Ideas for next years Kashmir uprising

[Pagla Dashu]

As long as an armed rebellion continues in Kashmir anything can happen, at any time.

Armed rebellion is easy to handle. Peoples' movement is not. As long as armed rebellion continues in Kashmir, solution will remain out of reach.

Serious enough for the GoI to want to seek a compromise with Pakistan.

What compromise?

 

[TechLahore]

Armed rebellion is easy to handle. Peoples' movement is not. As long as armed rebellion continues in Kashmir, solution will remain out of reach.

Yes, perhaps it is easy to handle, but then the 600K troops you have in Kashmir must be of questionable competence to have failed to stop this despite the passage of 63 years.

The rebellion against India in Kashmir is absolutely a people's movement. The kids throwing stones at Indian APCs and tanks are Kashmiris... born and bred.

What compromise?

This compromise... "the sharing of sovereign power"

This is BJP, Jethmalani says yes to Musharraf's Kashmir solution - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir

 

[Ras]

Not to widen the discussion here to so many theaters, but lets take a couple of examples:

Russia has had a whale of a time holding down anything, and things are fragmenting, if you haven't noticed. They've already lost control of swathes of territory. The 'stans, Chechnya, Dagestan, issues with Georgia... where have you been???

I think you have a very short sighted view of history... the USSR tried to hold down people against their will and they did succeed for 70 or 80 years, but then look what happened. And the USSR was far stronger than India militarily.

Yes you have gone off on tangents here..Russia holds down both Chechnya and Dagestan. Georgia is an independent country so I do not see the relevance here.

But I see the nice side step with regard to Tibet and the Kurdish problem of Turkey both involving a far bigger land area(in case of Tibet) and a far larger percentage of population(with regard to Turkey) compared to the Kashmir issue.

The Europeans tried to hold down territories across the world, and not only have they lost all of them, the people they tried to suppress are now taking over their would-be colonial occupier! Who would have thought that France would be 10+% muslim in 2010 and would be a society in complete flux, with muslim minorities now the fastest growing demographic. The percentages in some other European countries are even higher.

You will admit there is a big difference between trying to hold down territories half way across the world which are bigger in every respect wrt to your home country compared to holding down a small area right next to the mainland as is the case with the Kashmir valley.

I am not sure what increasing Muslim immigration has to do with this subject. Muslim immigration happens because Europeans allow it to not because of Muslim superiority in any way.

You mention Spain, yet you forget that even after holding Spain itself for hundreds of years, the Ottomans ultimately had to contend with Spain reverting to what it always was... a christian state.

Again..Spain was freed because the country was next to Christian European powers who could easily fight in Spain compared to the Ottaman empire which was a distance away. Geography and military power are everything. If Pakistan was stronger than India military she could do the same with Kashmir.

The Kashmir conflict has been going on for 63 years, which in a way is a long time. But viewed in a different way - from the lens of history - this is a very short period. As long as an armed rebellion continues in Kashmir anything can happen, at any time. The length of the conflict has demonstrated that the rebellion against India has been transmitted through generations... and that is serious. Serious enough for the GoI to want to seek a compromise with Pakistan.

India keeps returning to the negotiating table over and over. Why do you think this is? Countries do things in their interest, and if it wasn'tin India's interest to resolve Kashmir, they wouldn't be participating in the backdoor diplomacy which is going on as we speak.

Actually India does not seem interested in talking about Kashmir..Pakistan is the one who puts Kashmir in the center. India want to talk about trade,transit anything and everything other than Kashmir. India will of course want the Kashmir issue solved but it is not the main thing in Indian sights at the moment.

If your government agreed with you, they would not have worked out a compromise with Pakistan that changes the status quo. Please go back and read my posts. I explained my point of view on this cavalier "it's all ok - there's no problem in Kashmir" attitude earlier. You can continue to hold it, of course, but I continue to think nothing of it.

Status quo works fine for India. Unlike what you stated before India does not pay any price internationally for the Kashmir occupation. Most world powers come to India and toe the Indian line on Kashmir. As I said before no one cares about the Kashmiri's, people just want to make money and getting on India's bad side about Kashmir is not worth it when there are billions to be made.

BTW the Indian government is not my government..I have never been an Indian citizen. My parents were Indian citizens a long time ago.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Yes, perhaps it is easy to handle, but then the 600K troops you have in Kashmir must be of questionable competence to have failed to stop this despite the passage of 63 years.

I believe the age of the insurgency is roughly about 21 years. Not 63 years. I believe that the insurgency is pretty much in control. But then again thats not the point I was making.

The rebellion against India in Kashmir is absolutely a people's movement. The kids throwing stones at Indian APCs and tanks are Kashmiris... born and bred.

What constitutes people's movement?

On an entirely different note, the term I had used is peoples' not people's. True, the rebellion against India in Kashmir is people's movement. It has failed to become peoples' movement.

This compromise... "the sharing of sovereign power"

This is BJP, Jethmalani says yes to Musharraf's Kashmir solution - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir

I am sure you are saying this with the knowledge that the 'the sharing of sovereign power' first needs to delimit sovereignty over Kashmir. This, I believe, you understand, requires either the recognition of LoC as IB or removing the borders altogether. And this, I continue to believe, you realise is a compromise that Pakistan has to make, not India, because either way, it is Pakistan that will have to relent - giving up its claim of sovereignty over the Valley versus allowing Indian sovereignty over Gilgit-Balitstan-Hunza, including of course, Azad Kashmir.

I hope you are aware of the fact that it was Nehru who first proposed the idea of recognizing LoC, CFL then, as IB.

 

[TechLahore]

@Ras: You haven't addressed any of the points I raised... I take it that is because you don't have an answer. In a nutshell, I have provided references to a compromise agreed to with India - divulged by the highest levels of Indian leadership - that talk of a plan to share sovereignty in Kashmir. You are not at all addressing why these discussions even took place, as you continue to harp on the "it's all fine" line. Which is amusing, if at the price of being disingenuous.

You are obviously free to hold your opinion. But the Kashmiris are also free to continue to attack Indian military personnel in Kashmir and require 600,000 troops to be permanently stationed there - one of the world's most militarized areas. And the Indian government is also free to negotiate a settlement as it has tried to do over and over again, working hand in hand with Pakistan (and is doing so again, at the moment).

You appear to be of the opinion that India doesn't need to do anything. Fine. But as you said, you are not an Indian and certainly not a representative of the GoI. So let them pursue this as they will.

 

[TechLahore]

I believe the age of the insurgency is roughly about 21 years. Not 63 years. I believe that the insurgency is pretty much in control. But then again thats not the point I was making.

Kashmir has been burning, at various levels of intensity, since 1947.

What constitutes people's movement?[/quote]

A movement carried out by the people.

I am sure you are saying this with the knowledge that the 'the sharing of sovereign power' first needs to delimit sovereignty over Kashmir. This, I believe, you understand, requires either the recognition of LoC as IB or removing the borders altogether. And this, I continue to believe, you realise is a compromise that Pakistan has to make, not India, because either way, it is Pakistan that will have to relent - giving up its claim of sovereignty over the Valley versus allowing Indian sovereignty over Gilgit-Balitstan-Hunza, including of course, Azad Kashmir.

I don't quite understand how many times I will have to repeat myself here... India and Pakistan had arrived at an agreement. That agreement made borders irrelevant. It is not about accepting the LoC or rejecting it. It is much more than that.

And yes, Pakistan would be very comfortable with joint administration of all of Kashmir. If you don't understand the reasons why, then perhaps you need to think a bit deeper.

I hope you are aware of the fact that it was Nehru who first proposed the idea of recognizing LoC, CFL then, as IB.

His "solution" and the Musharraf/Jaswant formula are entirely different.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Kashmir has been burning, at various levels of intensity, since 1947.

Instead of a blanket statement can you elaborate so I can respond appropriately.

A movement carried out by the people.

I am sure 'movements' are carried out by the people only. I just wanted to poke and see if these terms have a meaning to you or you are just saying what you have learned by rote. Sadly, its the later.

I don't quite understand how many times I will have to repeat myself here... India and Pakistan had arrived at an agreement. That agreement made borders irrelevant. It is not about accepting the LoC or rejecting it. It is much more than that.

And yes, Pakistan would be very comfortable with joint administration of all of Kashmir. If you don't understand the reasons why, then perhaps you need to think a bit deeper.

And I'm just trying to test your statement that it is India that is making 'compromise'. Your statement appeared to sound like a cry of triumph that India was made to make that 'compromise'. I have merely pointed out that it was mutual, and if anything, more so for Pakistan.

His "solution" and the Musharraf/Jaswant formula are entirely different.

I am aware of that. I stated that fact to highlight the point that India had on principal given up on NA and AK and that getting sovereignty over such lost land can't possibly be a bad 'compromise'.

 

[KS]

That is a point ... but why should Mirpuris be allowed to decide that Ladakhi Buddhists should be subjected to Blasphemy laws?

Exactly ! Why should they give permission for the Hindus/Sikhs to celebrate Diwali like what happened recently ?

 

[Fireurimagination]

Things in Kashmir are under control of India as of now, we see an elected government and state machinery functioning, if things get bad there would be President rule, Military rule, trinification, removal of article 370, flooding of outsiders, heavy hand with separatists of the state and what not all

Though Pakistan makes a hue and cry about Indian army atrocities but still Indian forces haven't been ruthless like the way they behaved in some other Indian territories before

 

[KS]

Not to widen the discussion here to so many theaters, but lets take a couple of examples:

Russia has had a whale of a time holding down anything, and things are fragmenting, if you haven't noticed. They've already lost control of swathes of territory. The 'stans, Chechnya, Dagestan, issues with Georgia... where have you been???

They are semi-autonomous regions under the full military control of Russia. Not to mention some like Ossetia(both North and South),Abkhazia are fully pro-Russia.

I think you have a very short sighted view of history... the USSR tried to hold down people against their will and they did succeed for 70 or 80 years, but then look what happened. And the USSR was far stronger than India militarily.

Totally wrong analogy - If US had not come into the picture you would be sharing borders with USSR/Russia. Or more specifically until the Stingers came the Hinds of the USSR were having a field day blowing holes into the Mujaheddin. Not to mention the population of Afghanistan and the area of land and its topography. Everything put the Soviets at a disadvantage.Not so in the case of kashmir.

And FYI there is no US to provide the Stingers to the Kashmiri Muslims.

The Europeans tried to hold down territories across the world, and not only have they lost all of them, the people they tried to suppress are now taking over their would-be colonial occupier!

Again a totally specious argument.

For Example the English were living 10000 kilometers away from us and they never had any religious,cultural links with us. But we are living next door to Kashmir and our cultural,religious ties with Kashmir Valley goes back to millenias.

Who would have thought that France would be 10+% muslim in 2010 and would be a society in complete flux, with muslim minorities now the fastest growing demographic. The percentages in some other European countries are even higher.

So ?

You mention Spain, yet you forget that even after holding Spain itself for hundreds of years, the Ottomans ultimately had to contend with Spain reverting to what it always was... a christian state.

Please get a map and look where is the Iberian peninsula and Constantinople (Istanbul),the seat of the Ottoman empire was.

The Kashmir conflict has been going on for 63 years, which in a way is a long time. But viewed in a different way - from the lens of history - this is a very short period.As long as an armed rebellion continues in Kashmir anything can happen, at any time. The length of the conflict has demonstrated that the rebellion against India has been transmitted through generations... and that is serious. Serious enough for the GoI to want to seek a compromise with Pakistan.

If even a small fraction of what you say is true, Op.Gibralter would have been a huge sucess and a feather in the cap of Ayub Khan.

But the fact it was a disaster should suggest otherwise. Until 1989 when Pakistan backed insurgency started Kashmir was the dream destination for any Indian.It was Paradise.It all changed in 1989.

And you are just overestimating Pakistan's strength and grossly under-estimating India's resolve in Kashmir. Let me make it clear.If the general Indian public even suspects that GoI is making a concession to Pakistan on Kashmir,then I can make a written guarentee that the political future of the part IS finished.And believe me no political party in India would want that.

India keeps returning to the negotiating table over and over. Why do you think this is? Countries do things in their interest, and if it wasn'tin India's interest to resolve Kashmir, they wouldn't be participating in the backdoor diplomacy which is going on as we speak.

It is in our interest to come to the table,shake hands,give pose to the camera,then say Pakistan needs to focus on terror to which Pakistan will not agree and then immediately leaving the table.

Buying time,Playing Rajneethi.

The more time,more our economic growth,more militarily strong we become,in general more strong we become.

If you think India comes to the table because we feel weak,then I dont know whether to sympathise with your innocence or laugh at you.

If your government agreed with you, they would not have worked out a compromise with Pakistan that changes the status quo. Please go back and read my posts. I explained my point of view on this cavalier "it's all ok - there's no problem in Kashmir" attitude earlier. You can continue to hold it, of course, but I continue to think nothing of it.

Explained in the previous part. Its called Buying time. And unlike Pakistan the GoI is answerable to the Public once in 5 years and no Govt will forget that.

 

[Marauder]

Kashmir is strategically too important for India to let go off. We've already seen what's happening in Pakistan occupied kashmir, Chinese are making inways in the name of roads/rail links. With Tibet too with China, you cannot expect India to even cede an inch of Kashmir which gives us that tactical edge in Siachen and various other places.

Moreover as a President/PM speaks for his/her country, so did the Kings in the past and it was the king who handed over Kashmir to India. And to remind you, not all Kashmiri muslims want freedom.

I dont see any borders being re-drawn in the imminent/distant future. Kashmir is too important a votebank than the minority/caste votebank.
BJP came back to power riding on it's kargil blitzkrieg, so that should rest all matters.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I say we need to merge India and Pakistan, the issue is not just that of Kashmir... Both of our countries have tremendous problems... So once we sort out our mess, we can then offer the Indians the same... if they refuse and cause any problems for Muslim population in India... then Jihad Fee Sabililah!!!

Unless we sort out our problems... I dont understand what the Kashmiris are fighting for... One fights for ideals and if Kashmiris want to unite with Pakistan on the basis of Islamic ideology then sadly, we in Pakistan do not have that system yet!!!!

InshaAllah, Hind shall become one again

 

[KS]

I say we need to merge India and Pakistan, the issue is not just that of Kashmir... Both of our countries have tremendous problems... So once we sort out our mess, we can then offer the Indians the same... if they refuse and cause any problems for Muslim population in India... then Jihad Fee Sabililah!!!

Unless we sort out our problems... I dont understand what the Kashmiris are fighting for... One fights for ideals and if Kashmiris want to unite with Pakistan on the basis of Islamic ideology then sadly, we in Pakistan do not have that system yet!!!!

InshaAllah, Hind shall become one again

'Muhammed Bin Qasim' can achieve what he achieved only once.Not a second time.

 

[KALKI]

InshaAllah, Hind shall become one again

InshaAllah!

Akhand Bharat!

 

[Ras]

@Ras: You haven't addressed any of the points I raised... I take it that is because you don't have an answer. In a nutshell, I have provided references to a compromise agreed to with India - divulged by the highest levels of Indian leadership - that talk of a plan to share sovereignty in Kashmir. You are not at all addressing why these discussions even took place, as you continue to harp on the "it's all fine" line. Which is amusing, if at the price of being disingenuous.

You are obviously free to hold your opinion. But the Kashmiris are also free to continue to attack Indian military personnel in Kashmir and require 600,000 troops to be permanently stationed there - one of the world's most militarized areas. And the Indian government is also free to negotiate a settlement as it has tried to do over and over again, working hand in hand with Pakistan (and is doing so again, at the moment).

You appear to be of the opinion that India doesn't need to do anything. Fine. But as you said, you are not an Indian and certainly not a representative of the GoI. So let them pursue this as they will.

Actually I have answered all your points...Kashmir valley is a relatively easy place to hold down because India has easy access to it to supply the military and the area is not too big. To compare it to Britain holding down India or the USSR holding down a huge amount of territory is going of on tangents.I have also given you examples of countries holding down territories much larger(China) or populations much larger(Turkey) pretty comfortably.

My regard for the Indian govt or system is not very good.But they have to be fools of the greatest order in history to give up control of the river sources they have today.