A deal on Kashmir is both easy and impossible

[dabong1]

There was a newspaper article from 2002 which i can not find.It stated there was a plan with a timetable to solve the kashmir issue,i got a few point but if anyone can find the full article please do post.
Intresting give or take a years we are following the plan below.

- Performance Indicator : End of armed conflict along Line of Control Baseline

2001- Kashmir militant groups enjoy strong Pakistani support.
2002- Target- End to cross border militancy.
2003- Target- Kashmiri politicians displace militant leaders,extremists.
2004- Target- Both sides monitor Line of Control
2005- Target- Civilian traffic moves regularly across Line of Control.

US Mission Plan FY 2004 - Performance Indicator : Civilian and political movements in Kashmir replace militant insurgency Baseline
2001- Partial crackdown against some Kashmir militant groups and leaders.
2002- Target Provincial and national police authorities given mandate,training, equipment to arrest extremists.
2003- Target Successful prosecutions of sectarian,religious extremist,and Kashmir militant leaders.
2004- Target Measures to prevent Kasmir militant groups and supporters from openly raising money.
2005- Target Kashmir political leaders assume prominence in national Kashmir political discourse.

US Mission Plan FY 2004 - Performance Indicator Indo-Pakistani talks on Kashmir Baseline
2001- No Indo-Pakistani dialog
2002- Target Eased bilateral sanctions and military buildup on indo/pak border..
2003- Target Formalize bilateral dialog begins.
2004- Target Involvement of Kashmiri political leaders from both sides of the Line of Control in Kashmir talks.
2005- Target Framework for eventual political resolution of Kashmir..

 

[dabong1]

If the part of Kashmir to be jointly administered is the one currently under Indian administration, then the 'solution' isn't likely to be acceptable to India. Conversely, if the Pakistani as well as Indian territories are both a part of the arrangement, the system is feasible and deserves further study.

Bro as far my understanding is ,india will keep jammu and ladakh but not the valley
The pakistani will keep gilgit and the northern areas but not azad kashmir.
The joint governance of the kashmir valley and azad kashmir will carried out by pakistan and india together with kashmiri leaders.
"The resulting entity would have its own secular, democratic constitution; distinct citizenship; a flag; and a legislature which would pass laws on all matters other than defence and foreign affairs".
The above statement counts only for azad kashmir and the kashmir valley and would take about 20 years to reach that stage.

 

[Contrarian]

I dont want a solution to the Kashmir problem if it means we give territorial rights in our Kashmir ,to another country. Simple as that. If it involves transfer of small amount of land to placate Pakistan, im all for it, to end it, there must be sacrifice on both parties, and give and take of equal land is acceptable.

Having Pakistan patrol Kashmir is purely stupid. Or any other country for that matter.

 

[vnomad]

The above statement counts only for azad kashmir and the kashmir valley and would take about 20 years to reach that stage.

All comes down to the details of the joint-management arrangement. Its acceptable to India as long as Pakistan's is in a supervision role only in this part of Kashmir.

Simple as that. If it involves transfer of small amount of land to placate Pakistan, im all for it, to end it, there must be sacrifice on both parties, and give and take of equal land is acceptable.

No cessation of land is acceptable to India. And its not a factor in the negotiations anyway.

 

[Contrarian]

Mate, if India gives a small amount of land, and gets another peice of land in exchange and if this ends the bloody tiff, im all for it.

 

[dabong1]

I dont want a solution to the Kashmir problem if it means we give territorial rights in our Kashmir ,to another country..

You either want peace or not.
India gives up the valley,pakistan gives up azad kashmir.
You have to understand if pakistan is willing to give up azad kashmir for peace then india should do the same by giving the valley of kashmir to the kashmiris.

Simple as that. If it involves transfer of small amount of land to placate Pakistan, im all for it, to end it, there must be sacrifice on both parties, and give and take of equal land is acceptable.

You are correct that there must be sacrifice from both sides.Pakistan has put enough propsals and moved a lot on kashmir.The indians so have offered nothing other then there stated postion.
I do not think there will be peace in kashmir for the simple reason of indian stubborness.The time will come sooner or later when the pakistani government will realize that the indians do not want a just peace in kashmir that is acceptable to all three parties.
.

Having Pakistan patrol Kashmir is purely stupid. Or any other country for that matter.

There are UN troops on the border of kashmir between india and pakistan.

 

[vnomad]

Mate, if India gives a small amount of land, and gets another peice of land in exchange and if this ends the bloody tiff, im all for it.

But, we don't really want any of that land. And we aren't going to give away land with nothing in return. Otherwise your solution makes sense. Unless you're suggested that as a goodwill act - to gift us your land, we'll gift you ours. Merry Christmas.

 

[Contrarian]

I didnt know there were UN troops on the Indo-Pak Kashmir border??

Anyways what Musharraf gives as 'proposals' are just plain weird, he knows that they would be rejected. They are not realistic. So it appears that India is stubborn to the rest of the world.

 

[dabong1]

All comes down to the details of the joint-management arrangement. Its acceptable to India as long as Pakistan's is in a supervision role only in this part of Kashmir..

And the pakistani will demand the same ,that the indians are in a supervision role only in pakistan Kashmir.

No cessation of land is acceptable to India. And its not a factor in the negotiations anyway.

Nobody is saying give a part of india to pakistan.
India and pakistan will be asked to give up the valley and AJK so the two areas can join together over time.

 

[vnomad]

I didnt know there were UN troops on the Indo-Pak Kashmir border??

There aren't. There are UN observer missions in both parts of Kashmir but they more like a UN embassy rather than a organisation of substance.

Anyways what Musharraf gives as 'proposals' are just plain weird, he knows that they would be rejected. They are not realistic. So it appears that India is stubborn to the rest of the world.

We ought to study them and then decide. Pakistan hasn't made an official proposal.

 

[dabong1]

I didnt know there were UN troops on the Indo-Pak Kashmir border??

Anyways what Musharraf gives as 'proposals' are just plain weird, he knows that they would be rejected. They are not realistic. So it appears that India is stubborn to the rest of the world.

Please tell me what is wrong with the proposal of india keeping jammu and ladakh.
Pakistan keeps NA and gilgit.
The indians give up the valley and the pakistanis give up AJK.
The valley and ajk are made into a country that is jointly ruled by pakistan,india and the kashmiris.
I have posted a few articles on the soultion to kashmir.We can can pick and choose what is acceptable to both countries.
What do you think is the middle ground that is acceptable to both parties other then the stated aims of pakistan and india ,LOC to be IB,UN referendum on kashmir.

 

[dabong1]

There aren't. There are UN observer missions in both parts of Kashmir but they more like a UN embassy rather than a organisation of substance.

So what you saying is that the UN is not in kashmir but the UN observer are?

 

[vnomad]

Please tell me what is wrong with the proposal of india keeping jammu and ladakh.
Pakistan keeps NA and gilgit.
The indians give up the valley and the pakistanis give up AJK.
The valley and ajk are made into a country that is jointly ruled by pakistan,india and the kashmiris.
I have posted a few articles on the soultion to kashmir.We can can pick and choose what is acceptable to both countries.
What do you think is the middle ground that is acceptable to both parties other then the stated aims of pakistan and india ,LOC to be IB,UN referendum on kashmir.

Err.. I forgot to complete my post before posting it. Sorry. I've completed it now.

 

[vnomad]

So what you saying is that the UN is not in kashmir but the UN observer are?

The question was whether they are UN troops on the border. And they aren't. The UN observer mission is purely symbolic. Atleast I know the one in Srinagar is by virtue of being the resident there for about two and a half years.

 

[Contrarian]

Say if the Valley and AJK are combined to form a separate entity. How police's the state? Who funds the state? Who gets access to the state's resources.

If its not a state and a separate country, then there is now way it can sustain itself. It would need lots and lots and lots of aid for atleast 5 decades before it is self sufficient. What about its govt? If its a democracy, then how can we trust Pakistan not to interfere in Kashmir, it has no democratic institution iself.It is run by the military. Wont it prepare some army man or top police man to stage a coup and take control to eject any Indian observers?

No, there can only be countries. India and Pakistan. The rule of the law should be established. The boundaries settled-Which cannot be done. Thus in that eventuality, it is better to have status quo.