The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[harish]

Dear Xeric, the 'wish of the Kashmir people' is not as important here as the wish of 1.5 billion people of both our countries, who are and have been suffering for over 6 decades. Suffering with a legacy foisted on us by the British as their parting gift before they left after 300 years of plunder, keeping the doors open for further milking of their favorite cash cow, till the reality of post-war depression set in, just as did the sun on their empire.

After all please appreciate, that since both Pakistan and India agree that an independent Kashmir identity is not a possibility, then it stands to reason that the only two players involved here as independent standalone sovereign entities are India and Pakistan. And India and Pakistan both hold parts of what some would collectively term Kashmir, just as other would collectively loosely term adjoining parts of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan as Balochistan (or Baluchistan depending on the country in question). So since its the question that needs to be deliberated upon and decided between India and Pakistan, and what is at stake is the lives of 1.5 billion people of India and Pakistan, the decision needs to be collectively taken by all the citizens of both countries. Once that decision is taken and sealed, the Kashmiris are offered a vote (plebiscite) to decide which nation to be a part of. Hope that makes my point clear.

I have told you a solution which is the only realistic one available to us today. Neither country will be willing to give up one square kilometer of land they hold today. Your solution is plebiscite which is also something I have covered. The choice of nationality will be in the hands of the Kashmiri people. So where is the problem in that? Isn't that what Pakistan has been crying itself hoarse about? We work together to help make the transition easy. If you stick to your stand and we stick to ours, then you can forget about a solution for the next thousand years.

You are wrong in saying that it is we who are losing out under the strain of maintaining a huge armed presence in Kashmir. The land is ours and we are occupying it and preventing entry to you. Simple. Just as you are on what is yours, as well as what you hold of ours. The results of this financial strain on India are no secret brother. A vibrant growing economy moving along at 7+% with the very real possibility of ramping up to over 10% soon, Maoists, dalits, poverty, dearth of toilets, and all. Compare that to your country? The message is clear.

You may continue to stay away from open conflict and train and arm and finance proxies to fight us. They will be an irritant at best for a country of our size and strength. And somewhere down the line you may force our hand in returning the favor. We will still hold Kashmir. And continue to do so. Where is the solution in that? What else can you do? You can either fight us for it with you regular forces, or you can try and turn the tide of international opinion against us. You know the results of both my friend. So come forward and try and find a solution together.

 

[Xeric]

Dear Xeric, the 'wish of the Kashmir people' is not as important here as the wish of 1.5 billion people of both our countries, who are and have been suffering for over 6 decades. Suffering with a legacy foisted on us by the British as their parting gift before they left after 300 years of plunder, keeping the doors open for further milking of their favorite cash cow, till the reality of post-war depression set in, just as did the sun on their empire.

i will jot down my points here;
One, you really need to read JFC Fuller's Conduct of War (an excellent book) so that you understand the phrase "Absolute War and Absolute Peace". But as probably you wont be reading it so here, let me try explaining you why i recommend this book to you; One cannot have absolute peace after a war if there's a chance the the side which was defeated was once again get up and avenge its defeat. As it happened after WW-1, the Treaty of Versaille subdued the Germans for some time but the humiliation, restrictions and the sanctions over Germany forced Hitler to play WW-2. In short, there is no fun in winning a war that would ultimately lead to another one, even after a 100 years. That's not what wars are meant for.

So, this brings me to my second point, solution of Kashmir without taking care of the 'wish of Kashmiri People' would be just another arrangement where we might gain peace temporarily but somewhere down there would come back to haunt us when he would have the power to do so. Moreover, apart from this theoretical (though proved) arrangement if india or Pakistan would not keep the 'wish of Kashmiri People' it would be a blunder that would make us repay in the times to come.

Three, what i see from your post is that indians have no regards whatsoever for the people of Kashmir. They just think of themselves and themselves alone, which indeed is dangerous!

After all please appreciate, that since both Pakistan and India agree that an independent Kashmir identity is not a possibility, then it stands to reason that the only two players involved here as independent standalone sovereign entities are India and Pakistan. And India and Pakistan both hold parts of what some would collectively term Kashmir, just as other would collectively loosely term adjoining parts of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan as Balochistan (or Baluchistan depending on the country in question).

It seems as if you are in a habit of molding the words as it suits you. It surprises me how beautifully (sarcasm) you 'loosely' compared Kashmir and Balochistan. Just as an appetizer, Boluchistan and Pakistan are not separated by a LoC but an inter-provincial boundary. It is the real world and real politics and people dont use words as 'loosely' as we have seen you using them.

Please avoid using absurd and non-existent metaphors that dont fit in this debate. You people started with Balochistan and now have brought in Iran and Afghanistan. What on god's earth does Afghanistan and Iran has to do with Kashmir solutions, except that the resolution of Kashmir issue would not only be beneficial to them but the entire world?

So as you must have seen my impatience over and the inability to suffer fools especially who drag in Balochistan, i would suggest that you better refrain from doing this again. If you want to prove that Balochistan and Kashmir are compatible, please open up a new thread and we can kill each other there.

So since its the question that needs to be deliberated upon and decided between India and Pakistan, and what is at stake is the lives of 1.5 billion people of India and Pakistan, the decision needs to be collectively taken by all the citizens of both countries.

Ok now coming towards the gray matter in your post.

As i have said earlier that you cannot take away the Kashmiri factor from india-Pakistan equation, you simply cant. You keep on saying that the lives of 1.5 billion people are at stake but you conveniently forget about the 0.5 million Kashmiris, which to me is similar to Hitler's attitude against the Jews!

Once that decision is taken and sealed, the Kashmiris are offered a vote (plebiscite) to decide which nation to be a part of. Hope that makes my point clear.

No your point is not clear.

Whatever the decision has to be made is to be made with thorough consultations with the Kashmrirs and it would not be like; you take the decision first and then ask the effected party to accede to it, no. It's synonymous to dictatorship and india has a very guud track record in this regards, so please dont tarnish the image of the 'largest democracy' of this world.

I have told you a solution which is the only realistic one available to us today. Neither country will be willing to give up one square kilometer of land they hold today. Your solution is plebiscite which is also something I have covered. The choice of nationality will be in the hands of the Kashmiri people. So where is the problem in that? Isn't that what Pakistan has been crying itself hoarse about? We work together to help make the transition easy. If you stick to your stand and we stick to ours, then you can forget about a solution for the next thousand years.

Sir, Kashmir not only require a 'realistic' solution but also a logical one, so your recommendation stands void.

As for the loss of territory, well if that be the will of Kashmiris (india and Pakistan to give up some parts), i think no one should and would have a problem, except that if the atoot ang syndrome again comes to play things can get uglier. Dont try to be another israel, the world is already fed up of one! Respect humanity and human choice, phulease.

You are wrong in saying that it is we who are losing out under the strain of maintaining a huge armed presence in Kashmir. The land is ours and we are occupying it and preventing entry to you. Simple. Just as you are on what is yours, as well as what you hold of ours. The results of this financial strain on India are no secret brother. A vibrant growing economy moving along at 7+% with the very real possibility of ramping up to over 10% soon, Maoists, dalits, poverty, dearth of toilets, and all. Compare that to your country? The message is clear.

EERrrrr...!!

Again the stubborn stance?! i think i have made it clear to you that our discussion cant move forward if you gonna stick to this stupid attitude.

Kashmir has to be solved with some give and take, so get used to it!

BTW, what you spend on your military in Kashmir could be spent for making something basically very useful . You get it dont you?

You may continue to stay away from open conflict and train and arm and finance proxies to fight us. They will be an irritant at best for a country of our size and strength. And somewhere down the line you may force our hand in returning the favor. We will still hold Kashmir. And continue to do so. Where is the solution in that? What else can you do? You can either fight us for it with you regular forces, or you can try and turn the tide of international opinion against us. You know the results of both my friend. So come forward and try and find a solution together.

Very are already staying away not only from open conflict but also from this proxy stuff. Infact, today it is india that is used as a prefix to the P word, not us. Moreover, we have always tried to avoid conformation as we cant afford one (not that we dont have the capability, but i am talking of the economical and bloody results of war), but it has been india who have been provocative.

Escalation 2001-02, Cold Start, Surgical Strikes, fencing the LoC, backing out from dialogues and stubborn attitude is what india has always done, it was not Pakistan.

Now before i conclude, i would say something about your last words; we would fight you if we had to, you atleast shouldn't be having any doubt about this as you have already seen our capabilities. And as for the international opinion, well you couldn't change it either. Just by showing us some western statements where they have allegedly negated the plebiscite option you cant claim that you have turned the tides. The international community is blind but then it is not stupid. Had that been the case, by now Kashmir would have been yours.

 

[EjazR]

That's what i am saying, by shouting thief thief you impress no one, get hold of the thief with the booty right there and then we can talk over this.

I'm not sure if you are aware, maybe you are not. But if possible do see if you can grab a voluminous set of Hum LeT kay Maee or We the Mother of LeT.

Thats documentary statements of mothers who lost their sons in Kashmir and all of them from Pakistan. Mostly from rural and poor backgrounds. Hardly any from the middle class.

I'm basing this on a few magazine articles in a PAkistani based Urdu paper as well as a longer piece by Farhat Taj on the Internet. PM me if you want me to search the actual link.

If you had gone through the Chatham house poll. It should that there is hardly any support for militant violence in Indian Kashmir (highest in 6% in one district) while its close 50% on the Pakistani side. Clearly, the Indian Kashmiris are not appreciative of this but there is a mismatch on the Pakistani side.

 

[Xeric]

I'm not sure if you are aware, maybe you are not. But if possible do see if you can grab a voluminous set of Hum LeT kay Maee or We the Mother of LeT.

Thats documentary statements of mothers who lost their sons in Kashmir and all of them from Pakistan. Mostly from rural and poor backgrounds. Hardly any from the middle class.

I'm basing this on a few magazine articles in a PAkistani based Urdu paper as well as a longer piece by Farhat Taj on the Internet. PM me if you want me to search the actual link.

Lost in the 90s, right?

And Farhat Taj, who says that drones are welcomed by the FATAians as they consider them the holy bird Ababeel..??

Lolz..

If you had gone through the Chatham house poll. It should that there is hardly any support for militant violence in Indian Kashmir (highest in 6% in one district) while its close 50% on the Pakistani side. Clearly, the Indian Kashmiris are not appreciative of this but there is a mismatch on the Pakistani side.

Support doesnt matter.

i support the freedom fighters of Kashmir, what matters is do i support them by providing weaponry?

 

[EjazR]

Lost in the 90s, right?

And Farhat Taj, who says that drones are welcomed by the FATAians as they consider them the holy bird Ababeel..??

Lolz.


Support doesnt matter.

i support the freedom fighters of Kashmir, what matters is do i support them by providing weaponry?

I believe you dismiss anything that doesn't fit in your preconceived notions. You're not even curious on reading up on that? If I remember correctly it was a 2009 article and quite current, although like I said it has gone down since 90s and 2000s. Maybe Musharraf/GoP realized that backlash it has caused among KAshmiris? Does the current GoP understand that, time will tell.

You want to support people, who have no support from Kashmiris themselves. And then you wonder why only 2% want to join Pakistan.

 

[Xeric]

I believe you dismiss anything that doesn't fit in your preconceived notions. You're not even curious on reading up on that? If I remember correctly it was a 2009 article and quite current, although like I said it has gone down since 90s and 2000s. Maybe Musharraf/GoP realized that backlash it has caused among KAshmiris? Does the current GoP understand that, time will tell.

These kind of articles require that they should be read with a pinch of salt and i usually avoid salty things.

Moreover, whether we realized something or not is none of your concern, you should be happy , thankful and appreciative of the fact that it stopped. Aam khao, pair na gino..

But what i feel here is that the graph taking a dive doesnt concern you people much, perhaps it needs to take an upward turn.

You want to support people, who have no support from Kashmiris themselves. And then you wonder why only 2% want to join Pakistan.

That's what you think. The kind of regard that i have you people showing for the people of Kashmir has strengthened my belief that Kashmir should never fall into your hands or else you would make hitler/israel shy!

 

[toxic_pus]

A clarification.

Some fruitful thought....

Northern Areas, Pakistan - Definition

Northern Areas, Pakistan - Definition

...... Some parts of the region were invaded by Maharajas of Kashmir and they forcefully governed the area for many years, which led to the common belief that it is a part of Kashmir. But the people of Gilgit-Baltistan regard themselves as being distinct from Kashmiris and many want to become the fifth province of Pakistan. And they oppose being included in Kashmir. Their opinion is that invasion of Mahrajas doesn't mean that this is a part of Kashmir, just like British invasion over the India in 19th century does not mean that India is a part of Britain......

Firstly, in 1857, following the Sepoy Mutiny, the British included the Kingdom of Kashmir under its suzerainty. Subsequently, The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908, Vol 15, pg 72 published in detail, the physical boundaries of Kashmir and gave the co-ordinates as 'extending from 32°17' to 36°58'N and from 73°26' to 80°30'E'. Those co-ordinates cover Gilgit, Hunza, Baltistan and also what is today know as Aksai Chin.



Similarly, The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908, Vol 19, opposite pg 218, published the map of Kashmir and NWFP, clearly delimiting the boundaries between the two and of course, including Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan as part of Kashmir.

The claim that these areas, i.e. Hunza, Gilgit and Baltistan which are collectively called Northern Areas, are part of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, arises from these official British documents and not from any 'common belief'. Also the accusation of calling parts of NWFP as part of NA is just another hogwash

The Gazette and also the map can be accessed here.

Secondly, the agreement between Pakistan and China, regarding Saksam valley - which is in any case null and void - apparently contains a proviso that made the settlement ’ subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute'. This is by far the clearest indication that Pakistan does consider the NA as part of Kashmir, pending 'final solution'.

 

[EjazR]

These kind of articles require that they should be read with a pinch of salt and i usually avoid salty things.

Moreover, whether we realized something or not is none of your concern, you should be happy , thankful and appreciative of the fact that it stopped. Aam khao, pair na gino..

But what i feel here is that the graph taking a dive doesnt concern you people much, perhaps it needs to take an upward turn.

Thankful for what? For not letting lose killers on the Kashmir populace? Is the propaganda of "Jihad in Kashmir" still being spread in Pakistan? Isn't the UJC still issuing statements from Muzaffarabad? At least think and tell me why the Indian army and paramilitary forces were NOT in Kashmir before 1989.

The current military presence is a direct consequence of that. The Indian security forces can't be absolved from their crimes. But Kashmiris also know why the situation today is the way it is.

That's what you think. The kind of regard that i have you people showing for the people of Kashmir has strengthened my belief that Kashmir should never fall into your hands or else you would make hitler/israel shy!

What I want is a solution that will satisfy the widest possible section of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. These include people from Jammu and Ladakh and NA. They include Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists. The desires of a few cant be forced on the rest. And to achieve this there had to be end of violence on ALL sides. That means withdrawing of security forces from populated areas as well as end of any support to militant groups.

 

[toxic_pus]

On another note, here is the Kashmir conundrum.

The solution envisaged by UN resolutions (i.e. either Pakistan or India) is unacceptable to Kashmiris.

The solution sought by the Kashmiris (i.e. independence) is unacceptable to both India and Pakistan.

The solution sought by India (i.e. LoC = IB) is unacceptable to Kashmiris and Pakistan.

The solution sought by Pakistan (i.e. joint sovereignty) is unacceptable to Kashmiris and India.

Lets not even pretend to know what the solution is.

 

[RollingStones]

On another note, here is the Kashmir conundrum.

The solution envisaged by UN resolutions (i.e. either Pakistan or India) is unacceptable to Kashmiris.

The solution sought by the Kashmiris (i.e. independence) is unacceptable to both India and Pakistan.

The solution sought by India (i.e. LoC = IB) is unacceptable to Kashmiris and Pakistan.

The solution sought by Pakistan (i.e. joint sovereignty) is unacceptable to Kashmiris and India.

Lets not even pretend to know what the solution is.

I dont think Kashmiri leaders really want freedom or anything. If the movement or urge was so powerful:
a. it would have found a voice in the international community
b. India would not be making huge investments such as building railway lines and educational institutions in Kashmir Valley

There is more than meets the eye here. There must be backdoor diplomacy or something whereby Indian leaders know exactly what the future of their part of Kashmir is. No one makes multi billion dollar investments if they are not sure about the returns.

 

[PakSher]

You want to support people, who have no support from Kashmiris themselves. And then you wonder why only 2% want to join Pakistan.

I think you are referring to the 2% hindus that live in Jammu and Kashmir, it can happen, it is a typo. This has been discussed before and I am a Kashmiri and 2%multiply by 40 may be correct figure.

Pakistan already captured 29% of it and we just need the rest. We will get there Inshallah. Your 2% lie is not going to work on this forum maybe works in Indian newspapers to misguide the Indian population.

 

[toxic_pus]

I think you are referring to the 2% hindus that live in Jammu and Kashmir, it can happen, it is a typo. This has been discussed before and I am a Kashmiri and 2%multiply by 40 may be correct figure.

Pakistan already captured 29% of it and we just need the rest. We will get there Inshallah. Your 2% lie is not going to work on this forum maybe works in Indian newspapers to misguide the Indian population.

This is called cognitive dissonance. A self-serving version of ‘reality’ has been drip fed to you by your State and you have convinced yourself that it is the truth. So when you are faced with the real ‘reality’ that completely contradicts your perceived ‘reality’, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for you to rationalize the dichotomy between what you perceive it should be and what you see it really is. Instinctively, you just reject the real ‘reality’, out of hand and cling on to your perception, because it is easier for you to rationalize your perception than the dichotomy.

If it is any consolation, you are not the only one.

 

[Xeric]

A clarification.


Firstly, in 1857, following the Sepoy Mutiny, the British included the Kingdom of Kashmir under its suzerainty. Subsequently, The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908, Vol 15, pg 72 published in detail, the physical boundaries of Kashmir and gave the co-ordinates as 'extending from 32°17' to 36°58'N and from 73°26' to 80°30'E'. Those co-ordinates cover Gilgit, Hunza, Baltistan and also what is today know as Aksai Chin.



Similarly, The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908, Vol 19, opposite pg 218, published the map of Kashmir and NWFP, clearly delimiting the boundaries between the two and of course, including Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan as part of Kashmir.

The claim that these areas, i.e. Hunza, Gilgit and Baltistan which are collectively called Northern Areas, are part of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, arises from these official British documents and not from any 'common belief'. Also the accusation of calling parts of NWFP as part of NA is just another hogwash

The Gazette and also the map can be accessed here.

By these coordinates even the cities of Pakistani Gujrat, Kharian and Gujranwala are included in Kashmir, dont be ridiculous!

Also i was talking of the Mahraja invasion in 1819, much earlier than your time line. Indeed it was not the british authority to include or exclude just anything from a piece of land. It may hold guud till the time the brits were in power (or else by that definition even today Pakistan should be part of india). Most importantly Kashmir is the only place in the history of this world that has been invaded, 'gifted' and occupied not once but many times. Here's a little insight:

* Up to 1325: Ruled by 155 Rajas independent and sovereign 1325 to 1585: Muslim Sultans independent and sovereign (1420 to 1470) "Golden period of Kashmir history" Periods of Occupation and Struggle for Freedom
* 1586 to 1752: Mughal Rule
* 1752 to 1819: Tyrannical Afghan Rule
* 1819 to 1846: Colonized by Sikhs
* 16 March 1846: British sold Kashmir to Dogras
* 1846 to 1947: Dogra Rule
* 15 August 1947: Partition of British India Indo-Pak war to gain control over the territory of Kashmir
* 22 Oct.1947 : Tribal-backed Invasion of Kashmir
* 24 Oct. 1947: Pakistan controls one third of Kashmir - Provisional Govt. of Azad Kashmir proclaimed
* 27 Oct. 1947: Indian military invasion in Kashmir- two thirds of Kashmir occupied by India
* Indo-Pak War: Cease-fire achieved 1 Jan, 1949.

So why dont you go a bit further deep into history and tell us that Kashmir belongs to Afghans/Pathans who invaded in it 1752? Why choose a specific period of time, just because it suites? If we accede to your definition then half of the world today would belong to the brits and the remaining half (the areas in it) would claim each other as a part of theirs!

Secondly, the agreement between Pakistan and China, regarding Saksam valley - which is in any case null and void - apparently contains a proviso that made the settlement ’ subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute'. This is by far the clearest indication that Pakistan does consider the NA as part of Kashmir, pending 'final solution'.

You got that right.

But the agreement is not 'null and void' just because it awaits a final solution of Kashmir, indeed as the area 'was a no-man's undemarcated border land' and as these 'contiguous areas the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan, in a spirit of fairness, reasonableness, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, and on the basis of the ten principles as enunciated in the Bandung conference' and for the 'development of good neighbourly and friendly relations, but also to help safeguard Asian and world peace' the agreement is subject to the final resolution of Kashmir issue as the 'Asian and world peace' and the regional tranquility is intermingled so deeply to Kashmir issue that it cant be seen in isolation. Indeed, if this 'modern' war on terror cant be seen in isolation and its success is subject to the final resolution of the Kashmir issue', how can we relegate an area whose (not only the) proximity warrants a solution to the 6 decade old issue?!

Or may be by your understanding if Pakistan today says that IPI gas pipeline is subject to the final resolution of Kashmir issue (as Kashmir is the main bone of contention between the two countries) the province of Balochistan should also become part of Kashmir?!

 

[Xeric]

Thankful for what? For not letting lose killers on the Kashmir populace? Is the propaganda of "Jihad in Kashmir" still being spread in Pakistan? Isn't the UJC still issuing statements from Muzaffarabad? At least think and tell me why the Indian army and paramilitary forces were NOT in Kashmir before 1989.

The current military presence is a direct consequence of that. The Indian security forces can't be absolved from their crimes. But Kashmiris also know why the situation today is the way it is.

Unfortunately it is the indian soldiers according to amnesty international's report which says that india committed war crimes that led to the death of 70,000 people and it was your Gen Bahia who was denied visa to Canada, not the militants.

You know what, that's a strange understanding - the freedom fighters attack the soldiers, and in turn the soldiers would extort, kill and rape the innocent populace.

What I want is a solution that will satisfy the widest possible section of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. These include people from Jammu and Ladakh and NA. They include Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists. The desires of a few cant be forced on the rest. And to achieve this there had to be end of violence on ALL sides. That means withdrawing of security forces from populated areas as well as end of any support to militant groups.

Now we are talking, arent we?

That's what i want and the best thing to get this done is through a plebiscite, not by those 'controlled' polls. Also when you say 'end of militants', well FYKI (and as you has already acknowledged) it already did. One cannot rule out the possibility of some indigenous fighters who infact would always be there, come what may due to the sole reason of being oppressed.

Speaking frankly as per the UN demand, Pakistan has already pulled back its 'men and material' support (if any) from Kashmir since long, there are no tribals there now and no more are going in, so the only hindrance to the resolution of Kashmir issue is the presence of indian soldiers who commit crimes against humanity day and night and which is condemned the world over. Today, it is only india who has to fulfill its 'promise'.

 

[Jade]

I dont think Kashmiri leaders really want freedom or anything. If the movement or urge was so powerful:
a. it would have found a voice in the international community
b. India would not be making huge investments such as building railway lines and educational institutions in Kashmir Valley

There is more than meets the eye here. There must be backdoor diplomacy or something whereby Indian leaders know exactly what the future of their part of Kashmir is. No one makes multi billion dollar investments if they are not sure about the returns.

That’s true. There are three segments in a Kashmir. One, which want to be in India: mostly main stream. Second, which want to be independent: ex JKLF, Hurriyat (Moderate) and the third segments could want to join Pakistan, Hurriyat (Gilani).

People recognize that the third segment has not much support even in valley forget the other parts of Kashmir. The segment such as JKLF and Hurriyat (Moderate) are convinced that Independence is not possible and they may settle for autonomy.