The Kashmir Dispute—the FAULTLINES : By Dr M K Teng

[dadeechi]

Interesting!
Is it true that none of the Muslim league leaders faced jail even as most of the congress leaders were put behind the bars during quit India movement (Nehru included)?

Muslim league was a creation of British to weaken the Indian Independence movement lead by Congress. Muslim League never fought for independence and they only showed up at the ceremony to collect the prize (Pakistan).

The same behavior of Pakistanis continues today where they do not make any effort but just show up at the end to collect the prize be it NSG membership or Nuclear deal with US.

 

[scorpionx]

@hellfire I don't know in what context Tengs article had exactly come up but I felt he has become at some points unnecessarily critical of Noorani's Kashmir Dispute. What do you think of his criticisms of Noorani? And also, Repudiation of Mcmohan line by the Chinese and Sanskrit Himalayas!!

 

[Hellfire]

@hellfire I don't know in what context Tengs article had exactly come up but I felt he has become at some points unnecessarily critical of Noorani's Kashmir Dispute. What do you think of his criticisms of Noorani? And also, Repudiation of Mcmohan line by the Chinese and Sanskrit Himalayas!!

Have tagged you in another location where @Joe Shearer was pointing out facts as valid and I was trying to work out on autonomy aspects which we as a nation have assured.

Anyways, two things are very clear from my side:

1. Instrument of Accession is valid under 3a of Indian Independence Act of 1947

2. Article 370 is the legalization of guarantees given by Republic of India. While it can be abrogated under Article 368, doing the same will be tantamount to acceptance of the Union of India of being a failure as a nation which is based on secular ideals and has a principled foundation. We will simply allow the Pakistanis a chance to legitimize their own demand for recognition as a state, something they are still unsure as the significantly larger Muslim population of India is a repudiation of the said theory.

An argument against accession can only be made if we accept the formation of Pakistan as a nation as null and void.

Further, the accession of Baluchistan was on exactly same terms with additional clause of independence of the Khanate of Kalat. The legislative assembly voted against the merger of territories into Pakistan and wanted autonomy. This was unilaterally repudiated by Pakistan and its assurances were proven to be a lie when the Pakistani forces marched into Kalat.

I had been indicating a shift on this line for few weeks now. Tagged you in the place I clearly wrote about it. And now you have the exact being played out.

Noorani has merit, but the merit at times have been blown out of proportion. The British were keen to emphasize the soundness and validity of their decision to partition India. They did everything in their power to perpetuate this fallacy of their wisdom, even subsequently at UN where, with connivance of UK and US Pakistan managed to turn the clause of self determination into a clause of acceptance of accession to either India or Pakistan, thereby effectively refusing the Kashmiri the right of freedom.

We have lost the narrative, which we are now trying to regain. The fact that Pakistan signed the dotted line in Karachi Agreement of 1949 with CFL starting from Manawar till Siachen, thereby recognizing Jammu, Sambha and Katra regions along with RS Pura as International Boundary, has been overlooked and underplayed by Indian Government.

Even today, we were trying to tell politicians that firing across Sambha is NOT ceasefire violation, but IB violation. Our media, citizens and politicians .... all are too dumb and idiotic to realize the import.

 

[OrionHunter]

In 1947, Pakistani forces invaded Kashmir in Operation GULMARG under Brig Akbar Khan in spite of the Stand Still Agreement signed with the Maharaja of J&K, resulting in blatant aggression and capture and illegal occupation of what is now P0K and GB. Had this invasion by Pakistan not happened this festering dispute would not have existed.

Having said that, this portion is the most important aspect of the UN Resolution (which the Pakistanis put a spin to and interpret it to suit their clichéd script):

The main issue is....

The Security Council resolution envisaged the evacuation of the occupation forces from the occupied territories before the bulk of the Indian forces would begin to withdraw. The restoration of the administrative control of the occupied territories to the State Government was a precedent condition for the induction of the United Nations Plebiscite Administration into the State.

The claim, that the bulk of Indian forces were to commence evacuation when the occupation forces were nearing the completion of their evacuation, virtually suggesting that the evacuation of the occupation forces was proposed to be concurrent, is a gross distortion of facts. The United Nations documents and the Indian correspondence in regard to them are unambiguous and clear, leaving no room for such misinterpretation.


Now try telling the Pakistanis that and they will try and obfuscate the issue by bringing in all sorts of interpretations as well as the recommendations of the so called Dixon Plan which not only India, but Pakistan too rejected as the latter wanted a plebiscite not in P0K and GB but in half of Jammu, all of Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley only! And that obviously was not acceptable to India! That was like having the cake and eating it too!

 

[WAJsal]

Muslim league was a creation of British to weaken the Indian Independence movement lead by Congress. Muslim League never fought for independence and they only showed up at the ceremony to collect the prize (Pakistan).

Twisted version of history and what a shame to see posters thanking such a misleading post. This mentality is the biggest reason for basic issues between the two countries, the hate needs to be swallowed really. Wouldn't be too wrong to say that this mentality is pretty much brainwashed into the masses, without them being much aware of it too.
Pakistan wasn't made in one day, independent state for Muslims in subcontinent was made after decades of struggle and sacrifices of many lives. Please learn some basic history. Don't believe this crap that British made Pakistan to act as a counter measure to India and to try to break India into many pieces so that it doesn't become a super power. This is a made up theory to hide up mistakes made by Indian leadership before partition. Basic history lesson will tell you that.
PS: compare the roles of Muslims and Hindus at the time and you'll know who struggled more for freedom. Though i am not into this religious crap....
@Joe Shearer , @Azlan Haider ...

If people had noticed, even for militancy to succeed for large scale of years, let's say, evenions LTTE, the people of different religions of same ethinicity should unite. Prabhakaran was a Christian, and so was a whole bunch of LTTE leadership. Mukthi Bahini had a leadership of Muslims, Hindus and lil Buddhists.

Kashmir is a faultline. No Shia inside Kashmir will want it to become Independent or their more worst fear joininig with Pakistan. No Hindu or Sikhs or Buddhist wont. Rural Kashmiris wont. Pakistanis are very welcome to travel to Kargil and rural parts of Kashmir as they have been the ones, worst harrased by Sunni Kashmiri militants. Killed for going to school, raped for voting, they unleashed an reign of terror until security forces turned the tide around.

And Until unless these Sunni muslims of Kashmir has the rest 50% support of the Kashmir people, their movement wont succeed.

Kashmir's major faultlines are its own people. Thanks to Sunni Kashmiris and Pakistanis with their goal of ummaah

Made up stories to please Indian masses. Please note: majority of the GB's population is Shia and GB is considered the most pro-Pakistan region in Pakistan. On the contrary Shias are hardcore Muslims in these parts and share more sympathy with Pakistan, this has been noted by many historians and even mentioned by Major. Brown in his book.

Utterly ridiculous to end with. Can we please give him V P menon’s classical work Integration of the Indian States where he can read properly what role Mountbatten took in the process of the neck breaking task of bringing the princely states especially Junagadh and Hyderabad under Indian union?

Wouldn't be too wrong to blame Mountbatten for a lot of the mess, what incompetence. Actually i regret loosing leaders like Gandhi and Jinnah too early, they would have easily solved these issues within months.

An argument against accession can only be made if we accept the formation of Pakistan as a nation as null and void.

Cancer attack...

 

[Hellfire]

Cancer attack...

Told you, will happen. Did, the 'cancer attack'. GoI has made it the policy. You will be hearing about this line too, shortly. There has been a shift, I was pointing it out since long. I intend to write up as soon as I have time on what next from GoI and Indian POV.

I refuse to go off grid on this. Bloody 'stick to fact' bug put in by @Joe Shearer and being drummed in by @Oscar ... can't help stating facts.

See you in Oct. Off grid till then.

 

[dadeechi]

Twisted version of history and what a shame to see posters thanking such a misleading post. This mentality is the biggest reason for basic issues between the two countries, the hate needs to be swallowed really. Wouldn't be too wrong to say that this mentality is pretty much brainwashed into the masses, without them being much aware of it too.
Pakistan wasn't made in one day, independent state for Muslims in subcontinent was made after decades of struggle and sacrifices of many lives. Please learn some basic history. Don't believe this crap that British made Pakistan to act as a counter measure to India and to try to break India into many pieces so that it doesn't become a super power. This is a made up theory to hide up mistakes made by Indian leadership before partition. Basic history lesson will tell you that.
PS: compare the roles of Muslims and Hindus at the time and you'll know who struggled more for freedom. Though i am not into this religious crap....
@Joe Shearer , @Azlan Haider ...

Muslim League fought against the Congress and not against the British

All-India Muslim League was formed in 1906 and British agreed for the separate Muslim electorate under the Minto-Morley act in 1909. Why did British agree to such a scheme in just three years? This is when British hold on India was very strong and before world war I.

There was only one point in the British Indian history when both Hindus and Muslims fought together. That was the "Indian Rebellion of 1857". After that British clearly understood that Hindus and Muslims need to be separated. The British decided and followed the form of system and elections that would serve their best interests. Muslim league was its Mohra (Trumpcard).

 

[Joe Shearer]

Excellent article. Thanks @Stephen Cohen for posting it.

I wasn't aware of the Mc Naughton proposals, Dixon Plan, and Graham’s twelve point scheme, which were all aimed to neutralize the Indian position in the State till I read this article. This is an eye opener. The games that the Brits and Americans played in the subcontinent is beyond intrigue!

How so? Sir Owen Dixon has been quoted repeatedly by Azlan Haider, presenting his views in a very sophisticated manner, and representing it as the effort of an honest broker, rather than the front man for the effort to change the UN Resolution one little bit at a time and create an illusion that what resulted was what was originated.

The tragic part of the matter is the sustained and determined support that Pakistan got, having by then become a member of both the Baghdad Pact (CENTO) and SEATO. At the time that these machinations were going on, Pakistan was herself receiving technical support and assistance; her armour, her artillery, even her unit organisation was strongly influenced by the Americans. It is weird to read the vituperations by younger Pakistanis, who have gone through their own mild attacks of Islamism, about America; weird because nothing was allowed to stand in the way of what America wanted. In turn, there was a Faustian bargain between the two, and that is why the Modi Government, for the first time, has wholeheartedly opened itself up to the US. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a different matter; that this happened in the first place is astonishing for many of us of the older generations who saw what actually happened, and how every part of the UN machinery was directed to support Pakistan. Without the veto support of Soviet Russia, the game would have been up long ago.

Then came 1962, and an opportunity that the US thought it saw, under Kennedy, to winkle India out of the influence of the Soviet bloc, which is how they thought of the Indian position on international relations. Again, it is ironic how the tadpoles seem to believe that India was pro-US from the outset, when the opposite was the case. That effort failed, but it did carry us through the grim years of food shortages, until the Green Revolution bit home and released us from food dependency. People forget these things, how important the surge in foodgrain availability was; it is a different matter that we failed dismally to distribute these surpluses aggressively through the country. The pack-rat impulse that the years of food shortages had built into Indian thinking on food continue to this day.

That above is just for the historical perspective. What is relevant is the sustained attempts to distort the UN Resolutions - putting them next to each other, ordered by date, is a sobering exercise. It demonstrates clearly how the Anglo-Americans sought to build up their client state as a powerful ally holding the borders against Russia, and, as earlier, holding Kashmir as a buffer state, as had been the practice when India was directly under the British. Narendra Sarila is another informative author about this aspect of the post-independence tussle between the two countries.

In plain terms, the call to every Indian member to educate himself or herself on the issues arising out of the partition of India has a bearing on this also; we need to know the full story, but more and more emerges once the bare facts are known. Why the British did not annex these states, but left them as buffers between imperial Britain and imperial Russia, what role the Chinese were coerced to play, and that they overthrew once they were in power, what was the status of Tibet, or Nepal, of Sikkim, of Bhutan, and of the Arunachal Pradesh - all these are the supporting flying buttresses of the central topic on JK and her accession or otherwise.

Happy hunting.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Made up stories to please Indian masses. Please note: majority of the GB's population is Shia and GB is considered the most pro-Pakistan region in Pakistan. On the contrary Shias are hardcore Muslims in these parts and share more sympathy with Pakistan, this has been noted by many historians and even mentioned by Major. Brown in his book.

Am actually not so sure now how Shias feel after lots of attacks targetting. But Shia in our Kashmir are already feeling the heat. They are targetted here more than in Indian mainland. Even Shia related processions are banned in Kashmir. Many of the police officers of Kashmir are Shia. Not to forget how the Kargil Kashmiris hate the Pakistanis. Or the Rural Kashmiri population who had bore the brunt of Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the 1990's. If Kashmir gets independence it will become an mirror image of Taliban, particularly how the Sunnis banning the girls from going to school, stopping them from Band music, and now 2 wheelers. This future awaits them.

The thing is, we all know, like how all Muslims say, after terrorists attacks, that only minor hardcore voices get heard, and how the silent majority voices get ignored. Same here. Srinagar isnt Kashmir. Rest of Kashmir is doing well.

Pakistan does not intend to provide Independence to Kashmir. Its all hogwash and we all know it.

 

[M. Sarmad]

In 1947, Pakistani forces invaded Kashmir in Operation GULMARG under Brig Akbar Khan in spite of the Stand Still Agreement signed with the Maharaja of J&K, resulting in blatant aggression and capture and illegal occupation of what is now P0K and GB. Had this invasion by Pakistan not happened this festering dispute would not have existed.

Having said that, this portion is the most important aspect of the UN Resolution (which the Pakistanis put a spin to and interpret it to suit their clichéd script):

The main issue is....

The Security Council resolution envisaged the evacuation of the occupation forces from the occupied territories before the bulk of the Indian forces would begin to withdraw. The restoration of the administrative control of the occupied territories to the State Government was a precedent condition for the induction of the United Nations Plebiscite Administration into the State.

The claim, that the bulk of Indian forces were to commence evacuation when the occupation forces were nearing the completion of their evacuation, virtually suggesting that the evacuation of the occupation forces was proposed to be concurrent, is a gross distortion of facts. The United Nations documents and the Indian correspondence in regard to them are unambiguous and clear, leaving no room for such misinterpretation.


Now try telling the Pakistanis that and they will try and obfuscate the issue by bringing in all sorts of interpretations as well as the recommendations of the so called Dixon Plan which not only India, but Pakistan too rejected as the latter wanted a plebiscite not in P0K and GB but in half of Jammu, all of Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley only! And that obviously was not acceptable to India! That was like having the cake and eating it too!

My Friend, we know the Indian position on the Kashmir Dispute, and we know what allegations have been made against Pakistan by India. But what you should know (and understand) is that the Indian Position is not accepted by the UN.




A few quick facts:


. India itself took the dispute to the UN in Jan 1948 and filed a complaint against Pakistan accusing Pakistan of committing aggression against India.

. The UN, after hearing arguments brought forward by both sides, did NOT declare Pakistan an aggressor state

. The Security Council passed Resolutions that established self-determination as the governing principal for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

. Thus the Security Council explicitly and by implications, rejected India's claim that Kashmir is legally Indian territory

. Both parties accepted those resolutions and this endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan that a plebiscite would be held to decide the accession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan.

. India who had taken the dispute to the UN hoping that the UN would declare Pakistan an aggressor state and ask her to withdraw her forces from Kashmir ended up making the accession of the state of J&K to India invalid and incomplete (unless ratified by the people of the state in a plebiscite held under UN auspices)

. India had shot itself in the foot. Ever since then, India has been trying to "undo" its mistake. But the International Law won't let India do that.




As for the Indian claim that "Plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw it's forces", this Indian claim, just like many other Indian claims, is not accepted by anyone outside India.


Sir Owen Dixon, the UN appointed official mediator, reported to the Security Council that,

"In the end, I became convinced that India`s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation, and other forms of abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled." (Para 52 of Document S/1971)


The London Economist stated that "the whole world can see that India, which claims the support of this majority [the Kashmiri people]...has been obstructing a holding of an internationally supervised plebiscite. From this the world opinion can only conclude that India really has no confidence that the vote would go in its favour" The Economist (London), Feb 18, 1950



Sir Owen Dixon was the UN appointed official mediator, he blamed India for halting the process. But the Indians say that he was biased against India. This, however is not true.Sir Owen Dixon didn't view many of Pakistan's actions in Kashmir as legally justified. And it was not him only. As per UN Resolution of August 13, 1948, India agreed to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission. But that agreement was never reached and that was what halted the process. And therefore the commission didn't ask Pakistan to withdraw its forces. Pakistan agreed to the UN proposals on demilitarization. But India rejected them.


From 1949 to 1952 eleven proposals were made which India rejected. Pakistan was even prepared to pull out its troops in favor of the UN troops irrespective of the Indian reaction to such a proposal and told the UN that it made no conditions. And you still expect the UN to blame Pakistan and not India ??

 

[scorpionx]

The stand taken by the British and their allies in the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in the debate on Tibetan complaint against the Chinese aggression delivered a severe blow to the outlook of the Indian leaders about Asian solidarity. Nehru ducked for some time under the shield of Panchsheel. But he learnt a bitter lesson when the Chinese repudiated the McMahon Line. In the post Cold War balance of World power, India cannot go the way A. G Noorani apparently suggests. All demands for separate freedom, for whoever they are made, conflict with the unity of India.

@Joe Shearer

The context was this. Teng, being unnecessarily harsh on Noorani's suggestion which is not a separate freedom but a greater autonomy under Indian sovereignty quickly jumps to conclusion that India's own stand on the accession 'provisional until such time as the will of the people of the state could be ascertained' holds no obligation today. And he is justifying this with what the Chinese did in '62.

Though the Chinese viewed the McMohan Line as a legacy of British Imperialism, Isn't Teng is being intellectually dishonest in completely ignoring the events between Panchasheel and 1962 war and justifying India's accession (by Chinese aggression) of Kashmir without care much for the provisions it attached itself with the accession paper?

Teng has chosen to conveniently bypass the suggestions Chou made in a series of letters in Sept-Oct '59, 'an intriguing suggestion which, stripped of its diplomatic code, read 'you keep your (possibly fraudulently acquired) territory in the East, while we shall keep our (possibly fraudulently acquired)territory in the West'. [Ram Chandra Guha] which was outright rejected by Nehru and all hopes for a peaceful settlement vanished. Isn't he overlooking the fact that in the so called 'post cold war balance of power', India lost a chance of peaceful settlement with unwise obstinacy and arrogance of its own misplaced over confidence?

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer

The context was this. Teng, being unnecessarily harsh on Noorani's suggestion which is not a separate freedom but a greater autonomy under Indian suzerainty quickly jumps to conclusion that India's own stand on the accession 'provisional until such time as the will of the people of the state could be ascertained' holds no obligation today. And he is justifying this with what the Chinese did in '62.

Though the Chinese viewed the McMohan Line as a legacy of British Imperialism, Isn't Teng is being intellectually dishonest in completely ignoring the events between Panchasheel and 1962 war and justifying India's accession (by Chinese aggression) of Kashmir without care much for the provisions it attached itself with the accession paper?

Teng has chosen to conveniently bypass the suggestions Chou made in a series of letters in Sept-Oct '59, 'an intriguing suggestion which, stripped of its diplomatic code, read 'you keep your (possibly fraudulently acquired) territory in the East, while we shall keep our (possibly fraudulently acquired)territory in the West'. [Ram Chandra Guha] which was outright rejected by Nehru and all hopes for a peaceful settlement vanished. Isn't he overlooking the fact that in the so called 'post cold war balance of power', India lost a chance of peaceful settlement with unwise obstinacy and arrogance of its own misplaced over confidence?

You need to explain this further. My preliminary thoughts, not to be held as written in stone, but as preliminaries to a discussion:

Teng, being unnecessarily harsh on Noorani's suggestion which is not a separate freedom but a greater autonomy under Indian suzerainty quickly jumps to conclusion that India's own stand on the accession 'provisional until such time as the will of the people of the state could be ascertained' holds no obligation today.

Two separate issues, two separate arguments.

I believe that Noorani is correct in saying that the clandestine introduction of amendments to the J&K Constitution are wholly irregular, and need to be rolled back, possibly with a clause-by-clause, statute-by-statute review by the J&K Assembly. Those that they wish to retain, and ratify, may stay. This is what I understand by Noorani's suggestion which is not a separate freedom but a greater autonomy under Indian suzerainty.

As for his seeming conclusion that India's own stand on the accession 'provisional until such time as the will of the people of the state could be ascertained' holds no obligation today, tell me, why is he saying so?

Let us take this one step at a time.

 

[scorpionx]

You need to explain this further. My preliminary thoughts, not to be held as written in stone, but as preliminaries to a discussion:

Teng, being unnecessarily harsh on Noorani's suggestion which is not a separate freedom but a greater autonomy under Indian suzerainty quickly jumps to conclusion that India's own stand on the accession 'provisional until such time as the will of the people of the state could be ascertained' holds no obligation today.

Two separate issues, two separate arguments.

I believe that Noorani is correct in saying that the clandestine introduction of amendments to the J&K Constitution are wholly irregular, and need to be rolled back, possibly with a clause-by-clause, statute-by-statute review by the J&K Assembly. Those that they wish to retain, and ratify, may stay. This is what I understand by Noorani's suggestion which is not a separate freedom but a greater autonomy under Indian suzerainty.

As for his seeming conclusion that India's own stand on the accession 'provisional until such time as the will of the people of the state could be ascertained' holds no obligation today, tell me, why is he saying so?

Let us take this one step at a time.

Same reason that made Nehru retract from his own words. Kashmir falls like a 'ripe fruit' into the lap of Pakistan if it is held.

 

[VCheng]

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...rdened-anti-india-sentiment-pakistan-reviving

Kashmir
Reviving the cause
Turmoil in Kashmir has reopened an old wound and hardened anti-India sentiment in Pakistan

IT HAS been a dispiriting decade for those who dream of Pakistan taking full control of Kashmir, the Himalayan former kingdom that India claims for itself. Pakistan-based activists have long feared Islamabad’s heart is no longer in their cause. Some feel the big political parties are more interested in accepting the status quo of a divided Kashmir and focusing on trade. The Pakistani army, battling domestic extremists, is unwilling to reprise the 1990s, when it helped arm and train jihadists in Indian Kashmir (though it has refused Indian demands to crush them entirely).

But violence in Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, is now fanning separatists’ hopes for a revival of their cause. It was triggered by the killing last month by Indian security forces of Burhan Wani, a popular commander of Hizbul Mujahideen, an insurgent group Delhi appears determined to shut down. People in the Kashmir valley, on the Indian-controlled side, defied curfews to turn out for his funeral. Through skilful use of social media the 22-year-old Mr Wani had become especially popular with a younger generation resentful of Indian rule.

Pakistani pundits have dwelt on India’s efforts to reinstate order and the deaths of more than 50 civilians since Mr Wani was killed on July 8th. Islamist organisations such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa (which the UN lists as a terrorist front group) descended on Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, to stage a protest against India.

The dispute over Kashmir began at the partition of British India in 1947, when the last maharajah of Kashmir dithered over which country to join. He chose India but only after Pakistan, which viewed a contiguous Muslim-majority area as a natural part of its territory, had sent tribal insurgents who grabbed half the land. Both countries still lay claim to the half of Kashmir they do not control.

According to Parvez Ahmed, a Pakistan-based leader of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a coalition of Kashmiri separatist groups, the recent unrest has transformed the debate within Pakistan. “No one is talking about trade or holding candles at the border any more,” he says—a mocking reference to vigils held by Pakistan’s peace lobby at Wagah, the only crossing point along the 2,900km (1,800 mile) border with India (see picture).

Before regional elections held on July 21st in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, candidates rushed to burnish their credentials as supporters of the separatist cause. At a victory rally the following day in the state capital, Muzaffarabad, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister, said that the country was “awaiting the day when Kashmir will become Pakistan”. Such rhetoric has further aggravated relations with India. These had already been damaged by an attack carried out in January on an Indian airbase at Pathankot, near the border, by jihadists India believes were directed by handlers in Pakistan.

India on August 9th summoned Pakistan’s high commissioner in New Delhi to protest at what it called continued infiltration of militants across the “Line of Control”, the demarcation in Kashmir that neither side recognises as a border. The move came days after India’s home minister, Rajnath Singh, at a regional conference in Islamabad, called for isolation of countries deemed to be supporters of “terrorism”.

Most mainstream Pakistani politicians privately accept that their country’s longstanding demand for a plebiscite that would allow Kashmiris on either side to decide their future, as called for in a UN resolution in 1948, will never be met. Support for cross-border violence fell considerably in the early 2000s when it became clear that the cost to Pakistan’s reputation was too high. Some fear that Indian Kashmiris might not even opt to join Pakistan if given the chance, so badly has Pakistan’s economy fallen behind India’s. They may be right: in Indian Kashmir the talk is usually of azadi—freedom—not of joining Pakistan.

Realists know that the only policy with a chance of success is something like a proposal in 2004 by Pervez Musharraf, a former military dictator. This involved no exchange of territory but freedom for Kashmiris to move between the two sides, demilitarisation and greater self-government for the region. But such a compromise would require warm relations with India. Mr Sharif would like nothing better. In December he hosted Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, on the first visit by an Indian premier in 12 years. If Mr Modi is to return, as he plans to in November for another regional summit, the issue of Kashmir will need to simmer down again.

From the print edition: Asia

 

[WAJsal]

can't help stating facts.

Far from it, your logic makes no sense and is blinded by nationalism. I was expecting better... Your logic is flawed in many ways and is completely nonsense, something i never bothered countering first time around. Sounded like a joke. Read the second part of this post carefully:

An argument against accession can only be made if we accept the formation of Pakistan as a nation as null and void.

So you question the very existence of Pakistan...? Hypothetically speaking say your flawed unrealistic argument is put into practicality(that is theoretically): so Baluchistan is not part of Pakistan it is an independent country, how would that stop East Pakistan and West Pakistan at the time of independence from being an independent state? Highly flawed logic. Correct or sensible thing to say would be that, 'An argument against accession can only be made if we accept the formation of Pakistan as a nation without Baluchistan as it's part.'
Second part of my post: Your logic cannot apply only to Pakistan, it is blinded by nationalism(which i can't blame you for); apply the same logic for India and check the case of princely states conquered by India(hy, what BS is this? something applies to us and it doesn't apply to India? maybe you forgot to mention.)

Last thing, what hypocracy is this? you accept the accession of Mahraja of Jammu and Kashmir and don't accept or apply the same logic in case of Junagadh. Now this is what i call sheer hypocrisy. I wonder how Indian members can even defend/justify this stupidity.

Please, before making such posts making huge claims just be a little careful. It sounds a bit crazy.
Something to cheer you...

GoI has made it the policy.

Desperation can lead to one taking stupid steps. Just loud talks and no real action(Policy? can't wait for it to be made official policy), still cannot counter us on basis on morals, nice try from Modi. Have to give it to him for trying.

Am actually not so sure now how Shias feel after lots of attacks targetting. But Shia in our Kashmir are already feeling the heat. They are targetted here more than in Indian mainland. Even Shia related processions are banned in Kashmir. Many of the police officers of Kashmir are Shia. Not to forget how the Kargil Kashmiris hate the Pakistanis. Or the Rural Kashmiri population who had bore the brunt of Pakistan sponsored terrorism in the 1990's. If Kashmir gets independence it will become an mirror image of Taliban, particularly how the Sunnis banning the girls from going to school, stopping them from Band music, and now 2 wheelers. This future awaits them.

The thing is, we all know, like how all Muslims say, after terrorists attacks, that only minor hardcore voices get heard, and how the silent majority voices get ignored. Same here. Srinagar isnt Kashmir. Rest of Kashmir is doing well.

Made up argument to please the Indian masses. Shias are more hardcore and share more sympathy towards Pakistan, as i said before this is a historic fact.

Pakistan does not intend to provide Independence to Kashmir. Its all hogwash and we all know it.

It's better than killing them.