Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbmthakur | Hacker News Reader

I don't think you are aware about Kashmir's situation prior to the abrogation of the article. Stone-pelting(sponsored by seperatists) and murder of civilians by terrorists were common. There is also significant amount of Pakistan-backed propaganda in the valley. Pakistanis have already flooded the internet with photos/videos from Syria, Palestine etc. and are claiming them to be from Kashmir. Considering this, what do you think would've happened if communication was fully open?

Is the communication blockade bad? Yes.

Is it necessary to keep the peace? Yes.

View on HN

> I don't think you are aware about Kashmir's situation prior to the abrogation of the article.

I'm no expert, of course, but I am generally aware of some of the issues in the region (disclaimer: I may not be a neutral source–none of my family members are Pakistani). I'm still of the opinion that shutting down the internet is a government overreach.

I agree that blocking communication lines and the internet is not good. But again, none among is responsible for law and order in the region.

Hmm if the Pakistani people and media are lying keeping the internet open and showing their lies should be the reaction. Keeping it closed and hiding what is happening inside Kashmir will make the situation worse.

You can't debunk each and every Twitter and Facebook post. And while one does that, some of it will already have its effect on the masses.

You cannot have peace by coercion. Period. It will either be an illusion or delusion.

There are many instances in history where coercion was required to bring peace, especially in "bad situations" ranging from war to insurgencies to domestic terrorism. Most notable examples: Germany in 1945, Japan in 1945, counterinsurgency in Iraq in 2007-08, rooting out LTTE in Sri Lanka in 2009.

May be I should have clarified a bit more. I am talking about coercion of the native populace of an internal region by its own government. The first two were global conflicts. The last one may qualify but again it is a self-serving cycle. You create a situation which leads to a region revolting and then you need to pacify it through force.

Heard of https://peacekeeping.un.org/en ?

The only people complaining about it are the ones who aren't benefited by it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com