Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Flintlock]

It has to be a solution that is acceptable to Kashmiris.

Given the continued lack of desire to hold a plebiscite in the region, I rather doubt that India is making any headway in terms of "hearts and minds". The presence of relatives and other Kashmiris living according to their own choice in relative prosperity in AK is always going to be a reminder of what could be.

However if the Kashmiris decide to stay with India, all power to them.

You must remember that Kashmiris weren't always hostile to India. A big reason why Kashmiris grew hostile was because the '87 elections were rigged.

Before 1980s, most Kashmiris were pro-India, and with time, things will change again.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You must remember that Kashmiris weren't always hostile to India.

Before 1980s, most Kashmiris were pro-India, and with time, things will change again.

I am skeptical of that - India would have been begging for a plebiscite the entire time if that were the case.

You cannot simply flip a switch to make millions of people suddenly dislike a nation they supported. It takes typically takes generations, or some cataclysmic event or series of events, to achieve that sort of change.

The only way such a dramatic change could have happened is if the atrocities and destruction attributed to the Indian Military were indeed on as large a scale as claimed, and that ended up alienating the kashmiri population from India, and causing this 180 degree change in sentiment.

If the latter case is true, that the atrocities by the Indian Military caused the shift in sentiment, then I agree that over time, and moderation of that sort of behavior by the Indian military, the Kashmiris will experience another shift in sentiment.

But if not, then the only explanation is that they never were pro-India, and then there is far less historical cause to believe that there will be a shift in sentiment (though it doesn't rule it out either).

P.S: I noted your edit referring to the rigged 87 elections, but I still maintain my argument. Rigged elections are not the sort of cataclysmic event that cause the sort of change in sentiment that you see in Kashmir. Pakistan has only had about 2 "free and fair" elections in its history, you would think every province would be hostile to the idea of Pakistan by now.

A lack of representative government and a lack of autonomy has caused tensions, but it has accumulated over generations, and not some sort of instantaneous change as you suggest happened in Kashmir - if it was instantaneous, coinciding with the rigged elections, then there were already resentment and undercurrents of hostility present, which implies that they never truly accepted India to begin with.

 

[Flintlock]

Anti-India rhetorics in J&K poll campaign

Sunday, April 20, 2008 (Srinagar)
Elections in Jammu and Kashmir have often been seen as a matter of choosing between separatists and pro-India parties.

But ironically, in the run up to the assembly elections scheduled to be held later this year, its the mainstream parties that are using separatist slogans in their campaigns.

At a rally in Budgam, National Conference leaders blamed New Delhi for every problem in Kashmir.

In fact, they even extended an olive branch to militants.

''God willing, and if you people support us, National Conference will form the next government. We will again announce a ceasefire with militants and initiate dialogue with them. There will be no conditions for talks,'' said Omar Abdullah, president, National Congress.

Even the Peoples Democratic Party, an ally of the Congress-led government in the state, is talking of self-rule and demilitarisation.

They also want to share a currency and legislative council with Azad Kashmir.

''Is this a sin, if PDP is demanding that there should be representatives for the Upper House from other side of Kashmir also? And what's bad, if PDP is demanding Pakistani and Indian currency here and other part of Jammu and Kashmir?'' asks PDP president Mehbooba Mufti.

So far, most separatist groups here have not mentioned anything about boycotting the polls.

And now, the mainstream parties have actually given them a handle to justify their cause.

''The way current political landscape has been set up now, the situation has become very difficult. If you boycott, it's a boycott against Indian state and if you vote, it's a vote in favour of secession. Either way it represents the sentiment somehow,'' says Sajad Lone, Chairman, People's Party.

In their ambition to conquer the separatist constituency in Kashmir, the pro-India parties have ended up adopting soft separatism. And all indicators suggest that 2008 assembly elections will be contested mainly on anti-India rhetoric.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080047380&ch=4/20/2008%2011:24:00%20AM

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

They also want to share a currency and legislative council with Azad Kashmir.

I still say - autonomous and jointly controlled. Even parties (national Conference) that used to be openly hostile to Pakistan, welcomed Musharraf's proposals, and apparently still do.

Its a win win for everyone, and in fact sets the stage for a larger confederation between India and Pakistan down the road.

 

[Flintlock]

These are pro-India parties.

As the article says, they are using "Soft Separatism" in order to garner votes.

Basically, this approach is being used to reconcile the separatists with the mainstream political parties and work out a consensus.

In reality, the Indian Army isn't going to leave Kashmir in a hurry. To a large extent, it depends on the militant situation.
If things calm down, then the army will begin moving out. However, if the terrorist activities continue, it will simply give a reason for the army to stay put.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^Don't get your hopes up. These are pro-India parties.

As the article says, they are using "Soft Separatism" in order to garner votes.

Basically, this approach is being used to reconcile the separatists with the mainstream political parties and work out a consensus.

I know they are pro-India, I remeber the NC's anti-Pakistan rhetoric, but years ago when Musharraf first floated these proposal of joint control and shared administration - currency, legislature etc. - they were welcomed by the NC leadership. So while this may be an attempt to bring in the separatists, you have to remember that if what is promised is not delivered, you end up with people even more bitter than they were before.

So there will be at least some movement towards what they are promising, otherwise it'll merely discredit the mainstream political parties.

 

[Flintlock]

I still say - autonomous and jointly controlled. Even parties (national Conference) that used to be openly hostile to Pakistan, welcomed Musharraf's proposals, and apparently still do.

Its a win win for everyone, and in fact sets the stage for a larger confederation between India and Pakistan down the road.

They have to. If they support India and hate Pakistan openly, they will never get votes.

The point is, that irrespective of what the politicians say, things aren't going to move on the ground unless GOI wants them to.

 

[Flintlock]

I know they are pro-India, I remeber the NC's anti-Pakistan rhetoric, but years ago when Musharraf first floated these proposal of joint control and shared administration - currency, legislature etc. - they were welcomed by the NC leadership. So while this may be an attempt to bring in the separatists, you have to remember that if what is promised is not delivered, you end up with people even more bitter than they were before.

So there will be at least some movement towards what they are promising, otherwise it'll merely discredit the mainstream political parties.

Dunno...as I said, these parties don't have any real say in the matter. If the elected party tries to implement anything on a unilateral basis, immediately Presidents Rule will be imposed on the state.

So, all I can see happening is that there will be dialogue, and they will try to drag things on until the anti-India sentiment fades with time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In reality, the Indian Army isn't going to leave Kashmir in a hurry. To a large extent, it depends on the militant situation.
If things calm down, then the army will begin moving out. However, if the terrorist activities continue, it will simply give a reason for the army to stay put.

Joint legislature and currency is the long term solution -what you will have initially, if the GoI does not get cold feet, and insurgency under the new GoP does not spike, is movement on the proposal to allow trade and travel between the two Kashmir's. If that goes off successfully with a continued lull in militancy, the we might see movement towards such a solution.

Greater trade and exchanges between the Kashmir's will lead to prosperity and hopefully a damping of hostility the Kashmiris feel towards India (which should cause militancy to dry up on its own), and in turn successful trade between PAK and IAK will lead to greater trade between India and Pakistan.

You have to realize that neither side is getting what it wants here. Pakistan has already shown a huge amount of flexibility by moving away from its position of "Implement the UN resolutions". If we were only interested in perpetuating the militancy, we would have stuck to our guns on the Plebiscite as well.

India needs to look at the long term and get off its high horse and actually indicate that it is interested in bringing about an end to decades of hostility by showing flexibility.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So, all I can see happening is that there will be dialogue, and they will try to drag things on until the anti-India sentiment fades with time.

That is why Pakistanis don't trust India - here is an opportunity to actually bring about an end to decades of hostility - it is a solution that is a compromise for either side, no one actually gets Kashmir, yet the Indian Government, according to you, would still rather just drag the hostility along for years in the hope that perhaps the anti-India sentiment will die down, all at the expense of thousands of families split apart, and a people separated.

Doesn't really jive well with India's moral grandstanding on other issues.

 

[Flintlock]

Joint legislature and currency is the long term solution -what you will have initially, if the GoI does not get cold feet, and insurgency under the new GoP does not spike, is movement on the proposal to allow trade and travel between the two Kashmir's. If that goes off successfully with a continued lull in militancy, the we might see movement towards such a solution.

In the long term, perhaps.

As of now, if the insurgency dies down, Kashmir is going to remain firmly in India's hands.
India doesn't gain anything by joint legislature. Why would it adopt such a scheme?

Greater trade and exchanges between the Kashmir's will lead to prosperity and hopefully a damping of hostility the Kashmiris feel towards India (which should cause militancy to dry up on its own), and in turn successful trade between PAK and IAK will lead to greater trade between India and Pakistan.

Perhaps, it all depends on how the situation pans out.

As of now, massive infrastructure projects---dams, bridges, railroads, airports are being constructed.
A railway is getting built right upto Srinagar...and an all-weather highway is being planned.

You have to realize that neither side is getting what it wants here. Pakistan has already shown a huge amount of flexibility by moving away from its position of "Implement the UN resolutions". If we were only interested in perpetuating the militancy, we would have stuck to our guns on the Plebiscite as well.

All that is thanks to Musharraf.

With Zardari and Sharif in power, it seems that militancy is being revived, and maybe they might pump-up the rhetoric as well..lets see.

If that happens, then India will simply clamp down harder and nothing will move forward.

India needs to look at the long term and get off its high horse and actually indicate that it is interested in bringing about decades of hostility by showing flexibility.

That's the whole point. India doesn't want to give up its hold on Kashmir, because it is taking measures to integrate the valley with the rest of India.

If things don't work out in the long term, then maybe India might change its stance.

 

[Flintlock]

That is why Pakistanis don't trust India - here is an opportunity to actually bring about an end to decades of hostility - it is a solution that is a compromise for either side, no one actually gets Kashmir, yet the Indian Government, according to you, would still rather just drag the hostility along for years in the hope that perhaps the anti-India sentiment will die down, all at the expense of thousands of families split apart, and a people separated.

Doesn't really jive well with India's moral grandstanding on other issues.

Well, that's politics for you.

India isn't just standing by and stifling Kashmir btw, it is doing a great deal to improve their lives.

As I just said, massive amounts are being spent on infrastructure, schools and colleges in the valley right now.

So the idea is to increase interaction of kashmiris with the rest of India, and encourage commerce and trade. This, India hopes, will thaw the hostilities.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I think I will give a personal example to show Indians and Pakistanis don't hate each other!

It is only the national psyche generated by self seeking politicians on both sides who keep the flames burning instead of the fires of the hearth and home!

After the 1917 War where I carried out a raid well inside Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (during the War), I met my opposite number during the delineation of the Line of Control.

We showed them Pakeezah on the LC as desired by them since it was just released or so and also gave them Rum which they wanted. The Officer however did not want it since he was a true Mos.lem.

We met regularly, practically every day. Ate lunch together on the banks of the stream that divided us! No hassles of Jhatka or hallal.

We are still friends and we will continue to be so, no matter what is our govts' policies.

He know that I did not raid his area because I hated him and I know that he did not mortar me while I was exfiltrating because he hate me!.

He was doing his duty and I was doing mine.

And yet we remain friends till today!!

I know it will be funny for you people who are so filled with hate, Indians and Pakistanis here!

 

[Flintlock]

Look, as far as "Moral Grandstanding" is concerned, India does have the moral upper-hand over Pakistan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

And the Pakistani officer should have hated me since I was a Bengali and Mujabir Rehman and his Bengalis were the cause of the war!!

Yet, he did not!!

Says much about those who experience the realities of war compared to the jingoist cyber warriors in air conditioned comfort pontificating for causes that they will not leave their comforts for!!