First, I admit to knowing very little about the reason India and Pakistan are fighting over this one city. The online search I did led me to information that there have been 3 wars fought over the city (in just 50 years?! yikes), that India won all of them… and there may be another soon.
So first, why? What is it about this city that both sides want so badly?
And second, my solution. Let the freaking citizens of Kashmere VOTE. Let the people who actually LIVE there determine, once and for all, if they want to be Indians, or Pakistanis.
We’re letting the Valley vote itself out of Los Angeles here on the West Coast, I think we can let these guys decide their own fate as well, eh?
As for your solution, well, actually based on UN resolutions, a similar type referendum was supposed to have taken place. IIRC, choosing between India or Pakistan (but there was no option 3 for independance).
Great! Exactly what I was looking for… but one question remains unanswered. I realize the area is mostly Muslim… but so what? Are they oppressed under Indian rule? Not being a smart ass here, I actually am trying to sort this out. I mean as long as the gov’t does its job, it shouldn’t matter, unless Muslims are being stripped of their religious rights.
Man, you’d think the rest of the world would catch on to this freedom of religion thing that has worked so well in other parts.
It is coincidence or cosmic convergence that the two people with the factual links are both linked to quacking aquatic fowl? Thank you both, I’m off to read! Or in your language… QUACK!
OK, I’ve just perused the links provided here, and what I still don’t understand…even after reading it…is, why does India care so much about it? I understand why they claim it’s rightfully theirs (their treaty with the Maharaja of that region in 1947), but what’s there for them that they want so badly to keep it? Pakistan wants it because most of the folks who live there are Muslim, but, assuming that Pakistan has no beef with India in the absence of a Kashmir dispute, why does India want it?
Actually, you might get different answers from other folks, but the above is my opinion.
India has always had a strong nationalist drive to “reunify” the subcontinent. Whether it be the forceful incorporation of the princely state of Hyderabad in central India ( a large entity - the largest of the autonomous states under British rule - that wished to remain independant as a monarchy after the British departure )
or the equally forceful appropriation of the Portuguese “colonies” of Goa, Daman, and Diu ( the walkover there resulted in a shake up of the Portuguese government ), India has had a strong historical attachement to the concept of a “Greater India” ( though I don’t think that term has been used much ).
When the British pulled out, the various ( and numerous ) autonomous princely states were given a choice of whether to become independant, or merge with either Pakistan or India. Most were too small to consider trying for independance, but a few weren’t. However India ( and Pakistan ) made it clear they weren’t about to accept any independant monarchies. Hyderabad, the largest, tried it and was squashed. The Maharajah of Kashmir wanted to and for awhile tried to so maneouver. But in the end India and Pakistan made it clear he wouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.
So India and Pakistan were both in compeitition for the territory, where both Hindus ( the Maharajah and the minority, centered around Poonch ) and Muslims ( the great majority ) lived. Once this unpleasantness broke out ( largely instigated by Pakistan IMO, though the Indian troops occuying Kashmir in the aftermath have not always been angels ), India further found itself in a philosophical bind. On one hand they perceived that their “fraternal enemy” was actively trying to acquire the territory by proxy. So they couldn’t be seen to be backing down on the issue. For another, India prides itself on its secular nature. To give in and say they cannot govern a largely Muslim territory would be a blow to that secular image and ( possibly not, but in a worse case scenario ) feed into separtist movements elsewhere in India ( such as the tribal disputes in Assam ) or start entirely new, religious based ones. Given there is already simmering issues, including religious unrest, elsewhere in India, it would be, from India’s point of view, a bad precedent.
Also, I hazard the (new) old chestnut “not giving in to terrorism” - that terrorists want the same thing as the majority of the Kashmir population now appears (in Vajpayee’s eyes) to have negated that goal. Unless it’s just a devious excuse…
