'87 per cent in Kashmir want Independence'

[Feed]

What does 'the Valley' really want? The first-ever Indo-Pak poll by The Indian Express, Dawn News and CNN-IBN offers significant clues. More... '87 per cent in J-K want Independence' Posted online: Monday, August 13, 2007 at 0328 hours IST Updated: Monday, August 13, 2007 at 1130 hours IST

As India and Pakistan mark 60 years of Independence, nothing is a more powerful symbol of the divide between the two than Kashmir, that legacy of Partition. It is, therefore, only fitting that we begin with the Kashmir issue in this first of the first-ever joint Indo-Pak poll on what people in the two nations think of each other, of the world, their future. What does ‘the Valley’ really want? Are opinions of the people in Kashmir shared by their counterparts in Jammu and Ladakh? Will any resolution enjoy acceptance in the rest of the country? Will hardliners in the rest of India and Pakistan veto any attempt to solve the Kashmir problem? The first-ever Indo-Pak poll sponsored by The Indian Express, Dawn News and CNN-IBN and designed by CSDS, Delhi offers us significant clues about this question and shows that public opinion offers greater room for peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute than is usually believed. The poll was carried out in the last week of July and the first week of August in the top ten cities of Pakistan (by A C Nielsen) and the top twenty cities of India (by CSDS). Besides 1010 interviews in urban Pakistan and 2030 interviews in urban India, the CSDS conducted a special straw poll by interviewing 226 persons in Srinagar and 255 persons in Jammu city. (Methodological details about the survey will be carried in the final instalment of the reports on the Indo-Pak poll) Let us begin by acknowledging something everyone knows but does not wish to talk about. People in Kashmir Valley want Azadi in the sense of becoming an independent country. As many as 87 per cent of the respondents in Kashmir chose this option over other options like maintaining status quo or merging both parts of Kashmir either with India or with Pakistan. Hardcore strategists in India will no doubt draw some consolation from the fact that Pakistan figures almost nowhere as a first preference for Kashmiris in this poll. Yet India is only marginally better placed. Even after allowing for the complexities of the sentiment for Azadi and recognising the peer pressure that operates more in Srinagar than outside, it is hard to dispute the basic finding that people in this part of our country do not display much attachment to the nation-state called India. This finding is very much in line with a much larger and more representative survey (carried out by CSDS and Jammu University) in 2002 that found a similar level of support for ‘Azadi’ all over the Valley.

Not surprisingly, this sentiment is not shared outside the Valley. There are no takers for Kashmiri independence in Jammu town, with nearly everyone supporting an integration of Indian Kashmir and PoK into the Indian Union. The opinion in other cities in the rest of the country is not as vehement as Jammu but there is an overwhelming preference for integration with India. The opinion of urban Pakistanis are, predictably, opposed to the opinions of urban Indians. That makes it look like a perfect deadlock so familiar of national struggles in many parts of the world: a tiny minority wants freedom from nation-states that treat their land as nothing other than a piece of property. If such a conclusion needs to be resisted, it is not merely because it is dark and depressing, but also because The Indian Express-The Dawn-CNN-IBN poll provides many concrete reasons for hope. Positive signs come from both sides of the border. Urban Pakistanis do not insist on Kashmir joining Pakistan; those who desire so are matched by as many who are willing to accept an independent status for Kashmir. A majority of urban Pakistanis are also willing to let Kashmiris decide their own fate. Although a majority (higher among the Punjabis) insists that Indo-Pak relations cannot move forward till the Kashmir question is resolved, as many as 45 per cent of those who have an opinion do not see Kashmir as a pre-condition. This proportion is higher among the urban Indians. A series of national surveys conducted over the last few years by the CSDS have also shown that the Indian population endorses negotiation rather than suppression as the right approach in Kashmir.

The most positive signals come from within the troubled state. The state assembly election of 2002, widely seen as one of the few free and fair elections held in the state, has changed things for the better. Respondents in both the cities, more in Srinagar than in Jammu, said that the overall situation in the state has improved in the last five years. Besides, the state government is not without popular support. The people are not very unhappy with the Ghulam Nabi Azad government, though the Valley would prefer the Mufti government over the current one. As any observer of the state would know, these are no mean achievements. Equally significantly, the two major regions of the state are not poles apart in their thinking on many key questions, despite stark differences in their population profile. Of course, their differences on the question of Azadi spill over to their assessment of the Indian security forces. While people in Jammu back the unrestricted powers to security forces and would like its misuse to be curbed, people in Srinagar are one in their rejection of the powers enjoyed by the security forces. Apart from this crucial difference, there is a lot that binds the people of Jammu and Kashmir together: • Both the cities are unanimous in their rejection of the RSS-backed proposal for trifurcation of the state; • The Muslims of Srinagar are as vocal in supporting the demand for bringing the Pandits back to the Valley as the Hindus in Jammu; • Both the regions are overwhelmingly in support of retaining Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that gives special status to Jammu and Kashmir; • A majority of the people from Jammu also agree that the struggle of the Kashmiri people is against the government, not the people of India; and, • There is much higher willingness in Jammu to endorse a dialogue with Hurriyat than used to be the case. This kind of public mood may not be the dream scenario hoped for by pacifists and democrats within and outside Kashmir Valley. But this is far from the nightmare that many had feared all along. This is much more than the minimum that a visionary statesman, or stateswoman, would need to start a historic initiative to bring lasting peace and democracy in this part of the world.

[CC1981]

If Kashmir wants independence, then independence it should have. BUT- the Kashimir pandits should also be part of this poll, since Kashmir has gone through massive demographic shift perpetuated by violence in the region, resulting in KPs moving away. And if the poll inclusive of KPs show that kashmiris want independence, that they should have.

[varun]

If Kashmir wants independence, then independence it should have. BUT- the Kashimir pandits should also be part of this poll, since Kashmir has gone through massive demographic shift perpetuated by violence in the region, resulting in KPs moving away. And if the poll inclusive of KPs show that kashmiris want independence, that they should have.

Good point.. but that was their plan all along, to push pandits out and then put international pressure for a plebiscite.

[Guest dada_rocks]

That number is just from valley, not jammu and ladakh

[Gaurav]

If Kashmir wants independence' date= then independence it should have. BUT- the Kashimir pandits should also be part of this poll, since Kashmir has gone through massive demographic shift perpetuated by violence in the region, resulting in KPs moving away. And if the poll inclusive of KPs show that kashmiris want independence, that they should have.

Whole of J&K state? Jammu and Ladakh? No KP wants independence let alone in a ROP state from which they were brutally kicked out! Give ROP a taste of it's own medicine and kick them into POK and they can have their azadi inside Azad Kashmir :angry_smile:

[Gaurav]

That number is just from valley' date=' not jammu and ladakh[/quote'] That article is worded strangely. Heading says J&K!!!!! :devil_smile: Jammu is currently non ROP majority. So 87% is impossible number if it was for the whole state. Edit- I am actually surprised that in the valley the % in favour of azadi is not 100%.

[Guest dada_rocks]

See the poll figure there they have 60% over-all 87% is valley figure

[kumble_rocks]

Kashmir is a part of India and let it be on record that I support mass immigration( I know it's not the right word) of other Indians to this valley. No special status as far as I am concerned.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Kashmir is a part of India and let it be on record that I support mass immigration( I know it's not the right word) of other Indians to this valley. No special status as far as I am concerned.

that's the spirit :two_thumbs_up:

[Ram]

Kashmir is a part of India and let it be on record that I support mass immigration( I know it's not the right word) of other Indians to this valley. No special status as far as I am concerned.

But which Indian would want to migrate into a place where he could be gunned down by militants the next day ? If we sort out the security problem in Kashmir , things will take care of itself.

[Cricketics]

@cc1981 , by indipendence they mean that they want to be part of India.. @ stumpz on day 1.. we got hold of it.. wait for stumpz on day 5..

[The Outsider]

The Muslims of Srinagar are as vocal in supporting the demand for bringing the Pandits back to the Valley as the Hindus in Jammu;

This is the key point of the poll.

[CC1981]

@cc1981 , by indipendence they mean that they want to be part of India..

I hate repeating myself, so i shall make this clear- if *any* state in India wanted independence, i think it should NOT be flat out denied but subject to a referendum in that state and its community. Same applies for J&K. So yes, J&K should host a referendum for independence but it should involve all J&K ethnic people, including KPs who moved to different parts of the world. And if the result of that poll is independence/seperation from India, then it should be so. Nothing says that kashmir will be forever part of India or forever must. And as far as immigration to J&K goes- its rather sad idea to do it simply to keep J&K part of India. clear misuse of the immigration doctrine. Whether or not Kashmir stays a part of India is a decision Kashmiris should make, not the rest of us. But again, it has to involve all of Kashmir and Kashmiri people- including PoK/Azad Kashmir & Ladakh.

[yoda]

why independence? if it because of the pleblicite (sp?), that was when kashmir wasn't partially eaten by pak and by china.

[Ram]

I hate repeating myself, so i shall make this clear- if *any* state in India wanted independence, i think it should NOT be flat out denied but subject to a referendum in that state and its community. Same applies for J&K.

If you allow J&K to have freedom as it chooses , then be prepared to lose the north-east too. The concept of nation-state is what holds India together. If you give room for secessionist tendencies , that will signal the beginning of the end for our country, especially with so many regional and linguistic disparities around.

[CC1981]

If you allow J&K to have freedom as it chooses , then be prepared to lose the north-east too.

Okay. If thats so, then let it be so. If Indians don't wanna be part of India, why should rest of India force them to be ? I am not against wooing other 'nations' like Bhutan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Sri Lanka/ Maldives etc. into our union- but to do that, one must also keep the door open to those who wanna walk out of it.

If you give room for secessionist tendencies , that will signal the beginning of the end for our country, especially with so many regional and linguistic disparities around.

Or we can let the ones who wanna go, go and use that as the biggest weapon to influence people/nations to realize that India is not a conquest-oriented power but very much of an advanced 'European Union' model composite state.India is a rising super-power economically and it is the economic ones who exert the most passive & lasting influence culturally. So secession from India in all likelyhood is going to be far less prevalent than joining India IF we can play our cards right. I am not agreeing on letting secessionists create unrest or the fundamentalists forcing the seperation of the nation, but if the common people of a particular state wanna go, they should go. This is a democracy and the right to remain in India or withdraw from it is also a democratic right. A nation that has to use force to hang on to a region/refuse to respect referendum is not a democratic or a free nation. Besides, most of India doesnt wanna leave Indian union- i don't think Bihar wants to take off or Kerala wants to go its seperate way. Kashmir being a cascade reaction is nothing more than paranoia IMO. PS: I also do not think that a simple majority is the requirement for such a merger/secession- it'd be pretty stupid (from a societerial perspective) to let Kashmir become independent if 55% wanted independence and 45% didn't. In every democratic process, a fundamentally altering scenario ( such as constitution change, referendums etc.) come with a 'clear majority' scenario. Ie, 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the poll must agree to the alteration ( in this case, secession of Kashmir) for it to be a sociologically valid one. The same protocols should be followed. And if the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris want independence, they should get it.

[Ram]

Okay. If thats so' date=' then let it be so. If Indians don't wanna be part of India, why should rest of India force them to be ?[/quote'] Isnt that statement a bit oxymoronic ? 'If "Indians" dont want to be part of "India" , they could go '

I am not against wooing other 'nations' like Bhutan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Sri Lanka/ Maldives etc. into our union- but to do that, one must also keep the door open to those who wanna walk out of it.

Honestly , do you think this could even happen ? These are mature nations with a long history and unique identity . Will they even contemplate being a part of a "Indian Union" ?

Or we can let the ones who wanna go, go and use that as the biggest weapon to influence people/nations to realize that India is not a conquest-oriented power but very much of an advanced 'European Union' model composite state. I am not agreeing on letting secessionists create unrest or the fundamentalists forcing the seperation of the nation, but if the common people of a particular state wanna go, they should go. This is a democracy and the right to remain in India or withdraw from it is also a democratic right. A nation that has to use force to hang on to a region/refuse to respect referendum is not a democratic or a free nation.

Even SAARC cant peacefully co-exist. As long as we have issues to be sorted out with our neighbors , there could be no EU style of common union with a single constitution type of thing. Come to think of it , even the idea of EU has been rejected in many european countries

Besides, most of India doesnt wanna leave Indian union- i don't think Bihar wants to take off or Kerala wants to go its seperate way. Kashmir being a cascade reaction is nothing more than paranoia IMO.

Bihar and Kerala may not be imminent threats , but i can guarantee you that the North-East will be alive with secessionist tendencies. And it is not all entirely paranoia. As long as you have Indian style democracy in place , God knows what kind of pledges the politicians make to get votes. Soon , you could be having a Dravidian party in Tamil Nadu , promising a " greater Tamil Nadu" along with parts of northern Sri Lanka , if voted to power. That can happen trust me. There are some lunatics out there

[CC1981]

Isnt that statement a bit oxymoronic ? 'If "Indians" dont want to be part of "India" , they could go '

No...not really. Indians are more than just defined by a nation, it is defined by the culture.

These are mature nations with a long history and unique identity

Not nearly mature enough to be considered different from the indian cultural sphere. Their history of independent nationhood(though part of the indic culture group) is far smaller than their history with Indian political entities. Besides, Nepal and Bhutan can easily join India if India plays its cards right. For one, we have immense cultural and economic ties with these two nations. For two, India doesnt have any 'self-serving reasons' to take over those countries- there is just about one thing India wants from Nepal and Bhutan and India gets it for free, with or without Nepali/Bhutanese interference : its water (since all rivers in nepal & bhutan end up flowing to India anyways). With 'big brother' China sitting hungry to the north, it'd be a genuine possibility of them moving for a joiner with Indian union. Even the most patriotic Nepali/Bhutani would prefer being part of india than being part of China.

Even SAARC cant peacefully co-exist. As long as we have issues to be sorted out with our neighbors , there could be no EU style of common union with a single constitution type of thing. Come to think of it , even the idea of EU has been rejected in many european countries

Dude, India is already an EU style common union with much more advanced integration of nations into a bigger political entity. Indians just don't realize it yet for the most part. India makes far more sense and can weild far more influence if it started treating itself like a union of nation-states than a monolith nation, since we are NOT a monolith nation. If anything, we can (and should) use this line to bolster our geo-political standing, since essentially speaking, bengal, Tamil nadu, bihar, maharasthra, etc. in the indian fold are essentially similar to the situation of France, italy,Germany,Holland, etc. in the EU fold. If anything, we should be very proud of the fact that we created the Indian version of the EU 60 years ago and have so far got it to work far more efficiently and smoothly than the EU itself, not deny this aspect of our nationhood.

but i can guarantee you that the North-East will be alive with secessionist tendencies.

The popular opinion of North-Eastern states is not about secession, if anything, its a fringe activity of the radicals. The ULFA does not enjoy popular support, nor do the seperatists in Manipur & Nagaland. I dunno much about Mizoram but Tripura is mostly Bengali and they most definitely want to stay. AP wants to stay too because it knows China is interested in it and it'd much rather be part of India than china. Regions wont seceede away if economic and educational progress keeps happening, we take steps to curb secessionism through debate and form a strong military to contain infiltration. Especially if we make it clear that India is not interested to hold on through brute force.

Soon , you could be having a Dravidian party in Tamil Nadu , promising a " greater Tamil Nadu" along with parts of northern Sri Lanka , if voted to power. That can happen trust me. There are some lunatics out there

If it happens, it happens. But it'd only happen if we just sat silently and did nothing to counter the arguments of a tamil-nation in the tamil-fanatics club. Indian union makes more sense to join than leave - that we can easily demonstrate through logic. Using political leverage/control/power is only going to weaken our stance in the long run because if a region wants to go, holding on to it through military/political means never resolves anything-it only gets in the way of progress due to simmering turmoil.

[Ram]

No...not really. Indians are more than just defined by a nation' date=' it is defined by the culture.[/quote'] I dont agree to that. Indianism has got every bit to do with being part of our country , as it has to do with having the Indian culture. A nepali may have the exact same lifestyle and culture as an Indian living just across the border in UP might have, but i am sure he doesnt feel Indian.

Not nearly mature enough to be considered different from the indian cultural sphere. Their history of independent nationhood(though part of the indic culture group) is far smaller than their history with Indian political entities. Besides, Nepal and Bhutan can easily join India if India plays its cards right. For one, we have immense cultural and economic ties with these two nations. For two, India doesnt have any 'self-serving reasons' to take over those countries- there is just about one thing India wants from Nepal and Bhutan and India gets it for free, with or without Nepali/Bhutanese interference : its water (since all rivers in nepal & bhutan end up flowing to India anyways). With 'big brother' China sitting hungry to the north, it'd be a genuine possibility of them moving for a joiner with Indian union. Even the most patriotic Nepali/Bhutani would prefer being part of india than being part of China.

You have actually given a counter to your own post in your last part. There is NO WAY , China will sit and watch as Nepal and Bhutan merge with India. Nothing could signal India's hegemonic tendencies more than that. China took 4 decades to recognize even Arunachal Pradesh as in integral part of India. Do you think they will sit silently and watch as India spreads it Geographic reach ? You are discussing things under the realms of possibility CC , but this real politik though.

Dude, India is already an EU style common union with much more advanced integration of nations into a bigger political entity. Indians just don't realize it yet for the most part. India makes far more sense and can weild far more influence if it started treating itself like a union of nation-states than a monolith nation, since we are NOT a monolith nation. If anything, we can (and should) use this line to bolster our geo-political standing, since essentially speaking, bengal, Tamil nadu, bihar, maharasthra, etc. in the indian fold are essentially similar to the situation of France, italy,Germany,Holland, etc. in the EU fold. If anything, we should be very proud of the fact that we created the Indian version of the EU 60 years ago and have so far got it to work far more efficiently and smoothly than the EU itself, not deny this aspect of our nationhood.

I wont agree fully with the comparison. India isnt the ONLY country with vast regional disparities. Shias , Sunnis and Kurds have peacefully co-existed in the middle east for so long. There is a fundamental difference between a nation state and states making up a nation. You must acknowledge that.

If it happens, it happens. But it'd only happen if we just sat silently and did nothing to counter the arguments of a tamil-nation in the tamil-fanatics club. Indian union makes more sense to join than leave - that we can easily demonstrate through logic. Using political leverage/control/power is only going to weaken our stance in the long run because if a region wants to go, holding on to it through military/political means never resolves anything-it only gets in the way of progress due to simmering turmoil.

The prospect of political freedom far over-weighs the forces of economic prosperity. My only point is, If we let one go, we would setting a VERY bad precedent.

[CC1981]

Indianism has got every bit to do with being part of our country

In that case, none of the Maurya, Chola, Gupta etc. empires were 'indian', since our country is defined differently today. Indian history remarkably parallels political development in European history but with a far more peaceful tilt to it (except for the invasion angles, which again, we both share in common). As i said, India is a EU state- most Indians just don't realize it because of the paranoia.

You have actually given a counter to your own post in your last part. There is NO WAY , China will sit and watch as Nepal and Bhutan merge with India

hence i said, play its card right from India's part. What is china gonna do if India urged Nepal for a referendum and Nepal complied ? invade ? sure, it can but then it will be WWIII and the west will firmly sit in India's corner if India can play the 'democracy' card right.

Shias , Sunnis and Kurds have peacefully co-existed in the middle east for so long.

Those are religious divisions, not cultural divisions.

There is a fundamental difference between a nation state and states making up a nation. You must acknowledge that.

Indeed. But states making up a nation is much more a question of provincialism and that is not the history of India. India essentially created a 'EU' style govt. in 1947- there is no reason to consider Bengal or Maharasthra etc. different from France/Germany within the European Union fold. They've been independent nations, they've been parts of big empires, they have their own cultural and linguistic identities, etc etc. They are 'nations' in every sense of the word, not just 'states'. States would be 'alabama vs New york' where its entire/bulk of historic & cultural existence is part of one nation state with miniscule difference in culture substrata. From a historical perspective, there is no reason to assume that karnatak,sikkim,punjab etc. are states within a nation when their history shows them to be fulfilling the criteria of nationhood inside a greater nation-state union.

The prospect of political freedom far over-weighs the forces of economic prosperity.

Not if political freedom weakens your own position and the position of the rest. As i said, it is a question of India playing its card rightly- Canada played its card brilliantly and the result is secessionism in quebec has died. And the reason for that is, Canada dared to risk splitting Canada up and as the saying goes, those who dare, win. Canada simply played up the angle of how much both 'countries' ( new Quebec and rest of Canada) lose with independence and that campaign alone swung the vote in canada's favour. Ultimately, the argument for forming a nation simply for nationalistic pride reasons can be shot down through debate pretty easily by simply demonstrating the pros and cons of it (and the cons outweigh the pros significantly). But it is important to keep the 'choice' of independence on the table or else it is nothing more than despotism of the majority, not democracy. Paranoid 'holding on' to territorry simply adds more fuel to the fire of secessionism because it is clearly based on premises outside of the desires of the local population of the said state/province.

If we let one go, we would setting a VERY bad precedent.

Disagree. A very good precedent it would be. It'd show that India is not intent on holding on to land simply for the sake of nationhood but is far more 'people-oriented'. As i said, with proper PR and logistics, offering independence to an area or two that wants to leave sets a very strong example of freedom of choice- a quality if we embodify, then people don't HAVE a reason to leave in the first place. Nationalism is a pretty retarded concept to begin with when it is based solely on keeping a nation alive.