The Beginning of the End of the Kashmir Problem

re: #89 by stuka

Between August and October 1947, both Nehru and Jinnah lobbied the Kashmiri leaders for acceding to their respective dominions. The maharaji was still ambivalent.

In the first week of October 1947, an infantry battalion of Patiala Forces was stationed in Jammu. The same week a mountain battery of artillery was position in Srinagar. Anticipating an Indian takeover of Kashmir, Pakistani tribesmen entered Kashmir on October 20, 1947. The Maharaja announced accession to India on October 26, 1947. The dates are important because this disproves Indian assertion that it sent troops to protect Kashmir from tribesmen. Indian troops were already present in Kashmir weeks before the invasion and subsequent announcement of accession by Hari Singh.

The authenticity of Instrument of Accession is unclear to this day. In his masterpiece ``Nehru: India`s Tryst with Destiny`` Stanley Wolpert delves on this controversy and mentions the possibility that the instrument of accession was dictated to Hari Singh by Nehru. The announcement was probably made even before the document could be signed.

Regardless of the document`s authenticity, India’s policies toward Junagadh, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, were legally and morally inconsistent. In Junagadh for example, the referendum for accession underscored the principle of restrictive self-determination. In Jammu and Kashmir, the Maharaja’s accession furnished India with a so-called legal basis to defend the State. In Hyderabad, where no official referendum was held and where the ruler did not accede, the forced accession to India brought about by military action, was presumed to have the tacit approval of the predominantly Hindu population. In each case of annexation there was a different rationale, but a similar goal, namely annexation of territory. The use of military force provided the only consistency in India’s policy.

HE #92 -
``Pakistan`s legal case on Kashmir is further bolstered by Jawaharlal Nehru`s own statement in UN Security Council in January 1948:``

Same security council stipulated some conditions for determining ``fate of Kashmir``. First of these conditions is that Pakistan will withdraw its forces. Do you think Pakistan has met that condition? And what is your stand of legality of Pakistani`s stand after this?

harimau, Farzana

You guys are just bouncing around the old positions here. As a fellow member of the indian democracy I support your right to disagree with each other but I do want to say the following.

The state of J&K acceeded to India under special conditions. Those conditions need to be appropriately honored today. Yes, it turns out that there is only one community that seems to be over-exercised by this issue. Yes, that community has also passively accepted (or worse) ethnic-cleansing of its minorities. Yet, the basic relationship between the indian state and residents of J&K remains defined by the document of accession.

To argue that therefore kashmir valley must be ``independent``, or that the only problem is that the residents of the valley are (now) predominantly muslim is missing the point.

The constitutional arrangements for autonomy/azadi of Kashmir valley are available within the indian constitution. Clear thinking individuals such as Sumit Ganguly have pointed this out for years. However, such an arrangement must respect indian security and economic interests, as well as the return of those minorities who have been cleansed. Such an arrangement is also impossible with yearly migration of 2000-3000 trained mass murderers who are armed to the teeth from Pakistan.

India will never accept the creation of an Afghanistan on its borders, where pakistani jihadis can be staged and trained before infiltrating and attacking targets in Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore. Such a situation would be 10 times worse than what it is today.

Ref Paigham #88

[whole 140 millions ofIndian MUslims , have proven ability ,desire & intent of living as Minority .Why can`t Hindu live as MINORITY for once ?]

The only problem is that their (the Hindus) numbers reduce from 10% to 2% rather rapidly if Muslims happen to be the majority.

re: #89 by stuka

Pakistan`s legal case on Kashmir is further bolstered by Jawaharlal Nehru`s own statement in UN Security Council in January 1948:

``We have declared that he fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but also to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it``.

It is precisely because of these political, legal and moral realities that the US, UK and UN in particular have always agreed with Pakistan`s stand in principle. Their disagreement is with the modus operandi (i.e. Jihadi infiltration) of Pakistan`s Kashmir policy, not its basis.

Farzana:

The legal basis for independence of the Kashmir Valley is about as sound as that of Janakpuri and Nasik.

Neither the agreement with the British over Princely state, nor the UN Resolutions, nor the Simla Agreement have any mention of independence. The drive for independence is therefore against the Constitution of India and can be put at par with seperatist movements in Punjab, Assam, Nagaland etc.

Even thinktanks in India, while considering alterntives of resolution, have considered handing portions of the valley to Pakistan in order to make a clean international border. Independence for the Kashmiris has never been an option, nor is it an obligation for India from the legal sense.


His Excellency: How do you say that Pakistan has a stronger legal case? I agree that it may have a stronger poltical case but from the legal perspective India`s case is airtight.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: #85 by Harimau

++
Other than being Muslims (meaning: backward, 7th-century, misogynistic, bomb-throwing), exactly what qualifications do the Kashmiris have to be come an independent nation?
++

This is exactly why they should become a nation.. after all, how can they be treated as equals in a country where they are considered backward, 7th-century misogynistic, bomb-throwing people!

I have seen American bigots, Jewish bigots and even Muslim bigots. But you surpass them all. Why do you believe in such stereotypes in this time and age?? You are just sounding like the Mullah who thinks that all Hindus are baniya (petty moneylenders) and that all Muslims are wise/pure creatures.

Live in the real world, not a make-believe one.

re: #80 by nazarhayatkhan

I share your sentiments. However, many people think that the current thaw is just a pantomime, a stage show to please Americans and ease off their pressure.

Neither country is willing to compromise on its foreign policy objectives. India has a weak political/legal case on Kashmir but a strong economic one. Pakistan has a strong political/legal case on Kashmir but a weak economic one. And Kashmiris seem to lose out both politically and economically. Custodial deaths, human rights abuses, atrocities, unemployment and perpetual curfews have brought their lives to a standstill.

IMHO, Pakistan should not abandon its political, diplomatic and moral support to the Kashmiris under any circumstances. But the continuing influx of Jihadis must be stopped. During the early 1990s, Pakistan won support for its Kashmir case from both US, UK and Arab countries through diplomacy. Many Indians too expressed opposition to their government`s Kashmir Policy during early 1990s.

The Jihadi influx have inflicted tremendous casualties on Indian Army and security apparatus, but it has also damaged the Kashmir cause. Freedom struggles are all about moral high ground, and Jihadis no longer occupy the moral high ground in world opinion. It is therefore necessary to curb the Jihadi operations in Kashmir and let this movement be conducted through political and diplomatic means instead.

Many Indians are supporting their government`s human rights abuses in Kashmir because they perceive their country under attack from Jihadis. Once the Jihadis disappear from Kashmir, humane Indian citizens (who I am sure exist in large numbers) will realize the suffering of Kashmiris and affect a change in their government`s policies toward Kashmiris.

Ref Jinnah Stooge aka Muslim Separatist aka FartsAnna #78

[I said ``in future``...and that is when I see an independent Kashmir. I did not mention J&K because the Panun people would not agree and have been talking about a separate state anyway.

So, my reference was to the Valley; your comparing it with examples of Janakpuri or Nasik seceding is facile.]

Other than being Muslims (meaning: backward, 7th-century, misogynistic, bomb-throwing), exactly what qualifications do the Kashmiris have to be come an independent nation?

Oops, I forgot. That has been qualification enough for about 35 countries.

Let East and West Punjab unite..our land of five rivers...

Farzana:

We find comfort only in
another beauty, in others`
music, in the poetry of others.
Salvation lies with others,
though solitude may taste like
opium. Other people aren`t hell
if you glimpse them at dawn, when
their brows are clean, rinsed by dreams.
This is why I pause: which word
to use, you or she. Each he
betrays some you but
calm conversation bides its time
in others` poems.

- Adam Zagajewski

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

An important development on Kashmir or another manufactured story?

On Rediff at:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/may/15spec.htm


Ras

My humble suggestion:

For at least one year, India and Pakistan, leaders & media, should only talk about the need for peace and how peace can benefit all.

And not utter a word about Kashmir or its solution.

Once everyone, BJP,MMA,ISI,RAW,Foreign offices,Pak Army,other nationalistic/religious nuts, understand the significance of peace, then talk about Kashmir.

Nand Uncle,

When I talked about ``communication stuff,`` I was trying to put more emphasis on the ``civilized`` way of interaction vs. anything else. Opening up the trade routes or tourism will not substitute for what I am highlighting.

The best example is how the Pakistani Diplomat is/has been treated in India and vice versa. The very steps were ridiculous and childish. It takes me back to another episode where the South Asian Leaders started chair fighting during one of the assembly sessions, thinking that they were in some kind of kick boxing class.

I mean this is uncouthness! Well, you cannot change anyone, but there are some basic elements that must exist. In this whole tussle, male ego is also a contributing factor. And, I would leave it at that.

Take Care