[Reader-list] Kashmir - the elephant in the room

[Wali Arifi]

Its widely written that the Indian military presence in its controlled part
of Kashmir is between 500,000 to 700,000 soldiers.

Time magazine in one of its September 2008 issue writes:

"What does it say about India that people are losing faith, or losing
interest, in Kashmir? It is a sign of frustration, first of all, with
India's political failure to live up to that promise of unity in diversity.
Over the years, the Indian government has poured millions of dollars of aid
into Kashmir and spent millions more putting down the separatist insurgency.
But it fails to understand that peace isn't just the absence of fighting.
It's in the political details: withdrawing the half-million Indian troops
who still occupy Kashmir, developing the local economy and, most
importantly, accounting for what human-rights groups say are widespread
abuses committed against Kashmiri civilians by the military. "

For the full piece the link is:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1838586,00.html

International Herald Tribune (IHT), July 25, 2007

"India has an estimated 700,000 soldiers in Kashmir, fighting nearly a dozen
rebel groups since 1989. In many areas, the region has the feel of an
occupied country, with soldiers in full combat gear patrolling streets and
frisking civilians."

The link is:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/25/asia/AS-GEN-Kashmir-Sexual-Assault.php

Washington Post (dated Feb 6, 2007) also talks about the number of soldiers
in the region. The link for the story is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020600857.html


Best,

Wali




On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Jamie Dow <J.Dow at leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>  Interesting piece. One snippet intrigued me:
> "few outside the region are even aware that India still has half a
> million troops in Kashmir, making it one of the most heavily militarised
> corners of the planet."
>
> Is this true? 500,000 troops in Kashmir, just on the Indian side?
> If so, it's a huge financial drain for India (and presumably also for
> Pakistan).
> Can anyone provide any confirmation (or otherwise) of this assertion?
>
> Jamie
> ____________________________________________
> Jamie Dow Research Fellow IDEA CETL Tel: +44 113 343 7887 Email:
> J.Dow at leeds.ac.uk Web:
> http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/JD/index.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net
> [mailto:reader-list-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of Wali Arifi
> Sent: 23 January 2009 09:03
> To: Sarai
> Subject: [Reader-list] Kashmir - the elephant in the room
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5566533.ece
>
>  January 22, 2009
>  World Agenda: Kashmir - the elephant in the room In our latest daily
> column, the Times' Delhi bureau chief says India must not ignore Kashmir
> when searching for explanations for extremism  Jeremy Page
>
> Arrogant, ham-handed, startling, impertinent - these are the sort of
> words used here, with reason, to describe David Miliband's comments on
> the Mumbai attacks last week.
>
> There is another word, though, that applies equally well: correct.
>
> Of course it was impolitic to contradict Manmohan Singh, the Prime
> Minister, by saying that Britain does not believe the Pakistani state
> directed the Mumbai attacks.
>
> As for suggesting that the root cause of such attacks is Kashmir, surely
> the FCO recalls India's outrage in 1997 when Robin Cook suggested
> mediating on that issue?
>
> For the current Foreign Secretary of the former colonial ruler to make
> both these points publicly, while on Indian soil, was either
> deliberately provocative or incredibly naive.
>
> Mr Miliband also managed to cause offence with his tone and body
> language - a schoolboy error in dealing with a notoriously sensitive
> partner.
>
> The fact remains, however: he was spot on.
>
> Indian officials admit in private that there is no evidence yet of a
> direct link between Mumbai and the Pakistani state, even if they are
> sure that it played a role.
>
> More significantly, most regional experts agree with Mr Miliband that
> "resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in
> the region one of their main calls to arms".
>
> For too long, Kashmir has been the "elephant in the room" in the
> international discourse on security in South Asia - and a stain on the
> copybook of the world's largest democracy.
>
> In 1948-9, the United Nations passed resolutions calling for a
> plebiscite in Kashmir on whether it should join India or Pakistan.
>
> Ever since, India has refused to comply and blocked international
> efforts to resolve the issue, over which it has fought two of its three
> wars with Pakistan.
>
> Now that both have nuclear weapons, Kashmir is a legitimate concern for
> the whole world, yet foreigners who bring it up are invariably shouted
> down.
>
> India's media rarely challenges government policy there, while the
> foreign media has been understandably focused on Pakistan and
> Afghanistan since 9/11.
>
> As a result, few outside the region are even aware that India still has
> half a million troops in Kashmir, making it one of the most heavily
> militarised corners of the planet.
>
> Or that by official estimates, more than 47,000 people have been killed
> there since an uprising against Indian rule began in 1989 (rights groups
> put the toll nearer 70,000).
>
> Or that that Kashmir's four million Muslims routinely suffer arbitrary
> arrest, torture and extra-judicial execution by security forces,
> according to most rights groups.
>
> Last year alone, at least 42 people were killed by security forces in
> protests against Indian rule. By comparison, 22 people were killed in
> the anti-China riots in Tibet in 2008.
>
> Kashmir's problems do not justify the Mumbai attacks.
>
> But in trying to prevent more attacks in India and elsewhere, it is
> ludicrous to continue to ignore Indian policy in the region. The fact is
> that Kashmir is the primary motivation for most terrorists in India and
> Pakistan. It is also why Pakistan's spies maintain links with such
> people.
>
> The real reason India is so upset is that Mr Miliband's words reflect
> the thinking of President Obama, who plans to appoint a special envoy on
> South Asia.
>
> The idea is for this envoy to take a more holistic approach to the
> region, including Kashmir, to address the concerns of all the major
> stakeholders.
>
> It is a good idea and Mr Obama and his allies should continue to promote
> it, however loudly India complains.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>