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?
Recent Comments