Kashmir violence escalating, getting really bad.

[Summy]

Dont know how many people have turned into the news recently, but the violence in Kashmir is getting bad again. Just yesterday about 10 people were killed, about 70 people injuried and of those, a couple dozen seriously injuried.

For people that are not fimilar with Kashmir, it is a land that is Northern part of India, which is divided between pakistan and India. Both hold in part the state, however, both claim it fully. The state has led to 2 wars between the two countries.

This argument now stems from the Kashmir government alocating 40 hectares of land in the muslim dominated Kashmir to a hindu pilgrime trust. People might think why is this a big deal, since there are alot of hindus in Kashmir, and many hindu/ sikh religious centres in pakistan. These people have been through decades of political violence that has used religion as their main defense for all the atrocities. These people are EXTREMELY divided.

After the land was transferred, there was about a week of violence from Muslims that led to about 8 people dead. The Kashmir government then recinded on their offer, which caused riots in the indian dominated, hindu majority of Jammu. To get to Kashmir, you have to go through a valley type thing that Indians have control over. People have begun to block that valley which is hitting the muslim traders of Kashmir really bad. They cant get their products out.


India and Pakistan have made extreme strides in peace relations. Political experts have called this conflict partly responsible on both sides. With Pakistan in political disarray, militants have been taking over much of the negotiations between the neighbouring states. Musharraf did not allow for militants to set up base or have very much influence since 2004 in Kashmir, something that led to the decrease of violence. However, with the increase of militants, India has sent more troops there. There are talks of Indian troops and human rights abuses, by mistreating the muslim locals there. Pakistan demands India to reduce trrop levels, which India wont do until the reduce in militants is seen. Pakistan cant control the militants and claims ignorance to the situation. And they continue to go back and forth.


For something so stupid as a land transfer to causing increased violence in an area that has been peaceful for about half a decade, in dumb. When you ingrained though like these people are to think worst about each other, then I can see why its like walking on eggshells.

Hopefully the political situation in Pakistan gets cleared up, and they can pick up where they left off to increased peace talks.

 

[Roop]

who are these militant groups? how are they run? anyone know?

 

[Summy]

Thats a complicated question, because there are so many facets to that question. Firstly, I dont want people to think that it is purely on the militants of this reason. The Indian government have also had their fair share of dumb moves.

Pakistan has improved their take on that region and with the added support of the US and UK, has banned many groups. However, they change their name and simply keep on existing with no change in their style. AS recently as a couple of years ago, the US has said, Al-Qaeda has now taken place in Jammu / Kashmir to deal with the problem there. All the militant groups there are supposedly working together, under something that is called the United Jihad Council, which is a command post for the groups in Pakistan.

One thing that needs to be made ABUNDANTLY clear is that the Government of Pakistan (on the surface mind you) supports none of these groups. They suppsedly do not give them money, or support them in anyway, however, many people would argue other wise including many neutral watch dog groups.

Anyways, the two largest groups functioning there are Harkut Mujahideen group and Al Msurin/Nasirin. They have ties to the soviet afghan war and have shifted their focus to Jammu Kashmir. India claims there are over 100 militant grousp operating from Kashmir to Pakistan.

When the US's watch group came into Jammu Kashmir a little over a decade ago, they saw support for both sides. They gave acknowledgment to the fact that human rights absuses from the government of punjab and kashmir are alarming and they are on the rise, directed towards muslims. The gorup also found that there is clear evidence that the Pakistani government are funding these militants, and supporting their causes and have even sent them through military training. The UK intelligence services also showed a huge link between the Pakistani government and the militants operating there.


In 2004, after some trading agreements made, Pakistan and India started to gain better relations. They both decreased troop levels, and Pakistan seemed determined to stop the militant groups from operating and compromising some the economic and finicial benefits that Pakistan would recieve from the new agreements.

However, with the political situation now array in Pakistan, those people previously determined to keep the militants under wraps, are now powerless. So, it is no-coincidence that the surge in violence is happening with a pakistani government that is less than full right now.

 

[pluthra]

in 2004 isnt that when they began their official peace talks...but nothin has really happened

also i have a question......ok i remember watchin a movie once....and there was a guy in it who fought in a terrorist group and he was muslim....well there was this scene in it where he realized that it was time for prayer...so he rest his gun down in front of him and began to pray....the guy in the movie asked him how could u just begin prayin in god with a gun in front of u.....
i really dont understand the concept of terrorist groups based on religion b/c theyre fightin for their people and they say they fight in the name of god....well i remember goin to a seminar on islam and the spokesperson was tellin this story about a soldier..ok i dont kno all the details but the soldier had his enemy to the ground yet let him go....whereas his enemy had attacked him....well he said later that he wouldn't kill the man out of his own anger (b/c at that point when his enemy was down he did want to kill him...but it was acting out of his own anger not for the real reason he was fightin).......so are these terrorists really fightin for something they believe in or an anger that they have (and decide to be the spokesperson for their community and say they too have that anger)
-also....ok this is just my opinion...but i feel like islam is the most tolerant religion based on its ideas....it says that islam is seen as the last brick in the house (so basically there were a bunch of religions before islam yet islam acts as the last brick to complete the house that has god thought of).....well why don't people understand this concept.....shouldnt this concept of tolerance be more focused on than other concepts and avoid many events like the violence in kashmir

also-what about sikhism what is islams view on that b/c sikhism came after islam so sikhism isnt a part of the god's house??

 

[Roop]

well parul
i asked an educated muslim man the same question, about what islam's view of sikhism would be. He said, that it is written so in the Quran that the prophet mohammed would be the last prophet to enlighten you on the word of God...or something of the like.
he couldnt speak on muslims as a group, on their interpretations of the Quran...
but if you think about it, the general concepts, and universal ideals behind sikhism and islam are for the most part, one. If you put aside the literal meaning behind the words of religious documents, you cant get the at heart message.
i know i tend to be mistrustful of religious texts. but I'm not anti-religion, of course.
the only problem with religions seems to be corruption. and its not just happening from not following the texts.
hope that helps

i think i should read up on the background info on jammu/kashmir. and i really hope this clears up, this has been listed as a problem for as long as i can remember.

 

[Pooja]

I was actually in Jammu/Samba while this was going on and the "Jammu Bandh" curfew had been in place for about a week...

Literally the day after I left, Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba were coming to Jammu, and there were MASSIVE riots at the airport becauase they didn't want to let them into Jammu, and they closed the airports.

It was really really bad, all businesses were closed, they stopped all trucks going on the national highway (there was literally like a mile long line of trucks just standing there with cargo...), trucks were on fire, broken glass everywhere, and the Amarnath Yatra members set up tents all over the place. Getting supplies was a hassle...you had to go at like 7am, stores pretty much closed then at 10am...

Personally, I don't think it was right of them at all to rescind the land...it just stirred up more anger within Hindus. But, the members want Governor N.N. Vohra to resign, which will never happen, so they will eventually have to give in, and considering that, these riots are severely disrupting Jammu's economy with all of the businesses closed and people who can't work...and the man who committed suicide, and then another man tried to commit suicide in Samba with poison....

Not really sure where this whole situation is going to go, I think in terms of curfew it's getting a little better, but both sides are still being stubborn...

what I don't quite understand is WHY the land was taken back? People say Environmentalists...people say Muslims didn't think it was fair for Hindus to have that designated land...etc. etc.

 

[Summy]

Not that I want to perpetuate the discussion about religion, because I think religion has absolutely nothing to do with this but I have to chime in. I have read every major text of Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Islam, and bit of the Torah from the most reliable sources as well in english. Because I think religion is a significant piece to history, I thought it was important to get to know the religions of my land.

When I picked up the Koran, it was a different experience. When I first began to read it, as a devout sikh, I didnt agree with many of the concepts because it contradicted alot of what i have been taught. When you talk about pergatory, heaven and hell, the body etc... Its hard for a sikh who has been taught there is no heaven and hell, and the atma is the ever lasting transcending power, no body, to agree with the Koran. But when I didnt keep in mind my sikhi education and just accepted it for what it is, I began to appreciate it. Other than a few mehls, and the concept of god, the similarities between Islam and Sikhi are different it their foundational aspects. Like I mentioned, karma, atma, what guru called the truths of reincarnation... The religion I thought made the best sense was Buddhism. I read the english condensed version of the Pali Cannon and a bunch of other text and seems like the four noble truths is alot of what is the basic nature of dharma including sikhism... ie- suffering in Buddhism: the body is suffering. Aging is suffering. BIRTH is suffering. pain, assoicated with the materialistic world, these are issues that Guru Jee all stated in Sikhi.

Islam does not support violence but it has been misconstrued so the basic population can justify violence. The word JIHAD which means struggle is commonly placed in islamic text, the struggle of Allah etc... The jihad was insisted upon muslims to improve society. I think some extreme muslism that dont udnerstand the koran think that this is a justification for violence. ALL violence in islam must be a jihad as it is the only acceptable form of violence according to the Koran.

-----

Re: jammu kashmir....... The problem I think that lies there is the fact that Jammu is a indian controlled area that is not very accepting to islamic religion and masjid`s etc... So when a hindu temple is placed in Kashmir, a muslim dominated land, the muslims have a problem with that. There is no give and take.

The violence has been there since 47`. Kids are taught that each other`s sides are evil. SO if the government understands this and I understand their claim of trying to promote religious tolerance by allowing a temple there, then why not start in the classroom... Any idiot could have told them that this was going to cause tensions..

I think that should the land have been given in the first place.. No, not unless it was NOT going to cause any problems. You start education kids that the other side are as good as us, stop the religiously separated schools, stop all that bulllshit and maybe people would have been more gracious to experiencing religious tolerance that the Kashmiri government thought would just fall from the heavens.

 

[Pooja]

I'm not sure I agree that the govt. in Jammu is not accepting of Islam and Masjid's etc...because there has been a recent growing trend there, as told to me by my family who resides there, that more and more areas are becoming heavily populated with Muslims, and more Masjid's are being built as well...Jammu is predominantly Hindu right now...but may not be in the future.

And I disagree that the land should not have been given....yes it did cause problems and they must have anticipated some (maybe not to the extent) but why should the Indian govt. not give that right to the citizens who live there? Maybe this is just a problem in an area like Kashmir, but no one will stop you in the U.S. if you want to build a church or a hospital funded by a church or a fundraising society funded by a church...etc. In the middle east, no one is going to stop their people from building religious based societies/groups on their land...

I agree that the govt perpetuates the division, but to my understanding this land was dedicated to the members who participate in the pilgrimage to to the Shivji temple...

In Delhi, there is an entire terminal dedicated to those participating in the Hajj Pilgrimage....which is great, it's more economical and efficient for the airport. It's not creating a division...it's just supporting a significant amount of India's population, which happens to be Muslim.

I'm not saying I am blind to the harsh realities that these things cause severe conflicts....but in theory I can't say that it shouldn't have been done.

 

[Shahzaib Khan]

as a muslim i must say there r many similarities between the sikhs and the muslims. for one the famous poet Bulleh Shah had many famous sayings which r today used by both the muslim and sikh's

 

[Summy]

Pooja, there some things we need to talk about my dear. I understand you alligences to Jammu and those are great, but we need to talk...

First off, you said that Jammu is predominantly hindu and may not be in the future? According to nearly every statistical search I did, that confirmed my own notions, Hinduism is practiced by about 70-75% of the people in Jammu. Islam ranges from 20-24%. So, I guess empirical knowledge doesnt always bring you the full story. There cannot be a mis-information campaign here if the knowledge is nessecary to our people. As long as Jammu has high indian influence, it will remain WIDLY in favour of hindus.

Hey Pooja, try to build a masjid in Kanasas with the local tax payers money. You want to bring a hindu mandir to Kashmir, where they do exist, but the place that is known for religious violence. Not clearing it with local, not going through the avenues of best interest for the people, but just saying: OH GUESS WHAT, THOSE PEOPLE YOU ARE TAUGHT TO HATE SINCE CHILDHOOD... THEY ARE COMING TO YOUR BACKYARD AND YOU CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT... And in the middle east, nobody will stop you from building religious things on their land? Ha. No comment.

If the indian government is to give rights to those who live there, maybe they should start with the people that they have taken some rights away from, the Kashmiri people. HOw would you like it, if the Pakistani government said we are donating some land near the Naina devi mandir to a muslim group of kashmiri's who have been fighting against your people for over half a centuary.

In this conflict, there is no sense of compassion for the other side. IF the land was given and the people were upset, they deserve to be dealing with these problems. If scholars half way across the world could have anticipated it, how come the people in Jammu Kashmir couldnt? Like my friend said, in a hostile envrionment sometimes it is advantageous to have little rile up... Wouldnt be surprised if the propaganda machines are fired up and it looks like Kashmiris are denying religious freedom..

Having said that, Im on nobody's side. Maybe a little bias to Jammu, but thats another story.

The bottom line is that if you want peace in that region it was not smart to set up this plan without consent of the locals, without passing it through the right lines and without a stable pakistani government to back it up. The key terms there is that IF YOU WANT PEACE IN THAT REGION... that might not be the case..

 

[pluthra]

yaa seriosly i dont understand y they wud even think about buildin a religious structure.....ummm wat about trying to make kashmir a financially stable place????? ever noticed how that doesnt happen....
nothing against any religion....but i think we have enough temples in the country....the question that should be asked is whats the significance of building a mandir there?? how is it going to better the region.........why are they focusing on social and religious issues always? it seems like no1 has ever actually tried to help kashmir and by helping i mean financially....like establishing something were kashmir can become independent it can help to promote itself...the only thing they have now is agriculture....well they could have tourism but thats not even possible really.....but notice how they're bein hindered to develop as if if kashmir were allowed to handle its problems able to develop a plan for its region, lay out what goals they wanted to accomplish they mite just break away......im sure if we let them develop and become stronger sure they would want independence but im sure then they could deal w/it in a diplomatic manner to get it.....instead of being violent (but i cant predict the future so my words may just be too optimistic)

 

[Waleed]

Summy summed it up really well and presented both sides of the picture. A lot of fault lies with Pakistan's intelligence wing (ISI) that has turned in to a group that even the government has lost control over. It is probably the most powerful actor in Pakistan's foreign policy and has been bringing disrepute to the Pakistan for years. It was the key supporter of the Kashmiri insurgency in the early 90s and I believe it continues to support the Kashmiri militants as the Pakistani government hopefully tries to convince the world otherwise. Fault also lies in India's stubbornness to conduct a 'referendum' and let the Kashmiri people decide whether they want to accede to Pakistan, India or be an independent state. India portrays itself as a champion of democracy... well then let the Kashmiri people decide their future.

Kashmir is a mess, courtesy of the bickering Pakistani & Indian governments. The biggest losers = Kashmiri population.

 

[Arjun Barua]

The Future of Kashmir?

BBC News Online looks at possible solutions for Kashmir.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/default.stm

 

[pluthra]

Notice how all those solutions are based on land!!!! can india and pakistan stop tryin to be Napoleon and Alexander the great......its land...and the land its not like theres oil there!! its just agriculture and tourism......

the fight should be more realistic not just i want my land its like 2 little kids fighting over a piece of cake....its the same cake, same taste...but one just wants more b/c having more is a stupid way to show you have more power and ohh they'll never care about the other kid who wants the cake (theres no 3rds to go around-meaning they dont care about the people)
-> both countries have alot to be ashamed of

 

[Pooja]

My notion that Jammu may not remain predominantly Hindu was a very very very long term suggestion...obvs not in the near future...but you have to start somewhere...

But in regards to not building a mandir (which I didn't think they were doing...I though it was just a place for those going on the Amarnath Yatra to convene), how does that still create religious tolerance? There are Masjids all over Jammu, and more being built as we speak, but I don't hear about massive protests there? Why can't the Hindus build a space for their religious pilgrimage in the state they live in?

And as for the middle east, I am only referring to Muslim houses of worship, but then it becomes obvious. I see your point about Kansas, but I'm talking in general...the U.S. is more liberal.

Kashmir is still part of Hindustan, and Hindus still live there, and I understand that the area they wanted to build it in may be predominantly Muslim, but how do you create religious tolerance then if you keep insisting that it's one or the other? A Hindu temple can't be built in a Muslim area and a Masjid can't be built in a Hindu area?

And you're right, if the Amarnath Yatra board had their way, there would be severe violence and havoc in that area...which leads me to believe that there never will be peace....this is a lose lose situation...

"HOw would you like it, if the Pakistani government said we are donating some land near the Naina devi mandir to a muslim group of kashmiri's who have been fighting against your people for over half a centuary. "

I didn't really understand that situation...that area is part of India and doesn't border Pakistan...so how would the Pakistani govt. donate the land? I mean I understand what you're getting at, but I'm living in a fantasy world....if the societies, the religions for that matter, never mix, then won't that division always remain?

Or the only way to have peace is to completely separate them? I don't see many solutions...

 

[Roop]

this whole situation is like King Soloman, and the two women claiming one child. India and Pakistan wont come to final terms, even as they see that the situation (or baby, in metaphorical stance) remains unresolved, with sporadic fighting every now and then. Im not saying the fight should start up again, no. But India and Pakistan are not working together on this, and there is peace of mind for the people of this region.

im getting conspiracy theories running through my head, about why no gov't(if not the pakistani, then indian, or other).

 

[Pooja]

Really interesting BBC article...

 

[Arjun Barua]

"Can India rethink Kashmir policy?"

"Despite the lessons from more than 60 years of troubled history, it feels like the past is repeating itself in Indian-administered Kashmir."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7591371.stm

 

[Arjun Barua]

"What freedom means in Kashmir"

By Soutik Biswas
BBC News, Srinagar

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7597715.stm

 

[Varun]

Is it true that since partition there is a special ordinance that does not allow non-Kashmiris to purchase property in Kashmir? Maybe it has changed now but I know there was such a thing when India was first made a republic. I think it was to prevent mass immigration to the place, which would dilute Kashmiri culture. This obviously caused a great financial limitation. If companies, business minded inviduals, and other religious groups would have migrated then, maybe the current Jihad for Islam would not be there.