World Agenda: Kashmir - the elephant in the room

[blain2]

Wow - what a way to turn the issue on its head.

The reason for the terrorism in Kashmir isn't the fact that its a part of India, its the other way around - the sponsorship of terror and extremism by Pakistan is what created the problem in the first place.

The solution to Kashmir isn't to give in to the demands of these terrorists, which does nothing but help perpetuate their ideology, but a responsible attitude by Pakistan proactively dismantling the terror infrastructure.

By squarely putting the blame on India and failing to implicate Pakistan for its unethical attempts to engineer social and political change in the region since 1989 (edit: 1947), the writer has lost all his credibility.

He is not squarely blaming India, rather bringing to fore a point that is missed by most, which is that India has also played a part in letting this dispute fester. While Pakistan gets bashed for supporting the right of self-determination of Kashmiris, its about time that India also took responsibility and realized that prior to all the terrorism that you guys speak about, there was still a big Kashmir problem over which 2 wars had already been fought.

As far as you going after the author, it would make sense for you to realize that as much as you and your government want to internalize this issue, it cannot stay that way. When the two protagonists have been unable to resolve this issue on their own, it does make sense to get others involved as others also have a stake in the peace and stability of the region.

The problem for the Indians is that they want to have their cake and eat it too, well that won't happen. Pakistan would be fine with a negotiated settlement of the issue, however currently India is riding a high horse from on top of which, even considering a negotiated settlement is unbecoming of an emerging major power, thus the ill-conceived way forward is try to dominate and force her way upon all including Pakistan.

 

[UnitedPak]

...

So there is no place for a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir if Pakistan happens to "gain" something?
Once again, Kashmiris dont even make it into your equations. Neither does UN or their resolutions.
Your claims of human rights and democracy in Kashmir are so out of sync with reality that I don't even need to point it out. You probably couldn't say it with a straight face anyway.

Also please stop questioning Pakistans concern for the Kashmiri people. You are only embarrassing yourself by voicing India's perception of them.

 

[blain2]

Nothing ironic about it. Pakistan has little to lose, and a lot to gain by 'solving' the dispute, whereas India has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Pakistan has realized, after several attempts, that it cannot wrest Kashmir by force - so the next best thing is to internationalize the issue and try to convince the world that the only solution to terrorism is to give into their demands.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. What did you do for 40 years before militancy even started in IoK? Who was holding India from negotiating over Kashmir prior to that? The fact that GoI did not seize the initiative when things were much more calm and peaceful is the fault of the Indian government.

Militancy started because of Indian obstinacy. Now you folks are all about putting a terrorism spin on this to garner international sympathy to further your goals to keep the issue internalized. The core of the problem is the Muslim majority and the UN resolution allowing them the right of self-determination. Terrorism etc., is a reaction to the dilly dallying by India.

Your argument is pretty self-defeating. As an example, if the British were to hold the same "No negotiations in the face of Terrorism" argument against the IRA, nothing would have ever become of the peace that now prevails. IRA took up arms after British refused to talk. Eventually they realized that their occupation was fueling the IRA militancy, they talked and worked out the peace that we see now.

 

[Flintlock]

This has nothing to do with terrorism. What did you do for 40 years before militancy even started in IoK? Who was holding India from negotiating over Kashmir prior to that? The fact that GoI did not seize the initiative when things were much more calm and peaceful is the fault of the Indian government.

There were no major problems win Kashmir before Pakistan decided to created the problem by supporting the Islamists.
Also, its wrong to solely blame India for not negotiating on kashmir. Pakistan too was equally unwilling to give up its part.

Militancy started because of Indian obstinacy. Now you folks are all about putting a terrorism spin on this to garner international sympathy to further your goals to keep the issue internalized. The core of the problem is the Muslim majority and the UN resolution allowing them the right of self-determination. Terrorism etc., is a reaction to the dilly dallying by India.

Militancy started because Pakistan's inability to accept that a muslim majority region could be a part of secular India. They saw it as a slap in the face of Pakistan's ideology, and hence could not accept it.

As far as the UN resolution is concerned, it was an act of desperation, and a mistake by Nehru. I don't believe that Kashmiris have a some special right to "self determination" that the remaining 1 billion Indians don't.

Your argument is pretty self-defeating. As an example, if the British were to hold the same "No negotiations in the face of Terrorism" argument against the IRA, nothing would have ever become of the peace that now prevails. IRA took up arms after British refused to talk. Eventually they realized that their occupation was fueling the IRA militancy, they talked and worked out the peace that we see now.

What they have as a result is not one country, but several different small ones.
I don't believe that the way forward for India is to divide itself into a number of tiny countries. It would not bode well for the future of our people.

UK is in a different position as far as its history is concerned. Perhaps it doesn't see the need to keep itself united any longer. That certainly isn't the case with India.

 

[UnitedPak]

Militancy started because Pakistan's inability to accept that a muslim majority region could be a part of secular India. They saw it as a slap in the face of Pakistan's ideology, and hence could not accept it.

As far as the UN resolution is concerned, it was an act of desperation, and a mistake by Nehru. I don't believe that Kashmiris have a some special right to "self determination" that the remaining 1 billion Indians don't.

Here is a passage you should consider informing yourself with.

Princely states enjoyed three options: accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or independence. But the choice, according to India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and tacitly endorsed by the British, was to be made by popular referendum in cases where the creed of the ruler varied from the religion of the majority. That fundamental democratic principle had been sternly applied by Nehru with military means in Hyderabad and Junagadh where the rulers were Muslim but their inhabitants largely Hindu. Kashmir presented a converse case: the Maharaja was Hindu but the majority subscribed to Islam.

On November 2, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru reiterated, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given and the Maharaja supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it."

Nehru's same policies in Junagadh and Hyderabad obviously don't receive any criticism from you.
What kind of double standards do you notice here?

 

[blain2]

There were no major problems win Kashmir before Pakistan decided to created the problem by supporting the Islamists.
Also, its wrong to solely blame India for not negotiating on kashmir. Pakistan too was equally unwilling to give up its part.



Militancy started because Pakistan's inability to accept that a muslim majority region could be a part of secular India. They saw it as a slap in the face of Pakistan's ideology, and hence could not accept it.

As far as the UN resolution is concerned, it was an act of desperation, and a mistake by Nehru. I don't believe that Kashmiris have a some special right to "self determination" that the remaining 1 billion Indians don't.



What they have as a result is not one country, but several different small ones.
I don't believe that the way forward for India is to divide itself into a number of tiny countries. It would not bode well for the future of our people.

UK is in a different position as far as its history is concerned. Perhaps it doesn't see the need to keep itself united any longer. That certainly isn't the case with India.

Flint,

You can blame all of your problems on Pakistan, but the reality is that most Kashmiri Muslims do not want to live with India. Last year was one of the years when militancy related violence was the lowest ever seen since the Kashmiri uprising started in 87. However despite that, 50 or so people have been murdered by the Indian security forces. These people are those who have come out on the streets against the Indian rule and not the militants that you regularly complain about.

There is a festering problem in IoK which you folks think can be resolved by holding elections. Your success criteria is to show the world the number of people who participated. Well that is all fine and dandy as I too want my telephone line, my electricity and schools to be set up, as a result, I participate and elect people who I think will work for me, however the desire to have my own home, separate from the Indian union is still alive and kicking. It would be a grave mistake for people to think that since Kashmiris are participating in local politics within the ambit of Indian union, they are happy and fine. They are not. By sacrificing themselves in tens, they are still telling the GoI that they are no willing to live within the confines of the Indian union and constitution.

 

[RedBaron]

In today's complex world, nothing is black and white. It's mostly grey. India is touchy about Kashmir and does not like foreign interference. But India is not alone. China is touchy about Taiwan AND Tibet. Russia is touchy about South Ossetia, Chechnya, Dagestan, etc. Spain is touchy about Catalonia, Turkey and Iraq about the Kurdish-dominant areas.

Now as educated people, we all know that we should "recognize and respect aspirations of the people". Should the world intervene and try to settle each of these disputes to satisfy the aspirations of the people? Then why does this not happen?

The reason is most countries today practice "realpolitik". Realpolitik is the depiction of foreign policy that should be based on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles. Countries will put self-interest first and morals second. Now how does this relate to Kashmir?

The world knows that India is touchy about Kashmir. Yet every developed country has governments and companies that are eager to do more business in India. In this scenario it is highly unlikely anyone strongly raising their voice in favor of a plebiscite, least of all the Obama government. The US does not want yet another migraine in the region right now. Right or wrong, international opinion is still in India's favor and will be at least in the near future.

IMO GoI would do well to pump billions of rupees into infrastructure, industry and services projects in Kashmir Valley via the Omar Abdullah state govt so the Kashmiris feel they have a stake in India's development. Cross-border trade with Pakistani Kashmir via open borders, granting limited autonomy to Kashmiris, phased reduction of troops are other steps that will go a long way in winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiris.

 

[Flintlock]

^India is not 'touchy' about Kashmir for the heck of it - there are some very compelling reasons for that.

Oh and there is nothing immoral about self interest. What is good for India is good for 1 billion Indians - a fifth of the world's population.

 

[RedBaron]

^India is not 'touchy' about Kashmir for the heck of it - there are some very compelling reasons for that.

I absolutely agree...every country has self-interest at heart today. Why would it not be the case? India obviously has her reasons for being sensitive about Kashmir. Its a question of national integrity for her. What I disagree with is blaming Pakistan for everything that is going wrong in Kashmir. The state was neglected by successive central governments till matters came to a head in 1987 when GoI realized they were faced with an insurgency. Pakistan arming Kashmiri groups and re-routing Afghan mujahideen fuelled the violence, there is no question about that. However, Kashmir was far from a happy place before the insurgency started. The state governments were riddled with corruption and the majority community felt disenfranchised. Pakistan simply took advantage of the situation. If Kashmirs were a content lot, Pakistan could never have exploited the situation. Now with GoP's hands full with its own mess, GoI and Omar Abdullah have an excellent opportunity to win the people back.

 

[blain2]

In today's complex world, nothing is black and white. It's mostly grey. India is touchy about Kashmir and does not like foreign interference. But India is not alone. China is touchy about Taiwan AND Tibet. Russia is touchy about South Ossetia, Chechnya, Dagestan, etc. Spain is touchy about Catalonia, Turkey and Iraq about the Kurdish-dominant areas.

Now as educated people, we all know that we should "recognize and respect aspirations of the people". Should the world intervene and try to settle each of these disputes to satisfy the aspirations of the people? Then why does this not happen?

The reason is most countries today practice "realpolitik". Realpolitik is the depiction of foreign policy that should be based on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles. Countries will put self-interest first and morals second. Now how does this relate to Kashmir?

The world knows that India is touchy about Kashmir. Yet every developed country has governments and companies that are eager to do more business in India. In this scenario it is highly unlikely anyone strongly raising their voice in favor of a plebiscite, least of all the Obama government. The US does not want yet another migraine in the region right now. Right or wrong, international opinion is still in India's favor and will be at least in the near future.

IMO GoI would do well to pump billions of rupees into infrastructure, industry and services projects in Kashmir Valley via the Omar Abdullah state govt so the Kashmiris feel they have a stake in India's development. Cross-border trade with Pakistani Kashmir via open borders, granting limited autonomy to Kashmiris, phased reduction of troops are other steps that will go a long way in winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiris.

Billions of dollars in investment in India is one thing, winning the war in Afghanistan, bringing stability into South Asia and central Asia something entirely different. The fact that Pakistani and Indian turf war has shifted over to Afghanistan is becoming clear to everyone. For peace and stability in Afghanistan, Pakistani perceptions with regards to India have to be taken into considerations. This mistrust starts off with the Kashmir problem between the two countries.

All these issues are becoming inter-linked and as such you can no longer say that just because Proctor and Gamble or Boeing want to set shop in India, the US would turn a blind eye to the instability in Afghanistan or other causes (like Kashmir) that are disrupting the GWOT. Economic factors are important, however when you have troops committed indefinitely, then the powers to be (US) start looking at options which normally may not be considered. In this case I am referring to US looking to work with India and Pakistan to push for a more durable and acceptable arrangement in Kashmir.

I am ok with the contents of your last paragraph starting with "Cross-border trade with Pakistan..". I think that is a good way to pick up things where we last left them off. Hopefully with that going on, along with more serious talks on the overall resolution would be the way forward. In the end, I do not think that having a third party is a losing proposition for India. This approach may nudge both sides to show more flexibility than their current stated positions.

 

[Contrarian]

Flint,

You can blame all of your problems on Pakistan, but the reality is that most Kashmiri Muslims do not want to live with India. Last year was one of the years when militancy related violence was the lowest ever seen since the Kashmiri uprising started in 87. However despite that, 50 or so people have been murdered by the Indian security forces. These people are those who have come out on the streets against the Indian rule and not the militants that you regularly complain about.

There is a festering problem in IoK which you folks think can be resolved by holding elections. Your success criteria is to show the world the number of people who participated. Well that is all fine and dandy as I too want my telephone line, my electricity and schools to be set up, as a result, I participate and elect people who I think will work for me, however the desire to have my own home, separate from the Indian union is still alive and kicking. It would be a grave mistake for people to think that since Kashmiris are participating in local politics within the ambit of Indian union, they are happy and fine. They are not. By sacrificing themselves in tens, they are still telling the GoI that they are no willing to live within the confines of the Indian union and constitution.

There are many Kashmiri's who are willing to stay with Indian Union as well. They cannot be ignored, and they are in no small a number.

Providing good education and employement will solve the problem to a great extent. I believe it, and the GoI is realizing it, and things are moving in the right direction, earlier, GoI thought inaction was the best policy in Kashmir.
Separatists have indeed suffered a HUGE setback in Kashmir this time round. They all unanimously(something new) called for a boycott of the elections, and the Kashmiri populace defied them..The entire Hurriyat was working together and yet they could not stop the people from comming out in large numbers. And this was right after the land row, as you can imagine, emotions were running high, coupled with the boycott call, and YET no effect.

Should make you look at things in more than black and white, blain.

 

[blain2]

There are many Kashmiri's who are willing to stay with Indian Union as well. They cannot be ignored, and they are in no small a number.

Providing good education and employement will solve the problem to a great extent. I believe it, and the GoI is realizing it, and things are moving in the right direction, earlier, GoI thought inaction was the best policy in Kashmir.
Separatists have indeed suffered a HUGE setback in Kashmir this time round. They all unanimously(something new) called for a boycott of the elections, and the Kashmiri populace defied them..The entire Hurriyat was working together and yet they could not stop the people from comming out in large numbers. And this was right after the land row, as you can imagine, emotions were running high, coupled with the boycott call, and YET no effect.

Should make you look at things in more than black and white, blain.

Malay,

Excellent point with regards to others in Kashmir wanting to stay with the Indian union. This is all the more reason to let all of these folks go to a plebiscite. Alternately, Pakistan has made other offers where Jammu sticks with India and the Kashmir valley links up with the Pakistani Kashmir.

On the point about people ignoring Hurriyet, you have to realize that life has to go on. This problem has been going on for 60 plus years. People will not put their lives on hold because they foresee a resolution around the corner. I think you folks are over simplifying the problem by proposing economic incentives and education. The contemporary history is filled with example of separatist tendencies remaining for decades and not going away until the fundamental demand is met.

I think India will try to do her best to woo these people, but realistically it will not happen. At best you may be able to calm some of the people down, but in the long run this problem will remain.

 

[RedBaron]

...
All these issues are becoming inter-linked and as such you can no longer say that just because Proctor and Gamble or Boeing want to set shop in India, the US would turn a blind eye to the instability in Afghanistan or other causes (like Kashmir) that are disrupting the GWOT.

I guess by "disruption", you mean the PA redeployments caused by post-Mumbai threat of war with India? GoP will find it difficult to link Mumbai attacks to Kashmir. There is no evidence to suggest that the Mumbai attackers were Kashmiris, and the fact that they killed many Westerners does not help their cause, whatever it may be. Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

Economic factors are important, however when you have troops committed indefinitely, then the powers to be (US) start looking at options which normally may not be considered. In this case I am referring to US looking to work with India and Pakistan to push for a more durable and acceptable arrangement in Kashmir.

Sure US could send a special envoy for Kashmir. But what would he/she accomplish that India and Pakistan cannot? To be honest, when Musharraf was in power, a lot of progress was being made bilaterally. There was talk of porous borders for Kashmiris and Indian field commanders reported reduction in militant activity on the ground. Mumbai would not have occurred if Musharraf was in power as he had strong control of both military and executive branches of GoP.

But once Musharraf was out, a power vaccum was created that exists even today. It is this environment that enables these "non-state actors" to thrive.

 

[RedBaron]

Malay,

Excellent point with regards to others in Kashmir wanting to stay with the Indian union. This is all the more reason to let all of these folks go to a plebiscite. Alternately, Pakistan has made other offers where Jammu sticks with India and the Kashmir valley links up with the Pakistani Kashmir.

It's not just Jammu. Ladakh is a predominantly Buddhist region which would choose to stay with India. And given the turmoil in Pakistan, Kashmir valley could very well vote to stay independent. But I guess Pakistan would not accept that prospect, would it?

...
I think you folks are over simplifying the problem by proposing economic incentives and education. The contemporary history is filled with example of separatist tendencies remaining for decades and not going away until the fundamental demand is met.

It's not just economic incentives and education. It's a matter of Kashmiris deciding their destiny. People typically do that by electing representatives through democratic elections. This has now happened peacefully with a decent turnout. Good governance combined with economic incentives will yield positive results.

I think India will try to do her best to woo these people, but realistically it will not happen. At best you may be able to calm some of the people down, but in the long run this problem will remain.

Pakistan certainly hopes so, but India bets otherwise. The jury is still out on this one...

 

[blain2]

I guess by "disruption", you mean the PA redeployments caused by post-Mumbai threat of war with India? GoP will find it difficult to link Mumbai attacks to Kashmir. There is no evidence to suggest that the Mumbai attackers were Kashmiris, and the fact that they killed many Westerners does not help their cause, whatever it may be. Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

I think you misunderstood my point. The issue is much bigger than the Mumbai attacks. The US has been made aware by both Pakistan and India about the activities of the other side inside Afghanistan. There is a better understanding in the US DoD and State Dept about what is fueling the conflict inside of Afghanistan beyond the Taliban insurgency. This issue has direct linkages to the distrust between Pakistan and India with the root cause being the Kashmir conflict. The groups operating inside of Indian Kashmir and potentially inside of India are being driven by the Kashmir problem. Otherwise the agenda is not to see secular India being written off the face of the planet (as unlikely as that scenario is, I am just stating it to make the point that the groups operating against India are not doing it to destroy India, rather to liberate Kashmir).

Sure US could send a special envoy for Kashmir. But what would he/she accomplish that India and Pakistan cannot? To be honest, when Musharraf was in power, a lot of progress was being made bilaterally. There was talk of porous borders for Kashmiris and Indian field commanders reported reduction in militant activity on the ground. Mumbai would not have occurred if Musharraf was in power as he had strong control of both military and executive branches of GoP.

But once Musharraf was out, a power vaccum was created that exists even today. It is this environment that enables these "non-state actors" to thrive.

But Musharraf was stonewalled big time by the Indian side. Despite all of the progress on the CBMs, the Indian side essentially dragged the main issue. The Pakistani side came away with the realization that GoI wanted to talk about everything but Kashmir.

I think Pakistan and India can make peace, however after a certain point, both sides go back to their rigid positions and that is why there is a need for a third party to nudge them forward. Currently, GoI is not even open to that idea (I.E. having a third party interlocutor).