Kashmir goes to pot

That poor area is suffering yet again..the following is from ABC Online

" Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh has expressed shock at the deteriorating situation in Kashmir.

Mr Singh called for calm and said he was "shocked and distressed" by the separatist protests engulfing the disputed Himalayan territory.

The violence has spread to new areas of Kashmir, with several more protesters shot dead by police even as the Indian government held crisis talks aimed at resolving the unrest.

But the cross-party meeting ended with apparent deadlock and no new initiatives besides a decision to launch a fact-finding mission.

Eighteen people died in Kashmir on Monday in the bloodiest day of three months of demonstrations.
Protesters want independence from Indian rule."

It appears there is no end in sight...would the solution be a separate Kashmiri State?

That rarely works.

A separate Kashimir state will end up with the same fate as "Tibet" since Kashmir is sandwiched between India, Pakistan and China.

What is going on in Kashmir is no different to Chechyna in Russia or the Xiughurs in China. Basically a Majority muslim state / population feeling inscure in wider Country under a non thoecratic (Islamic) Government as in Democracy (India), Communinst Militant regime (India) or Militant Democracy ??(Russia).

As it is the case with Muslims in many parts of the Workd genuine grievances have been hijacked by the belief that a Pan Islamic Shariah state is the answer to all the problems and that the whole World is destined to be that way one day.

Not surprising this is going on in Kashmir given that there are people in UK advocating for a shariah state.

That said there are genuine grievances for the Kashmiirs, one of the primary ones is the harsh sometime brutal treatment they get from the Indian army who take the iron fist all too easily to put down the disquiet,

In the case of Kashmir since it is bordering Pakistan it is an easy target for throwing fuel over the fire. This used to be really bad in the nineties, thanks to Mushy it has reduced considerably.

a separate kashmiri state would ensure conflict for another 100 years. its land-locked so will always depend on india and pakistan and that will lead to a conflict between the two again

i can only see freezing of the current borders as a solution with free travel across the border. maybe a common kashmiri passport to go along with the indian and pakistani ones

I returned to the Kashmiri lakes two years ago for a brief 'holiday' visit ... and wished then that I hadn't.

Comparing the place to several years previously when my family took regular holidays on the lake houseboats, I found this same region to now be totally dilapidated and forgotten.... like a backwater to nowhere.

The same lovely smiling people, the same crisp fresh air, the same beautiful nature and scenery ... BUT, all echoing an emptiness which comes from the turmoil created by fear of repercussions and the subsequent lack of care, attention and finance.

Kashmir is a holiday goldmine that's been left to rot .... but with two countries on either side not prepared to G A F about it's future; rather ... treating it merely as a buffer zone rather than an autonomous country (which it ought to be) ... what hope for the future?

None.

Shame.

The thread is 30 years late.

What ??!!
A rare issue not of the making of those loathed Imperialist Colonising Brits who brought culture and yoghurt to the crushed minnions on the sub continent ?

Strange ....

Merlin wrote:A rare issue not of the making of those loathed Imperialist Colonising Brits

if you read your history it actually is partly of their making

but its all up to india, pakistan and the kashmiris now. some kind of stability and continuity of power in pakistan would greatly help

Right on cue .............

Nevertheless, right now it is clear that no one government on either side of the divide is eager to take the initiative ... and that is what is so sad about the decline of Kashmir.

As I said earlier -basically ... no one GAF.

i would partly agree with you. people dont seem to care enough. or are just too set in their positions to have real dialogue. and their set positions are too divergent for a common ground

i feel an opportunity was missed in the middle part of the last decade for some real movement. sadly internal political changes in both countries have now made it a more distant dream

Good song though, decent riffs...

and made on pot as well

The One wrote:a separate kashmiri state would ensure conflict for another 100 years. its land-locked so will always depend on india and pakistan and that will lead to a conflict between the two again

i can only see freezing of the current borders as a solution with free travel across the border. maybe a common kashmiri passport to go along with the indian and pakistani ones

I can see full independance causing more tension between India & Pakistan - but do you think a degree of devolution of power ( as the UK have given to the Scottish - and to a lesser degree - Welsh parliament.) I'm thinking for example - if the Kashmiris are overwhelmingly Muslim - why not allow them to practice shariah law in areas like family/marriage, and banking/finance matters. Would a degree of self rule maybe quieten some of the unrest ?

The One wrote:

Merlin wrote:A rare issue not of the making of those loathed Imperialist Colonising Brits

if you read your history it actually is partly of their making

but its all up to india, pakistan and the kashmiris now. some kind of stability and continuity of power in pakistan would greatly help

TO I'm not having a dig at you - but can you please tell us how it's partly of British making? Did we treat Kashmir any differently from the rest of the region or something? Or do you mean the way the sub-continent was partitioned when we left ? I'm curious, thats all.

Your second line is so true. I've heard it said more than once that Pakistan, rather than being a country which has an army, is more accurately described as an army with a country to reside in.

The One wrote:i would partly agree with you. people dont seem to care enough. or are just too set in their positions to have real dialogue. and their set positions are too divergent for a common ground

i feel an opportunity was missed in the middle part of the last decade for some real movement. sadly internal political changes in both countries have now made it a more distant dream

D'you think that more progress may have been made had Pervez Musharraf remained in power in Pakistan? I may be wrong, but I understand from the few bits I've read, that he'd have like some sort of settlement of the issue - after all, the unrest affects Pakistan as well as India does it not?

if the Kashmiris are overwhelmingly Muslim

Thats only due to Pak based terrorists changing the demography of the state by terrorizing Kashmiri Pandits which forced them to flee the state.

Now giving the remaining habitants (predominantly muslims) right to self rule (since you talked about Sharia) is like spitting Kashmiri pandits in their mouth. Don't think that will ever be acceptable (or will be passed in Indian Parliament) to the centre.

Only possible solution of this long standing conflict would be Pak govt acting firm on the terror training camps operating on its land though its not as easy as it sounds, considering the volatile situation across the border. Still, they have to make a start and deal firmly with terrorist organizations flourishing under various names under the garb of charity and what not.

That will facilitate India withdrawing its forces from the area, something which is a long pending and perhaps only demand of Kashmiris.

...giving the remaining habitants (predominantly muslims) right to self rule (since you talked about Sharia) is like spitting Kashmiri pandits in their mouth. Don't think that will ever be acceptable (or will be passed in Indian Parliament) to the centre.

Welcome to the Northern Ireland scenario .... and good luck!

Growler wrote:I can see full independance causing more tension between India & Pakistan - but do you think a degree of devolution of power ( as the UK have given to the Scottish - and to a lesser degree - Welsh parliament.) I'm thinking for example - if the Kashmiris are overwhelmingly Muslim - why not allow them to practice shariah law in areas like family/marriage, and banking/finance matters. Would a degree of self rule maybe quieten some of the unrest ?

not just kashmir, but all muslims in india have certain laws which are applicable to only their community - for eg marriage laws, divorce laws, inheritance laws, etc. the reserve bank of india is also toying with the idea of introducing sharia banks under existing indian banking laws. besides no non-kashmiri is allowed to purchase land within kashmir or become a citizen of the state

TO I'm not having a dig at you - but can you please tell us how it's partly of British making? Did we treat Kashmir any differently from the rest of the region or something? Or do you mean the way the sub-continent was partitioned when we left ? I'm curious, thats all.

Your second line is so true. I've heard it said more than once that Pakistan, rather than being a country which has an army, is more accurately described as an army with a country to reside in.

kashmir was only the most glaring and inflammatory bit of partition. partition was announced by england on 15th june 1947. it happened on 15th august 1947. lines were drawn on the map by someone based in england (sir radcliffe). you dont rule a huge and complex land for over 150 years and then decide to partition it in a month and not expect terrible consequences. maybe it was intended, maybe it was not. certainly made political sense for england at the time

the princely states were to get enough time to negotiate with india or pakistan for independence or to join one of the two. the quickened events led to pakistan sending in troops into kashmir as soon as the two countries were partitioned. mountbatten and india refused to enter kashmir without the king of kashmir signing the document of accession to india. when the king signed the papers india airlifted troops into kashmir and halted the pakistani advance

the UN resolutions asked for pakistan to vacate all of kashmir and then india was to hold a referendum in the state. but pakistan never withdrew and now the demography of the state has been changed irreversibly

D'you think that more progress may have been made had Pervez Musharraf remained in power in Pakistan? I may be wrong, but I understand from the few bits I've read, that he'd have like some sort of settlement of the issue - after all, the unrest affects Pakistan as well as India does it not?

yes. i think the period between 2002 and 2004 was our best bet at a resolution. i have a feeling that if the bjp had not lost the elections in 2004 we could have had a large movement on this issue by now. sadly they lost and musharraf took time to get used to the new indian government. by the time they warmed up to each other musharraf's own position was untenable

now there is no possibility of a resolution any time soon since the current pakistani government does not have true power. any talks will be fruitless as the next force in power (probably the army again) will probably not endorse it. we will probably have to wait for the next army general to be back in power (which is quite frankly quite a sad situation)

SG wrote:

if the Kashmiris are overwhelmingly Muslim

Thats only due to Pak based terrorists changing the demography of the state by terrorizing Kashmiri Pandits which forced them to flee the state.

Now giving the remaining habitants (predominantly muslims) right to self rule (since you talked about Sharia) is like spitting Kashmiri pandits in their mouth. Don't think that will ever be acceptable (or will be passed in Indian Parliament) to the centre.

SG, I'm not disputing why Kashmir is now predominently Muslim - Just acknowledging the fact that (rightly or wrongly) it is so ..... and so posing the question as to whether a degree of self rule may quieten some of the unrest there. I was using sharia as an example - not full sharia, just in certain areas of life.

I'm sorry but your second sentence doesn't make sense - I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could I please ask you to reword it, thank you.

TO

1. I wasn't aware that all Muslims in India have different arrangements with regard to family law - seems like even if self-rule were approved, there's not much it would do in practice.

2. Thanks for the history lesson. I'm sure the terrible consequenses of partition were not deliberately intended, but you're quire right saying the whole thing was a mess. Certainly it was done with unseemly haste.

When Britain announced its intention to withdraw from the region and partition it, the sensible thing would have been to have all the local kings/princes, warlords (for want of a better term) and power-brokers in negotioations for as long as it took. Unilateral lines on a map half a world away was a recipe for disaster.

3. As Merlin said - its comparable with our Ulster situation - and the Israel question. Unless everyone on both sides of the dispute have the will to resolve it, and both will agree to some concessions, then I fear you're right - and that things will become worse before they get better.

Growler wrote:

SG wrote:

if the Kashmiris are overwhelmingly Muslim

Thats only due to Pak based terrorists changing the demography of the state by terrorizing Kashmiri Pandits which forced them to flee the state.

Now giving the remaining habitants (predominantly muslims) right to self rule (since you talked about Sharia) is like spitting Kashmiri pandits in their mouth. Don't think that will ever be acceptable (or will be passed in Indian Parliament) to the centre.

SG, I'm not disputing why Kashmir is now predominently Muslim - Just acknowledging the fact that (rightly or wrongly) it is so ..... and so posing the question as to whether a degree of self rule may quieten some of the unrest there. I was using sharia as an example - not full sharia, just in certain areas of life.

I'm sorry but your second sentence doesn't make sense - I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could I please ask you to reword it, thank you.

I'm just saying its pisspoor to allow sharia to operate in Kashmir just because muslims are now the majority population there while not so long ago Kashmiri pandits were there in great numbers as well and had flourishing businesses all across valley. Just doesn't seem right to me.

For anything like that to happen, Indian parliament would be needed to pass it. Doubt its ever going to happen.

yes. i think the period between 2002 and 2004 was our best bet at a resolution. i have a feeling that if the bjp had not lost the elections in 2004 we could have had a large movement on this issue by now. sadly they lost and musharraf took time to get used to the new indian government. by the time they warmed up to each other musharraf's own position was untenable

lol.

Do you still think that hawk Mushy was serious in resolving Kashmir dispute? If you think he was then I'm sorry you're still living in the bubble created by Vajpayee at that time.

Accept it, no past or present Pak leader wants to resolve this issue as this is the issue which is still very emotional for Pak public. They want it to linger on and on.

Cheers SG. I see what you're saying - and as a matter of principle I'd agree with you. Even if there were a large number of pandits there, I'd still favour a trial period of limited self government. I'm simply being pragmatic ..... try anything to stop the violence. If things got worse, direct rule could easily enough be re-imposed.

Yep. Thats the first and foremost thing that should happen.

Violence got to stop. Do you think giving Kashmiris right to self govern would shut goons in APHC? Don't think it would. They'd stop at nothing short of demanding Kashmir to be merged with Pak, something thats not going to happen in next 1000 years.

This latest problem is stoked by the same goons so I don't think they'll stop at that.

Again, any such move got to be approved by Indian statute which as I said earlier, is highly improbable thing to do, largely due to the issue of Kashmiri pandits.

wait, wait WTF!!!!
i don't have words to describe the utter falsehood claimed by SG

Every man and his dog knows that Kashmir was and is a Muslim majority state, even in 1947 it was a Muslim majority state with 75+% Muslims.

Sure you can have your own pitful opinions but SG seems to has his own facts as well..