The Kashmir Problem

[pChan]

What would be the reason to exclude rest of the territory which constituted the region that constituted the state before independence?

I suppose such a move will have to follow a acceptance of the existing actual line of control as the nations border by PRC, Pakistan and India.

I am not sure I am getting what you are saying. I don't believe Jammu & ladakh being with India would mean too much of a problem for pak. Border adjustments will be restricted to the valley. The rest of LOC should become the border.

[antimony]

See ... you are getting around to the idea ... now sing with me
"kumbaya .... "

Where's the campfire?

And do we really need to hold hands?

[ghatotkacha]

Where's the campfire?

And do we really need to hold hands?

Well since we are doing things differently on this thread ... so no campfire and no holding hands ... every man for himself

[pChan]

antimony & ghatotkacha reply

I see successful entities like EU, I see china doing business with taiwan & US and I can see clearly that Indian interest lies in shared prosperity with all nations of SA. Get over the notion that India can subdue Pak by force and achieve peace.

Dismissing the idea of compromise on kashmir as "outlandish" or "unworkable" is just a recipe for perpetual conflict. I see a derision for pakistan and a desire for her failure here. Its a nation deeply in trouble with a failed leadership with misplaced priorities and its people are paying the price yet its gdp still grows & all hope is not lost. The thing is by not coming to a resolution in Kashmir India is pulling a pakistan on its subjects. And the notion that India can be safe with a failed pak is just delusional (hint: more terrorism). You have nothing to offer except perpetual cold war-ish conflict or war/annihilation of a large number of people. As for the cold war atleast the west fought for something worth fighting for - freedom from communist slavery. Look at us we are fighting over a piece of territory and we don't even have a strong moral platform to stand on. And we all know what perpetual conflict means - more blood & more human suffering. Hey but in exchange we do have kashmir valley under compleeeetee control.

I throw canada & you throw tibet. I feel the root of the problem in south asia is subservience of human rights/value for human life to parochially defined territorial objectives of nation states. The siachen madness stands out in that regard. Yup dismiss me as a peacenik but to me all this is just common-sense.

The europeans learned to live together peacefully after the devastation of WWII, luckily for them the nuclear age had just begin at the end of the war. If it comes to war we may not be so lucky given the nature of south asian cities. After all that devastation we may probably see less smug comments in here & maybe the compromise suggested here won't look outlandish afterall.

I no longer have anything to discuss with you guys. I hope more south asians (or atleast the next generation) do come to see the folly of not reconciling.

End of Rant.

[antimony]

I see successful entities like EU, I see china doing business with taiwan & US and I can see clearly that Indian interest lies in shared prosperity with all nations of SA. Get over the notion that India can subdue Pak by force and achieve peace.

Dismissing the idea of compromise on kashmir as "outlandish" or "unworkable" is just a recipe for perpetual conflict. I see a derision for pakistan and a desire for her failure here. Its a nation deeply in trouble with a failed leadership with misplaced priorities and its people are paying the price yet its gdp still grows & all hope is not lost. The thing is by not coming to a resolution in Kashmir India is pulling a pakistan on its subjects. And the notion that India can be safe with a failed pak is just delusional (hint: more terrorism). You have nothing to offer except perpetual cold war-ish conflict or war/annihilation of a large number of people. As for the cold war atleast the west fought for something worth fighting for - freedom from communist slavery. Look at us we are fighting over a piece of territory and we don't even have a strong moral platform to stand on. And we all know what perpetual conflict means - more blood & more human suffering. Hey but in exchange we do have kashmir valley under compleeeetee control.

I throw canada & you throw tibet. I feel the root of the problem in south asia is subservience of human rights/value for human life to parochially defined territorial objectives of nation states. The siachen madness stands out in that regard. Yup dismiss me as a peacenik but to me all this is just common-sense.

The europeans learned to live together peacefully after the devastation of WWII, luckily for them the nuclear age had just begin at the end of the war. If it comes to war we may not be so lucky given the nature of south asian cities. After all that devastation we may probably see less smug comments in here & maybe the compromise suggested here won't look outlandish afterall.

I no longer have anything to discuss with you guys. I hope more south asians (or atleast the next generation) do come to see the folly of not reconciling.

End of Rant.

Can you define "You"? All through this thread you have tried to oppose ideas that Pakistan migth not accept and been trying to foist ones which would allow Pakistan to have a say in Indian territory (which is what Kashmir is). You have not addressed isues like terrorism, both in Kashmir and elsewhere in India and your concern is the "cost" of India holding onto kashmir. you propose a model that has not ben tried and tested elsewhere in living memory on a piece of land over which wars have been fought and you want us to "ignore specifics for the moment". And you accuse us of being smug?

And who told you that India wants a failed Pakistan? A really Democratic stable Pakistan would hopefully bi!ch about unfair tarriff rates (like US and Canada do, like EU nations used to do) instead about exporting terrorism. But do we have a really democratic Pakistan in the foreseeable future? I am sure you know how Pakistani politics is dominated by feudal and how they get their subjects to vote for them. However messy Indian politics might be, we at least have left that past aside.

And who said we do not have a strong moral platform to stand on? Kashmir is our land, period.

[calass]

I see successful entities like EU, I see china doing business with taiwan & US and I can see clearly that Indian interest lies in shared prosperity with all nations of SA. Get over the notion that India can subdue Pak by force and achieve peace.

Dismissing the idea of compromise on kashmir as "outlandish" or "unworkable" is just a recipe for perpetual conflict. I see a derision for pakistan and a desire for her failure here. Its a nation deeply in trouble with a failed leadership with misplaced priorities and its people are paying the price yet its gdp still grows & all hope is not lost. The thing is by not coming to a resolution in Kashmir India is pulling a pakistan on its subjects. And the notion that India can be safe with a failed pak is just delusional (hint: more terrorism). You have nothing to offer except perpetual cold war-ish conflict or war/annihilation of a large number of people. As for the cold war atleast the west fought for something worth fighting for - freedom from communist slavery. Look at us we are fighting over a piece of territory and we don't even have a strong moral platform to stand on. And we all know what perpetual conflict means - more blood & more human suffering. Hey but in exchange we do have kashmir valley under compleeeetee control.

I throw canada & you throw tibet. I feel the root of the problem in south asia is subservience of human rights/value for human life to parochially defined territorial objectives of nation states. The siachen madness stands out in that regard. Yup dismiss me as a peacenik but to me all this is just common-sense.

The europeans learned to live together peacefully after the devastation of WWII, luckily for them the nuclear age had just begin at the end of the war. If it comes to war we may not be so lucky given the nature of south asian cities. After all that devastation we may probably see less smug comments in here & maybe the compromise suggested here won't look outlandish afterall.

I no longer have anything to discuss with you guys. I hope more south asians (or atleast the next generation) do come to see the folly of not reconciling.

End of Rant.

Er...what actually does India gain by your scenario of giving up authority over Kashmir? Gain the gratitude of 5 million Kashmirs?..it is not enough.

India can keep this up forever.Pakistan can't and more importantly the Kashmirs can't.It is just a matter of time.

[ghatotkacha]

I see successful entities like EU, I see china doing business with taiwan & US and I can see clearly that Indian interest lies in shared prosperity with all nations of SA. Get over the notion that India can subdue Pak by force and achieve peace.

Dismissing the idea of compromise on kashmir as "outlandish" or "unworkable" is just a recipe for perpetual conflict. I see a derision for pakistan and a desire for her failure here. Its a nation deeply in trouble with a failed leadership with misplaced priorities and its people are paying the price yet its gdp still grows & all hope is not lost. The thing is by not coming to a resolution in Kashmir India is pulling a pakistan on its subjects. And the notion that India can be safe with a failed pak is just delusional (hint: more terrorism). You have nothing to offer except perpetual cold war-ish conflict or war/annihilation of a large number of people. As for the cold war atleast the west fought for something worth fighting for - freedom from communist slavery. Look at us we are fighting over a piece of territory and we don't even have a strong moral platform to stand on. And we all know what perpetual conflict means - more blood & more human suffering. Hey but in exchange we do have kashmir valley under compleeeetee control.

I throw canada & you throw tibet. I feel the root of the problem in south asia is subservience of human rights/value for human life to parochially defined territorial objectives of nation states. The siachen madness stands out in that regard. Yup dismiss me as a peacenik but to me all this is just common-sense.

The europeans learned to live together peacefully after the devastation of WWII, luckily for them the nuclear age had just begin at the end of the war. If it comes to war we may not be so lucky given the nature of south asian cities. After all that devastation we may probably see less smug comments in here & maybe the compromise suggested here won't look outlandish afterall.

I no longer have anything to discuss with you guys. I hope more south asians (or atleast the next generation) do come to see the folly of not reconciling.

End of Rant.

pChan ... there is a saying "common sense is not so common" so you may not have what you think you have ...

Pray do tell me .... why should India be even bothered about what Pakistan wants with Kashmir ...
peaceniks like you really live in la-la land and have idiotic fantasies about everyone getting along ... what makes you think Pakistan will stop at Kashmir .. when the stated aim of organisations like Pak Army, ISI and LeT is the balkanization of India why the hell would someone want peace with them. Guess you never heard of the policy of death by a thousand cuts ...

Do you know that the hatred for india has been so ingrained in the Pakistani society that the reason why public support swung against the Taliban is because the people were told that the Pakistani Taliban was a creation of India ... see this
Pakistan Looks at Swat and Sees India

Another thing .. please do not insult me by calling me "South Asian" (a term used by folks who are ashamed of their nationality) .. I am an Indian and would like to be identified as such ...

Now go .. its time for you to light candles at Wagah and sing kumbaya ...

[Guest]

You want to control this land just because the faith there。Is it a sad thing that distinguish between people of different faiths？

I am not saying that I want to control the land, because of the religion. I am just stating the fact that the northern areas are never pro-Pakistan, because the majority are shias. It will be easy to accommodate them in our union than the people of PoK.

[pChan]

Can you define "You"? All through this thread you have tried to oppose ideas that Pakistan migth not accept and been trying to foist ones which would allow Pakistan to have a say in Indian territory (which is what Kashmir is). You have not addressed isues like terrorism, both in Kashmir and elsewhere in India and your concern is the "cost" of India holding onto kashmir. you propose a model that has not ben tried and tested elsewhere in living memory on a piece of land over which wars have been fought and you want us to "ignore specifics for the moment". And you accuse us of being smug?

And who told you that India wants a failed Pakistan? A really Democratic stable Pakistan would hopefully bi!ch about unfair tarriff rates (like US and Canada do, like EU nations used to do) instead about exporting terrorism. But do we have a really democratic Pakistan in the foreseeable future? I am sure you know how Pakistani politics is dominated by feudal and how they get their subjects to vote for them. However messy Indian politics might be, we at least have left that past aside.

And who said we do not have a strong moral platform to stand on? Kashmir is our land, period.

My point is get over the territory mindset. Terrorism in India can at best be reduced by better internal security infrastructure. Even with peace you would still have nuts blowing up things but not having an entire state nuture these nuts will make a huge difference. Though thats not the primary reason behind this argument. India's enemy is poverty, religious polarization & host of others factors that are endemic to india. Compromise in kashmir will only help in mitigating the above two problems by fostering trade & lessening tensions.

Most of the comments here are against the very idea being suggested. When you are against the very idea of some sort of sovereignty dilution in that territory whats the point in discussing specifics that you so seem to crave.

I wonder how palatable this idea is to military folks in this board.

[667medic]

My point is get over the territory mindset. Terrorism in India can at best be reduced by better internal security infrastructure. Even with peace you would still have nuts blowing up things but not having an entire state nuture these nuts will make a huge difference. Though thats not the primary reason behind this argument. India's enemy is poverty, religious polarization & host of others factors that are endemic to india. Compromise in kashmir will only help in mitigating the above two problems by fostering trade & lessening tensions.

Most of the comments here are against the very idea being suggested. When you are against the very idea of some sort of sovereignty dilution in that territory whats the point in discussing specifics that you so seem to crave.

I wonder how palatable this idea is to military folks in this board.

You can stuff that idea of yours up your posterior end. All the issues like poverty, religious polarization etc have always been there in India even before the Kashmir insurgency and handing over Kashmir will not solve these problems. You want to solve the poverty, why don't you hold candles outside the home of Ministers and other "public servants", after all they are the ones who steal most of our money. Making peace with Pak is impossible, they need animosity with India to defend their existence. It's best to let them tear each other apart.
I would rather compromise and make peace with China afterall they are the hands which rock the cradle. In fact China is more pragmatic than it's client state....

[pChan]

All the issues like poverty, religious polarization etc have always been there in India even before the Kashmir insurgency and handing over Kashmir will not solve these problems.

No it won't solve all that but it does make life easier. Better economic integration is always correlated with lessening poverty. I disagree with the assessment that pakistan problem does not affect religious polarization in India. As always nothing will be "solved" but things should get better. And no nobody is handing over kashmir.

Making peace with Pak is impossible, they need animosity with India to defend their existence.

Why not do something at our end to help change that.

It's best to let them tear each other apart.
I would rather compromise and make peace with China afterall they are the hands which rock the cradle. In fact China is more pragmatic than it's client state....

Ok you talk about compromise with china. The fact is they don't want a compromise at this point of time. Once they achieve great power status they believe they can get a favorable settlement vis-a-vis india. And what would compromise mean? some territorial concessions I guess. Even after compromise china would still use pakistan as a counter to India. So I still don't see a chinese compromise as a game-changer but a compromise with pakistan is.

Sure china is more pragmatic than pakistan after all they still do business with us in-spite of border disputes.

[667medic]

No it won't solve all that but it does make life easier. Better economic integration is always correlated with lessening poverty. I disagree with the assessment that pakistan problem does not affect religious polarization in India. As always nothing will be "solved" but things should get better. And no nobody is handing over kashmir.


Why not do something at our end to help change that.


Sure china is more pragmatic than pakistan after all they still do business with us in-spite of border disputes.

Life would be easier if the Babus and politicians do their jobs instead of swindling our money, why not pray for this to happen instead of gifting Kashmir....

Ok you talk about compromise with china. The fact is they don't want a compromise at this point of time. Once they achieve great power status they believe they can get a favorable settlement vis-a-vis india. And what would compromise mean? some territorial concessions I guess. Even after compromise china would still use pakistan as a counter to India. So I still don't see a chinese compromise as a game-changer but a compromise with pakistan is.

Yeah sure and Pak would not pray truant after getting Kashmir on a platter, something which they couldn't get by fighting wars with India. Grow up kid....

[n21]

Just to add to the discussion, Pakistan wants Kashmir not because it a "Muslim majority" or some brotherhood etc.

It wants it for the simple reason that Indian part of Kashmir controls the follow of water in to Pakistan Punjab, the state which Pakistani Army is made of.

Basically Kashmir controls the food that goes into Pakistani mouth!

By the way if Kashmir should be made part of Pakistan just because it so called "Muslim land", why cant Indian Muslims claim it belongs to them? No?

Add to this what happens to the gun totting "freedom fighters" even if India decides to gift Kashmir to Pakistan? They will all go home and watch Baywatch?

[pChan]

Yeah sure and Pak would not pray truant after getting Kashmir on a platter, something which they couldn't get by fighting wars with India. Grow up kid....

I am not a kid. Don't equate disagreement with immaturity. There is a considerable exhaustion in pakistan regarding this conflict. Going by your logic the problem will be solved either if pak disintegrates or if it climbs down & agrees LOC as border.

Even with saner heads in islamabad conversion of LOC to border is a long shot. I see nothing wrong with India negotiating in a position of strength. Maybe not under present circumstances but I do believe some "climb down" from the existing position could solve this problem. Kashmir is not given on a platter it could be used as a bargaining chip to bring normalcy. A lot of stars have to align though.

[pChan]

Just to add to the discussion, Pakistan wants Kashmir not because it a "Muslim majority" or some brotherhood etc.

It wants it for the simple reason that Indian part of Kashmir controls the follow of water in to Pakistan Punjab, the state which Pakistani Army is made of.

Basically Kashmir controls the food that goes into Pakistani mouth!

So to summarize pakistan wants water security. A joint admin in the valley & on that basis a mechanism to ensure their water security could be looked at as an option.

By the way if Kashmir should be made part of Pakistan just because it so called "Muslim land", why cant Indian Muslims claim it belongs to them? No?

The joint admin solution means both nations have a say in kashmir. I think it addresses the issue you raise.

Add to this what happens to the gun totting "freedom fighters" even if India decides to gift Kashmir to Pakistan? They will all go home and watch Baywatch?

The jihadis will oppose any solution short of ascension of kashmir to pak. Its upto pakistan & India to see how they get around that. It will not work if both nations are not serious & I believe that pakistan needs to do significantly more to rein down the influence these elements have on its society ( do consider the fact that pak uses LET primarily as a strategic bet against india in kashmir). But thats what talks are for. I don't think its possible currently but atleast in the future.......