144 children detained by india in kashmir

[crashnburn]

1 minute ago, Cation said:

Because the special privileges started in 1997 to last for 50 years until 2047. Compare that to Kashmir that had special privileges for 70 years. 

haha.. you are dumb.  

[Cation]

1 minute ago, crashnburn said:

haha.. you are dumb.  

Why don't you accept how similar Kashmir and Hongkong are and you can wait until 2047 to see the status of Hongkong. 

[k2s]

5 hours ago, lovemystate said:

yevado yerri pappa gaadu pakistan lo criminals rape chesthe heehehehe hahaha anti post vesadu Ikkada daarunalu chesedhi criminals gaadhu ekanga indian govt ee

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/children-among-minors-detained-kashmir-article-370-abrogation-reports-1605322-2019-10-01

Aneesha Mathur 

New Delhi

October 1, 2019

UPDATED: October 1, 2019 23:56 IST

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eighty six children were picked-up under Preventive Detention provisions of the Criminal procedure Code. (Image for Representation/PTI)

 

Children as young as 9-years-old had been picked up under preventive detention in the immediate aftermath of the August 5 lockdown in Jammu and Kashmir, a report filed before the Supreme court on Tuesday said.

The report filed by the four-judge Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) of the J&K High court, however, maintains that the detainee’ children were released from custody on the same day as their detention’ and no child was kept or taken into illegal detention by the Police authorities as strict adherence is placed on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The four-member JJC, which includes justices AM Magrey, DS Thakur, Sanjeev Kumar and Rashid Ali Dar of the J&K High court, has not made any comments on the inquiry conducted, but has reproduced the report filed by the DGP Srinagar, who has "categorically refuted the assertions and allegations made in the media reports" and the PIL.

 

According to the data attached to the report, 144 children under 18 years of age had been picked up by police between August 5 and September 23 this year.

Eighty six of these children were picked-up under Preventive Detentio

enduku detention?

[crashnburn]

2 hours ago, Cation said:

Why don't you accept how similar Kashmir and Hongkong are and you can wait until 2047 to see the status of Hongkong. 

first of, I apologise for acting like a dcik for no reason. I was probably in a bad mood.

as far as hong kong goes, kashmir and hongkong are not comparable. for instance, the latest agitation against chinese overreach in HK is carried out by 3 different sets of protestors. one - anarchists who oppose every level of govt (including their own city-state's), two - HK natives who carry racist attitudes towards the chinese mainlanders and other non-HongKongers living in HK, and three - constitutionalists, those who want China to live up to the treaty it signed with the british.

in none of these 3 groups, are the british/western expat who lives in HK, who is on the other side of the treaty. In fact, almost none of the western expats have a favourable view of what is happening in HK, even if the protests indirectly benefit them (they'll lose residency status if China annexes HK). In fact, China can annex HK tomorrow, and none of these stakeholders would bat an eyelid. China doesn't have to wait until 2047. Britain literally doesn't care about HK anymore.

what happens after 2047 is, HK is expected to negotiate certain exemptions in capital restrictions that applies to the rest of china, and China will probably be willing to accommodate a lot of its demands given how it is the Chinese elite that stand to benefit from HK continuing as before. but 2047 is too far, and situations change.

your insistence that China can't annex HK before 2047 is definitely laughable. Britain stopped caring about HK sometime in the mid 2000s. It is slowly demographically changing to fully chinese city for more than a decade now. But still HK'ers have different characteristics to mainlanders. born out of surviving one of the harshest environments. 

-------------------

as for your insistence about kashmir. try and make a case for India's actions through a moral framework, a utilitarian framework, or a legal framework. India's actions fail in all these 3 accounts.

since you've already accepted that India's action don't have to be moral, because of some pressing need to show its dcik to the world or whatever. so lets forget that.

in an utilitarian framework, how does this action benefit India or Kashmir? What are its final goals? does it meet those goals? are there mini goals that should be met before the final big push? Indian govt has zero clarity on any of these questions. It claims that kashmir has festered for long, and its time for a decisive action. but what about the 'decisive' action that Modi took after he won 2014? How has that decisive action worked? What kind of pathway has it provided to strategize this new push for a new 'decisive' action?

Indian govt has no answers. because Modi's approach since 2014 has been a huge flop in the valley. It has ended up killing of soldiers and civilians in high numbers, which were dwindling for the past 4-5 yrs. It has created a huge discontent in the valley and hatred for India. And now Shah is doubling down on a 'decisive' action that is vastly bigger in scope. you think govts don't have to justify it, while still claiming that India is a democracy. Then I don't see what the point of being a democracy is.

legally.. this is an open and shut case. Supreme court itself is postponing hearing of the case against Indian govt actions, because india's actions are illegal. India does not have the power to suspend democracy and split the state as they chose.

-------------------

so first decide which case you are going to make, and make it. don't provoke my assholery by insisting on one single point like a child.

 

 

[crashnburn]

China showed amazingly open attitudes towards the HK, something that India has failed to show towards Kashmir. by occupying it and harassing its residents for more than half of its existence in independent India.

there is simply no comparison. India is an evil, and incompetent nation.

3 hours ago, Cation said:

Why don't you accept how similar Kashmir and Hongkong are and you can wait until 2047 to see the status of Hongkong. 

 

[DummyVariable]

2 hours ago, crashnburn said:

first of, I apologise for acting like a dcik for no reason. I was probably in a bad mood.

as far as hong kong goes, kashmir and hongkong are not comparable. for instance, the latest agitation against chinese overreach in HK is carried out by 3 different sets of protestors. one - anarchists who oppose every level of govt (including their own city-state's), two - HK natives who carry racist attitudes towards the chinese mainlanders and other non-HongKongers living in HK, and three - constitutionalists, those who want China to live up to the treaty it signed with the british.

in none of these 3 groups, are the british/western expat who lives in HK, who is on the other side of the treaty. In fact, almost none of the western expats have a favourable view of what is happening in HK, even if the protests indirectly benefit them (they'll lose residency status if China annexes HK). In fact, China can annex HK tomorrow, and none of these stakeholders would bat an eyelid. China doesn't have to wait until 2047. Britain literally doesn't care about HK anymore.

what happens after 2047 is, HK is expected to negotiate certain exemptions in capital restrictions that applies to the rest of china, and China will probably be willing to accommodate a lot of its demands given how it is the Chinese elite that stand to benefit from HK continuing as before. but 2047 is too far, and situations change.

your insistence that China can't annex HK before 2047 is definitely laughable. Britain stopped caring about HK sometime in the mid 2000s. It is slowly demographically changing to fully chinese city for more than a decade now. But still HK'ers have different characteristics to mainlanders. born out of surviving one of the harshest environments. 

-------------------

as for your insistence about kashmir. try and make a case for India's actions through a moral framework, a utilitarian framework, or a legal framework. India's actions fail in all these 3 accounts.

since you've already accepted that India's action don't have to be moral, because of some pressing need to show its dcik to the world or whatever. so lets forget that.

in an utilitarian framework, how does this action benefit India or Kashmir? What are its final goals? does it meet those goals? are there mini goals that should be met before the final big push? Indian govt has zero clarity on any of these questions. It claims that kashmir has festered for long, and its time for a decisive action. but what about the 'decisive' action that Modi took after he won 2014? How has that decisive action worked? What kind of pathway has it provided to strategize this new push for a new 'decisive' action?

Indian govt has no answers. because Modi's approach since 2014 has been a huge flop in the valley. It has ended up killing of soldiers and civilians in high numbers, which were dwindling for the past 4-5 yrs. It has created a huge discontent in the valley and hatred for India. And now Shah is doubling down on a 'decisive' action that is vastly bigger in scope. you think govts don't have to justify it, while still claiming that India is a democracy. Then I don't see what the point of being a democracy is.

legally.. this is an open and shut case. Supreme court itself is postponing hearing of the case against Indian govt actions, because india's actions are illegal. India does not have the power to suspend democracy and split the state as they chose.

-------------------

so first decide which case you are going to make, and make it. don't provoke my assholery by insisting on one single point like a child.

 

 

Ee Chinese gallu saana manchollu annattu maatladuthunnavuga.. they will kill all dissent once this bill is implemented. They can call the majority of the protestors criminals and extradite them to China and do whatever they want. They will then get approval from the rest of the hongkong citizens by threatening them/coercion. Don’t try to paint this as anything but a move to take total control over hongkong. 

[crashnburn]

4 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

Ee Chinese gallu saana manchollu annattu maatladuthunnavuga.. they will kill all dissent once this bill is implemented. They can call the majority of the protestors criminals and extradite them to China and do whatever they want. They will then get approval from the rest of the hongkong citizens by threatening them/coercion. Don’t try to paint this as anything but a move to take total control over hongkong. 

chillara argument lu cheyyatam eppudu maanuthaavo endho. 

that 'bill' is already in the backburner. and that 'bill' has nothing to do with hongkong citizens. it has to do with people who are considered criminals in China, in chinese mainland. Chinese literally have no jurisdiction in HongKong, beyond what their lackey carrie lam can successfully push through when HK citizens aren't looking. they cannot declare who a criminal

China is a disgusting imperial power, and will probably do everything you mention there, but they are also extremely pragmatic, and they let HK become one of the top financial hubs in the world. China has respected a treaty and allowed complete autonomy to HK, when it didn't really have to. What did India do?

that someone is trying to equate pragmatic, and technocratic China to incompetent casteist/bigoted India is laughable.

[crashnburn]

12 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

Ee Chinese gallu saana manchollu annattu maatladuthunnavuga.. they will kill all dissent once this bill is implemented. They can call the majority of the protestors criminals and extradite them to China and do whatever they want. They will then get approval from the rest of the hongkong citizens by threatening them/coercion. Don’t try to paint this as anything but a move to take total control over hongkong. 

In fact, even British didn't expect China to respect that treaty for so long. it was only meant to be a buffer for westerners to consolidate and get the hell out of that region. but China has respected it.

compared to India, that has not respected its own promise of a referendum in Kashmir, and now we have people arguing that the rest of India hs the right to determine what kashmiris must do.

[crashnburn]

Indians are probably sick fcuks. all of them.

[Cation]

What do you mean open and shut case? How was Telangana divided? Wasn't that based on the vote in Parliament? In fact the voting for J&K happened way more peacefully and way more democratically than what happened when TG was divided both in LS and RS. 

[Cation]

What about Ladakh? Isn't that what they wanted? To be free from Kashmir. Just like TG was happy about the decision and AP wasn't. 

[crashnburn]

2 minutes ago, Cation said:

What do you mean open and shut case? How was Telangana divided? Wasn't that based on the vote in Parliament? In fact the voting for J&K happened way more peacefully and way more democratically than what happened when TG was divided both in LS and RS. 

it means Indian govt's actions are illegal. they dissolved the assembly of J&K, when  the article 370 gives J&K power to be a separate constituent assembly independent of India. They dissolved it and then revoked 370. it is an illegal act. There's no way legal way to revoke 370 without J&K assembly passing a resolution to revoke it.

that's what an open and shut case means.

Telangana division was also pretty pathetic, but i don't know particulars of that case. its my gut feelign that it is illegal too. However, TG people wanted a separate state, so the only thing left to do was to negotiate settlements before the division.

you keep claiming J&K 370 revoke happened peacefully. Its an irritating claim, one that comes from your deep ignorance on the realities of this issue, and your insistence that India has the right to fcuk up whatever if it benefits the majority. Ofcourse it happened peacefully, because Indian govt packed in 100k army officers into a small valley to intimidate protestors. that's your definition of peaceful. as long as it doesn't affect you, you are going to cheer rapists and murderers. good.

i

[crashnburn]

2 minutes ago, Cation said:

What about Ladakh? Isn't that what they wanted? To be free from Kashmir. Just like TG was happy about the decision and AP wasn't. 

first solve J&K issue. nobody cares about ladakh. hardly a couple 100k people live there. its just waste land for the most part.

[Cation]

1 minute ago, crashnburn said:

it means Indian govt's actions are illegal. they dissolved the assembly of J&K, when  the article 370 gives J&K power to be a separate constituent assembly independent of India. They dissolved it and then revoked 370. it is an illegal act. There's no way legal way to revoke 370 without J&K assembly passing a resolution to revoke it.

that's what an open and shut case means.

Telangana division was also pretty pathetic, but i don't know particulars of that case. its my gut feelign that it is illegal too. However, TG people wanted a separate state, so the only thing left to do was to negotiate settlements before the division.

you keep claiming J&K 370 revoke happened peacefully. Its an irritating claim, one that comes from your deep ignorance on the realities of this issue, and your insistence that India has the right to fcuk up whatever if it benefits the majority. Ofcourse it happened peacefully, because Indian govt packed in 100k army officers into a small valley to intimidate protestors. that's your definition of peaceful. as long as it doesn't affect you, you are going to cheer rapists and murderers. good.

i

Well, except for the militarization in Kashmir, do you see major fatalities in Kashmir or protests in the rest of J&K. 

[crashnburn]

Just now, Cation said:

Well, except for the militarization in Kashmir, do you see major fatalities in Kashmir or protests in the rest of J&K. 

I mean, you are dr.beta right? are you trying to become a sociopath or something?

do you not see the inherent cruelty in subjectign a population to military rule for 30 yrs? Is that what John Galt meant when he spoke about 'turning off the motor of the world'?