,
20 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
An unpopular opinion on Kashmir. Sorry to all those rejoicing the Kashmir move. Can't help but show us the mirror that we are so brazenly choosing to ignore. This thread is largely from a security point of view.
Security in Kashmir was always a sensitive issue and many politicians had tried to use different tactics to address it in the past. Alienation of Kashmir began after a series of political subterfuge by GOI culminating in the rigged elections of 1987.
Pakistan not only fished in troubled waters but actively instigated trouble buoyed as it was with its success in Afghanistan. An overwhelmed state apparatus of India had to contain the initial and overwhelming challenge with a heavy hand. Mistakes were made and imp lessons learnt
The forced exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits (who were most crucial in the fields of education and administrative jobs) with the view to change the demographics and rise of the separatists only made things worse.
The scars of the insurgency further alienated the local population & the 1990s was seen one of the darkest phase on managing security in Kashmir. The KPs struggling as IDPs, young Kashmiri muslims crossing the border, Pak sponsoring and tng militants. Heavy-handedness by forces.
Learning from the mistakes, the GOI tried to use different policies as seen during the times of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and further ahead. Not that everything was good but attempts were made to win heartd and minds.
Fast forward to today. While there is truth to the fact that the valley had disproportional political representation. Even if there are administrative merits in removing Article 370 & bifurcating the state, UT for Kashmir was going a bit too far.
Fast forward to today. While there is truth to the fact that the valley had disproportional political representation. Even if there are administrative merits in removing Article 370 & bifurcating the state, UT for Kashmir was going a bit too far.
For how long can the residents on the valley be kept @ homes? Though Kashmiris are accoustomed to long curfews & this is a precautionary measure ...
the question to ask is if this move is being touted to bring succour to the people, then why those very people are being kept under a leash. They should have welcomed it whole-heartedly.
The problem is Kashmiri Muslims would perceive the combination of these moves as a betrayal of trust and an injustice. Unfortunately, this sentiment and outburst of emotions (of which Kashmiris are very prone to) can provide a ready ground for inimical interests ...
(including Pakistan) to further their objectives.The improving parameters on the security front may see a reversal if things are not properly managed. I pray this does not happen but one is apprehensive.
370 was temporary but Kashmiris see it as an important precondition for acceding to India under the trying conditions of 1947. It is another matter that it was diluted over the years by the J&K state assembly which introduced several central legislations.
So more of a sentimental value was left of it. Nevertheless, every Kashmiri is born with knowing about 370. So the manner in which it was to be removed should have been very deliberative. GOI should have taken time to create the right conditions.
Worse is that expected benefits such as ability to buy land in Kashmir or KPs moving back are unlikely to materialise substantially. No1 in Kashmir sells their land to outsiders & development in J&K context has limits in terms of geography, terrain & no matter how much sells it.
Also, the aftermath of this decision will only worsen the security situation in Kashmir valley making iy tough for KPs to feel safe on returning. Instead, they are likely to become targets, which defeats the whole purpose of rehabilitating them.
In the short-term of course, Pak would try to up the ante by undertaking some sensational attacks, increasing infiltration attempts & pinning everything on the locals.
Also, can't deny that local support for the insurgency may increase. Wonder what wud happen of the silent majority that didn't side with seccesionist view.
I personally feel there are more cons than pros to this decision, especially security-wise & may have serious implications. Hope the GOI has thought these things through, prepped up the state apparatus needed to handle the aftermath in valley, although it does not appear to be so
It feels like winning the battle but losing the war. End of thread.
