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.
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.
Comment