I’m starting this thread as a discussion rather than a debate. I haven’t heard very much discussion on the troubles between these neighboring countries aside from the above article. The situation is clearly important in regard to the war on terrorism, warrants the concerns of the US government, and has potential for becoming an additional hotspot. Any thoughts and insights?
Thanks upperdeckfan. I have been hoping that someone would begin a thread on this topic. I have discussed some of this with my Indian friend at work and there is a large perception of Pakistan promoting terrorism in Kashmir while on the other hand putatively allying itself with the United States in our campaign against it. I provide an excerpt:
India repeated on Monday that the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of the country, rejecting Pakistan’s description of the revolt in the territory as a struggle for freedom.
“This is no freedom struggle, Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of India,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao said. “There is no ambiguity in what is happening in Kashmir, it is pure and unadulterated terrorism.”
At least 40 people were killed following a militant attack last week on the state legislature building in Indian Kashmir’s capital of Srinigar. An Islamic militant group based in Pakistan claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing.
At present, I do not have enough data to make an informed call on this topic. Yet, I remain extremely concerned about the existence of “Islamic Schools” in Pakistan that helped to breed up the Taleban. Pakistan’s possession of nuclear devices and the (however remote) potential for a Taleban coup in that country is a chilling prospect to consider.
Treat anything you hear about Kashmir with caution! It is very difficult to find out what is really happening there, as Indian media tends to focus on the terrorist attacks and Pakistani media tends to focus on the military opening fire on innocent civilians. It reminds me of the Israel-Palestine conflict. One should understand that whatever one’s beliefs may be regarding the initial right and wrong of the situation, neither side has been completely innocent.
Kashmir is a predominantly Muslim state. At the time of the partition between Pakistan and India, the ruler of each state was asked to choose between the two countries. The Maharajah of Kashmir could not bear to surrender his princely state and failed to announce a decision either way. Thus, the fate of Kashmir was left undecided, which is a real pity because many of those who have visited Kashmir claim that it is a paradise on earth. This probably just increases its value in the eyes of those who fight to possess it.
The Maharajah soon realised that he could not control his now conflict-ridden state and signed an Instrument of Accession to India. Pakistan disputed the validity of this document and asked that a referendum be held in Kashmir to allow the Kashmiris to choose their own fate. This referendum was never permitted. At the time, it was thought that the Kashmiris, being mostly Muslim, would choose Pakistan. But today, most Kashmiris would probably choose independence. The Pakistani government does condone the actions of “freedom fighters” in Kashmir. These freedom fighters are responsible for “terrorist attacks” on Indian military posts and government buildings in Kashmir. Personally, I feel that such actions could be considered a valid struggle for self-determination. However, I doubt that Pakistan would seriously entertain the possibility that Kashmir become independent any more than India would. At the moment, the Pakistanis have the same goal as the Kashmiris, which is to oust what they consider to be an occupying enemy power. But in reality, Pakistan wants Kashmir just as much as India does.
Most versions of the Kashmir story on the Internet are highly biased one way or another. Here is a link to a source which did not seem particularly biased to me: http://www.didyouknow.cd/story/kashmir.htm
I have visited Kashmir. This is just my own perspective from what I saw and heard.
I second the “paradise on earth” comment, Kashmir is the most beautiful place I have ever seen.
The people of Kashmir are, before anything else, a trading people. They will try and sell you something with a tenacity that is nothing short of amazing. But they do make beautiful things. I have a hand-crafted wood table that I brought back from Kashmir.
If there was no war in Kashmir the people would make a fortune from tourism. The place is a potential goldmine.
Regarding the politics of the region, I spoke to a number of people there about this. The Indian army appear to be responsible for human rights abuses there - people disappear never to be seen again, people are beaten while in police custody etc.
However the mujahadeen are just as guilty of unwarranted violence. They hate anyone who is not exactly like they are.
The Kashmiris want to be rid of both factions so they can get on with what they do best, which is making money.
They would like to be on friendly terms with both the Pakistanis and the Indians. But they would like to be independent.
This problem really annoys me because it is so unnecessary. It could be solved so easily with a little application of common sense.
But the more violence that occurs, the more the mujahadeen plant bombs, the more the Indian army treat the Kashmiris disrespectfully the harder its going to be to sort this out.
I think we need to deal with this whole situation urgently.
I’d love to go back to Kashmir one day but it was dangerous when I went, it’s even more dangerous now so it’s just not possible. And this means the Kashmiris are suffering because we aren’t going there to spend our money.
All the Kashmiris want is peace. If Kashmir became wholly Indian or wholly Pakistani, they probably wouldn’t be too bothered as long as there was peace. But they would prefer to be independent and have nothing whatsoever to do with the two countries either side. They could make a perfectly good living on their own without any help or interference from anyone.
As I say this is just my perspective.
xanakis:
Its true that the Indian Army has been responsible for some human rights abuses in the region. The Indian National Human Rights council has been very critical of some of the practises of the Indian Army. But the Indian government has been trying to address this situation for some time now.
When the US declares a war on terrorism and bombs Afghanistan, Its understood that there will be civilian casulties. The same applies to the Indian army's predicament in Kashmir. Flushing out terrorists hiding among the local population, terrorists not averse to using mosques as hiding places, is not an open-and-shut operation.
When u say all the Kashmiris want is peace, isn’t that what everyone wants? Are u suggesting that the Indian government is actively promoting instability and violence in the region? I dispute that.
As of today, there is an elected state government in Kashmir. There have been repeated attempts to induce the All-Party Hurriyat Conference to contest these election and to negotiate. But all this is to no avail.
The Indian government recently announced a unilateral cease-fire on the part of the Indian Army for more than 2 months to create a climate for dialog . However, none of the militant outfits were prepared to discuss Kashmir without Pakistans involvement. If this were a freedom-struggle how does Pakistan's involvement become a pre-condition? And thru out this time of cease-fire the terrorist attacks and massacres continued.
There was on outfit called the Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front(JKLF) whose main objective was an independent Kashmir. But for quite some time now, the JKLF has lost its support. Its is my perspective, that most Kashmiris today realise that an independent Kashmir will be contested or maybe even opposed by Pakistan. This realization has meant that support for the terrorists has been steadily declining.
Calling this problem easy is really being insensitive to the complexities and issues involved in the whole struggle.
Note that it is Pakistan that has placed its troops in Kashmir on Indian soil last winter and it took a great deal of fighting to winkle them out.
The Pakistani troops occupied positions during the season when hardly anything moves in the area and when the first Indian patrols resterted in spring they were killed.
They have been shelling each other over the border for years now and it usually goes unreported.
India is far from perfect in its behaviour in Kashmir but the constant supply of terrorists/freedom fighters by pakistan (numbers on captured weapons prove this) has done as much and more to make the situation there tense.
However starry-eyed I may be, it’s a pity that in the name of suppressing terrorism the UN cannot establish a provisional international government in Kashmir until things could be sorted out. This would serve to roll back the terrorist activities of the Pakistanis and halt the repressive actions of the Indian military.
Pennylane, I appreciate your input here and in other places I have taken Pakistan to task. Please illuminate on this suggestion of mine if you would. I feel that with the current outcry against terrorism, it might be the perfect time to call both Pakistan and India on the carpet. Making them each uphold their committments against terrorism and oppression might be the perfect bridge to peace in the region.
I know just enough about Jammu and Kashmir to know how ignorant I am on the subject. The media has suddenly jumped on the Kashmir bandwagon and in typical newsbite fashion are trying to present it in very simplistic black-and-white terms.
Very rarely do you ever see anyone commenting on what the Kashmiri people themselves want. As Pennylane stated earlier, practical or not, most Kashmiris appear to perfer their own independant state.
This site on Documents Related to Jammu and Kashmir has an awful lot of information in chronological order for anyone interested in learning more about this issue: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sasia.htm
Zenster:
Can u elaborate on the meaning of an international government? Why should India submit part of its soveriegn territory for international rule? And this at the time, when the international community cannot even influence Pakistan to stop its interference in the region.
There does exist an elected state government in Kashmir. Does this international government invalidate this elected government? If it doesn't invalidate the existing elected structure, then whats the difference?
You have called the role of the Indian army repressive. The Indian army is currently trying to hunt down terrorists hiding among the civilian population. Can u suggest a surgical method to achieve this aim?
The US military is bombing the whole of Afghanistan for the sake of a few terrorists. So, by that same measure, is the US military machine repressive??
And its not as if the Indian army is the cause of the problem. Even when the Indian armies unilateral cease-fire was in force, the terrorists continued to carry out massacres all over Kashmir.Zenster, Pakistan has asked for international intervention in Kashmir in the past, but India doesn’t agree to this. Obviously, Pakistan would prefer an international government in Kashmir to an Indian government, whereas India does not want to relinquish control. As TruthFinder mentioned, India believed that Kashmir is “sovereign territory”, and international intervention would undermine this concept.
I personally blame both India and Pakistan equally. The Kashmiris are caught in the middle. It is a well-known fact that Kashmir could sustain a very lucrative tourism industry, as xanakis has pointed out. Basically, both Pakistan and India want Kashmir. Just like both Israelis and Palestinians want Jerusalem. Both sides are equally determined and thus they are both equally prepared to violate human rights in order to get what they want. This is my opinion regarding both conflicts. If the situation in Kashmir were reversed, it would be the Pakistan military and Indian terrorists committing these violations.
xanakis, I’d like to know how you think the problem could be solved so easily. It seems to me like the only solution which would make violence by either side unjustifiable would be the independence of Kashmir. I don’t know if this is the best possible solution, though. What do you think?
The one positive aspect of the Kashmir conflict is that it is a political, and not a religious, dispute. Unlike Jerusalem, it contains no sites of great religious significance to either side. But we should keep in mind that India and Pakistan have fought three wars in the past - and Pakistan has only been around for fifty years.
I fear stepping on toes here, especially understanding just what a delicate situation this is. But I will note, as Pennylane pointed out in part, that Kashmir was not incorporated into India as the result of some plebiscite, but rather through the whim of a vacillating Hindu Maharajah who made the decision on behalf of his majority Muslim populace. A decision that was not particularly popular.
I actually liken this problem just a little to Northern Ireland in that there does seem to be a minority ( mostly Kashmir’s Hindu minority concentrated near the city of Poonch ) that does indeed favor continued amalgamation with India. But it appears that a majority of the population does not. So what to do? Would Great Britain allow an international government in Northern Ireland? Or the Russians in Chechnya? Probably not 
.
But this is a diceier problem than usual considering we have two very heavily armed nuclear powers glowering ( and occasionally shooting ) at each other over this disputed chunk of land. All the while the majority of the population sit there, wishing for them both to just go away ( which in unlikely to happen ). Given the tension, I understand the urge to try to interntionalize the issue for safety’s sake. I’m certainly pro-internationalization of Jerusalem for distantly related reasons. But I’m not sure if it is an appropriate action in this case.
So what’s the solution? Heck if I know. In the interest of internal self-determination I suppose I would like to see a plebiscite of some sort. But I certainly can understand India’s concerns - Both for the pro-Indian minority and the maintainence of national integrity. Let’s face it, realistically India may not be be able to afford the blow to their multi-ethnic, multi-religious ideal that a cession like this could cause. Not to mention the security threat that a Kashmir salient could present in the northwest ( either independant and pro-Pakistani or as a part of Pakistan ). And I do seem to recall a certain Western power being reluctant to allow certain Southern states to break away .
I’m at a loss ( happens a lot, unfortunately ).
- Tamerlane
The Kashmir situation is different from the Palestinian problem in one crucial respect:
There are only two parties involved in the Palestinian conflict - the Israelis and the Palestinians. In Kashmir, there are three parties - India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris (caught in the middle).
I actually don’t think an independent Kashmir would be particularly pro-Pakistan. If you think about it, the main contact the Indian Kashmiris have with the Pakistanis is via the lunatic fringe of the mujahadeen. They don’t want anything to do with this bunch.
The important thing to keep in mind about the Kashmiris is that all they want to do is earn a living. They are muslim but not at all extremist - I brought a bottle of Whiskey into Kashmir with me and, as a result, I proved to be very popular with some of the locals.
I think they are being used as a scapegoat in a war between two superpowers. The JKLF are no longer the force they used to be. This is because the Kashmiris really don’t care what happens to Kashmir, they just want peace so they can get on with it.
I think they would be equally happy with any of the following options:
-
Kashmir remains partitioned and has peace
-
Kashmir becomes wholly Indian and has peace
-
Kashmir becomes wholly Pakistani and has peace
But the option they would really like would be:
- Kashmir becomes independent and has peace
I think the Kashmiri attitude can be summed up by:
“Look, we don’t care what you all do, just do it quick and then fuck off and leave us alone”
I’m aware that Kashmir is currently sovereign Indian territory but that doesn’t mean it has to be forever. There are precedents for countries giving up sovereign territory if the local people want it.
I don’t think there’s any danger that Kashmir would want to join with Pakistan. They don’t need Pakistan (or India), they would get by just fine on their own.
The main grievance between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers, is Kashmir. If we could remove that grievance then there is no reason why India and Pakistan shouldn’t unltimately become good friends and neighbours.
This is all just my take on the situation.
Just to convolute the waters even more, northern Kashmir is an area called Ladakh, which is ethnically and previously politically part of Tibet. Any resolution will also have to address China’s views as well. Remember, China and India have fought many skirmishes, last time I remember tensions being pretty high was in the mid 1980’s, and China and India have disputed territory.
xanakis
Actually, that is more of a similarity than a difference. In both cases Muslim countries are agitating for independence for a Muslim minority, but seem to be using them as pawns. With the Palestinians, there are more groups claiming to support them. Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and now Osama bin Laden have claimed to support the Palestinians, but much of their efforts look more like PR moves than evidence of a true commitment. For instance, were Iraq’s scud attacks on Israel really an attempt to secure Palestinian independence, or was it an attempt to drive a wedge in the Coalition? (That was a rhetorical question, in case anyone couldn’t tell).
I agree. I think that the fact that it has been allowed to go on for so long is evidence that there are forces in both countries which want the unrest to continue. It is disturbing how often war becomes an end rather than a means.
A better(again not plausible considering the tensions) solution would be making the LOC as the border, no?
Tamerlane, U have brought up the question of plebiscite in Kashmir. pennylane has hinted at the question of soveriegnity of India as regards Kashmir. I’d like to address this issue. Most of it is widely documented.
When the British left India, All the princely states were, by default, independent. It was believed that they would make their own arrangements with either India or Pakistan or remain free. Kashmir achieved independence from the British the same day India and Pakistan got theirs.
At that time, There were no roads linking India and Kashmir. The only roads were thru Pakistan. Effectively India was cut off from Kashmir.
Kashmir has a standstill treaty with both India and Pakistan. However, Pakistan cut off the supply of essential goods like salt and petroleum to Kashmir. At the same time, there were invasions into the Nothern sectors of Kashmir. The state of Kashmir appealed to Pakistan to stop the entry of these invaders which was ignored.
Next Kashmir appeals to India for help in fighting these invaders and at the same time signing the Instrument of Accession to India. This document gives Kashmir an autonomous status inside the constitution of India.The Indian influence on this autonomous entity is thru defence, foreign affairs and currency. Kashmir gets its own prime minister, its own contituents assembly.
At the same time India emphasises that this document is subject to a plebiscite to be held inside Kashmir to determine the will of the Kashmiri people.
The conditions for holding a plebiscite include that Pakistan should reign back its invading forces and a cease-fire should be implemented. However, this doesnt happen. Hostilities continue between the Indian forces and the invaders.
The constituent assembly in Kashmir decides to merge into the Indian Union forming the current state of Jammu and Kashmir. And the contituent assembly of Kashmir was predominantly Muslim. I dispute the idea that the accession was the wish of a Hindu raja over a Muslim majority. Rather I'd say that the invasion of the Northern sectors of Kashmir by Muslim invaders, was the main reason for accession.
Given this history of events, where's the doubt that Kashmir shouldn't be regarded as sovereign territory by India?
Subsequently, after a succession of hostilities and wars between India and Pakistan, The current Line of control(LOC) was established. About a third of Kashmir remains in Pakistani control (POK) and 2/3 rds in Indian control . Pakistan turned over some part of POK over to Chinese control. Hostilities across this LOC are a regular feature ever since.
Next, in 1989, There's widespread protest in Kashmir, following state-elections. The Muslim-United-Front alleges vote-rigging by the National Conference Party. This is the time when the idea of Kashmiri independence gains prominance. Terrorists organisations aided by Pakistan start targeting the government and the minorities. The Indian army is engaged in a fight to stabilize the state. Finally elections are held again in 1996. Hostilites continue but there's also an elected state government trying to regain normalcy.TruthFinder, one point to be made is that the plebesite/referendum of the “Kashmiri’s people’s will” has never been held.
Both India and Pakistan can and do take the “historical facts” to support their respective positions that Kashmir and Jammu should be part of their country.
IANAJammu&Kashmir expert, but all the stuff I’ve ever read does not make an overwhelmingly convincing arguement that makes Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of either Pakistan or India.
Here is a link I found interesting by a native Kashmiri reporter for Agence France Presse, but caveat I have no idea of how reputable the person is or the website sponsoring it.
Sorry, here is the link http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1997/ma97/ma97oberoi.html
TruthFinder, the other version of the story is that the Kashmiris rebelled, not that it was invaded. I can’t say which version is true, though.
This document was signed by the Maharajah of Kashmir. The plebiscite to which it was subject has never been held. India blames Pakistan for this and Pakistan blames India for this. Personally I think that both countries know that if Kashmiris were given the choice, they would choose independence.
This was done in direct contravention of the standing U.N. resolutions 38, 47, 80, and 91, as well as the conditions of the Instrument of Accession.
And Googler, in response to your points, I believe that xanakis is correct in his claim that there are three parties involved. Pakistan pretends to have the same goals as the Kashmiri people, but is in fact just using the Kashmiri struggle for independence as an excuse to challenge the Indian government in order to eventually annex Kashmir itself. It is pretty widely accepted that the Kashmiri people would prefer independence to any of the other available options. It doesn’t seem surprising to me. There are concerns in Pakistan that the independence of Kashmir could set a bad precedent for other troubled provinces. For example, there is a political party called the MQM in Pakistan which has been demanding self-determination for the southern province of Sindh for several years now. I don’t know whether India has similar problems, perhaps TruthFinder could fill us in on this.
I dont know what will convince you. U have in evidence a legal document signed by the Maharajah of Kashmir, duly ratified by the elected contituent assembly representing the people of Kashmir. This document is in no way different than any of the documents signed by the 500 odd princely states for acceeding to India. These are not only “historical” facts but also legal facts.
The plebiscite has never been held coz India has never regained control over the 1/3rd part of Kashmir captured and occupied by Pakistan ever since 1948.
The question of Kashmir was first raised in the UN by India in 1948 to complain about the invasion abetted by Pakistan. The issue of plebiscite was subject to Pakistan withdrawing its forces from Indian territory. This has never happened. But at the same time, Elections were held in autonomous Kashmir. And the elected representatives ratified the Accession. This is definitely indicative of the will of the people.