To prevent what exactly? Political dissent?
Why can't people in Kashmir right now talk to each other over phone? Why can't they call their loved ones outside the region? Why isn't anyone else allowed to contact them? Why are lawyers, professors and activists being jailed? Why are some people not being allowed to leave the country? Why can't Indian politicians visit the region without being detained and sent back?
What exactly is all this preventing?
First, Pakistan's ISPR would start a massive disinformation campaign aided by the separatist who lost all their influence with the present government but has a great following among the Kashmiri Youth.
Then there would immense violence with many dead while the "leaders" and there loved ones stay in a five-star hotel in Delhi.
To prevent a loss of life they had to do it. But it's slowly being downgraded and the curfew is absent in all but 4 districts of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir
Edit:
I agree with you, that it is bad for people to have no communication channel.
India had made a lot of progress democratically in Kashmir and had actually won over a lot of Kashmiris. A lot of them either supported or tolerated Indian rule as long as their daily lives went on peacefully. With this move, they've lost all popular support they had in the valley. All pro-Indian Kashmiris I know personally are feeling betrayed and regretting that they supporting Indian rule in Kashmir.
Even elected pro-India politicians have been jailed and their voices suppressed. IMO this is going to result in people losing their belief in Indian democracy. Over the next few years, I expect number of militants in the Kashmir valley to grow rapidly. I think the valley will go back to where it was in early 90s. I hope it doesn't come to that but I don't see this playing out any other way unfortunately.
Showing military might is not the solution.
The only people complaining are English language media who Modi has never cared about.
The state is called Jammu and Kashmir and it is part of India's cultural heritage. Integration efforts may take time, but the alternatives are not an option for India. There are many pockets of Muslim majority around India, Kashmir will be no different. Despite the border with Pakistan.
First condition of plebiscite is withdrawal of Pakistani forces from occupied territories, 73 years and still waiting. India doesn't allow UN observers because they have outlived their utility, as LoC has been codified between Pakistan and India through Simla Agreement in 1971.
So a resourceless Pakistan miraculously recovered from the bloody partition in mere three months to not only plan an insurgency, but also had the resources to execute it. Go Pakistan then? right?
To me it seems like the situation cannot go back to how it was a month ago for a long time (several months, at the minimum).
Simply put, it's preventing deaths. Kashmir is volatile and massive government decision like scrapping Article 370 is sure to create violent protests in the region. See Kashmir protests circa 2016 on how violent it can get.
India has always been bad at communicating effectively, clearly and loudly. Just read that Pakistan is claiming that India will attack AJK etc. I do not know the internal plans of Indian Army etc but I strongly believe India is not going to do it. But Pakistan make up so much stuff, put up fake videos, get embarassed but still they do not stop talking negatively about India and everybody else. The crying baby gets a lot of attention though even if it is crying for silly or fake reasons. So, for the Indian government, it has to make more noise than the crying baby, but also presenting supporting facts.
Now, the moment the controls in Kashmir are suddenly lifted, forget Pakistan, the opposition politicians and everyone whose wallet/influence is going to get lighter themselves will talk so much against the current government and create/add fuel to the negative sentiment in the Kashmiris. So, it is better to have controls to prevent violence. Better to not lose precious lives than otherwise.
Having said that, as some one above pointed out above, it is also mandatory for the government to ensure the availability of necessities. It is easy to criticize, not that we should not. But any big action like this will have something not going according to plan. Not every thing to extreme detail can be planned perfectly. So, I do want and hope that the government gets to know the ground realities, ensure availability of the necessities and also, with proof, talk about it wherever it can.
Listen to statements from Kashmiri leaders like Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. They've routinely threatened violence over any attempt to the abrogation of the article. What do you think they would've done after the abrogation was anounced? And unlike other states, political dissent in Kashmir is not anywhere close to peaceful. It includes stone pelting , murdering policemen and what not.
Bigoted thoughts do come out eventually. Minorities always need to be taught a lesson in World’s largest democracy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus
Terrorist organizations like ISIS, JEM and ISI took over and now the talk of independence has been missing for a long time. It is all about Islam.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NitashaKaul/status/11614847374096...
See here - https://bit.ly/2Z80YRo
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again.
Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
I can't tell if you're being ironic. Because many similar things happened to Catalonia two years ago: arresting Catalan leaders, suspending parliamentary rule and autonomy, violently suppressing protests and dissent, censoring the Internet, imposing martial law.
Many of Catalonia's political leadership and activists are still in jail, and facing years of prison: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/12-catalan-leaders-fa... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41678086
The only thing that categorically did not happen from your list was an incursion by the Spanish military into Catalonia, although even that seemed possible for a period of time.
I agree with your stance re: autonomy, but Catalonia was a rather poor example.
May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example but I wanted to cite something that felt a bit more real and relatable.
Yes, this is the major difference between the two regions. But in terms of recent events, the main difference between Kashmir and Catalonia -- other than the lack of military involvement in Catalonia -- is the greater degree of oppression in Kashmir. Similar strategies and tactics were used by the more powerful polity in both crises.
> May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example
Yes, I originally wrote that in my comment, but deleted it because it seemed too rambling. In any case, I wouldn't hold up the reaction of the Spanish government to Catalonia's moves toward greater autonomy to be some kind of democratic ideal.
Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states.
But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it.
But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities.
The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.
As long as a peaceful referendum is not held that lets the people of the region decide their own future?
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d1...
Also, if you cite UN sources then you must also agree with the reports about human rights violations in Kashmir by the UN and organizations like Amnesty International, right? If so, then you shouldn't be justifying what is happening right now but opposing it as that is the position of the UN. Otherwise you are just selectively citing things that re-affirm your point of view.
1. Amnesty International is not a UN organisation.
2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
Stop shifting goal post when you can't argue the point.
I never claimed it was.
> 2. India didn't Annex Kashmir, it has been an Indian state since independence.
> 3. Kashmir special status was given and revocation according to the Indian constitution.
India literally annexed Kashmir 11 days ago by sheer military force. It unilaterally torn up the legal instrument on the basis of which Kashmir's Maharaja joined the Indian Union. Literally in one move nullified the constitution of Kashmir and their parliament without even consulting the Kashmiri parliament or people. India's own politicians, activists, journalists and Kashmiri Pandits have cited the move as illegal and unconstitutional.
> 4. I cited the oldest communique from a reliable source.
And I did not deny that source. I just pointed out that Indian Government does not actually abide by what you pointed out.
Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers?
If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself.
If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation.
And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.
This is a poor view of how areas should be funded. Governments are responsible for common welfare of a people, not to be run as a business that expects kickbacks and profit or returns on investment.
The new york times is entitled to its view on how India's elected government ought to run the country but that does not mean the government is going to forgo one of THE demands of the party founders.
The other thing that is ignored is that for seventy years Kashmir has gotten the biggest share of the central government's outlays for states and they have nothing to show for. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is bad in any environment.
I am not sure if this will work or not but what I am sure is that the previous status quo did not work. Moreover, how long would the entire state's ambition be held hostage because of an intolerant minority in four districts in the Kashmir valley?
Edit:
"Intorelent Minority" comes from Taleb's essay/book on the skin in the game
here is the link here is what I meant by Intorelant minority. I am sorry if It came as bigoted but I would call any small group of people this
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...