Does Mumbai Terror Attack Highlight Need for Solution in Kashmir??

This is indeed a very preposterous comment that I've come across in Guardian. It was an article by William Dalrymple published on Nov 30th. You can read the full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/30/mumbai-terror-attacks-india1.
I'm shocked that the same writer wrote Last Mughal!! Not only is he ill informed about the history of Kashmir and the related facts surrounding it's accession into India, but he is also biased and totally irrational. He doesn't even know what he is trying to convey!! He is just another example of those people like Arundhati Roy who thinks that showing a pseudo secular image can buy prizes!!

He says that the recent Bombay attack is an indirect impact of the atrocities done by Army in Kashmir Valley for the past many years. He points out the India has manhandled the people of Kashmir, played with their sentiments and emotions, rigged election and finally rendered a reign of Army strikes on innocent people. Al these have created serious resentments among the Kashmiris and that's why they have struck back. He is so bothered about the 70000 (Well, I need to clarify his numbers, I have never come across this figure) Kashmiri Mulsim killed by the Indian Army, but he never talked about the evicted 400K Kashmiri Pandits & Sikhs who constitute the biggest displaced group of people in the world after the Jews. Well, this is a bare fact that every one knows. Now have you ever talked to a displaced Kashhmiri Pandit? Well, I've the fortune to know quite a few of them and their stories are also never printed in the media. So you can't say that the media is biased against the Muslims. Had the media written about the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits then even a non violent person like Dalai Lama would have taken arms and there would have been civil wars (read communal) in India....And to make things correct, the atrocities towards Kashmiri Pandits started long before Indian Army increased its offensive in Jammu & Kashmir (and this pseudo secular writer doesn't even know that the name of the state is Jammu & Kashmir and not Kashmir...).

The blame can't be put on the Indian Army. Kashmir was ruled (rather governed) by popular Kahmiris like Sheikh Abdulla and his son Farookh Abdulla for many years. The former also known as the Lion of Kashmir was instrumental in ending the King's Rule in Kashmir and starting a democratic governance. He was also a supporter of Kashmir's accession into Indian Union. Though he had several flip-flops with Nehru regarding his loyalty and disloyalty to India, still the fact remains that he did get chance to rule Jammu & Kashmir for many years. Till now all the Chief Ministers of Jammu & Kashmir have been Kashmiri Muslim in spite of the fact that Jammu & Kashmir has a considerable number of Buddhists in Ladakh region and Hindus in Jammu region. All of these Chief Ministers couldn't do anything good for the local people. The story is same in Bihar also. Most of the politicians don't deliver and the same happened in Kashmir also. It's not that only Kashmir had a rigged election. Almost all elections in Bengal have been rigged till recently and that's how the CPM is in power for so long. But that doesn't mean that local people would take to arms. Most commodities have been always hugely subsidized in Kashmir for all along. No other state enjoys so much subsidy. Whatever was possible by the Central Government was always done. If the local government fails to perform that doesn't mean that you all become terrorists and kill non-Muslims.

In 80s when the exodus of the non Muslims became suddenly very high then the government had to take action. When so many local people are up in arms how do you bring the situation under control? KPS Gill brought the Punjab problem in control by just killing indiscriminately anyone who appeared suspicious. The same tactic was applied by Shiddharta Shankar Ray in West Bengal to crack down Naxalites. 90% people killed in Naxal and Punjab strikes were Innocent people. That was the only way to tackle the problem. Every house in Bengal as someone killed in 70s during the Naxal movement. Otherwise it won't have been possible to tackle the problem at all. So the bottom line is that you don't search for Sanjivani, you just carry the entire mountain that has Sanjivani.... Innocent people have been always killed to control any armed revolution, be it the Naxalite or Punjab problem. Why don't people speak anything about how many innocent people were killed in Punjab? Why does it become a big issue only when some innocent Muslims are killed in encounter? If you have to contain the terrorists, you have to resort to indiscriminate killing - because you don't have time to find out in which house in a village is one terrorist hidden. You will land up killing many people and that's the only way to go. If you think about the few innocent people and leave the terrorist go, he will later kill many more innoent people. So it's always pays to kill a terrorist at any cost. That's what most of the countries do.

Statistically much less Muslim have been killed till date in the past 20 years than the number of Naxalites and Sikhs killed in just those 2-3 years of strike....This writer better gets his facts correct before writing such pseudo-secular crap... And yes, that's the stand that most of the opportunistic people take now-a-days. Pseudo secularism sells that's what he is doing, that's what Arundhati Roy does..

The terrorist attack in Bombay has nothing to do with the Kashmir problem. The people with vested interest in Kashmir will never want the problem to be solved because then they themselves will lose their importance. If the people of Kashmir are so much disgruntled with Indian governance then why are they coming out and casting their votes? The percentage of votes polled in Kashmir valley is not much lower than the average. The problem in Kashmir is with a certain section and that has to be eliminated.... offcourse if these pseudo secular people oblige to be quiet.