Kashmir conflict

conflict over the Kashmir region between India, Pakistan and China

The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict over the Kashmir region, primarily between India and Pakistan, with China playing a third-party role. The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947 as both India and Pakistan claimed the entirety of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan recognizing Chinese sovereignty over the Trans-Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin since 1963. It is a dispute over the region that escalated into three wars between India and Pakistan and several other armed skirmishes.

Quotes edit

  • ‘If Indian Army leaves, Kashmir will become Afghanistan’...It is only the Indian Army and the sound footing of the Indian military democracy that has stopped the region of Jammu & Kashmir resembling Taliban occupied Afghanistan.The region is legally and rightfully an integral part of the Republic of India.”...“We should remember that while Kashmir Valley may be probably Muslim (dominated), Jammu is predominantly Hindu and Ladakh predominantly Buddhist. And the fact is, historically persecuted religious minorities of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, women and children have unfortunately suffered in the Valley.”
  • Some kind of settlement in Kashmir is crucial for both India and Pakistan. It's also tearing India apart with horrible atrocities in the region which is controlled by Indian armed forces. This is feeding right back into society even in the domain of elementary civil rights.
  • Kashmir has been an eye-opener for the Hindus if one was needed. In the first part of 1990, more than two lakhs of Hindus, practically the entire non-Muslim population, were driven out from the Valley. Refugee Arvind Dhar testifies: "The aggression has been entirely one-sided. All central government employees (generally Hindus) were asked to leave their jobs, and those who did not were placed on a hit-list. One newspaper (Al-Safab) had a headline in March asking all Hindus to vacate within 48 hours of face bullets".
    • Arvind Dhar Times of India, 6/1/1991. Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (1991). Ayodhya and after: Issues before Hindu society.
  • Usually the conflict in Kashmir is presented by Muslim advocates in terms of justice, with globalist ramifications. (As I stated earlier, it is not clear whether the cause of Kashmiri self-determination or independence is served by the close link with globalist radical Islam.) This is revealed by Abd al-Rahman Makki, another leader of the Lashkar, who sees the liberation of Kashmir first as an Islamic imperative, but also as a means to ensure the Muslim future of Pakistan. Without this process of con�stant fighting, Makki fears that the Muslims will become too settled and sedentary and will never advance toward the greater goal: the Islamization of all India. His rhetoric raises the question of whether victory in Kashmir would be beneficial for the radical Muslims. It may very well be that they have deliberately prolonged the conflict in order to highlight and promote their larger goals. Ultimately the Kashmiri cause has merged with globalist radical Islam in a way that the Palestinians have thus far sought to avoid.
    • Cook, D. (2015). Understanding jihad.
  • The Kashmiri militants, Bushan Bazaz, Syed Shahabuddin, the Nehruvian defenders of Article 370, they are all, each in his own way, objectively part of the strategy of the anti-Hindu forces on the Kashmir front. The Kashmir Samiti has produced a report titled Riots in Kashmir, listing 85 temples destroyed in the valley, and claiming that 550 Hindus had been killed (630 with security men included; official figure 495) in the Islamic purification campaign in 1990. ... All the talk of Kashmiriyat as a bond between Hindus and Muslims have proven to be just wind as soon as the call for a separate Dar-ul-Islam was spread.
    • Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (1991). Ayodhya and after: Issues before Hindu society, citing V.K.Malhotra's speech in the Lok Sabha, reported in Organizer,6/1/1991.
  • Of all these offenses the one that is most widely, frequently, and vehemently denounced is undoubtedly imperialism—sometimes just Western, sometimes Eastern (that is, Soviet) and Western alike. But the way this term is used in the literature of Islamic fundamentalists often suggests that it may not carry quite the same meaning for them as for its Western critics. In many of these writings the term "imperialist" is given a distinctly religious significance, being used in association, and sometimes interchangeably, with "missionary," and denoting a form of attack that includes the Crusades as well as the modern colonial empires. One also sometimes gets the impression that the offense of imperialism is not—as for Western critics—the domination by one people over another but rather the allocation of roles in this relationship. What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law, and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society, and to the flouting or even the abrogation of God's law. This may help us to understand the current troubles in such diverse places as Ethiopian Eritrea, Indian Kashmir, Chinese Sinkiang, and Yugoslav Kossovo, in all of which Muslim populations are ruled by non-Muslim governments. It may also explain why spokesmen for the new Muslim minorities in Western Europe demand for Islam a degree of legal protection which those countries no longer give to Christianity and have never given to Judaism. Nor, of course, did the governments of the countries of origin of these Muslim spokesmen ever accord such protection to religions other than their own. In their perception, there is no contradiction in these attitudes. The true faith, based on God's final revelation, must be protected from insult and abuse; other faiths, being either false or incomplete, have no right to any such protection.
  • In Pakistan, in particular, the military are seen as the bulwark and protector of the nation and are largely free from civilian control and scrutiny. The infamous Inter- Services Intelligence Directorate has backed and funded terrorist groups in India, the disputed territory of Kashmir, Afghanistan and Central Asia, not for the good of those countries or of Pakistan itself. It is widely accepted that some of Pakistan’s generals have sold nuclear technology to North Korea. Civilian leaders who have tried to rein in the military have rapidly found themselves out of office and, if they are lucky, in exile. In both India and Pakistan civilian politics have taken on a military tinge, with some political parties sponsoring paramilitary organisations whose members wear uniforms, march in formation with flags and carry sticks to menace their opponents.
  • The freedom fighter is a mujahid, his cause is jihad against Hindus. Will azadi from India mean Kashmir will be relocated to Arabia? No, it will remain on the Indian subcontinent, north of Jammu, west of Ladakh. Kashmir’s azadi means freedom from India’s secular constitution. Azadi is the right of Kashmiri Muslims to persecute Kashmiri non-Muslims because that is what Shariah stands for in Pakistan…
  • What do Kashmiris want freedom from? India’s Constitution. What is offensive about India’s Constitution? It is not Islamic. This is the issue, let us be clear. The violence in Srinagar isn’t for democratic self-rule because Kashmiris have that. The discomfort Kashmiris feel is about which laws self-rule must be under, and Hurriyat rejects a secular constitution. Hurriyat deceives the world by using a universal word, azadi, to push a narrow, religious demand. Kashmiris have no confusion about what azadi means: It means Shariah. Friday holidays, amputating thieveshands, abolishing interest, prohibiting alcohol (and kite-flying), stoning adulterers, lynching apostates and all the rest of it that comprises the ideal Sunni state....The Kashmiri separatist movement is actually inseparable from Sunni fundamentalism.
  • In an ideal world you could reunite the Pakistan-occupied part of Kashmir with the Indian-occupied part and restore the old borders. You could have both India and Pakistan agreeing to guarantee those borders, demilitarise the area, and to invest in it economically. In a sane world that would happen but we don't live in a sane world.
  • Any Indian who comes with the intention to settle in Kashmir will be treated as an agent of RSS and not as a civilian and will be dealt with appropriately.
    • June 1, 2020. statement by TRF--a front of the banned Pakistani terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba--"openly" declared that "any Indian who comes with the intention to settle in Kashmir will be treated as an agent of RSS and not as a civilian and will be dealt with appropriately". [3] [4][5] [6]
  • In 1989, the people of Kăshmir took their historic stance, and declared it a jihăd in the path of Allăh to achieve one of the two honours, either victory or martyrdom. Jihăd missions commenced against the Indian occupation, and the mujăhidin party emerged as a strike force in the midst of the occupation.
    • Mu˙ammad Yŗsuf Shăh, who in April 1991 took the name Mujăhid Syed Íală˙uddin and was appointed the Óizb Amir (or Amir of the mujăhidin), a position that he still held in June 2004. He was also the chairman of Jihăd Council. quoted from Richard Bonney (auth.) - Jihād_ From Qur’ān to bin Laden-Palgrave Macmillan UK (2004) page 343
  • Militants damaged 127 temples and 16,000 houses of Kashmiri Pandits in the Valley between 1986 and 1992, according to a report prepared by the Panun Kashmir Movement (PKM). The report on "human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir" , submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), says 32 temples were destroyed by the Kashmiri militants within 48 hours of the demolition of the disputed structure in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.
    The maximum number of 47 temples were vandalised and damaged in February 1986, followed by 44 in 1992.
    Of these, the maximum, 72 temples were vandalised in Anantnag, the rest in Srinagar, Baramulla, Kupwara, Badgam and Shopian, the report said.
    The report said temple lands had been usurped and the idols damaged by explosions.
    Some of the temples like Mata Khir Bhawani temple at Tulamula, Sun temple at Mattan, Luok Bhawan temple and the Ganpatyar temple, were destroyed in rocket and grenade attacks, the report said.
  • The question of Kashmir would never be solved until every man in the country was militarily trained and armed with modern weapons. I am sure Kashmir would never join Pakistan without force.
    • (Khan Jalal-ud-Din Khan, Pakistan Times, Lahore February 13, 1956). quoted in [8]
  • The year of 1957, after a hundred year, is a year of new hopes. This is a year to spread Muslim rule all over India. New blood should run into our veins to see the year 1957 approaching nearer. Seventy million Pakistani Muslims and fifty million Indian Muslims should have new hopes that after one hundred years they are going to get authority over the whole of India.

External links edit

Wikipedia has an article about: