The Hindu reports that Indian leaders plan to strictly enforce curfews on the Kashmiri people until things returned to normal**. The curfew will be enforced by the Indian Army.
I'm going to quickly reiterate my question from this morning's post - why is the military operating as a police force? India is supposed to be a free and democratic society, and since India claims this land as its own (thereby making its inhabitants its citizens, right?), it seems counter-productive to deploy the military.
The violence and conflict in Kashmir aren't new. They've persisted for decades. The Indian government has had ample time to develop a law enforcement force that can address the unique needs of this region while the Army addresses the rag-tag insurgents holed up in the mountains. A more nuanced strategy seems in order. Instead, India is bringing in a disproportionate response to the underlying threat (and don't forget that the current unrest stems from the murder of a civilian at the hands of the Indian Army).
India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly said (per The Hindu):
a stern message should go to miscreants that law and order would be restored and the vicious cycle of violence would be broken by dealing strictly with them.
I presume that P.M. Singh is speaking of the most recent uprising among the Kashmiri civilian population. It would be better for all of the people of that region if he were to concentrate on the broader and bigger issues of violence (including the extrajudicial killings and disappearances perpetrated by India's military against the Muslim Kashmiri population).
The current tactics seemed to be aimed at restoring the status quo rather than forging a real solution to the lingering injustices in Kashmir.
_____________________________________________________
** What constitutes "normal" in Kashmir? For more information on the violence and human rights abuses taking place in Kashmir please visit Human Rights Watch now.

Recent Comments