What's new

Given a chance, Kashmiris would like to break away: CIA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Awesome

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
22,023
Reaction score
5
Given a chance, Kashmiris would like to break away: CIA - Sify.com

New Delhi: India's claim to Jammu and Kashmir is "technically strong" but given the chance the Kashmiri population will want to break free of Indian control, says a new book quoting a declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) document.

An "intelligence memorandum" prepared by the CIA on "The Kashmir Dispute" on September 20, 1965, dwelt at length on the main row plaguing India-Pakistan relations in the wake of their war that year.

Explaining how Jammu and Kashmir merged with India following a tribal invasion backed by Pakistan, the eight-page "secret" document says: "India's claim to the state has a technically strong legal foundation in the maharaja's act of accession.

"The Pakistani advocates point out, however, that the basic concept of partition was that Pakistan was to comprise the contiguous Muslim majority areas of British India. They insist that Kashmir is such an area," the CIA document added.

Over the years, the CIA said, New Delhi had gradually integrated Kashmir more fully into the Indian union, with a lot of financial backing, and "by now all significant constitutional distinctions (between India and Kashmir) have been swept away.

"This support may have reduced Kashmiri resentment in some measure, but there is little question that the Kashmiri population would vote to break away from India if offered the choice," it added.

The CIA assessment is part of many declassified US government documents in journalist Kalyani Shankar's book, India and the US: Politics of the Sixties (Macmillan).

Although India claims ownership over the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, it would be happy, according to the CIA, with just the portion of the Himalayan state it has held since the region got split up between Islamabad and New Delhi in 1947-48.

"The Indians would have no fundamental objections to a permanent division of the state more or less along the ceasefire line... Any proposal threatening India's complete control of the Vale (Kashmir Valley), however, would meet with hostility in New Delhi."

The CIA also pointed out that while Kashmir was "only one of India's foreign policy problems, it often seems to come close to being the very raison d'etre for Pakistan's foreign policy... To the Pakistani, Kashmir is a blight on Pakistan's national honour and a perpetual reminder that the Pakistani Muslim, whose heritage includes the glory of the Moghul Empire, is now a citizen of a country that is weaker, poorer, less skilled, and generally inferior to its 'Hindu' counterpart."

The CIA analysis also said that the death in 1964 of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, "closed out any real hope of a Kashmir solution. He was the only Indian who wielded sufficient political power to sell any significant concessions to India's Hindu majority".

It added that intermittent attempts since 1947 to reach a settlement over Kashmir or even to put Pakistani and Indian leaders on the road towards one had proved consistently futile.

"Third country and UN efforts to settle the long festering problem are likely to founder on Indian stubbornness unless major politico-economic sanctions are applied..."

Written a quarter century before Pakistan extended support to an armed separatist campaign in Jammu and Kashmir, the CIA said: "If both sides fall into a frenzy of mutually destructive violence, it is conceivable that the whole political structure of the subcontinent will undergo radical changes. In such an event, the destiny of Kashmir defies prediction."
 
.
Yeah right...1960!!!

Well werent you the one who was harping at CIA over the WMDs and 9/11 mishap. Now what?
 
. .
Most Kashmiris are too peaceful and simple to fight for their own freedom. I mean yeah those who have suffered most of the Indian oppression will fight but these people keep shifting to Pakistan through our organizations and grow grateful to have Pakistan as their homeland as it has saved them from Indian oppression...

Most Kashmiris in India want to break free of Indian rule but they do not want to fight for it because they are fearful for their loved ones and optimistic about if they will gain freedom or not!
 
. .
How stupid can Kashmiris get? Any simpleton can realise that its better to be a part of India than become a powerless central-asian nation.
 
.
How stupid can Kashmiris get? Any simpleton can realise that its better to be a part of India than become a powerless central-asian nation.
Freedom cannot be bought...

Indians would be better off giving their country to America, but they don't do it, now do they?
 
.
Yeah right...1960!!!

Well werent you the one who was harping at CIA over the WMDs and 9/11 mishap. Now what?

The assessment is also justified by opinion polls in Kashmir. Case in point the most recent one that had 87% in favor of not remaining with India.
 
.
How stupid can Kashmiris get? Any simpleton can realise that its better to be a part of India than become a powerless central-asian nation.

Well, its the treatment you people meted out on them! I say this constantly and I'm saying this again! If you had treated them well by now they would have started thinking of themselves as Indians! But alas, they still want to be independent! Ask yourselves why...

Better to be part of India and continue suffering the biases and discrimination they are suffering now? Should the Kashmiri people continue to be raped, tortured and killed? First atleast treat the Kashmiris like humans, then you can come back and cry about them not thinking of themselves as Indians and not wanting to be a part of India
 
.
How stupid can Kashmiris get? Any simpleton can realise that its better to be a part of India than become a powerless central-asian nation.

Yeah right! its better to be the part of this great secular nation where muslims are killed on the streets.
Powerless central asian nation! how did you figure it out:disagree:
 
.
After all the Kashmiri people have been through who would'nt want to break free. So much bloodshed in the past years:devil:. These stupid little things make me mad.
 
.
Freedom cannot be bought...

Indians would be better off giving their country to America, but they don't do it, now do they?

Oh please there is no comparison. First of all India is large enough to share a relationship with the US on equal terms, and secondly how is US supposed to rule India from the other side of the planet?

The prosperity of kashmiris lies by integrating with India. The rest of India realised this, why can't kashmiris?
 
.
Well, its the treatment you people meted out on them! I say this constantly and I'm saying this again! If you had treated them well by now they would have started thinking of themselves as Indians! But alas, they still want to be independent! Ask yourselves why...

Better to be part of India and continue suffering the biases and discrimination they are suffering now? Should the Kashmiri people continue to be raped, tortured and killed? First atleast treat the Kashmiris like humans, then you can come back and cry about them not thinking of themselves as Indians and not wanting to be a part of India

Kashmir was a part of India just like any other. It would have been treated like any other part of India if it wasn't for the terrorism.

Sometimes prudence is better than pride. Look at the taliban...they are very proud...a bit too proud....it didn't do them a bit of good.

The idea of a secular united India was "Unity is Strength". If all the different ethnities and religions of people decided to get Independence, they will be tossed around like footballs on the international arena.

I bet if India hadn't united, half of the areas would have been soviet and american outposts.

People have to realise how much better it is to be united.

Look at the EU. They have realised this.
 
.
Kashmir was a part of India just like any other. It would have been treated like any other part of India if it wasn't for the terrorism.

Sometimes prudence is better than pride. Look at the taliban...they are very proud...a bit too proud....it didn't do them a bit of good.

The idea of a secular united India was "Unity is Strength". If all the different ethnities and religions of people decided to get Independence, they will be tossed around like footballs on the international arena.

I bet if India hadn't united, half of the areas would have been soviet and american outposts.

People have to realise how much better it is to be united.

Look at the EU. They have realised this.

So finally the theory of Akhand bharat comes into play (united India ).
 
.
Oh please there is no comparison. First of all India is large enough to share a relationship with the US on equal terms, and secondly how is US supposed to rule India from the other side of the planet?

The prosperity of kashmiris lies by integrating with India. The rest of India realised this, why can't kashmiris?

You are missing the point. It isn't specifically about "India joining the US", but the argument that if another country is economically, technologically, militarily superior, then others need to "become part of it". By that argument the majority of Asia should just join China!

Globalisation and free trade have rendered such ideas of "monolithic entities" obsolete. The EU takes advantage of this new "world order", and actually contradicts your argument. EU countries have retained their independence and identity, while also taking advantage of associations and agreements with other nations to bolster their economies etc.

A separation from India will not hurt Kashmir one bit. They can become a part of SAARC and utilize land routes through both India and Pakistan for trading purposes, and take advantage of the economies of both.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom