4 ms·

Yes considering all the news we see about Hong Kong. It is surprising that Kashmir isn't covered despite being in worse situation for more than a year, over a s

Yes considering all the news we see about Hong Kong. It is surprising that Kashmir isn't covered despite being in worse situation for more than a year, over a similar issue.

bobthepanda 6y ago
HK used to be more stable and is a highly visible global node that is well connected, exports cultural products, and is home to foreign offices for a lot of companies. It’s very easy to cover HK given that, say, the NYT has been there for the past few decades and has staffers who have directly observed changes throughout that time. My impression of Kashmir is that the situation hasn’t been positive for a very long time, and all the other factors are either less true or don’t apply.
- actuator 6y ago
  Also, in Kashmir's case, the lines become blurry because on one hand you have excesses from the Indian state, and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insurgent movement which sometimes is just separatist and sometimes also coloured on religious lines. It is quite a controversial topic and when someone looking from outside can't even gauge the recent issue at hand correctly[1], you can't expect them to have the context of Kashmir issue. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/rihanna-rallies-to-the-wrong-cause-in-india-11612465735 https://www.wsj.com/articles/rihanna-rallies-to-the-wrong-ca...
  - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
    why are things blurry? you are saying >and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insurgent movement which sometimes is just separatist and sometimes also coloured on religious lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups kashmir has been fighting against both india and pakistan on many fronts ever since this issue began. the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. so what 30 years ago pakistan convinced and managed to turn thousands of kashmiris as pawns in a proxy war with india. that doesnt mean kashmir is with pakistan, on the contrary, people in pakistan occupied kashmir protest against their oppression daily. why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle?
    - actuator 6y ago
      I apologise for any mistake I make here as my knowledge of Indian history is not very fresh. > the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. But what constitutes foreign rule. If I move before 500 years, we have Mauryas or Karkotas ruling Kashmir with Srinagar being an important city to them, which are pan North Indian empires. > why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle? Well, I think once a struggle turns violent, the issue becomes emotive on both sides as there is blood shed. For people in Kashmir, it has been since 1947, wounds of which keep opening up again. For people in rest of India, the narrative and the blood of the people from RoI which has been spent in keeping Kashmir has been huge as well. No one would want to back down, the armed insurgent movement is never going to succeed. My second point was, some of the groups are motivated on religious lines and want a country based on a religion which makes it extremely hard for others to sympathise for them.
      - selimthegrim 6y ago
        When East Punjab was split into Punjab and Haryana what the hell do you think GoI was doing then?
        actuator 6y ago
        I am not too aware about the reason for this. Most of the states have been divided on linguistic lines. Punjab and Haryana have different dominant languages. It also might have been administrative like it was for a lot of states.
        selimthegrim 6y ago
        If you think Nehru didn't want to weaken Sikhs I have a Ram Setu to sell you.
        actuator 6y ago
cscurmudgeon 6y ago
Kashmir was covered even less. Remember the ethnic cleansing in the 90s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
- 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
  yes. 219 deaths and 100k displaced against 100k deaths https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres >an estimated 20,000–100,000 Muslims were massacred. yes. you are right. i do remember displacement but it does not hold a candle to 1947 jammu massacres. what do you think? who are more important? 100k deaths or 219? https://www.thehindu.com/news/ldquo219-Kashmiri-Pandits-killed-by-militants-since-1989rdquo/article16598851.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/ldquo219-Kashmiri-Pandits-kill... https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/right-wing-exaggerates-number-of-kashmiri-pandits-killed-militants-targeted-muslims-more/271666/ https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/right-wing-exaggerate... this article in the print literally says the figures are exaggerated
  - kr4 6y ago
    SO you're justifying 1990 killings and displacement of Pandits as a revenge for 1947? From the same Wikipedia article you linked also has a similar justification then for 1947 Jamu vilence: > the Jammu province which was contiguous to Punjab, experienced mass migration that led to violent inter-religious activity. Large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs from Rawalpindi and Sialkot started arriving since March 1947, bringing "harrowing stories of Muslim atrocities in West Punjab". According to scholar Ilyas Chattha, this provoked counter-violence on Jammu Muslims, which had "many parallels with that in Sialkot". He writes, "the Kashmiri Muslims were to pay a heavy price in September–October 1947 for the earlier violence of West Punjab." Additionally, Pandits have been on the receiving end - once a majority of the Kashmiri population about 600 years ago. Seven times at least they've been forced to exit, countless killed or forcefully converted to Islam https://www.quora.com/What-atrocities-were-committed-on-Kashmiri-Pandits/answer/Pruthwi-Ajay https://www.quora.com/What-atrocities-were-committed-on-Kash... But despite all this, Pandits have never opted for taking arms in hands and become terrorist killing civilians.

Yes considering all the news we see about Hong Kong. It is surprising that Kashmir isn't covered despite being in worse situation for more than a year, over a similar issue.

bobthepanda 6y ago

HK used to be more stable and is a highly visible global node that is well connected, exports cultural products, and is home to foreign offices for a lot of companies. It’s very easy to cover HK given that, say, the NYT has been there for the past few decades and has staffers who have directly observed changes throughout that time. My impression of Kashmir is that the situation hasn’t been positive for a very long time, and all the other factors are either less true or don’t apply.

actuator 6y ago
Also, in Kashmir's case, the lines become blurry because on one hand you have excesses from the Indian state, and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insurgent movement which sometimes is just separatist and sometimes also coloured on religious lines. It is quite a controversial topic and when someone looking from outside can't even gauge the recent issue at hand correctly[1], you can't expect them to have the context of Kashmir issue. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/rihanna-rallies-to-the-wrong-cause-in-india-11612465735 https://www.wsj.com/articles/rihanna-rallies-to-the-wrong-ca...
- 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
  why are things blurry? you are saying >and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insurgent movement which sometimes is just separatist and sometimes also coloured on religious lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups kashmir has been fighting against both india and pakistan on many fronts ever since this issue began. the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. so what 30 years ago pakistan convinced and managed to turn thousands of kashmiris as pawns in a proxy war with india. that doesnt mean kashmir is with pakistan, on the contrary, people in pakistan occupied kashmir protest against their oppression daily. why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle?
  - actuator 6y ago
    I apologise for any mistake I make here as my knowledge of Indian history is not very fresh. > the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. But what constitutes foreign rule. If I move before 500 years, we have Mauryas or Karkotas ruling Kashmir with Srinagar being an important city to them, which are pan North Indian empires. > why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle? Well, I think once a struggle turns violent, the issue becomes emotive on both sides as there is blood shed. For people in Kashmir, it has been since 1947, wounds of which keep opening up again. For people in rest of India, the narrative and the blood of the people from RoI which has been spent in keeping Kashmir has been huge as well. No one would want to back down, the armed insurgent movement is never going to succeed. My second point was, some of the groups are motivated on religious lines and want a country based on a religion which makes it extremely hard for others to sympathise for them.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      When East Punjab was split into Punjab and Haryana what the hell do you think GoI was doing then?
      - actuator 6y ago
        I am not too aware about the reason for this. Most of the states have been divided on linguistic lines. Punjab and Haryana have different dominant languages. It also might have been administrative like it was for a lot of states.
        selimthegrim 6y ago
        If you think Nehru didn't want to weaken Sikhs I have a Ram Setu to sell you.
        actuator 6y ago

cscurmudgeon 6y ago

Kashmir was covered even less. Remember the ethnic cleansing in the 90s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

2Gkashmiri 6y ago
yes. 219 deaths and 100k displaced against 100k deaths https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres >an estimated 20,000–100,000 Muslims were massacred. yes. you are right. i do remember displacement but it does not hold a candle to 1947 jammu massacres. what do you think? who are more important? 100k deaths or 219? https://www.thehindu.com/news/ldquo219-Kashmiri-Pandits-killed-by-militants-since-1989rdquo/article16598851.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/ldquo219-Kashmiri-Pandits-kill... https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/right-wing-exaggerates-number-of-kashmiri-pandits-killed-militants-targeted-muslims-more/271666/ https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/right-wing-exaggerate... this article in the print literally says the figures are exaggerated
- kr4 6y ago
  SO you're justifying 1990 killings and displacement of Pandits as a revenge for 1947? From the same Wikipedia article you linked also has a similar justification then for 1947 Jamu vilence: > the Jammu province which was contiguous to Punjab, experienced mass migration that led to violent inter-religious activity. Large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs from Rawalpindi and Sialkot started arriving since March 1947, bringing "harrowing stories of Muslim atrocities in West Punjab". According to scholar Ilyas Chattha, this provoked counter-violence on Jammu Muslims, which had "many parallels with that in Sialkot". He writes, "the Kashmiri Muslims were to pay a heavy price in September–October 1947 for the earlier violence of West Punjab." Additionally, Pandits have been on the receiving end - once a majority of the Kashmiri population about 600 years ago. Seven times at least they've been forced to exit, countless killed or forcefully converted to Islam https://www.quora.com/What-atrocities-were-committed-on-Kashmiri-Pandits/answer/Pruthwi-Ajay https://www.quora.com/What-atrocities-were-committed-on-Kash... But despite all this, Pandits have never opted for taking arms in hands and become terrorist killing civilians.