Page 1 of 16 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 228

Thread: The Kashmir Problem

  1. #1
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Jul 09
    Posts
    326

    The Kashmir Problem

    Kashmir issue remains a geo-political problem straddling south asia. I have a few pointers and queries regarding the issue. First I will lay out the context

    The people of Kashmir who are predominantly Muslim seem to dislike Indian rule (doesn't seem to apply to shite areas like kargil).
    nytimes article

    Kashmir wants peace.
    ramadan drummers

    OK now to the gist of my argument

    The potential solutions are
    1.Status quo (conversion of LOC to border)
    2.Kashmir ascension to Pakistan
    3.Joint administration of Kashmir by both India & pak
    4.Plebiscite (UN resolutions)

    Any solution would invariably need to consider the geo-strategic interest of both India & pakistan (& ideally kashmiri interest). Of the 4 options joint administration seems to be the best scenario. Pakistan cannot militarily wrest kashmir so negotiation is the only way to go - something India seems to avoid. The question is how much will India loose under this scenario. I have heard the following arguments against any dilution of Indian sovereignty over kashmir.

    1. Indian secularism will be undone
    * India is a nation of 150 million muslims and the loss of "complete control" over 5 million does not change that equation. However keeping a hostile population and limiting human rights doesn't seem to help either.

    2. It will lead to more demands for separatism and/or more people will be emboldened to rebel.
    * India already faces the worst possible security situation. Unlike an external stimulant like pak support in kashmir, the rest(insurgencies) will stay the way they are until socio-economic conditions responsible for their rise have been diminished or nullified.

    3. China may be emboldened in seeking joint admin in arunachal pradesh.
    * People of arunachal pradesh/tawang still seem to abhor the Chinese (due to Tibetan oppression??). I don't see the equation on that front changing.

    4.Kashmir is an "integral" part of india
    * This seems to define perception more than reality. Kashmir valley is (or can be) more or less seen as a geo-strategic territory in India.

    5.Pakistan can't be trusted.
    * India has to start somewhere now that the violence in kashmir is down this seems a heck of a time to do so.

    Advantages
    * Peace dividends like trade/lessened tensions.
    * I have read in this board that "the chinese will fight India to the last pakistani". That statement will hold less water with kashmir settled. (No offense to chinese/pakistanis here but still worth mentioning )
    * Better human rights for 5 million human beings
    * Easier life for NATO in Afghanistan in pashtun area??? (not sure about this one – too many external factors like PA/ISI)

    Sovereignty dilution
    The idea has been tried before in canada (plebiscite but still i see parallels). In forums I have read that india should do a tibet in kashmir well why not look at canada they are a much better example.

    Joint admin could start with a pilot experiment in Srinagar followed by the whole "vale of kashmir". Ladakh,jammu,NA may remain with their respective owners. I believe the problem is “will” not modalities of implementation or maybe I am wrong but you could correct me here.

    Joint admin will still leave Indian influence in the area (so kashmir is not "lost"). But my assumption is that the resolution will mean a establishment of a "trust" which will naturally lead to trade, co-operation between india & pak etc. “Trust” would also ensure a just water sharing agreement or honoring of existing agreements. Of course all this is just is fairy tale if there is no "imagination" in indian foreign policy or if generals in Rawalpindi look at the issue purely with a territorial/sovereignty angle.

    Pakistan
    Pak has probably more to gain than india as kashmir issue seems to have corrupted its polity more profoundly. For pakistanis/kashmiris I believe this resolution would be bitter but would it be bitter to the point that you would not even take it? After-all the cure seem to be worth it.

    cost of conflict to pakistan
    Net Pakistani Kashmir : - Hidden Cost of Kashmir Conflict

    So in the light of this what do Indian & pak members (especially military folks) in this board think. I have no link but I remember reading the kashmir resolution has good traction among Indian businessmen but not so much with Indian bureaucracy.

    The Bottomline
    Ultimately the purpose of nation states is to "serve" its people - any "geo-strategic" or "national" interests should be defined accordingly. The Indian govt is not “serving” the people right by expending so much energy in keeping Kashmir. Pakistan is ever more guiltier on this count and there seems to be an emotional element in its case apart from the "jugular vein" concept. I believe that "serving the people right" is achieved by policies of peace & reconciliation not rigid maximalist "national interests".

    I am from India, I pay taxes, have no military background/service & find it appalling that this conflict still festers. I used the Tibetan oppression thing in the post purely based on western news media articles. Please feel free to challenge any part of my assumptions/deductions/figures.

  2. #2
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Jul 09
    Posts
    326
    To the mods,

    I incorrectly posted this thread under defense topics. I believe it should be under "International politics". If possible please move this thread to that section.

    Thanks.

  3. #3
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jul 09
    Posts
    214
    Let me put it simply....India will NEVER willingly give up total control of Kashmir because...

    Whoever controls Kashmir controls the water sources.

    The best bet for India other than a natural death to the secessionist movement would be to remove the curbs on mainland Indians buying property and moving into Kashmir.In time the indigenous Kashmirs will be overwhelmed with numbers and that will be the end of the "Kashmir" problem.To study how it is to be done,just take a look north into Tibet and what the Chinese are doing there.This is a pretty cruel solution but geo politics is not always fair.
    Last edited by calass; 09 Sep 09, at 23:31.

  4. #4
    Regular ghatotkacha's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Oct 08
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    66
    Well as long as we are talking all options here ... you might want to add a 5th Option there ... complete accession of Kashmir to India (POK + part of Kashmir gifted by Pakistan to China) ...

  5. #5
    Liberté, Unité, Egalité Senior Contributor Tronic's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,976
    Quote Originally Posted by calass View Post
    The best bet for India other than a natural death to the secessionist movement would be to remove the curbs on mainland Indians buying property and moving into Kashmir.In time the indigenous Kashmirs will be overwhelmed with numbers and that will be the end of the "Kashmir" problem.To study how it is to be done,just take a look north into Tibet and what the Chinese are doing there.This is a pretty cruel solution but geo politics is not always fair.
    Why only North? Just across the LOC, the Pakistanis have done the same. In Pakistani Kashmir, the Mirpuri Punjabis already outnumber ethnic Kashmiris. Even today, ethnic Kashmiri leaders in Pakistani Kashmir want to secede from Pakistan and form an idependent state, but the Kashmiri movement has been totally hijacked by the Pakistani ISI and its puppet terror organizations who've transformed a largely secular ethnic-nationalist freedom struggle into a religious based pro-Pakistani movement. So yes, India needs to remove curbs, and allow Indians to settle in Kashmir; its blind ideological policies are doing no good.
    The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.

  6. #6
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Jul 09
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by calass View Post
    Let me put it simply....India will NEVER willingly give up total control of Kashmir because...
    The rewards of giving up "total control" seem to far outweigh the costs of keeping it.

    Quote Originally Posted by calass View Post
    Whoever controls Kashmir controls the water sources.
    Are you sure? The solution only gives joint adminstration to kashmir valley. Is that where major rivers orginate? . Water sources are already shared by Indus treaty. And international law clearly states riparian states have rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by calass View Post
    The best bet for India other than a natural death to the secessionist movement would be to remove the curbs on mainland Indians buying property and moving into Kashmir.In time the indigenous Kashmirs will be overwhelmed with numbers and that will be the end of the "Kashmir" problem.To study how it is to be done,just take a look north into Tibet and what the Chinese are doing there.This is a pretty cruel solution but geo politics is not always fair.
    Indians are not going to move into kashmir even if the govt promises the world to them. Unlike tibet there is an insurgency where even local kashmiri hindus are being targeted for elimination. The question is will YOU go and settle their. As long as terrorists/fighters with guns sneak into the valley even the poorest biharis won't. The terrain of kashmir is the problem it cannot be completely fenced though I am not sure how technology can change that. I haven't included any moral element to my arguments though I believe it should play a role (& suprisingly going by indian govt actions it does).

  7. #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    05 May 08
    Location
    Small place in front the keyboard
    Posts
    0
    PoK is already infected with the radical disease. It is best to let them keep it, otherwise the disease may spread to other part of Kashmir, even other part of India. I would like to take the northern areas, where the population is mostly shias and non-muslim communities and never pro-Pakistan. Thus, we can take away the land route between Pakistan and China and gain land to route to Afghanistan.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    I would like to take the northern areas, where the population is mostly shias and non-muslim communities and never pro-Pakistan.
    You want to control this land just because the faith there。Is it a sad thing that distinguish between people of different faiths?
    To study how it is to be done,just take a look north into Tibet and what the Chinese are doing there.This is a pretty cruel solution but geo politics is not always fair.
    I think what you want to say is XinJiang,not Tibet。Han people can not adapt to the climate in Tibet。Frankly speaking ,I don't think our National policy was a success in Xinjiang。So I do not propose Indian take the same action。

  9. #9
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jul 09
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    The rewards of giving up "total control" seem to far outweigh the costs of keeping it.
    What rewards?...India is prospering,Pakistan is imploding.Why change the status quo?

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post

    Are you sure? The solution only gives joint adminstration to kashmir valley. Is that where major rivers orginate? . Water sources are already shared by Indus treaty. And international law clearly states riparian states have rights.
    International treaties can be conveniently overlooked ..India is already building dams all over the place in Kashmir.In the end you need control of your water.Right now India holds all the choke points and she would be mad to give it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post

    Indians are not going to move into kashmir even if the govt promises the world to them. Unlike tibet there is an insurgency where even local kashmiri hindus are being targeted for elimination. The question is will YOU go and settle their. As long as terrorists/fighters with guns sneak into the valley even the poorest biharis won't. The terrain of kashmir is the problem it cannot be completely fenced though I am not sure how technology can change that. I haven't included any moral element to my arguments though I believe it should play a role (& suprisingly going by indian govt actions it does).

    People will surely migrate...start with gated communities,give money to people to move into kashmir,give them arms if necessary etc etc and overwhelm the local population with sheer numbers....anyway once the curbs on property ownerships are removed the change will come automatically and pretty quickly.

    Kashmiri Hindus had to run cos they were a minority and doomed to be one due to restrictions on other Hindus moving into the valley.
    Last edited by calass; 10 Sep 09, at 12:36.

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor kuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 08
    Location
    New Delhi, India, India
    Posts
    1,021
    Is this thread about the Kashmir valley region exclusively or does it include the whole Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir Or is the topic the entire erstwhile princely state?


    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ir_map.svg.png
    Last edited by kuku; 10 Sep 09, at 13:39.
    cheers

  11. #11
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Jul 04
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    302
    1. Indian secularism will be undone
    * India is a nation of 150 million muslims and the loss of "complete control" over 5 million does not change that equation.
    It does. A big change in fact. It will prove the extreme right wing argument that you cannot live peacefully with muslims. It will prove their argument that, the day the muslim minority becomes majority, you will need to secede a part of your country to the most proximate muslim nation and risk having the Hindu minority driven our of their homes at gun point.

    It will confirm our worst fears and it would change our secular character forever and god knows what next.

    In fact, a friend of mine told me once that when he asked a retired Indian army officer why we are still fighting for Kashmir instead of letting it loose, he said that he does not have any objection of granting freedom to Kashmir , as long as the whole Indian muslim population is moved out to Pakistan.

    And that exactly my friend, is what we don't want to happen.

    However keeping a hostile population and limiting human rights doesn't seem to help either.
    I dont know what gave you the idea that whole population is hostile. If you discount the hurriyat followers, the rest of them voted overwhelmingly in the last kashmir assembly elections. Can you explain that?
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,161
    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    Indians are not going to move into kashmir even if the govt promises the world to them. Unlike tibet there is an insurgency where even local kashmiri hindus are being targeted for elimination. The question is will YOU go and settle their. As long as terrorists/fighters with guns sneak into the valley even the poorest biharis won't. The terrain of kashmir is the problem it cannot be completely fenced though I am not sure how technology can change that. I haven't included any moral element to my arguments though I believe it should play a role (& suprisingly going by indian govt actions it does).
    Pfft, just do away with Article 370 and you will see what happens.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  13. #13
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Jul 04
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    302

    Fearing Taliban, Pak Hindus take Thar Express to India

    Fearing Taliban, Pak Hindus take Thar Express to India
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/n...ow/4992774.cms

    JAISALMER: In the past four years, some 5,000 Hindus
    may have crossed over from Pakistan, never to return. It has not been easy abandoning their
    homes, sometimes even their families, but they say they had no choice: they had to flee the Taliban.

    It started as a trickle in 2006, the year the Thar Express was flagged off. The weekly train starts from Karachi, enters India at Munabao, a border town in Barmer, and runs up to Jodhpur. In the first year, 392 Hindus crossed over.

    This grew to 880 in 2007. The next year, the number was 1,240, and this year, till August, over 1,000 have crossed over. They just keep extending their visas and hope to become Indian citizens.

    Incidentally, these are official figures. Sources say there are many more who cross over and melt in the local milieu. And officials have a soft corner for these people, most of whom have harrowing stories to tell.

    Ranaram, who used to live in the Rahimyar district of Pakistan’s Punjab, says he fell prey to the Taliban. His wife was kidnapped, raped and forcibly converted to Islam. His two daughters were also forcibly converted. Ranaram, too, had to accept Islam for fear of his life. He thought it best to flee with his two daughters; his wife was untraceable.

    Dungaram, another migrant, says atrocities against Hindus in Pakistan have increased in the past two years after the ouster of Musharraf. "We won't get permanent jobs unless we convert to Islam."


    Hindu Singh Sodha, president of Seemant Lok Sangathan, a group working for the refugees in Barmer and Jaisalmer, says there's unfortunately no proper refugee policy in India even though people from Pakistan reach here in large numbers.

    He said in 2004-05, over 135 families were given Indian citizenship but the rest are still living illegally in the country and are often tortured by police because they don't have proper citizenship certificates. "In December 2008, over 200 Hindus were converted to Islam in Mirpur Khas town of Pakistan. But there are several others who want to stick to their religion but there’s no safety for them in Pakistan."

    Immigration officer at Munabao railway station, Hetudan Charan, says the arrival of Hindu migrants had suddenly increased as over 15 to 16 families were reaching India every week. “None of them admit they are to settle here but seeing their baggage, we easily understand,’’ he said.

    Ravi Kumar, who was Barmer collector till his transfer two days back, said the government in 2007 had given permanent citizenship to a few Pakistani immigrants.

    This is what happens if nations are created on the basis of religion/faith.
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

  14. #14
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Jul 09
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by kuku View Post
    Is this thread about the Kashmir valley region exclusively or does it include the whole Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir Or is the topic the entire erstwhile princely state?
    Only the kashmir valley not the rest of J&K (like Ladakh or Jammu).

  15. #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Jul 09
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer View Post
    I dont know what gave you the idea that whole population is hostile. If you discount the hurriyat followers, the rest of them voted overwhelmingly in the last kashmir assembly elections. Can you explain that?
    Kashmir elections analysis - nytimes

    But the fact that Kashmiris are turning out to vote does not mean that they have embraced Indian rule, as weeks of massive demonstrations this summer amply demonstrated. They continue to chafe under the restrictions of the Indian security forces, whose record on human rights in Kashmir has come under international criticism for years. Kashmiris are voting to demand ordinary things: roads, electricity, jobs. “The main problem here is unemployment,” Shafqat Shabir, 18, a first-time voter in the nearest town, Bandipur, said last month on the day he cast his ballot.
    Turnout was high only in state assembly elections - not in lok sabha (federal) elections. I don't deem the entire populace as hostile to India but a majority of them seem to dislike Indian forces in Kashmir.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •