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 call it a failure. I would probably call SriLanka a failure and site some shallow reasons as u have given.

addendum to #106: India is evolving into the positive direction, just look at the economic indicators. It is light years away from what it was earlier. and to call it a failure is outright boorish and myopic.

Lakshmikanth,

If you read the little green thingy at the top of the post you willnotice it says 'OPINION', which means this article is MY OPINION based on MY EXPERIENCES, which are in no way complete.

I have spent time in Indian-held Kashmir and have had these experiences with the Indian Army therefore I write about them.

If I ever go to Pakistan-held Kashmir and I have anything worth saying you can be sure I will say it.

I did not expect you to take this as the word of god. It is merely an opinion.

Did I ever say I'm unbiased? Lakshmikanth, you don't have to keep shouting out that I am biased. It's very clear that my experiences weigh me to one side.

In the same way, being an Indian, you are more biased than I am, and also, apprently, uninformed.

Lakshmikanth,

I will not reply to off topic questions. Sorry. We can about India's economic growth and it's implications elsewhere.

Any more questions boys?

Re #109: You raise the issue of India being a failed state, and then condescendingly call replies to it as off-topic?

Ambar, I thought that was settled. You asked, I replied. What more do you want me to do? Prepare an audiovisual presentation?

Re:#108
If you read the little green thingy at the top of the post you willnotice it says 'OPINION', which means this article is MY OPINION based on MY EXPERIENCES, which are in no way complete.

I have spent time in Indian-held Kashmir and have had these experiences with the Indian Army therefore I write about them.

You are using these "experiences" of yours to draw conclusions. As you yourself say, these experiences are not complete. In fact I would say that they are downright negligible as a set of samples. That is what makes all your conclusions dubious.

#109. yeah then calling India a failure is off topic as well...

#108 in that case you should not make any generalized deductions on the INCOMPLETE EXPERIENCES, like judging India to be a failure. make blatant statements after you get all the facts!!!!!

Re #112: What reply? And to which of my queries?
Can you please use the comment numbers instead of vague answers like this?

[EDITED]

#100 as to why I think India's a failed unit.

Please read all the replies man. Don't waste my time.

#116 Nope.. i am arguing with facts... i think u are probably missing that point out here by making an Ad Hominem attack

#117 go through United states history, u will probably not waste ur time thinking about India as a failure

Yadayadayada...

We're not even talking about the samething. Allyou guys are trying to do is follow insane uncreative threads to win the argument.

I being a bored fool, play along.

another Ad Hominem

Re:#117, what replies? Are you confusing me with someone else on this thread? I never asked you about india being a failed state or argued about it. I repeat #111: How can you now pronounce the topic of India's "failed state" status after you were the one initiating it?

Stop giving vague and dubious replies. It just feeds the impression of you being a troll.

Here's my take on my argument:

I was in Kashmir. I saw a few things that added to my experiences of the Indian Army.

So I framed my OPINION of the INDIAN ARMY in KASHMIR based on what I EXPERIENCED. I don't see what's wrong with that. At least I'm not talking about things I've never experienced like you guys.

If you want to debate about OPINION and EXPERIENCE, please start another post and quit wasting my time.

Are you guys still asking questions? Or can I leave? LA boy I can't believe you're staying up all night for this!

Re#122 here is my take : RETRACT all of the GENERALIZED STATEMENTS that you made from your experiences. A statement has to be supported by proof.. which can be accepted as true. U cannot do that with one or two experiences.

otherwise ur statements are just plain irrational.

#123 Ad Hominem.. none of ur business

One at a time boys, one at a time. Pack mentality sucks.

another Ad Hominem.. I am rationalizing here.

My my... Lakshmikanth, did I step on a nerve?

RETRACT my STATEMENTS? Why?

because otherwise u are fit to be called a flamebait troll!!!! refer #51

According to Wikepedia you're the troll:

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants.

good searching... i hope it did not take much time... now go check out Flamebait!!!

sorry for the Ad Hominem... but all the comments that i responded to saying that it was pertaining to a flamebait (and i gave the comment number for example comment #74), followed the precise definition...

Now let's see who posted RUDE and OFFENSIVE messages?

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

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

troll; troll; troll!!!!!!

Ad Hominem again!!!

only thing is my comments are justified...

An article becomes 'flamebait' when some idiot takes the bait. So if this is flamebait, then I guess that makes you...

anyways morq boy, i think u are getting a bit personal over here. I am a tad bit uncomfortable with ur irrational method of arguments (not to mention the Ad Hominem showers).

please read what a flamebait is and then go through the comment chain... probably u will realize what i am trying to tell... also check out the number of times u contradicted urself.. that would be an interesting number to remember

Read the little green thingy that says Personal attacks are not allowed..

If calling me a troll is not a personal attack then I don't know what is. I really don't know desicritics is tolerating it.

Also, I have really started enjoying this discussion. The knowldge that I'm keeping you awake adds to it :)

Personal attacks? You were branded a troll based on your comments which clearly showed troll-like behaviour. Whats personal about that?

and since u cannot come up with anything better than Ad Hominems i think i have to retire from this thread... now that you yourself have pointed out that this thread is worthless

#139 pertains to #137 and #136

I'm getting personal? I'm so so sorry. Please don't nuke me.

How about you write an article about flamebait and we talk about what makes something flamebait over there?

Since everyone who had something constructive to say is gone and our friend from LA is staying up just for this, I am going to be nice and leave.

Yes Lakshmikanth. YOU WIN! Hope you're happy.

Ad Hominem::: Mind your own business

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.

Well, that is precisely how things are moving today, what with the elections, change in governments and all. There are also several incentives provided by the government to bring economic prosperity to Kashmiris. No non-Kashmiri can possess land in Kashmir, for instance. Then, there are some IT parks and software units being set up. There are incentives for tourism even in these troubled times. All these are measures for confidence building.

To take two isolated incidents and generalize that the Army is being brutal and trying to cover up, is nothing but distortion. It is like watching two Deepa Mehta movies and concluding that Indians are all sexual perverts.

You have yourself said in the comment that "all armies commit atrocities.." and this cannot be prevented completely. But as you have noted in your post again, the misbehaving soldiers stopped their antics when their supervisor came. Meaning, that the Army is indeed sensitive towards this issue.

How can anyone demilitarize an area where militants continue to infiltrate? If you have been following news, right after the earthquake when borders were opened for a small period of time, there was a spurt in militant attacks in Kashmir, Delhi, Bangalore and several parts of the country.

When such is the situation, what demilitarization are you talking about? Sorry, argument makes no sense.

Oh christ, I don't get a break!

To take two isolated incidents and generalize that the Army is being brutal and trying to cover up, is nothing but distortion.

Sri, the extent to which the Indian Army has violated the rights of the Kashmiri people has been well documented. As an Indian I would expect you to have a better idea of it than I do. Everyone knows about it.

How can anyone demilitarize an area where militants continue to infiltrate?

Armies are ineffective against militants and terrorists. A proper police force would achieve so much more, and also quell dissent.

Terrorists are only able to infiltrate because they have the support of the people, either for money or whatever reason. To end the infiltratrion and fight the terrorists you need to end this support. Armies are not structurally desgined to interact with people. An Army deals with this support for the militants by killing everyone who supports them. A properly trained police force is much more suited to this need.

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.

Unfortunately, my dear Sir, you have no idea about the country on which you are insinuating like this.

There are armed insurgencies? How many people want separation? A million? 2 million? 10 million? 100 million? Well, even in the last case, it still leaves more than 900 million who are happy with status quo.

The Indian population is more than the entire population of US and Europe put together. And the democratic policy allows people to speak out, rather than curtailing their opinions. Given such an environment is it unreal to expect problems?

You say that India is being held together just by political manipulations. If political manipulations can hold together such a vast population for more than half a century, then I'm sure you would concede that these manipulators are absolute geniuses! Even the best of rulers would absolutely pale in comparison!

Think again. Get your perspectives right. 3 days is too short to comment on a 58-year old problem. And insurgencies and social problems are inevitable in large democracies. They don't have to mean anything.

Sri, out of topic.

A properly trained police force is much more suited to this need.

That's a hypothesis that nobody really knows how effective it is. I'm sure that strategy is also tried out -- in Punjab for instance.

Let me repeat. Things are not that simple.

'That's a hypothesis that nobody really knows how effective it is.'

Well, all the armed militant groups within the US are dealt with by the FBI, and or local law enforcement. Not the military.

Well, all the armed militant groups within the US are dealt with by the FBI, and or local law enforcement. Not the military.

Two differences with Kashmir: Scale, and no externally supplied militants.

Are there any instances where serious terrorism is combated by police forces and not militaries?

Well, all the armed militant groups within the US are dealt with by the FBI, and or local law enforcement. Not the military.

What works in the US need not have to work here. Besides, most of the militant groups are outside here, not inside. It didn't work in Punjab for instance. But now the place is indeed demilitarised once things have improved.

Sri,

The militants might be from outside, but they operate within, with the help of citizens.

Like I said, militancy is unsustainable if it has no local support. This is where the military fails.

Sri, the FBI was an example of how it works. I'm not saying you should invite them over to India, but try to learn from the example.

Ambar, define 'serious terrorism' as opposed to not-so-serious terrorism.

Oh please! Don't trivialise the matter by comparing the Kashmir situation to the handful of pitiful internal militant groups the US is dealing with (I am not referring to Jehadis, whom the US deals with in completely different ways).

Re #154, I was talking about the scale when I said serious.

The militants might be from outside, but they operate within, with the help of citizens.

That is again another unsubstantiated hypothesis.

We've seen a lot of such hypotheses. The same thing was said about this forest brigand Veerapan; that he was some benefactor to the villagers and he had their active support. The reality was that the villagers were too terrified of him and had no option but to support him to save their own lives. And the police force who were out to nab this brigand were also accused of atrocities; which were to some extent true. But they were the exceptions, and it was impossible for them not to get frustrated, sick, etc. and behave in such fashion.

In the end though when the brigand was hunted down, no one is complaining.

[EDITED]

re:#158, intolerant attitude? Pray tell, what in the question showed any hint of intolerance? If calling out your flawed analogies is intolerance, so be it!

Sri,

Can you ask someone from the Army if the locals help the militants? Read Desh's #32. Tell me how a militant group will survive if it has no support from the local populatiion?

Veerappan had the support of the people. Sometimes because he feared them, sometimes because he paid them. About a year before he was killed I spent quite a while in the Malai Mahadeshwara Hills region in Southern Karnataka and interviewed people who had worked for him. He also had certain ministers in Karnataka aiding him.

The locals helped him survive, and in the end several locals worked with the police to find him. Please familiarise yourself with the details of that investigation and operation.

And also, was the STF not constitued of the police?

Sure, the militants have support from the locals mostly out of fear; sometimes because they get paid (and they need that money so badly; believe me, people wouldn't support controversial characters even if they had options).

Sure Veerappan had covert support of some ministers. Corruption is everywhere. Check out what kind of support US ministers gave to the very people who are targeting them now. So how will demilitarisation help root out corruption? That is being combated in separate battles.

The STF was constituted out of the police force and Veerapan was an internal fugitive. So the point is?

Here we are talking about external militants. Is not the US using military to combat its recent external militant aggressions?

Ambar, don't ask me how trivial US domestic terrorist groups are. Just Google "domestic terrorism united states".

My anologies are not flawed. But your accusations are baseless and indicative of your frog-in-the-well attitude.

Ambar, India's not the only country dealing with terrorism. Much of the world is. Some countries deal with it better than India does, and India would do well to learn from them instead of brush them off as trivial, as you just did.

Sri,

What's your solution?

Sri,

How do you know all the militants are external? ON what do you base the statement: 'Here we are talking about external militants.'?

Lets check out your claim on domestic terrorism in the US:
Oklahoma Bombing: 168, Since the 1995 bombing, 15 law enforcement officers in the United States have been killed by white supremacists and anti-government extremists.
From : Law Enforcement agency resource network

Are you naive enough to compare this with what is happening in Kashmir? 15 cops killed in 10 years! Compared to terrorism worldwide, and even the Jehadi kind facing the US, this is trivial.

Since you revel in selectively picking from my comments, I need to remind you that I said
Don't trivialise the matter by comparing the Kashmir situation to the handful of pitiful internal militant groups the US is dealing with (I am not referring to Jehadis, whom the US deals with in completely different ways).
So where am i acting as if India is the only one dealign with terrorism?
I repeat, when dealing with terrorism on this scale, no nation uses local law enforcement agencies as the prime weapon. Even in the US, the FBI is not a 'local' entity!
So i must ask you again, are there any instances where local police are used to combat large scale terrorism?

There is so much documentary evidence that shows militant training camps just outside the LoC and so many incidents of infiltration that have been dispassionately verified by independent news agencies.

Don't suddenly tell me now all the militant problems in Kashmir are completely internal. I'll start losing respect once again.

Sri,

What's your solution?

Sorry, I'm not an armchair solution provider. I won't even venture to offer solutions to this problem and get afflicted with the foot-in-mouth disease.

The problem is vast, and any solution can take shape only over a period of time, which can be very painful times.

But it is not that solutions cannot be found. European nations killed and butchered one another in two world wars. But now they are friends, half a century later. So, I believe, peace will get a chance soon.

India would do well to learn from them instead of brush them off as trivial, as you just did.

To make an assertion that a country of more than a billion people, where every one wants to go their own way, is not learning from others... Who is triviliasing here?

There is so much documentary evidence that shows militant training camps just outside the LoC and so many incidents of infiltration that have been dispassionately verified by independent news agencies.

Sri, come on, be realistic. Morquendi obviously relies on his "experiences" in these matters.

Desi comment war in full action:) Wow!

Desi comment war in full action:) Wow!

..The Argumentative Indians ;)

(There's a book by Amartya Sen, by this name)

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?

Since you take the liberty of calling others as jokers and dont expect yourself to be called a troll (Which I must admit you are), I chose to answer your question:

Well, 2 of my close friends happen to be from Kashmir, one of them living precariously close to the Paki border. Unlike your 3 day experiences, they have grown up there for about 25 years - and umm... I am very sorry to say they would just laugh at your claims :D. So, just because you happen to have stayed there for 3 days dont assume the rest of ppl arguing with you have no clue what Kashmir is all about. At best you come off as an ignorant - as they say - "little knowledge is dangerous" - applies to you very well :)

Enjoy :).

Suyog

Abrar siddiqui...(reply to #71)
"..This just leaves the poor Kashmiris no where and thats what the documentary shows!!"

Yes, true. I'm sorry for being too outspoken in my previous post (#56) Maybe that was because I saw only half of the video.

I now saw the remaining half, and indeed it shows that, more than politics, we have to consider giving those Kashmiris a decent life. The video was an unbiased documentary which was disinterested in who gets Kashmir, or who doesn't. In that, it was just what Morquendi wanted to say, only difference being Morquendi was biased against the Indian military.

Aaman you may have to consider appointing an ethics committee on COMMENTS!

Kashmiris in particular, and South Asia in general is in desperate need of economic development. It would do well to concentrate efforts on specific developmental issues rather than make such gross generalizations, causing so much of an uproar.

For instance, we desperately need to do research in predicting earthquakes, preventing floods, harnessing water, predicting and safeguarding against tsunamis (there is no guarantee that there won't be one more tsunami in our lifetime). We need research in cheap medicines, education, town planning, diversity management, economics and a host of other things.

And there are a lot of people working tirelessly behind the scenes doing just that instead of starting and fighting these silly battles (I'm just as guilty of this silly battle, since I'm just taking a break today ;).

Folks, y'all crossed the line a few times, and some clean-up was needed, apart from that, seems like a pretty interesting contrapuntal commentary.

Just a note - banging on opinions works, questioning the motivations of the person goes nowhere.

Counter-revolutionary posts are invited - the revolution WILL be blogged:)

Ambar, could you also find out how many attempts have been countered?

And do you measure the severity of the problem by how many people are killed?

BTW, how's this page loading on a slow connection?

And do you measure the severity of the problem by how many people are killed?

Yes.

Aaman, to #177, badly.

Ambar, to #178, why? What about the other factors? Destruction of property? Loss of livelihoods? Displacement?

Terrorism is not a cricket match where you tally the scores to see who wins. That's a very crude way of lookingb at conflict. It's certainly more complex than that.

On these (above mentioned) counts Kashmir would rate as a hugely more severe problem than domestic terrorism in the USA, but you didn't bring them up.

Is it because much of that damage has been carried out by the Indian Army?

Morquendi, #179, Ambar, to #178, why? What about the other factors? Destruction of property? Loss of livelihoods? Displacement?

Not denying any of these other "metrics". But loss of human life is the the primary metric to judge the intensity of such a conflict. And even including or excluding all the factors you mentioned, Kashmir dwarfs anything the US has experienced domestically.

Now that we agree that domestic terrorism in the US, can we talk about the entire "local law enforcement to combat terrorism" idea? IIRC, it was what you suggested, and the objection to that was that it is not used anywhere to solve serious terrorism. Refer comment #149.

Ambar, this page is becoming increasingly intolerant of the comment load. Perhaps another post another time.

We have thought about paginating comments, but never had any data points on DC, until now:)

Don't mean to get personal or vile, but this fellow does not know what he is talking about, the more u say the more he will throw BS at you working on your own questions, please forget this post, move on to something else.

Morquendi, no offense but u just base ur arguments on personal experiences (who knows if they are true), continually contradict yourself and just use the last post by someone with something to prove that person wrong.

The only line u keep falling back upon is "India is shit" but u give no conclusive evidence.

Instances of ur bullshit
->Marathis want non Mumbaikers out of Mumbai.-- Didnt you realize this is just crap kicked up by the Shiv Sena to gain votes, and they lost so now they ve abandoned this stance and are actually wooing the North Indians as a vote bank (don't even try ur crap on me cos ive been living in Mumbai for the past 2 1/2 years).

->Demililitarize Kashmir -- Remember, India conducted elections in J and K. Now since you know so much about this area, plz don't say you dont know that the last elections were hailed as free and fair by UNBIASED INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS, and that J and K is ruled by an elected govt, one which is elected by the people of J and K. That itself makes J and K the responsibility of the Republic of India to ensure that there is no terrorist activity in the state, and it's the Govt. of India's prerogative to use the Army or the police to protect a state under it.

->Army maintains image of being an occupying force. -- No occupying force helps in reconstruction and rehabilitation during natural calamities. Obviously you know that the Army played a major role in recovery during the earthquake that happened in the state recently.

SidDes,

If you don't want to discuss something just leave. It's not that tough.

You really must stop misquoting me.


Marathis want non Mumbaikers out of Mumbai.

A) That is not what I said. A direct misquote. At least take the time to quote me properly. It's common decency.

B) It's a fact. Not bullshit. You admit it yourself, thereby contradicting yourself in the same comment. Funny :)


Demililitarize Kashmir

That's an argument, not a statement. If you don't understand the difference I can't help it.


Army maintains image of being an occupying force.

This particular line is out of context. And, I made a much more serious allegation that you missed. I said the Indian Army IS an occupying force. That was what my whole post was about. Did you even read it?

Now to counter something you said,

No occupying force helps in reconstruction and rehabilitation during natural calamities.

What data leads you to make this statement? Examples?

Morquendi.. if you'd actually said the army had an image of an occupying force, I would have agreed with you. But you maintain it IS an occupying force.. which is simply wrong. It's a fact. They aren't an occupying force. Not by any standard definition of an occupying force.

There are Kashmiris who are supportive of the Indian army. Not all are against them. You even disregard the earth-quake relief efforts of the army. I know you'll thrash the Indian army throughout, but this is too much.

solemn,

During the British occupation of India a lot of locals supported them.

A lot of Iraqis support the US.

That does not justify their presence.

Army or not... you must realize... you... are... DOOMED!" --General Grievous

Excuse me Morquendi, Kashmir (atleast our half of it) is a part of India, and that's where our army should be. Atleast we are not like US who plant their armies everywhere.

You love taking us back to the British rule, eh?

If we have a chance to occupy some country, then your complaint has some meaning.

solemn,

Kashmir is a part of India

A bold statement. In your opinion what exactly is it (other than occupation) that makes Kashmir a part of India?

Morquendi,

If you were in the state of Bihar, you would have been dragged out of that phone booth --they wouldnt even have been talking to the owner. And as to urinating in paddy fields---dude...if there are no urinals available for miles, thats where people are going to go. Go to Bihar again---you shall surely see that too. So is the Indian army occupying Bihar? What you saw in that phone booth is symptomatic of police/army all over India.

Now of course a person like you doesnt care for logic---after all in the comments section I see you have made disparaging remarks about India...so maybe by making this comment I am casting pearls before the swine. Because you have already made up your anti-India and as I see, pro-Pakistani mind.

To be honest, I kind of feel bad I used to group blog with you on CSF.

Morquendi, the instrument of accession is the legal authority that makes Kashmir part of India.

Morquendi, this...
"Kashmir was one of many princely states in India. Under the Partition Plan in 1947, these states were free to join either India or Pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir, the Maharaja, was Hindu while the majority of the population was, and still remains, Muslims. The Maharaja had three choices - join with India, join with Pakistan or remain independent. In the end, he agreed to make Kashmir a part of India. "

In my opinion, well, my opinions were formed by this history, so I maintain Kashmir is part of India. Pakistan is claiming Kashmir because of the majority Muslim population. Like Aaman said, accession rule is legal and sufficient.

In short, inidan army took over Kasmhir at the green signal from its ruler. So you can't call it occupation.

Sorry for giving split comments.. I'm getting thoughts in quanta :)

solemn,

To repeat myself, once upon a time a whole bunch of Maharajahs gave India to the British. And that made India legally British. But the people didn't really like the system did they?

And, the point is documents of accession don't mean a thing.

Greatbong,

I made disparaging remarks about India.?

Did I hurt your feelings? Sorry.

So it's ok for you lot to go Bush bashing and US bashing, but when someone says something your oh-so holy and perfect country it becomes tough eh? Double standards or what?

Never knew you were on CSF. Sorry.

New NASA photos show that there is a man-made bridge underwater b/w Rameswaram and Lanka.

[EDITED]

Morquendi, Did I hurt yours? Because you never replied to the analogy with Bihar...or was it not convenient? It takes more than a barb at India to "hurt me" ...what does hurt me is that a prominent blogger like you (who come to think of it even commented on a post of mine [not knowing who I am]) does not even remember me...bo hoo.....

Nice point, morquendi, I got stumped for a while. I suggest you consider giving those Tamils rebelling in your country a separate state too, by your same arguments.

It maybe unfortunate, but Indians' were the least Bush-haters of the lot. There's no double standards.

Aaman you need to delete # 198

No DrP let it be.

Themost brilliant articulation of India's imperialist ambitions :)

Greatbong,

The Army in Bihar being worse does not make the Army in Kashmir good. It's not relative.

Also, the atrocities committed by the IA in Kashmir are systemic, and not random acts of violence.

@Morquendi,

Remember the time you wrote that Sri Lankan police are not distributing relief aid http://wagblog.internetweek.com/archives/002032.html
---now does that mean that Sri Lanka is under "occupation" and that your country isnt a country at all?

Just curious.

solemn,

If you want to talk about the situation in Sri Lanka write a post. I don't see how it's relevant to the fact that India does not own Kashmir.

Our posts crossed, hence could not reply to yours before posting.

So according to you.. that telephone booth incident was "systemic" and that urinating in paddy fields is the implementation of a secret Indian Army communique?

This is actually becoming a bit funny---blinded by your hate and frothing at your mouth in fury--you cant even see the irony of your "follow up" comments.

Greatbong,

There's a difference between police being corrupt and the military being ruthless.

The Sri Lanka Army is as bad (perhaps worse) as the Indian Army. Their occupation of Jaffna is as wrong as the IA's occupation of Kashmir.

Greatbong,

You're clearly in denial about the behavior of the IA in Kashmir.

Does the Indian Army commit atrocities against the people of Kashmir? YES/No?

So then why single out the IA? Why not Pakistan? why not China? You should realise the majority of Indians who got abusive in this page, it was only because they feel you're against India.

Greatbong,

Hypotyhetically, if a IA soldier were to be convicted of having tortured and killed a civilian, what kind of punishment do you think he should face?

@Morquendi (#207): And why so? Because it serves your purpose. Both of them are arms of the administration. Note: I have not even gotten into the Kashmir issue...all I am saying is that by your logic, Sri Lanka also does not exist as a nation. Incidentally, you point out the green thingie which says "personal attacks" are not allowed...you scream dear Morquendi...but an attack on the very concept of India is (imho) as "personal" as it can get. And once you have done that, then whining for being called a "troll" looks (forgive my sexism here) extremely sissy.

solemn,

Have I ever said anywhere that I don't like India or hate India? I love India about as much as I love my own country.

I visit India on average 3 times a year. Always on holiday and to spend time with friends.

But I'm not going to keep shut about what I see wrong with India, as I don't keep shut about what I see wrong with my country.

As always, and average Indian's inability to be selfcritical surprises me.

@Morquendi (#208) Going by the evidence you presented (STD booth and paddy fields) the answer would be NO. That is again going *only* by the evidence YOU presented and on which your post stands.

The Indian army wants to flush out militants.. i regret that the civilians get in the way. They don't deserve to be tortured.

Militants plant landmines all over Inidan Kashmir. Every morning, the Indian army diffuses them. Let them continue to save some lives. Do you have a problem with that, Morquendi?

Greatbong,

You take criticism of your country 'personally'? Isn't that more sissy-like?

Greatbong, I meant in general.

Indian army is the army of Lord Ram. It is its duty to suppress the demonic forces of Pakistan and Lanka.
[Edited]

Indian's ARE self-critical. Maybe they just don't like other nationalities giving UNFAIR critisism.

solemn,

Dude, this is not about Sri Lanka trashing India! I do not represent Sri Lanka.

#171.

What do you say for those people who've lived there for 25+ years in the heartlands of Kashmir? Oops, maybe they weren't with you on your 3 day excursion trip perhaps?

They were not concerned about the fact that the plants they were urinating on were soon going to bear rice.
Rice that the people of the valley and others would eat.
But the soldiers urinating on the rice fields illustrates my point. Only an invading force behaves in this manner.

The manure used in the fields might be cow dung.So we have an invading army of cows too.The dung is used for nutrition of plants,plants that are going to bear rice.Damn,how can we eat those?

Just get out of the holiday mode someday and spend a month in disturbing,distressing,lonely,unsafe conditions someday.Wander here and there without having shaved,not having got proper food and facing the uncertainity of not ever returning home.Come across a place which does not have a public toilet for miles and miles.See what you do.

It's a common practice of using fields as public toliet in rural India.It's not just the army who's doing it as you like to think.Unless they make not-peeing-on-fields a top government priority,it's not gonna change.

Unless they read this brilliant piece.

solemn,

I have no personal grudge against India. Like I said, I love the place. All my closest friends are Indian. My girlfriend is Indian :)

Wait till I start ranting about the Pakistanis. Then you will see it's nothing personal.

Sorry I gave the impression that I hated India. Never meant to, but glad it has led to some discussion.

Peace?

Love thy neighbor, love South Asia, rant on

"Some discussion"? 223 comments might be a new record! lol. Amen to Aaman's comment.

Aaman:) Thanks on # 198

morquendi,

your comments are a clear indication that India is not doing a good job of information management. As my blog "We are Fighting the Huns", indicates, we clearly need to improve our informaton warfare machine.

Having said that, Kashmir is a unique situation in which a state player is fighting against its own population which has been induced by another state player.

History tells us that when uniformed personnel engage non-uniformed (civilian) personnel, the public perception is always sympathetic to the civilians.

We need to ask some key questions:
i) Does the fact one of the actors is a civilian population make tha actor always right?
ii) Does the fact that a hostile state is a major proxy player in the fight alter the response profile?

1. I think the first point exactly proves the opposite - the Indian Army is NOT invading and they are trying to do some good....
the jawans form the lowest level of executive control in the army ...their actions, especially if they are done against the order of their superiors cannot be deemed to reflect the true nature of the army. Infact as it is mentioned that once the soldiers spied that a senior office is coming they speedily emptied the STD booth, which is proof of the fact that the officer would not have approved their actions at all. The officer is higher up in the execution chain and his actions, or rather his uprighteous image that instills this fear in the jawans is in fact a compliment to the Indian army.
I don't really think that there is any army in the world where such actions would not happen or where the flow of control down the execution hierarchy would be completely unadulterated.


2. about peeing in rice fields, I don't think it proves anything - almost half of this country not only pee's but also poo's in fields..there is little reason to believe that the soldiers did what they did because it was kashmir's rice fields and wudnt have done that on any other rice field...i think you have a soft corner of rice field..in India we pee whenever and whereever no one is looking..also on a purely scientific note i think it is beneficial for the crops ;)

The fact that has been disturbing me is that why didn't they just tap on the door and ask him to finish quickly, like it is done in the rest of our great country. But I secretly adore the principals of the booth owner who decided to put his own life in danger, and did not ask you to come out of the booth.

From a post designed to bait Indians over kashmir, this has turned into general India bashing. Especially #100, a superb combination of exageration and lies. I really loved the one about 'stealing' development projects. If every statement by extremist elements if to be taken as facts, then Sri Lanka should have seen some serious genocide by now.

India has huge problems, true, but it nowhere close to failing as a nation. In fact, the only thing that can make it fail as a nation is the armed rebellion in kashmir. Today it more of a proxy war than an indigenous movement. The same happened in Punjab in the 80's, but the Punjabis had the courage to realize that Pakistan was using them, and what lay ahead. Until the Kashmiris can do that, all I can say is that they have brought it on themselves.

And getting back to the original point, about the indian army being an invading force ... some part of the people of kashmir wanted out of india, and they chose to do it with guns and foreign mercenaries, instead of trying to take advantage of being in a democracy. In the process they drove out hundreds of thousands of native inhabitants, who have been living there for hundreds of years.
In the process, instead of trying to put their problems across, the turned it into a question of India losing face, and India is using every means at its disposal to prevent that. If that results in the indian army being called an invasion force by people who generalize of the basis of 3 days in kashmir, I guess I really cant take that seriously.

And I really dont think an armed rebellion can be put down by a local force. Nowhere in the world has this been sucessfully attempted.

And finally, all you (and not others) have done is come out with a series of fresh controversial statements (like calling India a failing nation) with little or no basis, instead of trying to defend your original premise.

morquendi,
1. This part of your post is very believable. Police/Armed forces do that even in other parts of India. Have lot more to do with people having too much power. You can watch numerous 70-80's movies starring Mr Bachchan(He is a leading Hindi film actor in case you dont know). When people have license to kill such things are bound to happen. Atleast Indians like me don't really wanna keep the Army in Kashmir. Afterall bunch of our guys are laying their lives there. But i have hope thing can get better. Afterall not too long ago we had same issue in Punjab. There were same kind of allegations against IA even there but things did improve there and there is no IA in Punjab now. Also its not that Indian Govt send the IA one fine day to kill Kashmiris it was deployed only after the insurgency came up and drove out the minority out of the state.

2. I don't get your sentiment driven second part. What was really so wrong in Armymen pissing in a rice field? That's a quite common thing in at least North India. We dont have urinals build on our highways and when a bus stops for such emergency you will find men women all peeing in near by fields.

I understand that this article is an opinion But is unfortunately very one sided.

A state where ethnic cleansing has been committed and where an army enters to rectify or change the situation ,said army is always called an invading force by the perpetrators and by those left behind... but by those who have turned into refugees coz of ethnic cleansing they are our saviors.

As for "It is wrong for you to think that they have suffered any less than you"
I never said that they suffer less after all they were my friends and neighbors. But let me tell you the world has totally forgotten my side ,people like my grandfather have been relegated to the past ,some would say that being forgotten is the worst curse.
Atleast there are articles like yours written about those in Kashmir .No one even thinks of us anymore when they talk about Kashmir and that is the tragedy because to forget the atrocities of the past in favor of those in the present is to condone the past.
Since you have met and written about the kashmiris in kashmir I would really like it if you could also meet and write about those thrown out of kashmir .Thanks anyway to all you guys for taking time out to atleast think about this issue.

Shivani, if you would like to be a Desicritic and post on these important issues, please see this post and email me - we'd be pleased to have you on board

*yawwwwwn*

this comments section will be still active for the next 50 years and our grandchildren will keep the flame of commenting alive!!

peace to the world...
rock on

To all who thought what Morquendi is BS or ione sided must go to kashmir or the NE before discounting his opinion. It might sound one-sided but he never said that the terrorist were good... he wrote what he saw and felt.

The army being from the side of the govt. or from the side of the lecetd representives of the People must be on the side of the people, be it of the NE or kashmir and not against them as described here.

anthonysmirror.blogspot.com/2006/01/poor-fisher-men-used-as-human-shield.html

Do read my post on how Humans are treated in the the north east here.

Tony, you talk about the NE in that post and I don't see how this has anything to do with Kashmir per se.

The reason morquendi is being called one-sided is because of the two "incidents" he is using to draw his conclusions. Neither of these incidents damn the IA. The second incident is in fact laughably and tragically familiar to *all* Indians, as Arnab said in #191.

There is a notion of something called sampling, and morquendi is using two samples acquired over the course of 3 days. Data grossly insufficient.
Hence, morquendi = Troll. QED.

just to add : two samples.. taken from only one side; to form a biased opinion and then make blantant generalizations.

Ur claims maybe valid Tony, and i shall surely visit your website and check out. The issue here is on something else. and #235 reflects that.

The relation between the posts were the conduct of the army per se.

The second incident of course was weak argument.

whoa!

it can also be said(for arguement) that the people in kashmir are invaders. these people kill not only army men but also innocent civilians in INDIA. what are they doing in our country? they sould leave our country or we should drive them out.

Re #239- Moral relativism unleashed? :O

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

Ambar
of course. arrogance should be countered with arrogance.

The people of Kashmir are no saints, as a very unfunny villian said recently in a movie, "The ghost of the stick needs a kick to come around"

I sometimes wonder if our left wing apologists are living in the real world or are in a permanent drugged-utopia?

As an ex-serviceman who has served in J&K, I can tell you that things do get out of hand, but they are rare and far between. When you have more than half a million soldiers operating in extremely difficult situation where a section of the populace goes out of the way to antagnize you, you have to summon all your willpower to walk away. Expert studies have shown that Indian army faces some of the lowest complaint rates in its areas of deployment.

Harassment of civilians is prohibited under army manual and our officers take really strict action against offenders. I have seen Army officers' lives destroyed because of civilian complaints.

I have witnessed a case where women were by paid by Canadian TV reporters to congregate and protest against armymen stationed in the area. Things got out of hand when a woman from the crowd spit at a young sentry who then slapped her. She pretended to faint and the TV crews had a field day.

Cases like this go against the Army even though we were at the receiving end against a mob manipulated by other people.

The thing that surprised me about this discussion was that the Pakistanis were quite civil and sensible and are willing to discuss the issues.The 2 bit Sri Lankans were ranting like no tomorrow.Something for Indians to remember, don't stereotype all Pakistanis are hostile and all Sri Lankans as friendly.
But seriously this Morquendi seems to suffer from a major case of envy.Its like freakin Cuba compalining about the hegemony of America.Who gives a damn man.100 years later, India will still exist as a nation, while Sri Lanka will probably be known as Eelam which will be a state of India.

Interesting point - don't stereotype anyone - even a stereotype

"I'm not bad - I'm just drawn that way" (Jessica Rabbit

Mr X, #245"But seriously this Morquendi seems to suffer from a major case of envy"

Spot on. :D Like I'd commented on another thread where morquendi had debuted [EDITED] on desicritics:

The reason you are cribbing about the Indian and Pakistani nukes is the same reason Indian 'anti-imperialists' crib about American hegemony: "I am not as powerful as you and I resent that. I can't kick your ass, so let me just take the moral high ground."

IMHO, any country that's criticized for its "hegemony" is doing something right. Look at the USA. All the freakin commies in India complain about US hegemony.But all their kids studied in the US, have green cards and are probably living in Edison or Fremont. Hypocrites all.
Morquendi is a perfect specimen of this.The guy admits to visiting India 3 times a year and having an Indian girlfriend.I think I rest my case.
The more India is criticized by its puny neighbours for its "hegemony", the more we are on the right track.It's envy plain and simple.

Ambar and Mr X, I don't think he hates India, but the way he criticized India, you'd never think he was from Sri Lanka. I initially thought he was from the US, because he kept highlighting the lack of schools, hospitals... lack of nuclear weapons delivery systems...

..all of which a US citizen may have loved to do when provoked by an Indian.

Morquendi has equated the Indian armies atrocities to the Srilankan army against the Tamils (read the article). For that I respect him. Maybe he has bad-mouthed the Srilankan army at some other website, and we here at DC saw only his India bashing, hence drawing wrong conclusions about him.

By the way, Morquendi, #244 (by Subbu) has a point. He also has first-hand experience.

solemn (#249),
I think u have a point here... he may have bashed India, Pakistan and Lanka all at different points of time. The issue here is generalizing things based on incidents and then presenting a one sided view and then declare something as blatant as "India as a unitary state is a failure"(#59), without providing a convincing proof(he provided an unconvincing one at #100, i must add). [a proof means evidence of serious incidents; statistics of a people in say, Karnataka saying that they should have independence from the Union of India or something like that]

Had he kept a title like "Invading Forces -- Stories from the Indian Side" or something like that which shows that he is not generalizing things based on one or two incidents, then I would never have had any issues with this gentleman. I would have infact supported him against criticism if that indeed was the case. One of my close friends is a Kashmiri Hindu living in Srinagar, and she tells me that women(regardless of religion) get raped in the hands of our Jawans, she also adds that its rare but it does happen.

let me get this right, he criticized India's lack of nuclear weapons delivery systems...that's hilarious man..its great he is so concerned that we don't have the proper delivery systems..maybe he has not heard of Prithvi and Agni, Sukhois. Mirages etc etc..

seriously this cracks me up, he has a problem that we cannot use our nukes properly ? what good are nukes if they cannot be used..i agree..we should develop a few mopre ICBMs and test them on Colombo and Kandy...

Hey Aman has this thread broken the record for maximum number of comments :)

On Desicritics, yes - Blogcritics has posts with over 3000 comments

I have a question: What about addressing the bullying and terrorism of Islamic militants? Ok so say Indian Army pulls out- give them independence how the hell are we to ensure that Kashmiri Pandits will find their place, that Buddhists shall not be kicked out?

The premise and argument for independence is not that the King at one point decided this but that a HINDU king decided for a MUSLIM majority.

I find that very disturbing- that religion decides who does or doesn't make decisions for the country not the person's ability to do so.

Rather nice- p'haps rest of India should revolt that a Sikh and not a Hindu is the PM. Good lord what a shame that is.

Bullshit. The logic behind this independence is flawed.

We have a big problem if religion becomes as important as this and the rights of other natives, Kashmiri Pandits, Buddhists etc. are ignored to appease the majority.

And the second scenario was rather lame and laughable.

Sure it isn't great to make the fields you're washroom but how is that an atrocity???? Glad you honour the rice fields as much as you do, but so that doesn't happen as much in most of Northern Indian as we are aware of the lack of public washrooms.

I may not want that in my own fields but I will not raise red flag on abuse or atrocity.

Irrelevant point.

you're should have read as your

Look, Kashmir is not just a piece of land for India. Its that province which has been the gateway to India (along with the hindukush range). You dont give the door of your house to anyone, no matter what the cost. Otherwise, your house is open to all and sundry to see and come and loot and what not. One always wants the control of one's door. The point is, once Pakistan was created, and positioned as anti-India (along with a religious angle to it), India had to have Kashmir as its door. Would US allow Texas to go with Cuba? Did Europe allow Polland to go to Russia?
Talking about self-determination, there are always limits within which it is allowed. Does a parent allow his/her child to play with a real gun, no matter how bad he wants it? Do you allow a depressed relative to jump of a 10 storey building, no matter how bad her problems? The answer is no. The answers have to be found within a boundary. And for Kashmir, India is the boundary. They have to find solution within India.

The problem with economic development of Kashmir by India, is that the Kashmiri politicians (likes of Sheikh Abdullah and others, authentic kashmiris) have framed laws which do not allow industrialists to buy land in kashmir, cannot take profits out of kashmir, cannot hire any outsider in kashmir, and so on. How do u run an Infosys or TCS or Reliance from Kashmir, without bringing in your managers and top level technical executives, who would know the ins and outs of the business? Agreed, let the kashmiris start in such industries, gain experience and then control these companies. Nobody would start business in Kashmir till they are allowed to run it as a business.

i dont know who you are...but i cant believe the way you have arrived at the conclusion by citing the such incidents, that indian army is doing whatever u think they are!!on the basis of actions of couple of soliders, how can you ever think of calling the indian army an invading force???

i have stayed in srinagar and areas ahead of srinagar for 4 years when i was a child, when my dad who was in the army was posted near the border...and you say that you just have to stay there to get the real feeling???

utter rubbish,, is all that i can say!!!!

anyways...
carry on writing it would be interesting to see whether you opinions change in due course of time or not!!

How about the authoer of the post getting a middle finger?

[Edited - Warning - IP Addresses are very informative]

Damn. This is such a simple solution. Maybe the UN/US whoever should go to kashmir, stay there for a whole 2/3 days. Even rent a houseboat and experiance the local life. Then they will be able to see the entire situation with clarity and provide a solution.

Thank you for solving the kashmir conundrum in a couple of days. I will start a petition to make the India government remove its army for its own sovereign soil because a Srilankan deduced the pulse of the kashmiris after diligent research lasting 2 days.

are u sure you had landed in the places mentioned in the article are in India or by chance u had done the same in Sri Lanka? I mean given the nature of climate in J&K what are the odds of there being a lush expanse of paddy fields?

Urine is a good fertiliser, those Jawans had only recycling in mind, see the glass is half full.

Jawans are underpaid and one of the things which make them place their lives in the line of fire is the raw rage which is cultivated in the bootcamps. Its not a justification its a fact.

You want to blame someone, blame it on the unseen faces which pull the ropes tethered to these Jawans.

most of muslims are militents, the are against hindu of kashmire (pandits) , human vilotions are only with army , not other muslims of kashmire the 100% human viliont

Please note that the above post is not mine (I regularly post as 'Sanjay' with a capital 'S')

Understood - the incoherent nature of the comment made it clear it was another person

Morquendi: What surprises me most is that you haven't yet been "accused" of being a Muslim. I espoused a similar viewpoint elsewhere, and was asked - horror-of-horrors - if I was an Indian Muslim to actually have the gall to propose an alternate viewpoint to the mainstream. Sigh...

Morquendi writes

http://morquendi.blogspot.com/2006/08/back-silently.html

While Israel bombs the shit out of Lebanon and riverbend asks why?, morquendi is back. And because I've been gone for quite some time, no one's actually going to read this.

But heck, this is world wide web. So some freak might actually misspell something on Google and end up here and read this. Just in case that's you. Well, morquendi's back.

Not like it matters, but I'd like you to know I'm back.

To do what?
I don't know. I'm just back.

For how long?
I don't know. But it's good to be back.

Do I have any photographs?
No.

Am I nuts?
Probably.

Yeah, your last paragraph says it all, Morquendi.
I'd read your crap years ago, just like D'Souza's.

Just another deluded little punk trying to melo-dramatize his self-imposed alienation.

Don't worry man, your view is never going to prevail, so you'll always be able to rage against the machine.

Intrepid, why be surprised when it's merely what you were hoping for? In case you haven't noticed, there's an international consensus that doesn't match your "alternate viewpoint."

I am sorry that you are a rice eater and didn't know this .. plenty of people in rural areas use fields for 'sanitation purposes'. There's a reason it's called urine... it's the presence of urea, the primary component in any fertilizer. Think about that the next time you gobble down your chow.

The STD thing: it wasn't right what the jawans did and they knew it. No wonder they walked away when the Officer showed up.. which then proves that the command and control is intact.

You cannot judge my country's actions in Kashmir as an occupation based on your 2 silly examples. If you give power in the hands of anyone (even you).. sooner or later they'll misuse it. Read about the prisoner-guard psychological experiments carried out in the 1970's in the US. Doesn't have to an 'occupation'. The person abusing the power could've as well have been a local policeman. The key thing to remember is that a higher Officer restored the law.. which is the way it's supposed to work in a professional army when a lower ranking soldier(s) get out of line.

Indian Army is a terrorist organization,
do you know how many women they have raped in Kashmir.

Three days back itself, villagers caught them red handed and paraded naked.