Kashmir - Think the Unthinkable

[dabong1]

You are ignoring the role your insurgency played in "creating" and "molding" this psyche.

This is the primary goal of every insurgency... to create an anti-establishment feeling among the masses..

Totally forget to mention that it was the indians rigging the election in kashmir that made the kashmiris take to the gun.

Whatever be their (masses') concern, the blame will be on us for we are the establishment. You'll notice a similar thing in FATA, NWFP, etc sooner or later..

Dont see the general public in NWFP flying the afghan flag

But, if you want to rose-colour the above phenomenon to suit your agenda, I can't stop you. Feel free to do so.

Its not a "phenomenon" as you would like to call it but the continuation of 60 years struggle for freedom .

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

The first aim to is to show that India has no legal position to claim 'our territory", which it doesn't, yet it continues to hid behind that excuse to avoid resolving the issue, therefore it is important to shred that argument.

Once that is done, yes it is a matter of 'cost to benefit', and that is what the authors of the articles have argued.

Most Indians here haven't focused on the issues related to that 'cost to benefit', rather just indulged in nationalistic rhetoric - "we will never give it up", "settle outsiders in Kashmir" etc..

Flint is really the only one who came close to arguing the central theme of the articles, by stating that the 'strategic loss' outweighs any benefit, to which I gave my response.

Sorry for the delayed reply, I was out of town

In case you have a legal claim to your teritory, you should not have annexed AJK in the first place, since you beileve in the legality of UN you should have also opted to settle the entire dispute through UN rather then millitarily. You should have not allowed the settlement of Pakistani citizens in AJK since the issue is about peoples willingness to join a nation through plebiscite, so changing demographics in your part was completely wrong. Since the issue was to be settled through UN you should not have ceded a part of your teritory to another nation state(China). Sorry to brst your bubble, UN does not work on Pakistan's convinience.

Point to be the cost to benifit ratios, in real terms and not in mere rhetoric. Ill surmise the cost to benifit analysis I had given from previous post

IPF
we don't have incentives to leave a solid mass of geographicl land, you can cry hoarse but no one seem to heed to your claims. I have always pointed out, world works on incentive and effective coast to benifit ratio and not based on emotions. At present the violence in Kashmir is not destablising entire India, millitancy was never worse or near to major civil wars or conflict, nations are not boycotting our produce nor are talking about placing sanctions on us. Thus giving away Kashmir does not bring us any incentive so whatever is with us shall remain with us. To sum it up I don't find Indian govt compramising in the near or far future, so it is either accepting LOC as IB or war for you, its you nations choice.

Agnostic Muslim
No at all - The conditions of partition were agreed to by both sides (the parties representing the people), even though the ML had strong misgivings over the plan. Congress agreed to it, and what is being argued over is the violation of the conditions of that agreement agreed to by both sides.

Your responses around the 'partition issue' do indicate something I have noticed that many Indians, despite their claims of 'acceptance' and "India pakistan friendship" end up revealing - a continued non-acceptance and dislike (perhaps hate) of Pakistan.

Quite sad really that you guys cannot let it go and accept and respect the decisions of millions to live their lives as they see fit. Instead you view Pakistan as part of 'Indias Jagir' in some 'Akhand Bharat'. That attitude is unfortunately also reflected in Kashmir.

To reiterate the crux of my comments in this thread:

within India the dynamics of Kashmir have changed, as the recent events have ended the facade of 'kashmiris liking India', despite all the attempts to use development etc. The effects of this will not be known for a while, but it is a significant event, and so we shall have to wait and see how it influences the future.

As far as condition for partition, let me again reiterate what I had previously stated, the condition for partition never took place under a free atmosphere, It was under British influence all along, so since it was signed by parties that were under British influence(to a certain extent), it is not sacrosant and acceptable to all of us. According to condition of partition Hyderabad Nizam decide to join Pakistan, so theoriticall Hyederabad should be under Pakistan, but it is now under India, so the whole neotion of condition of partition being the only sacroscant way of defining borders and landmass is a complete myth.

I am not going to reply to the rest of the post, as you have done nothing but exhibit jingoism, which incedntally is what you have been accusing me all the time. When on earth did I say I coundnt' accept Pakistan as an Independent state.

 

[roadrunner]

As far as condition for partition, let me again reiterate what I had previously stated, the condition for partition never took place under a free atmosphere, It was under British influence all along, so since it was signed by parties that were under British influence(to a certain extent), it is not sacrosant and acceptable to all of us. According to condition of partition Hyderabad Nizam decide to join Pakistan, so theoriticall Hyederabad should be under Pakistan, but it is now under India, so the whole neotion of condition of partition being the only sacroscant way of defining borders and landmass is a complete myth.

^^You cannot not accept the Instrument of Partition. The Instrument of Partition was accepted by all British Indian Princely States, including Kashmir. Kashmir is still under obligation to the Instrument of Partition because that was the agreement between Mountbatten and Hari Singh, as per the letters shown in the other thread. There is no time limit to this agreement, and Mountbatten makes it very clear about this condition in his letter.

Even if you choose to not accept the Instrument of Partition, why don't you at least accept the principle, or right of self determination of the people of Kashmir, and hold the plebiscite, since this would be the only fair thing to do?

And if you don't want to hold plebiscite to let Kashmir go to the wishes of the people, as any true democratic state should (especially the world's greatest democracy), then there is still a matter of binding UN resolutions which call on the issue of Kashmir to be settled by plebiscite. Incorporation of Kashmir into the Indian Union is a violation of this.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

^^You cannot not accept the Instrument of Partition. The Instrument of Partition was accepted by all British Indian Princely States, including Kashmir.

1.So you think, it was fairly representative of the populace

2. Why should an undemcratic occupying force and undemocratic governments(princely states) agreement be sacroscant .

My point is that the concept of borders being static is a misnomer, borders are always fluid and the dynamism arises due to various factors, not only confined to archaic documents.

Kashmir is still under obligation to the Instrument of Partition because that was the agreement between Mountbatten and Hari Singh, as per the letters shown in the other thread. There is no time limit to this agreement, and Mountbatten makes it very clear about this condition in his letter.

Exactly, it shows under who's influence the entire debacle started.

Even if you choose to not accept the Instrument of Partition, why don't you at least accept the principle, or right of self determination of the people of Kashmir, and hold the plebiscite, since this would be the only fair thing to do?

Sometimes, doing the right thing is not exactly the right thing for ones own.

And if you don't want to hold plebiscite to let Kashmir go to the wishes of the people, as any true democratic state should (especially the world's greatest democracy), then there is still a matter of binding UN resolutions which call on the issue of Kashmir to be settled by plebiscite. Incorporation of Kashmir into the Indian Union is a violation of this.

If you want things to go by UN, then you should have put your case completly before UN and gone that route, insted of messing things up( read my above post as to how you messed things up). As I pointed out in my previous post, UN and international community don't work based on your covenience. I you had trust in UN and its binidings you should have completely taken thet route, no two ways about it.

IPF

 

[jaison]

Go on then if you got the balls...call the bluff.

It must be killing you indians seeing the kashmiris waving the pakistani flag......

sorry sir am not the decision maker but if i were may be i would hav considered it...and the section waving ur flag is so pathetically small that they cant be sent to u with some territory most kashmiris do not support ur cause if u think they are then post a neutral link.

 

[dabong1]

sorry sir am not the decision maker but if i were may be i would hav considered it...

How i wish you where the leader of india.......kashmir would be sorted out if you called there bluff- (held a referendum)

.and the section waving ur flag is so pathetically small that they cant be sent to u with some territory most kashmiris do not support.

And i bet you also think the numbers that have been marching or the number that have killed over past years as "pathetically small".

.ur cause if u think they are then post a neutral link.

No matter which link i post it will not change you basic thought process on kashmir........hold a referendum and let the people of kashmir choose.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My point is that the concept of borders being static is a misnomer, borders are always fluid and the dynamism arises due to various factors, not only confined to archaic documents.

From that perspective, since the 'dynamism' in Kashmir is currently one of choosing their own destiny, outside of Indian borders, then we shoudl respect it.

That this dynamism would also solve the most protracted dispute in South Asia and possibly usher in a new era of cooperation between South Asian nations only underscores why 'borders should be fluid in response to the dynamics of Kashmir' currently.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1.So you think, it was fairly representative of the populace

2. Why should an undemcratic occupying force and undemocratic governments(princely states) agreement be sacroscant .

Congress could have refused, as could Jinnah and the Muslim League, who were extremely unhappy with the proposals for partition (moth eaten Pakistan) - but they all agreed, and it was a binding agreement, and in the absence of anything else, that is the only roadmap we have, plus the UNSC resolutions of course, that base a resolution of the dispute on a moral and just principle of letting the people of a territory decide their destiny.

Going back to your first point, nothing could be more representative of the population than making the accession of Kashmir conditional to the population choosing their fate in a referendum. This should have been the case for all princely states (perhaps it was, and I am not aware of it).

The second point is moot since the first has been shown to be the most representative and moral option available.

I am not going to reply to the rest of the post, as you have done nothing but exhibit jingoism, which incedntally is what you have been accusing me all the time. When on earth did I say I coundnt' accept Pakistan as an Independent state.

Please read the posts following that one for an explanation of my point.

 

[ejaz007]

IndiaPakistanFriendship,

One question for you.

India invaded Hyderabad and annexed it on the theory that majority of population was hindu and did not wish to be independent rather would like to join India.

Why don't India use the same principle in Kashmir and let them decide what they want to do.

 

[Logic note]

IndiaPakistanFriendship,

One question for you.

India invaded Hyderabad and annexed it on the theory that majority of population was hindu and did not wish to be independent rather would like to join India.

Why don't India use the same principle in Kashmir and let them decide what they want to do.

Dear Ejaz
India get its freedom from british and was broken in two two entities ..
if Principle and ethics are so important then Partition itself was wrong .

dividing a nation based on narrow definitions of religion , race , caste or any other man made definition is wrong ..
why cant we use the same principle in Baluchistan ?

 

[ejaz007]

Dear Ejaz
India get its freedom from british and was broken in two two entities ..
if Principle and ethics are so important then Partition itself was wrong .

dividing a nation based on narrow definitions of religion , race , caste or any other man made definition is wrong ..
why cant we use the same principle in Baluchistan ?

I guess you have forgotten the history. Baloch jirga decided for Pakistan and joined Pakistan according to their own free will. Even today problem in Balochistan is restricted to Derra Bugti and couple of other areas only not entire Balochistan.

Its a good way of avoiding the question.

 

[vish]

Creating an anti-establishment feeling would be possible in a situation like Bajaur, where the people are displaced, and their homes are targeted as the militants find sanctuary in them.

In the case of the Kashmiri youth mentioned, the insurgency creating an 'anti-establishment feeling' argument does not work at all, since it is quite evident that Kashmir has prospered in the last few years as the GoI has pumped money and resources into it, and the forces of consumerism have been unleashed.

That is in fact why the participation of the youth in the current movement is important, since theirs is a generation that has not been impacted by the insurgency as much as that of the older one, and has experienced India's economic growth and rise.

AM:

No matter how prosperous the region is, can one overlook the fact that the Valley is not as normal. Living in fear is not normal. Constant propaganda (from both sides) is not normal. The anti-establishment feeling is a by product of 20 years of low-intensity conflict; you guys do have a role to play in that. There is also a secondary effect to the entire deal... how tourism is stiffled. Goa and Shimla get more tourists than Kashmir though Kashmir, in my opinion, is much more beautiful.

As far as you argument about the forces of consumerism is concerned... Article 370 prohibits Indian businesses from setting bases there. This is the reason why there is no Oberoi or Taj Mahal Hotel in Kashmir. This is the reason why Indian mineral water companies cannot set up water packaging facilities there. The real "forces of consumerism" haven't reached there, and won't until and unless the region is integrated with India.

The anti-establishment feeling is what the end-goal of a guerrilla conflict is. But in the case of Kashmir, the move has backfired. How? The country no longer feels obligated to pamper the region. Expect Article 370 to be diluted or removed altogether within the next few years.

 

[vish]

Totally forget to mention that it was the indians rigging the election in kashmir that made the kashmiris take to the gun.

Dont see the general public in NWFP flying the afghan flag

Its not a "phenomenon" as you would like to call it but the continuation of 60 years struggle for freedom .

The elections were rigged... but you bought the guns inside de facto Indian territory. Let's not get into how fair elections are in AJK; but, do we poke you, no.

The populace in NWFP is very much anti-establishment.

Your 60 years of struggle hasn't yielded an inch. Accept the status quo and live with it.

 

[Logic note]

I guess you have forgotten the history. Baloch jirga decided for Pakistan and joined Pakistan according to their own free will. Even today problem in Balochistan is restricted to Derra Bugti and couple of other areas only not entire Balochistan.

Its a good way of avoiding the question.

No I didnt forget and We shall not forget that Maharaja Hari singh decided to join India .
I think you never understood or refused to understand . seperatism based on diffrentiation of groups in any society is wrong . and this tendency is prevelent in every nation , every soceity .
and Probelm in J& K is limited to Kasmir Vally and only some Kasmiri Muslims .
Ladakh and Jammu are alright . Even Kashmiri Hindues have no problem and thats why they have been killed and chased away .
more like ethinic cleansing by a fundamentalist mentality .

 

[vish]

The referendum questions, as RR pointed out, are answered in the thread whose link he posted.

However, I wasn't arguing about whose fault it was that the UN resolutions were not implemented, but that the condition of plebiscite attached to the IoA and the UNSC resolutions indicating the same as a solution to the dispute indicate quite clearly what the road map to a settlement is - a referendum.

Your 'secular ethos' has no place here - this is a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan that dates back to 1947, and in resolving it one of the proposals is to utilize some of the conditions used for the partition of British India.

What dispute runs deeper than Kashmir? All our wars, bar 1971 (initiated by India, so perhaps the hatred is on your side) were over Kashmir, our military has developed because of Kashmir, the refusal to normalize relations has been over Kashmir. Your hypothesis is just a fantasy, with no facts backing it up.

Communal sentiment in India is not our problem - if you cannot control extremist Hindus from retaliating against Muslims because a territorial dispute unresolved from partition was resolved per the conditions of the instrument of accession and UNSC resolutions, then you are a highly flawed society and nation.

The Khalistan movement thing is another canard - what little support Pakistan gave it was in the aftermath of 1971, and so considered payback for what was done then. However, since BB gave up the leadership, the Pakistani establishment has not pursued the issue, and given that we are not supporting it currently, while Kashmir is not resolved, I see no reason why we would support it after the major source of tension is gone.

It also have to point out that the hostility in 1971, and the sentiment that led to support for the Khalistani movement, however briefly, find root in the Kashmir dispute, since the underlying hostility between the two nations was a direct result of an unresolved Kashmir and events related to it.

The point that RR made that India alone is responsible for the non-abidement of the resolution is incorrect. Every party is guilty. Pakistan's forces were never removed; only after your forces were removed, were we supposed to go back. This never happenned. Further, afterwards several violations of the resolution took place. Separation of GB; "transferring" of territory to the PRC; demographic changes; etc.

Every party is equally guilty; this is my assertion. So why should we alone bear the blame? The resolutions are outdated and hence not implementable.

And by the way... your post does imply what I have been saying all this while: You want what we have...

Nobody wants an independent Kashmir; Pakistan wants Kashmir.

Kashmir is not the root cause of the animosity between the two nations; its the whole Hindu-Muslim divide. Your concern about the minorities in India is ample proof of this. You (not you in person, I meant Pakistan or a large section of it) think India is Hindu.

But I do agree that a significant reason behind the animosity is Kashmir; but herein too the Hindu-Muslim angle comes into play.

In my opinion, 1971 was a response to 1965. Post-1971, the PA realised that war is not a feasible option; hence the poking began.

As far as your assertion that India's communal problems and secular ethos are India's problem, well you are right, it is India's problem. And hence, we'll never let Kashmir go... to us it is akin to letting a part of India go. A 1 billion people secular India won't bow down in front of some mullahs. If this is rhetoric to you, so be it.