Theresa May addressing the 2016 Conservative conference

U.S. war games 'the last one' - Philippine President

Duterte declares upcoming Philippines-U.S. war games 'the last one'  By Martin Petty | HANOI

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte arrives at the military's Camp Tecson to talk to soldiers in San Miguel, Bulacan in northern Philippines September 15, 2016. REUTERS/Erik De Castro

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte plunged one of the United States' most important Asian alliances deeper into uncertainty on Wednesday by declaring upcoming U.S.-Philippines military exercises "the last," and ruling out any joint navy patrols.

The firebrand Duterte pledged to honor a longstanding security treaty with the United States, but said China opposed joint marine drills in the Philippines starting next week and there would be no more war games with Washington after that.

"I am serving notice now to the Americans, this will be the last military exercise," Duterte said during a visit to Vietnam.

 "Jointly, Philippines-U.S.: the last one."

Duterte's remarks gave one of the strongest signs yet of fissures in a historic alliance that Washington has relied upon as it tries to cement its influence in Asia to counterbalance China's rapid rise. Duterte's foreign minister later said his comments had been taken out of context.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said he was not aware of any official notification from the Philippines about ending joint exercises.

"Our focus is on the relationship today and moving it forward," Kirby told a regular news briefing. "We continue to believe that that's possible. ... (W)e have significant security commitments with the Philippines. We're committed to meeting those commitments and to furthering this relationship."

The Philippines military and U.S. Marines are to hold annual amphibious landing exercises from Oct. 4 to 12. Military leaders from the countries have also started preparing for a new set of exercises next year.

Duterte said he would establish "new alliances for trade and commerce" with Russia and China, but would maintain security agreements with Washington.

His near-daily outbursts against the United States began in earnest last month, when he spoke of alleged atrocities a century ago by the United States when it was the Philippines' colonial ruler.

He has called President Barack Obama a "son of a bitch" and said he would order the pullout of the remaining U.S. special forces stationed in the Philippines' restive south.

Duterte told a gathering of the Filipino community in Hanoi there would be no chance of naval patrols with Washington because they risked dragging the Philippines into conflict with China.

The Philippines and China have long sparred over sovereignty in the South China Sea, and Manila and Washington have shared concerns about China's military clout and pursuit of broad maritime claims.

WHAT DUTERTE "CLEARLY MEANT"

Asked if Duterte was serious about ending military exercises with the United States, Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay said he was misunderstood and his remarks taken out of context.

The only thing Duterte had ruled out were joint patrols beyond the Philippines' 12-nautical mile territorial waters, Yasay said.

"Our agreement, that will be respected and this is what the president clearly meant," Yasay told a scrum of reporters, referring to a 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty.

Despite Yasay's words, Duterte's latest comments add to uncertainty about what his end game is and whether Manila's next moves could complicate regional diplomacy or alter the status quo in the South China Sea.

A U.S. defense official said he had not seen the Philippines make a formal request to stop sea patrols and added that the bar for a "joint patrol" with the Philippines was low.

"If the joint patrols stop, will this have any sort of major impact on the situation in the South China Sea? Most likely not," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He added that in a sign things were continuing as usual, the landing ship USS Germantown would be making a port call in Manila from Wednesday.

Richard Jacobson, an American security expert, said Duterte's posturing could embolden China to exploit a testy relationship between two old allies.

"The U.S.-Philippines relationship might become strained and even shaken," Jacobson said.

"The U.S. geopolitical stakes in the region are much too high to react to his hyperbole. The current attitude in Washington is mature - more of patience than feeling provoked."

The Philippines has not formally committed to joining the United States in patrols beyond its territorial waters in the South China Sea. It has carried out at least two patrols with the United States this year that remained within 12 nautical miles of the Philippine coast.

(Additional reporting by Karen Lema and Manuel Mogato in Manila and David Brunnstrom and Idrees Ali in Washington; Editing by Alex Richardson and Leslie Adler)

முக ஆடை தரித்த முஸ்லிம் பெண்கள் மீது லண்டன் தெருத் தாக்குதல்கள்

RACE HATE Police hunt yobs who pulled down Muslim woman’s hijab in ‘racially motivated’ attack that took place in broad daylight

Cops are still hunting for the two suspects that carried out the assault in Tottenham, north London, which left the victim ‘shocked and distressed’

 The SUN  9th October 2016

A MUSLIM woman had her Hijab ripped from her head as she was strolling down a street with pals in a “racially and religiously motivated” assault.

The woman, in her 20s, was walking on Tottenham High Road in north London with a friend and another woman at 7.30pm two weeks ago when she was attacked.

The Express 2016

This shocking video shows the moment a 16-year-old girl wearing a hijab was struck in the head in an unprovoked attack on an east London street. 

Tasneem Kabir suffered broken teeth and a smashed lip after she was hit by Michael Ayoade, 34, as she walked to college in Plaistow, Newham, on the afternoon of November 13, 2012.

He was arrested after police released CCTV footage of the horrific attack, which showed Ayoade jogging away from the scene as Miss Kabir lay unconscious on the ground.

The Daily Mail 2012

தாக்குதலுக்குள்ளான இதர பெண்கள்

தாக்குதலுக்குள்ளான இதர பெண்கள்

தாக்குதலுக்குள்ளான இதர பெண்கள்

93 days on, pellet horror continues across Kashmir

93 days on, pellet horror continues across Kashmir

12-year-old schoolboy’s killing again puts a spotlight on lethality of pellet guns | In just 90 days, Junaid becomes 14th victim of so-called non-lethal weapon


ZEHRU NISSA
Srinagar, Publish Date: Oct 10 2016 12:09AM | Updated Date: Oct 10 2016 12:09AM

File Photo: 93 days on, pellet horror continues across Kashmir

With pellets causing death of 12-year-old schoolboy in Srinagar on Saturday morning—triggering widespread protests and outcry—the lethality of this crowd control weapon has once again come into focus in Kashmir.

Junaid Ahmad from Srinagar’s Eidgah locality was hit by pellets in his head and chest on Friday, leading to his death at the SK Institute of Medical Sciences here on Saturday.

Junaid’s death triggered massive protests in several areas, apart from widespread condemnations from across the political divide in Kashmir. Junaid is the 14th victim of the deadly pellets that the government had pitched as “non-lethal ammunition” for crowd control, in a span of three months.

Apart from these 14 deaths, pellets have also been responsible for injuries to eyes of more than 1000 people since July 9—the day protests broke out across Kashmir over the death of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Muzaffar Wani a day earlier. Most of the victims hit in eyes are schoolgoing children and teenagers, according to doctors here.

Although there has been a massive outcry across Kashmir, as well as in the international media, over the ‘indiscriminate’ use of pellets on street protesters, the state government has justified its use. And despite assurances from no less than the Home Minister of India Rajnath Singh that the use of pellets would be “reviewed”, nothing has changed on ground.

On July 26, the Ministry of Home Affairs had constituted a seven-member committee for exploring alternatives to the pellet guns after these wreaked havoc across Kashmir. But barely a few days after the announcement, a Joint Secretary in the Ministry, TVSN Prasad, who headed the seven-member committee, clarified that pellet guns would not be discontinued but used in ‘rarest of the rare cases’—something that evoked widespread criticism.

The committee recommended use of PAVA shells, a 1000 canister consignment of which was flown to Kashmir on September 4—the day an all-party parliamentary delegation visited the Valley. However, the shells were not put to use due to ‘certain issues’ including ‘poor emission and efficacy’ reported by forces who ‘test fired’ these in Kashmir.

Pellet injuries in eyes, according to doctors, are causing vision impairment of varying degree and even total blindness in some cases.

Insha Malik, the 14-year-old girl from Shopian—who lost her both eyes to pellets—is one such victim. Doctors say there are at least 50 more persons whose both eyes have been hit by pellets.

The cases of damage to vital organs due to pellet injuries have also been profiled in the past 90 days and many people have a permanent disability starring in their faces due to such injuries, doctors said.

18-year-old Mohsin, a youth from southern Pulwama district who was hit by an ‘entire cartridge of pellets’ in his spine is confined to bed, doctors said, and as per hospital records, many others have suffered brain damage due to this so-called non-lethal weapon.

As per records consolidated from hospitals across Kashmir, more than 7000 people have suffered injuries due to pellets in the past three months. On October 13, the figure of injuries due to pellets stood at 7136.

Since the announcement for exploring the alternatives to pellet guns was made by Rajnath Singh during a press conference in Srinagar, five people lost their lives to pellets and about 500 more were hit in eyes and thousands more injured in parts of their bodies (other than eyes), including some vital organs.

On September 22, 2016, the High Court of J&K refused to ban use of pellet guns as a weapon of crowd control. Earlier, police had submitted before the Court that ‘handling of law and order situation is the constitutional and legal duty of the State’ and ‘What method is required to give effect in order to control law and order has to be left to the State’.

Police had also claimed that ‘pellet gun (12 Bore Pump Action Gun) is sparingly used when all other modes of crowd control i.e. tear gas, oleoresin grenades, stun grenades fail to yield any desired results.”

Doctors opine that the known pellet deaths might not be the exact figure of causalities attributable to this weapon. “In some cases, in the initial few days of protests, some people died and were not brought to hospitals. Some of them might have died of pellets,” they said.

Doctors at SMHS Hospital reported that a youth aged about 20 was brought to the hospital with severe pellet injuries in his head but could not be admitted due to his death ‘within minutes of reaching the hospital’. He is recorded only as a short stay patient with his name not known.

“A spray of pellets had pierced his head making a large hole on one side and exited from the other side,” a doctor said. “His whole brain was shattered.”

Afghanistan: 15 Years of Invasion and Occupation

Video: Afghanistan: Fifteen Years of Invasion and Occupation

By James Corbett and Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, October 08, 2016

Fifteen years after NATO’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 9/11 and Al Qaeda lies that were used to justify the war have disappeared.

Now the truth about oil and gas, mineral wealth, opium and naked imperial ambition are all that remain.

The ambitions of Empire.

One Step Closer to military confrontation.

This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV.

October 7th marks the 15 anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan

Fifteen years of massacres, fifteen years of drone strikes and civilian massacres…

We were told that the invasion of Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attacks. A carefully constructed lie.

GRTV Video Produced by James Corbett

ஆப்கானில் அமெரிக்கப் போர் 15 ஆம் ஆண்டு ENB Poster

``முகமதுவின் மண்ணில் காலூன்றி,நிலை கொண்டுள்ள, அபவிசுவாசிகளின் படைகள் வெளியேறாத வரையில், அவர்களின் சொந்த நாடுகள், தாம் பாதுகாப்பாக வாழ முடியும் என ஒரு போதும் கனவு காண முடியாது!``

15 Years Into Afghan War

ASIA PACIFIC

15 Years Into Afghan War, Americans Would Rather Not Talk About It
The Interpreter
By MAX FISHER SEPT. 20, 2016

American soldiers during Afghan National Army training at Camp Bastion in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in March. This year’s presidential campaign has hardly touched the war in Afghanistan. Credit Adam Ferguson for The New York Times

The United States will soon mark 15 full years of war in Afghanistan, but you wouldn’t know it from the political discourse.

Democrats and Republicans seem to have something of a rare, if unspoken, truce on the subject. Even amid deepening partisan polarization, with the most frivolous issues seized for political gain, no one seems eager to discuss a war that is still costing American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

This year’s presidential campaign, in which mass deportations and the NATO alliance are on the table, has hardly touched it. When Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump squared off at a recent televised forum on national security issues, they were surrounded by an audience of veterans, many of whom had fought in Afghanistan, but the war barely came up.

And though the election has grown most heated over terrorism and immigration, the candidates showed rare restraint on Monday, when the police arrested an Afghan-born American citizen, Ahmad Khan Rahami, on suspicion of planting bombs in Manhattan and New Jersey.

Mr. Trump’s response was typically harsh and Mrs. Clinton’s typically detailed, but neither had much to say about Afghanistan. That is a conspicuous and newfound prudence for

both candidates, who have been eager to discuss Syria and Iraq immediately after terrorist attacks linked to those countries.

Whether or not investigators find connections between these bombings and American action in Afghanistan, it is increasingly apparent that America’s public and policy makers alike would rather not address their faraway, largely failed war.

Neither party has an incentive to call attention to this bipartisan failure. Neither has a better policy to offer. And neither sees any political gain in raising it. Voters, entering their fourth consecutive presidential election with the United States at war, seem happy to pretend that the Afghan war, which has killed more than 2,300 American service members, doesn’t exist.

The result is an awkward national silence whenever Afghanistan’s chaos inevitably imposes itself on our attention, like a family pretending not to hear the troubled relative pound the Thanksgiving table.

It is not hard to see why Americans shun the topic. They have experienced the war as a long series of bitter failures and of noble missions that turned out not to be. 

They have disengaged out of moral self-preservation as much as exhaustion.

For decades, leaders portrayed Afghanistan as a beautiful but lawless land to which the United States would bring order and American values, somewhat similar to the old Western frontier. Their adventure began in 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded and the United States armed Afghan rebels. President Ronald Reagan called this “a compelling moral responsibility of all free people” and a battle for “the human spirit.” Rebel leaders were romanticized and taken on tours of American churches, according to “The Looming Tower,” a book by the journalist Lawrence Wright.

Those rebels turned against one another in a long civil war that gave rise to the Taliban. Americans were then sold on invading Afghanistan in 2001, to bring the Sept. 11 attackers and their accomplices to justice. The Taliban government quickly fell, raising a question that became obvious only after it was raised: Now what? What should take the Taliban’s place, and how to make it stick despite the group’s continued support?

Iraq quickly distracted attention and resources from the Afghanistan question until 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president while promising to end the former and win the latter. Afghanistan became the good war. Americans were sold on promoting democracy and, later, on saving the women — an ambition captured by a 2010 Time magazine cover showing an Afghan woman who had been mutilated by Taliban officers.

But practice did not match the ideals. Seeking allies where it could, the United States often directly empowered warlords whose corruption, drug trafficking and violence seemed little better than the Taliban’s. Drones proliferated overhead and airstrikes killed civilians on the ground, provoking anguished debate at home. Pakistan, at once Washington’s closest and least reliable ally in the war, played both sides.

Americans were left feeling they had compromised their morality, and to little gain. As the 9/11 attacks receded more than a decade into the past, it became harder to argue for the war’s necessity. American gains against Al Qaeda only drew more attention to the loftier goals that never seemed to advance.

The operation so completely failed to uproot the Taliban or build a functioning government that American officials became convinced that withdrawal would lead to total collapse — and that collapse would be unacceptably costly. With even the most meager goals unmet, the Obama administration settled on something even less ambitious.

Douglas Ollivant, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, put it bluntly when he told The New York Times last year that Americans had quietly decided on spending “somewhere between $10 and $20 billion per year in perpetuity for the privilege of Afghanistan not totally collapsing.”

That is not an inspiring mission. But voters, tired of inspiring Afghanistan missions, have stopped asking why we’re still fighting. So political leaders have not bothered to contort themselves into providing an explanation. Rather, in regular-as-clockwork annual speeches, Mr. Obama has simply delayed or slowed troop withdrawals.

Normally, an opposition party might profit from Mr. Obama’s broken promises and policy disappointments. But in 2012, neither he nor his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, showed much desire to debate Afghanistan. Both candidates offered policies that were functionally the same: withdrawal.

Neither wanted to promise a solution, knowing he would have to deliver. Neither offered a way to end the chaos before departing, or to cope with its consequences once American troops had left.

Four years later, the country is barely standing, the Taliban is resurgent and refugee outflows are high. The United States has assumed an unspoken role as indefinite occupier, with just enough troops to stave off Afghanistan’s implosion but not enough to make that implosion any less inevitable. The question of whether the United States should play this role has not really come up in the presidential primaries or the general campaign, partly because so few Americans want to even acknowledge it is happening.

There is no known link yet between Afghanistan’s deterioration and the attacks in which Mr. Rahami is charged. Even if one emerges, it will have little bearing on the roughly 100,000 Afghans in the United States, many of whom are refugees from this long war and pose no unusual threat; attacks by Afghans appear no more common than those from any other group.

If anything, the significance is for the thousands of innocent Afghans still fleeing the country, often on dangerous, desperate journeys to Europe.

But even the search for links between Mr. Rahami and his birth country has reminded Americans of their unacknowledged 51st state, where Washington has ruled — indirectly, and to little positive effect — for longer than most hereditary monarchs.

Follow Max Fisher on Twitter @Max_Fisher.

Who is the real Donald Trump? - UpFront

போர்க்களத்தில் ஒரு பூ- வுக்கு தடை!

போர்க்களத்தில் ஒரு பூ படத்தை வெளியிட, சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் இடைக்கால தடை 

இலங்கையில், இறுதி கட்டப் போரின் போது, இசைப்பிரியா என்பவரை, ராணுவத்தினர் பாலியல் பலாத்காரம் செய்து, கொலை செய்த செய்தி வெளியானது. இவர், இலங்கை, 'டிவி'யில் செய்தி வாசிப்பாளராக பணியாற்றியவர். இசைப்பிரியா படுகொலை சம்பவத்தை மையமாக வைத்து, போர்க்களத்தில் ஒரு பூ என்ற படத்தை, கணேசன் என்பவர் இயக்கினார். இப்படத்துக்கு சான்றிதழ் வழங்க, 'சென்சார் போர்டு' மறுத்து விட்டது. இதை எதிர்த்து, திரைப்பட சான்றிதழ் மேல்முறையீட்டு தீர்ப்பாயத்திடம் முறையிடப்பட்டது;தீர்ப்பாயமும் அதை நிராகரித்தது. அதனால், சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில், படத் தயாரிப்பாளர், இயக்குனர், மனு தாக்கல் செய்தனர்.

'திரைப்படத்தை வெளியிட்டால், எங்கள் குடும்பத்துக்கு பாதிப்பு ஏற்படும்; எனவே, படத்தை வெளியிடக் கூடாது' என, இசைப்பிரியாவின் தாயார் வேதரஞ்சனி மற்றும் சகோதரி மனு தாக்கல் செய்தனர். 

இந்த வழக்கில், உயர் நீதிமன்ற தனி நீதிபதி பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவு: இந்திய, இலங்கை ராணுவத்தினரை, படத்தில் விமர்சித்துள்ளனர்; தடை செய்யப்பட்ட விடுதலை புலிகள் இயக்கத்தை நியாயப்படுத்தி உள்ளனர். மேலும், இசைப்பிரியாவை பாலியல் பலாத்காரம் செய்து, கொலை செய்த சம்பவத்தை சித்தரித்துள்ளனர்; வன்முறை காட்சிகள் அதிகம் உள்ளன. இலங்கை ராணுவத்தை பற்றி, அவதுாறாக காட்டியுள்ளனர். அதனால், இரு நாடுகளுக்கு இடையேயான உறவில் பாதிப்பு ஏற்படும். எனவே, படத்துக்கு சான்றிதழ் வழங்க மறுத்து, சென்சார் போர்டு எடுத்த முடிவு சரியானது; அதை உறுதி செய்த தீர்ப்பாயத்தின் உத்தரவிலும் குறுக்கிட முடியாது; மனு, தள்ளுபடி செய்யப்படுகிறது. இசைப்பிரியாவின் தாயார் மற்றும் சகோதரி கோரியபடி, இப்படத்தை திரையிட தடை விதிக்கப்படுகிறது. இவ்வாறு நீதிபதி உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.

இயக்குனர் கு.கணேசன் கனேடிய வானொலிக்கு அளித்த பேட்டி
`போர்க்களத்தில் ஒரு பூ`
கர்நாடக தமிழ் இயக்குனர் கு.கணேசன் கனேடிய வானொலிக்கு அளித்த பேட்டி

இசைப்பிரியாவின் தாயார் மற்றும் சகோதரி ஆகிய இரத்த உறவினரின் நிலை குறித்து கருத்து தெரிவிக்கையில், அவர்கள் ஆரம்பத்தில் தன் முயற்சியை ஆதரித்த தாகவும் ஆறு வயது முதலான புகைப்படங்களை தனக்கு கையளித்ததாகவும், படம் தயாரிக்கப்பட்டு இரண்டு வருடங்களின் பின்னர் தான் மாற்றுக் கருத்துக் கொண்டிருந்ததாகவும் மேற்கண்ட பேட்டியில் இயக்குனர் கு.கணேசன் அவர்கள் தனது நிலையை பதிவு செய்துள்ளார்.

=================================
Editorial
இசைப்பிரியா உள்ளிட்ட எண்ணற்ற மக்கள், போரிடும் உலகத்தின் பொதுப் பொக்கிசம் ஆகி விட்டவர்கள். இவர்கள் மீது இரத்த உரித்துள்ளவர்களுக்கு உள்ள உரிமை, அக்கறை போராளிகளின் பொது வாழ்வின் குறிக்கோளுக்கு கீழ்ப்பட்டதாகவே இருக்க முடியும், இருக்கவேண்டும்.

இந்த மானுடர்களுக்கு போர் வாழ்வில் எதிரி அளித்த பரிசு மானுட தர்மத்தின் மீறுதலுக்கு சாட்சியமாக இருக்கின்றதென்றால், அது எதிரியைத்தான் காறி உமிழ்கின்றது, அதற்கு பலியானவர்களை அல்ல!

இந்த சாட்சியங்கள் வரலாற்றில் கண்ணியமாகப் பதிவு செய்யப்படவேண்டும். இது சார்ந்த கலைகள் பெருக வேண்டும்! களைகள் அகல வேண்டும்! தளைகள் தகர வேண்டும்!
புதிய ஈழப் புரட்சியாள்ரர்கள்

===================================================================
Madras HC Says NO To Porkalathil Oru Poo’s Release For Portraying Sri Lankan War Crimes

 By: Ashok KM | October 8, 2016

The Madras High Court has upheld an order of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), which had refused to grant certification to a feature film in Tamil directed by K.Ganeshan, titled Porkalathil Oru Poo, portraying the life of a journalist named Isai Priya in Sri Lanka.

By allowing a temporary injunction application preferred by the relatives of Isai Priya, Justice TS Sivagnanam also restrained the director and producer of the film from releasing the film.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) orders refusing certification of the film was upheld by the FCAT observing that the film criticises India and the Sri Lankan Army and justifies Tamil Eelam by the LTTE, a banned outfit; the film portrays the brutal gangrape and killing of LTTE journalist Isai Priya and it contains too much of violence; the film is based on incidents in the life of a LTTE journalist; the map shows a separated Tamil Eelam by the LTTE and the last two reels deal with the brutal inhuman killing and rape.

Upholding the FCAT order, the court said the picture cannot be certified if it lowers the moral standards of those who see it or if it creates in the mind of the audience sympathy towards crime, towards wrongdoing or evil.

“That apart, due regard should be had to the standards of the country and the people to which the story relates, and it shall not be so portrayed so as to deprave the morality of the audience. The prevailing laws shall not be ridiculed as to create sympathy for violation of such laws,” the court observed.

The court also observed that multiple tiers of authorities who viewed the film and heard the petitioner, had recorded a definite conclusion that in the film, there were derogatory references against the Sri Lankan Army and the Army men were depicted in poor light, which would strain the relationship between the two countries.

The film deals with the sensitive issue of bifurcation of Sri Lanka in two parts and the film having been judged from the point of view of its overall impact and the period depicted and the contemporary standards of a country and the people to which the film relates held that it is not fit for public viewing, the court added.

The interim injunction, as prayed for by the sister and mother of Isai Priya, was also granted by the court on the ground that the film is not a feature film (documentary), but a commercial venture with the sole object of making money with no personal research done by the petitioner, but purely said to have been motivated by watching a TV channel and the movie infringes the privacy of the plaintiffs, the family members of Isai Priya and their descendants

போர்க்களப்பூப் பாடல்கள்

Anti-India protests erupt in Kashmir after boy killed

Anti-India protests erupt in Kashmir after boy killed
Curfew clamped in Indian-administered Kashmir after mourners attending funeral of 12-year-old boy clash with police.

Curfew was clamped in Srinagar in the wake of the clashes [EPA]

Indian troops have fired warning shots and used tear gas as they clashed with thousands of people in Srinagar protesting against the killing of a 12-year-old boy by security forces.

Doctors told Al Jazeera that Junaid Ahmad died early on Saturday at a hospital in the main city of the Indian-administered Kashmir, hours after suffering a head injury and pellet wounds.

Residents said the boy was sprayed with pellets in the lawn outside his home, but police said he was part of anti-India protests that took place on Friday(07-10-2016).

A doctor at the Sheri Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, where the boy was brought to, told Al Jazeera that the 12-year-old was "shot by pellets in his head and chest".

Ahmad's death sparked widespread anger, with thousands of protesters chanting slogans
"Go India, go back" and "We want freedom", as they marched to the "Martyr's Graveyard" with the boy's body.

Clashes between security forces and protesters soon broke out, which led to a curfew being imposed in Srinagar.

"We are taking all possible measures so that the protests don't spread to other areas," a police officer told AFP news agency, referring to the curfew.

Junaid Ahmad succumbed to his injuries on Saturday hours after he was hit by pellets fired by Indian forces [EPA]

On Friday, over 50 people were injured during protests in the restive Himalayan region, which has recently seen its largest protests against Indian rule in years following the July killing of a popular rebel commander, Burhan Wani, by Indian soldiers.

At least 90 civilians have been killed and thousands injured, with hundreds among them blinded and maimed, mostly by government forces firing bullets and shotgun pellets at rock-throwing protesters.
Military crackdown

The protests, and a sweeping military crackdown, have all but paralysed life in Indian-controlled Kashmir, with shops, schools and most banks remaining shut and mobile phone and internet services working intermittently.

Meanwhile, suspected rebels fired at a police post in the southern Shopian district killing an officer and injuring three others, a police statement said on Saturday.

Kashmiri Muslim women shout slogans during the funeral procession in Srinagar [EPA]

Kashmir has been divided between rivals India and Pakistan since the end of British rule in 1947. Both claim the territory in full.

Anti-India sentiment runs deep in Kashmir, where rebel groups have fought Indian troops since 1989 for either independence or a merger with Pakistan. More than 70,000 people have been killed since then.

Tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours has soared after an armed attack last month on an Indian army base killed 19 soldiers, with the two armies exchanging heavy fire and mortars across their de facto border in Kashmir almost every day.

Source: Al Jazeera And Agencies With reporting by Rifat Fareed