India revokes Kashmir’s and Jammu’s special status

[Annatar]

It's funny seeing liberals in this thread complain about how this will make people in Kashmir a demographic minority and induce demographic change and seeing those same poster's say that people who talk about demographic change with relation to other countries are racists.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Looks like some serious grade shelling may be occurring, three soldiers of Pakistan have been martyred. Civilians impacted too.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1499681/3-pakistan-army-soldiers-martyred-in-loc-firing-by-indian-forces-ispr

https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1161974465045159939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etf...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would actually compare this to Israel vs Palestine ,with now India fully taking the Israel role (which is good)

Does that mean you support the right of Palestinians (at least all in the West Bank) to vote for the Knesset?

I’m comparing it to Jerusalem where it should be Israeli just like Kashmir should be in India

Why? Because at partition, the Hindu prince ruling it decided to join India despite the local majority-Islamic inhabitants wanting to avoid getting mixed up in the mess of partition? Neither India nor Pakistan have ever given the Kashmiris any respect.

[Zinneke]

It's funny seeing liberals in this thread complain about how this will make people in Kashmir a demographic minority and induce demographic change and seeing those same poster's say that people who talk about demographic change with relation to other countries are racists.

The difference is that one of your cases of "demographic change" is incredibly negligible if you actually look at the hard data (1 refugee for every 1000 Europeans), yet overhyped by a right-wing narrative that there is some sort of conspiracy (usually with heavy doses of anti-semitism thrown in) to replace the white man in Europe and the US. The US itself is a case apart when talking demographics and racial identity as there has never been a constitutional assumption that US citizenship "belonged" to a certain race or ethno-linguistic group.

The other amounts to a state-sponsored land grab with assimilationist aspirations. It isn't so much the ethnic composition as the ideological nature of the immigrants that will flood the country that is the issue. These are people whose purpose will be to forcefully assimilate these lands into the state-sponsored nationalist ideology. There's no state sponsoring all the refugees here (from a multitude of countries and cultures) coming to our lands trying to assimilate us to their lifestyle. Its quite difficult for "Team Refugees in Europe" to try and assimilate us given they belong to a heterogeneous group in the first place.  

Really making an analogy between the migration debate in the West and forced population transfers, just like the suggestion by another R-XX avatar in this thread that billions Muslims across the world have some sort of evil hive mind to undermine our democracies, is really lacking any kind of intellectual rigour. Have right-wingers suddenly forgotten nuance on this forum?

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's funny seeing liberals in this thread complain about how this will make people in Kashmir a demographic minority and induce demographic change and seeing those same poster's say that people who talk about demographic change with relation to other countries are racists.

They are massive hypocrites

[lfromnj]

Yeah, my objection is less abolishing Article 370 and what they replaced it with. Directly governing Kashmir from the capital makes their intentions look far more suspect than had they turned Kashmir into just another state of India.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Even more revealing is the silence of the major powers. Charitably, one could assume the absence of commentary from Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow is due to geopolitics (after all, the Western powers are building up India as their key military ally in the region, and the latter two still want some influence in New Delhi). More disturbingly though, the leaders of these countries are giving a silent endorsement because they think it's pretty much OK what India is doing, and if anything are studying the actions of Modi to see if they can repeat his methods domestically.

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Even more revealing is the silence of the major powers. Charitably, one could assume the absence of commentary from Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow is due to geopolitics (after all, the Western powers are building up India as their key military ally in the region, and the latter two still want some influence in New Delhi). More disturbingly though, the leaders of these countries are giving a silent endorsement because they think it's pretty much OK what India is doing, and if anything are studying the actions of Modi to see if they can repeat his methods domestically.

Few people are actually defending the actual actions of military rule and the complete tear down of the government. Instead people are defending the fact that Kashmir doesn't get special rights anymore.I can't find a single comment here besides maybe OSR that could be construed as defending the central military rule. Please stop straw manning this thread when there really aren't any posts defending what you describe. Insomnians comment best summarizes the defenders of this policy on this thread.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Even more revealing is the silence of the major powers. Charitably, one could assume the absence of commentary from Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow is due to geopolitics (after all, the Western powers are building up India as their key military ally in the region, and the latter two still want some influence in New Delhi). More disturbingly though, the leaders of these countries are giving a silent endorsement because they think it's pretty much OK what India is doing, and if anything are studying the actions of Modi to see if they can repeat his methods domestically.

Few people are actually defending the actual actions of military rule and the complete tear down of the government. Instead people are defending the fact that Kashmir doesn't get special rights anymore.I can't find a single comment here besides maybe OSR that could be construed as defending the central military rule. Please stop straw manning this thread when there really aren't any posts defending what you describe. Insomnians comment best summarizes the defenders of this policy on this thread.

Not really. Most of the right wingers on this thread seem perfectly happy to overlook the repression, instead fovusing on inane jabs at a supposedly 'pro-diverse' left.

[urutzizu]

Even more revealing is the silence of the major powers. Charitably, one could assume the absence of commentary from Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow is due to geopolitics (after all, the Western powers are building up India as their key military ally in the region, and the latter two still want some influence in New Delhi). More disturbingly though, the leaders of these countries are giving a silent endorsement because they think it's pretty much OK what India is doing, and if anything are studying the actions of Modi to see if they can repeat his methods domestically.

I found even more disgusting the attitude of the major Muslim nations. Complete silence, the UAE even endorsed the crackdown. Those who shamelessly portray themselves at any occasion as the protectors of Muslims in Palestine, show their True colors when it comes to Muslims in Xinjiang or Kashmir. They happily invest and support concentration camps, brainwashing or indefinite detention without trial of Muslims there, treatment to which the Israeli Occupation policies pale in comparison.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

[OSR stands with Israel]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

The South was given less autonomy during Reconstruction than the other states and this is India's version of reconstruction.

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

The South was given less autonomy during Reconstruction than the other states and this is India's version of reconstruction.

Yes coz being isolationist is completely comparable to a full scale revolt supporting slavery

[OSR stands with Israel]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

The South was given less autonomy during Reconstruction than the other states and this is India's version of reconstruction.

Yes coz being isolationist is completely comparable to a full scale revolt supporting slavery

Kashmir women law is literally a law only Radical Islamists now days would support. It is deplorable, and Kashmir has lots of problems with insurgencies and my dad said many of their leaders were sympathetic to the insurgencies.

[lfromnj]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

The South was given less autonomy during Reconstruction than the other states and this is India's version of reconstruction.

Yes coz being isolationist is completely comparable to a full scale revolt supporting slavery

Kashmir women law is literally a law only Radical Islamists now days would support. It is deplorable, and Kashmir has lots of problems with insurgencies and my dad said many of their leaders were sympathetic to the insurgencies.

Unlike you, I don't believe everything my parents say when it comes to India, We get it you hate China and want super tarrifs because you want India to overtake them. It is not ok to completely overthrow a democratically elected government and place it under house arrest.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Very revealing look into the mindset of certain people in this thread: suddenly any attachment to liberty or individual rights or constitutional norms or federalism goes flying out the window because of AUGH MUSLIMS. I wish you guys would be honest though: rather than pretending this is just about Article 370, admit you think it is OK and proper for the government of the "world's largest democracy" to unilaterally and illegally abolish a state with no forewarning and place a population of 12.5 milllion under military rule, stripping all democratic rights from its people, preemptively detaining any potentially dissenters and cutting off all communication.

Im going to use a source which is not at all pro India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/kashmir-special-status-explained-articles-370-35a-190805054643431.html

The article, which came into effect in 1949, exempts Jammu and Kashmir state from the Indian constitution.

It established a separate constitution and a separate flag and denied property rights in the region to the outsiders.

That means the residents of the state live under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership and citizenship.

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state. The provision also extends to such women's children.

This seems more like India's version of Reconstruction and just like how the Union was justified to implement the policies of reconstruction, India is justified to do this

It is not justified to completely take over control of the government however giving it less autonomy than any other region,temporarily increasing military presence to counter any insurgency tactics is fine, but actively destroying the government is not

The South was given less autonomy during Reconstruction than the other states and this is India's version of reconstruction.

Yes coz being isolationist is completely comparable to a full scale revolt supporting slavery

Kashmir women law is literally a law only Radical Islamists now days would support. It is deplorable, and Kashmir has lots of problems with insurgencies and my dad said many of their leaders were sympathetic to the insurgencies.

Unlike you, I don't believe everything my parents say when it comes to India, We get it you hate China and want super tarrifs because you want India to overtake them. It is not ok to completely overthrow a democratically elected government and place it under house arrest.

No I want Tarrifs because the Chinese have been waging a trade war against the US . They have stolen our intellectual property, engage in dumping , and have broken all sorts of rules but the Anti American WTO refuses to do anything about it.


This is why I think the US-Israel-India should form a pact because its clear many world organizations dislike the US , Israel and India.  Another reason is China and Radical Islam should not be given one more inch as they are the biggest threat in the world today



Note: I do support new elections to be held ASAP

[GMantis]

Bad, Bad decision. India seems to be hell bent to try what China has done in Xinjiang. The Abolition of Article 370&35A would allow for people from other parts of (hindu-majority) India to be settled in Kashmir and permanently change its demographics from Muslim to Hindu, something that was previously restricted under J&Kashmirs laws.

If you impose permanent martial law, imprison even the moderate political leaders and take away their autonomy, then that is how you create terrorists.

Or perhaps it could be used for the Hindus expelled from Kashmir under this special status to be returned to their homelands? Quite apart from the fact that in normal countries citizens can settle wherever they like,  so India is just coming closer to international norms.
And in case, experience has shown that Muslims living in non-Muslim dominated regions are almost always better off that non-Muslims living in Muslim dominated regions, so probably would lead to improvement in the long term.

[Beezer]

It's funny seeing liberals in this thread complain about how this will make people in Kashmir a demographic minority and induce demographic change and seeing those same poster's say that people who talk about demographic change with relation to other countries are racists.

The difference is that one of your cases of "demographic change" is incredibly negligible if you actually look at the hard data (1 refugee for every 1000 Europeans), yet overhyped by a right-wing narrative that there is some sort of conspiracy (usually with heavy doses of anti-semitism thrown in) to replace the white man in Europe and the US.

When some in Europe are voicing apprehensions about demographic changes, they are obviously not just talking about the influx of refugees in late 2015 or another rather limited time frame - this is about the general changes that have occurred and will continue to unfold in future decades. White Britons are a minority in London. By 2050, Muslims could make up around a third of Sweden's population. How can that be described as "incredibly negligible"?

[CumbrianLefty]

Words like "could" invariably seem to do a lot of work in such statements.

And while white British are (narrowly) a minority in London, white people certainly are not.

But that doesn't sound as confectedly sensational, does it?

[lfromnj]

Bad, Bad decision. India seems to be hell bent to try what China has done in Xinjiang. The Abolition of Article 370&35A would allow for people from other parts of (hindu-majority) India to be settled in Kashmir and permanently change its demographics from Muslim to Hindu, something that was previously restricted under J&Kashmirs laws.

If you impose permanent martial law, imprison even the moderate political leaders and take away their autonomy, then that is how you create terrorists.

Or perhaps it could be used for the Hindus expelled from Kashmir under this special status to be returned to their homelands? Quite apart from the fact that in normal countries citizens can settle wherever they like,  so India is just coming closer to international norms.
And in case, experience has shown that Muslims living in non-Muslim dominated regions are almost always better off that non-Muslims living in Muslim dominated regions, so probably would lead to improvement in the long term.

Not sure that happens in India, lynchings for Muslims are quite common . However it isn't right to forever separate a state within a country from the rest of the population. Maybe slow controlled assimilation in both directions would be ideal. It is absolutely unfair to ban any women from marrying outsiders.

[Beezer]

Words like "could" invariably seem to do a lot of work in such statements.

And while white British are (narrowly) a minority in London, white people certainly are not.

But that doesn't sound as confectedly sensational, does it?

Again, the demographic changes in most Western European nations are completely unprecedented, regardless of how you look at it. Countries with little to no history of immigration now have major cities where the "indigenous" population only makes up a minority (or is close to). I'm not trying to start a discussion on whether that is good or bad - but don't make it sound like this transformation is "negligible".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I tend to think that subject of this thread is maybe important enough for the thread to not turn into... you know... every other thread on the international boards these days?

[CumbrianLefty]

but don't make it sound like this transformation is "negligible".

A word which I have not, and would not, employ.

There is no doubt the present situation is very challenging.

"The sky is falling in" alarmism and deeply dodgy "projections" do not help, however.

[Zinneke]

Words like "could" invariably seem to do a lot of work in such statements.

And while white British are (narrowly) a minority in London, white people certainly are not.

But that doesn't sound as confectedly sensational, does it?

Again, the demographic changes in most Western European nations are completely unprecedented, regardless of how you look at it. Countries with little to no history of immigration now have major cities where the "indigenous" population only makes up a minority (or is close to). I'm not trying to start a discussion on whether that is good or bad - but don't make it sound like this transformation is "negligible".

OK, I'll hold my hands up on that one, I meant the Refugee Crisis, not the general demographic trends since the advent of globalisation.

My main concern is the analogy between nationalist-driven population transfers under the guise of "guest workers" or "retruning back our ancestors lands" (and that's not a reference to Zionism, before this thread goes the other way, Zionism is a totally different debate too) and the Refugee Crisis in Europe. Especially as one is a genuine top-down policy, the other is not.