The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[RollingStones]

Of course the world knows there is a dispute and of course the world is not keen to change the status quo. From the exalted Operation Gibraltar and Grand Slam in 1965 to Nawaz Sharif being forced to eat humble pie by Clinton at Blair House in July 99 during Kargil - the world - including Pakistan's buddy China has shown interest in maintaining the status quo. Pakistan repeats this atoot ang thingy more than India does btw.

I saw a You Tube video aired by Pervez Hoodbhoy (??), a Pakistani with academic credentials from MIT. From that I understand the following:

- Nehru did promise that Kashmiris can have part ways with India if they so choose
- One of the heads of a now declared terrorist group says that he believed in the Indian democratic ways until 1989, when elections in Kashmir were rigged. If this is truly the case, then India did a terrible thing for its democratic cause.
- Some Kashmiri leaders are now saying that the armed struggle and infusion of terrorists in the name of Jihad has damaged the cause of Kashmiri freedom considerably - a valid point.
- It was heart wrenching to watch the thousands of innocent Hindu and Muslim lives being snuffed out.
- Roots of the kashmir problem lies in the partition days
- based on the sloganeering, I got a feeling that poor and illiterate people of both countries and faiths can be easily manipulated to wage a million year Jihad war on each other, if need be.

Kashmir is a complicated problem, one rooted in historical animosity and a war of religions. It is not going to have an easy solution, I am afraid, if at all it gets any solution. Given this, the best and logical solution is status quo and/or greater autonomy within the respective federations.

 

[RamGorur]

- Nehru did promise that Kashmiris can have part ways with India if they so choose

True. But what remains unspoken whenever the ‘promise’ is reminded, is that the promise was conditional upon Kashmir returning back to pre-infiltration situation. In fact, even before India had appealed to UN for cessation of hostilities in Kashmir, India had gone out of the way to propose plebiscite under UN supervision in Nov, 1947. Jinnah, the creator of Pakistan and the then Governor General of Pakistan, had rejected it out of hand, for reasons best known to him.

- One of the heads of a now declared terrorist group says that he believed in the Indian democratic ways until 1989, when elections in Kashmir were rigged. If this is truly the case, then India did a terrible thing for its democratic cause.

True. That is a shameful episode in the history of Indian democracy. The elections (1987) were rigged so that Farooq Abdullah, the father of current Chief Minister of Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, and the then president of National Conference, could come to power. Irony is that, in the 2008 elections, the same Kashmiris came out in hordes to vote the same National Conference into power.

- Some Kashmiri leaders are now saying that the armed struggle and infusion of terrorists in the name of Jihad has damaged the cause of Kashmiri freedom considerably - a valid point.

The moment they picked up Kalashnikovs their cause was lost. The moment they massacred and finally drove out the minorities – Hindus and Sikhs – their cause no longer remained something that a secular country could even give a patient hearing.

- It was heart wrenching to watch the thousands of innocent Hindu and Muslim lives being snuffed out.

So true.

- Roots of the kashmir problem lies in the partition days

Of course.

- based on the sloganeering, I got a feeling that poor and illiterate people of both countries and faiths can be easily manipulated to wage a million year Jihad war on each other, if need be.

Can’t say about this side, but leaders from the other side have indeed promised us a ‘thousand years jihad’ against India.

Kashmir is a complicated problem, one rooted in historical animosity and a war of religions. It is not going to have an easy solution, I am afraid, if at all it gets any solution. Given this, the best and logical solution is status quo and/or greater autonomy within the respective federations.

Status quo with a bit of autonomy is the only viable solution.

 

[Xeric]

Boy dies in Kashmir violence, death toll rises to 60 - India - The Times of India

Boy dies in Kashmir violence, death toll rises to 60
IANS, Aug 19, 2010, 12.47pm IST

SRINAGAR: An eight-year-old boy, hit by a stray bullet during clashes between security forces and protesters, died here on Thursday, taking the toll in the Kashmir Valley unrest since June 11 to 60.

Milat Ahmad Dar was injured Saturday in Harnagh village of Anantnag district. He was playing with his friends when a bullet fired some distance away hit him.

"The boy was not part of any mob. He had come to his mother's ancestral village from Wanpora village in Kulgam district when destiny cut short his life," said a sobbing villager who did not wanted to be named.

"The bullet was fired somewhere else and it claimed an innocent life somewhere else. This is the tragedy of the Kashmiri people," the man said.

Reports said a car and a van belonging to the security forces were attacked by a mob in Harnagh village Saturday when security forces fired in the air to disperse protesting against the firing.

As news of the boy's death spread in south Kashmir, tension gripped the area. The authorities imposed curfew in Koimoh and Anantnag towns.

Authorities have also imposed curfew in Srinagar and north Kashmir's Sopore town while strict restrictions are in place in Baramulla, Handwara, Kupwara and Pulwama towns of the valley.

Yet another shutdown called on Thursday by the separatist Hurriyat group headed by Syed Ali Geelani paralyzed life in the valley. Shops, businesses, educational institutions, banks and post offices were shut while public transport went off the roads in all major towns.

The valley has been reeling under an unprecedented spell of unrest since June 11 leaving 60 people dead so far.

 

[Xeric]

AFP: Boy killed as fresh clashes erupt in Kashmir: police

Boy killed as fresh clashes erupt in Kashmir: police

(AFP) – 7 hours ago

SRINAGAR, India — Twenty people were hurt Thursday in fresh clashes with police after the death of a nine-year old boy injured during a weekend protest in Indian Kashmir, police said.

The death brought to 59 the number of protesters and bystanders killed in two months of violent protests in the mainly Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley, most of them young men or teenagers shot dead by security forces.

The boy, who was not part of any protest, had been shot in southern Kulgam district Saturday and died in hospital Thursday, police said.

"He was injured when a stray bullet hit him after security forces opened fire to quell a demonstration," a police spokesman said.

Thousands of Kulgam residents, shouting "We want freedom" and "blood for blood" attended his funeral, which dispersed peacefully.

In Srinagar, the Kashmiri summer capital, hundreds defied strict curfew restrictions in several places and staged protests against Indian rule, witnesses said.

Riot police fired live ammunition, tear-gas and wielded batons, injuring 17 protesters and bystanders, a police officer said, asking not to be named.

He said three of the injured suffered bullet wounds and were from the same family -- a man, his daughter and daughter-in-law.

Protesters retaliated by hurling rocks and bricks, injuring three policemen.

Srinagar has been under a rolling curfew after separatists called on residents to hold protests against Indian rule.

Anti-Indian sentiments run deep in the valley, and recent protests that started on June 11 after a teenage student was killed by a police tear-gas shell, are the biggest in recent years.

Kashmir is in the grip of a 20-year-old insurgency against Indian rule that has left more than 47,000 people dead by an official count.

 

[Jackdaws]

I saw a You Tube video aired by Pervez Hoodbhoy (??), a Pakistani with academic credentials from MIT. From that I understand the following:

- Nehru did promise that Kashmiris can have part ways with India if they so choose
- One of the heads of a now declared terrorist group says that he believed in the Indian democratic ways until 1989, when elections in Kashmir were rigged. If this is truly the case, then India did a terrible thing for its democratic cause.
- Some Kashmiri leaders are now saying that the armed struggle and infusion of terrorists in the name of Jihad has damaged the cause of Kashmiri freedom considerably - a valid point.
- It was heart wrenching to watch the thousands of innocent Hindu and Muslim lives being snuffed out.
- Roots of the kashmir problem lies in the partition days
- based on the sloganeering, I got a feeling that poor and illiterate people of both countries and faiths can be easily manipulated to wage a million year Jihad war on each other, if need be.

Kashmir is a complicated problem, one rooted in historical animosity and a war of religions. It is not going to have an easy solution, I am afraid, if at all it gets any solution. Given this, the best and logical solution is status quo and/or greater autonomy within the respective federations.

Nehru was a good man. I have reservations about his statecraft and common sense - but he was not the bad sort. Yea - he did promise a plebiscite and the U.N. Resolution required Pakistan to move out of the territory it occupied. Of course, considering the tribal Afridis from Pakistani who had led the invasion had raped women and pillaged Kashmir and Nehru was confident that India would win the plebiscite. Pakistan never withdrew and hence the plebiscite never took place. Upto 1991 - elections EVERYWHERE in India could be rigged. Between the death of Shastri in 1965 and election of Vajpayee in 1996 - electoral fraud was rampant everywhere. Another gift that Indira Gandhi bestowed upon us Indians - large scale corruption.

Root of Kashmir problem is not partition - it is ideology. Pakistan believes Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations. India doesn't think so and is officially secular. That is precisely why in the other thread I was arguing with some alleged Indian buf foons - when they deny certain rights to Kashmiris - they dilute secularism and prove Pakistan right.

 

[ejaz007]

True. But what remains unspoken whenever the ‘promise’ is reminded, is that the promise was conditional upon Kashmir returning back to pre-infiltration situation. In fact, even before India had appealed to UN for cessation of hostilities in Kashmir, India had gone out of the way to propose plebiscite under UN supervision in Nov, 1947. Jinnah, the creator of Pakistan and the then Governor General of Pakistan, had rejected it out of hand, for reasons best known to him.

The talks were held between Mountbatten and Jinnah in 1947. What Mountbatten offered was that a plebescite may be held provided the tribals and Pakistan Army withdraw from the Kashmir. Indian army was to stay in Kashmir. This was stupid proposal and any person with commonsense would reject it.

That is the reason Jinnah rejected it.

 

[RamGorur]

The talks were held between Mountbatten and Jinnah in 1947. What Mountbatten offered was that a plebescite may be held provided the tribals and Pakistan Army withdraw from the Kashmir. Indian army was to stay in Kashmir. This was stupid proposal and any person with commonsense would reject it.

That is the reason Jinnah rejected it.

Actually Mountbatten had proposed a plebiscite under the vigilance of UN. Jinnah's reply to that was that he would only deal with Mountbatten.

Immediately on Mountbatten's return to India, he had filed his official report with Nehru. I am providing some excerpt of the report. It is taken from Sardar Patel's Correspondence, 1945-50, Vol-I, edited by Durga Das.

'I asked Mr. Jinnah why he objected so strongly to a plebiscite, and he said he did so because with the troops of the Indian Dominion in military occupation of Kashmir and with the National Conference under Sheikh Abdullah in power, such propaganda and pressure could be brought to bear that the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan. I suggested that we might invite UNO to undertake the plebiscite and send observers and organisers in advance to ensure that the necessary atmosphere was created for a free and impartial plebiscite. I reiterated that the last thing my Government wished was to obtain a false result by a fraudulent plebiscite. Mr. Jinnah repeated that he and I were the only two who could organise a plebiscite and said that we should do it together. Lord Ismay and I went to great trouble to explain that I was a constitutional Governor-General and a Britisher, and that even if my Government would trust me sufficiently to see this through, I was sure that Mr. Attlee would not give his consent.'

Elsewhere, in the same report, Mountbatten wrote:

'I pointed out the similarity between the cases of Junagadh and Kashmir and suggested that plebiscites should be held under UNO as soon as conditions permitted. I told Mr. Jinnah that I had drafted out in the aeroplane a formula which I had not yet shown to my Government but to which I thought they might agree. This was the formula:

"The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that, where the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as the State's, the question of whether the State should finally accede to one or the other of the Dominions should in all cases be decided by an impartial reference to the will of the people."

Mr. Jinnah's first observation was that it was redundant and undesirable to have a plebiscite when it was quite clear that States should go according to their majority population, and if we would give him the accession of Kashmir he would offer to urge the accession of Junagadh direct to India. I told him that my Government would never agree to changing the accession of a State against the wishes of the ruler or the Government that made the accession unless a plebiscite showed that the particular accession was not favoured by the people.'

As you can see that India was pretty much ready to conduct the plebiscite under UN, long before situations had spiraled out of hand and it was only Pakistan that resisted such plebiscite. Irony is that later, at the UN, only after the situation had already become a nightmare, Pakistan finally agreed to a similar suggestion of plebiscite, which they had previously rejected.

If only Pakistan had agreed to that plebiscite when it was first proposed, then, who knows, may be South Asia would have been spared a lot of blood shed.

 

[Xeric]

An excellent attempt to mislead a very simple issue. Some wordplay and a few quotes and you have a propagandist among you!

BTW, ramgour forgot that the partition of india was decided (primarily) on the basis of Muslim/Hindu majority/population. Occupying a piece of land and then suggesting plebiscite was never the practice until india decided to aggress against Kashmiris.

How about you steal my cat and then you tell me, let the cat decide for itself if it wants to go back or wants to continue staying with you? And then surprisingly you simply refuse to listen; hey smarta$$ the cat was never yours at the first place!

 

[Guynextdoor]

The list leaves out the eighth and most viable option- Pakistan vacates territories it's been illegally occupying since 1947 so that India can unite the two territories. This means that Kashmiri people will finally feel unaliented and since their political and cultuiral rights are constitutionally protected by India will finally see the dawn of prosperity and happiness.

 

[sab]

An excellent attempt to mislead a very simple issue. Some wordplay and a few quotes and you have a propagandist among you!

BTW, ramgour forgot that the partition of india was decided (primarily) on the basis of Muslim/Hindu majority/population. Occupying a piece of land and then suggesting plebiscite was never the practice until india decided to aggress against Kashmiris.

How about you steal my cat and then you tell me, let the cat decide for itself if it wants to go back or wants to continue staying with you? And then surprisingly you simply refuse to listen; hey smarta$$ the cat was never yours at the first place!

Smart*** , you had your cats that you took with you (East Bengal, Sindh, west Punjub etc). Then you tried to take a cat that belong to somebody else (read Hari Singh). The 'somebody' then gave the cat to us and asked to protect it from you. However you managed to retain the tail of the cat (P0K). Now the cat wants its tail. So either you have to give the tail to us or we have to give the cat to you. If we both leave the cat and his tail on street (read Azad Kashmir) it will die starving (You know why)

 

[Xeric]

Smart*** , you had your cats that you took with you (East Bengal, Sindh, west Punjub etc).

Are you actually stupid or just pretending to be one in order to screw the thread?

Antwaz, E.Bengal, Sindh, Punjab etc etc are not something that was given to us in charity. It was how it (the partition) was supposed to work. i suggest you read the 3rd June Plan which was something that became the basis of the actual division between the two new dominions.

Here let me help you out:

The following were the main clauses of this Plan:

1. The Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Punjab and Bengal were to meet in two groups, i.e., Muslim majority districts and non-Muslim majority districts. If any of the two decided in favor of the division of the province, then the Governor General would appoint a boundary commission to demarcate the boundaries of the province on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims.

2. The Legislative Assembly of Sindh (excluding its European Members) was to decide either to join the existing Constituent Assembly or the New Constituent Assembly.

3. In order to decide the future of the North West Frontier Province, a referendum was proposed. The Electoral College for the referendum was to be the same as the Electoral College for the provincial legislative assembly in 1946.

4. Baluchistan was also to be given the option to express its opinion on the issue.

5. If Bengal decided in favor of partition, a referendum was to be held in the Sylhet District of Assam to decide whether it would continue as a part of Assam, or be merged with the new province of East Bengal.

So, whatever landed in our lap was not something that we had snatched but it was something that belonged to us by the law and the arrangement between Jinnah, Nehru and the Brits, so i would suggest you to stop overloading your common sense and refrain from posting illogical arguments which has not basis whatsoever. BTW, if we go by your logic than those areas which formed part of india were again a charity given to you by Pakistan?

Then you tried to take a cat that belong to somebody else (read Hari Singh).

Lastly, just because the ruler was a Singh wouldnt automatically imply that he would decide the fate of a state. If that be the case and if you people still justify this possibility than i must say you people are doing a great disservice to the 'largest' democracy and the secular establishment of your country. It, indeed is against the very basics of your existence! Decide, do you want to become a flag-bearer of democracy or may be some of you think everything should be done as was being done in the USSR and is done in Korea? Something akin to one man/ruler/organization/establishment (pick whatever suites you) show.

Again, Hari being the ruler would never had meant that the "cat belong to somebody else"(read india).

The 'somebody' then gave the cat to us and asked to protect it from you. However you managed to retain the tail of the cat (P0K). Now the cat wants its tail. So either you have to give the tail to us or we have to give the cat to you. If we both leave the cat and his tail on street (read Azad Kashmir) it will die starving (You know why)

Rant!

 

[ejaz007]

Six injured as troops fire at protesters in Held Kashmir

SRINAGAR: The Indian armed forces fired tear-gas shells and live rounds at scores of protesters hurling rocks and defying a curfew on Sunday in Indian-held Kashmir, and at least six civilians were wounded, police said.

The Indian paramilitary soldiers and police first fired tear-gas shells at the angry protesters who were chanting anti-India slogans but later opened fire into the rock-throwing crowds in the main city, Srinagar, a police official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to reporters.

In a statement, the police said that the incident took place, when police were conducting a flag march. “Some miscreants pelted stones heavily on the police, which used (teargas) and pump action ammunition to chase them away,” the statement said, adding that six people were hurt. Doctors said one was in a critical condition.

Witnesses told media that the armed forces used force on worshippers who were coming out of a mosque and that there was no stone-pelting. The paramilitary forces sealed off neighbourhoods with barbed wire and put up road blockades in the summer capital. The popular protests against India have intensified over the past two years.

On Sunday, most towns and villages in the region were under curfew, but sporadic, peaceful protests were reported in several areas. The curfew, imposed intermittently for two months, had been relaxed on Friday to allow people to stock up on food and other supplies. The Kashmiris reject Indian sovereignty and struggle for independence.

During two months of demonstrations, tensions have been threatening to boil over with 62 protesters and bystanders – some as young as nine – killed in the region where anti-India feelings run deep. The anger has not abated despite the deployment of thousands of troops and an appeal for calm from the Indian prime minister. agencies

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[RamGorur]

An excellent attempt to mislead a very simple issue. Some wordplay and a few quotes and you have a propagandist among you!

You can verify the quote form Z.H.Zaidi's 'Jinnah Papers'. Its there as well.

BTW, ramgour forgot that the partition of india was decided (primarily) on the basis of Muslim/Hindu majority/population. Occupying a piece of land and then suggesting plebiscite was never the practice until india decided to aggress against Kashmiris.

Two quick questions. Was Kashmir a territorial part of British India, which was proposed to be partitioned or was it a Princely State? If it was a Princely State, was the principle of partition of British India applicable to the Princely States?

Strangely though, when Jinnah refused to the plebiscite, he, for some reason, forgot to mention these points.

How about you steal my cat and then you tell me, let the cat decide for itself if it wants to go back or wants to continue staying with you? And then surprisingly you simply refuse to listen; hey smarta$$ the cat was never yours at the first place!

The cat was neither yours.

 

[sab]

Are you actually stupid or just pretending to be one in order to screw the thread?

Antwaz, E.Bengal, Sindh, Punjab etc etc are not something that was given to us in charity. It was how it (the partition) was supposed to work. i suggest you read the 3rd June Plan which was something that became the basis of the actual division between the two new dominions.

Here let me help you out:

The following were the main clauses of this Plan:

1. The Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Punjab and Bengal were to meet in two groups, i.e., Muslim majority districts and non-Muslim majority districts. If any of the two decided in favor of the division of the province, then the Governor General would appoint a boundary commission to demarcate the boundaries of the province on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims.

2. The Legislative Assembly of Sindh (excluding its European Members) was to decide either to join the existing Constituent Assembly or the New Constituent Assembly.

3. In order to decide the future of the North West Frontier Province, a referendum was proposed. The Electoral College for the referendum was to be the same as the Electoral College for the provincial legislative assembly in 1946.

4. Baluchistan was also to be given the option to express its opinion on the issue.

5. If Bengal decided in favor of partition, a referendum was to be held in the Sylhet District of Assam to decide whether it would continue as a part of Assam, or be merged with the new province of East Bengal.

So, whatever landed in our lap was not something that we had snatched but it was something that belonged to us by the law and the arrangement between Jinnah, Nehru and the Brits, so i would suggest you to stop overloading your common sense and refrain from posting illogical arguments which has not basis whatsoever. BTW, if we go by your logic than those areas which formed part of india were again a charity given to you by Pakistan?


Lastly, just because the ruler was a Singh wouldnt automatically imply that he would decide the fate of a state. If that be the case and if you people still justify this possibility than i must say you people are doing a great disservice to the 'largest' democracy and the secular establishment of your country. It, indeed is against the very basics of your existence! Decide, do you want to become a flag-bearer of democracy or may be some of you think everything should be done as was being done in the USSR and is done in Korea? Something akin to one man/ruler/organization/establishment (pick whatever suites you) show.

Again, Hari being the ruler would never had meant that the "cat belong to somebody else"(read india).


Rant!

Then Why u r criticising the plebiscite??? Ruler Sing does not imply the state belong to India....similarly a most of the population muslim does not imply it belongs to pakistan.

 

[Xeric]

You can verify the quote form Z.H.Zaidi's 'Jinnah Papers'. Its there as well.

i am not quite a fan of his, but it seems as if you are quite obsessed with the guy. Dont worry, that's natural.

Two quick questions. Was Kashmir a territorial part of British India, which was proposed to be partitioned or was it a Princely State? If it was a Princely State, was the principle of partition of British India applicable to the Princely States?

It was a princely state, but as you lacked the knowledge about the partition mechanism regarding those areas which formed part of india before partition, i dont have to think much to conclude that you also lack the info regarding how the fate of princely states was to be decided as per the 3rd June Plan.

Seriously, the Plan was not that difficult to comprehend. Moreover, a princely state or not, it doesnt exactly matter when india had no right to occupy it whatsoever - the partition happened because of the people and was to take place according to their will, period.

Strangely though, when Jinnah refused to the plebiscite, he, for some reason, forgot to mention these points.

Which points?

The cat was neither yours.

It wasnt, but then who were you to decide this?

The decision was of the people who belonged to the land. But then who can better understand this from someone who hails from the 'largest democracy'..??!!