The Indian Army In Kashmir - An Invading Force

The Invading Army?: The Indian Army In Kashmir - An Invading Force? This seemingly ‘inflammatory’ post has launched a full scale comment war of its own. Feel free to add your 2 paisa albeit with logic, facts, and civil language. 

...

How come Zee TV , NDTV and other "indepentdent" Indian channels don't showcase such similar incidents. Are they not giving out the true picture from Kashmir or is there some sort of self-censorship, cos the channels are pretty much independent!!

The same reason, CNN, NBC, etc. show very little of the Iraq situation:)

wait till u hear the stories of the number of Kashmiri women raped by our Jawans.

this is one problem which i cannot form an opinion nor take a side, because of the simple reason..

lack of proof!!!!

That's what I'm saying man! If you go there and spend some time in Srinagar/Khargil it's very very clear.

Okay let's see. The STD booth story is definitely BS. As far as I know(from my cousin in the army and what I have read) the army operates its own STD facilities and soldiers can make a certain number of free calls and also all other calls are heavily subsidized. About the rice field I dunno the situation but the army travels in convoys(for apparent reasons like IED's and ambushes) and according to the manuals the convoys cannot and should not stop in the middle of the journey not even to pee. If they did it, it is wrong. But you cannot call it a human rights violation or an atrocity.

Indian soldiers operate under extremely difficult conditions. Some Indian soldiers HAVE committed atrocities in Kashmir, most have not. The rule of law needs to be better respected in India and it has been. A number of soldiers have been punished for human rights violations. India is not an occupation force. Say what you like about India's record in Kashmir, but it does not use tanks, artillery or helicopters in civilian areas. Unlike in Palestine or Jaffna you don't see Indian tanks rolling on the streets in Srinagar. Or even unlike Balochistan gunships are not firing missiles at houses. Unlike Pakistan or Iraq or Sri Lanka the army has been the main force behind the free and fair elections held in J&K.

In the end the army has it's share of mistakes. But it cannot be called an invading force in any context.

Okay let's see. The STD booth story is definitely BS. As far as I know(from my cousin in the army and what I have read) the army operates its own STD facilities and soldiers can make a certain number of free calls and also all other calls are heavily subsidized. About the rice field I dunno the situation but the army travels in convoys(for apparent reasons like IED's and ambushes) and according to the manuals the convoys cannot and should not stop in the middle of the journey not even to pee. If they did it, it is wrong. But you cannot call it a human rights violation or an atrocity.

Indian soldiers operate under extremely difficult conditions. Some Indian soldiers HAVE committed atrocities in Kashmir, most have not. The rule of law needs to be better respected in India and it has been. A number of soldiers have been punished for human rights violations. India is not an occupation force. Say what you like about India's record in Kashmir, but it does not use tanks, artillery or helicopters in civilian areas. Unlike in Palestine or Jaffna you don't see Indian tanks rolling on the streets in Srinagar. Or even unlike Balochistan gunships are not firing missiles at houses. Unlike Pakistan or Iraq or Sri Lanka the army has been the main force behind the free and fair elections held in J&K.

In the end the army has it's share of mistakes. But it cannot be called an invading force in any context.

Sorry pressed twice could some remove one comment.

Invading army, lets define what is a invading army. The territory came to India after the accession agreement was signed by the King, like any other princley state that was there at the time.

So its not that we are invading something, so there is a movement there which is against india and they are for seperation. So the Indian army is not an invading army.

Secondly if we start giving our soverign territory to any and every moron who stands up with a gun and is supported from outside, well soon there might not even be a country.

So we will try to improve the human rights there and keep things clean.

While you can mind your own business.

Thanks

Invading army, lets define what is a invading army. The territory came to India after the accession agreement was signed by the King, like any other princley state that was there at the time.

So its not that we are invading something, so there is a movement there which is against india and they are for seperation. So the Indian army is not an invading army.

Secondly if we start giving our soverign territory to any and every moron who stands up with a gun and is supported from outside, well soon there might not even be a country.

So we will try to improve the human rights there and keep things clean.

While you can mind your own business.

Thanks

Anil,

I saw what I saw and I would appreciate it if you would retract that statement about the STD booth story being 'BS'. I suggest you go to Kashmir and spend a few days in Srinagar and Khargil.

Soldiers can "make a certain number of free calls". Once this quota is over, they have to pay for their calls. So while they are on patrol in town they use the local STD booths to make their calls and do not pay. Not paying at all is cheaper than making calls at a consessional rate!

Ripu, have you ever been to Kashmir and interacted with the people there?

They don't much care for militants. But they care less for the Indian Army. They just want to be left alone. They just want to live life peacefully.

Both the militants supported by Pakistan and the Indian Army make this impossible.

If your Army goes in and terrorizes them is it shocking that they want independence? The more your Army terrorizes them the more they strive for independence. It's a spiral, and the only possible outcome is independence for Kashmir.

Deal with it.

Anil, you said: 'Indian soldiers operate under extremely difficult conditions'.

So what? Operating under extremely difficult circumstances makes it ok for them to behave like animals? You want me to say 'oh let the poor jawans rape coz they ain't getting any!'

They shouldn't be there in the first place.

War is always a two sided thing and you never have a party which is absolutely right. Obviously members of the Indian Army have been doing things that they shouldnt.
But you said that as soon as a senior officer came by, the three jawans vanished. Didn't you see that it was these jawans, who did't know how to handle themselves responsibly, who were misusing the power of their position. You can't blame the Indian Army for that when you see that when a superior arrived, the jawans scurried. That means that the policy of the Army is to discourage such behaviour. Just as some writings by some fiery mullahs does not represent the view of all Muslims and some speeches by VHP or RSS members does not represent the view of all Hindus, in the same manner, the behaviour of a few junior rung officers or jawans of the Army is not reason enough to call it an invading force. I expected you to understand as much.

Also, if you know the history of the area, the King signed the Doccument of Accession making Kashmir a part of India. Every country has the right to defend it's soveriegnity, especially when neighbour terrorists regularly drop in to plant a bomb or two. What do you expect us to do, pull out the Army, let the Pakistani Army and terrorists have a field day and integrate Kashmir as a part of their country, when it is a part of India?
As for the people not wanting both terrorists and the Army, thats but obvious, no one wants such disturbance in their homeland. But what would happen if the Army was pulled out? Law and governance would come to a stand still as groups like the Lashkar e Toiba would first target the political and government setup of Kashmir, while imposing their brand of shariat and interpretation of the Koran. There would basically be chaos.

And no Army is an invading force on its own soil.

Check out the original Instrument of Accession
http://mha.nic.in/accdoc.htm

I don't care what king signed what document giving what to whom. All I know is all people must have the right to decide their own fate and their own future.

The very nature of rebellion means that it is unsustainable if it does not subscribe to the needs of the people living in the geographical context in which it happens. Insurgency needs the support ofthe people. Two insurgencies in Sri Lanka have failed because they did not have the support of the people. One has persisted and grown because it has the support of the people. This is basic.

If the Kashmiri people did not subscribe to the insurgency, then the insurgency would burnout. Even if they are not militants, they support the insurgency, which is why the insurgency is alive and well.

And that insurgency is there because whatever some king might have singed at any point, the people of Kashmir nolonger wish to be a part of India.

They are independent the moment they as a people wish to be.

And from that point on the Indian Army in Kashmir becomes and invasionary force.

Sid, once upon a time, a whole pile of kings and emperors and whatnot gave India to the British. The Indians put up with it for some time but then rebelled, right?

Get the point?

Morquendi, arguments about the right to self-determination of Kashmiri people aside, it is apparent that there is a much larger issue here. Neither India nor Pakistan can and will ever let Kashmir be truly independent.
There is a conflict between India and Pakistan, and Kashmir is in the unfortunate position of being in the crossfire. Neither India and Pakistan can afford to have Kashmir used against their interests by the other.

Like the phrase you used before, Kashmir is collateral damage.

Wow!

3 days, and 2 random incidents is ALL it took to declare indian army as "invading" (which you repeat atleast 5 times in this article!).

Nice - I think this piece was written for merely sensational purposes rather than having an objective discussion.

Suyog

Suyog, what better way to grab attention on a site with a large indian readership than to express anti-Indian army/Kashmir sentiments?

But foolishly, we Indians took the bait and tried to argue objectively!

"Do not feed the troll."

Denial, where you boys live, must be a pretty place.

Note to self: Do not feed the troll.

Ambar,

You keep coming back because I have a point. You know that.

And if you keep calling me a troll I will have no option but to report your rather disrespectful, and offensive behaviour to a moderator. Let's not behave like children.

Stick to the point, debate the issues...

Suyog,

The atrocities comitted by the Indian Army in Kashmir have been well documented. I only used my two experiences to illustrate my point.

I would appreciate it if you would conter what I have written insteadof just dismissing it as nonsense.

Many Indians and Pakistanis also dismiss/ed the Kashmiri's demand for independence, which is why this whole problem exists.

Sometimes all one needs to do to understand is listen to an alternative viewpoint. To dismiss such a viewpoint without consideration is called intolerance, the root of all India's problems.

Be a part of the sdolution, not a part of the problem.

[Decides to ignore previous note to self]
Sometimes all one needs to do to understand is listen to an alternative viewpoint. To dismiss such a viewpoint without consideration is called intolerance, the root of all India's problems.

Be a part of the sdolution, not a part of the problem.

Ok. Whats your proposed solution?

Sid, you said:

'You can't blame the Indian Army for that when you see that when a superior arrived, the jawans scurried.'

The lack of control within the Indian Army in Kashmir is a structurally inherent problem. This incident merely illustrates the point.

One solution is (was) to have the people of Kashmir vote for whether they want independence, accession with Pak, or to join India. Unfortunately Musharaf rejected that proposal. Any other?

Ambar, last reply to you. I am offended by what you said and I believe it is pointless attempting to engage in any intelligent discussion with you.

Morquendi, why are you offended? You were the one who talked about solutions. I admit I have no solution to this issue! So please let us know your solution.

solemn,

The Pakistanis want Kashmir as bad as the Indians do. The occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan is as bad as it's occupation by India. (Actually the Chinese would like it too)

I only wrote about the Indian side of the story because of my experiences in Kashmir. If I had had an opportunity to spend time in Pakistan held Kashmir I'm sure I would have not-very-different experiences.

But unfortunately I have only been to Pakistan held Kashmir on one occasion for a very very short visit. Not enough to comment on the situation there.

I believe the Kashmiri people rebel against the Indian Army and not against the Pakistani Army (maybe they do, but I am not aware of any large confrontations) because they see occupation by India as the larger threat. Perhaps if the Indian Army were to withdraw the Kashmiri people might rise up against their other oppressor, Pakistan.

solemn,

Kashmir, in reality is not an India vs. Pakistan issue, but a Kashmiris vs. Invaders issue.

Regardless of whether you're the Indian Army, the Pakistani Army, an Afghan Militant, you're making life hell for the Kashmiri people, and they want you out of their homeland. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Morquendi:

3 days is not enough to make a judgment. First of all its facetious of you to say "invading army". Its Indian territory and thats that!

Regarding the atrocities - there are quite a few transgressions there.. and all that has a history of over 20 years now. Army is "created" to kill and maim.. if the soldier is any "softer" he is a goner. That is why it is sad that we had to have the Army in Kashmir.

And btw, while you were so piously looking for what Kashmir was all about, I trust you visited the Pandit camps in Jammu and Delhi and recorded some of their stories too!!?? Any of them here?

Apathy towards Kashmiri Muslims is nowhere near the apathy that the Indian state has towards the Kashmiri Pandits!

I have a bro-in-law in the Indian Army. He has spent 3 years in Kupwara. I have talked to him at times on Kashmir.. and he is clear that this "terrorism" is more about economics. The guy who goes to Pakistan to get "trained" gets Rs. 1.5 lacs or so in his account. He is given 30-40k on his return in cash. If he is caught and joins with the Indian Army and tells on his friends coming.. he gets extra money from the Indian Army.

This is a vicious circle.

As for the jawan on his beat at STD.. you have not had much experience of what he goes through!

I personally had to collect money and buy ponchos for my Bro-in-laws jawans from the US (even the $5 from Academy were better than theirs but I went for the best that US Army gets) to give them. The ones that they had wereporous.. so that when it rained they would soak.. and in cold that was a terrible combo for them!

Lets not generalize from two incidents. Yes, the Indian Army is not above board.. but they are NOT a civic institution! To ask them to behave civicly is like RAISING a TIGER and then when it is READY to HUNT.... ask him to go drink MILK!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Agree with ambar. What do you propose then?

Desh,

Let's take this slowly.

'Its Indian territory and thats that!'. Desh, the British said that about India once.

Army is "created" to kill and maim. Not really. An Army's role is to defend it's borders.Not to torture, maim and kill it's own civilians. Please read the Geneva Convention on the rules of war. There are rules, and the Indian Army is not following them, and there is no excuse. When an Army commits atrocities do you just stand by and watch because it's supposed to do that? I don't think so.

As for the issue of the Kashmiri Pundits, yes there is a problem, but that too needs to be discussed in the context of a Independent Kashmir. As long as India continues to occupy Kashmir, the Pundits will be seen as a part of the problem.

Your brother-in-law has a point. Young people turn to militancy for money often. That is because their traditional sources ofincome have been curtailed by the conflict. Notice the spiral (or circle as you said)? More conflict->Less employment->More militants->More conflict. The cycle needs to be broken.

As for the jawan...you have not had much experience of what he goes through!

What exactly does he go through? What gives him the right to behave the way he did? Nothing. If he is truly a part of an institution that is trying to keep the peace in Kashmir then he should go out of his way to be polite to the locals, not behave like an animal.

The Indian Army is not a civic institution? WHAT?

Suyog,

What about if the Indians pullout of Kashmir? Why isn't that a solution?

It's not a solution because it's strategically important and then China's going to have it, or Pakistan's going to have it?

Well, keeping many areas in the world under thier control was strategically important to the British, French, Russians, Americans and a whole host of others at different points in time. But we have seen that eventually, independence is the only solution.

Perhaps if India negotiates with the Kashmiris as the Americans negotiated with the Thais and the Phillippinos and others, maybe you would be able to exit the area, extricate yourself from the problem AND hold onto your strategic advantage.

But this can't be done unless you talk. And neither the Indian or Pakistani governments seem to be willing to talk to the Kashmiri people. Your governments talk among themselves, but only in the manner of two robbers trying to talk about the loot.

Morquendi, if the Indians pull out, what stops Pakistan from entering?

It is mere sophistry to talk about the Kashmiri people as a separate entity when the issue is that they are not, by rule of law, not occupation,colonization or annexation. Since their ruler acceded, the point is moot.

As a Pakistani who is not bothred with who gets Kashmir as long as there is peace between the two countries, I must add there must be some issues that Kashmiri people in Indian Kashmir are having, else why would they even remoetly support the sepratist. Its the same case for all the different separatist issues in India. These people are not getting their rights and are expected to carry on with their lives in poverty while the country claims to be conomoically strong.

If you want a solution to Kashmit, establish an IIT in Srinagar and create a Hyderabad like IT-city close-by. Maintain a very High level of secuirty in that area and let investment from within India and abroad flow in. Let this be for 5 years and all the Kashmiris supporting the insurgency will forget about everything else and will be more worried about getting those IT jobs in the booming sector. Trust me, even if there are any Pakistani insurgents, they will probab prefer to do Data Entry then Insurgent Recruiting.

Oh, and maybe you guys should look into the 7 possible solutions Musharaff have given out to the Indians for debate!! Some of them might be feasible but a permanent solution is only possible through give and take, else we will be discussing this for years.

Morquedi:It's obvious that you are not interested in honest debate and are here basically to bait Indians and start a flame war.
[Edited].Why don't you post on sri lankan critics man?Why the hell are you on desicritics? We are ready to hear alternate view points.But show some common decency in your interations with others.We can debate you on each and every point , but you need to be educated and civilized enough to debate and not flame.

Kashmir will always be an integral part of India.Your wishlist is getting more and more ridiculous by the day.First, you advocate India giving up nukes.Then give away Kashmir.Get out of your fantasy world .Let me suggest a few things to keep you busy : Sri lanka should be broken up into 3 countries : Eeelam for Tamils, Muslimstan for Muslims.Sinhalese should all be deported to Siberia.Instead, let the Kashmiris take over Sri Lanka and live in this paradise where you can enjoy some terrorism hot from the stove.Sounds ridiculous? Well, this is how you sound to us

"Mr.X", I guess you missed this, but the Desi in Desicritics stands for South Asia, not India alone.

Even if that were not so, I think you should shut up about asking Morquendi to shut up.

Kashmir was a beautiful tourist spot, with a booming tourist industry. After the insurgencies from Pakistan, India deployed troops more than what maybe needed and hence we have the problems for the Kashmiri civilians.

So one just has to note the exact point where Kashmir turned from paradise to hell, and we can easily find the culprits. It wasn't the Indian army. Remember the Kargil war? How it started? For reference click here.

Morquedi:) post something about Sri Lanka's burning issues, for a change!

#huge audible sigh# IMO, a lot of things are misplaced over here. Firstly, a general note. It takes a lot to represent a cause of an entire population and fight for it. There is a lot of pride passion respect dignity attached to armed forces, and rightly so. However, what we tend to forget is that people in the armed forces are as human as I and you are. We unnecessarily idealise them to insane extents. Jawans are men with power and responsibility. Like any one else there will be people among them who can easily achieve an equilibrium/harmony between the two, and there would be some people who simply cannot. They cannot for a host of reasons. It's just natural.

Morquendi: let us first consider your hypotheses. The questions of whether India should insist on its sovereignty or should the people decide for themselves, do we really need "sovereign nation states" when there is so much of resentment, are no doubt valid and well taken.

However, the incidents you cite in support of your argument are just cases of power responsibility mismatch. I fail to understand the relation between these incidents and your hypotheses! These just don't happen with the "Indian army" in "Kashmir", but by anyone who is susceptible to the above stated mismatch anywhere. Forget Kashmir. Let me cite even bizarre incidents from a relatively much much more peaceful place. There is an infantry from the place I come from. In the railway station there, there was an exclusive reservation counter for the armymen. But when there was a huge queue in the army counter some of the jawans demanded "direct entry" bypassing the civilians at the civilian counters! Many a time they pulled off brawls with civilians. Once there was a pretty bad series of incidents in which the jawans physically fought with the cops in the railway station who came to some civilians' rescue. Take that. Let me cite another incident. The jawans used to have a weekly (or a monthly, don't exactly remember). A lot of them went to the movies. There were regular reports of the ticket counter guys being harassed and beaten up by them.

So, do we conclude that people of that place don't want the infantry and that it has to be taken off? Let's take cops. How are the incidents you cited or I cited different from cops hurling abuses and beating up sidewalk vendors? And a govt. doctor demanding money to treat a poor patient? Governments, Doctors, politicians, police, military are all civic institutions no doubt. But none of them are ideal.

This and others are systemic problems; pretty frustrating of course. Your frustration and anger are natural. However, a systemic problem in itself cannot in any way justify a demand for the absence of the system.

Final point. Your posts somehow seem to suggest me that there is something inherently grossly wrong with "Indian thinking" or "Indian strategy" or whatever. Make no mistake, you have all rights to hold your views and to express them. I am afraid, however, that hypotheses based on inadequate arguments won't serve that cause.

Sanket, U finally posted the correct point. The points raised by Morquendi hardly proves the occupation or invaders. All these incidents are the acts of indiscipline. And this is not what is happening in Kashmir. Its also the case throughout the India. there are cases of molestation by Army Jawans in Trains, Buses and at so many public places. In this side army has totally failed. Army is starting to get in line with Public Administration as far as corruption, unaccountability and other acts are considered. being a civilian who lived near a Cantonment area i have so many friends from army family. And most of them misuse their influence over the civilians.
I have a friend who privatly confessed that he will never go to a war or if he is in danger of lossing a life, he'll just retreat and his sole aims to join army is secure future. Now can you guess where actually he is now? - IMA Dehradoon, oh i forgot to mention his father is Lt Col in Army.
Now the second case. I have seen a son Major misusing Khalasees that his father use to get for household work to threaten local people and eve-teasing. His father usually turns blind eye towards it.
U have so many incident and refering them is out of scope.
Indian Army as a single unit is been quite successful in the last 5 decades but as an unaccountable instituion it need to change for the good.

Sanket,

Brilliant point. Thank you. Finally, someone who sees the gray instead of black and white.

I only used those two examples to explain my understanding of the Kashmir conflict. I only spent 3 days in Srinagar, but throughout the entire trip, in the other areas to the East as well, there was very clear resentment towards both the Indian and Pakistani Governments and the militants.

Trust me, the Sri Lanka Army is as bad, if not worse. So the problem is systemic. Which is why sending the Army into Kashmir has been a very bad idea, and has further strengthened the cause of the seperatists. The longer it stays there, the more certain seperation becomes.

But these problems are inherent to armies. Even the 'well structured' US military rapes women in Okinawa. The 'gentlemanly' British Army has had it's own share of atrocities under it's belt.

Which is why the use of the military in matters of civil unrest (like a provincial uprising) is a very very bad idea. I know you have a very strange case here because Kashmir is also a border, and the insurgency had the support of the Pakistanis.

So what do you do? Do you send in the military because it's a cross border conflict? Or do you upgrade civilian law enforcement (the police) because it's a internal thing?

This is what I don't have the answer to. But as we have seen, sending in the Army has proven to be a bad idea. As for what would have happened if that had not been done, we can only speculate.

Focusing on your last statement, yes, I do admit I have a bit of a problem with Indian thinking, and also with Pakistani thinking, when it comes to the Kashmir issue. But I have more of a problem with the average Indian way of thinking because after having spent a significant amount of time in both India and Pakistan, I must say that the average Pakistani, despite the despot and all that, have views on the Kashmir issue, which are more progressive than the views of the average Indian. This is of course a personal opinion.

Not kidding, but I spend much of my time in India. I lived there for a year once. Spent much of that time talking about these issues with Indians.

And again, Sanket, thank you for actually contributing to the discussion :)

"I must say that the average Pakistani, despite the despot and all that, have views on the Kashmir issue, which are more progressive than the views of the average Indian."

Allow me to tell you why you feel so.

Suppose a part of Sri-Lanka is occupied by country X. (suppose.) Due to international intervention, peace has been made, and country X is being pressurised. At this point, country X will have much more progressive views of what to do in the occupied lands than Sri-Lanka. They will put forward ideas of an independent(?)country.

Which is why I feel Musharaf keeps asking for an independent Kashmir. In that way, Kashmir, which was never Pakistan's property to begin with, will never be under Indian control either.

Storms of Mind and Morquendi: Thanks for the compliment. One thing though. The point I was making in my previous comment was about the power responsibility mismatch and not to abou how bad armies/armymen are.

Morquendi: In Kannada-my language- there's a proverb that roughly means "there cannot be smoke without a fire". There definitely seems to be a lot of resentment in Kashmir without doubt. So, your pointing to the "smoke" and concluding that there might be "fire" is not at all invalid. However, I am not very sure if demilitarising is such a great idea practically. In any case, that's some other post.

Btw, the point that solemn makes is interesting and makes sense.

First of all a vote cannot work anymore for Kashmir. After 1947, India passed laws that disallowed any non Kashmiri to settle in J and K. Infact, communities like the Kashmire pandits have only been leaving. On the other hand, Pakistan filled POK with people who wern't from that area, especially retired military personnel. This has completely changed the demographic situation of Kashmir as a whole and thats why India has continuously rejected this option at the UN.
Also, about the insurgents, its all a matter of money. Morquendi, you seem to talk about matters of the heart, but in international relations, like i said on ur nuke article, money plays a greater role. I agree that the feeling may arise in the heart, but its the head which plays with it finally. Young able bodied men who are seen as a source of income in the family are picked up and promised excellent money, and are also indoctrinated on the way, till they finally arrive in Kashmir with lots of money, weapons and an intent to kill.The insurgents, remember, are mainly Pakistanis, Afghnis or men from other countries enticed by the lure of easy money. Its not that they are exactly welcomed in Kashmir. Very few actually welcome those who come to cause trouble, be it the Army or the insurgents.

morquendi,

Like Anil pointed out you are bullshitting about the STD booth. Also, you point out that jawans pissed in rice fields and the rice is eaten by people. Have you heard about a thing called MANURE. Yes, shit is used in fields to fertilize it and we humans consume the food grown out of that.

[Edited]

LOL!

Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a blog, forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.

There are various motives or explanations for this puzzling behavior. Two of the most popular are the desire for attention and the desire for entertainment at the expense of others. Another is simply a desire to observe, and learn from, human behavior in an anonymous, hence non-threatening, environment. Posted flamebait can provide the posting party with a controlled trigger-and-response setting in which to carry out social experiments.

Taking the bait refers to someone who responds to the original message regardless of whether they are aware the original message was intended to provoke a response.

The conclusion to a flamewar precipitated by flamebait is often determined by recourse to Godwin's Law.

Source: Wikipedia.

How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ http://tinyurl.com/hzhdv

The law states

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

For all the Indians who really think Indian Army is doing the noblest deeds and for the one who think that the miltants are really good with the local Kashmiri people, check out this video:


Its an unbiased documentary doen by UNREPORTED WORLD where a foreign journalist checks the reality on ground with Kashmir people while Pakistan-India hold peace talks.

Me- Oh I get it. It's very clever.
You- Thank you.
Me- How's that workin' out for you?
You- What?
Me- Being clever.
You- Great.
Me- Keep it up then... Right up

Anil, thanks for being the jester for this discussion. Have a new term for that perhaps?

Abrar Siddiqui - That video mentioned that the militants were funded by Pakistan. Please ask Musharaf to do something.

The video was very touching, I feel bad about the Kashmiris' condition. But peace really is a 2-way thing.

Anil, thanks for being the jester for this discussion. Have a new term for that perhaps?

just one more thing to top it here: let us see the title of this discussion:
Indian Army in Kashmir.. An Invading Force...

going by all the *discussion* that followed later should the title not have been

"Indian and Pakistani Armies in Kashmir - Invading Forces"


I can state from this that you were BIASED with respect to the title you gave. (you yourself contradicted it later).

And one more thing

Have u ever thought about the Kashmiri Pundits my friend????


[Begin Ad Hominem]*Please argue soundly; give reasons and proof, and not emotional outbursts like generalizations from two incidents*[end Ad Hominem] I totally agree to Sanket #43. that exactly justifies my above statement.

Lashmikanth, I see your point about the title. But it's not mine, and beyond my control. It is not the title I suggested.

Sanket, I was not pointing to the smoke, I was pointing to the fire. The Kashmiri's resentment of the Indian Government arises from the fact that the Indian Government's most visible representative in Kashmir is the Indian Army. India as a unitary nation state is a failure. Whenever there is any call for self-determination by a people who feel that they do not belong to the state, then the Government sends the Army in to control the situation and it spins out of control. In such a situation it becomes critical to upgrade and reinforce your civilian policing capabilities.

solemn, I was talking about attitudes. The average Indian in my experience is deeply proud of their superior military capabilities and is overwhelmingly pro-war. The average Pakistani on the other hand is more open to talking about the issues. I don't know where this shift in attitude comes from, but it's very very clear to me that while on a leadership level this may be untrue, on average Pakistanis are more open to peaceful negotiations than Indians.

SidDes, first, have you been to Pakistan held Kashmir and seen all those ex-militarymen that Pakistan has used to colonize Kashmir? I bet not. Have you even been to Srinagar or to Khargil?

Once you spend some time there you will realise exactly why it is extremely totalitarian of Indian to deny Kashmir a referendum. Each time India refuses to consider a referendum for Kashmir, it just makes the Kashmiri's claim for independence stronger. And because Pakistan has shaped it's image to seem that they too are interested in the independence of Kashmir and not it's occupation, each time India says no to elections, Pakistan's own ambitions become more justified.

Why are you so afraid of Kashmir being independent? Do you think you're going to lose your strategic advantage to Pakistan?

There are certain strategic footholds India can maintain within Kashmir while allowing it to be an independent state. India's military interest in Kashmir is valid. I don't argue with that. But as I explained earler, there are ways in which India can maintain that advantage within the context of an independent Kashmir.

As for the rest of you, let me ask you a question. How many of you jokers have ever been to Srinagar or Khargil? How many of you have ever spoken to someone from there about what they feel? You really need to deal with the fact that it is no longer a part of your country, once insurgency has begun, the only conclusion is independence. You just don't have a choice anymore.

However much you shout, however much you scream, Kashmir is going to be independent whether we like it or not. Such is the nature of the beast. Please look at what has been the outcome of other similar insurgencies in other parts of the world.

You may still stand a chance of quelling the insurgency and still keeping Kashmir within India if, and only if, the Army is withdrawn. The longer it stays there, the closer an independent Kashmir becomes.

India as a unitary nation state is a failure.

on average Pakistanis are more open to peaceful negotiations than Indians.

You may still stand a chance of quelling the insurgency and still keeping Kashmir within India if, and only if, the Army is withdrawn. The longer it stays there, the closer an independent Kashmir becomes.

you wrote the article and how come the title is not yours man .... i find that interestingly naive!!!!!!

The Editors do change titles for relevancy, I can't remember the original title, but don't think it included the Pakistanis role

thanks Aaman for the clarification.

I think i dont have anything more to say to this guy, now that i know that he is plainly biased.

Morquedi: I have spent many months in Kashmir and never saw anything even remotely similar to what you describe. I saw that people were happy with India and associated themselves with India. I saw what I saw. So there. Prove me wrong.

This fellow is such an obvious mischief-monger in the garb of a sensible debater. The way he is elevating some 3-day experience (with no way to prove that he hasn't made this up) into a 58-year old controversy qualifies as nothing else other than mischief. I don't know why you guys are taking this bait so naively.

Bias is fine, countering bias is even better - opinions are ...

Morquendi, you may chose to call something as smoke or as fire. Fine with me. You can show me evidence to support your claims. I can show evidence that will help me make a contradicting claim. Is that the point? Kashmir situation is not very clear to a lot of people including me and you. Yes. Including you. Ideally things should be clear to everyone. I am not disputing that. But the allegations and the sweeping generalisations you are making are incorrect. "India as a unitary nation state is a failure." -- there being huge problems within a nation state does not amount to its failure! India as a nation state has not only survived but thrived. That it's a failue is a strange thing to state. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You are not getting my point. According to you since there are problems with the nation state model we should not have it. Once you dismantle a system itself there cannot be any sytemic problem of that system. Right? But is that a solution? I can only wonder. I have a post which deals with this and other points at a general level on my blog. Kindly check it. I had also submitted it here. It might appear some time.

Btw, none of the "jokers" here might have talked to Kashmiris. But you seem to be suggesting that only you know the reality about Kashmir! Forget the "jokers", but would you at least concede that India, with a billion people, definitely has more than handful "serious" people? Or are you saying that none of us looks at the issue in an "objective" manner? Or that the whole populace is being collectively hoodwinked for decades together? I am sorry to say this, but your suggestions are bordering on bad taste.

We are obviously dealing here with a troll.Just to recap some of his rants : he has gone from asking India to giving up nukes to giving up Kashmir and finally comes out with a statement that I believe revelas his true bias:"India as a unitary nation state is a failure."
He's throwing blanket statements around with no basis in fact, using concocted stories, and extrapolating his personal interactions with a few people to make rampant generalizations about the "peacability" of nations.
World class troll.

You know, I spent a day in Colombo some years ago. I noticed that people there are so tired with the internal strife and look up to India for solutions. I saw what I saw. I think Sri Lanka should annexe to India.

If you take this joker's words seriously, then the above idea is also worth considering, no?

To sloemn, in reply to:

Abrar Siddiqui - That video mentioned that the militants were funded by Pakistan. Please ask Musharaf to do something.


I wish I could tell him to do something. But to be honest, being very very open-minded and understanding the Indian stance on Kashmir, I MYSELF, find it hard to find a solution to this issue.

You have to realise we have to find a solution which is acceptable to Kashmiri people, Pakistani people and the Indian people. NO one wants to loose an inch of land and no one seems to settle with what they have!!!! This just leaves the poor Kashmiris no where and thats what the documentary shows!!

However, just an opinion: If India wants to do something about insurgents, I think they should really try to take some steps that will win the minds and hearts of Kashmirir. WHILE they keep Pakistan engaged in peace talks of some sort for 5-10 years. AND then accepting the UN Resolutions, allow the Kashimiris to vote for either Pakistan or India. No third Option. AND I CAN SURELY say that Kashmiris will choose to stay with INDIA!!

Abrar: I like your idea. only two questions

1) Why only TWO options?
2) Should the refferendum be conducted once all the people who originally belonged to Kashmir PEACEFULLY coexist after returning to Kashmir? (that means no more gunning down Kashmiri Pandits etc etc) ?

Abrar,

Appreciate your constructive ideas and I agree that India needs to do more to win the hearts and minds of the Sunni Kashmir Valley Muslims.The Shias of Kargil,Buddhists of Ladakh and Hindus of Jammu are already with India.
The UN resolutions have been deemed irrelavant by none other than the UN secretary general Kofi Annan and also by Musharrah himself.Basically I don't have anything against the resolution.However it seems to be unimplementable as it first calls for the complete withdrawal of Pakistan troops from POK, followed by the referendum.This does not seem likely to happen anytime soon.

73 comments, and most of them are not mine. Not bad :)

Aaman, Lakshmikanth, the original title was 'An Invasionary Force'. I am aware of how inflaming titles and headlines can be, and did not refer to the Indian Army in the title itself.

Sri, as for annexing Sri Lanka, remember India tried to do that once? By supporting the LTTE?

And you complain about cross border terrorism. What a bunch ofopportunistixc hypocrits.

okay..#74 but that along with the ONE SIDED article implies INDIAN ARMY in caps.. so it does not matter either ways. just to put your bias in a different bottle.

no more comments. just an advice which Ambar gave to himself ::: keep away from biased trolls. (proof: refer to the comments... its obvious)

The title is therefore more in line with your article - ref the first sentence

Soldier on, and thanks for the opinions, and viewpoints - what's next - more challenges in the region to cover - also, check out my most recent post, somewhat relevant

The title is therefore more in line with your article - ref the first sentence

Soldier on, and thanks for the opinions, and viewpoints - what's next - more challenges in the region to cover - also, check out my most recent post, somewhat relevant

Sri, as for annexing Sri Lanka, remember India tried to do that once? By supporting the LTTE?

Let me use your own argument then.. Should not people be allowed the right of self-determination? And people there do like the idea of joining India. I know. I spent an entire day there.

Look at yourself in the mirror with no one around to pass judgements and ask yourself whether the arguments you are making make any sense.

ha ha ha ha #74 justifies #51

Morquendi, you started out as a fellow with a point, but you seem more and more like a person just ranting on and on. I came here to learn something new and put my point of view across, unfortunately, you don't give me reasons enough to change my thinking, you only give counter arguments which lead to nothing, and advertise your lack of knowledge, reasoning and inability to look at the whole picture. And more importantly, you don't seem to be open to any discussion on the topic. It was a similar case in your nuke article, it's as if ur married to this whole ideology of India is screwed, the Army is in disarray and Indians need to wake up. One last point from me on this post- see what Indians are doing today on the world map with an unbiased eye, and you'll know.

Yaaaawn. Boring.

I have heard all these points before from people who have argued them infinitely better. You guys just repeat your Government's propaganda. I haven't heard a single original idea here.

Even the ones who realise there's a problem don't think about solutions. Your apathy is stunning.

If you're content to muck about in your own mudpuddle without trying to get out of it then I guess I'm happy for you.

#82 justifies #51

yaaaaawn, now thats something new, he he he he

What me thinks is the Solution
What if Pakistan and and India were to jointly and peacefully control Pakistan? Political parties from both India and Pakistan could contest elections and the government framework would be different from that of India or Pakistan. There should be special provisions for taxes which would be shared and people from both sides could come and set up businesses. A kind of a buffer zone. Also both countries could put in amounts to set up institutions of higher education (engineering, management, sciences, medicine, etc). How about a world class university dealing in Islamic studies (since the people are predominantly Muslim) which is unbiased, progressive and represents Muslims as they really are, instead of the bullshit that the media of other countries (especially the Western ones) tries to project.

We could have joint patrolling of the shared borders (to ensure no smuggling and goes on). I think such a shared responsibility and people to people interaction could work wonders for our relations.

The downside to this.
The Statement of Purpose of Lashkar e Toiba first stated that they wanted to get Kashmir under Islamic rule and law. No problem with that. Problem is that its their brand of Islamic law.
Unfortunately, they then changed their mission statement to say that they will not give up until entire India is under Muslim rule, because thats how it was originally meant to be under the Mughals. They consider the dethroning of the last Mughal ruler to be one of the greatest wrongs of history, one that they feel they must correct.
The situation that i described above could easily be exploited by such elements to further their agenda in India, and this is something that i think most of us have a problem with.

Also, if India and Pakistan do get together, tourism will get a huge boost, and revenues accrued from that may be a sore point. I say this because the general impression in India will be that had they not been here, we could be getting all this booty. While Pakistan will want to share it equally as it should be. Obviously, this last situation can be sorted out with some clever government work.

If there are any other solutions or offsets/negatives to this situation, please put it down here.

73 comments, and most of them are not mine. Not bad :

That's all that trolls count. the number of comments to thier post.

Agreed! he is a natural toll.

Aww shit, me said "What if Pakistan and and India were to jointly and peacefully control Pakistan?" while me meant "What if Pakistan and and India were to jointly and peacefully control Kashmir*?" Please read it again with Kashmir in place of Pakistan

[EDITED]

SidDes: The joint control is just one of the several options that have been explored between India and Pakistan with representatives from the people of Kashmir. (There were some very good reports on both India Today and BBC some time ago on the different options explored).

Another option for example was making the LoC into an international border.

None of these options are easy to implement, and without inherent dangers of uncontrollable repercussions. Especially so, when there are mischevious elements who can distort every action to such an extent as to derail everything (as this blog author seems to be trying to do).

For instance, if "joint control" was provided for the entire Kashmir region, what would prevent China asking for joint control of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh? Till what extent can we keep extending joint control? Maybe the British will also want joint control of India by claiming that many middle class people in India still look up to the British..

If only things were that simple. The moment we let our guard down a little bit, we can be sure of being overrun.

We should also learn to recognize mischief when we see it and show it its proper place. The post started out by sounding genuine (but unconvincing, all the same). But the way in which the author has responded to comments, it is clear that there is a hidden agenda and it was not a post coming out of genuine concern.

[EDITED - WARNING - STAY OFF ASPERSIONS LIKE THIS - RESPOND WITH DATA POINTS OR POSTS]

Collectively, your attitudes reflect my point.

India, in it's role in South Asia, has been consistently manupilative, intolerant, crude and aggressive.

It is the USA of South Asia.

Thankfully, as in the USA, there are a large number of self-critical people in India who do not blindly toe their Government's line. Mistakenly, I hoped I would be able to engage some of them in an intelligent discussion here.

[EDOTED]
If you noticed, the only Pakistani (I think) to say anything on this thread, was a lot more civil than many of you. Sad.

Unfortunately for me, I believe that even idiots need to have their say, therefore I will continue to listen to you and try to answer.

[EDITED]

Refer comment#90, where the troll under observation attempts crudely to start a Indo-Pak flamewar.
Your mudslinging only proves is that desicritics too, like India in general, is overrun by people who contribute nothing but mindless chatter. For the few of you who did contribute to the discussion, thank you, there's still hope.

As for the rest of you who had nothing to contribute yet continued to keep yelling, well, I feel sorry for your country, because a vast majority of her people are like you.

If you noticed, the only Pakistani (I think) to say anything on this thread, was a lot more civil than many of you. Sad.

not only that; #90 exposes the irrational bias in such a naked manner!!!!!

SidDes and Sri,

Yes, random variables like militants will shove a big spanner in any plan. In any case the situation is volatile and no sudden changes can be made without drastic consequences.

But even militants cannot exist and operate in a context where they have no support. EVEN if they have the support of an outside Government, they cannot exist and operate in Kashmir if there's no support from the locals.

So how do you take away this support? By showing the locals that they have more to gain by not supporting the insurgency.

Like I said earlier, because any sudden changes won't be productive, how about a gradual upward shift in the cycle that right now is on a down-spiral?

As long as the Indian Army maintains it's image of being an occupationary force, the militants will have support. To increase their appeal as protectors, they need to make it very very clear that they're doing something about every reported case of abuse of power by every soldier. But this is not going to happen. All armies commit terrible atrocities and then try to cover them up.

To get the spiral moving upwards, how about a gradual decrease in military presence coupled to a upgrade in policing capabilities (in both quality and quantity). Actually a well trained Police force can be more effective against internal terrorism and insurgency than a military.

ok heres the deal it is really easy to talk about an army being an invading force when your family is not the one that was forced to flee the land they have lived in for generations just coz of your religion...as a kashmiri pandit now living in north india ,I ask u who is the invader... the one who threw us out of our land or the only one who gave my family and me the oppertunity to start a life all over again...for all of you who visit my place of brith for a few days and are appalled please come and meet my gandparents ....Oh sorry grandmom died heartbroken a few months after migrating and grandfather still in shock.... by all means lets all talk of invading armies

Ambar and Lakshmikanth,

I don't mind your shouting or namecalling. I won't call pest control yet.

I would also like to offer you another option. If you don't like what's being said you can actually leave. You have no obligation to stay here. I won't get hurt if you shut up.

#94 *internal terrorism* how sure are u that it is internal terrorism....

u still have not justified ur statement about India being a failure as a unitary state. until and unless u do that #51 holds.

u still have not answered my querries on Kashmiri Pundits!!!! until and unless u do that #51 holds.

please refer to shivani's comment.. this is the precise reason why i will call u biased, without any doubts.

U still have not proved many of the blatant statements that you have made. give me a reason not to call u what i have called u till now!!!!

Shivani,

You have very clear and valid greivances.

As someone who has suffered because of the conflict in Kashmir I would expect you to empathize with all the others who are also suffering because of it. What your family went through is what thousands of families have gone through.

It is wrong for you to think that they have suffered any less than you.

wow what an argument... did shivani ever mean to say she is NOT empathizing with all the others who are also suffering because of IT.

Please dont shuffle the premis of argument. She is telling her grieviance and is clear that it she is NOT comparing it to the greiviances suffered by the others. now please justify the statement that you made here

It is wrong for you to think that they have suffered any less than you.

Lakshmikanth,

Actually, when I called India a Unitary State I was wrong. But you didn't realise that. Anyways, for anyone reading this who knows what a unitary state is, that was an error on my part.

Moving on, why I think India as a single political entity is a failure is because of all the small independence struggles you have going on in your country. India as a unit glues together very loosely. You have armed insurgencies in almost ALL your states.

Yes it has stayed together so far, but only because of political manouverings by sucessive Governments. For instance, to placate the Tamil insurrection in the South Indira Gandhi used RAW to fund and arm Sri Lankan militants.

You have CMs of states who slander other states and try to steal development projects from one another. You have states that can't share a river.

Mumbai wants to kick out non-Mumbaikars.

Your Government focuses on the Mumbai exchange hitting 10Gs, but ignores farmers killing themselves all over the country. You boast of IITs and IIMs, but rural children have little access to education. You boast of world class hospitals, but your poor have no healthcare.

It seems to me that your Government has forgotten many of your people. This is asure sign of a runaway state.

This might not look very strange to you, as you may be used to it, but from the outside it shows a system of governance that is dysfunctional.

I'm not saying it's beyond help. I'm saying it needs restructuring, and at this point in time, it's a failure.

Morquendi, you are resorting to deliberate falsehoods. Which is the reason I am calling you a troll. Refer comment #75:

Sri, as for annexing Sri Lanka, remember India tried to do that once? By supporting the LTTE?


I quote from wikipedia:
In 1987, the Sri Lankan Army launched a new assault to recapture Jaffna. In the Indian press, the attack was depicted as being brutal and leading to disproportionately large civilian casualties. Faced with growing anger amongst its own Tamils, India intervened directly in the conflict by air-dropping food parcels on Jaffna in what was interpreted as a show of strength. After negotiations, India and Sri Lanka entered into an agreement whereby Sri Lanka agreed to a federal structure which would grant autonomy to the Tamils. India was to send a peacekeeping force, the IPKF, to Sri Lanka to enforce the agreement.

Although most Tamil militant groups accepted this agreement, the LTTE only did so very grudgingly and very soon rejected it on the grounds that the reforms were only illusory. The result was that the LTTE now found itself engaged in military conflict against the Indian army. The army fought a bitter campaign for one month to win control of the Jaffna peninsula from the LTTE. This campaign and the army's subsequent anti-LTTE operations were ruthless, and made it extremely unpopular amongst the Tamils. The LTTE exploited this sentiment and, by painting themselves as the only group opposing the IPKF's "anti-Tamil aggression", as they termed it, they became increasingly popular. In addition, the implementation of the autonomy provisions under the agreement was perceived by the Tamils as giving them little or nothing, and the entire structure collapsed very quickly. As the only group to have held itself aloof from this process, this was portrayed by the LTTE as a vindication of their stance.

Lakshmikanth,

What do you want me to say about the Kashmiri Pundits?

That they have been wrong? Yes they have been wronged.

Do they deserve to live peacefully in Kashmir? Yes they do.

Don't look at one component of problem and frame your opinions around that.

Don't look at one component of problem and frame your opinions around that.

Morquendi, refer comment #100. Are you sure you want to go down this absolutely offtopic road? There are a million flaws on can find with every nation on earth. I was under the impression that this discussion was about the Indian army's supposed role as an invader in Kashmir.

Do you really want to continue adding to the downward spiral and turn this into a nation-bashing free-for-all?

Ambar,

I had decided not to talk to you but you are proving to be so ignorant that it's difficult to keep my mouth shut any longer.

I was not talking about the IPKF. Look into RAW's dealings with Tamil militant groups in Sri Lanka as early as the mid to late 70s.

Sadly, as we're not talking about Sri Lanka onthis thread I won't say anything more on this. If you want to have a seperate conversation about Indo-Sri Lanka relations let's do that on another post. I'm game. But you must behave.

#100 (we have reached century mark)

now that u have given a *justification* after i mailed the desicritic group here is my response

Ohh yeah what would you have called US say around 150 years ago (i.e when it was around 50 years old)... i am sure you would have called it an abysmal failure.

Every country evolves... and it takes some time. Until then u will have to change it in a very slow manner. rather than