| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Curfew brings life to halt in Kashmir |
| 2010-09-26 |
| [Iran Press TV] The New Delhi government continues its strict curfew restrictions in Indian-administered Kashmir for a 14th consecutive day, bringing all activities to a standstill in the Himalayan valley. Indian security forces put up barricades and fences in Srinagar to restrict public movement, bringing normal life to a halt in the region. Local residents have demanded a relaxation of the curfew across the volatile region as the strict security measure has been in place in the region's summer capital of Srinagar and several other towns for weeks. A Press TV correspondent said residents have been complaining of shortages of food and other supplies across the valley. Meanwhile, ...back at the ranch... the New Delhi government announced that it would hold talks with Kashmiris to end months of anti-India unrest in the region. "A group of interlocutors will begin a process of sustained dialogue with all sections of the people of Jammu and Kashmir," Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said on Saturday. However, The infamous However... key separatist leaders in Kashmir have rejected talks with the New Delhi government. The Indian-administered Kashmir has been rocked by frequent protest rallies since June. The demonstrations broke out after Indian security forces killed a teenager on June 11. Some 110 Kashmiris, among them children, have lost their lives during three months of unrest. Thousands have been killed in volatile Indian-administered Kashmir since 1989. The three-month long political turmoil has also had a devastating effect on the country's economy and education. In reaction to the situation, Pak Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood ( Wormtongue) Qureshi recently urged the international community and regional countries to pressure India over Kashmir. Amnesty International has also called on India to take essential measures to protect and respect human rights in Kashmir. "Security forces should use the minimum force necessary to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of death or serious injury. They should not employ intentional lethal use of firearms except where such use is strictly unavoidable in order to protect life," the rights group said in a statement. |
| Posted by:Fred |