It is simply dishonest to write about the problems in Kashmir without mentioning terrorism
Many in India rightly fear security threats to the bus service, and the potential for its misuse. Yet the likelihood that the bus service will improve security is greater than the likelihood of its misuse. An increasing number of countries â€” and groups of countries, such as the European Union and the Organisation of African States â€” have found that soft borders can help reduce violence and pave the way for lasting peace. [IE emphasis added]
Conveniently, Kumar does not care to explain how those two likelihoods can be compared. Citing the European example does not help — no one is pursuing a proxy-war in the European Union. Besides, the Schengen treaty that softened Europe’s borders gained momentum only after the external enemy — the Soviet Union — had been defeated. Africa is even worse — the practicality of imposing reasonable border controls apart, soft borders have done nothing to prevent tribal and military incursions, incessant guerilla warfare and even genocide. And it is dishonesty that stands out in the choice of words
This, of course, means that there will be spoilers. The armed and criminal groups that benefit from Jammu and Kashmirâ€™s isolation have already threatened to disrupt the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service. Worse still, they have begun to assassinate the civic representatives elected in the recent municipal polls in Jammu and Kashmir. Ten elected representatives have already been killed; this has led to an equal number resigning in panic, and publishing â€œapologiesâ€ to the militant groups for having stood for election. [IE emphasis added]
The appropriate word to describe the causing of fear in the minds of people and the carrying out of political assassinations is terrorism. Calling it anything else is dishonest. And dishonesty cannot be the basis of a sustained peace.