A political solution for Kashmir and lasting peace for India and Pakistan

[Baibars_1260]

@jamahir
Let us come to your OP.

A political solution for Kashmir and lasting peace for India and Pakistan
Written by: Jamahir
Category cloud: Opinion, analysis
​

India and Pakistan need to settle the long, sad but frankly immature dispute over Kashmir once and for all. Peacefully and politically. Both have similar social, economic and political problems so any nuanced and generic solution for one country can also be used by the other country. The prescribed solution by the UNO is impractical. As it involves, as far as I understand, India withdrawing military units stationed in India-administered Kashmir and then arranging for a plebiscite there while also accepting the UNO as a mediator. But the Indian Establishment believes, as also its foreign allies, that India-administered Kashmir is primarily a matter internal to India but since Pakistan cannot be wished away the matter should involve both countries settling the matter between themselves, peacefully and politically. But any such settlement should benefit both the countries immediately and in the long term.

Therefore I present one solution as below. The solution is based on Muammar Gaddafi's solution for Kashmir to which I have added some bits.

1. Both countries should adopt the same Progressive political system. Two separate, independent republics but with the same political system, much like what pre-2003 Iraq and Syria were with their same Ba'athist systems. The Progressive political system can be the Direct Democracy Socialism system that governed Libya until the 2011 war. Readers can refer to these pages to understand how this system works. This system is called the Third Universal Theory aka Jamahiriya theory. In India, a form of Direct Democracy called Swaraj is being implemented in Delhi by the ruling AAP party and is also being forwarded by the Swaraj Abhiyan movement and there is no reason why it cannot be extended to Pakistan as well.

2. Let Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistani-administered Kashmir remain with their respective countries.

3. Convert the LoC into an International Border that is accessible for trade, tourism and family visits.

All this will make the separatists in India-administered Kashmir to understand that their desire to join Pakistan-administered Kashmir is unnecessary because both countries will have become the same, politically.

Furthermore, with separatist militancy reduced in Indian-administered Kashmir, what will remain is regressive religious militancy or activism which can be controlled and removed with social support by progressives among the local population. The side effect will also be a drastic removal of the current military force which will lead to more goodwill for the peace project.

I speak of the troubles and concerns of Muslims in Indian Kashmir and I will also speak of the troubles and concerns of the Kashmiri Pundit refugees. There must be something like Nelson Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I would like the refugee Kashmiri Pandits to be allowed to return back to the Valley.

The next step would be resumption of the Aman Ki Asha peace mission as well as resumption of food and clothing festivals to be organized in both countries.

If not for such a solution, how long would the Establishments of India and Pakistan keep up with this cross-border hate? For another 50 years? 100? Until a reformed UNO decides to send in a military arbitrator force? And would the people of both countries not like the money and other resources spent by their respective militaries in positioning against each other to be spent on making each others countries a welfare state where there are things like high quality free medical system like in Cuba?

An important point is that the given solution will not only benefit the Kashmiri's but also will bring progress to India and Pakistan - socially, economically and politically.

Lastly, to extend a point about direct democracy socialism, It worked in Libya and it is being implemented in Venezuela ( the consejos comunales - communal councils ). Two different kinds of countries, ethnically and geographically. No reason why India and Pakistan cannot adopt the system given the fact that both countries have so much in common. And just Direct Democracy without the socialism part has been the system in Switzerland for long.

_______________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: The post only represents writer's own point of views. The post do not represent point of views of Pakistan Defence management. Pakistan Defence Team will not be responsible for disagreements.
_______________________________________________________________________
Credits: The post is written by Jamahir, India. The proof reading and some other editing has been done by Think Tank Analyst, Forcetrip. The final formatting, editing and picture uploading is done by Slav Defence., Think Tank Vice Chairman.

To sum up.
What you are stating is that under a Socialist Internationale world order, where an economic system of socialist wealth distribution exists, nationalist passions and religious hatred will be a thing of the past, and borders will exist only on maps. Political and economic systems of adjoining nations will be so similar, that the cause for war which is usually based off the desire of vested economic interests will be non-existent. Essentially people are the same all over the world, and the populations of India and Pakistan are one people, divided over a colonial legacy in the name of religion.
The solution is the establishment of a socio-economic order that will make India and Pakistan interdependent. The territorial issue of Kashmir will then be automatically resolved.

This is a familiar Left Wing proposal which in fact was implemented elsewhere with significant initial success.

Let's look at history.

The First World War ending in 1918, resulted in the most horrible carnage mankind had ever known till then, and was based off extreme nationalist and religious passions. In Russia, and the Central and East European countries, there had been extreme religious hatred against Muslims because of their Turkish origins. Oppression and persecution of Tartars, Ingusht, Chechen, Daghestani, and Bashkir peoples was brutal. These ethnic religious groups revolted frequently, and their rebellions were savagely suppressed with wholesale massacres by the Tsarist Empire. The Russian Empire had a dozen Kashmir like situations on its hands. When the Central Asian nations were added to the Empire the Tsar had an even larger restive population and territory to control. Jews fared little better. The Jews being smaller in number, and not holding territory were completely marginalized, and their ghettos were subjected to horrific pogroms and massacres.

The Tsarist Empire ended in 1917. With the establishment of the Soviet Union, the Socialist Internationale was initially successful in curbing religious hatred. The Russian Civil war resulted in a victory for the Communists, and the last religious pogroms of Jews and communal killings of Muslims ended in 1922.

The early communists were intelligent enough to realize that nationalist fervor and religious hatred could not be ended merely by the establishment of a socialist economy and efficient policing by a heavily armed internal security.

• The mind set had to be changed by rearing a new generation, by completely taking religion out of the public sphere.
  
  
• Communal and fascist forces had to be ruthlessly crushed.
• All discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity has to be ended.
• Most important of all was to realize that cultural, linguistic and ethnic identity was important.

This is why autonomous republics were established assuring the populations living in these republics their own cultural sphere with jobs and employment assured to local people. As a federation the Soviet Union retained the constitution, criminal and civil law, currency, communications, education, foreign and defense affairs. The republics had full sovereign rights over their natural resources , industries, agriculture, law enforcement, employment, use of local language, culture and day to day governance. After initial resistance all Sovier federation republics including the Muslim majority Central Asian republics fell in line. The bitter feuding and religiously motivated civil wars were ended. The system of education rigorously enforced, resulted in a rapid rise in literacy, particularly female literacy. It transformed these nations from feudal backward peasant societies into a highly literate and trained industrial society.

After another carnage of World War 2 , the Soviet Union expanded the same principle in socio-economic development for the Eastern European block. Poland and Austria and East Germany were no longer enemies. Elsewhere, even outside the Soviet sphere of influence, the communists were able to bring about peace. Countries such as Rumania and Yugoslavia that had been at war were no longer hostile. Within Yugoslavia the feuding between Serbs, Croats, Bosnians was stopped.

The secular order held for 70 years until the collapse of the Soviet Union until 1991. A number of conflicts soon broke out among the ex-constituents of the Soviet Union.
Georgia vs Russia, Chechnya vs Russia, Azarbaijan vs Armenia. Also nations such as Yugoslavia underwent horrific civil wars, and massacres, based on religious differences.
Serbs vs Croats, Serbs vs Bosnians ( Muslims ), Serbs vs Kosovars.
Countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, reverted to their extreme parochial insular "anti-semitic" stance. Except this time there were no Jews left to hate, but the hatred of Jews was quickly substituted by the hatred for Muslims.

It was discovered that even after 70 years of secular education the mindset had returned to pre-communist era and the prejudices; hatred and bias for others had merely been suppressed not eliminated. Religious hatred can only be suppressed, and never completely eliminated. "Non-violent" Gandhism , failed as spectacularly as secular socialism in preventing the carnage that accompanied India's independence.

Even a secularist like Jinnah realized that the only way two peoples of different faiths can avoid slaughtering each other is to allow each other space in two separate nations . The minorities in these nations would be protected by a secular constitution. Basically this is what the Two Nation theory is about. The fact that linguistic and cultural factors are also relevant ( the secession and emergence of Bangladesh ) does not eliminate religious angle. Bangladesh with an identical language has a separate religious identity to West Bengal and likewise the Irish are separate from the English despite speaking the same language. Ukraine and Russia are similar but Ukraine still seceded (being Roman Catholic) from Greek Orthodox Church Russia. Closer home in South Asia we have seen how a secular socialist modern Afghanistan that existed for 7 decades after resisting British Imperialism collapsed into a medievalist tribal mindset.

The revival of religion in Eastern and Central Europe and the collapse of the secular socialist order does not mean that the quest for a modern secular society should be abandoned . There have been successes in eliminating war and building prosperity under different systems. The European Union is a success story whereas its Marxist contemporary CMEA ( COMECON ) was a failure. Why COMECON failed is outside the scope of this topic. However the Western European countries, in under four decades resolved their territorial and linguistic differences to become a united, borderless economic block, as well as a powerful military alliance.

Will this happen with India and Pakistan?
It is faint hope, but perhaps... in the distant future assuming a devastating nuclear war has not been fought, and both countries have developed secular free market economies we might see a peace deal over the future of Kashmir. But a free market capitalist economy can go either way. It could be secular based on the West European model post 1945, or it could be fascist based on the era from 1918 to 1945.
If current trends in India are relevant India is descending into fascism with a growing free market economy. This bodes ill for the future.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Solution. Kashmir Valley created a special territory ran by elected official. However foreign affairs, defence etc handed by separate commission made up of Pakistani and Indian officials with revolving chairmanship. Pak keeps AJK, GB. India keeps Jammu, Ladakh.

All borders are removed and turned into soft lines. Trade, people movement is free. No border controls. A joint Indo-Pak defence pact is set up to integrate into South Asia Force. Problem sorted.

 

[Sam.]

Solution. Kashmir Valley created a special territory ran by elected official. However foreign affairs, defence etc handed by separate commission made up of Pakistani and Indian officials with revolving chairmanship. Pak keeps AJK, GB. India keeps Jammu, Ladakh.

All borders are removed and turned into soft lines. Trade, people movement is free. No border controls. A joint Indo-Pak defence pact is set up to integrate into South Asia Force. Problem sorted.

No argument from Indian sides and lets move on and focus on our shitty Economic situation at hand.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Solution. Kashmir Valley created a special territory ran by elected official. However foreign affairs, defence etc handed by separate commission made up of Pakistani and Indian officials with revolving chairmanship. Pak keeps AJK, GB. India keeps Jammu, Ladakh.

All borders are removed and turned into soft lines. Trade, people movement is free. No border controls. A joint Indo-Pak defence pact is set up to integrate into South Asia Force. Problem sorted.

Then there needs to be hard border controls at the provinces adjoining the Kashmir region in both countries

Because if border is soft in Kashmir...what does that even mean? a rich Non-Kashmiri from Patna can just ride his Harley till Taftan through Kashmir without extensive paperwork? But same guy would need through vetting if he were to pass through Wagah,Atari

@jamahir
Let us come to your OP.


To sum up.
What you are stating is that under a Socialist Internationale world order, where an economic system of socialist wealth distribution exists, nationalist passions and religious hatred will be a thing of the past, and borders will exist only on maps. Political and economic systems of adjoining nations will be so similar, that the cause for war which is usually based off the desire of vested economic interests will be non-existent. Essentially people are the same all over the world, and the populations of India and Pakistan are one people, divided over a colonial legacy in the name of religion.
The solution is the establishment of a socio-economic order that will make India and Pakistan interdependent. The territorial issue of Kashmir will then be automatically resolved.

This is a familiar Left Wing proposal which in fact was implemented elsewhere with significant initial success.

Let's look at history.

The First World War ending in 1918, resulted in the most horrible carnage mankind had ever known till then, and was based off extreme nationalist and religious passions. In Russia, and the Central and East European countries, there had been extreme religious hatred against Muslims because of their Turkish origins. Oppression and persecution of Tartars, Ingusht, Chechen, Daghestani, and Bashkir peoples was brutal. These ethnic religious groups revolted frequently, and their rebellions were savagely suppressed with wholesale massacres by the Tsarist Empire. The Russian Empire had a dozen Kashmir like situations on its hands. When the Central Asian nations were added to the Empire the Tsar had an even larger restive population and territory to control. Jews fared little better. The Jews being smaller in number, and not holding territory were completely marginalized, and their ghettos were subjected to horrific pogroms and massacres.

The Tsarist Empire ended in 1917. With the establishment of the Soviet Union, the Socialist Internationale was initially successful in curbing religious hatred. The Russian Civil war resulted in a victory for the Communists, and the last religious pogroms of Jews and communal killings of Muslims ended in 1922.

The early communists were intelligent enough to realize that nationalist fervor and religious hatred could not be ended merely by the establishment of a socialist economy and efficient policing by a heavily armed internal security.

• The mind set had to be changed by rearing a new generation, by completely taking religion out of the public sphere.
  
  
• Communal and fascist forces had to be ruthlessly crushed.
• All discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity has to be ended.
• Most important of all was to realize that cultural, linguistic and ethnic identity was important.

This is why autonomous republics were established assuring the populations living in these republics their own cultural sphere with jobs and employment assured to local people. As a federation the Soviet Union retained the constitution, criminal and civil law, currency, communications, education, foreign and defense affairs. The republics had full sovereign rights over their natural resources , industries, agriculture, law enforcement, employment, use of local language, culture and day to day governance. After initial resistance all Sovier federation republics including the Muslim majority Central Asian republics fell in line. The bitter feuding and religiously motivated civil wars were ended. The system of education rigorously enforced, resulted in a rapid rise in literacy, particularly female literacy. It transformed these nations from feudal backward peasant societies into a highly literate and trained industrial society.

After another carnage of World War 2 , the Soviet Union expanded the same principle in socio-economic development for the Eastern European block. Poland and Austria and East Germany were no longer enemies. Elsewhere, even outside the Soviet sphere of influence, the communists were able to bring about peace. Countries such as Rumania and Yugoslavia that had been at war were no longer hostile. Within Yugoslavia the feuding between Serbs, Croats, Bosnians was stopped.

The secular order held for 70 years until the collapse of the Soviet Union until 1991. A number of conflicts soon broke out among the ex-constituents of the Soviet Union.
Georgia vs Russia, Chechnya vs Russia, Azarbaijan vs Armenia. Also nations such as Yugoslavia underwent horrific civil wars, and massacres, based on religious differences.
Serbs vs Croats, Serbs vs Bosnians ( Muslims ), Serbs vs Kosovars.
Countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, reverted to their extreme parochial insular "anti-semitic" stance. Except this time there were no Jews left to hate, but the hatred of Jews was quickly substituted by the hatred for Muslims.

It was discovered that even after 70 years of secular education the mindset had returned to pre-communist era and the prejudices; hatred and bias for others had merely been suppressed not eliminated. Religious hatred can only be suppressed, and never completely eliminated. "Non-violent" Gandhism , failed as spectacularly as secular socialism in preventing the carnage that accompanied India's independence.

Even a secularist like Jinnah realized that the only way two peoples of different faiths can avoid slaughtering each other is to allow each other space in two separate nations . The minorities in these nations would be protected by a secular constitution. Basically this is what the Two Nation theory is about. The fact that linguistic and cultural factors are also relevant ( the secession and emergence of Bangladesh ) does not eliminate religious angle. Bangladesh with an identical language has a separate religious identity to West Bengal and likewise the Irish are separate from the English despite speaking the same language. Ukraine and Russia are similar but Ukraine still seceded (being Roman Catholic) from Greek Orthodox Church Russia. Closer home in South Asia we have seen how a secular socialist modern Afghanistan that existed for 7 decades after resisting British Imperialism collapsed into a medievalist tribal mindset.

The revival of religion in Eastern and Central Europe and the collapse of the secular socialist order does not mean that the quest for a modern secular society should be abandoned . There have been successes in eliminating war and building prosperity under different systems. The European Union is a success story whereas its Marxist contemporary CMEA ( COMECON ) was failure. Why COMECON failed is outside the scope of this topic. However the Western European countries, in under four decades resolved their territorial and linguistic differences to become a united, borderless economic block, as well as a powerful military alliance.

Will this happen with India and Pakistan?
It is faint hope, but perhaps... in the distant future assuming a devastating nuclear war has not been fought, and both countries have developed secular free market economies we might see a peace deal over the future of Kashmir. But a free market capitalist economy can go either way. It could be secular based on the West European model post 1945, or it could be fascist based on the era from 1918 to 1945.
If current trends in India are relevant India is descending into fascism with a growing free market economy. This bodes ill for the future.

upvote for thr write up but not for ALL the opinions there in..already started reading it...relishing it

 

[Indus Pakistan]

a rich Non-Kashmiri from Patna can just ride his Harley till Taftan through Kashmir without extensive paperwork? But same guy would need through vetting if he were to pass through Wagah,Atari

Why would he need to do that? The Pak/India border would also be just a soft line like Fraco-German border. Let Patnawallah ride himself through Wagah all the way to Taftan leaving behind a trail of paan marks. I am sure we will have plenty of paanwallahs to ride to India right to Lucknow.

Open borders meaning open borders.
I am serious. Time to bury the religious bullshat. It's not like Pakistan built a unique identity in over 70 years. Our people are lost. Zombies to Islamist causes and elite rape.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Solution. Kashmir Valley created a special territory ran by elected official. However foreign affairs, defence etc handed by separate commission made up of Pakistani and Indian officials with revolving chairmanship. Pak keeps AJK, GB. India keeps Jammu, Ladakh.

All borders are removed and turned into soft lines. Trade, people movement is free. No border controls. A joint Indo-Pak defence pact is set up to integrate into South Asia Force. Problem sorted.

@Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Indus, and Juggernaut,

See my posts below.

----------------------------------

Liked your OP.
Here are my views. I have no arguments against your proposal.
The solution proposed by you to the Kashmir problem is an ideal one, and based on ideal conditions which did largely exist at one time. India and Pakistan at one time ( 1972-1975 ) had a political and social parity with left of center governments in power. Both India and Pakistan had a strong political leadership from 1972-1977. Nationalist passions had cooled in both countries after a bloody stalemate ( 16th Dec to 21st Dec, 1971 ) over Kashmir. Neither superpower ( the USA or the Soviet Union) was willing to unequivocally back their ally, though the Soviet Union was very disappointed that India failed to make a military breakthrough in the west during the war. The Soviet Union then began to court Pakistan ( setting up the Karachi steel mill ). Both Pakistani and Indian economies had a large public sector component. The general mindset of both the population was still largely secular.

So what went wrong.

There was every likelihood of a rapprochement. This did not happen due to various reasons related to internal political developments in both countries.
India's insistence on resumption of consular services, road, rail and air travel, trade, phone, communications and postal links ( in other words complete normalization) before finally settling the border was unacceptable to
Pakistan.
To recap my earlier posts.

Let us come to India's stance first.
So India's ambitions have not changed over the last 50 years.
India still would like to develop as a superpower; but it can't until it has a secure border, either through complete hegemony over it's neighbors ( like
USA over Mexico) or a complete accommodation ( like between USA and Canada).
Depending on the type of government in power India has attempted to solve its problems with Pakistan by either the hegemony approach or the accommodation approach. Both methods have failed .
1. With its military limitations India cannot have hegemony over Pakistan.
2. Any accommodation attempts are stiffly resisted by the Opposition Lawmakers.
( To be continued)

What has changed over time is the mindset of the population.
The generation that had seen a united British ruled India is dead.
Progressive think tanks believed that once the generation ( both in Pakistan and India ) that saw Partition died off relations between the two nations would dramatically improve. The mindset of a young generation would not be tainted with communal religious hatred and extreme jingoism.
In fact the opposite happened.
The generation that saw Partition had bitter memories but also had nostalgia for a united country. That generation was aware of the culture, and a significant number could speak read and write a common language ( Urdu , and Hindi ). A common language Hindustani existed.
At one peak moment in India ( 1970s) centrist and left wing elements of this generation was in power. They wanted to see an India Pakistan Federation in their lifetime.
In particular the issue of Kashmir was to be determined by future generations and the Simla Agreement in 1972 was to fix the "border to make a borderless Kashmir" within Pakistan and India.,
This policy was promoted by five eminent Kashmiri pundits (T.N. Kaul, D.P. Dhar, P.N.Haksar, P.N. Dhar, and R.N. Kao). Indira Gandhi was herself of Kashmiri Pundit origin.
Indian held Kashmir remained peaceful throughout the 1971 war and for almost 13 years thereafter .

Up to 1984 the Partition generation that ruled India wanted Kashmir ( Indian held ) with its people. The reasons were political as they were strategic . A prosperous and peaceful Muslim majority state within India was a powerful reminder to the world that India was a secular state and Partition and Pakistan was an unpleasant colonial anomaly that would be addressed. Internally the ruling Congress Party backed by centrist, left wing parties ( the CPI, CPM etc. ) kept the fascist forces off balance showing a peaceful Kashmir

From 1977 onwards, events based on internal politics in India began to charge the mindset of the population. ( to be discussed in a separate post ) . It is sufficient to say that the younger generation mindset is far more polarized, and communalized with extreme jingoistic fervor than any generation before. Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, and Pakistanis are all classified as ONE enemy.
The current regime in India with a massive mandate from a younger polarized vote bank enjoys complete support in this policy of classification of the enemy.
The present generation of Indians wants complete elimination and removal of Indian Muslims and Kashmiris ( and of course the destruction of Pakistan).
So India as of today wants the land and territory of Kashmir without the people ( implied Muslims) .
India also wants the rest of its territory cleansed of Muslims but that is beyond the scope of this topic.
A parliament resolution in 1991 in India demanded Pakistan vacate Azad Kashmir and resolved to use "all means " to recover the territory.

In the next post Pakistan's Kashmiri policy will be discussed
( to be continued).

Pakistan's stance on Kashmir is simplistic, and legalistic.

• Unlike India which refutes the logic of Partition itself Pakistan views Kashmir as an unfinished agenda of Partition.
• Pakistan's case is that as a contiguous territory with a Muslim majority Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. The people of Kashmir want to belong to Pakistan.
• Pakistan cites the 1948 U.N. Resolution for a plebiscite as a legal case.

In my earlier post we have seen that India's attempts in 1971 to regain Azad Kashmir were unsuccessful. Pakistan's attempt in 1965 to regain Indian Occupied Kashmir was also unsuccessful for the following reasons.

1. The population in Indian Occupied Kashmir did not to support the Pakistani operations, and in fact in some cases colluded with the Indian Army defending the territory. The reason was that at time India had a largely secular government in power and mostly democratic in structure. Pakistan was under martial law and the population of Indian Administered Kashmir preferred a secular democratic partial autonomy to an uncertain status under Pakistan.
2. Whatever the reasons, the non-cooperation of the Indian Occupied Kashmiri population resulted in heavy casualties for Pakistan. Worst of all the non-cooperation of the Kashmiri population emboldened India to expand the conflict outside Kashmir onto the international border threatening Pakistan's key cities including Lahore , Sialkot and other cities in Sindh. In fact with initial successes India was even contemplating retaking Azad Kashmir.
3. For Pakistan, the focus of the war changed from regaining Indian Occupied Kashmir to the defense of Pakistan itself. A courageous and brilliant defense by Pakistan's Armed forces shattered any ambitions by India to either retake Azad Kashmir or to punish Pakistan by seizing chunks of territory within Pakistan itself.

Except for India's losses in the Chambh Jhaurian sector in 1971 ( the icy wastes of Siachen, and Turtok notwithstanding ), the tactical situation on the ground hasn't changed much to either Pakistan or India's advantage. Even the 1999 Kargil war did not change the situation much.

The situation today

By 1972 it was clear to the Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir that any India Pakistan war was not going to change their status.
Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir had expected to retain their partial autonomy or special status within a secular democratic framework of the Indian constitution. With a peaceful secular democratic establishment Kashmiris in Indian Administered Kashmir had hoped to attract international support and intervention for a peaceful unification with Pakistani Administered Kashmir and the establishment of an autonomous region. Kashmiris were looking to independence rather than a merger with Pakistan.

We have seen earlier how the secular democratic environment in India has deteriorated to the point that any agreement at defusing tensions between India and Pakistan is unacceptable to the Indian masses.
The vilification of India's Muslim minority is as intense as the hatred for the Kashmiri Muslim. The enemy for the average Indian in the street is Muslims; regardless if that defines a Kashmiri, Indian or Pakistani.
The change in India's secular democratic setup has had a profound impact on the "Indian" Kashmiri Muslim mindset. A peaceful secular Indian Administered Kashmir is no longer possible in a vitiated communal environment in the rest of India, and Kashmiris do not wish to suffer the fate of Indian Muslims. Which is why the earlier reluctance for armed rebellion and collusion with Pakistan has changed. Kashmiri Muslims are actively resisting the Indian occupation, and one million Indian troops and paramilitary forces are needed to hold down a population of 12 million .

The communalizing of Kashmir has resulted in the displacement of Kashmiri Pundits from the Valley. There is a resumption of communal violence against Muslims in Jammu.

The struggle of Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir is no longer just a struggle for autonomy and independence, but also a struggle for preservation of their freedom to practice their religion.

This development has been a windfall for Pakistan. All of Pakistan's earlier efforts to motivate Kashmiri's in India had failed; most crucially in the 1965, 1971 ( non-existent ) , and 1999 conflicts. Pakistan's foreign policy think tanks are realistic enough to realize, that given the military realities on the ground Kashmiris will never oust the Indian forces on their own ; nor can Pakistan help them achieve this objective.
The window of 1949, and 1965 has passed forever. Pakistan also realizes with much satisfaction that India lacks the military capabilities of taking Azad Kashmir from Pakistan. India's earlier gambit of threatening Pakistan on the international border, and forcing it to choose between defending Azad Kashmir and protecting Lahore, is no longer viable because of the nuclear dimensions. Pakistan can with some immunity, keep the "pot boiling" in Kashmir, tying down huge numbers of Indian troops. With a fundamentalist religious nationalist regime in power with a huge nuclear armed military establishment and hatred of Muslims, it makes sense to keep such a formidable enemy off balance.

For Pakistan it is no longer an issue of Kashmir but survival. Pakistan needs to survive an existential threat from a vastly superior enemy. Kashmir is but one tool to keep its enemy off balance. Liberation or Integration of Kashmir is very distant in the minds of Pakistani security planners.

Progressive think tanks tend to view the Kashmir issue in economic, political and territorial terms. It was like that one time from 1972 to early 1980 when India and Pakistan were extremely reluctant to fight and had pushed the religious angle to the background. Even when the Soviet Union prior to invading Afghanistan, asked India to invade from the east retaking Kashmir and capturing large parts of Pakistan, India refused. The Soviet Union hoped to neutralize Pakistan which it knew would become a base for the western backed Afghan resistance.
India violated it's Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Understanding with the Soviet Union rather than get embroiled in another war with Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai ( whatever his drink he preferred ) should have been honored and given the Nobel Peace prize for averting a carnage on the sub-continent.

Today this is no longer the case. India has been swept by a wave of religious fundamentalist hysteria bent on a "1000 year revenge ".

( To be concluded )

 

[Baltistan scouts]

The only solution is a un plebiscite where the people decide .the only other solution can be pakistan to keep gilgit baltistan india keep the leh district and the 4 southern jammu destricts.whilst the azad kashmir pir panjal region and chenab valley with kashmir valley and kargil are given independence

 

[Baibars_1260]

The only solution is a un plebiscite where the people decide .the only other solution can be pakistan to keep gilgit baltistan india keep the leh district and the 4 southern jammu destricts.whilst the azad kashmir pir panjal region and chenab valley with kashmir valley and kargil are given independence

No one , not even Pakistan, is interested in a UN plebiscite. Even in the remote possibility that such a plebiscite is ever held ( assuming China doesn't veto it ), the results will not be liked by either China or Pakistan, far less India. On one point China, Pakistan, and India are in full agreement. An independent Kashmir is unacceptable to all three parties in the dispute.
Kashmiris are doomed to a future like the Kurds, ( divided between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran ). Kashmiris are divided amongst three nations each with its own extreme strategic reasons to hold on to it's portion of Kashmir. Pakistan and China will hold on to their portions without much problems of internal revolt. India is unlikely to finish off the insurgency inside Kashmir in the near future. Like the Kurdish rebellion, this insurgency will be a generational one, until for some unforeseeable reason India collapses, or lets Indian administered Kashmir go.

Cynical Left Wing Indian think tanks believe that making Indian held Kashmir independent will be the smartest strategic move ever. An independent Kashmir will be friendly to a secular India, and as a UN member will demand the reintegration of the Chinese and Pakistani occupied territories .

India will effectively transfer the insurgency into Pakistan Administered Kashmir and would arm and support an independent Kashmir. The strategic implications are huge because this would effectively threaten the China Pakistan lifeline.

This is a nightmare that China is well aware of, but this can only happen if a nationalist left wing government comes to power, which is at this point a very remote possibility.

Yet it has been close. A left front supported federal coalition governments in India, once had a communist home minister who had toyed with this idea.

Therefore it is in China's interests to have Modi in power with its nationalist rhetoric. The more the communal religious rhetoric the better. Tying down a million Indian troops over two restive adjacent borders, and an embarrassing series of military and diplomatic reverses is the best possible way to keep India off balance.,
A resounding military defeat by China could unseat the fascist government. So China plays "patty cake " with Modi holding back videos of handing over 30+ prisoners captured in the Galwan Valley. China also leans on Pakistan not to initiate hostilities and only respond in kind to any belligerent action by India.
The status quo of slow bleeding is very satisfactory to China and Pakistan in the larger scheme of things.

 

[Arsalan345]

What political solution? Why so much drama from the last 70 years in our country? People died for the independence of Kashmir. 2 wars for Kashmir as well. Now suddenly everyone wants to sacrifice. Are we ready to compromise? If we are ready than kindly stop this Black day, Kashmir day, Kashmir march, Kashmir songs. enough is enough. Now every person in our country is emotionally attached to Kashmir and suddenly we want dialogue with India. Dialogue for what? for Indian bombing or abrogation? Have some shame!

I never considered Pakistan as a weak country but now we are totally defensive with no hope. It's like begging for peace. What has changed in the last 20 years? Do you forget words of Musharraf? There should be no dialogue with India until it reinstate old status of Kashmir.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Therefore it is in China's interests to have Modi in power with its nationalist rhetoric. The more the communal religious rhetoric the better. Tying down a million Indian troops over two restive adjacent borders, and an embarrassing series of military and diplomatic reverses is the best possible way to keep India off balance.,
A resounding military defeat by China could unseat the fascist government. So China plays "patty cake " with Modi holding back videos of handing over 30+ prisoners captured in the Galwan Valley. China also leans on Pakistan not to initiate hostilities and only respond in kind to any belligerent action by India.
The status quo of slow bleeding is very satisfactory to China and Pakistan

The China factor:

Kashmir has moved beyond an India Pakistan dispute, There is a powerful China factor.
It is not clear if it is mere rhetoric, but translations of Chinese Thinktank documents
(unsubstantiated, so am not posting any links here) show a Chinese willingness to "up the ante", and seize more territory in Ladakh, with the ultimate aim of "liberating" the Valley. China's lifeline to Gwadar will be defended at all costs, and only securing the valley and large swathes of Ladakh can ensure the security of CPEC. Either India agrees to lay off any threats to CPEC, or face a wider two front war with a possible loss of more territory.

China's long term strategic and economic interests are simply too vital for any compromise here.
Ironically, what started off as a Hindu-Muslim dispute over a remote mountainous region ruled by a vacillating Hindu king, has become a focal point of big power rivalry.

Any two front war with Pakistan and China over Kashmir and Ladakh, will remain conventional ( to India's disadvantage), unless India once again does the 1965 option, and opens a third front on Pakistan's international border. Unlike 1965 Pakistan may not be as well positioned to withstand a massive conventional assault by India but now that Pakistan is nuclear armed such a move would most certainly trigger a nuclear war. This is an unpleasant prospect for India. No country envisages a nuclear conflict on its heavily populated border with the risk of widespread fallout.

India seems to be stuck with very difficult choices. India hopes to build its conventional forces to the point of defending Ladakh and Kashmir both in a two front war which is kept conventional . It is to be seen how this shapes out.

 

[Baltistan scouts]

No one , not even Pakistan, is interested in a UN plebiscite. Even in the remote possibility that such a plebiscite is ever held ( assuming China doesn't veto it ), the results will not be liked by either China or Pakistan, far less India. On one point China, Pakistan, and India are in full agreement. An independent Kashmir is unacceptable to all three parties in the dispute.
Kashmiris are doomed to a future like the Kurds, ( divided between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran ). Kashmiris are divided amongst three nations each with its own extreme strategic reasons to hold on to it's portion of Kashmir. Pakistan and China will hold on to their portions without much problems of internal revolt. India is unlikely to finish off the insurgency inside Kashmir in the near future. Like the Kurdish rebellion, this insurgency will be a generational one, until for some unforeseeable reason India collapses, or lets Indian administered Kashmir go.

Cynical Left Wing Indian think tanks believe that making Indian held Kashmir independent will be the smartest strategic move ever. An independent Kashmir will be friendly to a secular India, and as a UN member will demand the reintegration of the Chinese and Pakistani occupied territories .

India will effectively transfer the insurgency into Pakistan Administered Kashmir and would arm and support an independent Kashmir. The strategic implications are huge because this would effectively threaten the China Pakistan lifeline.

This is a nightmare that China is well aware of, but this can only happen if a nationalist left wing government comes to power, which is at this point a very remote possibility.

Yet it has been close. A left front supported federal coalition governments in India, once had a communist home minister who had toyed with this idea.

Therefore it is in China's interests to have Modi in power with its nationalist rhetoric. The more the communal religious rhetoric the better. Tying down a million Indian troops over two restive adjacent borders, and an embarrassing series of military and diplomatic reverses is the best possible way to keep India off balance.,
A resounding military defeat by China could unseat the fascist government. So China plays "patty cake " with Modi holding back videos of handing over 30+ prisoners captured in the Galwan Valley. China also leans on Pakistan not to initiate hostilities and only respond in kind to any belligerent action by India.
The status quo of slow bleeding is very satisfactory to China and Pakistan in the larger scheme of things.

YOU say a un plebacite results would not be favourable to pakistan when there is only 2 options on it .the option is pakistan or india and the people of the state would vote pakistan .pakistan is in favour of it and india is not.china does not want kashmir just a border settlement in the east.an independent kashmir will not support india after being persucuted for 70 plus years so you opinion is completely off.go back to your drawing board.what makea you think independent kashmir will be secular lol the valley votes in indian elections represent less then 35 % of the people the remainder are lot of more religious and pakistan orientated

 

[Baibars_1260]

YOU say a un plebacite results would not be favourable to pakistan when there is only 2 options on it .the option is pakistan or india and the people of the state would vote pakistan .pakistan is in favour of it and india is not.

I agree with what you say so far as the actual terms of the plebiscite as it now stands.
Full text here ( Link )
In fact Pakistan seems to have a strong case for the plebiscite because the resolution mentions "tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident in the state to vacate Azad Kashmir, which they did.
A plebiscite cannot be held because the resolution is not binding or actionable by the United Nations.
No UN forces are going to intervene and enforce a plebiscite.
A plebiscite if ever held, is likely to have a third option inserted by interested parties such as the USA and NATO members France and Britain. The reason is that an independent Kashmir is to their advantage and will bring immense leverage over China. Ex-pat Kashmiri groups in the West are talking of independence which is more acceptable to liberal western foreign policy think tanks.

china does not want kashmir just a border settlement in the east.

China's border with Pakistan is already settled and China is least bothered about any Indian claims on the Line of Actual Control as long. as India stays immobile and doesn't threaten China's link with Pakistan. China is not even looking to a settlement because for all practical purposes the 1993 agreement settled the Line of Actual Control as a border.

On Western encouragement India tried to upset the status quo by building a road and military base infrastructure, that would threaten China's Pakistan link. This was a proxy attempt to get India involved in cutting off China's access to the Persian Gulf energy resources. China is now aware of the threat and is determined to protect its communications and transport links

For a settlement between China and India:
China's sovereignty over territory ceded to it by Pakistan would need to be acknowledged by India .
India would also need to acknowledge that the Pakistan China link is a bilateral matter between those two countries with India having no say in the matter.
This is not the case at this time with India making strident protests and also making token military movements on the ground. Much of India's actions are determined by global events and the attempt to contain China geographically.

an independent kashmir will not support india after being persucuted for 70 plus years so you opinion is completely off.go back to your drawing board.what makea you think independent kashmir will be secular lol the valley votes in indian elections represent less then 35 % of the people the remainder are lot of more religious and pakistan orientated

Religion doesn't necessarily produce an alliance. The case of Bangladesh which is allied with India against Pakistan, and the case of Afghanistan which was the only nation that refused to recognize Pakistan in its independence is a reminder of this fact. Afghanistan suffered terribly under Sikh-Hindu Maratha rule for over a century, and Bangladesh suffered likewise under a Hindu Brahmin Bengali landlord class backed by the British.
Yet both nations have remained secular and mostly pro-India after their independence.
Religious affinity doesn't automatically translate into support for Pakistan.
A section of Kashmiri Muslims led by Sheikh Abdullah declined to support the Pakistani operations in 1949 and likewise Kashmiri Muslims declined support to Pakistan in 1965, 1971 and 1999 also.

The current Hindu nationalist federal government in India, is hated in Indian occupied Kashmir ; but earlier left or center left governments had support in the valley which remained largely peaceful.
In the very remote ( very very remote) possibility, a left of center government comes to power, and either makes Indian held Kashmir an autonomous protectorate like Bhutan or even grants it full independence it is likely that this section of Kashmir will turn pro-India. If this scenario is outlandish consider how Serbia allowed Macedonia to break away or Ethiopia allowed Djibouti to break away.

Persecution has bad memories but even 150 years of direct and indirect British rule still ensured that both India and Pakistan maintained cordial relations with U.K. There is a large South Asian diaspora in U.K.

 

[Baltistan scouts]

I agree with what you say so far as the actual terms of the plebiscite as it now stands.
Full text here ( Link )
In fact Pakistan seems to have a strong case for the plebiscite because the resolution mentions "tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident in the state to vacate Azad Kashmir, which they did.
A plebiscite cannot be held because the resolution is not binding or actionable by the United Nations.
No UN forces are going to intervene and enforce a plebiscite.
A plebiscite if ever held, is likely to have a third option inserted by interested parties such as the USA and NATO members France and Britain. The reason is that an independent Kashmir is to their advantage and will bring immense leverage over China. Ex-pat Kashmiri groups in the West are talking of independence which is more acceptable to liberal western foreign policy think tanks.



China's border with Pakistan is already settled and China is least bothered about any Indian claims on the Line of Actual Control as long. as India stays immobile and doesn't threaten China's link with Pakistan. China is not even looking to a settlement because for all practical purposes the 1993 agreement settled the Line of Actual Control as a border.

On Western encouragement India tried to upset the status quo by building a road and military base infrastructure, that would threaten China's Pakistan link. This was a proxy attempt to get India involved in cutting off China's access to the Persian Gulf energy resources. China is now aware of the threat and is determined to protect its communications and transport links

For a settlement between China and India:
China's sovereignty over territory ceded to it by Pakistan would need to be acknowledged by India .
India would also need to acknowledge that the Pakistan China link is a bilateral matter between those two countries with India having no say in the matter.
This is not the case at this time with India making strident protests and also making token military movements on the ground. Much of India's actions are determined by global events and the attempt to contain China geographically.



Religion doesn't necessarily produce an alliance. The case of Bangladesh which is allied with India against Pakistan, and the case of Afghanistan which was the only nation that refused to recognize Pakistan in its independence is a reminder of this fact. Afghanistan suffered terribly under Sikh-Hindu Maratha rule for over a century, and Bangladesh suffered likewise under a Hindu Brahmin Bengali landlord class backed by the British.
Yet both nations have remained secular and mostly pro-India after their independence.
Religious affinity doesn't automatically translate into support for Pakistan.
A section of Kashmiri Muslims led by Sheikh Abdullah declined to support the Pakistani operations in 1949 and likewise Kashmiri Muslims declined support to Pakistan in 1965, 1971 and 1999 also.

The current Hindu nationalist federal government in India, is hated in Indian occupied Kashmir ; but earlier left or center left governments had support in the valley which remained largely peaceful.
In the very remote ( very very remote) possibility, a left of center government comes to power, and either makes Indian held Kashmir an autonomous protectorate like Bhutan or even grants it full independence it is likely that this section of Kashmir will turn pro-India. If this scenario is outlandish consider how Serbia allowed Macedonia to break away or Ethiopia allowed Djibouti to break away.

Persecution has bad memories but even 150 years of direct and indirect British rule still ensured that both India and Pakistan maintained cordial relations with U.K. There is a large South Asian diaspora in U.K.

Independence is still.preferable solution then the current situation.and no kashmir will be no help to the west in controlling china.you say china does not want border settlement it actually does .china does not care about what india thinks about their border agreement with pakistan in gilgit baltistan. Afghanistan is not kashmir afghans were more concerned about the durand line which is why they never supported pakistan.whereas bengal was pro pakistan untill the govt of pakistan did not develop or agree to language issue.the only reason bengal became independent was the distance if bengal bordered sindh or punjab even with india help there would have been no independence.sheikh abdullah wanted independence for kashmir in 1947 and was delusional he regretted his decision as soon as he was arrested by neheu after 1947.kashmiris in 1947 supported pakistan .i never saw no pakistan flags being burned in kargil 1999 or in 1965..the majority in kashmir do not vote and will vote pakistan .afghans and bengalis are not secular.people in the govt might be but they come and go..you mention serbia did they let bosnia go or croatia go or even kosovo.lol did ethiopia let eritrea go .Djibouti was never ethiopian it was a french colony for over 100 years prior to independence and before that part of the ottoman empire..the solution for kashmir is un plebacite or full independece..in the valley no support for india less then 35 % ever vote .the remaining 65 % are pakistan supporters and not secular.in an independent jammu kashmir the nc or pdp will not be coming to power ..you mention nato it is powerless without the is and the us is not the same as 40 years ago .china is the future for the next 100 years and cannot be stopped by france or GB or us or pathetic quad lol

 

[ayodhyapati]

i will go with status quo .

 

[Enigma SIG]

Political solution is already present in the case of UN Plebiscite.

Let the people decide; not Islamabad or Delhi. You need a peacekeeping mission after withdrawal of all military forces to conduct this plebiscite in the valley.

Options to be presented for plebiscite

1. Join India
2. Join Pakistan
3. Independent Kashmir

Funny India harping about democracy when it can't even give the people their voice. You cannot claim to speak for a people; only let them say it themselves.

How hard is this for people to understand?