October 17, 2007
Sheikh Abdullah and Kashmir 1947-1948 (Guha Chapter 4)History
(Part 3 in an ongoing series dedicated to Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi; see last week’s post here. This week’s post is dedicated to Chapter 4, “A Valley Bloody and Beautiful”; next week we will look at Chapter 5, “Refugees and the Republic,” which looks at the problem of integrating millions of refugees into the new Indian republic.)
Guha’s first chapter (of three) dealing with Kashmir, I must admit, left me with more questions than answers, but it may be that the subject of Kashmir — even restricted to two years at a time — is simply too complex to deal with in a thirty page overview chapter. Guha’s goal is to provide a balanced account of what happened in 1947-8 with the Accession of Kashmir to the Indian union (October 26, 1947), and the war between India and Pakistan that followed (which is actually well-summarized at Wikipedia). Guha goes with the line that the Pathans who marched on Srinagar in the autumn of 1947 were surely armed by Pakistan, and were not exactly a “liberation” army (they were only too happy to loot Kashmiri Muslims as well as Hindus and Sikhs in the towns they entered). He also stresses the close ties between Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru, and derides Hari Singh as just another useless Maharaja. He also acknowledges that the role of the UN in 1948 was not particularly helpful, and that effectively the whole issue was going to be punted (1965), and then punted yet again (1999).
We could go back and forth on Kashmir forever. The two major, historically grounded positions in the debate, I think, are the following:
- (1) The Maharajah of Kashmir, Hari Singh, legally joined the Indian union in 1947, and therefore the territory belongs to the Indian union, irrespective of whether Hari Singh’s action represented the desires of the majority of Kashmiris. A popularly elected Constituent Assembly, led by Sheikh Abdullah, did unanimously ratify the Accession in 1951.
- (1a) At this point, we should just formalize the Line of Control (LOC), and end the whole thing.
- (2) The people of Kashmir have the right to self-determination. When it signed the ceasefire in 1948, India promised to offer Kashmiris a plebiscite, where they could decide whether to join India or Pakistan, or remain independent. This it has never done. Moreover,
- (2a) Sheikh Abdullah always asked for more autonomy for Kashmir, and was eventually imprisoned for it (correction: he was imprisoned when he started to demand independence). Even if a plebiscite is not granted, the demand for autonomy should be taken seriously.
(Is that a fair characterization of the two major positions, and the ancillary points that follow from them?)
My goal here — and I hope you’ll go along with me — is not to reaffirm my own position, but rather to find out something I didn’t know before, and explore new ways of thinking about a very old subject. From Guha’s account, the figure I’ve become most interested in is Sheikh Abdullah, a secular Muslim who saw himself as the natural leader of all Kashmiris. He sided with India in the conflict with Pakistan, but was later imprisoned by the Indian government for continuing to demand autonomy for the region. His complexities are perhaps emblematic of the extraordinarily complex political problem that is Kashmir.
To begin with, here is what Guha has to say about Sheikh Abdullah:
Whether or not Abdullah was India’s man, he certainly was not Pakistan’s. In April 1948 he described taht country as ‘an unscrupulous and savage enemy.’ He dismissed Pakistan as a theocratic state and the Muslim League as ‘pro-prince’ rather than ‘pro-people.’ In his view, ‘Indian and not Pakistani leaders… had all along stood for the rights of the States’ people.’ When a diplomat in Delhi asked Abdullah what he thought of the option of independence, he answered that it would never work, as Kashmir was too small and too poor. Besides, said Abdullah, ‘Pakistan would swallow us up. They have tried it once. The would do it again.’ (91-92)
And here is what Abdullah did, as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir (a post he held starting in 1948):
Within Kashmir, Abdullah gave top priority to the redistribution of land. Under the maharaja’s regime, a few Hindus and fewer Muslims had very large holdings, with the bulk of the rural populations serving as labourers or as tenants at will. In his first year in power, Abdullah transferred 40,000 acres of surplus land to the landless. He also outlawed absentee ownership, increased the tenant’s share from 25% to 75% of the crop, and placed a moratorium on debt. His socialistic policies alarmed some elements in the government of India, especially as he did not pay compensation to the dispossessed landlords. But Abdullah saw this as crucial to progress in Kashmir. As he told a press conference in Delhi, if he was not allowed to implement agrarian reforms, he would not continue as prime minister of Jammu and Kahsmir. (92)
I quote that second paragraph because it’s important to remember that Kashmiri politics in 1948 was not merely a Hindu-Muslim problem. And Abdullah’s ideology was not only “Kashmiri autonomy within India.” He was also fiercely invested in democratization (and opposed to any vestiges of monarchy or feudalism) and land redistribution.
But here’s the crucial thing. Though Abdullah accepted what he saw as “Kashmir’s constitutional ties with India,” he never really accepted the idea that Jammu and Kashmir was merely a state like other states, integrated within the Indian union. For him, Kashmir was always a nation, even if it ceded all military and some legal/executive controls to India. You can see this in the speech he gave at the J&K Constituent Assembly meeting in 1951, the text of which is online here:
One great task before this Assembly will be to devise a Constitution for the future governance of the country. Constitution-making is a difficult and detailed matter. I shall only refer to some of the broad aspects of the Constitution, which should be the product of the labors of this Assembly.
Another issue of vital import to the nation involves the future of the Royal Dynasty. Our decision will have to be taken both with urgency and wisdom, for on that decision rests the future form and character of the State.
The Third major issue awaiting your deliberations arises out of the Land Reforms which the Government carried out with vigor and determination. Our “Land to the tiller” policy brought light into the dark homes of the peasantry; but, side by side, it has given rise to the problem of the landowners demand for compensation. The nation being the ultimate custodian of all wealth and resources, the representatives of the nation are truly the best jury for giving a just and final verdict on such claims. So in your hands lies the power of this decision.
Finally, this Assembly will after full consideration of the three alternatives that I shall state later, declare its reasoned conclusion regarding accession. This will help us to canalize our energies resolutely and with greater zeal in directions in which we have already started moving for the social and economic advancement of our country. (link)
(I would recommend reading the whole speech, if you have a chance.) Keep in mind — when Sheikh Abdullah says “nation” or “country,” he is not talking about India, but Kashmir.
And here is what he says about Accession and the 1947-8 war:
Finally we come to the issue which has made Kashmir an object of world interest, and has brought her before the forum of the United Nations. This simple issue has become so involved that people have begun to ask themselves after three and a half years of tense expectancy. “Is there any solution ?” Our answer is in the affirmative. Everything hinges round the genuineness of the will to find a solution. If we face the issue straight, the solution is simple.
The problem may be posed in this way. Firstly, was Pakistan’s action in invading Kashmir in 1947 morally and legally correct, judged by any norm of international behavior ? Sir Owen Dixon’s verdict on this issue is perfectly plain. In unambiguous terms he declared Pakistan an aggressor. Secondly, was the Maharajah’s accession to India legally valid or not ? The legality of the accession has not been seriously questioned by any responsible or independent person or authority.
These two answers are obviously correct. Then where is the justification of treating India and Pakistan at par in matters pertaining to Kashmir ? In fact, the force of logic dictates the conclusion that the aggressor should withdraw his armed forces, and the United Nations should see that Pakistan gets out of the State.
In that event, India herself, anxious to give the people of the State a chance to express their will freely, would willingly cooperate with any sound plan of demilitarization. They would withdraw their forces, only garrisoning enough posts to ensure against any repetition of that earlier treacherous attack from Pakistan.
These two steps would have gone a long way to bring about a new atmosphere in the State. The rehabilitation of displaced people, and the restoration of stable civic conditions would have allowed people to express their will and take the ultimate decision.
We as a Government are keen to let our people decide the future of our land in accordance with their own wishes. If these three preliminary processes were accomplished, we should be happy to have the assistance of international observes to ensure fair play and the requisite conditions for a free choice by the people. (link)
It’s clear that even in 1951, Abdullah’s position is not going to make the Nehru or the Indian government happy. He wants Pakistan out of the picture, but he also never wavers on the demand for a plebiscite — which fits squarely with his obvious ideological passion for pure democracy in Kashmir, does it not?
I think Sheikh Abdullah fatally failed to realize that without political and military sovereignty, the idea of “nationhood” is meaningless. Autonomy within the Indian union is not really a meaningful solution; it could never work as a practical matter as long as Pakistani and Chinese troops are massed on the borders. My hunch is that Abdullah was so invested in maintaining his own centrality to Kashmiri politics that he couldn’t see that the compromised position he was taking was destined to fail.
I do not have very deep knowledge about what happened to Sheikh Abdullah after 1953. As I understand it, he was imprisoned for eleven years, and on his release was briefly reconciled with Nehru (before the latter’s death in 1964). Abdullah was in and out of detention through the 1960s, and finally in 1975 signed the controversial “Kashmir Accord,” a legalistic document which gives somehow everything to the government and pays lip service to Kashmiri autonomy at the same time.
amardeep on October 17, 2007 10:50 AM in History · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I think the situations are vastly different today than when the Skeikh was in power. With the Hindu radicals (read Sangh Parivar) and the Muslim militants and mullahs, claiming to represent their communities.The debate for democracy seems to be lost in the whole religious chest banging.
I wish someone makes a video demanding India n Pakistan leave Kashmir alone (a la Chris Crocker).
Interesting to compare Sheikh Abullah to NWFPs Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Both peripheral regions wanted a lot more autonomy than the centralized state was willing to give. For that matter, same is true of Punjab and Bengal. And the Northeast. Comes back to chachji's question -- would south asia better accomodate peripheral regions demands for autnomy in a decentralized feredation?
One can imagine a world where Suhrawardy had gottone together with, Annadurai, Ghaffer Khan and Sheikh Abdullah, not Jinnah, and demands for regional autonomy were never communalzed. Tamlis, Pathan, Bengalis and Kashmiris would all have demanded that Cow-belter Nehru and the hindi-speakers allow decentralization.
I think Kashmir cannot be viewed by itself but should be considered with how other princely states were dealt with. Hyderabad is a mirror image of Kashmir in that it had minority rule over the majority, in this case it was the Muslim Nizam over the hindu majority.
The Nizam initially wanted to stay independent, then he thought about going with Pakistan. What was India's response? They sent Sardar Patel to take care of it. Operation Polo. I quote Wiki:
"The military operation was carried out because the State of Hyderabad under Osman Ali Khan, Asif Jah VII, decided to remain independent after the partition of India. Wary of a rogue Muslim ruled state right in the middle of India, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru decided to annex the state of Hyderabad. Though backed by Qasim Razvi's armed militias, known as Razakars, and a distant moral support of Pakistan[1], the Hyderabad State Forces were easily defeated by the Armed Forces of India within five days."
India made clear the reason for this. Hyderabad was a Hindu majority state ruled by a Muslim majority. It was only natural that it go with India. The Nazim was forced to sign the Instrument of Accession with the military sitting outside his door! It's under the policy laid out by India that Kashmir becomes easy to solve. A Hindu ruler over a Muslim majority. So just as India invades Hyderabad, Pakistan backs the tribes and invades themselves.
So I think there is an The military operation was carried out because the State of Hyderabad under Osman Ali Khan, Asif Jah VII, decided to remain independent after the partition of India. Wary of a rogue Muslim ruled state right in the middle of India, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru decided to annex the state of Hyderabad. Though backed by Qasim Razvi's armed militias, known as Razakars, and a distant moral support of Pakistan[1], the Hyderabad State Forces were easily defeated by the Armed Forces of India within five days.opion 4 to add to that list.
So I think there is an option 4 to add to that list. Kashmir goes to Pakistan under the Indian theory that it is the will of the majority population to be considered and not the will of the rulers. Will of course determined by if the majority is Hindu or not, never a plebiscite!
Sorry, I didn't read last week's chapter summary, apparently Hyderabad was talked about! You can therefore ignore crude history and just take my point. Kashmir should be looked at in context of Hyderabad.
Punjabi Assassin, I just wanted to mention, in case you missed it, that I did do a bit on the Hyderabad question in last week's post. There were quite a number of comments!
So I think there is an option 4 to add to that list. Kashmir goes to Pakistan under the Indian theory that it is the will of the majority population to be considered and not the will of the rulers. Will of course determined by if the majority is Hindu or not, never a plebiscite!
I gather it is quite possible that if a plebiscite were to be held in the Kashmir Valley (and *only* the Kashmir Valley) today, a majority of voters would choose independence, not Pakistan. (See for instance this poll. It's a very limited poll with a small sample size, but it's something.)
I think there would not have been any problem if the Brits/Jinnah/Congress agreed that people's wishes reign supreme even in the case of the princely states..
Jinnah as far as I know never campaigned for the rights of the people of the "princely states" unlike Nehru / Congress. Why should he, because he was all along backed by the wealthy princes of Hyderabad / Bhopal etc ?..
It is ludicrous to assume that the people of the "princely states" (or the Congress) would sit quiet and allow their ruler to dictate what form of government they'll have when all of British India is going to get a "democracy". If you think about it, "princely states" were 45% of what is India today.
Jinnah was known enticing even the Rajput princes with "blank cheques". Finally he lost even kashmir because of his greed.
Amardeep,
I agree with you, I only say that sarcastically since everyone seems to know the will of the people, but no one asks them! Hindu --> India. Muslim --> Pakistan. Independence? No one wants that! Naturally.
I think there would not have been any problem if the Brits/Jinnah/Congress agreed that people's wishes reign supreme even in the case of the princely states..
Ponniyin, so by that logic do you think a plebiscite should be held today along the lines Sheikh Abdullah demanded?
(Incidentally, Guha agrees with you that Jinnah had a double standard on the Princely States. When Jinnah accepted the Maharaja of Junagadh's attempt to throw in his lot with Pakistan (with a Hindu majority), it made Sardar Patel decide that by the same logic Kashmir should be able to accede to India.)
Nope,
That was then at 1947/48, and now there is no chance of a plebiscite.
Sheikh Abdullah would have figured going with Pakistan meant he was going toe-to-toe with Jinnah and play second fiddle to Jinnah's supreme ego. On the other hand, Nehru's egotism(only slightly lesser) was (mostly) kept under check by Patel, Rajaji and others, in the period immediately after independence. He would have definitely gotten a freer hand with Nehru in power. Plus there was the common socialist credentials between them.
Which might also maybe why Sheikh talked about Kashmir as an independent country in early 50s, before he was jailed.
To me, the one thread that runs through India Pakistan formation is how well Nehru was served by his contemporaries(within India) and how badly Jinnah was served by his contemporaries(within Pakistan).
#2 Ikram
--> Tamils would have ended up with further split in their support almost immediately(to my knowledge, andhra was formed in the 50s) and the whole decentralization utopia would have crashed of its own weight.
All the choots who talk about "being fair", just think/read about history.
Being a Hyderabadi, I thank god for being an Indian, than otherwise.
Kashmir belongs to India.
India should give up Kashmir to Pakistan and Arunachal Pradesh to China. I wonder if each Indian state was given a plebiscite, how many would vote out of the Indian union.
why? giving up territory isnt usually a very sound strategic move.
All the [[]] who talk about "being fair", just think/read about history.
Being a Hyderabadi, I thank god for being an Indian, than otherwise.
Kashmir belongs to India.
Desiguy, don't just chant slogans and curse words at people.
Make arguments... use logic... have a conversation....
As Amardeep pointed out, it was at that time, Junagadh and Kashmir that were seen equivalent. A lot of people think Jinnah wanted a swap, but some people (including one of the earlier Bhutto, and wayward Pathans) mucked it up.
Amardeep, Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru have a very complicated history. At one time, they were closest of the friends, and I think even with all jailing and all, they maintained close contact. Pakistan has never liked Sheikh Sahib, and Liaqat Ali Khan termed him a "quisling". To this day, Farooq Abdullah is a minister in Union Cabinet, and his daughter is married to Sachin Pilot, son of Rajesh Pilot (who is one of the most trusted right hand man of Gandhi family).
I am on 1952 elections in Guha's book, a little ahead.
Correction: son of Rajesh Pilot (who was one of the most trusted right hand man of Gandhi family).
Rajesh Pilot is dead.
Sachin Pilot is one of the real upcoming politician.
Correction: Omar Abdullah is the minister in the Union Cabinet, Farooq is in semi-retirement mode
Interesting to compare Sheikh Abullah to NWFPs Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.
That is very apt.
And both of them did not get along with Muslim League.
It would be also useful to include in this debate/analysis as to what is the current status of Kashmir today - Northwest including POK is occupied by Pakistan, Aksai Chin is occupied by China, Leh is Buddhist majority and the rest of the region of the so called Kashmir of 1947 which is with India is immersed in conflict with the Hindus having been driven out. So what more should Hindu and/or secular India give up just to appease the minorities, power players, religious fanatics ?
It would be also useful to include in this debate/analysis as to what is the current status of Kashmir today - Northwest including POK is occupied by Pakistan, Aksai Chin is occupied by China, Leh is Buddhist majority and the rest of the region of the so called Kashmir of 1947 which is with India is immersed in conflict with the Hindus having been driven out. So what more should Hindu and/or secular India give up just to appease the minorities, power players, religious fanatics ?
Brij, I purposefully didn't try to do this in the post -- too much to take on.
I certainly personally feel India should give up on Aksai Chin, and I think it's clear that Ladakh and Jammu are always going to be a part of India. The only region that is seriously contested is the Kashmir Valley.
I do have views on the Valley, and people are welcome to discuss it (politely, please), but for this post my goal was to focus on Sheikh Abdullah historically -- and maybe how/whether Sheikh Abdullah's particular legacy might help us think about what might be possible today.
Fred,
I wonder that too. If every ethic/cultural group (looking beyond states) were allowed to vote in India how would it go? It would really depend on how much they feel India represents them, or at the very least, can potentially represent them. Too bad India (or most countries for that matter) can't abide by UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 on The Principle of Equal Rights and Self Determination of Peoples. Most countries have not evolved to the point where they will allow a plebiscite to take place in their sovereign territory. Canada VERY reluctantly allowed Quebec to try.
If people in India were allowed to think it through, I think we'd have about 4 major divisions. The East would go, Kashmir and possibly Punjab, and all of South India (if they realllly thought about the imperialism of the hindi north) would cede.
I just realized that I misread Brij's comment (#19). I thought it was a more productive comment than it actually was... oh well.
SM Intern - Hoshiayar ! - can we expunge obvious flame bait like #11 and #12???
It is kind of amusing that they are mirror images of each other - I guess thats pretty typical...
Didn't Hari Singh's (a Dogra) ancestors become Maharajas of Kashmir during the reign of Ranjit Singh...i.e. as a vassal state of Ranjit Singh's empire? The Dogras were Ranjit Singh's allies and Kashmir was their reward? So their lineage as rulers of Kashmir only goes back to the early to mid 1800s. These Dogras are not ethnic Kashmiris, they are Rajputs with roots in Jammu.
Speaking of which, wouldn't it be better to split Jammu from Kashmir to begin with? The real "Kashmir" issue basically involves the valley alone (or should). I asked this question once on here before, someone gave an excellent reason why NOT to split the two, but I can't recall what exactly was said.
Al Beruni,
What's wrong with #12? They are not mirror images! #11 is swearing at people!
SM Intern - Hoshiayar ! - can we expunge obvious flame bait like #11 and #12???
Al Beruni, I gave #11 a warning (see #14). Next time I will move to delete/ban.
Kush,
Wasn't there a similar dynamic between Farooq and Rajiv Gandhi, I remember they were very close at some point in time and there was a falling out.
Didn't Hari Singh's (a Dogra) ancestors become Maharajas of Kashmir during the reign of Ranjit Singh...i.e. as a vassal state of Ranjit Singh's empire? The Dogras were Ranjit Singh's allies and Kashmir was their reward? So their lineage as rulers of Kashmir only goes back to the early to mid 1800s.
The Dogras led by Gulab Singh (great grandfather of Hari Singh) purchased Kashmir from the British for $200,000 under the Treaty of Amritsar. The British had won Kashmir by defeating the Sikhs who had been rulers of Kashmir since 1819 when Ranjit Singh defeated the Afghans. The Afghans had earlier taken over Kashmir from the Mughals.
Interestingly the Sikh rule from 1819 onwards to 1846 actually led to hardening of views in the Kashmiri Muslims as the Sikhs imposed restrictions on Muslims including prohibiting azaan (Muslim call to prayer)
Punjabi Assassin, I agree with you. For example, I am sure Tamil Nadu and possibly Karnataka would choose to secede if there were a plebiscite in these states and so would the Punjabi areas. As each region grows, there will be more calls for decentralisation and the end of "Hindi-belt dominance."
the ideal situation, in my opinion, would be a highly confederated system (ala the eu), not only in india, but also in large countries such as the u.s., china, brazil etc. but all this must happen simultaneously to be successful. it is very hard for one formerly federal state (such as india, u.s., brazil) to become like the confederate states of america, in a world of states where in most countries, the federal government retains vital military and economic powers. the confederates will always lose (alexander hamilton knew this full well; he knew that the confederate states of america could not survive given the nature of the state system). so do not expect india to become one if china, pakistan, russia, the u.s., braliz et al also do not become confederates.
TN and Karnataka would be at war WITH EACH OTHER if they became independant. Their river water dispute alone would be enough to ensure that.
Didn't Hari Singh's (a Dogra) ancestors become Maharajas of Kashmir during the reign of Ranjit Singh...i.e. as a vassal state of Ranjit Singh's empire? The Dogras were Ranjit Singh's allies and Kashmir was their reward?
The Dogras actually helped the British defeat the Sikhs. The Sikhs who then ruled Kashmir were defeated by the British and Maharaja Dulip Singh signed the Treaty of Peace 1846 which handed over Kashmir to the British. The British then gave Kashmir to the Dogras who had helped the British fights the Sikhs for $200,0000.
So no Kashmiri has ruled Kashmir in what, 1200 years?
Wasn't there a similar dynamic between Farooq and Rajiv Gandhi, I remember they were very close at some point in time and there was a falling out.
The Nehru and Abdullah families both being Kashmiris have strong love and hate relationship.
Now being People magazine reporter........Sara Abdullah (her mother is white, and daughter of Farooq) is a Muslim married a Rajput Hindu, Sachin Pilot.
Omar Abdullah**, son of Farooq is married to a Sikh.
** I have been wrong, he was a minister in BJP/ NDA government.
As chachaji pointed out earlier, Kashmir is not just a piece of land.....it has always been part of Great Game, and Cold War, because it geographical (and altitude) proximity to China, Russia, Afghanistan.
that's right. People who wanted secession and treated 15, Aug 1947 as the day of mourning like the DMK folks are firmly in the state and central governments and are well in the "Indian" mainstream. I doubt if the person who commented can figure out the difference between Tamil / Kannada if he/she heard someone speaks the language.
people would want more financial autonomy and many subjects in the state list, but "secession", I don't think so.
Is there anything about article 370 of the Indian constitution? Why was it needed for Kashmir and not Hyderabad or Junagadh?
--> End of "hindi-belt dominance" doesnt automatically mean secession by other states. I am not sure how much stomach TN has for secession as it exists today. It might have been all the rage in 50s and 60s but the current crop of leaders might not be that much inclined towards secession. I am sure the power of the threat of secession has figured prominently in their calculations when bargaining with the centre. Whether they would actually secede is doubtful.
On the other hand Pakistan put a puppet,phony government in PoK,and Northern Area were merged with Pakistan.
I mentioned this on the Hyderabad thread. There is no comparison between Hyderabad and Kashmir. Nehru's pontification created this confusion unnecessarily. The rationale I see is that sometimes a country has to do what a country's gotta do. Hyderabad was smack dab in the middle of the country geographically. The Nizam was no angel. He did not lord over that area forever. Just as he conquered that area, India did the same. Sometimes, it's best to care of these things in its infancy instead of letting it fester like the Kashmir issue.
Kashmir - there is no wrong or right in my mind. The only wrong was to let it linger for so long. Kashmir was geographically a neighbor to both India and Pakistan at the time. At that point, in case of a tie, and no concrete military solution in sight, you just go by on accord. There is not perfect answer. Look at Lahore. Should it have been part of Indian Punjab? Who knows.
It just does not make sense for either country to be fighting over one state for this long at great expense. India had a chance to consolidate Kashmir. Nehru bungled it. So it should be open to giving Kashmir independence as long as it is in a no military zone. But that's a big if. They will have to think about iron clad treaties in an area where such treaties have not been honored in the true spirit. Well, looks like I dont have an easy answer! Russia is better off with a downsized country instead of the unwieldly USSR. Bangladesh is better off without Pakistan(though it is a shame they have inexplicably become fundamentalist and become Pakistan's lackeys after all that was done to them). Kashmir, India, Pakistan may be better off separate. Kashmir will also have to compensate all the Pandits for their land.
IF Kashmiris want to know what real force is, just look at how China has stripped Tibet not only of its independence but its culture too. At least there is still a Kashmiri identity intact.
Kush wrote:
And both of them did not get along with Muslim League.
Er -- not, that's missing the point. Abdallah didn't get along with Congress either. And had Frontier province joined India, Bacha Khan would probably not have won the Bharat Ratna -- he would have been imprisoned by Nehru.
All of South Asia's peripheral regions want more autonomy. Punjab and Bengal got it. Baluchistan, Kashmir and the north east still want it. And given present population trends (stagnant south, growing North), if the Lok Sabha ever has equal representation for every state (with Bihar and UP gaining seats), the South will want it again too.
South Asia' history, whether the Hindu, Muslim, or British periods, is one of alternating periods of central (Indus-Ganges) control and regional autonomy. Currently, Delhi/Islamabad have have central control, but there's no reason to expect it to last indefinetly.
That's debatable...but unlike the case in Tibet, it's largely of the Kashmiris' own doing...adopting Urdu as their literary language instead of Kashmiri, and adopting stricter and stricter forms of Islam instead of retaining kashmiriyat. Yes they do have their basic identity (and certainly their ethnicity) intact, but then so do Tibetans.
Kush: Re Pathan invasion
I think we disagree on the nature of the Pathan invasion into Kashmir. The Pathans entered Kashmir because there were widespread reports of Dogras killing Muslims. A lot of Muslims were in fact killed by the Dogras (the numbers are of course disputable). All the Muslims in Dogra police force had left so the police force was essentially Non-Muslim. The Muslims in the Pooch region were ordered by the Dogra government to surrended their arms leaving them completely vulnerable. Of course the Pakistanis were manipulating the Pathans and they themselves became wayward once they entered Kashmir.
True, no empire lasts forever. Speaking of which, what IS the oldest continuing political entity on Earth, anyone know?
Also lets remember the role of the Punjab Boundary Commission. If the commission had not awarded the three Muslim majority tehsils (sub-districts) of Gurdaspur District of Punjab to India, there would no land connection between India and Kashmir and India would lose its claim over Kashmir. Pathankot was then the land connection of India to Kashmir.
but unlike the case in Tibet, it's largely of the Kashmiris' own doing...adopting Urdu as their literary language instead of Kashmiri,
Thats not true for Kashmiris living in the valley.
ACD,
Guha's in his book does go over "Pooch incidents". However, he doubts how much Pathans were purely agitated by it (sure, it was an emotional hot button), and how much they were engineered by the Pakistani military personnel on leave, and plain clothes. There is also dispute about the extent (nobody disputes the complete absence) of Pooch events, since Hari Singh by that time was in a very tight corner, and "stand still" agreement with Pakistan had become void. He knew his days were numbered by that time.
Moreover, we can agree that the Pathans to begin had heartfelt empathy for reports of fellow muslims being mistreated even though Liaqat Ali Khan had given them the green signal, that all they find (loot) in Kashmir is theirs (Freedom at Midnight goes over it quite a bit). To the utter frustration of even Pakistani military aiding them, they went totally out of control once they entered the Kashmir borders, and mucked Jinnah plan to be in Srinagar on Oct. 26th, 1947.
Yes, there was mass defection in Hari Singh's military who were Muslims.
Technically, those Tehsils are non-Muslim majority, (because they were mostly Ahmadiyas). Never knew Radcliffe was a follower of Maududi.. :-)
They SPEAK Kashmiri but they use Urdu for all their writing/reading i.e as their literary language. Their written media is in Urdu. Their schools are Urdu-medium. Kashmiri (much like Punjabi in Pakistan) is not taught in schools, it is just a spoken language. Younger Kashmiris from Srinagar proper (as opposed to smaller towns or the villages) are in many cases not that fluent in Kashmiri.
Amitabh,
The wiki for Kashmiri pegs the number of speakers at 4.6 million and also states that it is a subject in Universities and colleges in the valley and they are trying to introduce it in schools.
ACD,
Nobody ever disputes that Hari Singh was extremely debauched, selfish, and weak.
Guha briefly goes over it too but Larry Collins and Dominque Laiperre go into many details.
I wonder what the number of people literate in Kashmiri is?
Moreover, we can agree that the Pathans to begin had heartfelt empathy for reports of fellow muslims being mistreated even though Liaqat Ali Khan had given them the green signal, that all they find (loot) in Kashmir is theirs (Freedom at Midnight goes over it quite a bit).
Freedom at Midnight is my dad's favorite book. I read the book a while back but did not particularly care for the book's caricatured treatment of Jinnah. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre apparently intially went to Pakistan to research the book but did not like the reception they received there so the book was almost entirely researched in India. But its a good book nevertheless as far as I can remember.
brown (#50), I wish you had quoted this in its entirety from the wiki for Kashmiri:
"Literacy in Kashmiri is continuously neglected due to various political reasons and lack of formal education in it. It is now mostly relevant in its spoken form, and the speakers of this language are also decreasing in number. Note that the primary official language of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is not Kashmiri, but Urdu. Some Kashmiri speakers use English or Hindi as a second language.[1] In the past few decades, Kashmiri was introduced as a subject at the university and the colleges of the valley. At present, attempts are on for inclusion of Kashmiri in school curriculum."
I gathered we already established from your post, I was only presenting other facts that were not there, not deliberate
ACD,
Last week I finished reading Freedom at Midnight (2nd time, the 1st time was decades ago), and am reading Guha. They both are different books in many ways, first Guha's is more post-1947.
Sure, Freedom at Midnight glorifies (to almost unrealistic levels) Mountbatten, and is extremely pro-India, so there are some short comings. Yes, it is very anti-Jinnah.
Nevertheless, both are well written book, and cover a very complex subject.
This is something I have wondered about and have not found too many resources on a quick search in the past. What was the reason for the Kashmiri demand for independence? And what is it now? I can see the religious angle in terms of joining joining Pakistan (despite it being a dictatorship and all that) but what 'was' their reason for wanting independence.
How is this is relevant today? The demographics of Jammu and Kashmir have changed too much – especially due to the influx of people from other areas into POK and the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in POK and the J&K state.
If you still feel that demographic change and the elapsed time is irrelevant, then logically, it should not make a difference to you if a plebiscite is held two generations after the government India establishes a 40 acres and a mule policy for Hindu immigrants to Kashmir.
Granting autonomy is what got us into this precarious position in the first place. India has had tons of secessionist movements, driven by reasons that deserve more sympathy than Jammu Kashmir’s cause. I fail to understand why Kashmir alone should get more autonomy
This is false. He was not imprisoned for demanding autonomy. He was imprisoned for advocating secession.
'our state is neither under the legal domination of the Indian Parliament nor that of any Parliament from outside the state. India or Pakistan, any country cannot be a spike in our wheel of progress' -- Sheikh Abdullah 1952
This is false. He was not imprisoned for demanding autonomy. He was imprisoned for advocating secession.
I stand corrected (and I'll make a correction in the post). It's funny, I got that from Wikipedia, but it's wrong.
Guha's own later chapter on Kashmir (chapter 12) talks about the complicated set of events that led Abdullah to take a more aggressive stance on independence.
Where is "Kumar" - The Kasmiri ??
The Kashmir problem will not be solved from India's standpoint unless there is a hindu majority in the State. I was born in Srinagar and I am not allowed to buy land there. Ironically the Indian government wants the same laws in Assam as it keeps the Bangladeshis and Bengalis out. Tangled mess my beloved india.
The GOI doesn't allow Hindus to buy land in Assam?
One difference between Sheikh Abdulland and Gaffar Khan may be that Gaffar Khan had also hinted willingness to being part of Afghanistan to make what might have become "Pakhtunistan" (I cant find the source where I read this, so correct me if I am wrong).
But overall Khan Abdul Gaffar khan was a fascinating charactor, just like Sheikh Abdullah. Someone should make a movie on the "sarhad Gandhi".
As Amardeep hints, I also think that Sheikh Abdullah's demands for autonomy may be due to local politics or just for him to appear consistent.
If one read the actual actual resolution's of the ceasefire, one of the pre-requisite condition for plebiscite was unconditional withdrawal of tribesman a.k.a. pakistanis out of occupied areas and this didn't apply to India.
"Muslim demographic games" of Pakistan under the shadow of the terrorism, doesn't call for a Plebiscite.. and should be rubbished with contempt. And for that matter, pakistan donated a part of J&K to China.. to boot.
---------------------
Resolution on Kashmir
European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2007 on Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects (2005/2242(INI))
A. whereas the disputed territory which constituted the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is currently administered in separate parts by the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Peoples Republic of China, and has a total population of 13.4 million,
More about the so called Pakistan Occupied "Azaad" Kashmir [ie. "Free Kashmir"]
18. Regrets, however, that Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce meaningful and representative democratic structures in AJK; notes in particular the continuing absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly, the fact that AJK is governed through the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad, that Pakistan officials dominate the Kashmir Council and that the Chief Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the Accountant-General and the Finance Secretary are all from Pakistan; disapproves of the provision in the 1974 Interim Constitution which forbids any political activity that is not in accordance with the doctrine of Jammu and Kashmir as part of Pakistan and obliges any candidate for a parliamentary seat in AJK to sign a declaration of loyalty to that effect; is concerned that the Gilgit-Baltistan region enjoys no form of democratic representation whatsoever; furthermore, draws attention to the fact that the Government of Pakistans 1961 Jammu and Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance transferred the land controlled by Pakistan and which belonged to the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 15 August 1947 to the Federal Government;
19. Very much regrets the continuing ambivalence of the current Government of Pakistan with regard to the ethnic identity of Gilgit and Baltistan, whereby statements made by the President are contradicted by official government communications; strongly recommends that the Government of Pakistan endorse and implement the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan of 28 May 1999 which validates the Kashmiri heritage of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan and states that the Government should implement their fundamental human rights, democratic freedoms and access to justice;
--------------------------
The following documents should be part of the The Great Pakistani "Comedy/Swindle" Collection [regarding Gilgit and Baltistan]
Pak Ambassador to Belgium letter to Emma Nicholson
http://www.hindu.com/nic/ambassadorletter.pdf
MEP Nicholson's response:
http://www.hindu.com/nic/baronessresponse.pdf
Before people start discussing Hyderabad, and Junagadh which came later...
Balochistan :
Since independence, Islamabad has come into open conflict with the Baluch on four occasions 1948, 1958, 1962, and, most bloodily, from 1973 to 1977, when a growing guerrilla movement led to an armed insurrection that ravaged the province.
Within 24 hours of the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Khan of Kalat (the largest "princely state" in Baluchistan) declared independence. On April 1, 1948, the Pakistani army invaded and the Khan capitulated. His brother, Karim, continued to resist with around 700 guerrillas but was soon crushed.
Islamabad merged the four provinces of West Pakistan into "One Unit" in 1954. This was a bid to counter the strength of East Pakistan (which later became Bangladesh) and the possibility of the minority provinces (Baluchistan, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh) uniting with the east against the Punjab. A large anti-One Unit movement emerged in Baluchistan.
To crush this movement the Pakistan army again invaded. The Khan of Kalat was arrested and large-scale arrests were carried out. Nauroz Khan led a resistance of 1,000 militia that fought the army in pitched battles for over a year. In May 1959, Nauroz Khan was arrested at a parley with the army and died in prison in 1964, becoming a symbol of Baluch resistance. Five of his relatives, including his son, were hanged.
-------------------------
Operation Gibraltar :
Operation Gibraltar was the name given to the failed plan by Pakistan to infiltrate the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region in north-western India and start a rebellion against Indian control. Launched in August 1965, Pakistan Army soldiers and guerrillas, disguised as locals, entered Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan with the intention of fomenting an insurgency among Kashmiri Muslims. However, the strategy went awry from the outset as the locals did not respond as expected and the infiltrators were soon found. The debacle was followed by an Indian counterattack that resulted in minor victories.
The operation was a significant one as it sparked a large scale military engagement between the two neighbours, the first since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Its success, as envisaged by its Pakistani planners, could have given Pakistan control over a unified Kashmir; something that Pakistan desired to achieve at the earliest opportunity. However, the plan misfired and triggered a war (the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965) where Pakistan was put on the defensive.
----------------------
Pakistan's Territorial Dispute with Afghanistan : [A.K.A. Land Grab]
Durand Line:
Afghanistan's loya jirga of 1949 declared the Durand Line invalid as they saw it as ex parte on their side (since British India ceased to exist in 1947 with the independence of Pakistan). This had no tangible effect as there has never been a move to enforce such a declaration due to long periods of constant wars with other neighbors in the region. And most importantly, there was no time limit mentioned in the Durand Treaty. Additionally, world courts have universally upheld uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are "passed down" to successor independent states, as with most of Africa. A unilateral declaration by one party has no effect; boundary changes must be made bilaterally. Thus, the Durand Line boundary remains in effect today as the international boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is recognized as such by most nations.
Despite pervasive internet rumors to the contrary, US Department of State and the British Foreign Commonwealth Office documents and spokespersons have confirmed that the Durand Line, like virtually all international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is there any mention of such in any Durand Line documents.[1] The 1921 treaty expiration refers only to the 1921 agreements.
Because the Durand Line artificially divides the Pashtun people, it continues to be a source of tension between the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Frequent press statements from 2005 to 2007 by Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf calling for the building of a fence delineating the Afghanistan/Pakistan border have been met with resistance from numerous political parties within both countries. Leaders of Pashtuns on both sides of the border do not recognize the Durand Line
Non Assamese cannot buy land in Assam, just as non kashmiris can't buy land in Kashmir. It has nothing to do with religion. I believe there is some process that you have to show that your ancestors came from that region.
Even if India wants to be considerate towards Kashmiri people either give them autonomy or in the extreme case give it independence with security of borders by India. Never agree to let it join Pakistan. Why should the Hindus and/or secular India act like the proverbial good-soft guy ? Show the that India can't be pushovers. After suffering from losing Aksai Chin, POK, four unnecessary wars, terrorism as the legacy ( this is enough compensation for Mughal occupiers to leave the country ) why should a foreign policy decision today by India be considerate towards Pakistan ?
After 50 yrs today the people of India have built a strong nation with a reasonable degree of freedo and autonomy to everybody and Pakistanis or muslim minorities in India have to live by the notion of Indian nation-state and not dicate terms what to do. India is bigger than any narrow religious/regional aspiration of any community or state.
"Why should the Hindus and/or secular India act like the proverbial good-soft guy ?"
Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around.
Again..pointing out one wrong to justify another. However, in this case the 'wrong' is a false one. Rajiv Gandhi sent army to fight the Tamil tigers in Sri Lanka and paid for it with his life.
blockquote>Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around.
We should learn from Israel as to how to deal with the Pakistani guys. A tit-for-tat and whining by politically correct diplomats and intellectual intelligenisa is a better response to Pakistan sponspored terrorism. The reason I am making such a strong statement is I am currently reading the excellent book "The Terror Timeline" related to events around the world leading upto 9/11 and chapter 12 on Pakistan and ISI is amazing as to how soft everybody have been on Pakistan and molly-coddling this country inspite of such complicity in terrorist activities in its neighbourhood, US and including Britain
Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around.
There is quite a bit of proof that various Tamil regional political parties have supported and helped Tamil Tigers but some have hated them too. That is also very complicated, and has tortured history.
There is some proof that Indira Gandhi was at some point sympathetic (or looked the other way or low level support) to some of the Tamil parties helping Tamil Tigers. All this was part AIDMK-DMK-Congress-Add another party musical chairs for electoral politics within Tamil Nadu. However, later Government of India sent army to Sri Lanka and fought against Tamil Tigers head on, and eventually Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil Tiger suicide bomber.
So wrong analogy with Kashmir. This will be similar if Pakistan's President gets wacked by a Kashmiri Jihadi group.
Shafraz :
"Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around."
-------------------
Sri Lanka provided refuelling to pakistani planes during the war and FYI. India lost soldiers during the IPKF operations against the LTTE, after the Lankans turned their backs.. But it's all good !!.
Then comes the question of "Whining" :
Timing is very important, if you know.. I assure you , now the global "Jhapad" is on its way [With America missing, now only the Chinese are left ] wrt. Pakistan... And before you say "we have nukes :)" .. type "PAL Locks for Pakistani Nukes" in Google, and it will dawn on you why your "army general's + politicians" need to be pre-approved by the great Satan ;-)
Sit tight.. and let me say Insha Allah !!.
New US Armed Forces Journal map proposes Pak sans Balochistan, NWFP
By ANI
Sunday August 27, 03:13 PM
It's Pakistan, Stupid!
By Paul Sperry
Finally for your "Green Passport's" pleasure : http://www.sperryfiles.com/images/2-1.jpg
From wiki on LTTE:
The first country to ban the LTTE was its early ally, India. The Indian change of policy came gradually, starting with the IPKF-LTTE conflict, and culminating with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Sri Lanka itself lifted the ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002. This was a prerequisite set by the LTTE for signing of the agreement. However the agreement was not withheld by the LTTE, they continued terrorist like activities against the Sri Lankan Government.[118]
"amazing as to how soft everybody have been on Pakistan and molly-coddling this country inspite of such complicity in terrorist activities in its neighbourhood,"
Just have to replace Pakistan with India there don't you think? At least with Pakistan all you've got is allegations, while India's arming, training and financing of the LTTE is well known to everyone. Is that complicit enough for you? And has anyone been brought to justice over it? I don't think so. The truth of the matter is that India is the grandmother of sponsoring terrorism in South Asia.
----------
CNN-IBN special investigation team reports that all the rumours about India training LTTE cadres in warfare were actually true.
On May 21, 1991 Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a suicide bomber from the LTTE's Black Tiger suicide unit and their chief Velupillai Prabhakaran is still wanted in India for the assassination.
But the fact is that the Tamil Tigers, including Prabhakaran were trained by the Indian Army.
A rare photograph, available with CNN-IBN shows LTTE guerillas training at Kalathur in Tamil Nadu in 1984-85.
Senior LTTE leaders told CNN-IBN that they were recruited by India's external intelligence wing - RAW and trained by the Indian Army.
...
In October 1983, Prabhakaran arrived in India and stayed at a secret location in Pondicherry.
RAW offered to train 200 LTTE cadres in Dehradun.
Tamizh Kavi, a well known voice on LTTE's radio station is also candid about the Indian connection.
"Indian army gave us training when Indira Gandhi was the prime minister. She and MG Ramachandran extended full support to us and helped our organisation's growth," a broadcaster at the Voice of Tigers radio station Tamizh Kavi says.
FULL STORY:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/060702/211/65k9e.html
----------
I wonder exactly how much Indian money went into funding the LTTE. Wonder how many Sri Lankans died due to Indian-sponsored terrorism in that island country.
So let me say Brij, it's amazing as to how soft everybody have been on India and molly-coddling this country inspite of such complicity in terrorist activities in its neighbourhood.
Ever heard of that sying - people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
#63 RC
Similarities between Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Sheikh Abdullah are superficial.The main accusations against Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and his son was that they were too idealistic and this prevented them from making deals that would have benefitted themselves and their community.
Sheikh Abdullah on the other hand, started off his career influenced by Gandhi but and the end of the day was a hard-nosed wheeling dealing politician who indulged in as much doubletalk and communalism as any of today's politicians.
For all his speaches on a single jammu and kashmir, at the end of the day he recognised that his strenght lied in a muslim base. He promoted this base at the expense of the hindu and bhuddist citizens of J&K by means similar to what Karl Rove would use years later over here. This includes redistricting of districts to ensure muslim majorities, splitting Leh into bhuddist Leh and Shia Kargil and cutting off funds to Bhuddist Ladakh and Hindu Jammu
Given that non-muslims, who formed over a quarter of the J&K population at independance, have no love lost for Sheikh Abdullah, it would be a stretch to call him representative of all of J&K.
This website has a pretty comprehensive history of J&K from various viewpoints
Shad0WFaX, thank you for the links, let me share some with you too:
----
"First, India had trained the LTTE in 1980s and created the Frankenstein monster. Hence, India has to atone for it by actions to disband and unravel the LTTE."
The moment of truth for India on LTTE
---
"In 1984, India Today (issue dated March 31) ran an expose detailing how the Tigers were being secretly trained in Indian camps, with the implicit approval of prime minister Indira Gandhi. Her reaction to the story was vitriolic."
India Today
---
"Tucked away in one line in The Hindu today (August 06, 2007) is one of the untold secrets of Indian intervention in Sri Lankan affairs: Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the Tamil Tiger terrorists, was helicoptered out of Sri Lanka by the Indians when he was cornered by the Sri Lankan Army at Vadamarachchi in the 80s.
The Indian helicopters took off from the Hindon military base in Delhi and flew via Thanjavur to rescue Prabhakaran.
The Vadamarachci operation was closing in on Prabhakaran when the Indians launched the rescue operation."
Indians rescued Prabhakaran
---
Don't let this stop you from pointing fingers at other countries though.
ACD,
If you get a chance, please read Guha's book that Amardeep is blogging about.
On page 80, he says regarding Poonch
"But although there were clashes here and there, there was no major eruption, no head-on battle. Poonch bordered West Punjab; Pakistani cities like Rawalpindi were easily reached from there. However, the North-West Frontier Province is some distance to the west. Did the raiders from that province hear of the insurrection brewing in Poonch? Or were they planning to come anyway?"
Shafrz ji, so getting someone for a meeting is a rescue.
Kush Tandon ji,
Yes. Poking one's nose in the affairs of others can backfire bigtime. I'm sure India wouldn't like it if Pakistan or Bangladesh wined and dined terrorists.
"As India did previously in operation Bangladesh by arming the Mukthi Bahini, India funded, trained and gave all kinds of succour to the fledgling Tiger. Early mid-wifery, birth, nursing and formative growth of the Tiger was all courtesy mother India. But the adolescent Tiger kicked the parents in the shin, bloodied the nose of the Indian army, and eventually carried out a patricidal attack of sorts in assassinating the one time Prime Minister of the country."
The Indian interlude
Let's not pretend India is some innocent victim.
That's right. India is not an innocent victim. No one is innocent either.
I think it is high time that Indians stop being apologetic about "Kashmir". It was a different period in 1946/47/48 when the leaders were busy gobbling up land for their own side "Nehru/Gandhi/Patel" working for Congress/India and Jinnah working for Muslim league/Pakistan and Jinnah lost out in the partition of Punjab/Bengal and then Hyderabad/Kashmir.
The losing side should accept the result and move on. Otherwise if it gains strength it can take over militarily by defeating the ex-winning side. No use in blah-blah and further blah-blah for 60 years.
I think it is high time that Indians stop being apologetic about "Kashmir". It was a different period in 1946/47/48 when the leaders were busy gobbling up land for their own side "Nehru/Gandhi/Patel" working for Congress/India and Jinnah working for Muslim league/Pakistan and Jinnah lost out in the partition of Punjab/Bengal and then Hyderabad/Kashmir. The losing side should accept the result and move on.
Thats not actually bad advice. The key of course is whether there is still internal oppression by the Indian Government in Kashmir. There was none before the terrorism started in the 80s and hopefully there will be none when the terrorism finally ends which does seem to be coming down.
The Kashmiris in the valley are tired of this fight. For the most part, they dont want to fight anymore. The educated ones are sending their sons to Australia/Canada/US/England and trying to marry off their daughters to non-Kashmiri Muslims living in Delhi/UP and other parts of India so they can move out of Kashmir. The poor ones cant move because they are poor.
Lucky non-Kashmiri Muslims. Kashmiris can be so good-looking.
The Kashmiris in the valley STARTED this fight. I would have had no problem with their struggle if it was framed in terms of Kashmiriyat, or simply for the political autonomy of the Kashmiri people (Muslim or Hindu). In fact I would have supported that. But since it was framed in religious terms (the demand to secede from India simply because it was overwhelmingly Muslim), and was framed as a RELIGIOUS struggle, I have no sympathy for it. As it turns out, the Kashmiri people were mislead by Pakistan as well as global Islamic forces of the Al-Qaida variety, which adopted it as another frontline in its battle with non-Muslims. The actual Kashmiri people were quickly sidelined as outsiders (Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghans, even CHECHENS) took over the battle for their own ends. The last thing they cared for was the Kashmiri people or their culture...it was the principle of 'Islamic land' needing liberation. THAT'S bullshit.
Which is not to say the Congress Party or the Indian government or the Indian army/police forces are not to blame for horrible atrocities or actions. Even the Kashmiri Pandits are not totally clean in terms of how they treated Kashmiri Muslims back in the day. So it's very complicated, as this thread is making clear.
OT Amitabh...besides being a shade lighter, Kashmiri's are not any better looking that the Indians from the plain. Majority of them have the hooked parrot like nose (a la Indira Gandhi) which is a turnoff for many. Now if being lightskinned is a necessary criterea than europeans anglosaxon can be "so so very good looking."
Attrocities are bound to happen if the 'terrorist' melt away in the local population. There was a book by a Brazilian Leftist on how to sustain a 'revolutionary' movement (the name of which escapes me). Pakistan jihadist seem to be using that as their Bible (copies of that were found with some of the Jihadist leaders). In essence it creates situation for attrocities by the police (faked or real) and use that as an impetus to recruit and keep the movement going.
right, there was no trouble in Kashmir before mid 80s. I think the successful "jihad" against the Russians triggered the Pakistanis and some Kashmiris to replicate the same in India starting in the late 80s. They din't realise India is not Russia and Kashmir is not Afghanistan. I've read an article somewhere from a "leftist" (don't remember where and who wrote it) who has rightly said, "America fights a problem by throwing more money because it has more money, India fights a problem by throwing more people because it has more people" which is very true..
Terrorism hurt Kashmiris more than anything else. Now, It's like the Indian military soldiers getting a target practice in Kashmir. They get "live training" to either kill or be killed, which is not a happy situation especially for the Kashmiris.
#77 Shafraz
Yes. Poking one's nose in the affairs of others can backfire bigtime. I'm sure India wouldn't like it if Pakistan or Bangladesh wined and dined terrorists.
--> Understatement of the (still nascent) new century ?
#78 Ponniyin Selvan
--> Ponniyin Selvan, starring as desi Eli Pariser, finds ABSAFMoveOn.org that takes out a full page ad in outlook, 'General Betray Us' after skirmishes on the border with Pakistan ????? George Fernandes accuses ABSAFMoveOn.org of weakening India against china ??? :)
India has been throwing money hand over fist at Kashmir. Here is a survey of the Indian states through the nineties here
Amazingly Kashmir through the height of terrorism, during this period actually had better infrastructure than Karnataka and AP! It's probably time for the southern states to start a secessionist movement.
(What is troubling is that the survey has the NE States at the bottom in most indicators ... this is probably going to lead to very severe problems in the future).
No, the statement is not wrong.. You could add India is throwing both money and people into the conflict. But the basic premise remains..
It is said that India has more Muslims than any other country except Indonesia. Suppose that the Kashmiri Muslims are subtracted. Would that still hold true?
"2) The people of Kashmir have the right to self-determination. When it signed the ceasefire in 1948, India promised to offer Kashmiris a plebiscite, where they could decide whether to join India or Pakistan, or remain independent. This it has never done."
The