lamayuru

Can't be Indo-Pak love since that is a deliberate flame, and grossly incorrect given the internationally recognized disputed status of Kashmir. I can change it to what the article title itself is.

OK. That is complicated. But since you have awoken the arm chair academic, here is an attempt:

As things stand today, it is pretty bad. The old timer Kashmiri refers to area south of Pir Panjal mountain range as India and well Kashmir as Kashmir. You know if I meet them they will say, I have visited India 3 yrs ago in a trade fair.. Have you come from India etc.

So we had a genuine problem at hand, without Pakistan getting into the fray. A genuine Muslim population had been living under an apathetic Hindu king under the overall suzerainty of the Brits. So for the common Kashmiri his voice for self determination has to be seen in that context. It must be long long long back since their rulers cared for them. So they have been doled a lot of sops under the Indian framework. That should have done it until the rigged election of 1987, due to powerful centripetal forces from New Delhi, tried to pull away any special status for Kashmir. By overt force.

There rose a stink and Pakistan got whiff of it. It has offered Pakistan a get back at India opportunity for 1971, an opportunity of a lifetime now since Khalistan fizzled out.

Both countries have been at it for too long. You know, getting at each others back when they least expect. India turned opportunistic in 1971. Fortunately we have less conspicuous authority here, and wielded slightly more sophisticatedly than force is in Pakistan/China. Otherwise India would have been balkanised long ago.

Kashmir has been sufi Muslim, ie it is the most tolerant Islam there is. Why they rose in such violent revolt bears testimony to how much rulers in Delhi can be out of sync with ground realities.

Now that sets the context to answering your qs. There are two levels of the problem: India - Kashmir the internal problem. India - Paksitan the external problem.

India - Kashmir the internal problem.
Kashmiri attitudes are definitely shifting away from Pakistan in the new generation that wants a career and life. Narayan Murthy was implored by some young people to set up a campus in Kashmir, but he has said stability first. Also you dont see too many Kashmiri operatives taking part in terrorist activities outside Kashmir where it is largely youth from UP, Andhra and Kerala in sleeper cells. They have recently voted en masse for development in Kashmir by electing NC with a strong mandate for development. Even the separatists that campaigned have lost the elections. I dont read that as pro India, but definitely Pakistan is slowly but surely loosing the plot,

The question is how quickly Kashmir can be integrated with the rest of the country. You have set 20 yrs as reference. I will not work with that, but say that the pace of solution to the first problem really depends on that state of India Pak problems.

If India can address Pakistan's strategic concerns in any great measure (water chiefly from the Indus and its tributaries) they should rest easy. As of now given Pakistan's dependence on agriculture, it was really foolish on the part of Jinnah to have not lobbied with MOuntbatten harder to have Kashmir absorbed into Pakistan. If India Pakistan problem is solved then a few dissenting voices should be tolerable and Kashmir solves itself.

Where do you see Kashmiri attitudes going in the next 20 years? Will they become even more virulently anti-India, or will attitudes soothe as they become more aware of their own history, and religious fundamentalism declines?
For that matter, do you see this dispute getting resolved in the next 20 years?

I can't seem to find anything at the moment, but I do remember reading about it in a book. The thing is that remote villages in Kashmir (especially those far away from LOC) face less of the daily violence and propaganda that is present in border and urban regions. Their attitudes have changed less since the insurgency began in 1989. Where do you think the IA gets their jawans from?

I agree that the security forces (particularly the police) need to be trained better and use better tactics against protesters. Too many are getting killed by bullets in the streets, which does nothing to encourage "sadbhavana".

If you observe the patterns of protests, the most violent ones begin after Friday prayers, when the mullah has the opportunity to stir up passions, as ordered by separatist leaders. The young unemployed people are usually affected the most, and they start taunting the security forces, throwing stones etc.

Actually, bomb/grenade attacks have gone down significantly, but infiltration bids have not. There are reports of infiltration attempts almost every day, an the IA loses atleast a couple of men every week fighting insurgents.

I can't seem to find anything at the moment, but I do remember reading about it in a book. The thing is that remote villages in Kashmir (especially those far away from LOC) face less of the daily violence and propaganda that is present in border and urban regions. Their attitudes have changed less since the insurgency began in 1989. Where do you think the IA gets their jawans from?

I agree that the security forces (particularly the police) need to be trained better and use better tactics against protesters. Too many are getting killed by bullets in the streets, which does nothing to encourage "sadbhavana".

If you observe the patterns of protests, the most violent ones begin after Friday prayers, when the mullah has the opportunity to stir up passions, as ordered by separatist leaders. The young unemployed people are usually affected the most, and they start taunting the security forces, throwing stones etc.

Actually, bomb/grenade attacks have gone down significantly, but infiltration bids have not. There are reports of infiltration attempts almost every day, an the IA loses atleast a couple of men every week fighting insurgents.

Answer it. I couldn't read your last one

Ah, I'll tell you some other time regarding my nick

The rabid anti-India feeling in Kashmir is mostly confined to urban areas (mainly Srinagar). The recruits for Indian Army, police etc. come from rural areas of Kashmir, and not from urban ones. There is a deep urban-rural divide with respect to this.
There were surveys done by Indian Express etc. which asked Kashmiris if they want "Azadi". Who would disagree? Considering the conditions there, one would have to be an eternal optimist to do so.

I don't get your point about the insurgents coming to challenge the state. You mean that if Indian army withdraws, the insurgents will stop coming across? Are you serious?
Obviously, if the IA withdraws, the insurgents (along with PA) will march into a Kashmir which will then become a part of Pakistan.

Such a situation be strategic suicide for India, for starters, by giving both China and Pakistan the high-ground in the region, it will also become a base from which Pakistan can launch Islamist movements right into the heart of India.

The central forces were sent to contain the Pak-sponsored insurgency, and not vice-versa. They are not the ones fuelling it.

The Indo-Nepal border is a problem, but you can't compare it with an open LOC. An insurgent crossing over from Nepal has to firstly enter Nepal, and then travel across half the country in order to reach Kashmir. Large scale infiltration is impossible, and only terrorist attacks (mainly in other parts of India) can be planned this way.

Ah, I'll tell you some other time regarding my nick

The rabid anti-India feeling in Kashmir is mostly confined to urban areas (mainly Srinagar). The recruits for Indian Army, police etc. come from rural areas of Kashmir, and not from urban ones. There is a deep urban-rural divide with respect to this.
There were surveys done by Indian Express etc. which asked Kashmiris if they want "Azadi". Who would disagree? Considering the conditions there, one would have to be an eternal optimist to do so.

I don't get your point about the insurgents coming to challenge the state. You mean that if Indian army withdraws, the insurgents will stop coming across? Are you serious?
Obviously, if the IA withdraws, the insurgents (along with PA) will march into a Kashmir which will then become a part of Pakistan.

Such a situation be strategic suicide for India, for starters, by giving both China and Pakistan the high-ground in the region, it will also become a base from which Pakistan can launch Islamist movements right into the heart of India.

The central forces were sent to contain the Pak-sponsored insurgency, and not vice-versa. They are not the ones fuelling it.

The Indo-Nepal border is a problem, but you can't compare it with an open LOC. An insurgent crossing over from Nepal has to firstly enter Nepal, and then travel across half the country in order to reach Kashmir. Large scale infiltration is impossible, and only terrorist attacks (mainly in other parts of India) can be planned this way.

I agree with you that isolation, both from other regions of India and an inability to experience the reality of Pakistan is fuelling sentiments.

However, won't opening the border simply make things easier for the insurgent groups? The terrorists based in Pakistan know the reality of their own country very well, and that hasn't stopped them from trying to "liberate" kashmir has it?
Besides, I am skeptical as to the amount of control Pakistan has over the insurgents. Even if Pakistan sincerely wanted to end the insurgency, will she be able to turn off the tap?
I think the JeM, LeT, HuD and other assorted groups have become the tiger that Pakistan is riding (to use a phrase from the Satyam CEO's letter). If they get off the tiger, it will devour them.

My point is that even if Kashmiris slowly realize that Pakistan isn't the promised land (as Kashmiri businessmen realised recently when they were allowed to export goods into Pakistan), their fate is no longer in their own hands, but in the hands of insurgent groups funded by the global jehad.

Well the MaMohan line wasn't abutting Chinese territory at all, so that's a moot point, and the Tibetan administration was fine with it.

I don't think the Pakistani solution can be described as "ingenious" either. Its more of a case of avoiding the problem as much as possible.

Also, I'm not at all in favour of porus borders. Borders are solid defences meant to keep people out, not to let anyone pass through. Making the LoC a porus border will not only endanger India's security unacceptably, it will dilute the idea that Kashmir is a part of India and not Pakistan.
Perhaps such solutions should be reserved for a future time when borders all across the world have become irrelevant, and violent conflicts are rare.

India-Pakistan conflict does not end at Kashmir. It also goes far deeper into ambitions in many Pakistani quarters to bring back the glory days of Islamic rule.

I think its more messy than you make it out to be. If Pakistan's borders are not accepted by people on either side, how does it hope to achieve stability? The only permanent solution would be to either swallow up the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan or to give up the western areas to them.

This is another reason why Pakistan has a vested interest in keeping Afghanistan weak and ungovernable. A stable Afghanistan will invariably try to regain territories that are now part of Pakistan, and an Afghanistan friendly with India, even more so.

Delhi mostly but I move around

hey mate where in India are you from?
welcome to the forum btw...

What about Pakistan itself? Balochistan? NWFP? The fact that it effectively does not have a western border? How can you form an EU-like union with such a situation?

Good luck with Subcontinental EU. As far as i can see, our dear neighbour is going to struggle with instability for a long time, and India ain\'t giving up an inch of Kashmir. Its not like a nation of 1.1 billion can\'t handle a couple of million dissenters.
Free speech is overrated anyway. China is doing fine - and much better - without it.