Vajpayee’s Srinagar offer of Talks to Pakistan

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

As we have been talking a lot about `Kashmiri`s views`, how about a real look at their views? Here is what a MORI Opinion Poll revealed:

http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/kashmir.shtml


Kashmiris Reject War In Favour Of Democratic Means

MORI publishes results of major new survey

31 May 2002

The vast majority of Kashmiris oppose India and Pakistan going to war to find a permanent solution to the situation in Kashmir and believe the correct way to bring peace to the region is through democratic elections, ending violence, and economic development.

They also believe the unique cultural identity of the region should be preserved in any long-term solution, and there is virtually no support for the state of Jammu and Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnic group.

These are the main findings to emerge from a poll conducted by the independent market research company, MORI International, at the end of April (20-28 April 2002), just before the start of the recent escalation of conflict in the region.

Interviews were conducted in the Jammu and the surrounding rural areas, Srinagar and its surrounding rural areas and in Leh. Interviewers were set quotas for sex and religion (assessed by the interviewer) to match the population of each region.

Although the vast majority in Jammu and Leh believe the correct way to bring about peace is though democratic elections, opinions are more evenly divided in and around Srinagar, with a bare majority (52%) agreeing with this view.

Nevertheless, the vast majority - 76% - of those in the Srinagar region believe India and Pakistan should not go to war to bring about a permanent solution.

There is a general consensus across the regions that it is not possible to hold democratic elections while violence continues - 65% agree while 34% disagree.

A very clear majority of the population - 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan`s involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

On the issue of citizenship, overall, 61% said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen and only 6% as a Pakistani citizen, but 33% said they did not know.

A suggestion that most people do not feel that the current political parties have the solution to the problems in Kashmir is reflected in the fact that around half, or more, of the population in each region agree with the view that `a new political party is needed to bring about a permanent solution in Kashmir`.

People in all regions are in general agreement that `the unique cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir - Kashmiryat - should be preserved in any long-term solution`. Overall, 81% agree, including 76% in Srinagar and 81% in Jammu.

There is also widespread consensus on the types of proposals which will help to bring about peace in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 85% of the population, including at least 70% in each region, think the following will help to bring about peace:

Economic development of the region to provide more job opportunities and reduction of poverty - 93%
The holding of free and fair elections to elect the people`s representatives - 86%
Direct consultation between the Indian government and the people of Kashmir - 87%
An end to militant violence in the region - 86%
Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control - 88%
The critical role people see for economic development in helping to solve the problems is further underlined by the 74% who think that `people from outside of Kashmir being encourage to invest in the area to help rebuild Kashmir`s economy and tourist industry` will help to bring peace to the state.

There is also a widespread view, held by 80%, that allowing displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return to their homes in safety will help to bring about peace.

Views are mixed on the likely impact of `People in Jammu and Kashmir having the freedom to travel in both directions across the Line of Control`. Those in and around Srinagar and Leh generally feel this would help to bring peace while those in Jammu take the opposite view.

An overwhelming 92% oppose the state of Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnicity. There is also overwhelming support - 91% - for a forum in which Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control can discuss common interests.

A clear majority - 70% - also support the borders between Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and Indian Kashmir being opened for much more trade and cultural exchange. However, while the views in Srinagar and Leh were very decisive - over 90% support - those in Jammu were much more balanced - 47% support, 53% oppose.

Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support `India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy.

There are also mixed views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of ten believe that security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help to bring peace, whereas in Jammu opinions are reversed.

There are clearly different perceptions of the behaviour of the Indian security forces. Nobody interviewed in Leh or Jammu believes that human rights violations by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64% of the population think they are widespread.

Perceptions are different with respect to human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. 96% of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only 2% of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33% believe they are `occasional`).

Technical details

Fieldwork was carried out by FACTS Worldwide, MORI`s affiliate company in India, between 20 - 28 April 2002.

In total, 850 interviews were completed, face-to-face, with adults aged 16+ across 55 localities within Jammu and Kashmir. This comprised 22 localities in Jammu City, 20 in Srinagar City and 6 in Leh (urban areas), as well as in 3 villages around Jammu and 4 villages around Srinagar (rural areas).

Quotas were set by gender, religion (assessed by observation) and locality, according to the known population profile of the region.

A random selection procedure was used to select individual respondents.

Sample Profile

The following table details the profile of respondents by locality and religion:

Locality Total i`views Breakdown by religion (observed)
Muslim Hindu Sikh Buddhist Christian
Srinagar 300 292 8 - - -
97% 3% - - -

Villages nr Srinagar 60 58 2 - - -
97% 3% - - -

Jammu 344 103 229 7 1 4
30% 67% 2% *% 1%

Villages nr Jammu 71 21 50 - - -
30% 70% - - -

Leh 75 35 4 - 36 -
47% 5% - 48% -

---

Total 850 509 293 7 37 4
60% 34% 1% 4% *%

Quotas were based on 1981 Census data (population in 1,000s):

Total pop. Muslim Hindu Sikh Buddhist Christian
Kashmir Valley
(Srinigar & surrounding areas) 3,102 2,977 125 - 0.2 -
96% 4% - *% -

Jammu region 2,717 805 1,803 100 1 8
30% 66% 4% *% *%

Ladakh
(incl. Leh) 134 62 4 - 68 -
46% 3% - 51% -

---

Total 65% 32% 2% 1% *%

Statistical Reliability

The sampling tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are given below. This table shows the possible variation that might be anticipated because a sample, rather than the entire population, was interviewed. As indicated, sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the size of percentage results. The confidence intervals take no account of design effects and, of course, there were certain areas in each region we did not conduct interviews.

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels (at the 95% confidence level)
Base: 10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%
850 (total) 2 3 3
415 (Jammu region) 3 4 5
360 (Srinagar region) 3 5 5
75 (Leh) 7 10 11

Source: MORI

For example, for a question where 50% of the people in a sample of 850 respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary more than 3 percentage points, plus or minus, from the result that would have been obtained from a census of the entire population using the same procedures. Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results between different elements of the sample. A difference, in other words, must be of at least a certain size to be statistically significant. The following table is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to comparisons.

Differences required for significance at the 95% confidence level at or near these percentages
Base: 10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%
432 (Men) and 418 (Women) 4 6 7
415 (Jammu region) and 360 (Srinagar region) 4 7 7
415 (Jammu region) and 75 (Leh) 7 11 12
360 (Srinagar region) and 75 (Leh) 8 12 13

Source: MORI


Paul Ilett

t: 020-7347 3000
f: 020-7347 3800





FACTS Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd

MORI International Research

MORI Political Research

MORI Social Research Institute

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

Romair:

``Yet, what ended up happening was that India ended up with all three States. How in the world was India able to pull off this mathematical impossibility? Simple. It applied rule a) in Junagarh and Hyderabad and rule b) in Kashmir. Basically, it took over these States by force when it couldn`t get them on principle. ``

Yaar, you have been applying this theory on Chowk for the past three years. Why don`t you be honest for a change and also put up what Pakistan was trying to do at the same time?

If what the people wanted was so important why did Jinnah turn down Patel`s offer to exchange Kashmir for Hyderabad and Junagadh?

Because you guys thought that Kashmir you will get in any case but you wanted to try for Junagadh and Hyderbad also. At least be honest with yourself.

I can`t help but laugh at the genuine outrage you guys feel, you actually believe that Pakistan has been innocent in the whole affair? Ha!! Instead of talks with Iindia maybe you need talks with your own government and acadamics to learn the truth about your own selves.

Romair#311:
You would have had some credibility if you had said that both India and Pakistan acted without principles. I do not know what the current official Pakistani position is but until 1960s, Pakistan disputed Indian claims to all three - Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh. Wasn`t Pakistan claim to all three a mathematical impossibility?
Has Pakistan become morally superior just because it lost?

#289 by rsaxena #289

[hamidm

....i never thought i`d see you over kashmir with the rest of the pakis.... ]

Just proves Musharraf`s assertion that Kashmir runs in the blood of Pakistanis! ;-)

V Agnihotri (if that is indeed his real name) writes in #310

{{I must say as a peace-loving patriotic Indian who firmly believes in Baapu`s teachings, I am ashamed at our government`s shameless stand on Kashmir.}}

Leaving aside your loaded terminology (`shameless stand`, ‘subjugate a region’, etc), how are you so sure that the Mahatma would not have approved of the Indian government`s stand? Read the text of what may be the Mahatma’s last speech dealing with Kashmir – at a prayer meeting in Delhi, January 4th 1948, three weeks before he was felled by the assassin’s bullet.

Relevant extract:

{{.... India has written to the U.N. because whenever there is a fear of conflict anywhere the U.N. is asked to promote a settlement and to stop fighting from breaking out. India therefore wrote to the U.N.O. however trivial the issue may appear to be, it could lead to a war between the two countries. It is a long memorandum and it has been cabled. Pakistan`s leaders Zafrullah Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan have since issued long statements. I would take leave to say that their argument does not appeal to me. You may ask if I approve of the Union Government approaching the UNO I may say that I both approve and do not approve of what they did. I approve of it, because after all what else are they to do? They are convinced that what they are doing is right. If there are raids from outside the frontier of Kashmir, the obvious conclusion is that it must be with the connivance of Pakistan. Pakistan can deny it. But the denial does not settle the matter. Kashmir has acceded the accession upon certain conditions. If Pakistan harasses Kashmir and if Sheikh Abdullah who is the leader of Kashmir asks the Indian Union for help, the latter is bound to send help. Such help therefore was sent to Kashmir. At the same time Pakistan is being requested to get out of Kashmir and to arrive at a settlement with India over the question through bilateral regotiations. If no settlement can be reached in this way then a war is inevitable. It is to avoid the possibility of war that the Union Government has taken the step it did. Whether they are right in doing so or not God alone knows. Whatever might have been the attitude of Pakistan, if I had my way I would have invited Pakistan`s representatives to India and we could have met, discussed the matter and worked out some settlement. They keep saying that they want an amicable settlement but they do nothing to create the conditions for such a settlement. I shall therefore humbly say to the responsible leaders of Pakistan that though we are now two countries – which is a thing I never wanted – we should at least try to arrive at an agreement so that we could live as peaceful neighbors. Let us grant for the sake of argument that all Indians are bad, but Pakistan at least is a new-born nation which has more ever come into being in the name of religion and it should at least keep itself clean. But they themselves make no such claim. It is not their argument that Muslims have committed no atrocities in Pakistan. I shall therefore suggest that it is now their duty, as far as possible, to arrive at an amicable understanding with India and live in harmony with her. Mistakes were made on both sides. Of this I have no doubt. But this does not mean that we should persist in those mistakes, for then in the end we shall only destroy ourselves in a war and the whole of the sub-continent will pass into the hands of some third power. That will be the worst imaginable fate for us. I shudder to think of it. Therefore the two Dominions should come together with God as witness and find a settlement. The matter is now before the UNO. It cannot be withdrawn from there. But if India and Pakistan come to a settlement the big powers in the UNO will have to endorse that settlement. They will not object to the settlement. They themselves can only say that they will do their best to see that the two countries arrive at an understanding through mutual discussions. Let us pray to God is to grant that we may either learn to live in amity with each other or if we must light to let us fight to the very end. That may be folly but sooner or later it will purify us.}}

Romair #311

Addendum:

{{Out of these, only three could have survived as an independent states. These were Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad.}}

A highly questionable assertion. Junagadh was small and poverty-stricken – it simply doesn’t belong in the same weight class as the other too. Kashmir and Hyderabad were hopelessly landlocked and dependent on one or other or both of the two dominions. If either Kashmir or Hyderabad was viable, Mysore and Travancore, fairly large well-administered states in South India, would be at least as viable. So would Kalat in Baluchistan be viable. The Khan of Kalat wanted to remain independent just like the Nawab of Hyderabad. We know what happened there, don’t we Romair?

So your specious list of ‘only three potentially viable states’ is actually merely selected for the convenience of your fallacious argument.

#Ralph

Yes. You probably shouldn`t be one to talk, but despite our diverging views, one must commend steps taken towards improvement:

``you may be able to communicate better with Pakistanis if you don`t offend them all the time! ``

I`m glad to see that we are getting somewhere. I think there is something to gain (or at least was) by an exchange of views, however unpalatable each of us might find them.

LOL

Romair #311

Your ‘brilliant’ ‘mathematical demonstration’ left out a highly significant aspect – historical chronology.

What was insignificant little Junagadh doing in that list in the company of Kashmir and Hyderabad? Junagadh was a trap deliberately laid by Jinnah. It was meant to facilitate the accession of either of Kashmir or Hyderabad – real prizes – to Pakistan, by establishing a legal precedent for accession one way or another according to the reasoning you outlined. Towards that end, there was a palace coup in Junagadh in May 1947, with the Nawab absent in Europe, that placed in power as Dewan – the Muslim League politician Shahnawaz Bhutto, who was carrying out Jinnah’s instructions to the letter. That was the setting as of August 1947.

The mistake Pakistan made was to establish a different kind of precedent, on October 24th, 1947 – namely the use of armed force, an act of war, to force the accession of a state. That was the day Pakistani raiders led by Pakistani officers entered Kashmir.

Let me narrate the sequence of major events as they occurred:

August 15th 1947 – Junagadh government announces that it has decided to accede to Pakistan, thereby presenting Nehru’s government with an obvious dilemma. Nehru protests to Pakistan but is convinced by Mountbatten to stay his hand. The Junagadh farce drags on through September and October with Indian forces stationed around Junagadh but refraining from entering its territory.

October 24th 1947 – Pakistani raiders led by Pakistan army officers enter Kashmir. Maharaja Hari Singh accedes to India within the next two days.

October 27th 1947 - Indian troops are flown into Srinagar … push back Pakistani raiders.

November 5th 1947 – Junagadh State Council authorizes reversal of earlier decision to accede to Pakistan.

November 8th 1947 – Junagadh Dewan Bhutto asks Government of India to take over state administration; departs for Pakistan. Indian troops enter Junagadh shortly thereafter.

September 1948 – Hyderabad ‘Police Action’, etc.

{{Yet, what ended up happening was that India ended up with all three States. How in the world was India able to pull off this mathematical impossibility? Simple. It applied rule a) in Junagarh and Hyderabad and rule b) in Kashmir. Basically, it took over these States by force when it couldn`t get them on principle.}}

Unfortunately Pakistan discarded principle for force first. See where it got you? We won, you (mostly) lost. Having gambled and lost all round, you whine.

So there you have it. Mathematical impossibility became reality because of goat-brained Pakistani stupidity in trying to seize Kashmir, thereby legitimizing force. Had you stayed your hand, you might have gotten Kashmir, but not Hyderabad. As it turned out, you got neither. Be reconciled to your lot, and get on with life.

V_Agnihotri# 310

Good for you. It would have been a shame if the Mahatma didn`t have a single follower in India today. Let me know when Ramrajya arrives :)

JacobianMatrix# 307

I did not say that Kashmiris are better off with India than with Pakistan. I said that the alternatives are worse.

HassanShah # 306

Glad to be of help.

Those who talk of bilateralism should really reconsider their opinions, after witnessing the war of words between Musharraf and Vajpayee. Left to themselves, Pakistanis and Indians are incapable of solving any problem.

Hence, the need for intermediaries or facilitators to diffuse the tension between nuclear armed neighbours. Every time Indians and Pakistanis refuse to talk to each other, the case for third-party involvement gets stronger.

Whenever the topic turns to Kashmir, tempers fly. Following tahmed32`s advice I am staying out of the bashing matches. Other Indians should do the same.

arjun_m # 303

Neither you nor I have any respect for Musharraf but would you be a little less provocative in your posts. Upto you, but you may be able to communicate better with Pakistanis if you don`t offend them all the time!

(I know I shouldn`t be talking :) )

#Romair

Brilliant post !

Absolutely brilliant...

Don`t worry though. I`m sure our friends will go to great lengths to unconvincingly prove the impossibility you discussed. Of course, somewhere along the line, they might resign themselves to the fact that they have nothing reasonable to say and cower behind the anti-Pakistan rhethoric that seems to be the best way to change topics when one is rendered clueless by brilliance such as yours.