The sole objective of the continuous curfew in Kashmir is to kill Kashmiris hunger, thirst, house arrest and diseases instead of killing them with ammunition. This way, the Indian government will not disturb the world’s conscience. People will not be allowed to bring the dead bodies of their relatives out of their houses. They will be compelled to bury them in their houses. Modi Govt will also be saved from the crime of direct killing of the people with bullets. Many options will be available for Indian Govt to harm the Kashmir cause. Modi Govt can achieve a lot by maintaining the complete blackout of the valley, which it cannot achieve by a direct military operation. If national or international media cannot visit those areas, how it can show the actual circumstances. The ban on the internet has made it impossible for Kashmiris to tell or reveal something about their condition. The planning of the natural deaths of Kashmiris is so apparent that no declaration is needed for it. The Indian government is killing the people in Kashmir with impunity. The paramilitary forces and army officials rape Kashmiri women to break the determination of people’s will to resist the illegal occupation. The agents of RSS and Shiv Sena declared their aims clearly before entering the valley. They knew that Pakistani rulers have never protested against the arrest of Dr.Afia Siddiqi. They were quite sure that Pakistani leaders will not say anything about their crimes against humanity in Kashmir. Will our government keep its silence even when the situation in the valley is this grave?

Should we ask the Kashmiris that they should tell about the speech of Pakistani PM which he had delivered in the UN to their relatives and companions for new inspiration? Let us consider some of the statements of our rulers which are full of wisdom and courage.

“War is no solution to any problem. A lot of people are killed on both sides. Finally, matters are settled by negotiations.” It is an old statement. Our new government has also adopted such comments. These are given by someone who wants to express his desire for peace. The question worth asking is this: will there be no war in the world after it? Another much-relied-upon statement is that our desire for peace should not be considered as our weakness. This statement has always been given by those two nations who have been indulged in war previously or war is certain between them in future. Whether the threat hidden in this statement could prevent anyone from aggression? There remains one more common statement that war between the two atomic powers will not only destroy both countries but the peace of the whole world also. Has the world interfered in the matter after this statement? Has it stopped the aggression and restored the order? Who guarantees that there will be no war and peace will be restored due to these statements? No one can promise this because many wars are fought in the world. We have also been a part of a recent war. Perhaps we are still a part of that particular war. Previously we have fought a war that was not ours. We have fought two such conflicts in the region that were not ours. These wars were not only against the atomic powers, but the superpowers also. We have fought a war in Afghanistan. Four nuclear powers, including India, have taken part in it. If we include NATO, then we can say that almost all powers of the world have been a part of this war. There is one more question in my mind. If war becomes necessary in some situations? I mean that no option leaves but war. Then what will be the strategy of the nation? It will sit silently or be a part of that war.

Let us set some parameters. It should be determined that no country will fight a war against a country until the matters reach up to a certain level. When the enemy crosses the limits, and a nation does not take any action, it shows a lack of courage and dignity. If we have set some limits, then we should find whether India hasn’t crossed all boundaries in Kashmir? Why are we still silent? We say that we are standing with Kashmiris. What does it mean practically? Have Indian brutalities not reached unprecedented levels? What are we waiting for?

In the year 712, the name of Karachi was Daebal. The pirates of Sindh robbed an Arabian ship and detained many passengers. A female passenger wrote a letter to the Governor of the province of Iraq and made him aware of the whole situation. Seventeen years old Mohammad bin Qasim was sent to launch an attack. The history and geography of the region were changed forever. We got our present identification. If that war had not been fought, we could not have this identity. The woman who wrote the letter had not faced those brutalities which Kashmiri women are facing. We should threat that if India did not stop atrocities in the Occupied Kashmir, we’d attack to defend the people of Kashmir. It doesn’t mean that war will start. However, India and International powers will take notice of the seriousness of the situation. If we deploy our army on borders, it doesn’t mean that we are hungry for war. It gives a message that we are alert. India has deployed its army twice, only to threaten us. It has to retreat each time. It is the practice of the nations that they always remain ready for war. If war becomes necessary, then it is meaningless to talk about peace. The opposition has consistently accused the PM that he has made some settlements on Kashmir. Someone says that he has been brought into power to fulfil a secret agenda. His silence on Kashmir issue and the appreciation of America for his government is meaningful. Taliban have been engaged in negotiations, and a safe exit is being provided to American troops. The suspicions against the loyalty of the government seem confirmed in this way. The PM should keep in mind that if his government decides the fate of Kashmir against the wishes of Kashmiris, he’ll have to bear the unimaginable consequences.