Selling our sovereignty to the "Impoverished" Indians

Salaam everyone,

I wanted to share the following interesting discussion taking place on my blog. Hope 'Liberalmarathi' will continue the good discussion here.

LiberalMarathi said...
Koshur,

While it is true that there are human rights violations being committed within Kashmir as of now, one also has to remember that before 1989 there were no human rights violations being committed in Kashmir. There was no army in Srinagar or in any populated places in Kashmir in 1989.

I am sure you'd agree with me that after violent militancy started in the valley in 1989, it is only after that the human rights violations started taking place.

We can certainly discuss why the violent militancy started in the valley. But that could be topic for another discussion.

I am sure you'd also agree with me that the first duty of government (any government) is to maintain Law and Order. Even if Kashmir were to be independent, it would have been the responsibility of the Kashmiri government to maintain Law and Order. Governments go to any extent to maintain law and order. As a matter of fact they HAVE to. Without law and order the whole justification for having a government would cease to exist. Numerous examples exist in Indian states where local police have resorted to firing to control mobs and unruly crowds and people have died. The gowari massacre in Nagpur where a huge unruly crowd tried to march to the Assembly is just one example. Hundred+ (yes, hundred+) people died in that single incident. One can say it was just a peaceful march. But peaceful march to where - to the Assembly building and who is going to guarantee that 100,000+ charged up people would remain peaceful for too long ? Same thing with the peaceful march to the border in Kashmir .. yes it is peaceful for now but where is it going .. to a heavily militarized border ?

Without vigorous economic activity in Kashmir, there would be no gainful employment. There would no economic activity without Peace. The political leadership in Kashmir has to realize this and stop feeding unsustainable, impractical dreams of 'freedom' into Kashmiri populace that they purport to serve. It is the Kashmiri politicians that are doing a great disservice to Kashmiri people not the government of India. It is always (ALWAYS) easy to blame something other than yourself for one's situation. It is as true for Maharashtrians as it is for Kashmiris.

Once again, I thank you for having this discussion and inspite of our disagreements, I respect you and your inalienable right to have your own viewpoint.

September 04, 2008 8:46 AM

Koshur said...
@liberal marathi

-Yes there were human rights violations before 89. For one, our first prime minister of Kashmir was arrested and jailed for eleven years for the crime of reminding nehru about the promise of plebiscite.

-the army has always occupied areas in populated non-border areas. badami bagh, manasbal and anantnag just to name a few

-if the slogan of freedom is impractical and we are doing a disservice to the kashmiri people, then Bhutan, Nepal, Srilanka and maldives should be your next goal to occupy forcefully using the same arguments.

Kashmir was never an "integral" part of india. We never accepted the accession bu hari singh that was imposed upon us. Lecturing us on our economic viabilty as a free nation would get the dialog nowhere.

Chinaar said...
The biggest HUMAN RIGHT THAT WAS TAKEN FROM US IS OUR RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION....and that happened way way before 1989

Shabir Shah was imprisoned for more than 16 years...Amnesty International calls him a prisoner of conscience and this was before 1989. Maqbool Bhat was framed on false charges and hung by the dastardly Indians and that was way before 1989.

Yaseen Malik before he took up the gun in 1989 was imprisoned before 1989.

Tattu ground in Batamaloo, Badamee Bagh cantonment right in the middle of Sonwar were Indian military installations present in the heart of srinagar before 1989.

I repeat nothing can be more brutal than The biggest HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF ALL i.e RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION which was taken away from us....and that happened way way before 1989.

Educate yourself my friends and don't let friendly Indian rhetoric blind you so much that you become participants in killing another generation of Kashmiris.

LiberalMarathi said...
@koshur

I am just an ordinary Maharashtrian, not very knowledgeable about Kashmir, and I ask for your indulgence while I make my clumsy arguments.

- plebiscite cannot be looked at in isolation and held in vacuum. First of all, the UN resolution that refers to the plebiscite is under chapter VI which means that it is non-enforceable by using Security Council and other mechanisms unlike resolutions under chapter VII which are enforceable (East Timor was under chapter VII, for example). Chapter VI resolutions such as the Kashmir plebiscite need the cooperation of all parties to get implemented. For that cooperation to happen, there are several conditions stated in the Plebiscite Resolution, the first of which is the requirement that all tribals and Pakistani soldiers must withdraw from the borders of the territory of J&K as they existed on 15th Aug 1947. Pakistan was simply not agreeable to this condition. Thus the cooperation requirement for a chapter VI resolution has failed right on the first condition. The plebiscite resolution is now completely un-enforceable. Later with Pakistan joining SEATO and CENTO and Shimla Agreement in 1972 and later with the Lahore Agreement there is now no chance of enforcing the plebiscite resolution.

- secondly, your point about Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, and Sri Lanka being independent, thereby making a case for a viable Kashmiri independence has some merit but again there are problems underneath the surface. Autonomy with Security is the key to all these states. Bhutan has a treaty with India that guarantees Bhutan's security in case of foreign aggresion (with only two neighbors it is not hard to imagine where the foreign aggression is going to come from). Nepal has a similar although somewhat weakly worded treaty with India which has been a source of irritant to Nepalese governments. Maldives has asked for and gotten help from Indian armed forces in case of coup attempts there. Sri Lanka does not have a 'protectorate' treaty with India but then with only one neighbor it doesn't need to worry about other aggressions. Nevertheless, IPKF forces were in SriLanka on the Lankan government's invitation (a big mistake, in my opinion, but that is another topic).

The point is all these countries are small and they need security guarantees from their large neighbors in order to be independent. If they had to incur large armed forces expenditures to guard their borders then they would not be sustainable political entities. Kashmir's unique case (Art 370) bestows on Kashmir similar autonomy as Bhutan while guaranteeing Kashmir against foreign aggressions. It is up to Kashmiris to utilize this unique autonomy to their advantage. Kashmiris can go anywhere in India, buy land, set up businesses, while us 'Indians' cannot do the same in Kashmir. It is saddening then to hear a cry for 'freedom' while young officers and soldiers from Nagaland, and Chhatisgarh, and Tamil Nadu die in fighting Kashmir's wars on Kashmiri peaks.

I respectfully maintain that Kashmir valley cannot support itself in isolation as an independent country without security guarantees from its large neighbors. Whether those guarantees will come from Pakistan or from India is what the valley people have to decide.

- point about Kashmir not being 'integral' part of India. India itself as an 'integral' country has existed only since 1947. But that again is just scratching the surface. India as a concept and as a symbol has existed for a lot longer than that. Whether Kashmir was part of that concept of India is up for challenge. I would say based on Kashmir's early history, its early Hindu/Buddhist heritage (I am an irreligious person so please don't read religious frame of mind here), its linkages with territories now part of India, it is clear that Kashmir hasn't existed in isolation but has always been part of the idea of India. It is disingenuous for you to go back to the history of Kashmir only up to the point where you feel comfortable with it (400 years). Why stop there and not go back even further ? Can you say emphatically in that period of history that India (the concept) had no part to play in Kashmir ?

Whatever the history, we have to live in today's world. I will say this again respectfully, (1)kashmir's heritage (including its liberal sufi traditions) joins it in a larger concept of a liberal, secular India, (2) kashmir as an independent entity without security guarantees from one of its larger neighbors cannot survive, (3) it is in Kashmiris' interest to utilize their unique autonomy for progress. Give Peace a chance.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.

September 04, 2008 10:56 AM

Koshur said...
@liberalmarathi

The fact remains that no matter how much the Indians undermine the UN resolutions, the Indian presence in Kashmir is an occupation and we are NOT an integral part of India - the UN resolutions, regardless of what clause they are under, prove that. I hope that much is clear no matter which yardstick you use. It makes no sense for blaming Pakistan for all ills of the world when India itself is unwilling to even consider its occupation here in contravention of the UN resolutions.

Your argument that Bhutan, Nepal and others having a security agreement with India again shows the illogical stance of India. All the arguments that India uses to justify its occupation here can also be used on these countries.

Once we declare independence, we are willing to sign similar no-agression treaties with all our neighbours; I see no reason why China, and Paksitna would not be willing to assure us our Independence.

-Yes, that is the whole context of this post that in fact no other foreign ruler has conquered Kashmir in the past. Our spate of foreign rule only commenced with the Mughal invasion of 1587. In the past, regardless of the religion, all Kings of Kashmir have been Kashmiris. It is bigots who try to give it a communal color.

There are many who try to invent history by claiming that Kashmir was ruled by ancient Indian Kings in the ancient times. These are a figment of imagination to satisfy their own communal thinking. There is no irrefutable proof they can present that backs up their claim. The pir panjal range is rugged and harsh for any sort of invasion and that has protected Kashmiris from aggression from the south. It is a fact that we did not have much cultural exchange with Indians of the plains; our language, dress, culture, food, and physical features such as skin color, and hair prove that. Otherwise we would have looked like Punjabis or like people from Jammu or Himachal. But the fact remains that we were never intermixing with them in the past. Religion is a different matter as it was propagated thousands of years back by solitary Hindus who travleed great distances to spread their message. That explains the hindu religion that Kashmiris used to practice. Infact there is evidence that Hinduism was practiced in Afghanistan, does that imply that they should be part of India? Similarly, Budhhism also had a base in Kashmir for similar reasons before it spread from here to China. For the same reason China and Kashmiris have little in common. We have as much similarity with China as we have with India.

There is absolutely no justification that would make us be part of the Indian dominion, that is applicable to us and not to Nepal, Bhutan, Srilanka, or Maldives. We want to have friendly relations with both India and Pakistan, and the longer it is delayed, the more damage India is doing to itself financially

MarathiLiberal has left a new comment on your post "400 Year Old Freedom Struggle":

@koshur

1. Pakistan is a party to the UN resolution on Kashmir. If Pakistan is unwilling to carry out condition #1 at the top of the resolution, how can one honestly say that it is India that is undermining the UN resolution ? I am not blaming Pakistan for all the ills but they indeed are a serious party to the resolution and their cooperation is necessary for the resolution to be implemented.

2. I don't see how Nepal, Bhutan etc signing protection treaty with India shows India's illogical stance. These are not non-aggression pacts. These are protection pacts that 'outsource' the said country's defence to Indian Armed Forces in case of an aggression from another party. These countries made the choice to sign those pacts with India, replacing similar pacts they had with the British colonial administration. All I meant to say there was, as small countries they had to let go of some part of their sovereignty (Defence) for being independent in all other respects.

3. As I said earlier, I am not a religious person. Solitary hindus do not go about spreading their religion anywhere. It is just not a proselytizing religion. Either you are born a hindu or you are not - it just doesn't get spread around. Nothing good or bad about it. Just the way it is. It is far closer to animism in that sense than a real religion.

4. Kashmiri is an Indo-European language with a very close connection to Sanskrit. In spite of these connections of language, religion, Kashmiris may still think they are different and that is quite alright. But then same is the case of almost everyone in India. Keralites have nothing in common with Assamese, Gujaratis have nothing in common with Tamils and Punjabis nothing in common with Oriyas. Even their histories are different with very little by way of a past connection. Yet they all showed sensibility in understanding that their progress lay in their banding together as one large country.

5. It is okay for Kashmir Valley to secede and form its own independent state. I personally have no objection to such an entity. It will need enormous political maturity before that happens. Such political maturity, I am afraid, does not exist either on Kashmiri side or the Indian side. Illiterate or semi-literate populace or both sides will see to it that such mature leadership will not exist for a long time. Polical maturity in Kashmir would require realpolitik analysis of the situation and choosing the option of happily staying on as a special, autonomous state within the Indian Union. Political maturity on the Indian side would require that when a free referendum is held in a truly and fully literate populace and the referendum says "Kashmir wants to leave the Union" then to let Kashmir go.

6. As far as who is paying the price for such political immaturity - everyone is in terms of lost potential. The expense in Kashmir is next to nothing for a trillion dollar economy. India can let it simmer for years to come. The real tragedy is, as always, that of the common people - both those Kashmiris who want to live happily no matter what political entity they live in and most of us 'Indians' who want to see them live so.

I sincerely thank you again for letting me air my opinions

@ Liberalmarathi

You are indeed a little clumsy with respect to your knowledge on Kashmir however you seem to be genuinely trying to understand so I will answer your queries one by one.

“For that cooperation to happen, there are several conditions stated in the Plebiscite Resolution, the first of which is the requirement that all tribals and Pakistani soldiers must withdraw from the borders of the territory of J&K as they existed on 15th Aug 1947. Pakistan was simply not agreeable to this condition. Thus the cooperation requirement for a chapter VI resolution has failed right on the first condition. The plebiscite resolution is now completely un-enforceable”
1) You are grotesquely wrong and once again misled by the patriotic Indian media which is ranked 120th amongst the 160 odd countries in the world vis a vis unbiased reporting and free press. Omar Abdullah has gone on record to say that it was actually India that refused to withdraw its forces when President Musharaf of Pakistan proposed in 2007 that Pakistan would move all its military out of Azad Kashmir (POK) if India does so too. Omar Abdullah said and I quote him “India slept over President Musharaf’s 4 point proposal” and continued with its rigid stance. Following is the link of the news story

“Later with Pakistan joining SEATO and CENTO and Shimla Agreement in 1972 and later with the Lahore Agreement there is now no chance of enforcing the plebiscite resolution.”
2) Tashkent Agreement and 1972 war, Simla Agreement and Siachen debacle, Lahore declaration and Kargil war……what stupidity are you talking of my friend. Our only guarantee is the international community and UN resolutions as only UN through UNMOGIP has maintained its mandate on Kashmir. Lahore Declarations have come and gone along-with Shimla and Tashkent agreements but only the UN mandate on Kashmir has stood the test of time. So your comment that plebiscite has no chance now simply does not make sense except if you are one of those staunch rigid Indians.

“- secondly, your point about Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, and Sri Lanka being independent, thereby making a case for a viable Kashmiri independence has some merit but again there are problems underneath the surface. Autonomy with Security is the key to all these states. Bhutan has a treaty with India that guarantees Bhutan's security in case of foreign aggresion (with only two neighbors it is not hard to imagine where the foreign aggression is going to come from). Nepal has a similar although somewhat weakly worded treaty with India which has been a source of irritant to Nepalese governments. Maldives has asked for and gotten help from Indian armed forces in case of coup attempts there. Sri Lanka does not have a 'protectorate' treaty with India but then with only one neighbor it doesn't need to worry about other aggressions. Nevertheless, IPKF forces were in SriLanka on the Lankan government's invitation (a big mistake, in my opinion, but that is another topic).”
3) At least you have given Koshur some merit….thank God for that. Every country in the world has a treaty. If Mongolia (a land locked country) with Russia on one side and China on the other can survive, why can’t we, I mean if China can respect the Independence of Nepal/Bhutan/Burma/Thailand/Singapore/Korea what makes you think that it will not respect the independence of Kashmir. IN fact over the centuries it is India which has repeatedly attacked us and occupied us. To my knowledge China till date has never entered Kashmir and will not unless we need them to thwart any future attempts by Indians once we are Independent. And for your kind information if China is the aggressor that you are terming it to be then after the 1962 war when China miserably defeated the Indians, it could have taken over Bhutan/Nepal/Burma/Kashmir and India too…..who was there to stop it? As it perceived that India was the aggressor in Kashmir, it took Aksai-Chin for itself. The only way we can make China leave Aksai-Chin is if India leaves J&K as only then we can have a fool-proof case against China. Otherwise China will always say…If India can gobble a chunk, why can’t I.

"The point is all these countries are small and they need security guarantees from their large neighbors in order to be independent. If they had to incur large armed forces expenditures to guard their borders then they would not be sustainable political entities. Kashmir's unique case (Art 370) bestows on Kashmir similar autonomy as Bhutan while guaranteeing Kashmir against foreign aggressions. It is up to Kashmiris to utilize this unique autonomy to their advantage. Kashmiris can go anywhere in India, buy land, set up businesses, while us 'Indians' cannot do the same in Kashmir. It is saddening then to hear a cry for 'freedom' while young officers and soldiers from Nagaland, and Chhatisgarh, and Tamil Nadu die in fighting Kashmir's wars on Kashmiri peaks.

4) We never asked you to fight a war on our peaks. We have always wanted you to leave and stop the bloodshed of both Indians and Kashmiris. India has lost all trust amongst Kashmiris; it started when India failed to conduct a UN mediated referendum as promised by Pt. JN Nehru at the United Nations. Rest is nothing but rhetoric; article 370 is a sham….even the Indian constitution says its temporary and one big majority government run by BJP and article 370 will be history...very similar to what was done to our autonomy in 1953. Our politicians were bought and some were jailed, the autonomy legislation was scraped and our Prime Minister was replaced by a Chief Minister. My friend we simply don’t trust this hogwash anymore. Give us our right to self determination and get out of Kashmir as you are not wanted here.Many Indian Industrial powerhouses from Reliance to Jai Prakash hydropower (The firm making Dulhasti power project)are in Kashmir and doing business. As a Kashmiri I see nothing wrong in doing business with India and we want to be treated just like we would treat you i.e. as our good neighbours.

“I respectfully maintain that Kashmir valley cannot support itself in isolation as an independent country without security guarantees from its large neighbors. Whether those guarantees will come from Pakistan or from India is what the valley people have to decide.”
5) Just give us the green signal; we promise you, we will get security guarantees from even China. We don’t trust India as it has been dubious all along so no chance of trusting India on security but China has never in a millennia occupied us so we will entrust our security to them and of course UN will act as a mediator. East Timor’s security is similarly guaranteed by the UN and the charter is followed upon by the Australian Military.
“- point about Kashmir not being 'integral' part of India. India itself as an 'integral' country has existed only since 1947. But that again is just scratching the surface. India as a concept and as a symbol has existed for a lot longer than that. Whether Kashmir was part of that concept of India is up for challenge. I would say based on Kashmir's early history, its early Hindu/Buddhist heritage (I am an irreligious person so please don't read religious frame of mind here), its linkages with territories now part of India, it is clear that Kashmir hasn't existed in isolation but has always been part of the idea of India. It is disingenuous for you to go back to the history of Kashmir only up to the point where you feel comfortable with it (400 years). Why stop there and not go back even further ? Can you say emphatically in that period of history that India (the concept) had no part to play in Kashmir ?”.
6) You are right that India as of today has only existed since 1947 and even more right to admit that Indias Imperialistic designs have existed since the time of Chanakya. Religion is a secondary issue here. For your kind information Afghanistan/NWFP in Pakistan were all Hindus once upon a time followed by being Buddhists does that make these parts Indian? India as a concept in Kashmir right from the time of YUSUF SHAH CHAK has existed only as an Occupier. Whether it was the Mughals or the Sikhs or the Henchmen of the Sikhs (Read Dogras), Kashmiris always have regarded India as occupiers and nothing else. The Hindu rulers of Kashmir…. be it the great Lalitaditya or the powerful Avantiverman had nothing to do with India. In fact we fall on the silk route and majority of our trade routes and businesses were in Central Asia and the pseudo-geographical entity called India has done nothing but cut us off from all our ancient trade routes and way of life.

“Whatever the history, we have to live in today's world. I will say this again respectfully, (1)kashmir's heritage (including its liberal sufi traditions) joins it in a larger concept of a liberal, secular India, (2) kashmir as an independent entity without security guarantees from one of its larger neighbors cannot survive, (3) it is in Kashmiris' interest to utilize their unique autonomy for progress. Give Peace a chance".

7) Turkey alongwith many central Asian republics have a very vibrant Sufi tradition, does that make us a part of secular Turkey. And before you talk of a secular India, try to punish the perpetrators of Godhra, Mumbai riots and of course these days your secular goons are killing and raping Christians in Orissa. My dear friend, how can India be secular when a party like BJP is voted to power and rules India for 5 years after they have demolished a mosque (Babri Masjid) and killed plus maimed thousands of Muslims all over India. You can’t boast of secular credentials when you elect to power people like Modhi and Thackerays who burn Muslims and then roam scot free. Even his highness Pope Benedict XVI talks highly of your secular credentials as a nation (can't help a bit of a satire here). Muslims of India are the most backward community in this country according to Sachaar committee report and their living conditions are worse than the Dalits (Untouchables of Hindu caste). Who are you trying to fool my friend when liberal writers in your country like Arundhati Roy are publicly threatened for writing the truth….Is that LIBERTY or is liberty burning scores of churches in Orissa.

8)Atleast Initiate the process of our Independence, we will get the guarantees required from the international community.

9)Look who’s talking, Talk about hypocrisy….is it us who have lost a 100,000 of our brothers and sisters who don’t want to give peace a chance. C’mon my friend grow up…..we are the ones who have suffered the most and you make it sound like it’s us who are the impediment to peace, we gave you right from 1953 till 1989 to sort out our issues, we trusted you completely but alas! look what you did to us poor people. Yes you will give us peace but only on your terms and conditions and to any honorable race on earth what you are giving is both inhumane and demeaning and therefore not acceptable.
We may be weak and frail right now but the flame of self determination will continue to burn in our hearts…no matter what obstacles or hurdles we may have to cross,we will achieve our right to self determination as promised by your Prime Minister at the UN.

Thank you for your patience.

"Jis Khaak ke zameer mein ho aatish-e-Chinaar, Mumkin nahin ke sard ho woh Khaake arjumand"

Here is the link to Omar abdullah news story

@koshur

Thank you for cross-posting my earlier post here. I hope the audience here is as indulgent and accomodative as you have been. I thank you for your patience as well as I make my arguments.

In my earlier post, I made a case about political maturity (or lack thereof) of both Indian and Kashmiri politicians. Countries with matured electorates and political leaders have an easier time in seeing the benefits of banding together into larger entities. Members of the current EU are examples of countries who saw the wisdom of first economic and later political unions. Quebec saw the wisdom of staying together with Canada in spite of a violent historical rivalry. Similarly countries with mature political systems have no problems separating amicably. Splitting of Czechoslovakia being a case in point of such an amicable separation. Splitting up of the ex-Soviet Union also a case of a similar separation, although most of the separated parts continue to depend on Moscow for economic aid and defence.

In what follows I will try to make a case for what I hope is a politically mature case for Kashmir staying on in the Indian Union for Kashmir's own benefit, similar to the case that was made for Quebec to stay within the Canadian union. You have of course a right to make a case that is similar in result to the Czech-Slovak separation.

What you a call a "sell out to a trillion dollar economy Indians", I call "an appeal for a buy-in on sharing the benefits of a political/economic union with India". The world has changed irrevocably. It is a fast shrinking world with faster communications between geographical entities. Newer political entities that are being created are usually amalgamations rather than splits and hence generally larger than before. More and more countries are banding together to form alliances of political and economic nature. This gives them credibility. This gives them weight and collectively they achieve lot more than what they could have individually.

Proponents of freedom for Kashmir tend to overstate the case for Kashmiri economic independence. I am sure Kashmir is beautiful (I am sorry I have never been there) but beauty alone cannot put bread on the table. To date, I have not heard the case of how Kashmir will survive economically when it is independent. There is a lot of hyperbole in terms of electricity generation and tourism but nothing concrete. Let me put the facts on the table so we can all discuss this. Kashmir's total electricity generation is 1700 MW, out of which 1000MW is hydel. This hydel capacity goes down considerably (to almost zero) in winter time and Kashmir then has to rely on in-bound power from the plains states to meet its demand during the winter months. As far as its total generation of electricity, Kashmir's electricity output is about the same as that of Himachal, about half of Delhi's and about a tenth of Maharashtra. Kashmir's total electricity generation is about 1.1% of the total electricity generation in India. So no, please, no one is stealing Kashmir's electricity. In fact electricity is going into Kashmir during its harsh winter months. And it's okay. There is a lot electricity that is going here and there and everywhere in India as the grid reacts to supply and demand situations. Sure, Kashmir's total electricity potential is estimated at about 20,000 MW but once again Kashmir being where it is (high Himalayas) the rivers freeze in winter and the electric potential drops to a almost nothing in winter time. Who will bridge that gap come winter ? Who will pour in the investments of billions of dollars to build those hydroelectric power plants when they will be shut down for 4-6 months of the year ?

Let us not even get to the Defence requirements of manning the borders around an 'independent' Kashmir and resources required to do so. Being friendly with all is all good intentions but as they say: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Interactions between countries are hardly ever governed by good intentions. It is naive to think that. Nehru did that with China (Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai) and paid a heavy price. Countries deal with each other keeping the 'realpolitik' in mind. It is all muscle out there - economic, landmass, technology you name it. Countries who have the most ultimately control the means of Production and make their citizens happy. I am sorry but international relations have nothing to do good intentions. Most of the buffer states in the world have security arrangements with one (and not both) of their neighbors. You cite Mongolia. Mongolia was a Soviet satellite and was part of the Soviet security perimeter. China, Pakistan, and India's relations with an independent Kashmir would be based on 'realpolitik' and not good intentions. It will therefore be naive to keep independent Kashmir's borders unpatrolled and undefended assuming that China, Pakistan, or India will all be honorable and do nothing to encroach upon Kashmiri sovereignty. Treaties in the world are backed by threats of enormous pain to treaty-breakers. Switzerland's neutrality has been guaranteed for the last 700 years not out of good intentions but based on a serious threat of a scorching defence of the Swiss homeland by the Swiss Armed Forces (every single Swiss is a soldier trained and equipped to fight a war in the mountains). Has Kashmir the resources to make its borders inpregnable before it signs non-aggression pacts with its neighbors ?

With a small population base, Kashmir's resources are strained. Its own revenues cannot keep pace with its current demands and therefore 78% of Kashmir's budget is grant-in-aid from the union government. Where will Kashmir get the funds to build those powerplants and sell the power to whom ? Where will it get its winter power from ? Where will Kashmir get the funds to train and equip an army to man its long borders and procure the weaponry and equipment suitable for its defence ? Wouldn't honest intellectuals (and matured politicians might I add), ask those questions before advocating 'independence' to the populace ?

I look forward to continuing this discussion.

@liberalm

Why dont you use the same argument to attract Nepal or Bhutan to join your dream country of India? I dont see anyone jumping over each other to join the que of becoming the next Indian state.

Like Koshur mentioned, whatever you claim about the greatness Kashmiris are to experinece by being part of India, the same can be said about Nepal or Bhutan. When they voluntarily decide to join India, then we can go ahead and discuss the lost opportunities that Kashmir could have had. The bottomline is that no one will sacrifice their sovereignty for anything. Least of it for a country that has massacred 200,000 of its citizens.

You bring about the example of Quebec. What do you think the result of the referendum would have been had the present Canadian governemnt massacred 200,000 french Canadians of Quebec? It's good you brought the quebec into the discussion here. And talk about political maturity. The canadians were under no UN obligation to hold that referedum, and yet they showed the civility of giving the Quebecers a choice to secede from Canada. This is called a civilzed democracy, not whatever you ahve in India. (it makes the Kashmiris quite angry when India calls us an integral part of India; never hear the Canadian say that about Quebec)

So, it is infact the Indians who are the uncivilized bunch here, and have a lot to learn about democracy.

@liberalm

And leave the defence of Kashmir for us to figure. It will be none of India's headache I can assuer you that. If countries smaller in size than Kashmir can survive, we will as well.

Quote :

2. I don't see how Nepal, Bhutan etc signing protection treaty with India shows India's illogical stance. These are not non-aggression pacts. These are protection pacts that 'outsource' the said country's defence to Indian Armed Forces in case of an aggression from another party. These countries made the choice to sign those pacts with India, replacing similar pacts they had with the British colonial administration. All I meant to say there was, as small countries they had to let go of some part of their sovereignty (Defence) for being independent in all other respects

" Outsource" the country's defence to the Indian Army??? could you cite your sources LiberalM??? From what I found, this is the only known agreement between the Nepal Government and the Indian coutnerpart ((Click here for source)). Nowhere does it mention about as you put it ..."as small countries they had to let go of some part of their sovereignty (Defence) for being independent in all other respects"

These countries have not given up any part of their soverignty. You are spreading misinformation. Provide your sources about this claim or lose credibility on this forum.

@koshur, chinar:
for one thing, how long back into history is everyone willing to go to prove whether kashmiris are not indians or that kashmir was always part of india? why would anyone in this world now bother about decades-old resolutions made by the UN? the world has changed quite a lot since then, cold war has ended and countries have new agendas. talk of nepal, bhutan etc is simply a digression..their sovereignty has nothing to do with kashmir being or not being a part of india. a land's georgraphic or cultural extension is not always a basis for its integration with nations, you cannot ask me why afghanistan is not a part of india, it shows your irrationality. alaska could well have been a part of russia or canada and we could go on citing examples, but every problem is unique, so we solve it with the best we can.
millions were killed during the partition on both sides, let us not forget, so please, there is no need to botch history there. the call of azadi of course doesn't carry the weight of maturity behind it right now, it is more like blind hatred, empty jingoism and blind emotion. you have a mistrusting set of confused leaders who have always travelled to islamabad for 'instructions' and not kashmiris. And in forums like these anything anti-india is hailed as a virtuous remark and anything even slightly pro-india is shortsighted and evil and disgusting. i agree lot of innocent kashmiris have lost lives to indian bullets for no fault of theirs, indian forces have made mistakes, but its almost like a kashmiri in anantnag has a headache and you shout it is a big indian conspiracy.
in all this, you actually come across as people trying too hard. if you get cheap thrills out of mocking india's economy or its democracy. go ahead. it is not going to affect it in anyway, except for a few bruised indian egos here, because who's gaining and who's losing is a reality unknown to me and you, there is no point arguing like one is an expert over the other.
Go ahead, crucify me for being an arrogant and an ignorant Indian. but that ain't gonna change a thing. whether kashmir will have it's freedom or not will not be decided by your degree of hatred for india and anything indian, but how much practicality you use. pardon me for being blunt, but i honestly don't see a reason why kashmir should be any independent than any other states in india that have absolutely no connection with each other whatsoever. there is no one concept called india or one culture called india, it is an amalgam of all the cultures and traditions that is india and i guess we all belong there.

And here come the baseless "Kashmiris want Pakistan" arguments.

Quote :

tuco said... you have a mistrusting set of confused leaders who have always travelled to islamabad for 'instructions' and not kashmiris

See the poll on the right of this webpage; how many have voted for Kashmir's merger with Pakistan?

The majority of Kashmiri freedom fighters, and leaders want Complete Indepence, and do not need to travel to Islamabad for directions.


regards
Mir

First of all what have you done in the Past 60 years to us other than kill us and subjugate us. However when you talk about security and economics.....nothing can be worse than what you have done to us and continue to do.....I mean what other brutalities can CHINA or PAKISTAN shower on us that you haven't already served to us poor folks.SO DO so stop lecturing on economics and security.

I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUERIES POINT WISE:

Our population base may be small viz a viz India but if Bhutan with a population of 682,321 (2005 census) can exist as a country sandwiched between two giants…. so can we with a population more than 15 times that of Bhutan.
1) It is an established fact that every year Kashmir sells electricity worth Rs.32000 crores to the northern grid through NHPC. So your query about grants does not make sense. Moreover the grants are directed more towards security and military establishments rather than public welfare. The devil my friend lies in the detail.
2) If the International community can give billions in grants to the African Union knowing what the fate of that money is going to be, we Kashmiris whose brains have evolved to a level where we make the ingenious silk carpets or the exquisite wood carvings will find donors and lenders just like any other poor country in the world.
3) Although we can sell you cheap renewable hydro-electric power at one-tenth the cost at which you produce yours (from coal or Nuclear fission) which will make economic sense to you BUT then Why do we need to sell our power, we will utilize it to develop our own industry and if countries like Norway and Sweden can generate so much on hydro-electric power, why can’t we.
4) The reason we can’t Make Electricity in winters is because of the Indus water treaty, another injustice done to us by the Indian government. We cannot build dams in J&K because of this treaty and that answers your query as to why we spend our winters in complete darkness.
5) It’s not just mature intellectuals or politicians of today but the suffering of Kashmiris over a period of 400 years at the hands of Invaders from the South (READ INDIANS) that makes us yearn for our right to self determination today.
6) If India today can have problems with Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma and Sri-lanka over various issues but still co- exist then why can’t India let J&K exist as an entity.
7) East Timor has no army of its own but under the UN mandate the Australian army protects it. We will get China or some other international force to protect us till we are able to stand up on our own. We are an ingenious people and if the East Timorese with no resources can do it, we on the other hand have been blessed with so much that all of India will wonder in amazement at our success and you will bite your own tongue.


Canada is a secular democracy in every sense of the word, If India was even 0.0000000000000001 % of what Canada is then I would have accepted your argument. In other words you have to go and do some reading, J&K does not enjoy even a trillionth of what Quebec does and so there is no need to compare. We are an imprisoned people fighting for our rights whereas Quebec can secede anytime it wants to from Canada. The Canadian constitution guarantees that Quebec can decide on its own whether to secede or stay within the Canadian union. Can INDIA DO THE SAME IN KASHMIR; Indians have even usurped the basis on which the autonomy was given to Kashmir. C’mon buddies accept the facts and stop weaving puzzles of confusion. We live in an age of inter-dependence and even Moscow depends on Europe and Asia for money generated from its gas wells. Being interdependent does not mean that we give up on our right to freedom or self determination.
9) Agreed that Indians are not politically mature enough to let Kashmir go, then does that mean we let go of our birth right and trample upon the basis of our identity just because a totalitarian authoritative regime (Read India) has other plans. Don’t mistake our being small as a sign of weakness Sir, we may be a little race of people but our rights are as good as yours and that means no one including you/India can dictate terms to us. We will sacrifice our lives but never will we bow our heads in front of you.
10) One day the pseudo-democratic India will have to answer for its crimes in Kashmir. We sir will take you to The Hague or any international tribunal to answer for your crimes against our women, children and people.
11) We have no problems in forming or forging alliances with India on the basis of being a sovereign nation, just like India invests in oil fields in Siberia or its soft-ware companies forge partnerships in the USA, its most welcome to continue investing in our resources. Just the cricket bat industry in India which is made from Kashmir willow (As willow cannot be grown in India) is enough to give us dividends in billions of USD unless India decides to buy willow from United Kingdom or Australia at a much higher cost. Our amalgamation into a bigger/better consortium of nations is welcomed but not at the cost of having to let go of our in-alienable right to self-determination. We can co-exist within alliances in mutual respect of each other but not at the cost of India trampling upon our rights and dictating terms like a big-bully.
12) The European Union is an alliance of nations where small countries like Monaco, San Marino or Luxembourg are given equal respect and dignity unlike what India does to us in Jammu & Kashmir.
13) Credibility comes with trust, what India has done in Kashmir has irrevocably destroyed its trust base amongst Kashmiris and therefore we need to exist as a nation first before we start thinking about other finer aspects.
14) You are talking like the British now. Before they were to give independence to India…..this is exactly how they talked to proponents of Indian independence and yet eventually they had to leave despite all their credible or non-credible arguments.
15) Beauty and brains combined together will put a lot of bread on our tables. You as a nation have ruled us for only 50 odd years. We have survived a millennia without you. In today’s day and age progress has occurred from Siberia to North Pole to Antarctica, why should we lag behind. India has a 25% population below poverty line (source: CIA world fact book) and yet it gives sermons on economics to us. Before giving lectures on economy you should try to uplift the living standards of one-fourth of your own population.
16) Other than power generation, we have horticulture, pastoral farming, agricultural products, our beautiful locales are a perfect destination for soft-ware giants and coupled with a cheap cost of living I am sure we can attract even the big multinational firms to our humble abode.
17) Again our power generation capability is above 40,000 megawatts (NOT 20000 MW) but India has treacherously deceived us by signing the Indus water treaty and so we cannot build dams and therefore until India keeps us as its colony we will continue to spend our winters in darkness. NOT a lot of electricity goes into Kashmir from the northern grid, only enough to sustain hospitals, military installations and communications network plus a wee bit to lighten our houses twice a week. However we should have gotten more considering India steals 32000 crores worth of electricity every year from us. So once this Indus water treaty is scraped or modified we should be able to generate much more and have continuous electricity in our harsh winters.
18) In 60 years of INDIA’S rule in Kashmir how MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAS INDIA INVESTED IN KASHMIR TO BUILD POWER PLANTS AND INDUSTRY. C’MON MAN INDIA EVEN REFUSES TO ACT AS A GUARANTOR (IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETS) TO POTENTIAL INVESTORS IN OUR HYDRO POWER. IT ONLY ACTS AS A GUARANTOR WHEN NHPC STEPS IN TO LOOT US EVEN MORE. SO ALTHOUGH YOU MAKE TALL CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT INDIA CAN DO…..TELL US WHAT HAVE YOU DONE IN THE LAST 60 YEARS OF YOUR RULE IN KASHMIR OTHER THAN RIG ELECTIONS AND KILL A HUNDRED THOUSAND OF OUR PEOPLE.
19) First of all you have to make 25 % of your below poverty line people happy then talk of economic achievements, technology etc. You are like that naked Indian with a turban on his head….I mean of what use is that turban on your head when you are showing your private parts to everyone. In other words people living in glass houses don’t throw stones. Mongolia and India just 25 years ago were both Soviet satellites but does that mean India was not an Independent nation?????Try n make sense, you are talking incoherently now. China has not attacked or occupied Kashmir in a thousand years, it was only after India gobbled a chunk that China came into the picture probably telling itself “ If India can have a piece of this territory, why can’t I”. It thus defeated India miserably in the 1962 war and took one-third of Kashmir i.e. Aksai-Chin. If you sir as an Indian can guarantee in an International court of arbitration that China will give Aksai-Chin back to Kashmir under Indian jurisdiction then I am ready to become an Indian. As far as my understanding of the problem goes, We as Kashmiris can approach China on Aksai-Chin only after India leaves its occupied part. In other words once India leaves Kashmir…China will have no locus standi on Kashmir and will eventually see reason in granting us security in return for its use of Aksai-Chin to transport goods to its western provinces.
20) Did India have resources in 1947 to withstand an attack from China, did it have enough resources in 1962 or does it have resources even now to withstand a conventional war against China. What are you talking about? I mean when a nation comes into existence its sovereignty is guaranteed by the International community. I have already given you the example of East Timor and Australians however for the sake of simplicity our main adversary is India and therefore we will approach China/Pakistan to protect us from the Imperialistic designs of the Indians.
21) Just like the Swiss we too are a tough mountain people and will thus over a period of 20-40 years build our own army where every Kashmiri will have to train keeping in mind our vulnerability to attacks from the south.

At the end it’s nice to discuss issues here but let us not weave parables of confusion. Bottom-line is we deserve just like you do our right to self determination as promised to us at the UN. All we want is that Kashmiris should be given back the right to choose their own destiny. We want a UN mediated plebiscite in Kashmir in which all Kashmiris irrespective of what religion they belong to get a chance to vote. If the majority votes in favour of India, all issues will take a back seat and we will assimilate into the Indian union.

Thank you for the time taken to go through my lengthy critique

@mir, @kasim:

Thank you for your posts. You asked for sources of India-Nepal and India-Bhutan treaties. There are numerous references. I will quote one and you can take it from there.

First Nepal. The treaty between India and Nepal was signed in 1950 and is called the Treaty of Peace and Friendship. You can read a description about it here: countrystudies.us/india/126.htm (sorry, wasn't able to insert a link and review it properly so this will have to do for now). I will quote a relevant section of the description here:

Quote :

In 1950 New Delhi and Kathmandu initiated their intertwined relationship with the Treaty of Peace and Friendship and accompanying letters that defined security relations between the two countries, and an agreement governing both bilateral trade and trade transiting Indian soil. The 1950 treaty and letters stated that "neither government shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor" and obligated both sides "to inform each other of any serious friction or misunderstanding with any neighboring state likely to cause any breach in the friendly relations subsisting between the two governments." These accords cemented a "special relationship" between India and Nepal that granted Nepal preferential economic treatment and provided Nepalese in India the same economic and educational opportunities as Indian citizens

Next Bhutan. Treaty between Bhutan and India was signed in 1949 and is called the Treaty of Friendship. Again numerous references on the web. You can read a description here: countrystudies.us/bhutan/50.htm . Again I quote a relevant section of the description :

Quote :

The key document guiding relations with India is the Treaty of Friendship Between the Government of India and the Government of Bhutan of 1949. The ten-article treaty, in force in perpetuity, calls for peace between the two countries and assures Indian noninterference in Bhutan's internal affairs in return for Bhutan's agreeing "to be guided by the advice of the Government of India in regard to its external relations" (Article 2). The treaty provides for compensation by India at a higher rate than provided in the 1865 and 1910 British treaties, and it returned Bhutan's Dewangiri territory seized by Britain in the Duar War. It also guarantees free trade between the countries and duty-free transit across India of Bhutan's imports. Furthermore, the treaty assures the rights of citizens of each country and the extradition of criminals seeking refuge in either country

The point I was making was that as small buffer states, Nepal and Bhutan's sovereignty did suffer. Hope the links above and your further research will demonstrate to you the unequal nature of these Treaties and how Nepal and Bhutan's sovereignty was impacted by it. Whether that is good or bad for them is besides the point. I will try to reply to other comments in another post.

@mir, others:

Reference to Quebec was to demonstrate how mature electorates and mature politicians handle these issues. I had already made clear (in the first para of my post) that I thought Indian AND Kashmiri politicians did not yet have maturity to think that way. I have never claimed that Indian democracy is at par with Canadian democracy or any other Western liberal democracies for that matter. So I do not see any need to refute your post in any way. However, I will say this, Quebec not only has a mature electorate but it also has a strong economy that can stay on its two feet if it were to secede. I am afraid, the economic case for Kashmiri independence is rather tenuous.

Kashmir is an emotive issue for everyone for various reasons. Many of the posters, as Kashmiris, perhaps have reasons to have a deep hatred of India and anything and everything Indian. But once again, one man's deep hatred for India and Indians simply cannot be the basis for independence for all Kashmiris. The emotive need for Kashmiri independence (as expressed by posters on this forum) appears to be based on a need to be un-India. Such emotive cases unfortunately fall apart on the first morning of independence when there is no India to un-India any more and you still have to carry on with the task of governance. The first war of independence (1857) is a classic case of a negatively charged emotive need for independence. The need for independence was expressed as a hatred for anything and everything British. Once the British appeared to have been decimated, the conquering leaders and their misled troops had no idea about what to do next and whom to replace the British with. Sorry, appeal to negative emotions like that simply doesn't work. Hatred for India and Indians will get you nowhere. You'll lose all support of liberal minded Indians by a constant harangue of anti-India sentiments. Anyone will have a hard time believing anything you say after that.

About posters who mentioned Pakistan and China giving an independent Kashmir security guarantees ... dream on. China is focussed on its economic development. China has enough troubles in Xinjiang and Tibet to worry about giving an 'independent' Kashmir security guarantee. Less said the better about Pakistani security guarantees. What do you think : security guarantees come wrapped in silk packages to be opened on the first day of independence ? There is a serious quid pro quo involved and no matter who you sign the security guarantee with, you WILL lose a part of your sovereignty in the bargain. So stop dreaming, please ?

I am sorry, I am yet to see a cool headed, rational, economic and/or emotive case for Kashmiri independence.

@ kiberal Marathi

We have seen what India has done to us over the years so nothing can be more worse.

We have the belief in our abilities and trust in the international community to support us.

In all your posts...I see nothing liberal about you but the same old Indian Propaganda machine and how good you guys are.

Spare us the rhetoric and kindly leave.

By the way what are you going to do about one-fourth of your population that is below povert line

@Chin-aar

I see nothing liberal in asking an invited poster to leave just because he has views that don't suit you. Koshur invited me to join this forum based on my posts on his forum. He had enough of a liberal frame of mind to appreciate an opposing viewpoint. I have no agenda and I come with no preconceived notions. If one person's simple questions are so difficult to answer then what kind of an independence are you talking about ? I respect and appreciate your viewpoint in asking me to leave but I am sorry I see no reason to oblige you at this point.

I am not asking you to leave from the post.....u see how wrong your perceptions are:

Its an emotion.....I am asking you to Leave from Jammu & Kashmir as you represent Indian hegemony in Kashmir.

You are most welcome to stay on this post and have as much of a say here as anyone else incuding me. I am not like the Indian media which voices only one side of the story or the Indian government/army who will kill you just because you are voicing your opinion.

Also whatever you are saying has been said to us an umpteen number of times by the Indians since 1948 and the bottom line is:

THE BRITISH WERE SAYING THE SAME THING TO YOU. YET YOU FOUGHT ON AND GAINED YOUR INDEPENDENCE. TRUE THAT YOU HAVE FACED HARDSHIPS AND EVEN TODAY 25% OF YOUR POPULATION IS BELOW POVERTY LINE BUT DID YOU LISTEN TO THE BRITISH.....NO SIR YOU DID NOT. Just like us YOU BELIEVED IN YOUR ABILITY TO FORGE YOUR PATH. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE SAME RIGHTS. IF WE FAIL, WE WILL NEVER QUESTION AGAIN BUT WITHOUT TRYING HOW CAN YOU FAIL US.

The British never killed a hundred thousand of your people in cold blood. I mean they were not as cruel and blood-thirsty like you guys.

IN ALL MY LIFE I HAVE OBSERVED AND KNOWN ONLY ONE THING i.e. "THE WAY OUT OF A DIFFICULTY IS THROUGH IT" .

SO LET US FACE OUR DESTINY AND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT COME ALONGWITH IT.

Quote :

THE BRITISH WERE SAYING THE SAME THING TO YOU. YET YOU FOUGHT ON AND GAINED YOUR INDEPENDENCE. TRUE THAT YOU HAVE FACED HARDSHIPS AND EVEN TODAY 25% OF YOUR POPULATION IS BELOW POVERTY LINE BUT DID YOU LISTEN TO THE BRITISH.....NO SIR YOU DID NOT. Just like us YOU BELIEVED IN YOUR ABILITY TO FORGE YOUR PATH. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE SAME RIGHTS. IF WE FAIL, WE WILL NEVER QUESTION AGAIN BUT WITHOUT TRYING HOW CAN YOU FAIL US.

British rule and administration in India was a direct result of the ideology that propagated supremacy of the white race. Indian rule in J&K is based on the ideology that people of different religion, race, and ethnicity can live together in one country and that these factors cannot serve as the basis for drawing national boundaries. One (the former) is WRONG, the other (the latter) is RIGHT. And do guess which direction the world is moving towards. Unlike British Ideology that exploited many in the world. The Indian ideology is at the heart of our survival as a nation. It is the basis of the foundation of modern concepts of justice, equality, freedom (do feel free to attack this).

Quote :

The British never killed a hundred thousand of your people in cold blood. I mean they were not as cruel and blood-thirsty like you guys.

Well the British killed and I quote British historian Saul David "hundreds of thousands" in the aftermath of 1857 first war of independence. And unlike your artificially inflated propaganda figure of 100,000 deaths this is a consensus estimate among British historians with high estimates in the range of 10 million killed.

Then consider the Bengal Famine of 1770 when 10 million people died within a period of six months because of British agricultural policies and what did the British do? Instead of providing relief, the British raised taxes. The result being that tax revenues were higher during the year of famine than the year before and that when 1/3 of Bengal was completely depopulated. Again this is the consensus viewpoint of historians and I can easily provide multiple sources if needed.

The Bengal Famine repeated again in 1943 as a result of British agricultural policies and tariffs. 1.5 million died this time and that too while the British were using railways to ship millions of tons of grains out of India to support the world war II effort in Europe.

Amertya Sen (a Bengali and an Indian) won the noble prize in economics recently for proving that famines are man made and seldom occur in free societies. There has not been a single famine in India since India gained Independence in 1947.

If this is still not sufficient do let me know if you would like me to point out more differences between so called "Indian occupation in Kashmir" and British rule in India and I will give you consensus viewpoints of historians unlike your separatist hyperbole. And if it pleases you I can also go into Islamic period as well.

Chin-aar wrote:

@ kiberal Marathi

We have seen what India has done to us over the years so nothing can be more worse.

We have the belief in our abilities and trust in the international community to support us.

In all your posts...I see nothing liberal about you but the same old Indian Propaganda machine and how good you guys are.

Spare us the rhetoric and kindly leave.

By the way what are you going to do about one-fourth of your population that is below povert line

Fortunately, the Indian government does not make its decisions on such romantic and hypothetical notions.

@Chin-aar,

I am sorry, I misunderstood your earlier comment asking me to leave.

Case of India gaining independence from Britain is not the same as Kashmir seeking independence from India. India had the economic potential, the connectivity, a minimum required mass of people, the minimum required landmass for resource generation, the minimum required infrastructure for nation-building to sustain itself and move forward. I have asked for and seen no sign of any such economic wherewithal for an independent Kashmir to stand on its feet.

Of the 29 states of India, only a handful are capable of seceding and then standing on their own. But together, the 29 states of India have a far greater chance of succeeding. Sikkim saw the wisdom and chose to join the Indian Union in 1975. Nepal and Bhutan did not want to join as states but they still joined an Indian economic union (both accept Indian currency, and citizens of both countries have passport-free and visa-free access to India). And that is ok too. NO one is asking these countries to join in as full-fledged states and perhaps neither do they want to. And that is just fine with everyone.

Now comes the question of secession of an entity such as Kashmir from the union. Unfortunately this is just not possible in the Indian context. India is a union - not a federation of states. It is like Hotel California - you can check in but you can't check out. Unfair ? probably yes, but secession is simply not an option.

Perhaps Indian states should have the ability to secede ? Yes, may be. Would such a change come in short order ? No. It would take a serious amendment to the Indian constitution - something unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. This sort of a momentous change does not need just political maturity in India and Kashmir - it takes political maturity in all the stakeholders around Kashmir - in Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, and India. I don't see that happening in short order - do you ? So Kashmiris would continue to face three choices - (1) fight for freedom by legitimate means (take the moderate Indians with you, fight to change the Indian constitution, wait for a very long time for the geo-political situation to change, secede legally), (2) fight for your freedom by taking up the gun and prepare to take on the combined might of the remaining 28 states, or (3) accept that it is India where you can mold your own unique identity and come out of the valley and rule India.

mir wrote:

The majority of Kashmiri freedom fighters, and leaders want Complete Indepence, and do not need to travel to Islamabad for directions.

Well thats certainly better, but the slogan shouting during the recent demonstrations did not reflect this and nor did Geelani's remarks on a national TV channel in which he outlined his goal to see J&K merge with Pakistan.