Stratfor: Why India will continue to misfire against China and Pakistan (got dealt a bad hand)

[DESERT FIGHTER]

This time count is what 100 Hindus to 1 Muslims.. as your aware last count of 10 didn't work well for you

1:15 ratio n a civil war.. 1971..


62,48.65 u hide ur frustrations like a whore on her weddin night

 

[SHAH820]

1962? it was a surprise attack, there were only 10,000 soldiers in the Indian border , the Chinese had 80,000 soldiers. about 3900 were captured. '


right....

india



India defeated Pakistan in 17 days man, so what are you talking about ? why would we want Bangladesh ?

[/QUOTE]
rather then doing some research work and not just look everything on wikipedia or in inidan media first thing strength of indian army involved in war 700k strength of pakistani army was 260k if you take ratio your side face more casualties dont you people know about how your soldiers ran away leaving your tanks

the territory you are talking about is the land which was destroyed in the war which is clearly on wiki it is mention lahore,sialkot,kashmir losses on pakistani side and rann of kutch on indian side

1965 war was primarily fought on punjab side not on kashmir side

in 1971 war if you dont want territory of bangladesh then why your prime minister stating that they trained rebel and send to bangladesh the problem is that you unable to claim their land cause you cant do you know how many separatist movement is still running in india and most of them are in tamil nadu and assam the point is you people cant hold on a land even you put all your forces like in kashmir 700k soldiers still unrest same goes to tamil nadu and assam

the pic you posted is absolutely false prove *FAIL - Indians put wreckage of their own aircraft stated as PAF F-6* (try to search in this site with that key word you wont be disappointed) the point is your army dont tell you the truth

and also you forgot to mention the fighter jets which were destroyed

in kargil 2003 LOC is made on the places which were captured by pakistan.

 

[TOPGUN]

It is between India and China.
Why are Pak handles throwing in their threads

Why not ?? you Indians do it to us all the time .... why are we any different what goes around comes around enjoy the show .

 

[PDFChamp]

Can an Ambitious India Seize the Moment? (Here is why they say No. Reading between the lines).
it would still struggle to develop a globally competitive manufacturing sector in this era of increasing automation.

Here is why all of those forecasts assuming India will continue to grow as in the recent past are likely wrong:India can't just copy and paste the path the Asian Tigers or China took.

1. The timing. West is changing their open trade mantra. In Europe and US you have anti-open trade leaders getting elected.
2. Future of manufacturing is in automation. Japan started the revolution in the 80s with the car assembly. Now robots assemble cars almost completely. People are already talking about how to pay their citizens without any jobs to be had. ((http://www.futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/2-billion-jobs-to-disappear-by-2030/))

3. Even in non-manufacturing industries robotics are taking over. For example, call centers are disappearing thanks to computers. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning can handle some of the basic questions or route calls to the right expert.

Just because a tree grows rapidly for the first few years, doesn't mean it will grow to the sky. Forecasts such as the one below are wishful thinking.

 

[schoolboy]

Their arch enemy is still bogged down in 1971, which in fact was possible due to unprecedented Soviet planning, training, armaments and logistics support at all levels of the campaign. According to Manekshaw, India had only a handful of tanks operational in May, and by December they could field WW2 like formations. By the by, Pak paid it back long time ago...

History is clearly not your strong suit. Soviet support in the war was chiefly diplomatic. The Mig-21s and T-55s that India had were part of military purchases signed in 1959-61 [[The Mig-21 especially was scheduled for delivery in 1962 but delayed by Chinese pressure on Khruschev]. And there were certainly no Soviet advisors in India before or during the war.

Contrast this with the U.S. support to Pakistan which included not just equipment sales, leased-submarines but also flight instructors - including the famous Chuck Yeager. That's right - the same U.S. that nursed Pakistan over the decades, propped up the generals, kept cutting checks - and now the subject of so much Pakistani anger. Nixon must be turning in his grave. Moreover the US military equipment purchased by Pakistan included F-104s and M48 Pattons that were more advanced than their Indian counterparts - the Mig 21 and T-55. Pakistan also had pilots and equipment from arab countries and diplomatic support from China.

Even the diplomatic face-off was not a simple ideological USA v USSR angle. Nixon and Kissinger not only had a personal friendship with Yahya - they had antipathy towards Indira Gandhi. The Nixon tapes show clearly how deeply involved he was personally in supporting the Pakistan cause - despite the warnings of his own ambassador in Dhaka (See Blood telegram). In contrast the war was not a personal issue for Brezhnev - just another sphere of competing USSR v US interests for him.

Not to mention Pak was bogged down in a civil war. The other two times(1948, 1965) when Pak was united they couldn't do squat despite being massive in size. The one time they managed to win was by playing dirty and with the help of Bangladeshis...and they r so proud of it that they always bring it up on almost every thread.

in 1971 war if you dont want territory of bangladesh then why your prime minister stating that they trained rebel and send to bangladesh the problem is that you unable to claim their land cause you cant do you know how many separatist movement is still running in india and most of them are in tamil nadu and assam the point is you people cant hold on a land even you put all your forces like in kashmir 700k soldiers still unrest same goes to tamil nadu and assam

Pakistani territory was returned, 90,000+ POWs were returned. None of the senior officers captured were tried for criminal actions before and during the war - and no reparations demanded. No attempt was made to annex East Pakistan. I'm sure you'll agree these were quite reasonable terms to end a conflict that was started by a pre-emptive strike from Pakistan. The only thing asked for was an undertaking to commit to bilateral settlement of Kashmir - and even this pledge has been disrespected.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Pakistani territory was returned, 90,000+ POWs were returned. None of the senior officers captured were tried for criminal actions before and during the war - and no reparations demanded. No attempt was made to annex East Pakistan. I'm sure you'll agree these were quite reasonable terms to end a conflict that was started by a pre-emptive strike from Pakistan. The only thing asked for was an undertaking to commit to bilateral settlement of Kashmir - and even this pledge has been disrespected.

I agree that the terms were reasonable but Pakistan is and has been ready to settle Kashmir issue. It is u guys(Modi government) that has dropped Kashmir talks altogether.

I personally think that a plebiscite should be held and let ppl of Kashmir decide their fate. Then regardless of if Kashmir goes to Pak or India or Independent, both India and Pakistan should put on their big boy pants and accept the result...end hostilities, improve relations and overtime I see no reason why we cannot become allies. It would open doors to the economic integration of the subcontinent. Both Pakistan and India can spend those billions(spent on arms) on their ppl...but that's just my fantasy...I really doubt this will ever happen.

 

[schoolboy]

I agree that the terms were reasonable but Pakistan is and has been ready to settle Kashmir issue. It is u guys(Modi government) that has dropped Kashmir talks altogether.

I personally think that a plebiscite should be held and let ppl of Kashmir decide their fate. Then regardless of if Kashmir goes to Pak or India or Independent, both India and Pakistan should put on their big boy pants and accept the result...end hostilities, improve relations and overtime I see no reason why we cannot become allies. It would open doors to the economic integration of the subcontinent. Both Pakistan and India can spend those billions(spent on arms) on their ppl...but that's just my fantasy...I really doubt this will ever happen.

I feel a plebiscite would have made sense till around the early 1960s - when demographics were unchanged and military presence was substantially less. Indeed - Nehru was persuaded by Mountbatten that this was the right approach and took the matter to the UN in 1948 which resulted in Res. 47 (the one a lot of keyboard jurists quote).

Res. 47 required withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir and conducting of plebiscite under Indian civil administration (supported by only as many troops as required for law and order) under guidance of a UN nominee - in that order. Both sides accepted the resolution after some objections but Pakistan - for whatever reason (let's not get into that) chose to continue with the status quo (i.e. occupation of it's side) instead of using the momentum and withdrawing its troops - which would have almost certainly forced Nehru to conduct the plebiscite. That period 1948 to 1962 was a wasted opportunity by Pakistan because Nehru was alive, he had deep respect for the UN, he had a large reserve of political capital unlike today's politicians and the polity was not partisan.

The moral pressure on following the UN (I say moral because resolutions are not legally binding) was gone after 1971 due to the agreement by Bhutto to solve the issue bilaterally (as opposed of through the UN) - the big concession obtained in the Simla declaration. After 1989, of course the militancy in the valley put an end to any discussion though I have read that both Zia and Musharaf were close to some kind of solution before their regimes were cut short.

Today holding a plebiscite is unlikely to be politically acceptable because thanks to the changed demographics, continued presence of military forces (and resultant human rights problems - which are inevitable in any such situation where troops remain close to civilian populations) there is a reasonable chance that the result may not be for continued integration with India - as well as the extraordinary effort the Pakistan governments expends to get the upper hand in Kashmir (something that has become the cornerstone of foreign policy).

The only solution that I can think of is to make the status quo permanent and convert the LOC to an international border with some kind of commitment to not station large-scale troops for some years. I think this is a good face-saver for both governments. It is worth noting that in modern times almost no country has ever voluntarily ceded territory to another.

 

[Clutch]

It is between India and China.
Why are Pak handles throwing in their threads

Clue... defence.pk. ... i repeat... dot pk!

 

[Cookie Monster]

I feel a plebiscite would have made sense till around the early 1960s - when demographics were unchanged and military presence was substantially less. Indeed - Nehru was persuaded by Mountbatten that this was the right approach and took the matter to the UN in 1948 which resulted in Res. 47 (the one a lot of keyboard jurists quote).

Res. 47 required withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir and conducting of plebiscite under Indian civil administration (supported by only as many troops as required for law and order) under guidance of a UN nominee - in that order. Both sides accepted the resolution after some objections but Pakistan - for whatever reason (let's not get into that) chose to continue with the status quo (i.e. occupation of it's side) instead of using the momentum and withdrawing its troops - which would have almost certainly forced Nehru to conduct the plebiscite. That period 1948 to 1962 was a wasted opportunity by Pakistan because Nehru was alive, he had deep respect for the UN, he had a large reserve of political capital unlike today's politicians and the polity was not partisan.

The moral pressure on following the UN (I say moral because resolutions are not legally binding) was gone after 1971 due to the agreement by Bhutto to solve the issue bilaterally (as opposed of through the UN) - the big concession obtained in the Simla declaration. After 1989, of course the militancy in the valley put an end to any discussion though I have read that both Zia and Musharaf were close to some kind of solution before their regimes were cut short.

Today holding a plebiscite is unlikely to be politically acceptable because thanks to the changed demographics, continued presence of military forces (and resultant human rights problems - which are inevitable in any such situation where troops remain close to civilian populations) there is a reasonable chance that the result may not be for continued integration with India - as well as the extraordinary effort the Pakistan governments expends to get the upper hand in Kashmir (something that has become the cornerstone of foreign policy).

The only solution that I can think of is to make the status quo permanent and convert the LOC to an international border with some kind of commitment to not station large-scale troops for some years. I think this is a good face-saver for both governments. It is worth noting that in modern times almost no country has ever voluntarily ceded territory to another.

I hear this from a lot of Indians and some Pakistanis that status quo should be accepted as IB and try to normalize relations. While technically doable but then again that's where "humans" come in to the equation. U and I can think of many "ideal" situations but as soon as u throw humans into the mix, it would make that "ideal" situation unworkable. This is due to many factors, different perspectives, ego, everyone thinking that they are right, etc.

So yes it would be theoretically doable to have current borders as IB and normalize relations overtime to the extent where borders don't matter. It's not however doable in reality due to the following reasons:
- Kashmir is a possible reason that politicians can use on both sides(as they do) to demonize the other for gaining popularity and votes.
- both countries when they find each other at odds for their interests would try to raise it on international forum to malign the other(e.g. Pakistan telling UN that India is violating human rights in Kashmir and vice versa)
- Despite many Indians having the viewpoint(at least on PDF) that we should accept LOC as IB, the Indian government still continues to claim the whole of Kashmir and letting it go would mean(to the politicians, Modi in this case) that the government/politicians look weak. If let's say Modi announces today that lets accept status quo as IB, I bet he would be trashed left and right in the media as someone who bowed down to Pakistan etc. So he would never do that bcuz obviously he wants to be re-elected. All of this also applies to Pakistan.
- and last but not least, if this solution was workable(with humans involved), we would've already reached it bcuz pretty much since 1948 both India and Pakistan have held their respective parts of Kashmir as is. Yet we have been unable to reach that "solution". India and Pakistan would continue to lay claim to Kashmir. So based on that I'm leaning towards that it would never work. Expecting this status quo to IB solution to work is akin to as Einstein defined insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Now let's look at the other solution u brought up where according to UN resolution Pakistan is supposed to pull out troops and India is supposed to keep a minimum number of troops to maintain law and order and hold a plebiscite. Below are the reasons of why that would also probably never happen.
- Pakistan doesn't trust India. In that mistrust it would never pull out troops and the rest of the proposed solution can't be done.
- India would keep citing that Pakistan is uncooperative and not pulling out troops.
- India might also cite that Pundits were kicked out and the demographics are changed.

Now let's address the first part of the above that's in bold. If one is to believe Indian media and the general mindset in India about Pakistan/Pakistanis, it seems according to them that Pakistanis are unworkable beings forever stuck in their India centric hate for some inexplicable reason. That is not so, not at all. We have another giant neighbor(China) with whom we have a great relationship. Not to mention that culturally and linguistically we share almost nothing with China while we share a lot with India. So why couldn't India/Pak relations be as good or better than Pak/China relationship?

One obvious reason of why we both started out hating each other is obviously the atrocities that happened during partition. That cannot be fixed and it is next to impossible to find out who started it and who exactly should be punished. However that's one thing that can be forgotten in time. Not forgotten as in to forget the sacrifices of those ppl but forgotten in terms of our animosity towards each other bcuz time heals all.

Next reason was Kashmir. From Pakistani perspective:

Kashmir being a Muslim majority state with a Hindu ruler acceded to India.
Junagadh being a Hindu majority state with a Muslim ruler acceded to Pakistan.

India didn't recognise Junagadh's instrument of accession, invaded and held a plebiscite. Then accepting the will of the ppl annexed it. Instrument of accession didn't matter whatsoever, yet it matters so much in case of Kashmir bcuz it goes in favor of India. Then couple that with the Indian invasion and annexation of Sikkim, Goa, Hyderabad, etc. All of this made India seemed hungry for territory. Pakistan felt threatened. This is the major reason why Pakistan will not (probably never) trust India and pull out its troops from Pak side of the Kashmir and therefore a plebiscite may never be held.

Based on everything discussed above the two solutions of status quo as IB and Pak withdraw to let India hold plebiscite, while possible in theory, would not work out in reality.

So let's look at something that might possibly work(taking into account humans on both sides with their egos and stuff).
- Since both countries claim that they have the best interest of the Kashmiri ppl at heart neither of them would be able to publicly denounce or reject the results of a plebiscite. They would pretty much be forced to accept that result, no two ways about it.
- in order to hold a plebiscite, current proposition wouldn't work due to lack of trust. It's more likely that both countries might be willing to take a more neutral approach and accept mediation of a third party. UN troops come in, both Indian and Pakistani troops withdraw. Pundits be returned. Then a plebiscite be held under UN troops(with no Indians/Pakistanis among them).

Based on the results of plebiscite...
Worst case scenario for India:
- Lose Kashmir

Worst case scenario for Pakistan
- Lose Kashmir

Gains for Pakistan
- No enemies in the neighborhood.
- Save billions in defence expenditure.
- Have no threat of nukes pointed at it
- No Indian proxies roaming about in Pakistan

Gains for India
- One less front to worry about.
- Savings in defence expenditure
- Have no nukes pointed at it
- No Pakistani proxies roaming about in India
- Be able to freely trade(without any looming threats) through Pakistan to Middle East and Central Asia.
- Possible betterment of relation with China since China wouldn't really be able to hold any Kashmir territory disputes with India bcuz India did its part by holding a plebiscite.

Gains for Kashmir/Kashmiris
- Potential freedom(if they choose that)
- No more families torn apart on both sides
- No more oppression by huge military presence as there would no longer be any need to hold them down by force bcuz they freely chose to join that country.

Now as for the human element. Let's say Modi and Nawaz Sharif agree and manage to settle Kashmir issue through UN. Nawaz doesn't look weak by pulling out troops and letting India go in. Instead it would be UN.
If Nawaz Sharif loses Kashmir to India based on the will of Kashmiris then at least he would be able to save face by saying
- this is what Kashmiris chose. Their voice is finally heard.
- Pakistan has no enemies now so peace has been achieved. Modi will be able to claim the same if Kashmir goes to Pakistan.

Granted that their image will still take a hit in comparison to chest thumping and issuing statements against the other country. However any person with a common sense and a longing for peace on both sides will see it as the mature thing to do rather than pointing nukes at each other. The only vote bank they will be losing will be the extremes on both sides(Akhand Bharat kind on ur side and Ghazwa-e-hind kind on ours)...and personally I don't think it's worth having the vote bank of those "deplorables".

If we remain stuck as we r, I can only see relations getting worse in the future. The older generations that either migrated from one side to another or had family ties on the other side are going to disappear with time. There will be an increasing divide of "us vs them", less exposure between the two sides, and therefore more of a chance to be able to demonize the other side with ease. However I'm still hopeful that one day Kashmir issue will be resolved and the subcontinent will see peace.

 

[Zaem]

Too bad they are stupid too. That's one more liability.

Pakistan isnt much smarter, your basically pawn for China, nothing more. Please understand that India cant be "dumber". Your just spewing nonsense shit...

 

[TooRave]

Pakistan isnt much smarter, your basically pawn for China, nothing more. Please understand that India cant be "dumber". Your just spewing nonsense shit...

Here Pakistanis are too much deluded with exaggerated self praise..
They have always been pawn.Previously it was USA & now Chinese colony..
They have no substance to tackle India with.That's why the they are so eager to bring China on every conversation.
Although those hyper stats they come up with Pakistan has always been a loser.

 

[schoolboy]

I hear this from a lot of Indians and some Pakistanis that status quo should be accepted as IB and try to normalize relations. While technically doable but then again that's where "humans" come in to the equation. U and I can think of many "ideal" situations but as soon as u throw humans into the mix, it would make that "ideal" situation unworkable. This is due to many factors, different perspectives, ego, everyone thinking that they are right, etc.

Thanks for taking the time to type out that long reply - I really do enjoy these exchanges. I will try and respond to your points - [though I hope you can tolerate my taking the liberty to not multi-quote]

I agree that free and fair referendums or plebiscites are the only way to decide political status but that seems unlikely at the moment as:

- It's over 70 years since J&K was a political unit. Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir have developed at different rates. Indian and Pakistani Kashmir are largely annexed to their respective governments than they were in 1948. Demographics today are very different - and a big question is whether the historical basis for a plebiscite is relevant today given these circumstances?

- Conducting a plebiscite. Since neither Indian nor Pakistani administration of parts of any plebiscite will be accepted by the other a UN administration is the only theoretical possibility. Apart from a political problem (the decision is an unpopular one as it involves giving up of sovereignty temporarily) the logistics seem formidable. The only instances of UN-administered plebiscites have been Samoa in 1962 and East Timor in 2002. Both involved territories a fraction of the size of undivided Kashmir and equally smaller populations. Est Timor in particular was not a happy plebiscite - it was preceded by the migration of 15% of its population and required about 15,000 UN troops and civil personnel - Kashmir will require many times such a force.

As I said before a plebiscite is a high risk option that not only is difficult to take politically but which can, on the contrary, escalate into a war if the results are unfavourable.

Converting the LOC into an IB is a low-risk option that is easier, faster and cheaper to operationalise and also politically a less bitter pill to swallow. Such a plan would award Pakistan half of historical Kashmir - which is a permanent gain without making it problematic to accept in India (since those areas were anyway under Pakistani possession since 1948). A plan to scale back troop deployments (confirmed by UN perhaps) would reduce the possibility of more civil-military clashes and the money saved can be perhaps channeled into some fund to rebuild infrastructure.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Thanks for taking the time to type out that long reply - I really do enjoy these exchanges. I will try and respond to your points - [though I hope you can tolerate my taking the liberty to not multi-quote]

I agree that free and fair referendums or plebiscites are the only way to decide political status but that seems unlikely at the moment as:

- It's over 70 years since J&K was a political unit. Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir have developed at different rates. Indian and Pakistani Kashmir are largely annexed to their respective governments than they were in 1948. Demographics today are very different - and a big question is whether the historical basis for a plebiscite is relevant today given these circumstances?

- Conducting a plebiscite. Since neither Indian nor Pakistani administration of parts of any plebiscite will be accepted by the other a UN administration is the only theoretical possibility. Apart from a political problem (the decision is an unpopular one as it involves giving up of sovereignty temporarily) the logistics seem formidable. The only instances of UN-administered plebiscites have been Samoa in 1962 and East Timor in 2002. Both involved territories a fraction of the size of undivided Kashmir and equally smaller populations. Est Timor in particular was not a happy plebiscite - it was preceded by the migration of 15% of its population and required about 15,000 UN troops and civil personnel - Kashmir will require many times such a force.

As I said before a plebiscite is a high risk option that not only is difficult to take politically but which can, on the contrary, escalate into a war if the results are unfavourable.

Converting the LOC into an IB is a low-risk option that is easier, faster and cheaper to operationalise and also politically a less bitter pill to swallow. Such a plan would award Pakistan half of historical Kashmir - which is a permanent gain without making it problematic to accept in India (since those areas were anyway under Pakistani possession since 1948). A plan to scale back troop deployments (confirmed by UN perhaps) would reduce the possibility of more civil-military clashes and the money saved can be perhaps channeled into some fund to rebuild infrastructure.

I totally agree with this last paragraph but then again there's the problem of ego and looking bad politically. If in India for example Modi worked out that solution of maintaining status quo as the solution and give up claim on Pakistan's Kashmir then he would get destroyed by opposition and he would fall out of favor with the public, essentially ending his political career. The same would happen to Nawaz in Pak if he attempted that. So no politician would ever attempt such a solution as it doesn't serve them personally.
Moreover both countries have held their respective parts for over 50 years. If status quo could've had been a realistic solution(its just ideal), it would've already happened. I don't think giving it another 50 years or a 100 or whatever other amount of time and hoping it would solve itself is a good approach. This is akin to doing nothing.

As for Ladakh, Jammu, and Kashmir having different demographics and developing differently...
For example
-Jammu ppl might be leaning towards India
-Kashmir ppl might be leaning towards Pakistan
By treating both as one entity and holding a plebiscite might cause Jammu vote to be suffocated by Kashmiri vote forming the majority...causing possible unhappiness/protests/clashes in the future, rendering the point of a plebiscite useless.

this issue described above can be addressed. Several surveys can be held to see which way ppl are leaning in each region. Then hold the plebiscite according to those newly drawn lines.

It is a dangerous notion to set by saying that 70 years have passed and demographics changed so a plebiscite is useless to implement. Using this excuse any nation can invade and hold a territory, wait a few decades and be home free. This is specially unfair to the ppl that were conquered. It essentially provides an excuse to silence their voice.

I'm glad we can agree on the UN conducting plebiscite stuff. Most Indians that I've had a discussion with insist that as per the resolution Pakistan must withdraw and plebiscite be held under Indian security institutions. Even though I keep trying to tell them that then we r back to square one as Pakistan would never accept it and hence no attempt at a solution would occur. UN seems like the only non biased third party.

As for the means to do it. U r right it is a large region and it would be a challenge to organize all of this for the UN. However UN does definitely have the resources to do this. In addition Pak/India can allocate some funds towards this to help UN meet this challenge.
One or both nations might lose face if this ever comes to fruition but considering the benefits the whole region would gain especially over the long term, I say it's worth it. If Pak can have higher than mountains and deeper than seas alliance with China with which it shares no cultural/linguistic similarities, imagine what it could be between India/Pak. Not to mention the possibility of a de-escalation of nuclear arms race in the subcontinent.

 

[schoolboy]

Well, I think - let's look at it from Modi's perspective. Which option would he prefer? Would he support a neutral plebiscite which would, in the eye of the Indian public be:

a. A throwback to the pre-71 position a la the UN resolution (in other words the 'bilateral' promise was a wasted concession in Simla)
b. A complex logistical and administrative task that would require a lot of groundwork (i.e. drawing up means of transfer of power to UN, etc. during and before the vote)
c. A real possibility of an adverse result and the ceding of territory considered integral for seventy years
d. Reconciling to the changed security position - in which Pakistani [and perhaps Chinese] troops could be at an elevated position overlooking HP and north punjab.
e. Giving rise to a legal precedent for demand of similar plebiscites / referendums in some of the NE states.

In this background I don't see this as as politically possible today - in 2017. Not after the bad blood over the last 2-3 years. Our politicians (and public) are not as mature as Britain (with its scottish / gibraltar referendums) and selling the idea that the pakistani army generals would not escalate matters later would be a non-starter.

It is a dangerous notion to set by saying that 70 years have passed and demographics changed so a plebiscite is useless to implement. Using this excuse any nation can invade and hold a territory, wait a few decades and be home free. This is specially unfair to the ppl that were conquered. It essentially provides an excuse to silence their voice.

As unsavory as it sounds this is, indeed, one of the means of legal claims to territory under international law. That's why it [international law] tries to forbid civilian settlement in occupied territories (such as the West Bank or Golan Heights for example). This particular principle has been used by the ICJ in two legal disputes, last in 1952.

I'm glad we can agree on the UN conducting plebiscite stuff. Most Indians that I've had a discussion with insist that as per the resolution Pakistan must withdraw and plebiscite be held under Indian security institutions. Even though I keep trying to tell them that then we r back to square one as Pakistan would never accept it and hence no attempt at a solution would occur. UN seems like the only non biased third party.

Many pakistanis quote UNSC 47 as the legal basis for a plebiscite. I say that leaving aside the maintainability of such a claim (in view of the Simla agreement) that particular resolution demands an Indian-administered plebiscite following a Pakistani withdrawal.

The discussion we are having on this thread about the possibility for a plebiscite, is of course, a voluntary one - unrelated to Res 47.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Well, I think - let's look at it from Modi's perspective. Which option would he prefer? Would he support a neutral plebiscite which would, in the eye of the Indian public be:

a. A throwback to the pre-71 position a la the UN resolution (in other words the 'bilateral' promise was a wasted concession in Simla)
b. A complex logistical and administrative task that would require a lot of groundwork (i.e. drawing up means of transfer of power to UN, etc. during and before the vote)
c. A real possibility of an adverse result and the ceding of territory considered integral for seventy years
d. Reconciling to the changed security position - in which Pakistani [and perhaps Chinese] troops could be at an elevated position overlooking HP and north punjab.
e. Giving rise to a legal precedent for demand of similar plebiscites / referendums in some of the NE states.

In this background I don't see this as as politically possible today - in 2017. Not after the bad blood over the last 2-3 years. Our politicians (and public) are not as mature as Britain (with its scottish / gibraltar referendums) and selling the idea that the pakistani army generals would not escalate matters later would be a non-starter.



As unsavory as it sounds this is, indeed, one of the means of legal claims to territory under international law. That's why it [international law] tries to forbid civilian settlement in occupied territories (such as the West Bank or Golan Heights for example). This particular principle has been used by the ICJ in two legal disputes, last in 1952.



Many pakistanis quote UNSC 47 as the legal basis for a plebiscite. I say that leaving aside the maintainability of such a claim (in view of the Simla agreement) that particular resolution demands an Indian-administered plebiscite following a Pakistani withdrawal.

The discussion we are having on this thread about the possibility for a plebiscite, is of course, a voluntary one - unrelated to Res 47.

A neutral plebiscite under UN would seem like India somewhat yielded to Pak's wishes and went back on the Simla Agreement...but that's exactly the point...not to make India bow down but more like both nations have to sort of give and take a few things to work towards a solution.

Concerns: Pakistan's concerns are that if Pak leaves it's side of Kashmir and let Indian troops come in then what's the guarantee that a plebiscite would be held and neutrally...what if it's not held and India now has Kashmir. Or what if the results are altered or ppl forced under Indian control, etc.

Solution: India understanding the lack of trust, agrees to a plebiscite under UN.

Concern: One of many concerns for India is that if a plebiscite happens and territory goes to Pakistan according to results then China and Pakistan's troops can end up with favorable positions giving them a possible advantage...and what's the guarantee that Pak generals wouldn't have a misadventure later?

Solution: If a neutral plebiscite is held and whatever the result, Pakistan must sign some agreement forbidding if from going to war with India in the future.

I'm sure there would be many more concerns and each can be addressed. But this could only happen if the first step is ever taken. Due to lack of trust the first step would never be taken if a non biased third party isn't involved.

Letting UN come in would be a big sacrifice on India's part but in return it can ask Pakistan to yield on some of the things to adress India's concerns(signing that agreement forbidding Pak from declaring war against India would be one of them).

As for our populations not being mature enough like Europeans, u r completely right on that. This is why I think what we r talking about has no chance of happening anytime soon mainly due to intense nationalism(the wrong kind) on both sides. The situation is made worse by the media in each country portraying the other as evil. My only hope is that it doesn't take something like what World War 1 and 2 were for Europeans, for us to come to our senses.

Well, I think - let's look at it from Modi's perspective. Which option would he prefer? Would he support a neutral plebiscite which would, in the eye of the Indian public...

wouldn't Modi going back on Simla Agreement make him look just as bad(if not worse) as him giving up claim on the rest of Kashmir held by Pak?

In my opinion it would be worse
1) Modi gives up claim on non Indian Kashmir
- by giving up claim on the rest of Kashmir he'll be making India look weak
- what's to guarantee that Pak wouldn't raise the Indian side of Kashmir as an issue again?

2) If he went back on Simla instead, there's at least some face saving
- He can use going back on Simla as a bargaining chip(bcuz it could be very appealing to Pak). Using that bargaining chip he can get some important things in return making him look more like a negotiator for a great deal(that he can brag about) as compared to the other option of giving up claim on the rest of non Indian Kashmir
- holding a fair plebiscite under UN, he can score some brownie points by acting like the champion of the ppl and doing what's right, honoring agreements, listening to the voice of Kashmiris, etc.

In my opinion there's a lot of face saving options and overall less damage with the added benefit of a long-term stable solution with the second option. That's what I would do if I was in Modi's place and genuinely concerned about peace/stability for Indian subjects and in the subcontinent while also considering what would do the least damage to my political career.

As for ur following point

Giving rise to a legal precedent for demand of similar plebiscites / referendums in some of the NE states.

I don't think India and Pakistan working together on Kashmir would lead to that. India and Pakistan are both parties to Kashmir conflict and therefore would naturally have to work together to solve it. Pakistan has no claim to NE states in India. Therefore whatever solution(or lack of it) that India chooses to implement in NE states that's entirely up to India and Pak doesn't have a say in it. India being the only party to it, it's entirely up to India how it wants to work with its ppl in NE states.