What's new

The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

the only solution to kashmir issue is the implementation of UN resolutions.election have no bearing on the real issue .

hope that indian people are shown the truth about kashmir

As a Kashmiri ( I am making as assumption here) , if there is a Plebscite and Kashmiris in the Indian controlled areas vote for India and Kashmiris vin the Pakistan controlled areas vote for Pakistan. What do you thing should be the logical thing then ??
 
As a Kashmiri ( I am making as assumption here) , if there is a Plebscite and Kashmiris in the Indian controlled areas vote for India and Kashmiris vin the Pakistan controlled areas vote for Pakistan. What do you thing should be the logical thing then ??

The logical thing would be to honor these votes and settle the border between Pakistan and India accordingly. But, the strong reaction out of India, recently, against anyone (like UK or US) even trying to mediate the dispute shows that Agnostic Muslim's point about India not even agreeing that there is a dispute is true. How can India expect the Kashmir issue to ever be settled with Pakistan if it does not even acknowledge that there is a legitimate dispute? I agree also with whoever pointed out that India wanted a permanent member seat on the UN Security Council This should be opposed, at least, until the Kashmir dispute is legally settled under international law.
 
Again this thread getting some intersting....Lets make it a point to agree on something by end of the thread folks...accpetable to everyone...lets see TRUTHSEEKER suggests...

TruthSeekers suggestion:

Un plebiscite to decide which area of Kashmir shall be within the sovereignty of Pakistan and which to India. There can be some pre-negotiated "rules", for example:

(1) Result must be a contiguous border for Pakistan and India.
(2) Change in sovereignty of an area requires 60% vote;
(3) Voter eligibility determined by residency on some agreed date;
(4) Any changed area is granted certain degree of autonomy for some number of years;
(5) Independence requires positive vote of certain number of contiguous areas and over 60%;
(6) Timetable for holding the votes.

and so on. Key step is agreeing to hold the plebiscite. Second step is agreeing to the rules beforehand. Third step is to do it!
 
I note that no Indian PDF posters have "thanked" me for my suggestions ^^^^^, nor even acknowledged the above post, "solicited" by roopesh. To me that is pretty telling as to where the REAL problem lies ......
 
Last edited:
I note that no Indian PDF posters have "thanked" me for my suggestions ^^^^^, nor even asnowledged the above post, "solicited" by roopesh. To me that is pretty telling as to where the REAL problem lies ......

India does not want a plebiscite in Kashmir. Whatever 'solution' is considered, it should not include the option of creating a new country.
 
India does not want a plebiscite in Kashmir. Whatever 'solution' is considered, it should not include the option of creating a new country.

It doesnt matter what India wants now. The following passage tells the whole story.

Princely states enjoyed three options: accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or independence. But the choice, according to India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and tacitly endorsed by the British, was to be made by popular referendum in cases where the creed of the ruler varied from the religion of the majority. That fundamental democratic principle had been sternly applied by Nehru with military means in Hyderabad and Junagadh where the rulers were Muslim but their inhabitants largely Hindu. Kashmir presented a converse case: the Maharaja was Hindu but the majority subscribed to Islam.

On November 2, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru reiterated, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given and the Maharaja supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it."
 
India does not want a plebiscite in Kashmir. Whatever 'solution' is considered, it should not include the option of creating a new country.

WELL, finally an honest answer from one of the most senior Indian PDF members.
 
WELL, finally an honest answer from one of the most senior Indian PDF members.

That's always been India's position. I don't see what's especially honest about my post - I'm just being blunt that's all.

India doesn't think that an independent Kashmir valley is in the best interests of anyone. Infact, it would be detrimental in the long term.

Not only that - India's unity and integrity is non-negotiable in any case.
 
Not only that - India's unity and integrity is non-negotiable in any case.

So, you are saying that there is NO possibility for Kashmiris who would rather be part of Pakistan to EVER achieve their self-determination. And, that Pakistan has NO hope of ever negotiating a free and fair plebiscite with India that allows Kashmiri self-determination. This position seems to me to be arrogant, and a recipe for unending hostility between you and Pakistan.
 
So, you are saying that there is NO possibility for Kashmiris who would rather be part of Pakistan to EVER achieve their self-determination. And, that Pakistan has NO hope of ever negotiating a free and fair plebiscite with India that allows Kashmiri self-determination. This position seems to me to be arrogant, and a recipe for unending hostility between you and Pakistan.

I don't understand why Pakistan should continue to press the issue at all. Pakistan has its share of kashmir, and perhaps it should focus on developing it rather than continuing to spend all its energies on destabilizing India and supporting Islamic fundamentalism.

It has failed to provide even the most basic freedoms to its portion of Kashmir, unlike India, where separatist leaders are not only tolerated, but given state protection.

At the very heart of kashmiri separatism lies the idea that the people of one particular religion do not wish to coexist with the people of another. I don't see why such racist, xenophobic and religious thinking should be given more respect than it deserves.
 
At the very heart of kashmiri separatism lies the idea that the people of one particular religion do not wish to coexist with the people of another. I don't see why such racist, xenophobic and religious thinking should be given more respect than it deserves.

If you think about it, your statement is a rejection of the "right to exist" of Pakistan itself. As an American, I fully believe in religious "co-existence" and do not favor States that are based on a religion. BUT, the Muslims of the sub-continent DID want their own nation and it was agreed to -> Pakistan. They did not trust the Hindu majority to treat them with equality. PERHAPS, the Muslims of Kashmir have the same concerns, fortified with experience under Indian rule. Since this has been an issue since "day one" of India and Pakistan, you should give it fair consideration and not consider it revanchist. A plebiscite would settle the matter for once and all.
 
So, you are saying that there is NO possibility for Kashmiris who would rather be part of Pakistan to EVER achieve their self-determination. And, that Pakistan has NO hope of ever negotiating a free and fair plebiscite with India that allows Kashmiri self-determination. This position seems to me to be arrogant, and a recipe for unending hostility between you and Pakistan.

Thats basically the point of it all. According to several Indians Kashmir is an integral part of India despite the wishes of the Kashmiri people to achieve independence and be free of Indian rule. I am glad to know that there are atleast some americans who are ashamed of the innocent blood being spilt across the world even if in this one case it is not the americans with their taliban and al qaeda friends who are the cause of it knowing the effects will only be felt on their victims (innocent people and civilians in Iraq Afghanistan and Pakistan)

This does not matter to India:

Kashmir:'87% in Valley want Independence'

Let us begin by acknowledging something everyone knows but does not wish to talk about. People in Kashmir Valley want Azadi in the sense of becoming an independent country. As many as 87 per cent of the respondents in Kashmir chose this option over other options like maintaining status quo or merging both parts of Kashmir either with India or with Pakistan.

Hardcore strategists in India will no doubt draw some consolation from the fact that Pakistan figures almost nowhere as a first preference for Kashmiris in this poll. Yet India is only marginally better placed. Even after allowing for the complexities of the sentiment for Azadi and recognising the peer pressure that operates more in Srinagar than outside, it is hard to dispute the basic finding that people in this part of our country do not display much attachment to the nation-state called India. This finding is very much in line with a much larger and more representative survey (carried out by CSDS and Jammu University) in 2002 that found a similar level of support for ‘Azadi’ all over the Valley.

Not surprisingly, this sentiment is not shared outside the Valley. There are no takers for Kashmiri independence in Jammu town, with nearly everyone supporting an integration of Indian Kashmir and *** into the Indian Union. The opinion in other cities in the rest of the country is not as vehement as Jammu but there is an overwhelming preference for integration with India.

The opinion of urban Pakistanis are, predictably, opposed to the opinions of urban Indians. That makes it look like a perfect deadlock so familiar of national struggles in many parts of the world: a tiny minority wants freedom from nation-states that treat their land as nothing other than a piece of property.

If such a conclusion needs to be resisted, it is not merely because it is dark and depressing, but also because The Indian Express-The Dawn-CNN-IBN poll provides many concrete reasons for hope. Positive signs come from both sides of the border. Urban Pakistanis do not insist on Kashmir joining Pakistan; those who desire so are matched by as many who are willing to accept an independent status for Kashmir. A majority of urban Pakistanis are also willing to let Kashmiris decide their own fate.

Although a majority (higher among the Punjabis) insists that Indo-Pak relations cannot move forward till the Kashmir question is resolved, as many as 45 per cent of those who have an opinion do not see Kashmir as a pre-condition. This proportion is higher among the urban Indians. A series of national surveys conducted over the last few years by the CSDS have also shown that the Indian population endorses negotiation rather than suppression as the right approach in Kashmir.

The most positive signals come from within the troubled state. The state assembly election of 2002, widely seen as one of the few free and fair elections held in the state, has changed things for the better. Respondents in both the cities, more in Srinagar than in Jammu, said that the overall situation in the state has improved in the last five years. Besides, the state government is not without popular support. The people are not very unhappy with the Ghulam Nabi Azad government, though the Valley would prefer the Mufti government over the current one. As any observer of the state would know, these are no mean achievements.

Equally significantly, the two major regions of the state are not poles apart in their thinking on many key questions, despite stark differences in their population profile. Of course, their differences on the question of Azadi spill over to their assessment of the Indian security forces. While people in Jammu back the unrestricted powers to security forces and would like its misuse to be curbed, people in Srinagar are one in their rejection of the powers enjoyed by the security forces. Apart from this crucial difference, there is a lot that binds the people of Jammu and Kashmir together:

• Both the cities are unanimous in their rejection of the RSS-backed proposal for trifurcation of the state;

• The Muslims of Srinagar are as vocal in supporting the demand for bringing the Pandits back to the Valley as the Hindus in Jammu;

• Both the regions are overwhelmingly in support of retaining Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that gives special status to Jammu and Kashmir;

• A majority of the people from Jammu also agree that the struggle of the Kashmiri people is against the government, not the people of India; and,

• There is much higher willingness in Jammu to endorse a dialogue with Hurriyat than used to be the case.

This kind of public mood may not be the dream scenario hoped for by pacifists and democrats within and outside Kashmir Valley. But this is far from the nightmare that many had feared all along. This is much more than the minimum that a visionary statesman, or stateswoman, would need to start a historic initiative to bring lasting peace and democracy in this part of the world.
 
If you think about it, your statement is a rejection of the "right to exist" of Pakistan itself.

No its not, because Pakistan is a soverign country and India respects its right to exist. That has nothing to do with matters which concern Indian citizens.
Paksitan is free to promote any ideology/thinking among its own citizens, as long as that does not spill ove into neighbouring countries. India has different vaules.

As an American, I fully believe in religious "co-existence" and do not favor States that are based on a religion. BUT, the Muslims of the sub-continent DID want their own nation and it was agreed to -> Pakistan. They did not trust the Hindu majority to treat them with equality. PERHAPS, the Muslims of Kashmir have the same concerns, fortified with experience under Indian rule. Since this has been an issue since "day one" of India and Pakistan, you should give it fair consideration and not consider it revanchist. A plebiscite would settle the matter for once and all.

I do not believe that such concerns are justified. Firstly, Kashmir is a semi-autonomous state - it has its own constitution. Secondly, it has full control over population movements because no Indian from outside Kashmir is allowed to settle there - so the idea of being overwhelmed by hindu-majority India is not justified. It even has its own flag.

Agreed that the development of Kashmir was not stellar at all, and Kashmiris would have felt frustrated, but then the same can be said for all the countries in the subcontinent, including Pakistan.
Are the people in Pakistan doing better than those in India? I don't think so. Infact, by several indicators they are doing worse.

If you compare the status of education and human development in Pakistani Kashmir and Indian kashmir, in spite of all the violence and bombings and wars, Indian kashmir has better universities and schools than Pakistani Kashmir.
Srinagar University (Staffed and run by Kashmiris themselves, but funded by the central government) was one of the top universities in Asia before the terrorism begain in 1989.

Even in terms of the right to practice their faith, Indian muslims are doing better - they don't have Taliban-types forcing them to adopt a certain strain of Islam. There has been religious violence in India over the years, but there has been religious violence in Pakistan too, and I daresay it has been worse.
 
^^^^
Mr. Flintlock, Sir!

I hear all your arguments as to why the Kashmiri's are better off as Indian citizens. But why not trust them to agree with you? Are you afraid to let them vote in a plebiscite? If your arguments are so persuasive, then THEY will be persuaded, RIGHT? What is India afraid of? If it agreed to a plebiscite, it would WIN, right? No problem. Kashmir issue over and done!!

PS, TS is going to sleep now!!
 
Back
Top Bottom