Balochistan and Kashmir is a very similar cases. Military action was initiated by Pakistan and India on Kashmir and Pakistan had later invaded Baloch territory in 1948. There is a regular election held in Kashmir, and the choice of the people is respected. Even the seperateists can boost their credibility by contesting elections,winning and later refusing to co-operate or even recognise New Delhi. But, their fear is that if they lose the elections, where will they hide the face.??
Secular India is un-doubtedly dynamic. No country in the world is perfect, we only need to strive to make it better. No-doubt Gujrat was a mistake, but, we have learnt our lessons. There is provisions for every movement and struggle in India. There is room for Radicals, for leftists, for religious, for communists. There is a room for everybody to carry-out representations and propagating their beliefs. But, there is no place for the people who try to enforce their beliefs,with the force of a gun.
The terrorists do-not deserve the comforts and systems of the free-world. They have to be dealt in the most merciless ways possible.They are no-bodies friends.
Hog wash - Baluchistan and Kashmir are in no way similar cases.
Baluchistan was never invaded, only the Khan of Kalat's princely state, that is now a part of Baluchistan received a small detachment of troops because of security issues stemming from that area, and eventually the Khan of Kalat legally acceded to Pakistan.
The majority of today's Baluchistan was comprised of other 'autonomous territory', whose rulers acceded to Pakistan, as well as the territory of 'Baluchistan', where Jirga's were held by all the tribes to determine whether or not to join Pakistan - the decision coming out overwhelmingly in Pakistan's favor.
This is where the biggest difference between Baluchistan and Kashmir arises, and why the two are not comparable - Baluchistan became a part of Pakistan through a process outlined under the instrument of partition, where the will of the people and/or the notables of the area was taken into account. This never happened in Kashmir.
In case of a disputed accession, a plebiscite was to be held in the disputed territory to determine the will of the people in what final status they wished for (Pakistan or India). The UNSC resolutions affirmed this point by requiring a referendum to determine final status and India agreed to it as did Pakistan and the rest of the world community.
The right to self-determination to determine final status for the Kashmiris, as part of India or Pakistan, has been accepted by the UN, and was accepted by India and Pakistan, and the Kashmiris should be given that right.
This is not about India being 'dynamic and secular' or whatever, it is about resolving a dispute according to the agreements outlined in the UN, and under the instrument of partition - which is by resorting to the will of the Kashmiris through a plebiscite. If India is so 'dynamic' the Kashmiris will choose her, if not, they will choose Pakistan. The GoI agreed to this when she agreed to all of the UNSC resolutions.
India should live up to her obligations as a member of the UN and her commitments to the Kashmiris and the international community. This is the same UN India went to with the JuD ban, and Pakistan complied with, despite opposition at home. Time for India to show that she is responsible member of the international community and implement her agreements and commitments in the UN.
