Why Does the Indian Army Remain Cautious Towards Stone Pelters in Kashmir?
India has faced ongoing tensions in Kashmir, particularly with stone pelters and separatist activities which have garnered both domestic and international attention. The question often posed is, 'Why does the Indian Army not take more assertive actions against these groups?' This article delves into the complexities surrounding these incidences and suggests a balanced approach.
The Complex Context of Kashmir
The insurgency in Kashmir is a multifaceted issue that has deep historical roots. Stone pelters, as a form of protest, have been part of this narrative. While their actions warrant respect for peaceful dissent, they often do not consider the broader implications of their acts. It is important to view these protests with a holistic perspective, acknowledging that the young and misguided may come to these conclusions due to a belief that Kashmir is not an integral part of India or Pakistan.
Geopolitical dynamics also play a significant role. The protests in Kashmir mirror similar movements in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK), highlighting the interconnected nature of these regions. India and Pakistan's relations and the international pressure both countries face influence the situation significantly.
Approach of the Indian Army
The Indian Army has adopted a cautious and measured approach in handling such incidents. In recent years, it has maintained a distance and restraint, which helped restore a semblance of normalcy in Kashmir. However, the current situation has taken a downturn due to various factors, including the intervention of separatist politicians, the politicization of the issue, and external actors.
The use of pellet guns and the worsening of the situation can be attributed in part to the increasing tension and public unrest. The government's efforts to calm the situation and reduce public disruptions are commendable, especially during the current emergency.
The Role of Media and Diplomacy
The left-liberal media plays a significant role in both criticizing and shaping public opinion on these issues. Their consistent criticism of the government can be seen as a strategic move to paralyze the government’s response to anti-nationals and terrorists. This constant negative coverage makes it challenging for the government to act decisively and effectively.
Instead of solely focusing on the contradictions and criticisms, a more diplomatic and balanced approach is required. The government needs to work on building a more favorable narrative while addressing the underlying issues contributing to unrest. Diplomatic efforts and addressing the political and economic concerns of the populace can help in this regard.
Conclusion
The challenge in Kashmir is not only about military strategies but also about diplomatic, socio-economic, and political solutions. The Indian Army’s cautious approach is a reflection of these complexities. A holistic and inclusive strategy is necessary to address the underlying issues while maintaining peace and stability in the region.