Ideas for next years Kashmir uprising

[TechLahore]

Although Pakistan's official position is referendum, since ages even GoP has stopped harping on the referendum. It just want talks to return with India

Guys, once again, this is unhelpful... Pakistan and India's positions as known by the masses are pretty hard positions. Yet, we know that in REALITY, these positions are not quite as hard because apparently nationalist leaders on both sides were able to agree to a compromise.

Thus, it is unhelpful to talk about the past. I think the starting point of any discourse on Kashmir should be the solution we know we can agree to. Unfortunately, other than "make borders irrelevant" we don't know all the intricate details. But what is known is enough to give intelligent people a pretty good clue regarding the contours of the overall scenario.

If Indians and Pakistanis want to talk about Kashmir in a civil and constructive manner, I would suggest that we START with Musharraf/Jaswant Singh, not 1947, UN resolutions, Simla agreement or other historical events.

 

[Jade]

Guys, once again, this is unhelpful... Pakistan and India's positions as known by the masses are pretty hard positions. Yet, we know that in REALITY, these positions are not quite as hard because apparently nationalist leaders on both sides were able to agree to a compromise.

Thus, it is unhelpful to talk about the past. I think the starting point of any discourse on Kashmir should be the solution we know we can agree to. Unfortunately, other than "make borders irrelevant" we don't know all the intricate details. But what is known is enough to give intelligent people a pretty good clue regarding the contours of the overall scenario.

If Indians and Pakistanis want to talk about Kashmir in a civil and constructive manner, I would suggest that we START with Musharraf/Jaswant Singh, not 1947, UN resolutions, Simla agreement or other historical events.

TL, I totally agree with you. Musharraf/Jaswant could be a better starting point.

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

A referendum to determine national direction is done at a national level, not at a district or provincial level. It has to be done in all of Kashmir in order to be reflective of the will of the Kashmiri people, otherwise you would have meaningless and false results... sort of like having a presidential election for the US but only in the state of Texas. Has to be done all over.

Agreed. However, what I was implying is that the entire referendum doesn't HAVE to be held at the same time. Elections everywhere are held in phases. To give you an example, elections in the Indian state of Bihar were held in 6 stages recently. And J&K is twice its size!

I did not mean that part referendum would show the will of people of Kashmir. I meant that conducting the first part of the referendum would put pressure on India to give up its territory for the second part.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Actually the solution is not that hard:

- Max autonomy to both Indian J&K and Pak J&K (including the Northern Areas)
- Furthermore, within J&K, max autonomy to be given to regions like Jammu, Ladakh, Baltistan etc.
- Free movement across line of control, with biometric cards
- gradual reduction of troop levels on both sides as permitted by law-and-order conditions
- Joint management in certain spheres. For example Pak may be given a say in the management of river waters (Note the Pak desire for water security and the Indian desire to generate electricity are not in conflict, and are in fact complementary). Similarly, India may identify spheres of interest within Pak J&K.

 

[Awesome]

Guys, once again, this is unhelpful... Pakistan and India's positions as known by the masses are pretty hard positions. Yet, we know that in REALITY, these positions are not quite as hard because apparently nationalist leaders on both sides were able to agree to a compromise.

Thus, it is unhelpful to talk about the past. I think the starting point of any discourse on Kashmir should be the solution we know we can agree to. Unfortunately, other than "make borders irrelevant" we don't know all the intricate details. But what is known is enough to give intelligent people a pretty good clue regarding the contours of the overall scenario.

If Indians and Pakistanis want to talk about Kashmir in a civil and constructive manner, I would suggest that we START with Musharraf/Jaswant Singh, not 1947, UN resolutions, Simla agreement or other historical events.

Personally, I only prefer one solution. Total independence to J&K as a free country. Not even merger with Pakistan.

I am seriously not optimistic of the hocus pocus Musharraf and Jaswant achieved. At the end of the day Kashmir will be resolved through making it unprofitable for Indians to hold on to just for ego.

Let's not underestimate how adamant India is to continue with the status quo. If you notice, making border irrelevant, people to people contacts, CBMs are just fancy ways of prolonging the stalemate. If there is lack of conflict on Kashmir for the Indians then they will automatically assume the Kashmiris have accepted them.

This is not a world view I'm propagating, this is something anyone can easily deduce from the chain of events. The thing is there is zero drive from the Indians to keep Kashmiris first - as long as Indians keep themselves first, they have no reason to let go of Kashmir. This I speak of the Indian population. Their mindsets are so stagnant that I'm sure they won't budge on Kashmir no matter what.

Usually the peaceful advocates of a Kashmir resolution like to include India into resolving the Kashmir issue. Its fine, its logical - in the far foreseeable future it doesn't even look like we can beat India forcibly to take Kashmir hence its not given a thought by peaceful people.

I think we need to establish a baseline.

1. No terrorism. Lives of Kashmiri people come first.
2. Smart militancy - attacking high value military targets
3. Agreeing that India is the problem in Kashmir and solution in Kashmir will not be of India's liking
4. Supporting protests
5. No shelter down strikes or at least minimizing them.
6. Ensuring Kashmiris have access to envoys of the world. If India has a bigger vice than its stubborness its, their love for their name in the world.

 

[Spring Onion]

TL, I totally agree with you. Musharraf/Jaswant could be a better starting point.

The only starting point is and will be the only solution and that WHAT KASHMIRIS want. Excluding Kashmiris and starting from Musharraf/Jaswant is non-starter

Just hold a referendum under international neutral orgs and see what Kashmiris want.

PERIOD.

 

[StingRoy]

Musharraf/Jaswanth deal was the closest to reality than following the UN resolution or having a referendum. Will Pakistan allow the people of GB and AK to participate in the referendum? Similar is the case with India as well. I doubt the India will allow the people of Jammu and Ladakh to participate in any such referendum. Hence the only logical solution in today's time needs to be done involving all three parties on the table.

Earlier only Pakistan and India have been having sitting across the table to discuss the issue with little or no representation from the people of Kashmir. This time Kashmiri people's representatives from both sides have to have a say in the talks.

I am also in favor of making the borders irrelevant for the Kashmiris and if not a permanent solution, something on these lines should be tried out say for a year or so and see how the people accept it. This might open up other solutions on how to effectively approach towards a longer term solution.

 

[Jade]

Personally, I only prefer one solution. Total independence to J&K as a free country. Not even merger with Pakistan.

I am seriously not optimistic of the hocus pocus Musharraf and Jaswant achieved. At the end of the day Kashmir will be resolved through making it unprofitable for Indians to hold on to just for ego.

Let's not underestimate how adamant India is to continue with the status quo. If you notice, making border irrelevant, people to people contacts, CBMs are just fancy ways of prolonging the stalemate. If there is lack of conflict on Kashmir for the Indians then they will automatically assume the Kashmiris have accepted them.

This is not a world view I'm propagating, this is something anyone can easily deduce from the chain of events. The thing is there is zero drive from the Indians to keep Kashmiris first - as long as Indians keep themselves first, they have no reason to let go of Kashmir. This I speak of the Indian population. Their mindsets are so stagnant that I'm sure they won't budge on Kashmir no matter what.

Usually the peaceful advocates of a Kashmir resolution like to include India into resolving the Kashmir issue. Its fine, its logical - in the far foreseeable future it doesn't even look like we can beat India forcibly to take Kashmir hence its not given a thought by peaceful people.

I think we need to establish a baseline.

1. No terrorism. Lives of Kashmiri people come first.
2. Smart militancy - attacking high value military targets
3. Agreeing that India is the problem in Kashmir and solution in Kashmir will not be of India's liking
4. Supporting protests
5. No shelter down strikes or at least minimizing them.
6. Ensuring Kashmiris have access to envoys of the world. If India has a bigger vice than its stubborness its, their love for their name in the world.

Sorry, but this is not the solution, but a recipe for a larger disaster in waiting that can engulf whole of South Asia.

Asim, you seem to overestimate Pakistan’s capabilities while underestimating India’s capabilities and resolve. Please forget the 1000 cuts strategy, it is not going to work; however, in the process you are going to inflict 100 times more damage onto yourself.

India has not budged from it position on Arunachal Pradesh wrt China in last 60 years; what made you think that India is going to budge on Kashmir, which is much more emotive issue for us Indians

Fortunately, Pakistan recognizes that a Kashmir solution lies outside the UN resolutions and Musharraf/Jaswant was a right direction

 

[Jade]

The only starting point is and will be the only solution and that WHAT KASHMIRIS want. Excluding Kashmiris and starting from Musharraf/Jaswant is non-starter

Just hold a referendum under international neutral orgs and see what Kashmiris want.

PERIOD.

Jana, being a journalist yourself, you know more than most of us in this forum that UN referendum is not going to work.

Fortunately, in international relation including Indo Pak relations, there are only commas and no periods, and Musharraf/Jaswant is a starter

 

[The HBS Guy]

If you are sure with ur claim of fringe elements then why are you afraid to conduct referendum.

Because we will lose the referendum, to be honest.

Hence, it is not in our interest to go for a referendum. It's Simply not.

Only possible solution with Pakistan is to convert LoC into international border and with the valley people is to grant them some economic and/or political incentives.

Apart from this, we're not willing to cede anything and we don't really have to cede anything more since we have a position of strength.

And needless to say, when a negotiating side is in a position of strength, it doesn't back down and neither will we.

Like I've said earlier, there are only two possible options:

1. Convert LoC into international border and grant some economic/political package to the valley.

2. Pakistan prevails over India in a nuclear war and takes Kashmir.

Pick one.

 

[KS]

Frankly speaking I'm against giving more autonomy to the region. What is required in Kashmir is greater integration to the Indian Union. The dissidents are more influenced by our neighbour than us.

Allow more people to people contact with INDIANS, allow Indians to purchase land in Kashmir and encourage Kashmiris to explore opportunities in the rest of the country.

Take away the goddamn Article 370.

 

[Spitfighter]

I think we need to establish a baseline.

Its interesting how you still believe Pakistan the capability to tackle such issues in such troubling times, one really wonders where your priorities lie but in any case, lets carry on.

1. No terrorism. Lives of Kashmiri people come first.

Sounds good so far.

2. Smart militancy - attacking high value military targets

Not so much anymore,

1. Define 'Smart militancy'. Oh the irony, I'll play along though . Certain segments of the population will either side with India or remain neutral. How do you think your 'Smart Militants' will deal with them? The only way the militants can have an impact is by disrupting daily life, i.e terrorism. (refer to point 2)

2. India has dealt with the insurgents for over 20 years, we have over 600,000 troops in Kashmir. What exactly do you think you'll achieve by harassing the IA with a random gunfight/IED every now and then. We aren't averse to casualties, so if that's where you're going with this it simply won't work. Think about it, its been 60 years.

3. Do you really think Pakistan is in a position to support 'smart militants' in Kashmir? Be realistic.

3. Agreeing that India is the problem in Kashmir and solution in Kashmir will not be of India's liking

Well of course not, because we AREN'T the problem. Those Punjabis fighting for 'freedom' are.

4. Supporting protests

Pretty sure you already do.

5. No shelter down strikes or at least minimizing them.

Once again, the only way Pakistan can keep things on the broil is by seriously disrupting daily life. Everyone in Kashmir understands that India isn't going away in a hurry, so all Pakistan ends up doing is alienating the population further by menacing them with propaganda and throwing them under the bus when India responds. Of course, that doesn't make us look any better, but you've gradually begun to erode your own moral stance in trying to make us look like the aggressor. [We always have the option to grant them greater autonomy/other incentives to cool things down.]

6. Ensuring Kashmiris have access to envoys of the world. If India has a bigger vice than its stubborness its, their love for their name in the world.

No major power will intervene in our affairs. China might say a word or two to placate Pakistan, but at the end of the day its in their interest to perpetuate the conflict so I wouldn't expect much from them.

The problem here is that you aren't looking at the situation realistically. India can't be coerced into imposing a 'solution'. We aren't afraid of making sacrifices, we've done it for decades, in any case random terrorist attacks end up hurting Pakistan in the long run.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure what we've got planned for Kashmir but here are a few things you should consider:

1. Why should we solve anything now when we think we'll be in a much stronger position 10 or 20 years from today?
2. What about the rivers?
3. Will LeT/JuD/random Jihadi groups simply disband and abjure violence once we sort out the issue?

 

[Rig Vedic]

Sorry, but this is not the solution, but a recipe for a larger disaster in waiting that can engulf whole of South Asia.

Asim believes that India is behind the attack on the SL cricket team, IIRC. For some people, the lines between delusions, propaganda and reality are blurred.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Because we will lose the referendum, to be honest.

Hence, it is not in our interest to go for a referendum. It's Simply not.

When separatists ask people to boycott elections, people ignore them. When separatist Sajjad Lone contested the elections, he lost his deposit.

So, it's not that India will lose a referendum.

The point is that there is no way India can start conducting referendums inside its own territory.

 

[The HBS Guy]

When separatists ask people to boycott elections, people ignore them. When separatist Sajjad Lone contested the elections, he lost his deposit.

So, it's not that India will lose a referendum.

We will. If you sum up the populations of people supporting independence/pakistan on both sides of the LoC and compare it with that oh those who do not, you'll see that the numbers don't favour us.

But then, since it's not in our interest, we will not do it. Let the Pakistanis shout howsoever much they like.

They have been shouting for past 63 years. What happened?