Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Kashmir

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
Author
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Kashmir
    Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 21:02

This could get messy as it's pretty controversial for some reason, though it shouldnt be. I'll start of by asking the following questions

  • Should the Kashmiri people be allowed to choose their government - Pakistan, India or independent Kashmir?
  • Were the UN resolutions passed, calling for plebiscite for the Kashmiri people, binding ones?
  • Do the priniciples of the instrument of partition still hold valid till now?
  • Was India right to incorporate Kashmir into its constitution?
  • What is your solution to the Kashmiri dispute?

 

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 17:55
I'm for self-determination of all peoples. The best solution for Kashmir would surely be an independent state in my opinion. 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 18:10

Yep, I'd go along with that. Hold a plebiscite as stipulated in the initial agreement under partition of the subcontinent states, withdraw, both Pakistani and Indian soldiers out of Kashmir, replace them with UN peacekeepers, and hold a free and fair plebiscite. Count up the votes, and let the Kashmiris decide. Actually, it's not my own idea, but has been proposed by the Pakistani president, but it's not acceptable to the Indians, who would in all likeliness lose IOK, and if independency was an option, POK would be lost and a Kashmir country formed. Kashmiri independency is acceptable to the Pakistanis.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-22d-04.asp 

Pakistan wants plebiscite in Kashmir and that will make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. 

Though if the plebiscite were to include independency, the Kashmiris would go for this I think (even if the original proposed plebiscite in 1947, agreed  under the terms of partition, was a choice between joining either Pakistan or India) . 

 



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Mira View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 697
  Quote Mira Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 03:03
Originally posted by Maju

I'm for self-determination of all peoples. The best solution for Kashmir would surely be an independent state in my opinion. 


That would have been the best solution, but an independent Kashmir is not viable under capitalism.  Kashmir cannot become another Hong Kong or Singapore in the short run, I think.  It hasn't any significant natural resources, and is landlocked.  Having no access to the sea will limit its trade.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 03:35
Originally posted by Mira

Originally posted by Maju

I'm for self-determination of all peoples. The best solution for Kashmir would surely be an independent state in my opinion. 


That would have been the best solution, but an independent Kashmir is not viable under capitalism.  Kashmir cannot become another Hong Kong or Singapore in the short run, I think.  It hasn't any significant natural resources, and is landlocked.  Having no access to the sea will limit its trade.


That's not so important. The best example would be Switzerland (no significant natural resources, it is landlocked).

Anyhow, the important thing is that all or most Kashmiris are satisfied (there are significant non-Muslim communities) and that the tensions between India and Pakistan around it fade out. Of course it would be still dependent from India, much as Nepal is, regarding access to the sea but that can easily fixed creating an economic community of South Asia or something like that.

It has to be mentioned that tourism would be one of the most inmediate products of Kashmir. Mountaineers would flock to escalate many almost virgin peaks kept unreachable by the war-like situation. while more common turists can be also attrackted by the special mix of that Himalayan country.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
jayeshks View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 281
  Quote jayeshks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 14:51
Originally posted by Maju



That's not so important. The best example would be Switzerland (no significant natural resources, it is landlocked).


Kashmir is no Switzerland.  Any economy that it did posess has been almost completely destroyed by constant warfare.  it'll be lucky to end up like Nepal or Bhutan. 


Anyhow, the important thing is that all or most Kashmiris are satisfied (there are significant non-Muslim communities) and that the tensions between India and Pakistan around it fade out. Of course it would be still dependent from India, much as Nepal is, regarding access to the sea but that can easily fixed creating an economic community of South Asia or something like that.

It has to be mentioned that tourism would be one of the most inmediate products of Kashmir. Mountaineers would flock to escalate many almost virgin peaks kept unreachable by the war-like situation. while more common turists can be also attrackted by the special mix of that Himalayan country.


That sounds nice but I'm not that optimistic.  An independent Kashmir would still be strategically important to both India and Pakistan who'd both want to have a hand in the goings on of the new country.  I don't think it'd be that different from what Russia is trying to do with Belarus at the moment. 

In the long run I do think it'll be better for both India and Pakistan to let go of Kashmir as it's a black hole of govt funds in both states but it's a big proposition to take that step.
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 17:54
Originally posted by TeldeIndus

Yep, I'd go along with that. Hold a plebiscite as stipulated in the initial agreement under partition of the subcontinent states, withdraw, both Pakistani and Indian soldiers out of Kashmir, replace them with UN peacekeepers, and hold a free and fair plebiscite. Count up the votes, and let the Kashmiris decide. Actually, it's not my own idea, but has been proposed by the Pakistani president, but it's not acceptable to the Indians, who would in all likeliness lose IOK, and if independency was an option, POK would be lost and a Kashmir country formed. Kashmiri independency is acceptable to the Pakistanis.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-22d-04.asp 

Pakistan wants plebiscite in Kashmir and that will make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. 

Though if the plebiscite were to include independency, the Kashmiris would go for this I think (even if the original proposed plebiscite in 1947, agreed  under the terms of partition, was a choice between joining either Pakistan or India) . 

 

The reason the Indian goverment isn't suporting an election on the matter isn't due to the worry of the loss of IOK. It's because Kashmir is not ready for these elections. With terrorist attacks happening so often it wouldn't be a fair election.

Wait for my next post, i'm typing it up as we speak.



Edited by Anujkhamar
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 18:13

Maybe because of the religious situation the entire region should be given over to Chinese administration. 50 years of Chinese rule, it would be prosperous and religion free.

You can't bake an omellete without cracking a few fundementalists heads.

It would also mean India and Pakistan would no longer have to compare the size of thir manhoods over it.



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 19:23
Originally posted by Paul

It would also mean India and Pakistan would no longer have to compare the size of thir manhoods over it.

 

Seriously though, more of Kashmir going to China over my dead body. It would only cause World War III and probably a nuclear war. So as I was saying....over my dead body.

 

Still typing up my longer response.....



Edited by Anujkhamar
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 19:36
Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Seriously though, more of Kashmir going to China over my dead body. It would only cause World War III and probably a nuclear war. So as I was saying....over my dead body.

That would solve the problem too.



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 19:53
Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Originally posted by TeldeIndus

Yep, I'd go along with that. Hold a plebiscite as stipulated in the initial agreement under partition of the subcontinent states, withdraw, both Pakistani and Indian soldiers out of Kashmir, replace them with UN peacekeepers, and hold a free and fair plebiscite. Count up the votes, and let the Kashmiris decide. Actually, it's not my own idea, but has been proposed by the Pakistani president, but it's not acceptable to the Indians, who would in all likeliness lose IOK, and if independency was an option, POK would be lost and a Kashmir country formed. Kashmiri independency is acceptable to the Pakistanis.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-22d-04.asp 

Pakistan wants plebiscite in Kashmir and that will make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. 

Though if the plebiscite were to include independency, the Kashmiris would go for this I think (even if the original proposed plebiscite in 1947, agreed  under the terms of partition, was a choice between joining either Pakistan or India) . 

 

The reason the Indian goverment isn't suporting an election on the matter isn't due to the worry of the loss of IOK. It's because Kashmir is not ready for these elections. With terrorist attacks happening so often it wouldn't be a fair election.

Wait for my next post, i'm typing it up as we speak.

I think this is just a weak excuse that isnt even the official Indian line, more like a spin off of what Israel says regarding the Palestinians. If you know the official UN resolution saga it clearly states that both Indian and Pakistani troops would have to clear out of Kashmir, and the region to be administered by UN soldiers whilst the plebiscite is carried out. The target of the rebels are the Indian troops, if you remove them from Kashmir and let the UN take over there will be no violence. However, India will need to give the offer of plebiscite in exchange for a ceasefire, and then the violence will cease - it needs to make moves. Also

  • Kashmir already holds elections (not free and fair ones).
  • India has incorporated Kashmir into its union without the approval of the people of Kashmir. How can you expect attacks on Indian soldiers to stop when India is not willing to accept plebiscite in Kashmir? As far as it is concerned the matter is over and Kashmir is a part of India. Is this democracy?


Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 20:37
Originally posted by Paul

Maybe because of the religious situation the entire region should be given over to Chinese administration. 50 years of Chinese rule, it would be prosperous and religion free.

It's not a religious situation. They're just locals fighting for their land. Not all are Muslim even.

Hindu militants in J&K increasing

Mukhtar Ahmad in Srinagar | August 26, 2005 15:19 IST
Last Updated: August 26, 2005 15:50 IST

When Manoj Kumar Manhas, a local Hindu militant surrendered himself before the security forces on November 9, 2004, an alert was sounded indicating that more local Hindu youth could have joined the ranks of the separatist militants in the Jammu region of the state.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/26hindu.htm 

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 20:41

I wasn't expecting this topic to come up. I would have started it some time back, but i didn't feel we had enough members on the forum from the subcontinant to make it an interesting discusion.

History of Kasmir
To save time, and partly not to change the direction of this thread i'll post the following link for the history of Kashmir (pre-1947)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kashmir

Partition
In 1947 the British granted independance the the parts of the Indian subcontinant that they had occupied for the last 2 centuries, leaving Portugal as the only foreign power on the subcontinant (who left a few decades later after giving Goa back to India).

The choice was given to each of the 565 princely states on whether to join the secular state of India (which kept the name of the subcontinant), or the Islamic state of Pakistan. The areas that had a majority hindu population chose to join India, under Nehru (whom himself was Kashmiri), and those that had a muslim majority chose to join Pakistan.

Kashmir -1947
One of the two remaining states which had not chosen was Kashmir (the other being Hyderabad). This state had a majority muslim population however had a hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. In the same year it joined the union of India.  From this point on i'll have to split this up into two views, the pakistani view and the indian view.

As seen by India:
In 1947 Hari Singh had not yet decided whether to join India or Pakistan however it was rumoured that he would join India. This caused pakistani tribals to start invading the state, which in turn casued an agreement between the prime minister of Kashmir(an elected official), Sheikh Abdullah; Maharaja Hari Singh and Lord Mountbatten (the governer-general to the subcontinant) to agree to asscension into the union of India. A document was signed by Mountbatten and Hari Singh in return for military aid against the invading tribesmen. Though it was Pakistani tribesmen who were invading (and the non-existance of a Kashmiri army) there was no proof of the involvement of the Pakistani goverment meaning it would be illegal for India to intervene without Kashmir becoming part of it. Kashmir became part of India allowing Indian troops to move in, which in turn led the entry of Pakistani troops to enter the war. There is also a claim from India that some of the original invaders were part of the Pakistani army.

As seen by Pakistan:
In 1947 it was rumoured that Hari Singh would make Kashmir join India, leading to rebellions in the kindom, as the majority would want to join Pakistan as there was a majority muslim population. As the maharaja was loosing control over his kingdom he made Kashmir join India. On top of this, Indian troops had arrived in Kashmir before he had signed the document proving ascension (as claimed by Pakistan). Pakistan also claims that Hari Singh was pressured into the desicion and was not out of free will. This led to a declaration of war on India.

Indo-Pak War I - 1947-1948
The war is written about in detail here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947

note that the article is biased, as almost all sources are India, but it gives you a rough idea about the war.

It ended with roughly 2/5 of Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan and the remaining 3/5 as part of India.


Sino-Indian War - 1962
The chinese maintained the upperhand throughout the war and won a large chunk of kashmir, which is now known as Aksai Chin.

Indo-Pak War II -1965
summarised in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1965

Creation of Bangladesh - 1971
Bangladesh is formed after the 3rd Indo Pak War and the Pakistani "civil war" despite assistance from USA (ie moving the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal).


1971-1999
It was in this time that terrorism in the state began.

Indian claim:
India claims that these acts of terrorism (which has a death toll of 70000?) were backed by the Pakistani army. In this time there is a mass migration of hindus and kashmiris whom support India out of the region for fear of their lives. The terrorists are mainly foreign.

Pakistan claims:
Pakistan Claims that these are acts of Kashmiri freedom fighters whom do not want to be part of India. Pakistan claimed hat it only gave moral and diplomatic support.

My view on the terrorism:
These are NOT the actions of freedom fighters. The death toll which is in the ten's of thousands has included muslims, hindus, men, women children and animals. They are not focussed on a group, but exist merely to cause chaos, the definition of terrorism. Too many innocent people have died.


Indo-Pak War IV - Kargil 1999
 
The previous year both countries became nuclear powers. This led to economic sanctions placed on both countries. During the winter Indian troops cannot stay near the tops of mountains so therefore move downhill. The months following the war led a military coup in Pakistan making General Pervez Musharaf the leader of Pakistan.

Indian view:
Pakistani troops crossed the LOC (line of control) and blocked a road connecting Srinagar and Leh (proven due to documents left behind by pakistani soldiers). This led retaliation by the Indian army which won the war.

Pakistani view:
No Pakistani troops crossed the LOC. It was kashmiri freedom fighters who blocked off the highway.


Post Kargil
Musharaf took control of pakistan. India's growth started accelerating with the high levels of patriotism following the war. On September 11th 2001 two planes fly into the twin towers in New York causing almost a world wide denouncement of terrorism. Pakistan and India almost went to war once more but the situation was diffused and since then relations have been on the up.

India and Pakistan played a cricket series to mark the new goals at peace (which india won) and the next series is about to start. Hopefully all wars between the two countries are now settled on the cricket pitch.

Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 20:42

A picture taken from wikipedia showing the current LOC 



Edited by Anujkhamar
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 20:55
Originally posted by TeldeIndus

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Originally posted by TeldeIndus

Yep, I'd go along with that. Hold a plebiscite as stipulated in the initial agreement under partition of the subcontinent states, withdraw, both Pakistani and Indian soldiers out of Kashmir, replace them with UN peacekeepers, and hold a free and fair plebiscite. Count up the votes, and let the Kashmiris decide. Actually, it's not my own idea, but has been proposed by the Pakistani president, but it's not acceptable to the Indians, who would in all likeliness lose IOK, and if independency was an option, POK would be lost and a Kashmir country formed. Kashmiri independency is acceptable to the Pakistanis.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-22d-04.asp 

Pakistan wants plebiscite in Kashmir and that will make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. 

Though if the plebiscite were to include independency, the Kashmiris would go for this I think (even if the original proposed plebiscite in 1947, agreed  under the terms of partition, was a choice between joining either Pakistan or India) . 

 

The reason the Indian goverment isn't suporting an election on the matter isn't due to the worry of the loss of IOK. It's because Kashmir is not ready for these elections. With terrorist attacks happening so often it wouldn't be a fair election.

Wait for my next post, i'm typing it up as we speak.

I think this is just a weak excuse that isnt even the official Indian line, more like a spin off of what Israel says regarding the Palestinians. If you know the official UN resolution saga it clearly states that both Indian and Pakistani troops would have to clear out of Kashmir, and the region to be administered by UN soldiers whilst the plebiscite is carried out. The target of the rebels are the Indian troops, if you remove them from Kashmir and let the UN take over there will be no violence. However, India will need to give the offer of plebiscite in exchange for a ceasefire, and then the violence will cease - it needs to make moves. Also

  • Kashmir already holds elections (not free and fair ones).
  • India has incorporated Kashmir into its union without the approval of the people of Kashmir. How can you expect attacks on Indian soldiers to stop when India is not willing to accept plebiscite in Kashmir? As far as it is concerned the matter is over and Kashmir is a part of India. Is this democracy?

but it isnt just indian troops that are being attacked. Innocent civilians are dying as well as Indian troops.

I would be for the creation of the country of Kashmir. The only problem is it isnt viable for the people of Kashmir. It's landlocked and has very little resources. It's only major sources of income would be agriculture and tourism. At the moment Jammu and Kashmir has the highest expenditure from the central goverment. Take that away and what do they have?

And if Kashmiri's would want to join Pakistan why havn't they done so already? The majority of the population is in IOK, with a very small minority destroying any peace they had.

India is a democracy, so surely if the majority of Kashmiri's want to be Pakistani they would have created a regional government that would have been pushing for it. It hasn't happened, because contrary to your belief, joining Pakistan isnt an option for them.

As I said above, you try creating elections when you have bombs exploding. The terrorists are not interested in a political solution in the situation. They would have formed a party if that was the case and pushed for their independance. Instead they're killing their nieghbours causing chaos.

 

Also what do you mean by "india has incoparated Kashmir into its union without consulting kashmiris"?

When the descision was made to join India the Prime Minister (an elected official by Kashmiris) was present while Hari Singh and Lord Mountbatten were signing Kashmir over to India. If anything it is Pakistan and China that has taken Kashmir "without asking Kashmiris".

I'm in London and typing that article above has kept me up till about 2am. I'll carry on this topic in the morning, please feel free to reply, i don't think i've had such an interesting discusion on this forum.



Edited by Anujkhamar
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 21:11
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Seriously though, more of Kashmir going to China over my dead body. It would only cause World War III and probably a nuclear war. So as I was saying....over my dead body.

That would solve the problem too.

 

it would solve all of humanities problems, we'd all be dead.

Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 22:36
Originally posted by Anujkhamar

I wasn't expecting this topic to come up. I would have started it some time back, but i didn't feel we had enough members on the forum from the subcontinant to make it an interesting discusion.

History of Kasmir
To save time, and partly not to change the direction of this thread i'll post the following link for the history of Kashmir (pre-1947)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kashmir

Partition
In 1947 the British granted independance the the parts of the Indian subcontinant that they had occupied for the last 2 centuries, leaving Portugal as the only foreign power on the subcontinant (who left a few decades later after giving Goa back to India).

The choice was given to each of the 565 princely states on whether to join the secular state of India (which kept the name of the subcontinant), or the Islamic state of Pakistan. The areas that had a majority hindu population chose to join India, under Nehru (whom himself was Kashmiri), and those that had a muslim majority chose to join Pakistan.

The bit in italics isn't true exactly. The leaders of each princely state chose whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan. Three states initially had problems, Kashmir, Hyderabad and Jugandah. Kashmir was (and is) a Muslim majority state but was ruled by a Hindu ruler in 1947 as part of its colonial legacy, Hyderabad was a Hindu majority state ruled by a Muslim ruler at the time of partition, as was Jugandah. In fact the Hindu ruler of Kashmir wanted to go independent, so wanted more time and tried to sign a standstill agreement with Pakistan and India, but Hyderabad and Jugandah (now part of India), actually were given to Pakistan by their rulers. India then armed local resistance groups in Hyderabad and Jugandah to gain control of these regions, which after a year or two they did. but both Hyderabad and Jugandah were legally Pakistani states according to partition, though I think everyone would agree, due to their Hindu majority that they should have been acceded to India. The same situation I would say applies to Kashmir, due to its Muslim majority population, it should have been (perhaps still should be) handed over to Pakistan, but, certainly India does have no right to it.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Kashmir -1947
One of the two remaining states which had not chosen was Kashmir (the other being Hyderabad). This state had a majority muslim population however had a hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. In the same year it joined the union of India.  From this point on i'll have to split this up into two views, the pakistani view and the indian view.

A minor point - Kashmiris did not choose to join India, neither did the Hindu ruler choose to join India, he (Hari Singh) just accepted Indian troops into the region to fight the Pathan tribesmen, expel them and then to hold the plebiscite - It actually wasnt his to give under the instrument of partition as Kashmir was one of those strange sites that needed to be solved by plebiscite. 

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

As seen by India:
In 1947 Hari Singh had not yet decided whether to join India or Pakistan however it was rumoured that he would join India. This caused pakistani tribals to start invading the state, which in turn casued an agreement between the prime minister of Kashmir(an elected official), Sheikh Abdullah; Maharaja Hari Singh and Lord Mountbatten (the governer-general to the subcontinant) to agree to asscension into the union of India. A document was signed by Mountbatten and Hari Singh in return for military aid against the invading tribesmen. Though it was Pakistani tribesmen who were invading (and the non-existance of a Kashmiri army) there was no proof of the involvement of the Pakistani goverment meaning it would be illegal for India to intervene without Kashmir becoming part of it. Kashmir became part of India allowing Indian troops to move in, which in turn led the entry of Pakistani troops to enter the war. There is also a claim from India that some of the original invaders were part of the Pakistani army.

That's part of the story, but it isnt quite accurate.  

Hari Singh, and Mountbatten agreed to the accession of Kashmir to India on the grounds that it was temporary and that the Kashmiris would have the chance to vote who they wanted to join once the Pathan tribesmen had withdrawn (which they did do, when they were replaced by Pakistani troops that can be withdrawn the moment India accepts the UN resolutions). Here are the letters between Hari Singh and Mountbatten.

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government. As Your Excellency is aware,the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to either the Dominion of India or Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous with both of them. Besides, my State has a common boundary with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and with China. In their external relations the Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact. I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and of my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this arrangement. The Dominion of India desired further discussion with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. ln fact the Pakistan Goernment under the standstill agreement is operating the post and telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a standstill agreement with the Pakistan Government, the Govemment permitted a steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State.

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sialkot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at several points simultaneously, so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and the looting of the Mahura power house, which supplies electric current to the whole of Srinagar and which has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State. The mass infiltration of tribesman drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier Province, coming regularly in motortrucks, using the Manwehra-Mazaffarabad road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons, cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provincial Govemment of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. Inspite of repeated appeals made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or to stop them from coming into my State. In fact, both radio and the Press of Pakistan have reported these occurences. The Pakistan radio even put out the story that a provisional government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditbns obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained.

This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State is to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. V.P. Menon is fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will explain it to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Singh
October 26, 1947


Response from Lord Mountbatten
My dear Maharaja Sahib,

Your Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness' appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people. My Government and I note with satisfaction that Your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Mountbatten of Burma
October 27, 1947


http://www.kashmir.com/modules.php?...e=article&sid=5

The accession to India in 1947 was only temporary, but some years ago now, India had added Kashmir into its constitution on a permanent basis. Why incorporate into the constitution if you're then going to hold plebscite later?

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

As seen by Pakistan:
In 1947 it was rumoured that Hari Singh would make Kashmir join India, leading to rebellions in the kindom, as the majority would want to join Pakistan as there was a majority muslim population. As the maharaja was loosing control over his kingdom he made Kashmir join India. On top of this, Indian troops had arrived in Kashmir before he had signed the document proving ascension (as claimed by Pakistan). Pakistan also claims that Hari Singh was pressured into the desicion and was not out of free will. This led to a declaration of war on India.

No, this isn't true. Pakistan knew Hari Singh would accede to India, since he was a Hindu, but the majority of his subjects were Muslim. Refer to the letters above, the agreement was for Kashmir to only accede to India temporarily, until plebiscite could be held when the Pathan tribesmen had left.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Indo-Pak War I - 1947-1948
The war is written about in detail here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947

note that the article is biased, as almost all sources are India, but it gives you a rough idea about the war.

It ended with roughly 2/5 of Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan and the remaining 3/5 as part of India.


Sino-Indian War - 1962
The chinese maintained the upperhand throughout the war and won a large chunk of kashmir, which is now known as Aksai Chin.

Indo-Pak War II -1965
summarised in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1965

Creation of Bangladesh - 1971
Bangladesh is formed after the 3rd Indo Pak War and the Pakistani "civil war" despite assistance from USA (ie moving the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal).

Bangladesh is an interesting case. If you like you could compare external interference in the internal affairs of the country in the case of Kashmir with Bangladesh. Bangladesh (known as East Pakistan in 1971) was formed when the Indian Army sided with the Bengali resistance, armed trained and supported it, eventually invading East Pakistan. This was done by India, in the name of the right of self determination of the Bangladeshi people, yet, it (India) does not exercise the same right of self determination of the Kashmiris. So why the double standard?

Originally posted by Anujkhamar


1971-1999
It was in this time that terrorism in the state began.

Indian claim:
India claims that these acts of terrorism (which has a death toll of 70000?) were backed by the Pakistani army. In this time there is a mass migration of hindus and kashmiris whom support India out of the region for fear of their lives. The terrorists are mainly foreign.

The "terrorists" have been admitted by the Indian government to be "sons of the soil". Hizb or Hizb ul Mujahideen is the largest militant group in Kashmir.

Lastly, New Delhi should reflect on the opportunity it missed in July-August 2000, during the parleys with the Hizb, which it had extolled for a few weeks as the true sons of the soil.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2016/stories/200308150042098 00.htm 

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Pakistan claims:
Pakistan Claims that these are acts of Kashmiri freedom fighters whom do not want to be part of India. Pakistan claimed hat it only gave moral and diplomatic support.

Also, Pakistan would probably not agree with the Indian viewpoint you expressed that the fear is instilled by the rebels, rather they would say that human rights atrocities, documented by Amnesty and other neutral rights organizations, including torture, rapes, disappearances are being carried out systematically by the Indian troops.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

My view on the terrorism:
These are NOT the actions of freedom fighters. The death toll which is in the ten's of thousands has included muslims, hindus, men, women children and animals. They are not focussed on a group, but exist merely to cause chaos, the definition of terrorism. Too many innocent people have died.


Indo-Pak War IV - Kargil 1999
 
The previous year both countries became nuclear powers. This led to economic sanctions placed on both countries. During the winter Indian troops cannot stay near the tops of mountains so therefore move downhill. The months following the war led a military coup in Pakistan making General Pervez Musharaf the leader of Pakistan.

There's been many deaths due to Indian soldiers as well as "collateral damage". If you have neutral statistics quote them.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Indian view:
Pakistani troops crossed the LOC (line of control) and blocked a road connecting Srinagar and Leh (proven due to documents left behind by pakistani soldiers). This led retaliation by the Indian army which won the war.

Pakistani view:
No Pakistani troops crossed the LOC. It was kashmiri freedom fighters who blocked off the highway.

Kargil wasnt a war, just a skirmish. I dont even know what happened, but I'll read about it.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

India and Pakistan played a cricket series to mark the new goals at peace (which india won) and the next series is about to start. Hopefully all wars between the two countries are now settled on the cricket pitch.

Will be an exciting series.



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 23:38

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

but it isnt just indian troops that are being attacked. Innocent civilians are dying as well as Indian troops.

Once the Indian troops have gone, there wont be any attacks. Tell me, why would the Kashmiri resistance want to kill their own people?

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

I would be for the creation of the country of Kashmir. The only problem is it isnt viable for the people of Kashmir. It's landlocked and has very little resources. It's only major sources of income would be agriculture and tourism. At the moment Jammu and Kashmir has the highest expenditure from the central goverment. Take that away and what do they have?

The expenditure of the Indian government on Kashmir is because it is fighting the resistance groups. 

Kashmiris are not illiterate, stupid people. Once formed they will eventually set up schools and other institutions, and be able to train in jobs other than agriculture or as tourist guides (IT, services, industry etc).

 

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

And if Kashmiri's would want to join Pakistan why havn't they done so already? The majority of the population is in IOK, with a very small minority destroying any peace they had.

Kashmiris have not had the chance to join Pakistan. They need the option to vote, and that can only come through a plebiscite, which India has consistently blocked ever since Nehru died, who as you pointed out was a Kashmiri.

It's also very unlikely that a minority of people are doing the fighting. The only way for guerilla groups to survive is with the support of the people in which they operate.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

India is a democracy, so surely if the majority of Kashmiri's want to be Pakistani they would have created a regional government that would have been pushing for it. It hasn't happened, because contrary to your belief, joining Pakistan isnt an option for them.

They have created a regional government in Pakistani Kashmir. It has it's own flag.

Pakistani Kashmir flag (Azad Kashmir)

Compare this with the flag of Indian occupied Kashmir.

Indian Kashmir flag (Indian flag)

 

The point is that Kashmiris want freedom from both India and Pakistan, though given the choice of the two in a plebiscite, most would side with Pakistan (ignoring manufactured polls at gunpoint).

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

As I said above, you try creating elections when you have bombs exploding. The terrorists are not interested in a political solution in the situation. They would have formed a party if that was the case and pushed for their independance. Instead they're killing their nieghbours causing chaos.

There are no bombs exploding on the Pakistani side. They're only on the Indian one, so if you remove the troops, there wont be a target. Then put in UN troops, and carry out a plebiscite. This was the initial proposition, and still remains the best and fairest.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Also what do you mean by "india has incoparated Kashmir into its union without consulting kashmiris"?

In 1956, India incorporated Kashmir into its constitution. This was and is article 1. This should not have been done until plebiscite had been held and Kashmiris had voted to join with India.

Though there was a temporary article 370, another article, Article 249 was introduced into the Indian constitution in 1965 that removed any autonomy the Kashmiris had by removing the Prime Minister and President of Kashmir and replacing them with the Chief Governor and Governor of Kashmir. Also this Article made Kashmir just the same as any other Indian state and removed any autonomy granted to it by Article 370. 

I think even you must agree that is not the actions of someone willing to negotiate.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

When the descision was made to join India the Prime Minister (an elected official by Kashmiris) was present while Hari Singh and Lord Mountbatten were signing Kashmir over to India. If anything it is Pakistan and China that has taken Kashmir "without asking Kashmiris".

Nehru was a good man. I honestly believe if he survived Kashmiris would have had plebiscite. It was after his death that Kashmir was incorporated as just another state in the Indian union.

Pakistan is willing to concede Kashmir to the outcome of the plebiscite. This is on record.

I dont know about Ladakh, but the Chinese part of Kashmir that was handed over in 1963 is only a temporary measure - there were reasons for this.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

I'm in London and typing that article above has kept me up till about 2am. I'll carry on this topic in the morning, please feel free to reply, i don't think i've had such an interesting discusion on this forum.

Kashmir is indeed interesting. I find most Pakistani history interesting, especially as almost everyone I meet has no knowledge of it.



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 06:10
Originally posted by TeldeIndus

The expenditure of the Indian government on Kashmir is because it is fighting the resistance groups. 

Kashmiris are not illiterate, stupid people. Once formed they will eventually set up schools and other institutions, and be able to train in jobs other than agriculture or as tourist guides (IT, services, industry etc).

I will write about the rest a little later, just wanted to reply to this part though.

Here is a list of some of the expenditure from the central goverment:  (unincluding military aid)

Projects Cost Rs, in crores
 Railways 4,496
Jammu-Udhampur  446
Udampur-Srinagar-Baramulla  3,564
Jammu Tawi-Jalandar  486
 Roads 1,700
NH 1A  1200
Batote-Kishwar-Singhan Pass  200
Leh via Manali Road  1,300
 Public Works 318
Reconstruction of gutted bridges  224
Planning Commission Projects  30
Schools  65
 Power 16,000
Salai Power Project  921
Dulhasti Hydro Project  4,279
Uri Project  3,300
 Tourism 115
Dal Lake cleanup  100
Tourist facility projects  19
Leh Convention Center  2

To those that do not no, a "crore" is 10,000,000 of the currency.

 

And yes, i no Kashmiri's are not illeterate. They have the lowest percentage of people in poverty in south asia. There already are schools in Kashmir. The list of jobs you gave above would not be enough to create an economy. As i said, i will post alot more later, this is all i had time for at the moment

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 00:20
hear hear TeldeIndus.
And what is it with Kargil. It wasn't a war at all. I have only ever heard of it being anything other than a normal day-to-day clash from Indian mouths
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.083 seconds.