There has been lot of talk about Kashmir and how and why kashmir should be given independence so that indo-pakistan issue gets solved.
People have quoted the 20 yrs of militancy, the human rights issue, the dominant religion islam in kashmir and world peace as reasons for the same.
Kashmir definition:
Until the mid-19th century, the term "Kashmir" referred only to the valley lying between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal range; since then, it has been used for a larger area that today includes the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir consisting of the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh; the Pakistani-administered provinces of the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir, and the Chinese-administered region of Aksai Chin.
History:
Kashmir was known for the contribution to Hinduism in the beginging of the millenium.Hindu scriptures and temples in kashmir those days were very famous.
From the 4th century buddhism became popular there.
From 9 th century Kashmir saivism (Sect of Hinduism) was the religion practised by the people in this region until the 13 th century
( http://en.wikipedia.org/... )
Islam:
In 1349, Shah Mirza became the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir and inaugurated the line Salatin-i-Kashmir.[2] For the next five centuries Kashmir had Muslim monarchs, including the Mughals, who ruled until 1751, and thereafter, the Afghan Durranis, who ruled until 1820.
Sikhism:
The Sikhs under Ranjit Singh, annexed Kashmir.[2] In 1846, upon the purchase of the region from the British under the Treaty of Amritsar, the Dogras—under Gulab Singh—became the new rulers. Dogra Rule, under the paramountcy (or tutelage) of the British Crown, lasted until 1947.
By the start of British empire in India Kashmir had a mix of all religious people and lot of people who had travelled from Iran and Afganistan during the rule of Mughals and others and sikhs who came from Rajput kingdoms.
(Now there is again a claim that before British India didnt exist as one country. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A LAUGABLE ONE.
Indian history can be traced back to INDUS VALLEY CIVILISATION
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
The vedas,upanishads,sangam literature,stone literature of those period all refer to a country India . Ashoka,chandragupta maurya ruled over the entire country except the dravidan part of India 1000 years before british came to India.Infact British came to india search for INDIES OR INDIA Same with the case of Portugese,spanish,Dutch and other europeans.They all had trade relationship with India and heard about the riches and cultural history of the country and wanted to reach India. Infact Columbus who was on a voyage to find out sea route through east to reach India accidently discovered today America.
(I would rather talk about the British rule in India in seperate country and return to the kashmir issue)
The British divided India based on religion into Pakistan and India but all the princely states which were not in control of Britain directly given right to decide on their own. Kashmir decided to be part of India.
1.on the basis of history Kashmir is Indias
2.On the basis of 1947 act kashmir is India's
Religion:
If anyone says muslims are majority in Kashmir and therefore it should be part of pakistan:
India has the largest muslim population in the world next only to Indonesia. There are 150-200 Mn muslims in India. I repeat (joe buddys language) 150-200 Mn muslims in India. Can i argue that the British decision of dividing India itself is wrong and pakistan should be part of India???
MEA (MINISTRY OF EXTRERNAL AFFAIRS INDIA) ANSWERS TO KASHMIR ISSUE:
Accession to India
1.The Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, signed by the Maharaja (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 26th October, 1947, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable. The Accession was also supported by the largest political party in the state, the National Conference. In the Indian Independence Act, there was no provision for any conditional accession. The Instrument of Accession executed by the Maharaja was the same as the ones executed by over 500 princely states in India. There has been no complication in any of the other cases. There would have been none in this case either, except for Pakistan's action in sending in tribal invaders first (in October 1947) and its own regular troops later (May 1948).
2.Lord Mountbatten's acceptance of the Instrument of Accession was unconditional. He said: "I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession". The Instrument of Accession was complete with the offer and acceptance.
3.There can, therefore, be no question of negotiating on the question of accession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India.
Reference to UN
4.India made a reference to the United Nations on 1st January 1948 under Article 35 of the Charter, which permits any member state to bring any situation, whose continuance is likely to endanger international peace and security, to the attention of the Security Council. The intention behind this reference was to prevent a war between the two newly independent countries, which would have become increasingly likely if the tribal invaders assisted first indirectly and then actively by the Pakistan army had persisted with their actions against India in Kashmir. The Government of India requested the Security Council "to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance which was an act of aggression against India".
5.Pakistan consistently misled the world regarding its involvement in Kashmir: (a) It claimed initially in 1947 that it was not in any way assisting the tribal invaders and was only not actively opposing their passage out of fear that they may turn against the local Pakistani population. It was, however, clearly established that these invaders were being looked after in Pakistan territory, fed, clothed, armed and otherwise equipped and transported to J&K with the help, direct and indirect, of Pakistani officials, both military & civil. The first Governor General of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah claimed in a meeting with the then Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten that he was in a position "to call the whole thing off" subject to some of his demands being met. (b) Pakistan later claimed that its own forces were not involved directly in operations in Kashmir. But the UN Commission that visited India in July 1948 found Pakistani forces operating in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The UNCIP Resolution of August 1948 documented the Pakistani aggression when it stated: "The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir constitute a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council". The UN sponsored mediator, Owen Dixon, was also constrained to record in his report of 15.9.1950 that "I was prepared to adopt the view that when the frontier of the State of J&K was crossed, on I believe 20 October 1947, by hostile elements, it was contrary to international law, and that when, in May 1948 as I believe, units of the regular Pakistan forces moved into the territory of the state that too was inconsistent with international law".
Non-implementation of UN Resolutions by Pakistan
6.Despite India's completely legal and valid position on Jammu & Kashmir, in order to find a solution to the situation created by Pakistan's aggression, India had accepted the option of holding a plebiscite in J&K. It had, however, been made clear by the Indian leaders that holding of such a plebiscite would be conditional upon Pakistan fulfilling Parts (I) & (II) of the UNCIP resolutions of 13 August, 1948, which inter alia, required that all forces regular and irregular under the control of both sides shall cease fire; Pakistan would withdraw its troops, it would endeavour to secure withdrawal of tribesmen and Pak nationals and India will withdraw bulk of its forces once the UNCIP confirms that the tribesmen and Pak nationals have withdrawn and Pak troops are being withdrawn. India was also to ensure that the state government takes various measures to preserve peace, law and order. Indian acceptance of these UNCIP resolutions was also subject to several conditions and assurances given by UNCIP including that Pakistan would be excluded from all affairs of Jammu & Kashmir, "Azad J & K Government" would not be recognised, sovereignty of J & K government over the entire territory of the state shall not be brought into question, territory occupied by Pakistan shall not be consolidated, and Pakistani troops would be withdrawn completely. Pakistan never fulfilled these assurances.
Preconditions for Plebiscite Never Fulfilled by Pakistan
7.The Government of Pakistan wrecked any possibility of plebiscite being conducted by not implementing part II of the resolution, perhaps because it was fully aware of what the result of such an exercise would be. The Pakistani troops, which were to withdraw from the state, did not do so. As a result normal conditions under which a plebiscite could be held were never created.
8.India had accepted these resolutions, subject to assurances, (mentioned in para 6) and in the hope of having the matter resolved quickly. Pakistan, however, wrecked the implementation of the resolutions at that time by not fulfilling the preconditions. As V.K. Menon stated in the Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957): "if an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it". With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events. In fact, the representative of India (M.C. Chagla) had stated in the Security Council as far back as 1964 (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964): "I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir".
9.The then Prime Minister of India, had in a statement in New York, stated on March 31, 1966 that: "any plebiscite today would by definition amount to questioning the integrity of India. It would raise the issue of secession - an issue on which even the United States fought a civil war not so very long ago. We cannot and will not tolerate a second partition of India on religious grounds. It would destroy the very basis of the Indian State." Today, thirty-six years later, the Pakistani position is even more untenable.
Solution Proposed by Resolutions: Time and Context Specific
10.Since 1957 there have been no UN resolutions on the substantive aspects of the Jammu and Kashmir issue. Time and circumstances have not stood still. More than four and a half decades have lapsed since the original proposals were made as a possible solution. They can no longer be considered valid. In fact, in his report (dated 29th April, 1957), the UN Representative, who was then President of the Security Council, Gunnar Jarring, after completing his mission to India and Pakistan in 1957, took note of larger realities of the sub-continent including in Jammu and Kashmir and stated: "The Council will, furthermore, be aware of the fact that the implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change".
11.Dr. Frank Graham, the UNCIP representative stated in March 1958: "...the execution of the provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful....".
12.Over fifty years after Partition, the ground situation in the state to which the resolutions referred to has considerably changed. Pakistan unilaterally ceded a part of the state to China in 1963. There has been a demographic change on the Pakistani side with generations of non-Kashmiris allowed to take residence in the parts of J&K occupied by Pakistan. If the resolutions had begun to lose relevance in 1957, they have far less relevance now.
13.The above position is increasingly being acknowledged by the world today. Highlighting the fact that the UNCIP resolutions did not come under Chapter VII, and were therefore not self enforcing, the UN Secretary General stated at a press conference in Islamabad in March 2001, that "the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way out, is the route I recommend".
14.It is now widely acknowledged that bilateral dialogue, in accordance with the Simla Agreement, reiterated in the Lahore Declaration, is the only way to address all bilateral issues between India and Pakistan, including the issue of J&K. UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, stated in the British Parliament on 10th June 2002, that "if United Nations resolutions could have solved the matter, it would have been solved more than 50 years ago". Speaking for the British Government, he said, "we think that there is not a huge amount of point in getting in a historiographical exercise about which position is correct. We have to deal with the here and now", adding that a solution to this issue could be found only "by looking forward and by a direct dialogue between those two sovereign nations, India and Pakistan".
Choice Made by the People of J&K and Elections in Kashmir
15.The people of Jammu and Kashmir could not wait indefinitely to decide their future. In any case the UN resolutions did not recognise or grant any role to Pakistan in the conduct of the plebiscite. "If Pakistan, therefore, has no part in the plebiscite, it really became a domestic matter for India". (V.K. Krishna Menon, UNSC, 800th meeting, 11 November, 1957). India waited several years for Pakistan to fulfil the preconditions. When that did not happen, the people of Jammu and Kashmir then convened a Constituent Assembly in 1951, which once again reaffirmed the Accession of the State to India in 1956 and finalised the Constitution for the State. The Jammu and Kashmir Constitution reaffirms that "the State is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India."
16.The people, therefore, were consulted. "We did not consult them privately; we did not consult them by selecting the people who were to be consulted. We consulted them by a normal process of democratic election - not even for a Parliament which we established, or the existing Government of Kashmir established, but for a Constituent Assembly". (V.K. Krishna Menon, UNSC, 800 Meeting, 11 November, 1957). In several subsequent local, State and national elections the people of Jammu and Kashmir have repeatedly exercised their democratic choice.
India Pakistan Discussions on J&K
17.India has always been willing to discuss all issues, including the issue of Jammu & Kashmir, with Pakistan. In fact, in the decades of the ‘50s and ‘60s, several rounds of bilateral discussions took place between India and Pakistan over 1950-51, 1953-54, 1956-57 and 1962-63, to resolve the differences over Kashmir. J&K is also one of the eight subjects identified for dialogue under the Composite Dialogue set up at India's initiative in 1998. A perusal of the records of these meetings makes it clear that they failed in their endeavour only because of Pakistan's intransigent, unrealistic, and on occasions, unifocal approach, which did not take into account either the moral and juridical aspects of the issue or the existing realities.
18.As in the UNSC, during these bilateral discussions, Pakistan has sought parity with India in terms of locus standi in Kashmir. This is untenable since the erstwhile ruler of J&K had duly acceded to India, the largest popular party had endorsed the Accession, and the people had subsequently ratified the earlier decisions. Pakistan, as the aggressor could not have parity with India, with which the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was complete and final.
1965 War: Its Implications
19.Pakistan tried to impose a military solution on J&K yet again in 1965, by instigating a war against India. The people of J&K resisted this new invasion. Pakistan's failure to impose this military solution and the efforts of the people of J&K to thwart the aims and designs of the Pakistani invaders are well documented.
20.By imposing a war, Pakistan negated the very reason for which a reference had been made to the UN in 1948. All the arrangements that were arrived at with Pakistan through the instrumentality of the Security Council were based on the integrity and inviolability of the cease-fire line established after the 1947-48 skirmishes. By violating this line in 1965, Pakistan rendered obsolete and dead the resolutions of 1948 and 1949, in the context of which the Cease-Fire Line had been established through the Karachi Agreement of 1949.
Simla Agreement - Its Implications
21.Pakistan imposed yet another war on India in 1971. After this conflict, bilateral talks were held in June-July 1972 and the 'Simla Agreement' signed on 2 July 1972. In terms of this Agreement, which was duly ratified by the two Governments in 1972 itself, the two countries undertook to resolve all differences bilaterally and peacefully. Pakistan, through its commitments enshrined in this Agreement, accepted the need to shift the J&K issue from the UN to the bilateral plane.
22.India’s stand has been clearly enunciated. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. While India is prepared to resolve all differences with Pakistan through bilateral talks as envisaged in the Simla Agreement, there can be no compromise on India’s unity and sovereignty. The issue that remains to be resolved is the vacation by Pakistan of territory illegally occupied by it.
23.For meaningful bilateral negotiations, Pakistan must create the right climate by stopping its support to terrorism. There must be tangible and credible evidence of this on the ground. The Simla Agreement reiterated in the Lahore Declaration expressly forbids hostile propaganda, interference in internal Affairs and encouragement of any acts detrimental to maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations. It also enjoins respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Pakistan is violating all these provisions.
The Lahore visit of the Prime Minister of India
24.Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee took a historic initiative and visited Lahore from February 20-21, 1999. The visit was aimed at conveying India’s deep desire to establish peaceful, co-operative and friendly ties with Pakistan. Prime Minister Vajpayee proclaimed from the Minar-e-Pakistan that a stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan was in India’s interest. The Lahore Declaration, which committed the two countries to build trust and confidence and develop mutually beneficial co-operation to resolve outstanding issues including J&K through bilateral negotiations, provided a blue print for India-Pakistan relations into the 21st Century.
Kargil
25.However, the ink had barely dried on the Lahore Declaration that the Pakistani Army manifested its compulsive hostility towards India by launching a military operation in May 1999 across LoC in an attempt to occupy dominating heights along a 140 Km long stretch of Srinagar-Leh Highway. Its aim was to create a situation by which Pakistan would dominate the strategically important Kargil heights. India’s firm response forced Pakistani troops to retreat to their side of LoC. India’s policy of maintaining the sanctity of the LoC and the tremendous restraint shown by India in its firm action against the intruders without crossing the LoC found wide international support and endorsement.
Agra Summit
26.Notwithstanding, the continued sponsorship of cross border terrorism, on May 23, 2001 India again took the initiative to establish a high level political dialogue with Pakistan by inviting General Musharraf to visit India. The Pakistani President General Musharraf visited India from July 14-16, 2001 and had talks with Prime Minister Vajpayee in Agra. However, during the Summit, Pakistan demonstrated a unifocal approach, fixated entirely on one question and sought to make any improvement in relations conditional on prior resolution of the Kashmir issue. Pakistan was also reluctant to address India’s concerns relating to cross border terrorism. The hopes of forward movement in bilateral relations thus remained largely unattained.
Pakistan’s Interference and Support to Terrorism
27.The present situation in Kashmir has been created by Pakistan’s support to terrorism. This support to cross border terrorism is not only an attempt to unilaterally alter the status quo on the ground but also to undermine India’s secular fabric.
28.Pakistan’s support to cross border terrorism against India is now openly acknowledged by the international community. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the UK Government stated in the British Parliament on 10th June 2002, "A number of terrorist organisations-including Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, each of which I proscribed when I was Home Secretary-have been at the forefront of violent activity in the region. India has long charged that such terrorism has had the covert support of successive Pakistani Governments and, in particular, of the main intelligence agency in Pakistan, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate-ISID. Her Majesty’s Government accept that there is a clear link between the ISID and those groups".
29.US then Secretary of State, Colin Powell stated on 10th June 2002, "Two weeks ago, we got assurances from President Musharraf that he would cease infiltration activity across the line of control... And then Deputy Secretary Armitage over this past week end got further assurances that cessation of activity would be visible and would be permanent and would be followed by other activities that had to do with the dismantling of the camps that led to the capacity to conduct these kinds of operation".
30.The section on Pakistan in the Annual Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000 stated, "Pakistan’s military government, headed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, continued previous Pakistani Government support of the Kashmir insurgency, and Kashmiri militant groups continued to operate in Pakistan, raising funds and recruiting new cadre". The report further said that HUM, a State Department designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation, continued to be "active in Pakistan without discouragement by the Government of Pakistan".
31.Through his January 12 and May 27 addresses President Musharraf made two promises. Firstly, that Pakistan will not allow its territory to be used to promote terrorism anywhere in the world. Secondly, that no organisation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir.
Non-Applicability of ‘Self-determination’ to Integral Parts of States
32.Under the UN Charter, the principles of self-determination are meant to apply to colonial territories and not to integral parts of countries. Pakistan’s harping on "self-determination" today, against the principles advocated by the founders of Pakistan, are only a cover for territorial ambitions. The principles being espoused by Pakistan pose severe dangers to several countries in the world where multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies co-exist.
Now,
As much i argue about the fact that kashmir is and will be part of India, i should also acknowledge our failings (India's) in kashmir.
Thousands of people have died in kashmir since the 80's
Economic and political development is still not in par with rest of the states.
There is always a war like situation in certain parts of the valley.
There is a percentage of population who believe in Independence of kashmir.
Human rights issues against the army!
But,
1.This doesnt mean there is whole hearted support for kashmir independence. If the present elections and the election in the past are any indicator then we find except in sophore and baramullah all other districts of the state have voted in favor of Indian democracy (65% voter turnout despite the seperatist calling for a boycott).
In sophore and baramullah there is either a support for the seperatist boycott of election or a fear among the people to comeout and vote (this is the strong hold of seperatist.)
On the whole the kashmir election has shown peoples support for democracy and failure of seperatist.
2.Maintaining normal life is difficult in this area due to Pakistans continuous support to the terrorist and also due to the political parties which have been very weak and opportunistic.
What Kashmir needs is strong govt and economic development .Once this happens the seperatist agenda will die. Because it is the economic failure and tourism failure that is frustating people not the fact India is anti islam or pakistan is pro islam.
For any development to take place we need pakistan to stop helping or not acting on terrorist who arrive from pakistan occupied kashmir and create problems in India and in Indian kashmir.
(For eg: Tamilnadu (my state) asked for independence in 1962. That time there was no developments in this part of the country and there were very few industries.But the only difference is there was no pakistan here to support and fuel the movement. The govt of India brought in lot of industries and peoples life standard improved a lot after the 65's.Now after the 60's we never had any problem )
We need the support of USA and other countries not in solving the issue but in understanding the issue. we need usa and other countries support in putting brakes on pakistan from supporting terrorist activites.Once that happens take my word you wont have any issue in kashmir.If pakistan stops terrorism and support to terrorism we will peace in the heaven of earth very soon...
By the way kashmir is one of the most beautiful places in the world:
http://www.jktourism.org/...
Next diary: Burma and Suu kyi