FRONTLINE/World ultimately aims to create an online
community where citizens, journalists and experts from around
the world can post comments and engage in a thoughtful,
lively dialogue. We invite you to email
a comment. Please note that emails selected for posting
may be edited for length, clarity and fairness.
Habeel Gazi - London, Ontario, Canada
I am from Srinagar and wish we could see more balanced and
realistic coverage of the situation in Kashmir. This would
at least help build momentum to send aid to help alleviate
the suffering of the people.
Raman - Phoenix, Arizona
Your documentary is the most biased version I have yet to
see. I love PBS, but am dismayed by your projection of India
and Indian Kashmir. What you show are cleverly designed
half-truths meant to disguise the truth from gullible people
who watch your program and form opinions. Two thirds of
Kashmir was taken away by force from India by Pakistan and
China. All Hindu Pundits have been driven away from this
land, which originally belonged to them -- even before Islam
arrived in the region. And the fate of the hundreds of thousands
of Hindus killed or driven away from their homes is not
even mentioned in your so-called documentary. These are
a few *facts* that should have played a serious role in
your film.
You should also consider the Indian
side of the story. The Indian military is in Kashmir for
a good reason -- Pakistan is sending armed militants to
kill and maim people. Would the U.S. do anything different
if faced with a similar situation? Sadly, your film has
only accomplished more polarization.
Ananth Halvi - Arlington, Texas
Your story does not make even a passing comment about the
thousands of soldiers who have been killed while protecting
innocent people. Stories like yours paint a really bad picture
of India. As an Indian citizen, I strongly protest the false
opinion the West holds that there are human rights abuses
all the time in Kashmir. The other side of the story should
be told.
Monica - Tampa, Florida
Has India not surrendered enough to the Muslims when giving
up a large portion of its land in 1947? My mom is from Kashmir
and fondly remembers days where one was not a Muslim or
a Hindu, but simply Kashmiris -- friends and neighbors.
If there were a large population of, say, Germans, living
in New York, does this give Germany the right to seize New
York? Unfortunately, many of the Muslim Kashmiris fell into
a Pakistani militant trap, which turned them against their
Hindu friends and neighbors. This led to their own homes
and lives being controlled by these militants. Kashmir always
has been India and it has worked beautifully this way for
so long. Why fix what isn't broken? The Indian government
can do much more for Kashmir than Pakistan can. India is
currently the world's fastest growing economy -- so your
claim that it's a scar on the democratic world doesn't stand.
Anonymous
Violence is always deplorable. A death or injury is painful whether it is to a Kashmiri Muslim, a Hindu from Jammu, a Buddhist from Ladakh or a soldier performing his duty in a democracy under trying circumstances. Unfortunately, you seem to be focusing on only one set of victims. Kashmiri Muslims who were either supportive or ambivalent to the federal government campaign of terror unleashed back in 1989. Last year's state election resulted in a 44 percent turnout, despite the death of more than 800 Kashmiri Muslims (mainly political party workers) in the weeks before the polls.
In your coverage, you mention all the soldiers you saw in the valley. This
is the direct result of a more human approach adopted by
the federal government. There are no aerial bombardments
of the Fallujah kind, neither is there any attempt at a
"shock and awe" campaign. As a direct consequence of putting
"boots on the ground,Ó thousands of troops have become part
of the more than 50,000 casualties of this insurgency over
the last 15 years. I wish you had also talked to the soldiers
and their widows.
Ganesan Krishnamoorthy - East
Northport, New York
I was born in India, the undivided India of 1943. The partition
of the country has broken it up in many ways. The only way
to bring peace and prosperity to the region is to reunite
the country. There are holy Hindu sites in Pakistan and
holy Islamic shrines in India. Reunification of India will
bring immediate joy to most of the people of the subcontinent;
others will get used to it in time!
Dr. Hari Krishen Koul - Denver, Colorado
Even a documentary like yours does not mention the minorities
in Kashmir, the Kashmiri Pundits. Over the past 15 years,
more than 700,000 of these men, women, and children -- the
original inhabitants of the valley -- have been subjected
to genocide and forced to flee their native land by the
very people you call peace makers. I challenge you to have
the courage to speak the truth on Kashmir and not be a mouthpiece
of propaganda for the influential.
Ali Aga - Chicago, Illinois
I liked it! Good Job. Thanks for such nice story.
Anonymous - Ann Arbor, Michigan
Kashmir does not stand a chance at peace, not as long as
pundits and policymakers continually frame the dispute as
territorial; and not as long as Kashmiris are denied true
representation (not self-appointed leaders). The dispute
is intractable, not simply because there is long-standing
enmity between India and Pakistan, but because Kashmiris
believe in a right to exercise agency and to direct their
own futures. No country thus far has recognized their right
to self-determination and independence. Your piece was disappointing.
I had hoped you might have avoided the simplistic presentation
of the conflict in terms of "Islamic jihad", and prevented
the use of loaded and irresponsible terms that are inapposite
to the description of the reality on the ground in Kashmir.
Bharat Kondeti - Arlington, Texas
You make a documentary, Kashmir: Road to Peace, but aren't
you aware that the peace process was initiated by India?
It is we Indians who started a bus route to Pakistan; it
is we who started a train to Pakistan; it is we who gave
a hand of friendship to Pakistan.
If you dig up some of the history,
you will know who started the Indo-Pakistan wars in 1966
and 1971. It was Pakistan. Even though India occupied much
of Pakistan in 1971, we returned every bit of their land
in the hope for peace.
Anonymous - Ann Arbor, Michigan
Kashmir does not stand a chance at peace, not as long as
pundits and policy makers continually frame the dispute
as territorial, not as long as Kashmiris are denied true
representation (not self-appointed leaders). The dispute
is intractable not simply because there is long-standing
enmity between India and Pakistan, but because Kashmiris
believe in a right...to direct their own futures, and no
country thus far has recognized their right to self-determination
and independence. In a way, your piece was disappointing,
as I had hoped that you might have perhaps avoided the simplistic
presentation of the conflict in terms of "Islamic jihad"...
Naga - No location given
Hi, I used to really like watch/read Frontline. But whenever
I am watching a story about India/Pakistan issues, it is
(Frontline or major news) always having the perception or
mentality of cold war mentality. Always taking the sides.
Instead of taking middle ground. Especially in Kashmir,
nobody is taking about Kashmir Pandits who are the most
suffered in the Kashmir valley. They [are] affected by both
side (Extremists and politicians) because they are not having
major vote banks, and different religion. At least I hoped
that the Frontline take a common stand...
Anonymous
I hate to bring out Phil Collins' song "You need to hear
both sides of the story...", but I must. Your coverage is
very comprehensive and perhaps brings out a lot of ground
realities. I say "perhaps" because I have never been to
J&K, and cannot comment on who is right and who is wrong.
Maybe the army has been ruthless in dealing with innocent
people, but maybe also there is more to it than simply that.
Your coverage extends to the noticeably Muslim population
of the state, and perhaps for good reason. The minorities
have been driven out by the militants. What about the people
who look at the army for protection? Should they just wither
away in silence? J&K is as much a part of their lives as
it is a part of the lives of the majority. A plebiscite
cannot be a solution because there will always be a minority
who will oppose what the majority decision will be and will
thus be treated unfairly. Additionally, a lot of people
have been driven out of J&K and you have not captured their
views in your documentary. It would be wise to include insights
from these individuals who also belong to J&K.
FRONTLINE/World Fellows
Sachi Cunningham and Jigar Mehta respond:
Thank you for your letters drawing
attention to the complexities of the conflict in Kashmir.
The population of Kashmir changed
drastically after 1989, when violence escalated over Indian
control of the state, and hundreds of thousands of Hindu
Kashmiris, known as "Pandits" (Hindu for teacher) were
forced to flee the valley. The humanitarian violations
were profound, and Kashmir's thousand-year old concept
of a "Kashmiriat," or diverse cultural unity, was destroyed.
The loss of the Hindu population continues to affect Kashmir
and is an important part of a complex history that remains
unresolved today. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
recently visited Kashmiri Pandit migrant camps, but was
criticized for not offering long-term solutions for the
displaced population.
Our story about Muzaffarrabad
Road ("The
Road to Peace?") was a report focused on the proposed
re-opening of this route as a "confidence building measure"
in India and Pakistan's ongoing negotiations about the
future of Kashmir. We were looking at the current state
of affairs on the ground. The story of the Hindu exodus
from Kashmir is among many of the important humanitarian
stories that should continue to be told.
For more information on the Pandit
exodus and other stories of human rights violations in
Kashmir please see the following Web sites:
Christian
Science Monitor, "Once
diverse, Kashmir is now a valley of Muslims"
Amnesty
International
(Type "Kashmir" in the search box to get recent reports)
The
Brookings Institution, "Kashmir: Redefining the U.S. Role"
Thank you for writing.
Ravi Razdan, American Kashmir
Society
This movie is an Jihadist propaganda film which completely
suppresses the ethnic cleansing of native Kashmiri Pandits
(Hindus) by Islamists, and denies their existence. Pandits
have been native to the Kashmir valley even before the spread
of Islam there. Thus this film/website is thus highly injurious
to our cause, and harms our right of return. Given this
film's heavy focus on highlighting the suffering of local
Muslims, and "human rights violation" of foreign terrorist,
this exclusion seems very intentional. Having Quranic chants
bellowing out from the web site on Kashmir while ignoring
its few thousand year old Hindu/Shavic heritage is rude
slap in our collective faces. It solidifies our cleansing
in the virtual world too. Given the typical Berkeley outrage
on the toxic mix of church & state this double standard
is a good clue to the real agenda of this film. The site
talks a lot about soldiers everywhere, but nothing about
foreign Islamic terrorists the reason for the soldier presence,
and nor the daily dirty deeds of massacres, head chopping,
nose cutting, and acid splashing of the local population
of both religions... We ask you to immediately rectify the
situation by...making changes to the site/film to presenting
a truthful, and a balanced perspective so as to avoid further
injury to our community...
[EDITOR'S NOTE:
This react has been edited]
FRONTLINE/World editors respond:
While we welcome a vigorous exchange of views on the reports
we present, we have a policy of not publishing inflammatory
rhetoric, personal attacks, or threats. The letter above
has been edited to comply with those guidelines. Our report,
"The Road to Peace?" is an eyewitness account of the situation
today in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir. It is
a current events story, not a comprehensive history of
the Kashmir conflict which has been ongoing since 1947.
In that conflict, there have been human rights abuses
and atrocities committed by all sides. As we said in the
brief introduction to our story, Kashmir is a dangerous
flashpoint between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers.
But in November 2003 India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire
and listed a number of "confidence building measures"
they hoped to carry out, including the re-opening of a
key road across divided Kashmir. We thought it would be
worthwhile to travel that road and see what people there
were saying. The report offers a variety of viewpoints.
We intended no slight to any group or religion in Kashmir,
nor do we espouse a particular cause. Our sole purpose
was to cast some light on conditions in Kashmir today
and to focus on the proposed re-opening of the road as
one tentative move toward a resolution of this protracted
conflict. We no doubt will return to cover other important
aspects of this story in the future.
Muhammad Ahmed - Brooklyn, New York
World apathy to this tragedy is regretful. Is the world
waiting for the last Kashmiri to die before any action is
taken? I believe civilized world should take a united stand
against India and pressurize it to quit Kashmir...I think
India is a scar on face of democratic world. Imagine the
out cry if such brutalities were committed by the U.S. forces...
Bharat Kondeti - Arlington, Texas
You make a documentary on Kashmir: Road to Peace, aren't
you aware that the peace process was initiated by then prime
minister of India? It is we who started a bus route to Pakistan,
It is we who started a train to Pakistan, It is we who gave
a friendship hand to Pakistan... Even though we, India,
occupied much of Pakistan in 1971 we returned back every
bit of their land in hope for peace.... Since 1947 more
than 50,000 innocent civilians were killed by militants
in Kashmir and many more were killed by their bombings in
all the other parts of India. It's only because peace and
patience is in our culture and in our blood and we know
that killing is not a solution for any thing, that Pakistan
still exists. India is the only country where in you will
find numerous cultures and great diversity. All the religions
of the world are equally practiced in India...
Jim Palmer - No location given
Here are some poignant questions:
- Jammu & Kashmir had 700,000 Hindus, 100,000s of Buddhists,
1,000s of Sikhs, and 1,000s of Christians. Why are the
Terrorists/Freedom Fighters only Muslim?
- India has 150 Million Muslims. Why must their Future
be made Insecure because 4 Million...[Muslims]...in Jammu
& Kashmir are given special Privileges?
- Pakistan has never held free and fair Elections in...Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir.
- ...There has been no development what-so-ever in [Pakistan-occupied
Kasmir].
- Pakistan has illegally ceded 5000 sq KM of Jammu &
Kashmir to China. Is that territory to be returned?
- Accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India is Final.
Those were the Rules in 1947. Politicans can promise the
moon to their constituents, however only what is feasible
can in reality be provided ...
Neil Haran - San Francisco, California
Jim Palmer's points are most pertinent to this topic, and
are never addressed by proponents of the Pakistani position.
Pakistan is a state bordering on failure and collapse, to
put it politely. The notion of a magical Muslim homeland
collapsed after the 1971 Bangladesh war, and subsequent
events in both Pakistan and Bangladesh suggest that democracy
and the co-existence of diverse faiths is just not compatible
with Muslim-majority nations. If Kashmir is the "unfinished"
business of the devastating partition, then so are the millions
of Muslims who reside and thrive in India today, and incidentally
who out-number the Muslims in either Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Pakistan and proponents of Pakistani-Kashmir have no legitimacy
-- legal, moral or otherwise -- in wanting to eat their
2-nation cake and to have it at the same time. Frontline/World
did a great disservice to freedom, liberty, democracy and
religious co-existence by giving a one-sided voice to the
very groups that oppose every one of these self-evident
civilizational truths. Shame on you!
Anonymous
Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. The Kashmiri people opted for
Pakistan during separation. However, the prince was a Hindu
who wanted to give Kashmir over to India. This situation
led to war and now Kashmir is divided. I doubt peace will
ever come to this region because Kashmir has come to symbolize
the importance of the unity of the state of India and Pakistan.
Both of these countries have problems with some of there
provinces. If either side sacrifices Kashmir, it could cause
other provinces in India or Pakistan, to ask for independence.
back to top
