Rethinking Plebiscite In Kashmir

Re : dost-mittar # 77, 78
I think you are misreading the problem. We can have no solution to the Kashmir issue as long as the Pakistani military is not forced to accept one. The Pakistani military owes its privileged position in the Pakistani society to the Kashmir issue, it will never give up the cash cow willingly. We must accept that Pakistani public opinion and in fact the Pakistani people are at best marginal to the solution.
The Pakistani military has convinced the Pakistani people that they must champion the Kashmir cause and fight for the rights of Kashmir’s whatever that means. But never ask for the same rights for themselves. I think the Pakistani military would rather loose the territory in a conflict and play victim like 1971 than come to a negotiated settlement.

Regards,


Faruk

Legally and constitutionally, no country with the name of ``INDIA`` exists as according to the Constitution (adopted on January 26, 1951), the official and constitutional name is ``BAHRAT`` which was actually a `` Utopian `` Hindu religious state in early history of this religion exactly same as `` Israel`` a Jewish state that came into existence after the disintegration of Solomon Kingdom. The other Sister State was Yahudia. The so- called
`` Indian `` citizens carry passports which clearly describe it`s the country name as `` Bharat `` in Hindi language. The same situation is with its currency, postage stamps, postage seals, and official gazettes.

In the Western and Middle Eastern media the term `` India `` or ``Hind`` had always been referred to geographical location and never to a single nation. India is not and never a politically united nation, but rather a geographical area like Iberian Peninsula where Spain and Portugal are separate countries for countries. Another example is that of Arabian Peninsula where Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Kuwait Oman, Qatar and two Yemens are separate independent countries. Historically also India was never a united country. Even at the time of Ashoke and during Mughals period, this subcontinent was divided in at least Six independent countries. Of course north India is not only ``India.``

Even at the time of British colonial rule India had many independent States such as Hyderabad, Kashmir, Bhawalpur etc. This is worthy to note that only Hyderabad was much bigger than the combined area of France and Germany. All these countries had their separate currency, railway and postal system.

Lingually, also so called united India is one of the most un-united area. Even now southern languages are completely different from those of northern languages. The southern inhabitants are still not ready to accept ``Hindi`` colonialism. Hindu colonists were very clever and they deceived the whole world by claiming `` Secular Indian Republic ``. If it is really secular India why it`s official name is `` Bharat ``. Simply because it is Hindu State of Bharat, where the only right of non-Hindu is to be killed.

Now question arises why Non-Hindu people should live in this Hindu Bharat. This is very logical that they should have their own independent `` Countries`` and how a Muslim Kashmir can be an integral part of Hindu Bharat.

You may have all the great discussion in the world. But, the only SOLUTION of KASHMIR dispute is

---

give Kashmiris the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION.

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

Romair:
Let me follow your example of telling Indians why they should accept a compromise now before the cicumstances change in Pakistan`s favour. I dont think that Pakistan will get a better leader than Vajpayee to deal with. He is genuinely a man of peace. He represents the party which is most hostile to Pakistan and, if in opposition, will make it impossible for any govt. to make a compromise. And lastly, he seems to have this miraculous power to get the support of the public opinion behind him even when he makes an abrupt change in policies. So, Pakistan is likely to get more concessions from him than they are likely to get from his successor, whether it is Advani or Sonia.

Romair#74
You have raised several points and many of them have been discussed before, so I would try not to repeat them. But first things first. You say,
``At a personal level, you are living in Canada, enjoying your life, living the way you want. Why not let others live the way they want also. What do you gain, or other Indians gain, by trying to force your wishes on others, so far away? ``
In the immortal words, ``Frankly, my dear, I dont give a damn!``. I have zero emotional capital invested in Kashmir and couldn`t care less if all of it goes to Pakistan. In a way, this makes me a more objective observer than someone who has an emotional stake in that area.

``India has always wanted to convert the LOC into the border. That is what has started the whole conflict. ``
I thought that the whole conflict started when a Kargil-like operation tried to change the status quo in Kashmir in 1947. You obviously have never talked to an Indian nor read the history of the dispute by an Indian, they all blame Nehru for the problem. They all believe that Nehru, against the advice of Patel, went to the UN before the Indian forces had finished the job of clearing Pakistani forces from Kashmir, otherwise there wouldn`t be any problem today. This perception is as solid in India as the perception that Pakistan won the 1965 war is in Pakistan. India went to the UN to get the Pak aggression vacated, not to get the plebiscite, although that`s what she got, thanks to the brilliant performance by Sir Zafarullah Khan. So, when Indians are prepared to accept the status quo, they consider it as a climb down from their maximalist position.
It is clear to me that Kashmir is a territorial issue for the Indians and not one of ascertaining the wishes of Kashmiris. To them, Kashmir is ``theirs`` and there is nothing immoral in keeping what is theirs. And please do not forget that it was not a moral issue for Pakistan either for a long time. You are right is questioning the hypocricy of Indians in applying different criteria in HYderabad and Junagadh than in J & K. But the same was true for Pakistan until the 1960s, it too used conflicting criteria to lay claims on all these territories.
While I dont care where Kashmir goes, I have no doubt that Kashmiris are much better off -economically, culturally and politically - staying in India than being independent. As you have said repeatedly Pakistani Kashmiris have already lost their language and culture, happily so in your opinion, although I dont see how a people can be happy losing their language and culture.
Will Kashmiris ever accept the status quo? I do not know the answer to the question. Regardless of what Indians say, Kashmir has remained a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. If the two countries resolve the dispute, it is not inconceivable that they will reconcile to remaining a part of India. Let`s get to the gut of the issue. Take away Islam and ummah from the equtation and I cannot see any sane Kashmiri wanting to secede from India.
I know, I know, one cannot take islam out of the equation!

Maharana:
I think the peace process is driven by two forces, Vajpayee`s desire to end the hostility with Pakistan and domestic-foreign pressures on Musharraf. The US, as you say, is more preoccupied with the Palestinian issue but is increasingly worried about South Asia also. It is refocussing its attention on Afghanistan and Iran`s nuclear program, which means putting more pressure on Pakistan to clean up its act. There are also increasing voices in Pakistan pointing out to the growing disparity between economic scene in India and Pakistan and the mounting cost of sustaining militancy in Kashmir. The most significant external pressure, however, is that Pakistan is losing support of every other country on the Kashmir issue, even China has advised Pakistan to shelve the Kashmir issue and normalise relations with India. So, yes there are several factors operating simultaneously here.

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

dost-mittar #67: There are some inconsistencies in your arguments. And some facts.

``Musharraf`s statement is indeed courageous, given the state of public sentiments in Pakistan.``

Musharraf`s statement is actually exactly inline with the public opinion polls in Pakistan. The public sentiment in Pakistan and the govts.` position are thus now in line. According to a poll conducted by Outlook India magazine in Pakistan:

87% of Pakistani supported a peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem with India.
Around 25% or so supported LOC = border. The remaining supported some other solution.
And a majority considered the Kashmir issue the main irritant that needs to be solved in any talks with India.

These numbers aren`t exact, but are close to what I remember. I couldn`t relocate it on the Internet.

``There are no new solutions, the old ones will be rehashed. The most likely situation will be India wanting to convert LOC into a border and Pakistan pushing for the Chenab formual which would give it most of the valley.``

There are actually a million and one solutions. The first step is for both countries to step back from their unrealistic maximalist positions. Pakistan has now officially stepped back from UN Resolutions. India has to step back from Atut-ang. Neither is practical. It is obvious that India will not hold a plebescite. And it is obvious that Kashmiris, in no way, consider themselves an atut-ang of India.

India has always wanted to convert the LOC into the border. That is what has started the whole conflict. How can that, now, be the solution? And I doubt India will agree to the Chenab forumula. Let the Kashmiris take the lead for once, and you will get the correct solution.

``I would personally rule out independence. I think that both India and Pakistan would be better off having Kashmir as part of the other country than an independent Kashmir which is bound to become an arena of international intrigues and conspiracies.``

The reason some sort of independence may be the only solution is that the Kashmiris in the Valley clearly do not want to live with India. And India clearly will not allow them to join Pakistan. But it may agree to independence. Once again, if India does not let them join Pakistan, nor get independence, then we are back to square one.

``Regarding the Kashmir Study Group, it is a Pakistani creation, just like the Hurriyet, and Indians correctly view them as a representatives of pro-Pakistani kashmiris, no matter what some people might say about them.``

The Kashmir Study Group is not a creation of Pakistan. It is a creation of a wealthy Kashmir from Indian Kashmir. It does not have a single Pakistani as its member. All its members are from the USA with one from Canada, and one fom England. In fact, its founder is the only Muslim in the panel. The rest are all gora Christians. It includes career ambassadors, professors, retired congressmen etc. from the West. How in the world could Pakistan have set them up?

As for the APHC, it has strong links with Pakistan, primarily because it represents a group of people (Kashmiris) who have strong links with Pakistn. It is the most popular group amongst Indian Kashmiris. This is why APHC`s wish of an independent election, under the UN, is never accepted by the Indian govt. Primarily, because there is a fear that the APHC will get the most Kashmiris votes.

``India did not go to the UN to convert the ceasefire into the international border but to recover what it claimed was the Kashmiri territory acceded to it by the Maharaja and illegally occupied by Pakistan. The fact that it has more or less given up that claim shows that it has been flexible, and might even show more flexibility. ``

I don`t think India has given up on the claim, since it never had a claim to begin with. The UN ordered a plebescite, which India could, and shoud, have carried out. Nehru mentioned it in his speeches. However, it realized that it would lose in such a plebescite. That was not flexibility. It was an attempt to ensure that whatever part of Kashmir was under its control, remained under its control. A plebescite would have resulted in India losing all of Kashmir.

I really doubt anyone in Pakistan`s Kashmir would willingly want to join with India, regardless of how flexible or inflexible it may be. So not holding the plebescite was not a flexible action from India, in letting Pakistan have part of Kashmir. It was an action to keep part of it.

``Kashmiri territory acceded to it by the Maharaja and illegally occupied by Pakistan.``

Please read Allistair Lamb`s account of the whole story. If you study the real history of Kashmir, (and not the Indian version) you will realize that India took military action in Kashmir before the Maharaja had signed any document of Assesion, giving Kashmir to India. This is now a well-documented fact.

In addition, the head of Junagarh wanted to give his state to Pakistan. And the head of Hyderabad wanted to be independent. The rules of Kashmir were not applied on them by the Indian govt. It called for a plebescite in Junagarh and ended up invading and occupying Hyderabad. Both the Maharajahs` wishes in these two cases were not considered important. Why are they considered so important in case of Kashmir?

``Therefore, attempt should be made to establish normal relations between the two countries so that the public opinion in the two countries, especially Pakistan, is prepared for painful compromises.``

You are completely misreading the public opinion in Pakistan. Look at the opinion poles. An overwhelming amount of public opinion in Pakistan will accept anything the Kashmiris accept. They are not too concerned about Kashmir joining Pakistan. They just want the opinions of the Kashmiris to be heard. An overwhelming amount of people in these poles want good relations with India. They just cannot figure out, why India is bent upon not giving the Kashmiris a right of self-expression.

The public opinion, in India, definitley needs to be prepared for comprimises. Because, sooner or later, they will have to accept the wishes of the Kashmiris also.

``The Indian public opinion will now likely accept the LOC solution because the media have over the years prepared it for such an outcome.``

I fail to understand this point. I cannot accept that anyone in India actually believes that Kashmiris want to join with India. What justification do they give for the independence movement in Kashmir. And the lack of a plebescite by the Indian govt. in Kashmir. I am sure everyone in India understands that the Kashmiris would much rather leave India than remain with it. So how exactly would the media have to convince them of anything else.

Thus, the LOC solution is infact the status-quo. It is not a sacrifice. Nor a solution. It is what is causing the problem. The idea of all of Kashmir joining India was never even an option, since Pakistani Kashmiris never wanted to join India.

I think the Indian media needs to prepare the Indian public in accepting that the Valley will eventually separate from India, in some form or manner. It has always wanted to separate. And I really don`t see how India can keep it within its borders, forcefully, regardless of what happens in and to Pakistan.

Though, I maybe msreading something. Are there individuals in India that actually believe that the Kashmiris do not genuinely want to leave India? And are their individuals in India who actually believe that those on the Pakistani side of the LOC actually want to join India? I am assuming it must be clear to everyone in India that Indian Kashmiris want to be separate from India, much like Pakistanis wanted to be separate from India, or Bangladeshis wanted to be separated from Pakistan.

If the Kashmiris accept the LOC solution, then that is fine. But I doubt they would. If they were going to, then why would they have started the independence movement? Why wouldn`t they have just accepted the status-quo, much like the people of Junagarh have accepted it?

If a majority of Indians actually believe that Kashmiris, on either side of the LOC, actually want to join India, then I think the best solution for India would be to go for a plebescite, and get the vote in its favor.

Not holding a plebescite, while simultaneously assuming that Kashmiris want to remain with India, and not moving back from Atut-ang is a recipe for disaster. Forcing ones own desires on others, never works. It hasn`t worked for 50 years. How in the world will it work in the future, if this stance is not changed?

I think Indians really need to step back and accept the fact that Kashmiris do not want to live with them. And never wanted to live with them. And I don`t think any amount of force will work in convincing them. If what I am saying is incorrect, then a plebescite in Kashmir would prove me wrong.

At a personal level, you are living in Canada, enjoying your life, living the way you want. Why not let others live the way they want also. What do you gain, or other Indians gain, by trying to force your wishes on others, so far away?

Live and let live. That is my motto. As long as the Kashmiris ar not bothering you, why bother them. Let them be independent, or join Pakistan, or join India, or join Timbuktu. What is the point of colonising them?

If all of Kashmir votes, and joins India, it wouldn`t bother me one bit. My family would pack its bags from Muzzafarabad, and move to Lahore. It won`t change my lifestyle in any way. Bangladesh`s breakaway from Pakistan did not bother me one bit, either. The few relatives I had their, packed their bags, and moved to Lahore. Didn`t change my lifestyle in any way. Why does it bother Indians so much, if tiny little Kashmir breaks away from them? Will it really affect the lifestyle of a person living in Ottowa, Banglore or Delhi? I highly doubt it.

The desire of one man to rule another, against the later`s will is the cause of most of the human rights violations in the world.......

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

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

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

#60
Bull-e-Chaak is singing raag kashmiri again...!

Is it true, O Bull of Chakwal, that all public servants/politicians in POK must sign a piece of paper declaring that they support `integration` of kashmir with pakistan???

- - - - -

Look how proudly the `Air` marshall talks about having `fully integrated` punjab and POK! And then the bstd wants a plebiscite in our half...to accertain the `wishes of the kashmiri people`...the son of a fking Bich.

Are we fools or what...with our article 370.

Someday hopefully some POKi will write a book about how this `integration` was done.

re:#65 by yagacho
Hey, wait a minute. When did i say i am old!!!
Sridhar

Yagacho,

``under muslim, christian rule for more than a thousand years don`t have the balls to do jehad, even if they want to``

I think you foget that jihad/crusade is the gift of islam and christianity to the world. No one else has ever done it. So stop berating others for the lack of it.

Adios

Dost Mittar,

There`s a lot more than Bush & Clinton`s workings at play here. You give too much of credence to a typical megalomaniac american point of view and little to real-politik situation in India-pakistan. Remember that last two years have seen falied efforts from US diplomats to resolve the issue. The prime focus of US admin. will always be israel/palestine dispute much before india-pakistan, not just for religious/mythological reasons, but for their own real-politik reasons. But india & pakistan do not have much to go furhter with the current situation. With a pakistani general proposing a compromise for the first time, india would be willing to settle it quickly as well. Both of these nations are in a dead end situation, with india having an upper hand. No one, including Musharraf will dare to put his life at stake at US` urging. If musharraf has dropped his demand for plebiscite, its only after a little appraisal from the real world around. With india only growing in strength and pakistan diminishing at the same rate, the shrewd man realises the last glimpse of possible opportunity for a face saving formula. Not many pakistanis perhaps realise that soon this opportunity too may be lost.
Adios

The universe wrt Kashmir is unfolding as I had suggested some time ago. The process was somewhat delayed as Bush & Co. got bogged down in Iraq; with Saddam captured, they can now turn their attention elsewhere, including the subcontinent. Newspaper reports suggest that ex president Clinton is palying the matchmaker in the background with the knowledge and approval of the Bush administration.
Musharraf`s statement is indeed courageous, given the state of public sentiments in Pakistan. I wouldn`t call it a breakthrough of any kind, though. It has been known for some time that Pakistan no longer insists upons a plebiscite. Its position is no different from that of India which keeps talking of the entire Jammu and Kashmir - and indeed cannot change that position without going to the parliament, the importance of which Pakistanis may find hard to understand - but has informally given up that position.
What`s next? There are no new solutions, the old ones will be rehashed. The most likely situation will be India wanting to convert LOC into a border and Pakistan pushing for the Chenab formual which would give it most of the valley. The final solution, if it comes, would be some version of LOC-plus, as stated by Mr. Hoodbhoy.
I would personally rule out independence. I think that both India and Pakistan would be better off having Kashmir as part of the other country than an independent Kashmir which is bound to become an arena of international intrigues and conspiracies.
Regarding the Kashmir Study Group, it is a Pakistani creation, just like the Hurriyet, and Indians correctly view them as a representatives of pro-Pakistani kashmiris, no matter what some people might say about them.
Those who say India is inflexible are not quite right. India did not go to the UN to convert the ceasefire into the international border but to recover what it claimed was the Kashmiri territory acceded to it by the Maharaja and illegally occupied by Pakistan. The fact that it has more or less given up that claim shows that it has been flexible, and might even show more flexibility.
I do not think that Pakistan is as yet ready for an LOC-plus solution. Therefore, attempt should be made to establish normal relations between the two countries so that the public opinion in the two countries, especially Pakistan, is prepared for painful compromises. The Indian public opinion will now likely accept the LOC solution because the media have over the years prepared it for such an outcome. The Pakistani media will also have to play such a role before Pakistanis are prepared for accepting the realities on the ground. This attempt has already started in the english language media, with occasional columnist pointing to the futility of the past Kashmir policies pursued by the various govts. in Pakistan.