anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
While I was living in the UK, Australia, and in the US, I had the change to get to meet many Indians, Pakistanis, and Kashmiri. I spoke with them in light of the Khashmir issue, and I got various kinds of answers such as things is to be kept in this fashion, Pakistan/India should retreat from Khasmir, Khasmir should have the right to be independent and so on.
From a neutral perspective, what do you think about it?
Dude,
From Neutral perspective, Things should remain as they are.
When India was partitioned in 1947, ground situation was complicated. In 1947, India consisted of British India and 562 Independent Kingdoms who were protectorate ( vassal ) of Britishers.According to Independence of India Act, Pakistan was to be created from British provinces while Princely states were given three options; to join India or Pakistan or Remain Free. Of the British Provinces, only NWFP was Muslim Majority.In order to create viable Pakistan, three states of British India were partitioned; Punjab into Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab, Bengal into Bengal and East Pakistan and Separating Sindh from Bombay presidency.The decision to partition was precipitated by Direct action day which proved inevitability of Partition.
While the plan was to smoothly divide the aforementioned provinces, the plan did not go smoothly as there was not enough time for a proper division.In the elections that were held in 1945 under separate electorate system, Muslim league had won 92% of Muslim votes while Congress had won Majority of Non-Muslim votes; the only non muslim province which Congress lost was Punjab where Unionist party, a reactionary party of landlords and communal elements won ( In those days, congress pretty much covered every aspect of Indian polity compared to exclusive leftist it is today ). On top of that congress won in NWFP ( current talibani heartland ) also.When Pakistan was to be created,a separate vote of Muslim and non-muslim legislators was taken. In British provinces, separation of Sindh went smoothly as it was geographically non-contiguous area of Bombay presidency. In Bengal, Muslim legislators voted for whole of Bengal joining Pakistan since in a demographically based division, the Industrial heartland along with largest port and coal bearing areas would have gone to India but Non muslim voted in Favor of division.In Punjab situation was more critical. This was the most communally charged province with pretty much nobody wanting to live with person of another religion. The animosity had a historical root. This was the province in which Muslims were largest demographic group with Hindus and Muslims constituting the rest. The relations between Sikhs and Muslims had been extremely bad,historically. The root of this lies in the persecution and murder of Sikh religious leaders by Aurangzeb which sparked a war between Sikhs and Mughals in which Sikhs eventually emerged victorious (before being defeated by Britishers in 1849 ). The root of the problems between Sikhs and Muslims had theological root . Hindu faction of Punjab was also more radical than Hindus elsewhere. During 19th century when reforms movement were going on in Hinduism, Punjab was dominated by Arya Samajist, a movement which was intent on reverting Muslims of India to Hinduism and little is to be said about Punjabi Muslims,even today they are as delusional as those of 47, still trying to trace their mythological roots to Arabia ( most of syeds and seikhs in India + Pakistan are converts from upper caste Hindus).So while partition of Punjab was Unanimous, the accompanying violence was so great that there are practically no Muslims in Indian Punjab and no Hindus in Pakistan.In NWFP, there was a fresh referendum which Pakistan won by a margin of 0.57%.
In princely state there was a much greater potential for epic clusterfuck. All of the princely states while being nominally Independent were dominion of Britishers and Britishers were responsible for foreign policy and Defense. These states were free to do anything they want but there were practically no chances of Independence. They had practically no army to speak off and more importantly had no mandate to rule ( even monarchs require a tacit mandate from population ) as their survival was dependent on Britishers. INC was active in propaganda and political mobilization of population residing in these Princely states with exception of Hyderabad where Nizam actively suppressed congress and political vacuum was filled by Communists as they were militant in their approach thus being more suitable for armed conflict.All in all faced with a population that was adamant on joining either India or Pakistan and faced with might of Indian Army ( Both Indian and Pakistani faction ) which was most potent fighting force in Asia after WWII ( In India compared to Africa, both Bureaucracy and Army had Indians at all levels of leadership including field marshal ) they had no practical choice but to join either India or Pakistan. It was expected that all Princely states would join India or Pakistan ( or would be eventually coerced to ).
But there were some unexpected ( for realists, totally expected ) turn of Events.
1. Kalat( current baluchistan, 23%), while being Muslim majority and surrounded by Pakistan on all sided, refused to sign instrument of accesion and tried to declare Independence.
2. Junagarh, while being 96% hindu and surrounding on all sides by India and ruled by a Muslim King, acceded to Pakistan.
3. Nizam of Hyderabad, which was a overwhelmingly Hindu majority state and surrounded by India on all sides tried to declare Independence.
4. Kashmir, which was contiguous with both India and Pakistan had a muslim majority of 67% was ruled by a Hindu King and tried to declare Independence.
These were resolved in following manner
1. Kalat was militarily occupied by Pakistani Army in 1955.
2. The rulers of Mangrol and babariawad which were under the suzerainty of Junagadh declared independence from Junagardh and decided to accede to India, In response Junagarh invaded and occupied it's two vassals. India in response put a fuel embargo on Junagarh and send Army to occupy those two states which had succeeded to India. With no fuel and Administration facing collapse, /nawab of Junagarh ran away to Pakistan and his dewan signed Instrument of accession.
3. Nizam and Raja of J&K tried to remain independent. The situation was a mirror image of each other. Initially India wanted to come to an understanding with Pakistan and signed an standstill agreement with Nizam of hyderabad, Pakistan wanted to have Hyderabad on Legal grounds and J&K on demographic grounds. Nizam meanwhile tried to buy Goa from Portugese and formed razakar shock troops to forcibly convert hindus to Islam which lead to an armed insurgency with Razakars and Communist pitted on opposite sides. India intervened in 1948 performing operation polo under the pretext of preventing spread of communist violence to India and forced abdication of Nizam.
4. In J&K, King tried to retain his independence.In order to occupy J&K, Pakistan attacked in guise of tribal invasion.Of the four separate regions of J&K, Gilgit-Baltistan being 100% muslim fell immediately to Pakistani invaders while king's forces were routed in Kashmir, Jammu and ladakh being Hindu and Buddhist majority area held steady. King under the threat of his capital being overrun signed instrument of accession to India.India after that airlifted troops to Srinagar ( they were waiting in Delhi for such eventuality ). Indian troops recovered ground lost by King's Army and ceasefire line which is called LoC was agreed upon after India took the issue to UN.
That's enough of history now some geographical realities of J&K.
J&K consist of four geographically separate regions Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and Gilgit-Baltistan. Of these regions Jammu is southernmost and is a Hindu majority ( 70%) region with substantial muslim population in only two districts.Kashmir is a valley between pir-panjal range and Himalayan crystalline sequence and is muslim majority region( currently 95%). Ladakh which is a green schist intermontane plateau between Himalayas and Karakorum range is Buddhist majority and gilgit baltistan between karakoram and Hindukush is muslim majority (100%).
The situation on the ground is such that
1. The idea of Independent Kashmir was never there on table practically. While J&K may be Muslim majority in demography, that muslim majority is concentrated in a narrow valley of Kashmir (15000 sq KM) while Ladakh which has largest areal spread and Jammu which has second largest are not Muslim majority. An Independent Kashmir was never a viable option as neither could a fundamentalist Islamic state morally claim Non-Muslim land nor could it take it by force.
2. The idea of pelbiscite has a pre-condition that Pakistani troops withdraw from J&K ceding control to Indian Army. Only after that, a pelbiscite was to be conducted.Since the fact that Pakistani army has not evacuated and the demographics has changed due to influx of Punjabis in Azad Kashmir as admitted by Pakistani foreign minister and expulsion of Hindus from Kashmir valley, demographic realities have changed.
3. The Geographical realities have also changed due to occupation of Askai chin by china ang gifting of shasgam valley by Pakistan to China.
4. Legally, the whole state of J&K should have acceded to India as was mentioned in terms of instrument of accession.There is no legal ground in claims of J&K by any other party.
5. The Muslims in Kashmir are also not unanimous in their desire to join Pakistan. Shia's in
Kashmir are completely opposed to Idea of joining a sunni state while gujjar muslims who practice transhumance also do not want to join Pakistan. Support of Pakistan is limited to old urban centers.
6. The most relevant argument in favour of status quo would be the amount of time that has passed since 1947. India was open to change in borders until 1959.
7. The J&K insurgency which started with bomb blast in front of Telegraph office in Srinagar was entirely driven by foreign militants.ISI channeled Jihadis returning from Afghanistan into Kashmir. There was never a Pro-pakistani wave in Kashmir barring in urban pockets like Old city in Srinagar. There are two anecdotal evidence to it. In 1965 when Pakistan invaded Kashmir under operation Gibraltar which envisioned infiltration of pakistani army in Kashmir under guise of mujahedeen failed because Kashmiris ratted out infiltrating Pakistanis themselves. Another one is near complete cession of violence since fencing of LoC.
The ideal situation in 1947 would have been a four way division of J&K with India keeping Jammu and Ladakh and Pakistan getting Valley and Gilgit. But since that hasn't occurred, status-quo is best solution.
Last edited: