Kashmir

[rajkumar]

Admin,

I would like to start a seprate thread to discuss Kashmir with other forum members. I find myself disscusing Kashmir with other forum members in different threads. Please let me know if this is OK.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waqqas

Yes India did take Kashmir to the UN. Wrongly in my view. It was a bilateral matter then and it is a bilateral matter now. We never took the Indus water treaty to a third party so why Kashmir.

On a different point why should Kashmiris be consulted when people in other princely states were not given the option? Why should Kashmir be any different. As far as I recall the Princes were asked to choose India or Pakistan, some choose India some choose Pakistan. I don't recall people who lived in these states ever being given a choice. My own grandfather lived in a princely state and the King choose to take the state into the Indian Union and my grandfather was never consulted.

As it is Kashmir gets special status within the Indian Union. Article 370 of the Indian constitution prevents non Kashmiris from buying land or settling permanently within Kashmir. No other Indian state has this protection.

If India had wished we can or could have made Kashmir a hindu (I personally do not like to use the term hindu but I cannot think of something more appropriate at this time) majority state. My own home state has seen its population grow by 40 million in the last ten years. It would not take much for the GoI to acquire land in Kashmir tell Indian railways to put special trains for Kashmir and settle people from all over India in Kashmir. Do you seriously think that the culture of Kashmir would have been able to absorb this kind of shock? BTW the chinese have done exactly this in Tibet, they have flooded Tibet with Han Chinese and are at a point of destroying the tibetian culture.

India cannot settle people in Kasmir because of Article 370 and we cannot revoke Article 370 since the Indian supreme court will not allow the basic framework of the Indian Constitution to be changed. In if the change is passed by both houses of the Indian parliament. If you want I can dig out the cases which prove this point.

So India is struck with this situation.

The question then becomes were do we go from here. Do we become forward looking countries or do we constantly look in the rear view mirror and fight old wars?

In my view the situation is simple just turn LOC into a international border. Pakistan keeps what it has and we keep what we have and the Chinese keep the bits of Kashmir that they have.

[talhasyed]

When you talk about the wishes of the ruler, you utterly forget about the Nizam of Hyderabad. We know quite well how his views were respected. Muslims ruling over a Hindu majority. Pakistan doesn't do anyhting about it, because the people are Hindu. In Kashmir, you have the opposite situation. A Hindu ruling Muslims (mind you, a resistance guerilla war was already ongoing against him before 1947). You can't have it both ways, you know.

Secondly, when you proclaim the said Article as a good thing, it's like saying 'Hey, I pulled back the knife I put in your back 1 inch, shouldn't you be happy?'.

Remeber, the Kashmir issue has been disputed from the start. It was never settled to begin with. Thus, you cannot say that it is an internal Indian matter.

[rajkumar]

talhasyed

I think we should restrict our discussion to just Kashmir. The issue of Hyderabad raises questions about whether the Indian Union could have tolerated attacks on it by groups based in Hyderabad. Goa is again another issue, GoI asked Portugal to give up its colony and Portugal choose not to so we took military action to recover it. Sikkim is another case but in Sikkims case the people of Sikkim did vote to join the Indian Union.

By all means if you wish to talk about Hyderabad, Goa, Sikkim then we could start another thread.

I have never said that Kashmir is a internal Indian issue. All I said is that it is a Bilateral issue between the two of us. I don't want it both ways. Kashmir is a Bilateral issue and in my opinion it should stay as such.

You may have an issue with Article 370 but the fact that it exists and that it gives the Kashmiris more rights than any other group in the Indian union and GoI cannot remove Article 370.

You have still not answered my question about were we go from here? What is the solution given the fact that neither country for its own internal reasons can afford to give up a inch of ground in Kashmir.

[talhasyed]

The reason I mentioned Hyderabad is that it is inevitable in a discussion of Kashmir. The events that happened in Hyderabad have everything to do (in principle) with what the conflict in Kashmir is all about. However, if you so wish, I will not discuss it in this particular post.

I have never said that Kashmir is a internal Indian issue. All I said is that it is a Bilateral issue between the two of us. I don't want it both ways. Kashmir is a Bilateral issue and in my opinion it should stay as such.

Under ideal conditions, yes, it would be a bilateral issue. The porblem is, India refuses to duscuss Kashmir as anything but an internal issue. The reality of the matter is that Kashmir is in dispute.

If you ask a neutral person in the streets of say, Hawaai, about what should be done in Kashmir, he will certainly say 'Ask the people'. This is all Pakistan wants. India does not see things this way. Thus, the issue has to be bought to countires like the USA which can press forward dialouge about Kashmir in a way that recognizes the problem as non-internal. If other countries are not involved, India would never agree to a referendum.

You have still not answered my question about were we go from here? What is the solution given the fact that neither country for its own internal reasons can afford to give up a inch of ground in Kashmir.

The only thing that can be done, and should be done realistically speaking, is to ask the Kashmiris themsleves. Period.

[rajkumar]

talhasyed

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the involvement of the Kashmiris.

Having said that is there any other way in your opinion of moving this forward.

[talhasyed]

RajKumar,

Can you provide a list of reason as to why Kashmiris should not have a say in the matter?

Unless the crux of the problem is addressed, nothing can be done, and nothing can go forward.

There will be more freedom fighters/terrorists (depending on how you look at it), and more wars b/w India and Pakistan. The only way to solve this is to ask the Kashmiris about their future, and get past problem behind us. Only then will there be peace between India and Pakistan.

[rajkumar]

talhasyed

The reason that Kashmiris should not be asked because when the British granted independence to India, the 565
Princely states covering over two fifths of the sub-
continent with a population of 99 million, technically,
became sovereign states. The "Memorandum on States’ Treaties and Paramountcy" stated that the paramountcy which the Princely states had enjoyed with the British would lapse at independence. The ‘void’ created would have to be filled either by a federal relationship or by ‘particular political arrangements’ with the successor government or governments, whereby the states would accede to one or other dominion.

The Instrument of Accession was to be signed only by the ruling princes and there was no provision in it for referring the question of accession to the new independent states of India and Pakistan. The rulers of Bhawalpur and Khairpur acceded to Pakistan accordingly.

Maharaja Hari Singh of J&K hoped to stay out of both and to continue to wield power as an independent ruler. However on 26 October 1947, the Maharaja acceded to India and installed Abdullah as head of the state’s administration.

If as you say that the Kashmiris should be asked. Can I ask which Kashmiris? Those that are living there today or those that lived in Kashmir in on 26 Oct 1947? How would you then account for the fact that your Kashmir does not (as far as I know but I ccould be wrong) have the equivalent to our Article 370 and as such has been settled by people from other states in Pakistan whereas my Kashmir only has people who were born in Kashmir.

How do you propose to take into account the Kashmiri Pandits who were chased out of Kashmir valley in 1992?

How do you propose to take into account the areas of pre 1947 Kashmir which were sized by China from India in 1962 and those areas which were gifted to China by Pakistan. Should people living in these areas also have a voice/vote?

If as you want the Kashmiris to have a voice then what about the people of Bhawalpur and Khairpur whose rulers choose to accede to Pakistan? Should not these people also be asked now 54 years after the event.

I agree that Kashmir is central to Pakistan & India and the only viable solution is to turn the LoC into a international border.

I still fail to understand what the problem is about turning LoC into a International border. We both get to keep our respective bits of Kashmir.

[abdul]

Call me a pessimist..
But discussing who is right or wrong doesn't really matter..
The truth is that neither nation can afford to lose Kashmir...
Both nations have built their foundation (Pakistan perhaps more than India really) around Kashmir..
It doesn't matter whether India is secular or not... india needs a muslim majority state to prove to the outside world it is indeed secular...
Pakistan needs to prove that muslims cannot live in India..its that simple...
For india things are further complicated by the fact that there is a huge Muslim population in the rest of the country...Giving Kashmir independance would lead to a backlash against them whether or not they support independent or Pakistani Kashmir....
Something India cannot afford...making things even more difficult, unlike Pakistan, India has a politician at its helm...A politician that gives up Kashmir will never win an election again.....
Frankly Kashmir is going to remain a war zone until economics more than anything else, forces one side to concede...

[rajkumar]

abdul

I agree this is why I am pushing for the LoC to be changed to International Border and for both of us to get back to looking at problems which really matter.

[Gul Khan]

Indians claim to be the biggest democracy ( which is a load of horse s.h.i.t, Read India hollow democracy). How about referendum Canada/Quebec style??

[rajkumar]

Gul Khan [/i]

While I would like to debate the merits of Indian democracy I think we should leave that for a different thread.

I started this thread with a view to finding out if the problem of Kashmir has a solution or not. So far the signs are not good.

No one has come up with an answer to my solution of changing LoC to IB. I would like forum members to come up with logical argument as to why this is not a solution.

[H Khan]

rajkumar,

The fact remains it is Bharat's past conduct with different people and independent lands which under no circumstances cannot be ignored.

Bharat's past actions and words are its intentions for the future. Therefore, separating what Bharat has done in the past with Sikh, Hyderabad, Sikkim, Bhuan, Goa, East Pakistan, Kashmir, Junnaghadh, Gujrat, Assam, Maripur, etc are in fact all related i.e Akhund

[SyedA]

Mr Abdul

few questions for you, what exactly your background is, I mean where in pakistan. The email you have used doesn't exist, I had left you alone thinking you might change it later on. Also, I would rather have you use your work email here than some made up. You have till tomorrow before yo uget banned for good.

[SyedA]

Abdul

apparently you registered with: horn_buster@aggienet.com
Your current email is: horn_buster@perfectlyprivate.net

and your isp info shows as:
130.164.147.131 (client-147-131.natinst.com)
66.68.73.209 (cs666873-209.austin.rr.com)


rr.com is an isp so obviously that is your home account and natinst is a corporate domain so that is your work.

care to explain why so much secrecy!!!?

[Sultan]

Raj Kumar u pointed out the fact of not consulting the Kashmiri people. Well i have to disagree.

India being a "democratic state" has to consult the people over any future decision of Kashmir. This is the essence of democracy where the common man has a say in the decisions of the govt. including the Kashmiris!! India being a democratic state has to provide the right for self autonomy through holding a referendum. These are the core roots of democracy an India claiming to be the "biggest democracy" has to conform with the democratic processes and facilitate the requirements of all its citizens including the minoritites - Kashmiris. However none of these processes have been provided by the Indian state to the Kashmiri people and their right to self determination.

U then go on to talk about converting the LOC into an international border..... well this is pretty laughable seeing as how Indian policy makers still are very bitter about the fact that pre 1947 India was divided to create independent states i.e Pakistan. And yet u go on to talk about permanently dividing Kashmir along the LOC by converting the LOC into an international border. If Indian policy makers donot accept the creation and existence of sovereign states carved out of pre 1947 India then what makes u think that the Kashmiris will accept being split into two respectiv territories?? The fact of the matter is that the Kashmiri people want the right to self autonomy. The Kashmiri people have never regarded themselves to be Indian. They have no ethnic or religious roots to tie them to India and transforming the LOC to an international border will not stabilise the region an bring about peace. The Kashmiris want independence hence the 50 yr struggle that we are witnessing in Jammu and Kashmir. Bilateral peace talks will not work. The Kashmiris have to be involved in any future peace talks as this is their future we are negotiating. Furthermore, if India claiming to be a democracy has to start taking responsibility and act like one. India has to provide a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir under the supervision of the UN (e.g. E.Timor) and whatever the outcome India has to accept it and facilitate it.

[Saad Hasan]

"Maharaja Hari Singh of J&K hoped to stay out of both and to continue to wield power as an independent ruler. However on 26 October 1947, the Maharaja acceded to India and installed Abdullah as head of the state’s administration. "

Alister Lamb in his "Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy states that when the Indian troops started landing on the Srinagar airfield they found their compatriots in the form of Patiala regulars... Even the Maharaja in his memoirs says that when the first India troops started making their way it into the State, he had not signed the instrument of succession... Indians insisting that they only intervened in Kashmir based on the justification provided by a rather dubious instrument of accession is nothing but criminal. Fact of the matter is the hundred or so Dakota planes that were assembled on airfields in and around Dehli could not have been improvised overnight. It must have weeks of preparations and with all the blessings of British authorities under the auspicious of
Mountbatten. The bottom line is that India from the onset had every intention of invading and occuping Kashmir and current occupation is nothing but illegal...

My recollection of the events is a bit sketchy, but if you are a bit unclear on this, I could also quote excrepts from Lamb's book to support what I have state and also where he proves, that the crossing of Pathan tribesmen into Kashmir is pre-emptied by the landing of Indian troops into Kashmir, the date Lamb cites is Oct 27, and from your post the date indians land is Oct 22... So there goes another justification for the illegal invasion and occupation..

[Rauf]

IMHO, Rajkumar has a valid point that Kashmir issue needs to be settled, its a wishful thinking that world will get involved in this complex situation when nothing of economics for them is at stake. There is no oil/gas reserve there (period).

Now, I am not an expert on LOC, but if I remember correctly, there have been 3/4 since 1947. Which one should become LOC, and then the nagging Siachin Glacier, who would have control of it, will people on both side will agree to declare it a no men land?

In the past, the tourist use to ask permission from Gov't of Pak to visit this area, thus to international organization, this peace of land was under Pak control. Now a question to Rajkumar, will India vacate this land? If Pak agrees to one of the three LOCs that existed in Kashmir that is acceptable to India.

Does India recognize that LOC has changed since Kergil, there are peaks that now belong to Pak, is that acceptable to India, I don't think so. Then the awful question is that neither of 3/4 LOC will ever be acceptable to one side. Is India willing to make a sacrifice by agreeing into Pak LOC decision? The Gov't in Pak cannot survive if it agreed to Indian dictated LOC, and that is a given fact.

I would my self very much like to get this issue of Kashmir over with, so an NCAA type program could be started between Indian and Pak Colleges/Universities so Pop has something to enjoy, and a lot of money to be made.

Yes, I do agree that South Asia has a potential to become a Military and Economic power house that could dwarf Asia/Europe/America, that is a fear factor that is well recognized, and with vested interest why would anyone from outside want to see this issue solved , think about it.

Only the business minded people from both countries can exert pressure on the military/Gov't to persuade them to come to an agreement, since no one else would have more interest to get benefit out of this then them.

The next question is even more complicated, Pak will require its own ID, which is not associated as Sidekick of India or 2nd nation of Subcontinent, will India agree to this?

The scenario of Kashmir is much more complicated then recognizing LOC as Permanent border, there are other hordes of issue that need to be solved.

India wants to play the dominant power role in Asia, the question is does the rest of Asian/ME countries needs to be looked after, are they unable to handle their own issues that Indian power role is needed. This idea was rejected by most after Gulf war when USA presented this to Asia/ME countries.

My 2 coppers worth.

[Uzair]

Let Kashmir decide its own future

The west can help bring peace and justice to the troubled province

Roy Hattersley
Monday November 19, 2001
The Guardian

George Bush was right to say that the prosecution of the war against terrorism cannot be contingent on securing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East - though rejoice that Tony Blair added that, moral imperatives aside, there is no real chance of the war being won while the open wound of Palestine is allowed to fester.
But even if, over the next year or so, Israel's frontiers (as set out by United Nations resolutions) are guaranteed and the Palestinian state is established and recognised, the jihad will continue wherever Muslims believe that they are being suppressed and persecuted. History and geography combine to mean that, sooner or later, Kashmir will become the distant country that forces the west to take belated notice of its despair.

The history is simply described. When imperial India was partitioned after independence, Kashmir was left in limbo. There are a number of possible explanations for Lord Mountbatten's indecision. Clement Attlee was rightly pressing him to draw the borders of the new nation as quickly as possible. Kashmir's rivers - Thelum, Indus, Chenab and Tawi - irrigated both of the new nations that were to be created on August 15 1948. It may even be that Lady Mountbatten's close friendship with India's Pandit Nehru prevented predominately Muslim Kashmir from becoming part of the Islamic republic of Pakistan.

The plan and promise were to determine Kashmir's future by a UN-supervised plebiscite. Before that could happen the power vacuum was filled by Pakistan from the west and India from the south - Pakistan with the authority of an international mandate, India to suppress Pathans who were making trouble along the border. The two countries agreed, in the Simla agreement, to work out a permanent and peaceful solution. Nothing happened.

If the promised plebiscite were held, the votes would be split three ways. An insignificant minority would support the idea of an independent Kashmir - even though a separate state is not economically viable. About a quarter would opt for union with India. Almost three times as many would choose to join Pakistan - because, being Muslims they want to be members of the Islamic republic.

That is the reason politically sophisticated Indians - who deny that their government is motivated by the territorial imperative - say that the plebiscite should not be held. They do not want the sub-continent to be divided into a Hindu and a Muslim nation. India is a secular republic. To cede Kashmir to Pakistan would be getting dangerously close to accepting the religious division.

Perhaps. But whatever their reasons, most Kashmiris want to be governed from Islamabad. And 50 years ago they were told that they would be given the chance to choose. The denial of that right has resulted in sporadic revolt in what the Pakistanis call "occupied Pakistan" and brutal suppression of the uprisings by the Indian army. The refugees, unhappily camped in "free" Kashmir, tell stories of atrocities that are too spontaneous to be propaganda.

The attribution of racial characteristics is a dangerous habit. So I limit my comments about the Kashmiri personality to the experiences of people I know. Most are descendants of men who, given a few pounds when their land was flooded to build a dam, used the money to come to England and build new lives of industrious anonymity.

They are not, by nature, revolutionaries. But they tell me - with real apprehension - that militant Arabs and Pakistanis are beginning to infiltrate the communities from which they came. That is where geography becomes important. Look at the map of north India. Where do you think the pro-Taliban mojahedin will go when they are driven out of Afghanistan?

The one good thing to come out of the destruction of the World Trade Centre is the improved chances of justice for the Palestinians. And we must all admire the forbearance of President Pervez Musharraf - who knows how dependent the allies are on his good will - in not telling Bush and Blair that the future of Kashmir has to be added to the list of subjects that the great powers must examine when Osama bin Laden and co are satisfactorily dealt with. What better way to prove that the west is not at war with Islam?

Next week the prime minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is in London. I doubt if Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan will be so reticent about the need to provide the justice that helps to keep the peace. In politics, self-interest and morality do not always combine. Self-determination for Kashmir is an opportunity to follow both paths simultaneously. A plebiscite under the aegis of the UN would be consistent with the new world order of which the prime minister spoke at the Labour conference and he could insist, until it was held, on an end to the military brutality. The second demand would be valuable practice for what one day he must say to President Putin about Chechnya.

[Gul Khan]

Originally posted by rajkumar
Gul Khan [/i]

While I would like to debate the merits of Indian democracy I think we should leave that for a different thread.

I started this thread with a view to finding out if the problem of Kashmir has a solution or not. So far the signs are not good.

No one has come up with an answer to my solution of changing LoC to IB. I would like forum members to come up with logical argument as to why this is not a solution.

Yes its important to discuss Indian democracy because if India was a democracy then we would not have this problem today. Thats why I brought Canada/Quebec in the discussion.

Converting LoC into IB is out of the question don't even think about it. So far India has shifted its stand from Integral part of BahRAT to LoC is the border, trust me at this rate we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Waqqas]

rajkumar, I am not surprised at all with regard to your stand on Kashmir. I have realized that even rational and educated bhartis turn into deaf, dumb and blind bigoted fascists when speaking of Kashmir.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the wishes of the ruler of a state have to be respected or you listen to the people of the state. In Hyderabad, Junagadh, Kashmir and many other states Bharat used the "logic" of force and hypocricy. It is indeed shameful that anybody, even bhartis, can deny this and in fact defend their government's evil and unethical policies.

It is not for me to answer why your grandfather was not consulted with regard to the future of his state. I guess you will have to ask this question to your hypocritical government, which violated all laws concerning ethics, morals and decency while dealing with these issues after partition.

Below are a few tidbits frm the net. I don't expect any bhartis to be convinced by them because I have learned by now that there is no use arguing with somebody that denies reality. However, I hope other members of the forum will find these examples useful:



When the British relinquished their claims to paramountcy, the 562 independent princely states were given the option to join either of the two nations. A few princely states readily joined Pakistan, but the rest--except Hyderabad (the largest of the princely states with 132,000 square kilometers and a population of more than 14 million), Jammu and Kashmir (with 3 million inhabitants), and Junagadh (with a population of 545,000)--merged with India. India successfully annexed Hyderabad and Junagadh after "police actions" and promises of privileges to the rulers.

***

The nawab of Junagadh and the nizam of Hyderabad were both Muslims, though most of their subjects were Hindus, and both states were surrounded by India. Junagadh, however, faced
Pakistan on the Arabian Sea, and when its nawab followed Jinnah's lead in opting to join that Muslim nation, India's army moved in and took control of the territory.
Last Update: December 16, 2000


***

When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned in 1947, the Nizam elected to resume independent status rather than join India. On Nov. 29, 1947, he signed a standstill agreement with India to last one year, and Indian troops were withdrawn. Difficulties persisted, however; the Nizam continued his efforts to assert his autonomy; India insisted that Hyderabad join India; and the Nizam appealed to King George VI of Great Britain. On Sept. 13, 1948, Hyderabad was invaded by India, and within four days Hyderabad's accession to India was achieved. After a period of military and provisional civil government, a popular ministry and
legislature were set up in the state in March 1952.
www.onwar.com


********************************************


The Dispute: The Muslim Nawab of Junagadh, announced his decision, contrary to the wishes of his subjects who were predominantly Hindu, to accede to Pakistan. When Pakistan notified India that it had accepted the accession, India protested on the legal grounds that a Muslim ruler could not decide the accession of his state contrary to the expressed will of his Hindu subjects. Instead, India advocated the alternative rule, that the people of the princely states had the inherent right to express their preference for the country they wished to join. The Indian army subsequently entered Junagadh, and a referendum was held. As expected, the people of Junagadh overwhelmingly voted for India. India thereby established the principle that, in the case of a conflict between the people and the ruler of a princely state, the people, not the ruler, had the right to choose accession.

Using the Junagarh principle, the Indians invaded the State of Hyderabad (Deccan) on13 September 1948 and forced the 62 years old Muslim Ruler and his small ill-equipped Army to surrender.

The legal debate surrounding the question of accession acquired new complexity when the population of Jammu and Kashmir revolted against the Maharaja and asked for accession to Pakistan. The Kashmiri's appeal for help prompted Pathan Tribesmen to come to the aid of their Kashmiri brothers. Fearing the imminent fall of Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir, the Maharajah requested immediate assistance from India to counter the threat. India agreed to help but in return asked for the State’s accession to India. The Maharajah hesitated, but relenting under pressure, requested provisional accession. India accepted the request contrary to its previous position established on the Junagarh case, that the ruler had no legal standing to decide the question of accession in contravention to the people’s desire.

History is witness to the fact that India sent its forces into Kashmir before the Maharaja signed the accession document. An infantry battalion and a mountain battery of artillery from the Patiala Forces had been stationed in Jammu and Srinagar respectively, by the first week of October 1947, whereas the Maharaja signed the so-called Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. This fact nullifies the Indian claim that it sent its forces to protect Indian Territory from aggression. More Indian forces reached Srinagar on the morning of 27 October 1947. The Pakistan Army entered Kashmir in May 1948 to stop the Indian thrust aimed at occupying areas liberated by the peoples revolt against the Maharaja.

In accepting the accession of the Maharajah, Lord Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy and the First Governor General of India, referred to the ‘special circumstances’ and added that ‘as soon as law and order have been restored, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people’. Accordingly, Mountbatten maintained ‘that in the case of any state where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state’. These statements were avidly reinforced by India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who said, ’We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but also to the world. We will not and connot back out of it’.

In total perspective, India’s policies toward Junagadh, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir were legally and morally inconsistent. In Junagadh for example, the referendum for accession underscored the principle of restrictive self-determination. In Jammu and Kashmir, the Maharaja’s accession furnished India with a so-called legal basis to defend the State. In Hyderabad, where no official referendum was held and where the ruler did not accede, the forced accession to India brought about by military action, was presumed to have the tacit approval of the predominantly Hindu population. In each case of annexation there was a different rationale, but a similar goal, namely annexation of territory. The use of military force provided the only consistency in India’s policy


************************************

Here is Dr Alistair Lamb's account of what really happened in Kashmir:

http://indianterrorism.mybravenet.com/alistairlamb.htm

The Maharajah never signed any instrument of accession. It was all a fraud. And that is why Bharat has never shown the original copy of the document to the world!

*************************************

Finally, here are some of the pledges made by bharti leaders to the Kashmiris and indeed to the world that the Kashmiris will be allowed to determine the future of Kashmir through a fair plebiscite. We all know how much those promises are worth.....

http://indianterrorism.mybravenet.c...out_Kashmir.htm

[rajkumar]

Sultan,

India is a democratic state you may disagree but that’s fine with me. I need you to prove to me why you think India is not a democracy because from my day-to-day experience that is not the case. My neighbours and I have a vote and we do change our local, state and national governments from time to time. That’s a fair definition of democracy as far as I am concerned.

As far as consulting the people of Kashmir go my question still stands WHY? No state, which joined either India or Pakistan, was ever given this option. So why should it be given to Kashmir. What is so special about Kashmir that its people deserve to be treated differently?

Lets assume that the people of Kashmir are allowed to hold a referendum. Could you please then define who is a Kashmiri?

1. Is it the descendants of the people living in the state in 1947?
2. What about the people who were chased out of the valley in 1992?
3. What about people living in areas of Kashmir, which are occupied by China or were gifted to China by Pakistan?
4. What about the people who have migrated to the Pakistan part of Kashmir since your Kashmir does not enjoy the protection of our Article 370?

Saad Hasan,

I am not going to dispute the dates with you because I have read books, which quote different dates.

But can we deal with the ground realities, as they exist today? If we cannot then there is no solution.

Rauf,

Like you I am not an expert on the LoC. I recognise that LoC has moved and small parcels of land have changed hands over the past 50+ years. This is fine.

In order to move forward why don’t we establish a bilateral commission to fix the positions on the 1st of Jan 2001 and then both governments accept that as the LoC.

I agree with you because I don’t think the world is very interested. After all as far as the US is concerned its just two groups of sand niggers killing each other so no skin of the US nose.

Uzair,

I would discount Roy Hattersley since he is a MP from a consistency that I think has a large number of people from Pakistan.

IMHO can we keep this as a bilateral issue?



Gul Khan

I agree that India would be happy to settle for less than the whole of Kashmir. But I don’t think you should read that as a point of weakness.

Pakistan has tried for the last 50+ years to change the LoC witness Kargil. India has also changed the LoC witness Siachen. We have been slightly more successful but that’s a debatable point.

At this rate we are going to be here in the next millennium. Why don’t we fix the problem now?

Waqqas,

I hear what you say but can we move on? You keep what’s yours we keep what’s ours.


My Observation:

I don’t think people are serious about solving the Kashmir issue if this forum is any indication. As I have previously mentioned neither side can offered for internal political reason to compromise.

So were does this leave us. In my view there will be no “major” wars between Pakistan & India because the Pakistani WMD negates the Indian conventional superiority and the Indian WMD negates the Pakistani WMD. Thus we are left with a low-level insurgency conflict or “Kargil” type incursion.

This is fine for us because our birth rate and general increase in GDP more than replenishes any losses of men & material we may experience in Kashmir.

[fameen]

Raj Kumar,

This thread had the potential to lead to a useful discussion, but I'm afraid you started with the GOI's maximalist position. The LOC has always been on offer... from '48 onwards. It has never been acceptable to Pakistan. If you are serious about discussing this, I think you can at least climb down to what several Indian writers and journalists have been discussing... uniting Kashmir into one, free travel etc... with Indian and Pakistani sphere's of influence. It may or may not involve a referendum, but at least it spares the Kashmiris the armed partition to which they have been subjected by the Indian Army. So given your starting position, I would question your motives. It is also distressing to note your last post, where you appear to conclude, in a predictable BR like analysis that India is bigger than Pakistan and can sustain low level insurgency indefinitely. Maybe so, but in not addressing Kashmir, India is giving up its otherwise achievable objective of getting a seat at the Security Council and pulling its weight in international affairs, commensurate with its size. This is so because so long as you have a hostile Pakistan on your border, we will always serve to diminish you.

I must admit I fail to understand this phobia Indian hindus have about Muslims and their perceived "latent" power. Jinnah started as an ambassador for hindu-muslim unity and found himself forced, over the years, to successfully arguing a communalist cause. His experience was of bitter hindu intransigence as exemplified by Nehru and Patel. This translates itself into heavy handed behavious towards not only Pakistan, but also its other, even smaller, neighbours. Those who are secure in their power, need only whisper... those that are not secure, do the shouting. India can afford not to shout. So please consider the possibility that India is indeed doing substantial damage to its national interest by throwing its weight about with its smaller neighbours. Pakistan is not big enough to defeat India on the battlefield. But is not small enough to be defeated either. If it was, 1971 would have settled the issue.

If there are concessions to be made, they have to originate with India, the larger and more secure power. Based on that, Pakistanis may feel emboldened to reciprocate. But for any of this to happen, India's hindus have to begin to actually believe that they are strong, rather than vociferously stating it again and again, almost as if they are scared it is a mirage.

[rajkumar]

fameen


Thank you a very nice post. Just what I had been waiting for.

If you will allow me then I would like to take this opportunity to think about the issues you have raised and get back to you.

On a general point its always better to start negotiations with the maximalist position.

[Gul Khan]

Raj,

Converting LOC into IB is out of the question you must understand that. Now discuss what you want to discuss.

Its my understanding that only and only kashmiris will have to decide which way they want to go.

[Waqqas]

"You keep what’s yours we keep what’s ours. "

Spoken like a true follower of Chanakiya, rajkumar. So we should not care about the wrongs done to the Kashmiris and others by Bharat, but just accept it? I don't think so. And what is this talk of "yours" and "ours"? Maybe you did not get it so let me spell it out for you: The Kashmiris are a part of this conflict. You cannot ignore them. THEY are to decide through a fair plebiscite whether to join bharat or Pakistan. You cannot ignore them and talk of Kashmir as a commodity or a piece of land that you want to carve up with anybody.

"My Observation:
I don’t think people are serious about solving the Kashmir issue if this forum is any indication. "

Now that is an extremely ignorant and arrogant statement. You are basically saying that since we do not accept Bharat's Might is Right policies, we are not serious about this issue.

"This is fine for us because our birth rate and general increase in GDP more than replenishes any losses of men & material we may experience in Kashmir."

Don't count on keeping it going for too long in Kashmir. Look at what happened to Russia. The same will happen to Bharat within the next few years. BTW your statement also shows how much bhartis care for human life....

You have made it clear to all members of the forum that Bharat and bhartis are not bothered by ethical and moral dimensions of the Kashmir conflict. You bhartis only understand the language of violence and force. This ultimately will lead to the destruction of Bharat.

Also, you did not comment about the instrument of accession or about bharat's claim to J&K. Is it because you basically know your claim is bogus or is it due to arrogance because you hold most of the state by brute force and don't care to discuss it as such?