Kashmir

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166172407554220338&q=kashmir 

 

Reason why all the opposition parties can claim this now is because of the political freedom all the parties enjoy, not to mention the press. The elections in Azad Kashmir were monitored by Pakistani as well as international observers, who watched the vote count. Pro independence parties cannot be allowed to compete until the Kashmir situation is sorted out across the border. Besides this, the Kashmiris can change the constitution if they like.

Shown in green is the region under Pakistani administration. The dark-brown region is the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh under Indian administration, while the Aksai Chin is an area of Kashmir acceeded to China by Pakistan that's under Chinese administration.

I have one question: In some regions of Kashmir, it is completely inaccessable, due to poor transportation systems. Why is this? Is it because of the terrain?

 

I have heard of this plan several times as its been proposed in the peace process b/w the two countries however I doesnt seem practical and would not really solve any problem. The prevailing tension, confrontation, and competition would still continue much after that, which is why many believe it to be a stop-gap or temporary break from the current state of insurrection. The issue of an independent Kashmir wouldnt be feasable either from an economic standpoint and the two rivals would then begin using the nation as a proxy location(end result being no diminishment of tension), furthermore, there is no real precedent for an independent Kashmir per se.  A final demarcation seems to be only 'real' solution to the Kashmir issue.  Within that final demarcation the aspirations of the Kashmiri people must be ascertained according to and as envisioned by the 1948 United Nations Plan.  I dont see why the UN cant send a peace force in now alongside the armed forces of the respective countries(India, Pakistan).  There, they would help bring some normalcy back to Indian-occupied Kashmir where the violence, insurrection and attrocities are taken place( the UN is currently in Azad Kashmir due to the devastating earthquake of October 8, albeit in small numbers & in a non-military humanitarian role).  This would have to be a bold decision on the part of both countries (with Pakistan dropping its claim to all of Kashmir - mainly Jammu, lower Ladahk, and India relinquishing control of the territories north of Chenab(which would act as the new border in this denslely populated part) and the region of Baltisitan whose natural affiliations are with the contagious regions of Pakistan.  The end result would be beneficial for both country.  India would have a more stable border, holding onto territories more homogenously contagious with its country and be able to remove its estimated 600,000 troops out which is a big drain on funds which could be better spent elsewhere and the same would be true for Pakistan, in that it would gain a stable border on the east, final closure to its stand on Kashmir, and no longer require to invest so heaviliy in military and nuclear arms, also spenting it in other badly needed social sectors.  Again, i would reiterate, the establishment of a properly demarcated border b/w these two countries would usher in an era of peace, tranquility and respectful co-existence between these two traditional rivals(something that has excaped both countries since their independence) and allow them to focus on more pressing issues at hand.  Failure to solve this issue, will only escalate the situation further and further until a 'spark' does eventually take place, and then God forbid, all 'hell' (pardon my french!) breaks loose.

In regards to Kashmir, the current peace process must go on. Both countries need to realize that war is not the answer especially when Nuclear weopons are possessed by both sides so the result could be catastrophic.  the best solution would be for India to follow something similar to the Chenab river plan as envisioned in the 60's whereby areas north of the Chenab river are ceded to Pakistan with Jammu(south of Chenab and lower Ladakh is kept by India.  This plan is looked upon as making the most sense, as those parts of Kashmir north of the Chenab share more in common with the territorial integrity(communication, linguistic, cultural and religiously) with Pakistan.  Though Jammu would be left in India, territorily seperate from its natural affinity, it could act as a major trade hub b/w the two new and now friendly borders of the now peacfeful neighboors plus the district has a sizeable Hindu population which would probably prefer staying in India.  The border should then be made finalized, with economic and preferential trade agreement and the two nations can truly initiate a peaceful era thereafter.  Afterall, the endemic poverty of south asia is so prevelent that many economist believe it would take something like 100 years of peace to fully reverse the trend of chronic poverty seen in India and parts of Pakistan.  The move would have to be accepted and binding to Pakistan, reducing tension in the region as well as be binding to india, which could reduce troop levels, and help stabilize a volatile border, thus allowing both countries to work towards other more serious issues and global activities.

 

In regards to the Sikhs, I think they too will eventually get their own independent homeland or atleast some form of semi-independence as that would be the best way for them to preserve their culture and heritage.  At the current rate there are fears that their traditions and culture are gradually fading away and that their province is being gradually overrun by non-Sikhs thus reducing their population over a period of time a cause of great concern for the Sikh community.  They will have to be given a chance to preserve their language and culture, and it would be a shame to see such a people simply 'washed'/'diluted' away.