure security of the people to prevent bloodshed.
370 and autonomy is just a dog whistle for subjugating minorities and women. You didn’t answer my question: Why wait to fix minority/ women rights for 70 years?
Kashmir’s minorities have drastically decreased in the last 70 years due to large scale systematic cleansing and India has increased its minority population.
India is the lesser evil.
Kashmir’s minorities have drastically decreased in the last 70 years due to large scale systematic cleansing and India has increased its minority population.
India is the lesser evil.
Absolute repeat of what happened in 1984 against Sikhs in Punjab. Play by Play. This is just the start of worse for Kashmir unfortunately. The young ones are in for a brutal ride especially. And no one will listen, as they are not Upper caste Hindus.
This is why Amarinder Singh was first to condemn it
Amarinder is from opposition party so he had to condemn it
Are people not allowed to have opinions independent of their party now? There were plenty of Congresspeople who broke ranks and supported it. The opposition LS whips doing so is sad and frightening.
> The opposition LS whips doing so is sad and frightening.
Doesn't this comment contrast your first statement.
Doesn't this comment contrast your first statement.
No it just means I don’t like it.
Amarinder Singh has not condemned Indian communication lockdown or curfew and ensuing brutalities, he only condemned breaking of state into two Union Territories in an unconstitutional way.
He is the same guy who supported Indian Army when they tied an innocent Kashmiri in front of a jeep and paraded him into town. His approach is very wily.
He is the same guy who supported Indian Army when they tied an innocent Kashmiri in front of a jeep and paraded him into town. His approach is very wily.
India is a secular state. We treat all religions with equal respect.
This is in the constitution.
This issue is an internal matter following due process within our parliamentary framework.
This is in the constitution.
This issue is an internal matter following due process within our parliamentary framework.
If India is so secular why is there a tax law called Hindu Undivided Family or HUF, which Muslims cannot use to reduce their taxable income? How can a damn tax law be applicable on basis of religion?
If it is so secular then why does Indian Constitution term Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under Hindu religion umbrella. Since when is it for the constitution to define religions?
If India is so secular than why does it ban beef, sacred animal only to Hindus?
If it is so secular then why does it welcome Hindu refugees from Pakistan and expels Muslim Rohingya refugees?
If it is so secular then why does Indian Constitution term Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under Hindu religion umbrella. Since when is it for the constitution to define religions?
If India is so secular than why does it ban beef, sacred animal only to Hindus?
If it is so secular then why does it welcome Hindu refugees from Pakistan and expels Muslim Rohingya refugees?
If India is so secular, why is polygamy allowed for Muslims, but not Hindus ?
Equal treatment does not mean same treatment.
A doctor treats both men & women equally, so he gives the woman estrogen and the man testosterone. Would you prefer it if the doctor gave everyone estrogen ?
Equal treatment does not mean same treatment.
A doctor treats both men & women equally, so he gives the woman estrogen and the man testosterone. Would you prefer it if the doctor gave everyone estrogen ?
I'm not sure why you're avoiding talking about the role of Pakistan in creating the whole conflict in Kashmir. Pakistan invented out of the whole cloth an armed struggle aspect to the Kashmir situation.
It's extremely convenient on your part to talk pointwise all the Pakistani talking points and yet avoid talking about the 90% causative factor in this entire mess.
It's extremely convenient on your part to talk pointwise all the Pakistani talking points and yet avoid talking about the 90% causative factor in this entire mess.
FYI, Indian Muslims have their own personal law while the rest of the population follows uniform civil code. They get Hajj subsidies and other perks that no other community gets. As for taking refugees, a country can deny entry based on any number of reasons. In 2018, the number of refugees taken in by the US has gone down. That doesn't mean US is less secular. I agree Indian constitution is not the most secular but it definitely is not anti-minority.
Hindus are also given subsidies for travel to their religious sites, inside India and to China. Mansarovar Lake and Amarnath pilgrimage.
So that is one propaganda point of yours busted.
Let's bust the second point: Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?
So that is one propaganda point of yours busted.
Let's bust the second point: Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?
"Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?"
That bill deals with religious oppression in the neighbouring countries in India (mostly legacy of partition). Are muslims being oppressed in the islamic neighbouring countries?
That bill deals with religious oppression in the neighbouring countries in India (mostly legacy of partition). Are muslims being oppressed in the islamic neighbouring countries?
Rohingyas are genuine refugees that have been oppressed. That bill codifies that Muslims cannot be oppressed, which is a patently false observation that a supposedly secular country should not have to resolve to.
That would sure seem to be the case unless you see from where refugees are allowed. They are not allowed from all over the world, only areas dealing with partition or Indian history.
My family is Ahmedi. We left India in 1947. Pakistan stripped us of our right to vote in 1974-84. I guess we can't be oppressed there, chief. Congratulations on your airtight logic.
> I guess we can't be oppressed there, chief. Congratulations on your airtight logic.
Please don't snark on HN. It's against the site guidelines and degrades your serious point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't snark on HN. It's against the site guidelines and degrades your serious point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[deleted]
I am sorry, I forgot about that. It's not feasible though, at least in the present scenario. I wish it was different.
Rohingya is in immediate neighbourhood, you don't have to circumnavigate the globe from Myanmar. India and Myanmar share a border.
I am saying again and again partition and Indian history. Nepal is also a border state. China is also a border state, uighurs aren’t included.
Maybe familiarise yourself with Indian geography; you see between Xinjiang and India, there is this mountain range called Himalayas. Pretty big mountains those ones. Nepal has no internal disturbances, and India-Nepal border is absolutely open allowing free flow of people.
You know people can travel to different countries which are separated by mountains, oceans, deserts right? But those people won’t get citizenship unless the partition and Indian history part holds.
That's a strawman argument. Even if what you say is true, are you proposing no communities other than minorities should get any perks? Also, do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Most of what you are saying seem to be just your opinions.
So why did you bring up subsidy as an argument for Muslims? Was that not a strawman?
Every single thing I said in this thread can be googled. Nothing in here is my opinion by an established fact. And facts can hurt because they ain't easy to counter. So go Google it, I ain't doing your homework for you.
Every single thing I said in this thread can be googled. Nothing in here is my opinion by an established fact. And facts can hurt because they ain't easy to counter. So go Google it, I ain't doing your homework for you.
I can say the same thing and just dismiss all your points. You are creating false equivalence between Hajj and amarnath. The Indian government controls all Hindu temples and derives revenue. So what is the problem in subsidizing these when the profit from these sites is used up within the country? On the other hand, Hajj spending goes out of the country and is a dead investment. And mind you, only Hindu institutions come under government purview by law. None of the minority institutions are touched.
Aligarh has to abide by reservations and you're saying none of the minority institutions are touched?
AMU is a public central university. My argument is specifically about places of worship. Educational institutions are an entirely different discussion.
Dismiss them all you want, I am setting your propaganda straight. There ain't no false equivalence there. Subsidy for religious pilgrimage for Hindus and Muslims exists, and you cherry picked Muslim subsidy only and I set it straight. So Hindu pilgrimage subsidy is acceptable because the money is spent inside India? Taxpayer money is still being spent on a religious cause and Mansarovar is in China and not India.
Why are you cherry picking only mansarovar to further your propaganda? There are thousands of Hindu sites inside India that provide employment opportunities and revenue to the state. And yes Hajj doesn't do that. If stating that is propaganda then so be it.
Because it is wastage of taxpayer money on religious purposes, and despite your propaganda Hindus get 10 times more share of the pilgrimage subsidies.
Ideally the state shouldn't spend a rupee on any religious subject. But the Indian law allows the government to take the revenue from Hindu institutions while minority institutions are exempt. If we are to accept your point, the government shouldn't take the profits from the Temples either. You just don't seem to see this at all.
Muslims also get Haj subsidy.
[deleted]
Secular in name only. The current party has been anti minority with significant frequency and protectionist of hindu beliefs.
It is the reason why Kashmir never merged with the rest of India.
It is the reason why Kashmir never merged with the rest of India.
Stop spreading falsehoods and partial truths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
> Secular in name only. The current party has been anti minority with significant frequency and protectionist of hindu beliefs
And yet the current Government has increased minority affairs budget substantially over the years[1].
1. https://m.timesofindia.com/business/india-business/62-increa...
And yet the current Government has increased minority affairs budget substantially over the years[1].
1. https://m.timesofindia.com/business/india-business/62-increa...
Literally religion had nothing to do with abolishment of article 370.
India is secular and this government is much more secular than any Congress coalition in the past few decades. NDA government is not a appeasement government.
Lol. Lets just say it thus; In the usa we have freedom of religion, but a minority of religions have a majority of special rights. The same is true for India.
That's false. Demonization is not relevant to any of this. Article 370 was a temporary provision in the Constitution. It's removal was on BJP's agenda since 80s. India's founding founders like B.R. Ambedkar were also somewhat against having seperate set of rules for J&K. The most likely reason for it's removal is that Article 370 still protected regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage and created a beaurocratic roadblock in implementation of Federal Government schemes(like reservation).
The claim that this was done to subvert state's Muslim majority doesn't hold merit. India has states like Punjab, Nagaland and Mizoram which don't have Hindu majority and are still doing well.
The claim that this was done to subvert state's Muslim majority doesn't hold merit. India has states like Punjab, Nagaland and Mizoram which don't have Hindu majority and are still doing well.
[deleted]
I think its pretty clear you pulled that out of your fertile imagination.
zed88(1)
Why hasn’t this been flagged yet?
This post violates all guidelines of HackerNews.
Because the article is actually a pretty interesting look at how reliant the world has become on the internet.
“I don’t know when to sleep, when to wake up, what to do with my life,” he said during a rare foray outside on Monday evening for Eid al-Adha, the holiest festival in Islam. “There is no life without internet, even in Kashmir.”
“I don’t know when to sleep, when to wake up, what to do with my life,” he said during a rare foray outside on Monday evening for Eid al-Adha, the holiest festival in Islam. “There is no life without internet, even in Kashmir.”
this link violates all the guidelines of hackernews...i recommend taking it down.. it is a political hit job hinduphobic article thinly disguised as internet shutdown news.
Well, it mentions an internet shutdown. I'd say that makes it better than the average article about the situation in Kashmir.
Don't believe everything NYT writes. they have their own agenda. https://twitter.com/hussain_imtiyaz/status/11602217869500989...
These could be old videos.
I always wondered why doesn't the government install a few hundred web cams across the big cities for the rest of world, including the journalists to see the reality. Why do only the journalists have to travel there and take pictures of whatever corner they want and tell whatever story they want to tell.
I always wondered why doesn't the government install a few hundred web cams across the big cities for the rest of world, including the journalists to see the reality. Why do only the journalists have to travel there and take pictures of whatever corner they want and tell whatever story they want to tell.
Definitely old videos. At least most of them. Also the account sharing the video is a high ranking police office. Not sure why an Indian police officer is a reputable source in this situation but NYT, BCC, HuffPost, AJE, BusinessInsider, etc are not.
Reminds me of the time terrorists were shooting up Mumbai. A "brave" TV news channel gave live coverage. Intelligence agencies found out that the live coverage was being used by handlers to give specific instructions to the attackers.
fakenews NYT is more reliable than someone on the ground.. hilarious
check the twitter feed this journalist also
https://twitter.com/AdityaRajKaul/status/1161226787352825856
The only time I accepted Govt offer was to take around 40-50 journalists in batches of 5 on a chopper to show Srinagar yesterday after Eid prayers. This was to bust rumours of massive protests or state brutality. There were no people visible on the streets. Restrictions in place
Twitter feed of serving J&K Police officer is hardly unbiased source
While nobody expects a war in their city, it's yet another example of why none of us should rely on the internet as our sole means of doing anything.
Imagine a city where cashless transactions were the norm. Then imagine some political group (internal or external) decides to cut off the internet to that city.