Wednesday, July 21, 2010

“Stone in my hand” -- Kashmiri Youth Defend Their Land from Indian Army



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIpM6_vq13k

via Aletho News
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/stone-in-my-hand/

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I do not have much idea about the Kashmir issue and would appreciate if you can enlighten me.

As far as my limited reading goes, I gather

1) Kashmir issue seems to be a territorial dispute between India, Pakistan, China - approximately 45% of the original Kashmir is under Indian administration, 38% under Pakistan and 17% under China.

2) Kashmir is also a sort of secessionist issue for culturally diverse India just like Punjab (Khalistan), Assam and other NE states, and increasinyl Tamil states. Its just the same issue like like Balochistan of Pakistan, Xianjiang of China, Balochistan-Sistan of Iran etc.

3) Religion has been used by Pakistan to incite militancy and increase orthodoxy in Kashmiri Muslims and drive out the Kashimiri Pandits (largest internally displaced group according to UNICEF?) from their ancestoral lands.

4) Any possibility of an independent state not under Indian or Pakistani control is not really practical given the long-standing tug-of-war and its land-locked geopgraphy. It will either be completely under Indian sovereignity, or Pakistani sovereignity or just make maintain curent picture by accepting the current LoC as international borders.

5) Kashmir issue is not similar to the Israel-Palestine issue coz it is more like cousins fighting over division of ancestral properties while I-P is more of direct colonization of Palestine and displacement and dispossession of Palestinians.

Pls tell me if my conclusions from reading various articles, books, websites is accurate or have I been msitaken.

Many thanks in advance,
SRS

LJansen said...

Thanks, SRS, for raising this issue. As to your Point 3, I guess it feels like an occupation to the youths throwing the stones, no matter if it is their cousins who are their enemies. I haven't read much on this, but have heard Arundhati Roy refer to the situation as an Indian occupation. Here is part of what Wikipedia (I know, low blow) says: Year 1947 and 1948
Further information: Kashmir conflict, Timeline of the Kashmir conflict, and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The prevailing religions by district in the 1901 Census of the Indian Empire.

Ranbir Singh's grandson Hari Singh, who had ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925, was the reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent and the subsequent partition of the British Indian Empire into the newly independent Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent. Kashmir's population was overall 77 per cent Muslim but with internal areas of non-Muslim majority. It shared a boundary with both India and Pakistan. Pakistan anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla infiltration of Pashtun tribals meant to frighten its ruler into submission.[29] Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[30] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India."[31] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. ...

In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices; however, since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never conducted, relations between India and Pakistan soured,[31] and eventually led to two more wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999. India has control of about half the area of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir; Pakistan controls a third of the region, the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab (in Pakistan) could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region. Pakistan was left with territory that, although basically Muslim in character, was thinly populated, relatively inaccessible, and economically underdeveloped. ...

The UN Security Council on 20 January 1948 passed Resolution 39, establishing a special commission to investigate the conflict. Subsequent to the commission's recommendation, the Security Council ordered in its Resolution 47, passed on 21 April 1948, that the invading Pakistani army retreat from Jammu & Kashmir and that the accession of Kashmir to either India or Pakistan be determined in accordance with a plebiscite to be supervised by the UN. With Pakistan not forgoing its occupation from what it later termed as Azad Kashmir, none of the resolutions of UNSC could come to force.

Link to whole wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir

LJansen said...

Thanks, SRS, for raising this issue. As to your Point 3, I guess it feels like an occupation to the youths throwing the stones, no matter if it is their cousins who are their enemies. I haven't read much on this, but have heard Arundhati Roy refer to the situation as an Indian occupation. Here is part of what Wikipedia (I know, low blow) says: Year 1947 and 1948
Further information: Kashmir conflict, Timeline of the Kashmir conflict, and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The prevailing religions by district in the 1901 Census of the Indian Empire.

Ranbir Singh's grandson Hari Singh, who had ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925, was the reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent and the subsequent partition of the British Indian Empire into the newly independent Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent. Kashmir's population was overall 77 per cent Muslim but with internal areas of non-Muslim majority. It shared a boundary with both India and Pakistan. Pakistan anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla infiltration of Pashtun tribals meant to frighten its ruler into submission.[29] Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[30] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India."[31] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars."[31]

In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices; however, since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never conducted, relations between India and Pakistan soured,[31] and eventually led to two more wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999. India has control of about half the area of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir; Pakistan controls a third of the region, the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab (in Pakistan) could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region. Pakistan was left with territory that, although basically Muslim in character, was thinly populated, relatively inaccessible, and economically underdeveloped. The largest Muslim group, situated in the Valey of Kashmir and estimated to number more than half the population of the entire region, lay in Indian-administered territory, with its former outlets via the Jhelum valley route blocked."[32]
The Karakash River (Black Jade River) which flows north from its source near the town of Sumde in Aksai Chin, to cross the Kunlun Mountains.
Topographic map of Kasmir.


Link to whole wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir

LJansen said...

Thanks, SRS, for raising this issue. As to your Point 3, I guess it feels like an occupation to the youths throwing the stones, no matter if it is their cousins who are their enemies. I haven't read much on this, but have heard Arundhati Roy refer to the situation as an Indian occupation. Here is part of what Wikipedia (I know, low blow) says: Year 1947 and 1948
Further information: Kashmir conflict, Timeline of the Kashmir conflict, and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The prevailing religions by district in the 1901 Census of the Indian Empire.

Ranbir Singh's grandson Hari Singh, who had ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925, was the reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent and the subsequent partition of the British Indian Empire into the newly independent Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent. Kashmir's population was overall 77 per cent Muslim but with internal areas of non-Muslim majority. It shared a boundary with both India and Pakistan. Pakistan anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla infiltration of Pashtun tribals meant to frighten its ruler into submission.[29] Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[30] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India."[31] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars."[31]

...

The UN Security Council on 20 January 1948 passed Resolution 39, establishing a special commission to investigate the conflict. Subsequent to the commission's recommendation, the Security Council ordered in its Resolution 47, passed on 21 April 1948, that the invading Pakistani army retreat from Jammu & Kashmir and that the accession of Kashmir to either India or Pakistan be determined in accordance with a plebiscite to be supervised by the UN. With Pakistan not forgoing its occupation from what it later termed as Azad Kashmir, none of the resolutions of UNSC could come to force.

LJansen said...

Thanks, SRS, for raising this issue. As to your Point 3, I guess it feels like an occupation to the youths throwing the stones, no matter if it is their cousins who are their enemies. I haven't read much on this, but have heard Arundhati Roy refer to the situation as an Indian occupation. Here is part of what Wikipedia (I know, low blow) says:

Year 1947 and 1948

Ranbir Singh's grandson Hari Singh, who had ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925, was the reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent and the subsequent partition of the British Indian Empire into the newly independent Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent. Kashmir's population was overall 77 per cent Muslim but with internal areas of non-Muslim majority. It shared a boundary with both India and Pakistan. Pakistan anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla infiltration of Pashtun tribals meant to frighten its ruler into submission.[29] Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[30] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India."[31] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars."[31]

In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices; however, since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never conducted, relations between India and Pakistan soured,[31] and eventually led to two more wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999. India has control of about half the area of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir; Pakistan controls a third of the region, the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Although there was a clear Muslim majority in Kashmir before the 1947 partition and its economic, cultural, and geographic contiguity with the Muslim-majority area of the Punjab (in Pakistan) could be convincingly demonstrated, the political developments during and after the partition resulted in a division of the region. Pakistan was left with territory that, although basically Muslim in character, was thinly populated, relatively inaccessible, and economically underdeveloped. The largest Muslim group, situated in the Valey of Kashmir and estimated to number more than half the population of the entire region, lay in Indian-administered territory, with its former outlets via the Jhelum valley route blocked."[32]

LJansen said...

Thanks, SRS, for your comment. I have not read much on this. I have heard Arundhati Roy refer to the occupation of Kashmir by India. It apparently does feel like an occupation to the youth throwing stones at the Indian Army, even tho they are cousins. Anyway, here is part of what wikipedia (I apologize in advance) has to say about the situation in 1947-48:

Ranbir Singh's grandson Hari Singh, who had ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925, was the reigning monarch in 1947 at the conclusion of British rule of the subcontinent and the subsequent partition of the British Indian Empire into the newly independent Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent. Kashmir's population was overall 77 per cent Muslim but with internal areas of non-Muslim majority. It shared a boundary with both India and Pakistan. Pakistan anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan, when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla infiltration of Pashtun tribals meant to frighten its ruler into submission.[29] Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[30] for assistance, and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India."[31] Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars."[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir

LJansen said...

Hi, SRS, thanks for your comment.

Arundhati Roy has referred to the occupation of Kashmir by India, which is about all I know, except that the youth throwing stones there feel like they are occupied, obviously, even though it is by their cousins.

I read the wikipedia on this just now. 1947-48 seems to have been the crucial year for both Kashmir and Palestine. The majority Muslim population in Kashmir was not given self-determination, it seems, and neither were Palestinians, though under different circumstances for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir

Anonymous said...

Hi LJansen,

Thanks for your response.

I have read Wikipedia about Kashmir and Arundhati Roy and take the liberty of suggesting two books I recently read

1) Arif Jamal’s Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir
2) Ahmed Rashid's Decsent into Chaos

The second is more about Afghanistan than Kashmir while the first is solely about Kasmir. Ofcourse, one must always take everything with a pinch of salt coz books are extansions and elaborations of writer's opinions and research with some bias creeping in.

Various sources have suggested and affirmed Paksitan's incitement (esp post Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan) when they diverted the militants from Saudi-funded madrassas to Kashmir).

I merely stated that Kashmir issue is similar to Israel-Palestine issue. It is not really occupation but territorial dispute between two siblings. Ofcourse the really victims are the Kashmiri Muslims (who are being used by Pakistan and oppressed by constant Indian military presence) and Kashmiri Pandits (who have been thrown out of their homeland).

I only wish that seperationists in Kashmir would realize the futility of dremaing of an independent Kashmir and India and Pakistan would accept current LoC as inertnational borders. Both countries can use the money theu save from resolving this issue to improve their education, healthcare and infrastructure and ofcourse everyone (most of all Kashmiris - Hindus and Muslims and buddhists - will get much deserved and dreamt of peace and stability).

Or is there any better solution to this deadlock?

Regards,
SRS

Anonymous said...

Sorry a correction -

"I merely stated that Kashmir issue is NOT similar to Israel-Palestine issue."

SRS

LJansen said...

Thanks, SRS. My apologies for my comments running amok. Blogger kept rejecting and I kept putting it back.

Anyway, your wish for the situation to be resolved peacefully seems sensible to me. But then self-determination is tricky viewed by someone who is not the "self" referred to.

Thanks again for your reading suggestions and your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

But then self-determination is tricky viewed by someone who is not the "self" referred to. - very true

But sometimes people who are so close to the problem do not realize the obvious solution to the problem. This is not so much a occupation problem (like I-P) as much as territorial-cum-seperationist issue/dispute

- Self determination here may not be the key now esp coz Kashimiris who are staying in Kashmir now are not the only descendents and people who have been thrown out and are displaced should also have a say.

- Getting this done would be a titanic logistical problem apart from true intentions of the parties involved and possibilities of rigging and fraud.

- Pakistan has already seperated Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan of original Kashmir) from rest of Pakistan-administered Kashmir and declared them Pakistanis.

- Esp note Section/Article 370 (not sure if I got it right?) of India grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir ie Indians are not allowed to reside, own or move into J&K wheread there is no such equivalent law or restriction in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. So, Indian-administered Kashmir has not been 'occupied' or re-settled (while Kashmiri Hindus have been displaced and dispossessed) while Pakistanis can freely move into, reside, own property in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

So, all in all, its too late for self-determination.

It was nice exchanging ideas and opinions with you - thanks for your responses. I follow your blog regularly and will continue to do so.

SRS