Talk:Terrorism in Kashmir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terrorism in Kashmir article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Vandalisation

This page has been badly vandalised. Unrealistic figures and respective agenda of two opposing parties (India and Pakistan) are the only two things that exist on this page. Some citations from books/references have no valid standing with respect to the information they produce, and thus information expressed by people expressing their personal views cannot be taken as a record to be cited here. Such citations should be deleted.

[edit] My two cents too

Such lengthy and animated discussions are interesting to read! I do marvel at the talkative nature of all my friends here. Are we building sum total of the human knowledge by writing the factual position or wasting our efforts to building a so-called consensus, which may be far removed from the reality and of no use to the posterity. Surely, under international law, insurgent elements of Kashmir do enjoy certain rights, provided the comity of nations recognize them as insurgents. As far as the legality of the matter stands, these elements are committing treason to the sovereign state (that is, India) of which they are a part as recognized in terms of the de jure as well as de facto position of the international law. --Bhadani 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One more request: While reading the foregoing “discussion”, I saw that a user has been labeled as a sock-puppet of another user. I was searching for the same as I had received a mail from the user who has been so charged. He wanted to leave wikipedia with a clean name – I do not doubt his good faith and do believe that the charging him to create sock-puppet/s is surely not fair. In my considered opinion, we should not immediately come to the conclusion that a particular account is a sock-puppet, and established editor/s should not be charged and maligned in this fashion with threats of blocking the accounts. I request my friend User:Anonymous editor to kindly offer his comments on the issue and clear the name of that particular user from this charge. --Bhadani 16:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course Bhadani. I am not trying to malign any particular user, however that account is clearly a sockpuppet and I request that it not be used any further by who ever is using it. Although it does not have to be the user who left it is clearly someone with a bad objective here who is blaming me of many different things and it isn't helping the user who left; instead it is disrupting wikipedia and is making this problem more uncivil than needed. Judging by the users activity he is not a new user and he seems to dislike me an awful lot so it would be nice for him/her to stop. I wish good luck for the user who left and hoping the rest of us can make sure that can reach a good solution and I think we are coming closer to that. Bhadani I request you to also help with this article if you can to make it so that the article shows that both sides are responsible. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this page on a request by a particular user, and I also placed my comments. I am aware that in live topics like this one, each user, including me, may be acting with different levels of infatuation. I would try to do what ever is possible - albeit I know that doing justice to "live socio-political issues with ramifications encompassing innumerable aspects" is very difficult: no one is infallible, including me. --Bhadani 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay Bhadani.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Deepak Gupta asserts that Paln is not his sockpuppet. Anonymous editor has made such an accusation here as well as at another page without assuming good faith. Anonymous editor is right in saying that it could be a sockpuppet of someone as well. It could be a strawman sockpuppet as well. As admins are expected to be exemplary examples of users, I request anonymous editor to file a WP:RCU on paln to determine if it is a sockpuppet of Deepak gupta or strawman puppet of anonymous editor or sock puppet of some other user he suspects. If he is not ready to do this, he should apologise unconditionally to both the users on their talkpages, this talkpage and the Wikiquette alerts talkpage. I think this is a fair and acceptable solution. --Gurubrahma 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No I do not wish to make this situation worse than it is. This problem is hopefully resolved and trying to forcefully urge me to apologize because of an accusation, even if it is denied by the user or proven true, is not going to help this at all. Clearly you have been requested to interject on this problem as Bhadani was. I can request apologies for several things that users have done but I don't ask for it. I already wished him luck and that is what I would say to any editor with this problem. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Normally, the onus of proving an accusation lies on the accuser. However, in the present context and circumstances of the matter, in my opinion, the matter (of a user accusing the other user as sock-puppet/s) may please be treated as closed in view of the above discussion. I believe the air has now been cleared, and I am sure that the issue shall not be re-opened and raised again. We all should now concentrate on the larger issue of making this page reflect the historical reality. Cheers!!! --Bhadani 15:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Who am I to open and close the matter? Accordingly after deliberating over the mater for weeks, and examining the issues involved in their entirety, I have decided to refer the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. I am doing this in the larger and long term interest of wikipedia and have posted this message at WP:RCU:" Anonymous editor has accused another user Paln as a sock-puppet of Deepak, most likely of the user User:Deepak gupta. I would request an examination of the matter in its entirety. If the charge of sock-puppetry is proved, I request for initiation of appropriate steps. In case, the charge turns out to be false, I request for initiation of suitable measures against the accusor as in my humble opinion, false accusation of this nature violates several basic principles of wikipedia, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks and is also highly disruptive behavior. I am doing this in the long term interest of the Project." --Bhadani 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Er Bhadani why are you bringing this up days later? It was never a personal attack either, the user who was likely accused and I have already put it to rest and this is just going to make it worse. You can't just bring a new procedure in like this and claim that these new "suitable measures" should be taken just because you seem to be angry at me. Actions of an abusive sock are far worse than the accusation and the accusation would be in the long term interest of the project. But on your part, this is just bad faith. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear AE, I am not bringing anything - you had brought this long ago - I am trying to help you. --Bhadani 16:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No dear Bhadani, you are making things worse. It won't help anything whether it does come true or false. As I said it could just as likely be anyone else who just wants to make trouble. There are many I have seen now who would do that. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If there was an ongoing problem that couldn't be resolved in any other way it would make sense. To drag up old issues and ask that other people dedicate their precious time seems quite pointless. There is too much work to be done and too many other pressing problems to resolve to waste time and energy on this. It's water under the bridge. Let it go.--Lee Hunter 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I could understand, and would only say Yesterday: I love you more than yesterday. Yesterday, you got on my nerves. --Bhadani 16:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I may add that the issue has already been referred by me at the appropriate forum - the forum works for this purpose only, and is a part of our processes and procedures. I have also informed the user concerend. We volunteers have nothing to offer but Blood, toil, tears, and sweat. It is upto the community to decide such issues. Thanks and happy editings... let us continue to build the sum total of human knowledge. --Bhadani 16:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

In view of large size of the page, I have archived the talks up to February 2006. --Bhadani 14:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted sections and references

On April 23, the "Militancy and military" and the intro were deleted [1] with no explanation. Looks like vandalism to me, as I see no discussion about deleting this, so I have restored the text. Also, have converted the references to the new format. There are a number of them listed in the references section, but I can't find used anywhere in the text. These were used in much older versions of the article (e.g. [2]), but no longer used. Not sure if there is any need to keep them listed in the references section? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On May 17, the "Statistics" section was deleted. Also, a lot of POV stuff and unattributed reversals of meaning were done. There was really far too much stuff to go through it all to find the gems in the rough, so I reverted it all. —BozoTheScary 22:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous figures

I don't know who counted the exact number of casualties but there are some odd figures about number of casualties. Surely those figures cannot be exact. Either provide the source or I will remove them. Also how on earth India is doing ethnic cleansing?? Who claims that? Provide an independent source, not a link to a propaganda website. Anand Arvind 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Anand Arvind 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor. Please provide link to a reliable source which actually accuses Indians of carrying out 'ethnic cleansing'. Its just ridiculous. Which source uses the word 'ethnic cleansing'??Anand Arvind 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to HR violations. It is still not necessary to simply delete all mentions. The link that talks about HR violations is in the references. Please check before you keep reverting. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.. Anand Arvind 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Solutions

I have blanked this section because much of the content there is either original research or is a direct copy from BBC article it cites which by the way violates their copyright. Infact I like such a section, but not here, but in Kashmir dispute. Anand Arvind 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename and change the article

I suggest renaming the article and breaking it up into sections that discuss both terrorism and insurgency as well as state sponsered repression. Since there is ample documentation on both (Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch etc.) there shouldn't be any problem in being able to accomplish this). Tombseye 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind including documented evidence, but I object to highly POV phrases like 'state oppression'. I can hardly think of any non-Pakistani source which uses this phrase regarding India. On the other hand almost every source including pakistani sources call violent suicide attacks on civilians 'terrorism'. Why use euphemisms? Why not call it what it is. If these suicide attacks aren't terrorism then terrorism doesn't exist at all. Anand Arvind 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, how biased are you? Yes, I agree that when innocent civilians are targeted, that is terrorism, but generally fighting soldiers is considered an insurgency AND what do you call this from Amnesty International (which, last I checked, is not a Pakistani source): [3] And then they, of course, condemn what the militants/terrorists have done: [4] Also, what about all of these reports: [5] and this from Human Rights Watch: Troops continue to be responsible for arbitrary detention, torture, and custodial killings. There has been a disturbing rise in extrajudicial executions. Security forces regularly report gun battles where “foreign militants” are killed. But there have been persistent allegations that such incidents are faked and that alleged militants, taken into custody, are routinely executed.[6] and [7]. I don't know what you call it, but it looks like state repression to me. Since you don't like euphemisms, come up with something that describes this stuff then. State overzealous responses? Tombseye 03:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge contributers here to adhere to NPOV remarks. The article is full of Pakistani bias and is trying to justify terrorism by citing police brutalities. If you look hard enough, you will find almost every country in amnesty internationals report. The point is India does not support this as official policy while Pakistan does officially support terrorists operating in Kashmir ofcourse morally (duh!) while recognizing that they are involved in acts of terror. The article is full of anti-India bias. I would urge you to do some research on the subject and find out the staggering differences in the scale. Indo Kid04 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said you will find every country in there Sweden [[8]] Mexico [[9]] Does this mean that there is serious human rights violations going on these countries?

By the way look at Pakistan [[10]]

You will agree that the term 'state oppression' can be applied if a state follows abuse as its official policy, which India clearly does not. By the way, the watchdog actually lauds India for the human rights record in the opening paragraph. Could you find any non pakistani source at all which actually uses the phrase 'state repression' by India? I bet not. There is a reason for that. Don't believe in all kinds of junk you find on websites. Indo Kid04 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ultimately. As I asked before, what's the alternative to saying state repression? And unlike Sweden, there is a border dispute and other baggage with the Kashmir issue that is more akin to the Chiapas rebellion in Mexico. Amnesty Int'l condemns both, whereas you guys seem to want to only condemn the militants/terrorists and overlook the state sponsored activities that clearly violate human rights on a regular basis. One can actually condemn both terrorism and state sponsored repression or draconian measures or whatever it is we call it. and come on, most states don't do official instructions. It's all implied that state repression will be overlooked in the name of pursuing state policy or control. You think Bush ordered the guards at Abu Ghraib to torture prisoners? Maybe, but we'll never know because it was never 'officially' ordered. This article needs both sides to be represented or it needs to go. Bottom-line. Tombseye 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Iraq a part of the U.S.A? No. Contrarily, the state of Jammu and Kashmir is a part of the Indian Union and anyone from that state who tries to disturb India's unity and integrity cannot be called a freedom-fighter. The state of Kashmir has a Muslim Chief Minister and a mostly Muslim Cabinet so the militants' arguement that Kashmiri Muslims are being denied their rights by the government cannot hold hold true. The Indian Army does not condone human-rights violations and it would be an absurdity to assume it does, based on a few stray incidents of violence committed by stressed-out defence-personnel. If this were true, how do you explain the large amount of Kashmiri Muslims joining the Kashmir Police and the CRPF? Prasi90

05:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point is that it's the Indian govt. POV that it's not a freedom struggle as many of the local Kashmiris think otherwise.[11] I'm not saying it is or isn't, but the fact remains that India's unity has little to do with what the people want, mostly independence it seems, and so from the Indian POV it's an insidious insurgency, while from the POV of many of the Muslim Kashmiris, it's a freedom struggle so it can be considered as such regardless. As for appointments to high posts, of course they are going to have Muslims in high posts, but these are people who do not, for example, want a separate state and the state is a Muslim majority region so naturally, to, at the very least, give the veneer of democracy, Muslims are in high positions. That aside, a few incidents seems like a huge understatement from what I've seen and what I've heard from Kashmiri ex-pats myself back in LA. Tombseye 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the original post in this section: I agree that the content of the article does not accurately reflect the title, so we should change either the title or the content. The title is "Terrorism in Kashmir" but the current scope of the article goes beyond terrorism to include the entire insurgency (actions of militants, actions of the military, peace talks etc.) I would suggest renaming the article to "Conflict in Kashmir". --Lee Hunter 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict in Kashmir should then include the First Kashmir War, Second Kashmir War, Kargil War, Siachen Glacier skirmish and well every conflict in the area. That is the scope of Indo-Pakistani Wars article which already exists.

It is the content that needs alteration, but some people don't want to change the words like "militants" to terrorists because it seems POV (among other issues) and therefore the article sounds less about Terrorism in Kashmir and more like something else and drags resulting in this confusion. Idleguy 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Then how about "Insurgency in Kashmir" if we need something more specific? --Lee Hunter 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly that is a better solution as wikipedia does not support the loose usage of the term terrorism without a lot of referencing anyway and Insurgency in Kashmir is pretty accurate. Nor would it be fair to not include the other side's views. And if that is not acceptable, then a separate article will no doubt crop up and with good reason. Tombseye 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It is neutral and fair. Some actions are terrorism but according to the Indian government all the actions are terrorism. So a neutral title is good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On My 1 2006, militants from the Lashkar-e-Toiba made 31 Kashmiri villagers line up against a wall and gunned them down, killing 22 and injuring the others [:http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Militants_kill_22_villagers_in_Kashmir]. Streetside executions such as this can only be as termed terrorism, and those responsible as terrorists. Prasi90

10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been urging time and again to be more specific about 'the other sides point of view'. Again, I am in favor of including documented facts from credible independent sources and not links to propaganda websites. Again, we don't have to include any sides point of view, after all I have refrained from including links from Kashmiri Pandits websites. We should only present what comes from a credible independent source, about the violance. I think the title is justified since many of these incidences of violance completely qulify as terrorism. Most of the organizations like lashkar-e-Toiba etc. behind this violance are identified as terrorist organizations by most countried including Pakistan. On the other hand I believe given the lack of evidence, the phrase 'state suppression' is completely unwarranted here (see below). No country other than ofcourse Pakistan or a credible an independent source uses that phrase regarding India. Most of the links posted below infact laud India about human rights record, and that is something that should be included in Kashmir related article since that is from reliable sources. Propaganda brouchers from lashkar-e-Toiba should be included so that we know what both sides stand for. Indo Kid04 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree as well regarding specificity etc. The links I was using were strictly from human rights groups and people who aren't from either country as well, just to be really on the safe side. I'll do what I can later as I'm embroiled in real life work and trying to get Pashtun people to become a featured article and sometimes working on John Carpenter and other articles. According to wikipedia rules, anytime the term terrorism is used we need to specify who thinks they are terrorists (as with the lashkar, we can say many countries including Pakistan think they are terrorists or something to that effect). However, the title of this article is really not tenable unlike the war on terror which has a great deal of press and notriety whereas terrorism in kashmir doesn't. A better title would be Insurgency in Kashmir, which can then discuss all the various terrorist events and differing views. Ciao for now. Tombseye 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with renaming the article so that it includes both miltancy and military actions. There is a clear Indian bias in the article right now because India calls all the militants "terrorists" so it's important to also mention the other side of the coin about military operations that have killed Kashmiris. And I agree with using neutral and independant sources, which means that the government statistics section should at least be removed. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on renaming, since there are several articles in Wikipedia with "Terrorism in..." like Terrorism against Israel in 2005, Terrorism in India, Pakistan etc. If this is renamed on the basis of POV, then so should those articles whose titles are equally POV. --Idleguy 08:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that the current scope of the article goes beyond terrorist incidents. I don't have a problem with "Terrorism in Kashmir" as a title, but all the general stuff about the insurgency in Kashmir should then be moved to a new article. Otherwise we are reinforcing the idea that the Kashmir insurgency = terrorism. --Lee Hunter 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes however in Kashmir it is different because it is a disputed territory and there are both sides involved. In India and Pakistan it is Terrorism inside a country. In Indian controlled Kashmir there are military personnel involved that are also violent. So the best thing is to give both sides separate articles. I agree with Lee about moving the . And the article deals with violence which happens in Indian-controlled Kashmir, so it should be renamed to "Terrorism in Indian controlled Kashmir".--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Insurgeny refers to the actions of Pakistani militants from across the Line of Control. Since these actions almost always result in the deaths of innocent civilians, they can only be termed terrorism. Prasi90

05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So do military actions which have resulted in more civilian deaths than separatists accused of crossing the LOC. And that's pov anyway so the article should give both sides. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that "stat" backed by a reliable neutral source? Also the separatists are not "accused of crossing the LOC" by anyone, it is nearly accepted by many countries including some of Pakistan's allies. Only Pakistan claims otherwise. Ineffect your statements tend to be slightly POV anyways on this matter IMHO. --Idleguy 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well wikipedia is not for nationalism IMHO. I don't agree that India is only there to keep peace and it's incorrect to simply blame everything on separatists or Pakistan. Both sides have to be blamed and military is clearly responsible. The allegations are not only by Pakistan but Human rights organizations based in countries that are India's allies [12] [13]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia to not to further a religious nationalism either AFAIK. Both those website's stats - apart from being dated by a decade - don't say that Indian military is responsible for more deaths than the militants. That was what you had said above. What it does confirm is that Indian Army too is responsible for HR abuses which is already mentioned in the articles in Wikipedia. There is already a lot of factual errors like stating nearly three-fourth (700,000) of India's army is in Kashmir etc. We could save ourselves a lot of time and energy by not adding any more vague statements or "stats". --Idleguy 07:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree on the issue of "stats". We can start by removing the statistics section. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 07:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we had a poll on that. Whether to remove/retain/move the said statistics section. Idleguy 08:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani Bias

This article tries to justify terrorist activities by Pakistan supported militants by using weasel words that 'human rights abuses by both sides' etc. Also it does not portray the role of pakistani intelligence agencies ISI played in supporting the militancies in the past. There are several independent sources such as FAS which whould confirm this. I have added link to this. As an Indian as much as I want peace with pakistan, I do also want to mention these historic facts. I urge the wikipedians to add more information from credibly sources to this article. Let us remove bias from this article. I would like to have various statements from organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba related to the kashmir issue included here so that we know what their stand is and what they stand for. Indo Kid04 06:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words would simply be not saying state repression. I mean you're going through saying that this article needs to have ONE side's view and not the other and then claiming to adhere to NPOV. Come on. What does the ISI's role have to do with Indian troops committing regular crimes upon the civilian Muslim population? Nothing that's what. Either we give both sides to the issue or we don't give any. Or create another article that discusses human rights violations. Tombseye 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article does not have to say either sides views. It should only report facts from credible sources in an unbiased ways. The sources you linked mention only alegations while lauding Indias human rights record. By the way neither of the sources you cite use the word 'state repression'. What makes you think that Indian troops are non-muslims and would single out muslims. For your information several ministers in Indian cabinate are muslims. Most of the kashmiri police are muslims. India's current president is a muslim. Indias prime minister is a Sikh. Several of India's army chiefs have been hindus, christians and Sikhs and yes muslims (I. H. Latif)[14] as well. Anand Arvind 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Indian govt. has had numerous reports of its dealings in the region such as forcing people to vote: [15] and this from the US State Department: [16]. And that's just stuff I looked up quickly via the web. Alright, let's say this article stays as is, then there shouldn't be any problem with another article that is entitled Human rights violations in Kashmir that talks about the Indian govt. and military abuses, right? India having Muslims in high positions of authority isn't really indicative of the conflict in Kashmir which is obviously one that entails a military that largely targets Muslim Kashmiris as I haven't heard of anything involving Indian military personnel and non-Muslim Kashmiris. The conflict is after all due to religious differences. With tight govt. and military control and pressure on the press operating in the state, you really think the 'allegations' are all false? [17] This issue is more complicated than what is presented by either the Indian or Pakistani editors as most Kashmiris want independence anyway, but are met with insurgents on one hand and a heavy military presence on the other. In some fashion, all of these conflicts (Nagorno, West Bank, Tibet, Chechnya) need to have coverage that is multifaceted and not based upon one view, in this case the Indian govt. and its supporters. Tombseye 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume you are not from either India or Pakistan since you haven't heard of Indian army dealing with non-muslim separatists. Its wrong to assume that muslim are singled out by mixed faith Indian army. Indian army has dealth with Sikh, Hindu, Christian and communist (Khalistan, ULFA, LTTE Maoists) separatists and terrorists as well. Please take a look at Terrorism in India. Pakistan has s proved history of instigating insurgencies in neighboring countries and to me since they are party to this dispute, allegations from them are not devoid of bias. I don't think that allegations are all false or true, I just want to see evidence of systematic state repression to reach such a broad conclusion so that it can be documented. Anand Arvind 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan has s proved history of instigating insurgencies in neighboring countries and to me since they are party to this dispute, allegations from them are not devoid of bias. India did much the same thing in the 1970s, when the R.A.W provided clandestine support to the Mukti Bahini in East Pakistan [18]. Not to mention the accusations that the R.A.W helped escalate the civil-unrest in Baluchistan and that Sarabjit Singh (a suspected agent) collaborated in the Lahore car-bombing. By the way the LTTE (like the ULFA) is not a religious rebellion, it is an ethnic one. And the Indian Army are not actually dealing with the LTTE, since the IPKF was forced to withdraw from Sri Lanka. Prasi90

04:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting the role of pakistan but why don't we stick to the subject here? Indo Kid04 05:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't get your last message-how have I admitted the role of Pakistan? Did you mean India? Prasi90

05:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To Anand: Yes you presume correctly, but I've studied this issue (along with other similar insurgency issues) and attended some interesting seminars on the issue back when I was at UCLA and a journalist named Martin Sugarman came back from covering the issue in Kashmir and had some interesting info. on the subject (he covered the issue for LA Weekly back in the 1990s). He extensively talked about the insurgents targeting Hindu civilians in Kashmir at the same time he talked about the army's many regular abuses as well as roving civilian vigilante gangs from India who went around commiting crimes against the Muslim population. In essence, both sides have a lot of blood and criminal acts that they have been responsible for. I believe some of the links I provided are a testament to state repression (as I don't know what else one can call them). I'll come up with more if need be, if and when time permits, but the point of these articles is not to serve as a platform for some nationalist purposes. These countries have both had ongoing problems with secessionist movements and insurgencies (Pakistan's western provinces for example) and these have been met (in the case of Baluchistan) with severe military responses, which I would term as state repression. Similarly, the fact that India does not allow Independence political parties to take part in Kashmir elections shows just how much the state is involved in its repressive policies to maintain its claims, that have little to do with what the locals want so much as holding onto land. In addition, judging from the editors work, some Indian editors (not all as many are quite balanced and fair) tend to emphasize civilian casualties of the Hindu minority, while the Pakistani editors tend to focus on the Muslim Kashmiris so this is actually very religious based conflict, while the Kashmiris themselves tend to reflect support for independence. Prasi brings up some of the problems in just blaming one side in this conflict as both sides have basically done things to undermine the other. Also, as a friend of mine, Khoikhoi, brought up, the usage of the term terrorism is highly subjective and amongst the words wikipedia seeks to avoid using as this shows: [19]. Terrorism is a term to be used sparingly and with strong references and terminology that states, for example that India considers such and such group terrorists or the US lists this group as terrorists etc. rather than simply saying these are terrorists. Like-wise, stating the other sides views is hardly out of order given the many instances of abuses conducted by the Indian military, which appears to keep much of its civilian and world population in the dark since it's not good p.r. to admit to the abuses. To some of the Kashmiris (a minority in light of those seeking independence and the non-Muslims who want to remain part of India) the insurgents are rebels fighting an occupation, so simply leaving that out of the discussion is highly questionable. Out of all the insurgencies I've looked at, there isn't a single one that doesn't involve heavy govt. abuses (and coverup), repressive policies in the name of state integrity, and a denial of human rights whenever it is deemed necessary in the name of state policy. India is, simply put, no different than its neighbor Pakistan or Sri Lanka or China in this regard. Tombseye 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LeT is a terrorist group. If the facts are biased against LeT, how can the article be unbiased. The point of an encyclopedia is to report the facts. Anand and Indokid bring up some good points, but then certain editors take the time to not answer his questions and instead go on rants about "seminars", etc. Anyways even if you have gone to a seminar you should see WP:OR. East Bengal, (aimed at Prasi) won a majority in the Pakistan elections and was denied the results by the Punjabi Military Mafia. Therefore, they represented the majority view of former Pakistanis.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Indian

This article is biased and represents pro-Indian View.

For example “India says that over the last two years, a militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively.[6] Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller militant group, Al Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning.”

I dont see how that can be pro-Indian, when it is support by a reference. However, be bold and make necessary changes, keeping Wikipedia POV rules in mind -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}04:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse and misuse of "terrorist"

This article tends to both misuse and overuse the word "terrorist". For example, wherever training camps are mentioned they are called "terrorist training camps" apparently under the assumption that all insurgents are terrorists. This is the POV of one party to the conflict, but it is not a useful assumption for an encyclopedia. By using the word "terrorist" in every second sentence, whether or not it is justified, the article creates a hysterical tone that seriously degrades its credibility. Like most insurgencies the violence can be characterized as several types:

Terrorism - acts of violence directed at the civilian population by non-state actors
Insurgency - acts of violence directed at military and government targets by non-state actors
Counter-insurgency - acts of violence by the forces of the ruling authority against insurgents.
Repression - acts of violence against the civilian population by the ruling authority.

The insurgency in Kashmir involves all four of these activities. We should be careful not to conflate the first two. --Lee Hunter 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly you have answered yourself. As you said, the overuse of terrorist word is due to "the assumption that all insurgents are terrorists". Not all are described as terrorists and neither should the reverse assumption be right. I have only edited those selective statements which are directly attributed as a claim by India. Going by your simplified version of terrorism, the photo of the child and other incidents clearly aren't acts of insurgency but terrorism. Clearly you seem confused yourself and have tagged it as an act committed by insurgents. Further the lead para has to reflect the title of the page and Wikipedia already has an article on Islamic Terrorism, to which it was linked.

During the many conversion process, some references may have been lost or misquoted but they are not minority views. And views of a state or person isn't POV as per Wikipedia policies as long as it is sourced. You should have tagged any specific lines as {{cn}}. Simply making changes without a consensus will not work. Thanks. Idleguy 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You write 'I have only edited those selective statements which are directly attributed as a claim by India." If, as you say, it's a claim by India, then we have to specify that it is an allegation by that government.

Re. the photo of the child, there's no supporting documentation of who it is, where it's from and when it was taken. Was it from a deliberate act of terrorism? Was it collateral damage by an attack against a military target? Was it collateral damage from an Indian government action? We have no way of knowing.

I have no problem with the use of the word "terrorist" if either a) it is identified as an allegation or b) the source of the allegation is clearly identified at the point where the word is used.

Re. the introductory paragraph. The specific sentence is "Thousands of lives have been lost since 1989 due both, to the intensified insurgency and the Indian military. Those dead include civilians, Indian security forces, Kashmiri and non Kashmiri Islamic terrorists." This is simply odd. We specify the civilians. We specify the security forces. We specify the terrorists. What happened to the insurgents mentioned in the previous sentence? If we're going to make a list of the dead why do we drop the insurgents?

I frankly don't understand your point about terrorists not being insurgents. All terrorists are part of the insurgency since "insurgency" is a vague term that applies to everyone who is opposing the government forces with violence. --Lee Hunter 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations for government allegations and claims are missing or have disappeared since they were first provided, but it can be resolved. Please tag specific instances of disputed or POV statements/opinions that stick out without a source and it can be remedied faster; in the meantime I'll see what can be done to provide sources for them.

The photo's summary has now been provided according to what information I gathered from the photo's source. It is indeed classified as terrorist act and not the result of a collateral damage on either side. The location and date is missing for now, but I have requested the source to provide them if they can.

Lead para has been updated to include all the parties; soldiers, militants and terrorists. Any other suggestion to improve would be welcome. Idleguy 03:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Child

Is the image of a dead child staring you right in the face really necessary for the purposes of this article?? I find it disturbing and over the top.

[edit] December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir “The Kashmir puzzle”

"The Kashmir puzzle"

THE HINDU

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Thursday, Dec 14, 2006

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

This refers to the editorial "Clues to Kashmir peace puzzle" (Dec. 13). Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam's statement that her country has never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory is a pleasant surprise. She has buttressed her assertion, saying Pakistan-held Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is clear that there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. If it indeed has no territorial design in Kashmir, it should leave the issue to the Kashmiris and stop fighting on their behalf. K.V. Seetharamaiah, Hassan

Ms. Aslam's remarks vindicate New Delhi's stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. One feels that the latest statements by President Pervez Musharraf and his Government are effective catalysts for a change. K.S. Thampi, Chennai

By stating openly that it has never claimed Kashmir as its integral part, Pakistan has only reiterated the legal position. The Indian Independence Act 1947 gave the princely states the right to choose between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir became an irrevocable part of India once Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India. It is an open secret that Pakistan's relations with India have been closely linked to its fixation on Kashmir. When all is said and done, Pakistan's latest statement is welcome, as it is likely to take the neighbours closer to solving the peace puzzle. A. Paramesham, New Delhi

A week ago, Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India accepted his "four-point solution." Why should he offer to give up the claim over something his country never claimed in the first place, using a non-existent thing to negotiate? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion) S.P. Sundaram, Chennai

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Now that Gen. Musharraf has clarified Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should seize the opportunity to settle the issue once and for all. The BJP should not be a stumbling block to the negotiations. M.N. Srinivasan, Vellore

Statements emanating from Pakistan are intended to pressure India in two ways. While they will invoke the wrath of those who favour self-rule for Kashmir, India will be forced to negotiate the Kashmir issue more seriously on bilateral and multilateral forums. The Government should respond with a strong message. Rajeev Ranjan Dwivedi, Dhenkanal, Orissa

Pakistan's latest statement is superficial and bears no significance. It should not be seen as a shift in its Kashmir policy. It is an attempt to mislead the world until the tide turns in Gen. Musharraf's favour. With India set to sign a nuclear deal with the U.S., Pakistan wants to gain some ground and win credibility in American circles. Had Gen. Musharraf really believed that the people of Kashmir should decide their fate, he would have ended cross-border terror by now. Shashikant Singh, Roorkee

Source: The Hindu Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm

Atulsnischal 12:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/Talk%7ETerrorism_in_Kashmir_537c.html"