The Story So Far

The masses are on the streets. Nothing but purna swaraj would suffice.

The British are concerned, they make their moves quickly. They assure the Indians that they are an integral part of the empire, citizens of the crown. This is an internal disagreement and must be resolved internally, they say. India is an integral part of the British Empire.

The Indian leaders would have nothing of it. They point out that Indians must have a say in matters concerning their land. They argue that they are the only ones who have right to their lands and thus the only ones who should have a say in their future. According to them, the key is for the British to accept the status of the Indian state as disputed. The British reject this.

Frustration spills over despite calls for non-violence as some take up arms. Some see this as the only way to achieve independence.

The British persist. They brand the armed freedom struggle as terrorism. This is what the Indian leaders had feared; they call for calm.

Meanwhile the Royal British Army moves in. Numerous Civil and Human rights violations take place. Hundreds of innocent killed, political activists jailed. Human Rights watchdogs cry foul, no one notices.

The Indians want their freedom, their land, their right. They want their voices to be heard, self governance, complete independence. Only the people of India have a right to decide its future.

The British deny the claim, for them India is part of the Empire. They label this as an internal disagreement and refuse to recognize the territory as disputed. They are happy to concede mere participation in governance for the Indians as a token of their generosity but would have nothing about Independence.

The disagreement/dispute persists....

The story so far which we all know, here is what we don’t

The masses are on the streets. Nothing but purna swaraj would suffice.

The Indians are concerned, they make their moves quickly. They assure the Kashmiris that they are an integral part of the country, citizens of the land. This is an internal disagreement and must be resolved internally, they say. Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian Nation.

The Kashmiri leaders would have nothing of it. They point out that Kashmiris must have a say in matters concerning their land. They argue that they are the only ones who have right to their lands and thus the only ones who should have a say in their future. According to them, the key is for the Indians to accept the status of the Kashmiri state as disputed. The Indians reject this.

Frustration spills over despite calls for non-violence as some take up arms. Some see this as the only way to achieve independence.

The Indians persist. They brand the armed freedom struggle as terrorism. This is what the Kashmiri leaders had feared; they call for calm.

Meanwhile the Indian Army moves in. Numerous Civil and Human rights violations take place. Hundreds of innocent killed, political activists jailed. Human Rights watchdogs cry foul, no one notices.

The Kashmiris want their freedom, their land, their right. They want their voices to be heard, self governance, complete independence. Only the people of Kashmir have a right to decide its future.

The Indians deny the claim, for them Kashmir is part of the nation. They label this as an internal disagreement and refuse to recognize the territory as disputed. They are happy to concede mere participation in governance for the Kashmiris as a token of their generosity but would have nothing about Independence.

The disagreement/dispute persists....

You write really well. I

You write really well.

I agree there is a lot of human rights violations taking place in Kashmir but I don't agree with you on your viewpoints. You have drawn parallels between what the British did in India and what indians did for Kashmir and they are not two peas in the same pod. India was imperialised by the British...Kashmir was always a part of India. Kashmir did want Indian support in whatever small way and you do not always let a rebellious child have its own way...you need to think of the needs and protection of the entire family. Which is what India did and continues to do.

Also, about the Army moving in and a lot of violations taking place...I have to disagree. There are two sides to a coin and one side has been sadly overshadowed miserably in today's media. I think you are reading only mainstream media and don't know your facts very well. Even today the Army carries out Ops like Sadbhavna and builds villages and town infrastructure not only in Kashmir but also in the north east. They try as far as possible to respect the people and their privacy. You need to spend a month (minimum) at least in Kashmir to really know. It is very hard to tell apart an insurgent or a terrorist from an ordinary citizen. They all wear Burkha and inside them have coal pots to keep them warm. Any of them could be hiding a weapon and nobody will know. Fear is rampant. Yet the Army does not go around asking people to randomly take off their clothes to check. Small example but these things matter. Terrorists occupy homes of innocents there under the threat of killing and live and plot their next bombing. The Army does its duty of protecting its land...a part of India's family which is very integral to the protection of the entire nation.

Prude, "Kashmir was always a

Prude,

"Kashmir was always a part of India".
India was not born until 1947. Kashmir has always been disputed since then, I hope you can shed some more light on the statement.

A rebellious child can have his/her will once he/she is over 18. Why not Kashmir?
What if the rebellious child never considers him/her a part of the family? Could you then keep him/her under house arrest against his/her wishes?

No one is blaming the army. When you have forced occupation in any land, there are bound to be skirmishes and violations. They are inevitable. But lets keep the army out of this, they do what they are told to do. Why do we need the army in Kashmir in the first place?

The problem is political and can never be solved by Force. India should have learnt that over the last 62 years. We promised a plebiscite in the UN in 1947, its time to get that done. And yes, the displaced Kashmiris (most of them Kashmiri pandits) mut vote as well.

What mainstream media, I thought all Indian mainstream media were pro-India, "Kashmir being a integral part of India and all". I fail to find a single mainstream publication which advocates independence for Kashmir.

Would love to hear Bantu's and Varun's views on this one..

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.