Lolz
What kinda political solution do you think is possible in Kashmir's case?
I'm tagging
@Aether too because he seems to be in agreement with what you had to say.
1. Kashmir(as it is generally known) includes Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
Geographically speaking Kashmir is sandwiched between Jammu and Ladakh. So if you consider giving away Kashmir to Pakistan then it is physically, not possible.
2. If it is because you sympathise with the Muslims in Kashmir then let me tell you, Kashmir has Hindu and Buddhist majority regions too. So what about them?
View attachment 324340
The Hindu population in Kashmir valley wasn't so low till 1988 when the Kashmir insurgency began. The exodus of Hindus
Was nothing but a well planned strategy.
I wonder if people with blood on their hands have any right to speak a word on Kashmir, be it a Kashmiri who might have indirectly caused the exodus?
3. The issue could have been resolved long back had our government been proactive and had scrapped article 370z
The youth (not majority but a few mislead ones) are seen pelting stones at our forces because they don't have anything better to do. Yes, I mean it.
Unemployment in the state is nothing but an indirect effect of art 370, which states that people from other states of India are barred from buying property in J&K. The special status of J&K has been a curse.
4. Kashmir is not a political issue. It's a TERRORIST issue.
We have been victims of cross border terrorism. So no matter what, our military is here to stay in J&K, to protect our borders and protect our people.
1) I didn't suggest giving away anything to anyone. However, the very first thing you need to realize and understand is that Kashmir belongs to the Kashmiris, not India (or Pakistan). I am well aware of physical and human geography of Jammu and Kashmir state, and the history of the dispute ... But are you ?
2) Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of partition plan of 1947 which has divided Pakistan and India into two separate independent states. Almost 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during partition; they were forced to leave their homes. Sooner or later, the one hundred thousand Kashmiri Pandits (too) had to leave the predominantly Muslim Kashmir valley. They are lucky that unlike others', their
exodus was facilitated (if not engineered) by the Indian Government, and they didn't have to suffer much.
The Kashmiri Pandits constituted no more than 5 % of the population of the Kashmir Valley.
Muslims too had suffered similar fate. For example, before partition, more than 35% of the population of the areas that constitute Indian Punjab now was Muslim. Today, Muslims make up less than 2% of the total population of Indian Punjab. And those 2% are not local Punjabis but Muslim laborers from other Indian provinces who have migrated to Indian Punjab.
So, Indian Hindus and Sikhs (too) drove out virtually every Muslim they could lay their hands on in Indian Punjab.
The nature of that planned exodus remains controversial. However, there is no denying that Kashmiri Pandits do have a say in the matter of accession of Kashmir (to India or Pakistan). This is their inalienable right. Those Muslims who were expelled from Jammu and other parts of Kashmir in 1947 (by Hindus and Sikhs) are still registered as 'Kashmiris' (no matter where they live in Pakistan), and they do participate in AJK General Elections held every four years. Similarly Kashmiri Pandits can move to any part of India and stay registered as "Kashmiris" and participate in J&K elections or plebiscite. Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of Partition. Millions (Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs) were forced to migrate. So were the Kashmiri Pandits. What's the big deal ?
3) Well, Go ahead and scrap Article 370 of your constitution. Who is stopping you ? However, that could very well be the final nail in the coffin for India's case in Kashmir.
4) The act of defining terrorism is pointless because it is inherently subjective. Research conducted by Alex Schmid cites over 250 definitions of terrorism. Definitions of terrorism are always political, that they always carry a purpose. Whether in academia or politics, these ‘definitions' tend to reflect the interests of those who do the defining.
However, what actually matters is that the UN has no internationally agreed definition of terrorism, and the reason is that some organizations (OIC, Arab League etc.) define terrorism to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination". The member countries (of these organisations) won't accept any definition of terrorism which may declare Palestinian Freedom Fighters as Terrorists. This Dead Lock continues to this day and the UN has not adopted
the convention on international terrorism.
So, as long as the UN does not "define" terrorism, the
Kashmiri Freedom Fighters cannot be declared
Terrorists ..... Their insurgency cannot be declared
legitimate either (until and unless the UN chooses to define terrorism to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination") .....
Various international conventions on terrorism have also pointed out the difference between struggles for self-determination and acts of terrorism.
For example, the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) on the ‘Definition of Aggression’, adopted in December 1974, in Article 7 states:
‘Nothing in this definition, and in particular Article 3 could in any way prejudice the right of self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; or the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and seek and receive support…’
As far as International Law is concerned, the Statute of the International Court of Justice does recognize
the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations as a valid source of International Law. This category may also include the work of organizations and private institutions. Opinions expressed by experts carry significant weight in International Law.
And here is what some experts on International Law have to say regarding the
Kashmiri Freedom Fighters:
(The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)
ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report published not only challenged the accession of Kashmir to India, it went on to say "If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination,
it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " ... (p.84-98)
http://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/33/
