Monday, February 13, 2012

What is India’s case in Kashmir? by Aakar Patel Feb 5, 2012

What is India’s case in Kashmir?
by Aakar Patel Feb 5, 2012

Does India have a case in Kashmir?

If so, what is it?

The Pakistan case is straight: Let Kashmiris decide whether they want to live as Indians or as Pakistanis. This is supported by the United Nations Security Council resolutions beginning with No 38 in 1948 and going on to No 123 in 1957. The resolutions seek a direct vote, what is called a plebiscite, among people in Jammu & Kashmir on their future. The UN said it would administer this vote, and called for India and Pakistan to demilitarize the state.

Kashmiris shout slogans during a protest in Srinagar February 3, 2012.
The Kashmiri case is slightly less straight. Some of them want accession to Pakistan (Jamaat-e-Islami’s Ali Shah Geelani of Sopore and Muslim Conference’s Mirwaiz Umar Farooq of Srinagar are its champions) through a plebiscite. Some of them (for instance Yasin Malik’s JKLF) want a vote that adds independence as a third option. Some of them (all Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, most Shias and some Sunnis, including the ruling National Conference and the opposition PDP) are fine with India.

Though Nehru agreed to the plebiscite plan at first, he later backed off. India’s case on the plebiscite is defensive, and rests on technicalities. One is the Security Council resolutions’ sequencing of troop withdrawal. Pakistan was asked to withdraw its troops first. Secondly, India points to the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly’s acceptance of the accession to India in 1954. This is meant to be a substitute for the plebiscite (though the UN specifically said it could not be).

A third, unofficial, reason is that much time has passed and the resolutions have somehow become irrelevant. Kofi Annan said the same thing when as secretary general he was pressed on this matter. After the resolutions of 1957, the UN lost interest. Then the wars of 1965 and 1971 eclipsed the Kashmir issue. The world was more concerned that the subcontinent be at peace than it was about resolving the original problem.

Most Indians may not be aware that the Kashmir issue went to the United Nations because Nehru took it there. Till that time, there were two parties to the dispute, India and Pakistan. The Security Council’s resolution added a third party, the people of Jammu & Kashmir. Nehru went there because he believed India was the aggrieved party. He believed that Hari Singh’s accession was legal and that the only matter for discussion was how to get Pakistan to vacate the raiders Jinnah had sent in. The other thing some people might not know is that the Jamaat e Islami’s founder Maulana Maududi thought the jihad in Kashmir was un-Islamic. This was because it was launched with freelancers and not by the state officially, as Maududi thought was prescribed in Islam. In a letter to Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, Maududi said that the April 1948 ceasefire signed between India and Pakistan was binding on all citizens, regardless of the merits.

In prescribing the plebiscite, United Nations took a broader, more humanitarian view of the problem than merely as some property dispute, and India was in trouble. After that, Nehru shifted focus from trying to get the bits Pakistan had won militarily, to trying to secure the acquiescence of the population of Jammu & Kashmir.

In time, even this did not work out. The state’s prime minister Sheikh Abdullah sensed the unease of some if not most Muslims in staying with India. His politics began to reflect this, and an alarmed Nehru dismissed Abdullah and jailed him.

This began a sequence of Indian meddling in the state’s politics. The Kashmiri complaint was that Delhi did mischief and kept upending its leadership. This was true.

This resulted in the Kashmiri revolt that began under Benazir Bhutto’s first term. A parallel development was the forming of the jihadi groups in Pakistan. One group, the Hizbul Mujahideen, was supported by the Jamaat e Islami under its third Amir, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, who broke with Maududi’s wisdom. The Deobandi Harkat ul Ansar (later renamed Harkat ul Mujahideen after an American ban, and still later renamed Jaish e Muhammad) and the Salafi Lashkar e Taiba rose to lead the jihad. The violence continued till India sent troops to the border after Jaish attacked its parliament. Under pressure, president Pervez Musharraf backed down, and banned the groups in 2002. The jihad in Kashmir ended almost immediately and today the violence is almost totally gone. The theatre of these groups has now become Pakistan.

Next week we shall again pick up the thread of what, if any, case India has on Kashmir.

freedune Conversation Starter  1 week ago
The clearest case is that some people want a separate state on the basis of their religion.  There is no great cultural separation that Kashmiris have that sets them apart with the rest of India as compared to many other cultural groups.

The clearest case is that Pakistan decided it wanted to be the sexy cowboy of the Islamic world, and to assume political leadership by 'showing the kaffirs' their place.  Most of the trouble in the world today emanates from this land, although they may take inspiration from Saudi Arabia philosophically. 

The clearest case is that the British played a very dangerous game when they left India.  They should have merged Kashmir into either India, as the ruler was Hindu, or Pakistan, as Muslims were a majority.  There would have been a one-time bloodshed as along the rest of the borders, but the case would have been closed there.

The clearest case is that Nehru was a megalomaniac who wanted to emerge as a world statesman, and his delusions failed us magnificently as evident in the Kashmir problem he gifted us and the defeat to China we had to suffer.

The clearest case is that the Indian government has been ruled by a bunch of impotent cowardly criminals, who could not take a hard stand and kept on yielding to Islamist pressures.  The worst part of the saga is that they did not do anything to claim our land back from Pakistan even after its defeats in the 1965 and the 1971 wars.  Till today, we do not have the truth about what killed Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in Tashkent.

The clearest case is that subsequent Congress regimes have looted Kashmir and then crushed opposition, thus fomenting further rebellion and hatred against India amongst its population, which made them vulnerable to the lure of Jihad.

The clearest case is that India's people keep on voting the bastards back into power through commission or omission, due to their petty corrupt jingoistic mindsets, and there seems to be no miracle cure in sight to change this permanently.
Krishna Gupta and 12 more liked this  Like

NPegasus 1 week ago
Ok.  So what do we do now?

R. Chaudhry 1 week ago
We need to do the following:

First and foremost, we need to stop being defensive about the issue. It is shameful how easily we are cowed and how poor our PR is. Instead of this being an issue we are 'sensitive' about, it needs to be an issue we are all very clear about.

Every time we put pre-conditions on discussing the issue [and we do it all the time], we lead the world to believe that we have something to hide, something to be ashamed about. Every time Pakistan says 'Kashmir', we go 'first you do this, this and that'. Imo, this needs to change to 'Of course, we'll talk about Kashmir. We have *always* talked about Kashmir. It is Pakistan who has a history of direct violent action on the issue.'

Talking is easy, so talk till the sky falls down. Just don't concede any points.

Second, on the UN front, again we need to be perceived as being the good intentioned, willing ones. So the next time the UN resolutions are raised, and we can depend on Pakistan to raise them, we need to say that it is pointless harping on them until the preconditions are met. That we are a nation that is willing to consider the matter carefully but only once the pre-conditions are met. 

The resolutions talk about Kashmir as it appeared on Cyril Radcliffe's map. Today, Pakistan has roughly 1/3rd of that area, China has another 1/3rd. For the preconditions to be met, China and Pakistan would have to withdraw. :) Can you see China ever conceding *anything*? :)

So let those two allies decide who will shoulder the blame for being the intransigent block to resolution - there is no need for us to shoulder the blame simply because so far we have let ourselves be outmaneuvered.  

Third, and most important, we need to clean up our act in Kashmir. The state has been in a state of lawlessness for 3 decades. This is the moment when good governance really counts. One more generation gone to this madness, and we might see a situation like Afghanistan develop - a people so used to incessant warfare that they cannot conceive of peace. Do not know how it works.

This will be the toughest part but it is doable. Explaining how will take too long for this comment.

There are, obviously, other implications and necessities pertaining to the issue, but the three points mentioned above, and undertaken simultaneously, do seem to be the crux of  any strategy aiming at normalization of the issue.

And it is time to sort it out - we have spent too long and too much in blood and money on this issue. Simply because we have been acting like idiots.
freedune liked this  Like

S.Lal 1 week ago

The Indian
Independence Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo 6 c. 30) was as an Act
of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
that partitioned British
India into the two new independent dominions of India
and Pakistan. The Act received the royal
assent on 18 July 1947, and the two new countries came into being on 15 August.

The Act's most important
provisions were:

division of British India into the two new and fully sovereign dominions of India
and Pakistan, with effect from 15 August 1947;

partition of the provinces of Bengal and Punjab between the two new

establishment of the office of Governor-General
in each of the two new countries, as representative of the Crown;

conferral of complete legislative authority upon the respective Constituent Assemblies of the two new

termination of British suzerainty over the princely
states, with effect from 15 August 1947, and recognized the right of states
to accede to either dominion[4]

dropping of the use of the title "Emperor
of India" by the British monarch (this was subsequently done by King George VI by royal proclamation on 22 June 1948).

The Act also made provision for
the division of joint property, etc. between the two new countries, including
in particular the division of the armed forces.

Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India according to provisions of the Act, under
the Act by which Pakistan
was created. If J&K’s accession to India
is not considered valid and legal, then, creation of Pakistan is also invalid and illegal.
Except the area forcibly occupied and under its control now, Pakistan has no locus standi in J&K. UN
resolution, a result of international chess game, has repeatedly been violated
by Pakistan: {1} By not vacating area occupied stealthily in 1948. (This was
the first step to be taken by Pakistan
according to UN) {2}  By invasion of
1965.(Which rendered UN resolution obsolete) {3} By handing over J&K areas
to China. {4} By Kargil invasion. {5} By sending Pak army/ISI trained personels
as Jehadi Terrorists who further ethnically cleansed K.Valley which again makes
any sort of ‘will of Kashmiris’ invalid. 

AND above all, accession to india by Maharaja of J&K was
approved by State Assembly. So Pakistan
has no locus standi. Pakistan
is playing a religious card which India
being a secular democracy can not highlight due to which India remains
on the defensive. 

MUSLIM-MUSLM-ONE-NATION is obviously no principle on which Pakistan’s
claim or for that matters Kashmiris will or wish can be accepted. Had it been
so, there would not have been 57 MUSLIM countries, Iran,
Iraq would have not faught
war for 10 years, Bangladesh
would not have separated from Pakistan.
From any angle, Pakistan
has no claim over J&K except ‘Seenazori’ which had been supported by
western nations till now.

13 people liked this.  Like

Soumen Sengupta Conversation Starter  1 week ago
Gift of Gandhi family:

Nehru: Kashmir
Indira: Emergency
Rahul: Bofors
Sonia: 2G
the story goes on...................
12 people liked this.  Like

Kamal 1 week ago
All that is written is part of history now. As the things stand today, Pakistan does not have a case in Kashmir, as besides few of its paid stooges, nobody really wants to side  with Pakistan. India should and could have instead granted autonomy to Kashmir but the geopolitical situation does not permit. Such a step will be suicidal for India and most probably for Kashimiri population also. The movement the Indian troops withdraw, the jehadis will penetrate Kashmir and would start dictating Kashmiri population and would be source of constant security threats to India. Their agenda is also not secular and they view India as a Hindu nation. Therefore the matter is likely to remain hanging for another quite a few years until the situation changes there drastically. Except for security considerations, India does not seem to have any advantage of keeping Kashmir with it. The whole exercise is proving a drain on the economic resources of India.
Dee Dee and 11 more liked this  Like

Terra Nova 1 week ago
how do you know if India is secular. Totally agree that the constitution is secular and a fine one, but the attitude of some people is not really secular. I am not sure how the big that section is.
1 person liked this.  Like

bbc_abc Conversation Starter  1 week ago
@ Terra Nova:

Indian constitution is secular? Please go read it first!
5 people liked this.  Like

Ramchi Conversation Starter  1 week ago
No it is NOT secular! For a seculars there will be only one rule of law!
Ghoda and 2 more liked this  Like

bbc_abc Conversation Starter  1 week ago
@mv : I'm going to ask you too to read the constitution, especially, the part where it talks about religious minorities.
mv 1 week ago
Isn 't it?  I thought this was the Preamble to the Indian Constitution....
The Constitution declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty, and endeavours to promote fraternity among them.

Meeta2000 1 week ago
If we have to go back to the concept of India then Afghanistan and Pakistan and Bangladesh must also be considered part of it.
Let's see how Afghanistan is faring. It was a progressive country that was gifted with war of others be it USSR or somebody else. Result - Taliban that destroyed the world view of that people who were 'more advanced' than India. Now the lands have been taken out of their control and they remain a warring population labeled savages with no say on what goes in their own country.
Bangladesh - late in formation but economically a mess. Their population infiltrates into India and even the Nobel prize could not solve it's crisis. Their industries are the most unwanted in the world like stitching clothes and breaking ships. If this is what their children can aspire for then there is no more discussion necessary.
Pakistan - a combinationnof the fates of Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Add terrorism tag. With the label of the only country founded on the basis of Islam and you have an impoverished Israel with the might of bangladesh.
Kashmiris must introspect and see what their future holds for them? It looks more like... show more
11 people liked this.  Like

Labrinto L 1 week ago
India has progressed immensely, it does not even consider North East as a part of the nation, the people of North East are discriminated based on their race, yet we defend ourselves and do not term this as a racist act. Go to Delhi and find yourselves how girls from NE are an easy target for eve teasers. We also have progressed with the nature of scams, we have multi billion dollar scams instead of multi million dollar scams. The Kashmiri's should vote to join EU :) not India Pakistan or Bangladesh.
 Ghoda and 3 more liked this  Like

Ghoda 1 week ago
2 people liked this.  Like

rg594 1 week ago
Ya- I'd love to see a broke EU try and defend the worlds most difficult terrain that exists between  three nuclear powers and Afghanistan.
1 person liked this.  Like

ComicProject 1 week ago
There can be no option of surrendering Kashmir. The Kashmiris have two options either accept India or go to PoK, at least they will not get to feel what it feels like to be driven from their homes like the lakhs of Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own country.
Too much of Indian blood,effort and money has gone into Kashmir to surrender it.
Dee Dee and 9 more liked this  Like

chanakya_the_cynic 1 week ago
Read about the concept of sunk cost and abandon that line of reasoning. There are other, better reasons to maintain that Kashmir should remain part of India
1 person liked this.  Like

Kunal 1 week ago
Will the Kashmiri HIndus get to vote if there is a plebiscite ? In that case Kashmir itself would have to be divided into two parts, the Hindu part which will go to India and let's guess that the Muslim part goes to Pakistan or stays independent. Would that be acceptable ? Would that end the conflict ?

I dont think there is any question of where Jammu and Ladakh would that be ok ? Or they want that as well in their territory ?

Plebiscite won't work. J&K is part of India...Pakistan or free Kashmir is not going to happen..either accept that or suffer.
9 people liked this.  Like

Ramchi Conversation Starter  1 week ago
Any plebiscite to happen in Kashmir where the problem started in the year of 1947 during partition must have the same population ration ratio (where Hindus was substantially larger closer to Muslim population), now. So Government of India & Kashmir must ensure this happens first before they (those who seek Plebiscite)  can make any attempt of giving separate land to anyone not withstanding the fact that India will become disintegrated after that.

India must accept the vote on that precondition alone.

If this is seen as a Hindu-Muslim conflict then we must trade all Muslims for Kashmir where the phase II of Indo-Pak partition will be completed.

Anything other than this India need not even think of wasting time.

There is a third-option where they can fight through war (more specific, through Jihad); they have to kill every single Hindu in India before claiming Kashmir.
8 people liked this.  Like

bharat 1 week ago
Only in India do you find bleeding hearts and artists who want to renounce the spoils of statecraft. You guys need to toughen up and learn to sleep well after winning your wars, despite the collateral damage you inflicted. Kashmir belongs to India - if America can be a great power after genocide of the Native Americans, and enslavement of the Africans, and Britain can rule from sunrise to sunset by cheating and trickery, Alexander and Genghis can conquer by pillage and plunder, and they all can still be respected and admired, India and Indians need to discover the Ashoka in them - Channd Ashoka was the greatest Indian king - and he killed more than most. All rulers and great powers need to do that - Rome was not built with garlands and love. So toughen up, and fight to first absorb Kashmir permanently, then other lands (in due course, with intelligence, and patience, when the time is right) to rebuild the great India that once dominated its hemisphere. We have a seventh of humanity to feed, we need more lands, and food, and wealth. It should hurt each of you much more to see a hungry, ashamed Indian... show more
freedune and 6 more liked this  Like

R. Chaudhry 1 week ago
I'd be interested in your citations re: Nehru's reasons for referring Kashmir to the UN. To the best of my knowledge, Nehru had referred the issue to the UN, disregarding the vehement opposition of Sardar Patel to the same, because he wanted to be perceived as a man wedded to justice, democracy and to the legal process. This action, alongwith the declaration of plebiscite, had been taken at the recommendation of Governor General Mountbatten. The latter stroked Nehru's ego and perception of self until Nehru was no longer willing to see the valid objections of Patel.

Incidentally, it was the partisanship of the British [busy still with the Great Game] that queered the pitch in UN as well.
Dee Dee and 7 more liked this  Like

ghatothgacha 1 week ago
This only proves the irreparable damage the Nehru dynasty has done to this country and continues to do so under the name of "gandhi".
8 people liked this.  Like

Lakx_s 1 week ago
We are discussing something which happened in 1940s-50s the time when India was partitioned into Pakistan and India. The reason it was partitioned was the hindu population in areas dominated by muslims. It is the same with Kashmir, it still has lot of non-muslims despite many hindus being killed and driven out of Kashmir. So the only solution for Kashmir is a partition. plebiscite will work only in places where the whole population is same not in kashmir where we have different religious and linguist groups. When we have such minorities this plebiscite will wipe out the minorities, so not a solution for every one. 

Its like 3 sons are fighting for the ancestral property and if 2 of them are togather the solution will still have to be a 3 way partition where each son gets a part, if we have a plebiscite kind of vote then 2 of them will get all the property and the 3rd a minority will be left with nothing when all of them have equal rights. In Kashmirs case the minority has more rights over the land then the majority who are mostly invaders while the land is hindus ancestral property. So the... show more
Manoj Kumar and 6 more liked this  Like

Kunal 1 week ago
FP is becoming a junk blog day by day. Sensationalist articles like these or utter bullshit from Akshaya Mishra seem to be their strategy to attract visitors.
6 people liked this.  Like

Ajay 1 week ago
Incidentally, the contents of the post, including historical references on UN, are accurate! The interpretation may just not be convenient to most.

vicharappa 1 week ago
Are Pakistanis Free? Do they have freedom? 

And so much hullboo about Nations on the basis of Religion take a look 
at Islamic Nations ... Please have a look in Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Iraq 
& of course Afghanisthan. Do they even so much as come an inch close
to India in the meaning of Freedom, Development & Growth ?

Or even for that matter does one really believe that the OIL RICH Islamic countries Free?

ON the other hand take a look at Non-Religion based countries - USA, Europe, Japan are their People Lot more Free? More financially independent?

In an atmosphere as vitiated as in Pakistan which is in neighbourhood It
is the motherly umbrella of India because of which Kashmiri Muslims are so much more comfortable.

Demilitarisation by India will only lead to Pakistan increasing infiltration big way with Taliban guys. Will the Kashmir Muslims then feel free? And don't forget Saeed Naqvi, he will immideately have training camps there. 

Finally, what about the Kashmiri Pandits ? Do they have a "CASE" in Kashmir ?
freedune and 5 more liked this  Like

freedune Conversation Starter  1 week ago
The people of the North East are culturally further removed from the Hindi heartland or the western regions than the people of Kashmir are different from the Himachalis or the Uttarakhandis.  Should we yield to the demands of the Bodos for independence?  What about the Tamils?
Krishna Gupta and 3 more liked this  Like

Theideaofindia 1 week ago
Precisely, the idea called India is in a precarious state with all the corruption prevalent. Any entity seeking independence on the basis of religion at the cost of others beliefs cannot be allowed. What an open discussion allows if conducted in a logical and cold manner, is to allow each litigant to place the cards on the table. There is no guarantee of an apodictic breakthrough but at least it is better to move forward. At this juncture India is vulnerable and precarious and the decisions taken now will have ramifications many many years later.

Maskin Chopest 1 week ago
Technically, Kashmir's status is unknown. The ruler during those turbulent years after the partition wanted his kingdom to remain independent but as Pakistan invaded Kashmir and the Hindu king accepted India's help to thwart the invaders on the condition that it later be merged with India.

The Hindu King preferred Kashmir to be Independent and later was forced to join India but he never liked the idea of Kashmir merging with Pakistan.

India should have implemented the UN vote in 1948 and that would have solved the problem forever but Nehru's fear that Kashmiris would choose to go in Paksisthan's way lead him to ignore the vote.

But no one can deny the fact that the Indian military committed atrocities in Kashmir and the Pakistani Government supported Jihadist organizations to wreck havoc in Kashmir. India could've acted smarter from the beginning and Pakistan should have stressed the need for a democratic and political way to solve the crisis rather than supporting terrorist organizations.

In any case whether India wins in the end or Pakistan rejoices, the sheer losers in the unfolding will be the Kashmiris... as they have always been!
6 people liked this.  Like

S.Lal 1 week ago
For details, please, read my comments in  this column. Kashmiri muslims are no loosers, they are receiving extra billions of rupees as grants from Govt. of India. They are also helpers of Pakistani Jehadi terrorists who are perpetrators of atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits(Hindus) and have ethnically cleansed the K.Valley. There can be no crime more heinous against humanity in present times. Mr.Maskin, clear the cobwebs of your mind.

Keepgoingakarpatel 1 week ago
One of the problems for any dialogue and meeting of minds has been cashmere getting caught in geo-strategic calculations of the external powers, the mess created by the hasty partition, jihad of the amire momeen[you still hear it loudly in youtube] for which there had to be an equal response from the Indian Army and the suffering of the ordinary people. If one thinks coldly whatever perspective or belief that one adheres to which conjectures ones definition of truth, time has come for not open up the floor for discussion with clear rules of dialogue and surely there could be solution that is comes mid-way to all parties the impediment being the deep state and its supporters and mixing up religion with what is patently a political question. Being a topic that is bound to rouse tempers, it has to be very very well researched deductively argued to build a cumulative set of claims based upon cold facts and not the crap that was turned out a while back by a first post journo with the azadi songs written for a particular audience, In India the absence of a strong leader like Sardar Vallabahai Patel and corruption undermines any effort... show more

Everyoneisaloser 1 week ago
The losers are all Maskin, oridinary Indians who have invested enormous amount of emotional capital in defending the idea of India, the kashmiri families caught in the cross fire, the jannat tourist, the ordinary land of the pure trader[not the jet set mohatraramma, in India the peacenicks, activists, concerned citizens and grasshopper listeners who need the zulm azadi cauldron to boil in order to concoct the magic realism piece] the ordinary jawan who endures difficult conditions from his way from Karur  to cashmere and the tax payer, You are not special.
1 person liked this.  Like

Keepgoingakarpatel 1 week ago
This dialogue should be done in a civilized manner with clear rules of debate towards a way forward not circumnavigating on the past.

Indian 1 week ago
The Freedom of India Act envisaged only two countries- India and Pakistan. There was/ is no scope for amending it now. A number of people have fought the battle for independence and anything different will amount to disrespect for them. As such the question of Kashmir being an independent nation does not arise. The fault, if any rests with Nehru, and there's no reason why I should pay for his faults. However, the next generation Nehrus, whose only claim to fame, is their hereditary line, and not intelligence and statesmanship, can't obviously call Nehru's mistake a mistake. India's line should be very clear. There's no question of independence of Kashmir since that's illegal demand. If any of the Kashmiris want freedom, they are free to go anywhere including their beloved Pakistan. The gates are open from our side. As long as they are in India, they should respect the Constitution of India, which mst be amended to repeal special status for Kashmir.
5 people liked this.  Like

TruthSpeaker 1 week ago
thats the whole genesis of the problem, you want the land, but not the people living on the land.
2 people liked this.  Like

Nativerooster1 6 days ago
Yes we don't want Kashmiris as slaves ! That is culture of other societies and countries and not of Indians. We are a free society. You do all anti-social and anti-national activities, still you have rights to proov innocence and at times to the astonishment of whole nation a criminal manages to go Scot free ! People who pour scorn on such humane system are welcome to leave this country and try their antics elsewhere which are now becoming rarer and dearer ! "Aatey-dhal ka bhaw maloom pad jayega" ?! Remeber "Guantmo Bay" !

nitin 1 week ago
A discussion over whether Kashmir is India's case or Pakistan case is totally irrelevant . Kashmir being geographically and strategically located is too important for India .  

Grievousness of the indigenous people of kashmir are best saved with india only , look the work of china in tibet or paksitan in POK what they have left for the indigenous people ,nothing .

5 people liked this.  Like

Krishna Gupta 1 week ago
We could debate the Indian case in Kashmir endlessly (and indeed, we will with your next post :) ), but the reality is that this discussion is irrelevant. India has made (and continues to make) a number of mistakes in the region, but the issue of Kashmir is today important to India's territorial and ideological integrity. The resolution should be a pragmatic one for all parties involved at the time. A porous LOC that is defined as the national border and semi-autonomy on both sides would be the way to go in my opinion. 

Today's independence is an economic one - Gujarat is more independent than a Bhutan is. Perhaps Kashmiris would be better off focusing on keeping their Kashmiriyat intact, on removing the parasites within their own community, and on giving their own entrepreneurs the resources to build economic independence. In the meantime, we can only hope the Centre becomes wiser and gives Kashmiris a reason feel as integral to the notion of India as they should.
5 people liked this.  Like

Rameez Farooq 1 week ago
Kashmiri's need freedom from india completely. wonder u r analysis does not feautre killings, rape ,mass nation will agree to economic development if such brutalities have been done.. tats why u never understand y there is a issue on 1st hand
4 people liked this.  Like

NPegasus 1 week ago
Kashmiris need freedom from their own insanity, victimhood and self-inflicted wounds - real and imaginary. 

No entity comes out clean is clean in Kashmir.  Everyone has blood on thier hands.  The Indian state looks better, despite its follies, than others.  The killings, rape and brutalities have also happened at the hands of militants and seperatists which no Kashmiri dare talk about.  Nor any Kashmiri care about the miniorites who have been systematically removed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Jammu Kashmir & Laddakh

Popular Posts


Search This Blog