An American Muslim Journal

Curfews and crackdowns in order to return "normalcy" in Kashmir?

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.

If India really believes Kashmir is part of India, then get the Indian military out

I realize I'm coming at this from a very American point of view, but it seems to me that the use of the Indian military for law enforcement in Kashmir belies India's claim that this region rightfully belongs to India.  A nation's military is for its national defense, and not for internal law enforcement.

We hear about our own military raising concerns when it is asked to serve as a police force when deployed in places like Somalia and more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The rules of engagement for soldiers are different from those of police officers.  The tactics are different.

So why does India insist on using its military in Kashmir?  There is unrest again in Kashmir after India's military shot dead a teenager.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that Kashmiris are outraged when the Indian army kills civilians (in this case, ostensibly its own citizens!).

The Financial Times reports:

India sent its army on to the streets of Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir, on Wednesday to enforce a strict curfew, after four civilians were killed in violent clashes between police and angry mobs of youths.

The Muslim-majority Kashmir valley, which is a popular summer holiday spot for India’s affluent middle class, has been rocked by increasingly violent protests since June 14, when a 17-year-old boy was killed, apparently by a stray bullet fired by security forces.

How long will it take for India to figure out that it can't deploy its military to conduct law enforcement objectives?  Or should we surmise, as I suspect many Kashmiris have a long time ago, that India's main claim to Kashmir is vis-a-vis a military occupation?