In Kashmir, Indian security forces use pellet guns that often blind protesters

[Muloghonto]

19 hours ago, Book_Worm said:

Yes the army is not above law. The army itself has it's own committee to look into excess carried out by soldiers. If the protests were peaceful and army carried out attacks then yes it would come under scrutiny  and there would be widespread condemnations from all sectors . Here in this case the police machinery itself has come to a stand still and the protestors/mob has killed a police officer and are disrupting the peace in the valley. In this situation army is allowed to use force. Recently there was jatt agitation and army was called and shoot at sight orders were given and 3 people will killed by the army.

What committee army has, is irrelevant. Every functional organization needs a self regulatory body- even the Taliban and ISIS have some sort of self-regulatory body (if we can call their perverse sense of ethics, regulatory) but that does not mean the self regulatory body is the legal binding authority. It is not. The judiciary system is and the army *is* subject to the judiciary. It is up to the judiciary to deciede if the army is violating the rights of the people or not, which is why the government declares martial law or invokes special section codes, in order to give army the requisite immunity to these sort of actions. In short, no, just because the government deployed the army in say Kerala for some demonstrations, does not give the army sweeping powers to shoot to kill to enforce law and order. 

Quote

Indian soldiers also wear vests and have shield. If u think they are not wearing vests etc then i don't know what to think about you.! I said it before it is not about the protective gears but rather about the situation and how they deal with it. They can use taser or pellets or bullets that is upto to the army to decide which weapon to use and how much humane it needs to be. Romans can do what they want  in rome and indians will do what they want to india.

Again, it is not up to the army on what armaments to use, the government HAS to empower the army to use lethal force in the first place. Just because you deployed the army, does not mean the army has the authority to use lethal force, especially against its own citizens and tax payers. 
And no, army does not deciede how humane it needs to be. The Geneva convention deciedes so. Just because the army decieded that the best way to quell rebellion is to publicly boil alive the miscreants, does not make it legal and in such a scenario, the army would be subject to sanction by the government.

 

Quote

What i meant was once the army is given orders from higher ups then it does not stop to think who they kill and  they just carry out the orders. Soldiers do not question but just carry out orders is an oft repeated phrase.  

False. There are special section codes defined in the geneva convention where a soldier is obligated to NOT follow orders and following orders is culpable criminality. For example, if i am the commanding officer and you are my subordinate and if I order you to rape a suspect, you are subject to sanction under Geneva convention. The Nuremberg trials set the precedent and India is a signatory to that. There are some actions that you just cannot hide behind 'sorry i was following orders'. Some orders obligates the soldier to be a conscientious dissenter.

Quote

I am really not aware of any separatist movement in canada currently. Last i heard there was a referendum and the french speaking people choose to stay as part of canada and there is no such movement anymore.

It is no longer a national issue, but Quebec always has a small but vocal crowd of independence seekers.

But in Canadian law, getting independence for a territory is NOT just the decision of the territory, it is a decision of the entire nation- i.e. the ENTIRE nation gets to vote if a part will break away or not. As it should. The logic is simple. To apply Canadian legal logic to Kashmir would be akin to this :

The central government of India has invested money into Kashmir, ergo, ALL Indians have invested money into Kashmir. Therefore, whether to let such an investment go or not is the decision of all the stakeholders, aka the entire nation. If India did not have a special section code preventing property purchase in Kashmir to non-Kashmiris, it would apply to that as well. Ie, if a guy in Kolkata defaults on his mortgage, then the bank repos the house, then the house is put to sale for ALL Indians. Ie, a guy from Kerala would be entitled to bid for that house. Therefore, if tomorrow, West Bengal decieded to break away, we are limiting the rights of the Keralan guy as well. So the Malayali also has a say.

This really is the best logic to quash all secessionism, unless there is a mutually beneficial reason (i.e. , state/province in question and rest of the nation) to separate.

Surprised that rest of the world hasn't followed Canada's example on this.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

Asim, where are you ? Or do you not have the integrity to respond to my question ???

[Adi_91]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Asim, where are you ? Or do you not have the integrity to respond to my question ???

If you ask tough questions, why will he respond?

[Vilander]

On 7/27/2016 at 2:29 AM, Asim said:

Im sort of glad that all of indians actually does not have any real defense over indian army brutality in Kashmir...

so far only types of arguments, which r quite lame to be honest, are: i. its propaganda (bcz we r on criminals side so better call it propaganda, despite the fact whole world media has reported this multiple times but since its against us so lets just call it propaganda) ii. they too throw paid stones and payment is made by Pakistan for each stone (horribly hilarious) iii. ham nay kashmir mai yeh kar lia to kya hua, tumhari taraf b to yeh hota hey, Balochistan, Usama daikho, Afghan, Taliban blah blah...

Hey Asim, the pellets on kashmiri kids is wrong, people will be tried for it and punished. But if kashmiri kids come to the streets to protest and pelt stones on armed forces its a different problem altogether. An other crucial point is pak has no locus standi in this, but there will be an impact however, India will want to punish pak now and fanning up tensions in Kashmir.

[Vilander]

On 7/28/2016 at 11:50 AM, Muloghonto said:

 

You are completely incorrect for the bolded areas. 

 

1. We can argue about what an army should or should do all we like, because the army is not above the law. 

2. In 'these kinds of situations' most of the civilized world actually use bullet-proof vest, shield and do what the Romans did, i.e., lock shields and surround the protesters and then taser them. Tasering has less than 1 in a 1000 incident of permanent damage of any kind and is 99.99% certain to incapacitate you. Thats what 20,000 volts at very low amperage does- it gives you excruciating pain, uncontrollable muscle spasm but zero long term damage. Ie, situation contained and nobody got hurt.

3. army's job is to protect the nation but army is MOST DEFINITELY bound by ethics. Specifically, Republic of India is a signatory to geneva convention and Geneva convention covers what is ethical conduct by the army and what is not. This is why shotguns are banned in conventional army armaments (though almost everyone find an excuse to use it in actual war) because shotguns are considered inhumane in warfare.

That is just one example, many such examples exist where the army is bound by ethical standards, especially at peacetime.

4. We've had separatist movement in Quebec and it still exists, Quebecois did extended rally and protest to separate from Canada but at no point did the army have the mandate to open fire or maim Canadian citizens.

 

its not an armed movement, the moment a civilian picks up arms they invite armed central police. When they engage in sedition, fifth column and armed abetted by enemy state terrorist activity they invite an armed response and at times from paramilitary or at times from the army it self, because the engagement becomes lethal. Its just an escalation.

[zen]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

But in Canadian law, getting independence for a territory is NOT just the decision of the territory, it is a decision of the entire nation- i.e. the ENTIRE nation gets to vote if a part will break away or not. As it should. The logic is simple. To apply Canadian legal logic to Kashmir would be akin to this :

Not sure if that is accurate if you mean individuals in every province would be voting on it. A province in Canada can go for a referendum to get independence. If the majority in the province answer "yes", the province would then have to negotiate with the central government  .... Here is the Canadian Clarity Act -> LINK

 

Until there is "clarity" on this issue, QC example could be considered as irrelevant to this topic

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by rett

[Adi_91]

4 minutes ago, Garuda said:

The below is a post from another thread but worth noting nonetheless. This is their mentality vis-a-vis legal procedure. Take good notes especially the bold part.

So what you said is correct. A deeper probing into their mentality proves that they as a whole don't care about the legal process. They are always say one thing and do the EXACT opposite. If you have doubts, ask USA over the past decade. Whenever we blame Pak for cross border terrorism, they ask where is the proof. Then we provide the proof. And then.....nothing. Because they have nothing. We need to recognize this behavior, be on our toes, and call their bullshit everytime they try it on us. Not only that we should do the same with whoever sides with them and let them know that we are watching and show them that we cant be fooled by these underhand tactics.

 

 

There is no need of any dialogue with this country. Their mentality is sickening, their aspirations are crooked and to spread hatred to acquire more regions.

 

I know a Kashmiri friend of mine who works in the city where I hail from in India and he is very happy with his life. He is a proud Indian and some padosi posters here blabbering that Kashmiris feel neglected is all BS. These people don't seem to understand that interfering in a democratic setup's functioning is unethical. But then, a country like Pakistan without a functioning democracy is never going to learn ethics ever.

 

I am sure about one thing, Pakistan is currently on its way to doom. They sow the seeds of poison, some day it will mix into their own food chain and kill them. It is a matter of time. Already, there is no economy, no big infrastructure and it is a third rate country and on top of that funds terrorism. Wasn't Osama Bin Laden not caught there? No wonder he was found there after all, it is the epicenter of global terrorism.

[Adi_91]

9 minutes ago, Garuda said:

Your friend maybe a standup guy not doubting it one bit. Is he a muslim? If so, ask him why there are several Kashmiri muslims who have Pakistani flags flying in their land and why they support Pakistan when they play India (I don't have a problem if they support Pak against other teams. I'm that cool). If he gives a wishy-washy answer, know that he may not be your friend when things get a little complicated if you know what I mean. I had a few aquaintances who were Kashmiri Pandits. Since we were not close friends, they were a bit reluctant to admit but I can sense the anger and resentment they had towards Pakistanis and Muslims.

Yes, he is. But from what I have seen so far, he seems to be good person. I don't think that he has any resentment towards India or any sympathies towards Pakistan. I think and I hope not, but you never know.

 

But, honestly, if Pakistan feels that Kashmiris are undergoing a tough life, then why not extend visas to Pakistan. Instead, they do proxy wars with India through their mercenaries. I wish our padosis here who seem to be very concerned, raise this idea about extending visas if they feel strongly about the issue. I am confident they won't. I dare them though.

[Adi_91]

22 minutes ago, Garuda said:

I can see that your friend is a good person. But there is a certain conflict that goes through their minds. You have to put forward the question just to be sure. Promise us that you do and make sure you post what you heard from him. Don't be abrasive, just ask like a normal question. If he answers truthfully, you have a friend who is worth his salt. If he flinches or worse reacts negatively, you now know that he wasn't a friend in the first place. By being assertive (not aggressive) we come to know of their true intentions and we can live with that. Thats the problem with us Indians. We are too polite to ask these tough questions for fear that we may be deemed communal. But nobody accuses some members of certain minorities who ARE COMMUNAL but get a free pass. Minorities have their rights but that doesn't mean the majority doesn't have rights. I don't see a muslim majority state (who even declare them as such. THey don't say they are a secular state like  we do) which permits non-muslims to act the way we (read certain deshdrohis) have allowed our minorities to do.

You are right. We are too polite a society. It really saddens me that some padosis here endorse people taking guns to fight the democratically established pillars in the form of our security forces. I wonder if they will say this if this was happening in their country.

 

No DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY (in CAPS as I wanted to stress) can tolerate extremist acts or acts of hate. The same goes to our beloved padosis who at the moment are missing from ICF and are busy spreading propaganda about a DEMOCRATICALLY functioning India. In fact, I strongly suspect that this violence in the valley is a brainchild of their former dictator President, Musharraf, who confessed that his aim was to incite every Kashmiri against another Kashmiri. Here is a video of the Newshour debate a couple of years back.

 

 

[zen]

More on Kashmir 

 

 

[zen]

Hafeed Saeed started Kashmir clashes:

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

On July 28, 2016 at 4:05 AM, rett said:

You are being too generous. Pak not only has to free Balochistan, but also vacate Kashmir. 

 

No offence, but this is not a solution. It just creates more instability if above mentioned map is followed.

Pakistan punjab being a land-locked independent country ?! 
Lets consider this for a second: there are 100 million Pakistani Punjabis and 99% of them are muslim. So lets lock them into a tiny piece of land (the area of Punjab province is just a bit bigger than Bangladesh), cut them off from whatever little resources they have and take away coastal access. i.e., make them worse than Bangladesh. Right on the doorstep of India. How is that possibly a good idea ?! thats like giving ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Those Pakistani sponsored terrorists exactly what they want- a hotbed of discontent and poor Muslims angry at rest of the world and India. 

Independent Baluchistan alone would be crippling to Pakistan in many ways. Independent Punjab would just f*ck everyone in the neighborhood over a bit more than they already are.

 

[Muloghonto]

PS: Kashmir resolution will not happen as long as Pakistan exists the way it is today. Only way for Kashmir to be resolved, is if it can be FORCED to renounce any claim to Indian held-Kashmir, by formal decree & ratification. That would involve war with the Pakistani - if not us, then someone else and then nukes will fly and its bad news for all of humanity. 

Best way forward would be to close all borders with Pakistan and keep them permanently closed. Just build Charbahar port and develop the heck out of Iran-India-Afghanistan infrastructure network and bypass Pakistan to all other Asian markets. 
As it stands, a heavy Indian shipping lane between India and Iran in the Arabian Sea is completely non-threatened by Pakistan. 

They may talk a lot of smack, but even the biggest clowns and jokers in their military knows that they cannot confront the Indian Navy under any realistic circumstance and live. So that route is pretty safe.

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

No offence, but this is not a solution. It just creates more instability if above mentioned map is followed.

Pakistan punjab being a land-locked independent country ?! 
Lets consider this for a second: there are 100 million Pakistani Punjabis and 99% of them are muslim. So lets lock them into a tiny piece of land (the area of Punjab province is just a bit bigger than Bangladesh), cut them off from whatever little resources they have and take away coastal access. i.e., make them worse than Bangladesh. Right on the doorstep of India. How is that possibly a good idea ?! thats like giving ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Those Pakistani sponsored terrorists exactly what they want- a hotbed of discontent and poor Muslims angry at rest of the world and India. 

Independent Baluchistan alone would be crippling to Pakistan in many ways. Independent Punjab would just f*ck everyone in the neighborhood over a bit more than they already are.

 

That could be your perception. And there are too many unnecessary assumptions such as every Pakistani Punjabi would need to live in Punjab. 

 

If I am not wrong, other provinces in Pak are already being influenced by Punjabis. Other provinces when independent could be more aligned to Ind and less tolerant to supporting terrorism. So in the scenario that you describe, these terrorist elements could not only be facing Ind but also other countries "surrounding" them 

 

And population of BD is 150M+, so using your numbers, if 100M Pakistani Punjabis get a land of larger than BD, there is not much to complain. FYI, countries such as Switzerland, Austria, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, etc. are landlocked too 

Edited July 30, 2016 by rett

[Muloghonto]

35 minutes ago, rett said:

That could be your perception. And there are too many unnecessary assumptions such as every Pakistani Punjabi would need to live in Punjab. 

Huh ?! An independent Pakistani Punjab would be 'peacefully de-populated' of Pakistani Punjab just exactly how ?!

Quote

If I am not wrong, other provinces in Pak are already being influenced by Punjabis. Other provinces when independent could be more aligned to Ind and less tolerant to supporting terrorism. So in the scenario that you describe, these terrorist elements could not only be facing Ind but also other countries "surrounding" them 

Sure. Baluchistan independence would suit them quite nicely and they may become pro-India. But pray tell, why would Sindh be so happy with the solution ? Do you think Sindhis won't see the opportunity in becoming the SOLE gateway for Punjab and immensely profit from a relatively stable and barrier-free trade link with Pak Punjab ? Heck, power would concentrate more into Sindh if Sindh became the ONLY sea-access of Pakistan.

 

And bhai, the power of terrorism, is that just a dozen successful ones, which probably costs just a few hundred people involved, causes entire nations to change policy. By fanning the flames of terrorism & fractiousness in our immediate backyard, its not going to end well. If you study closely, almost all successful nations have stayed successful by formenting peace in their immediate vicinity.

Quote

And population of BD is 150M+, so using your numbers, if 100M Pakistani Punjabis get a land of larger than BD, there is not much to complain. FYI, countries such as Switzerland, Austria, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, etc. are landlocked too 

 

Bhai, Punjab is a lot less fertile than Bengal is & despite poorer Bengali farm yields (due to worse shortages in Bangladesh), Bengal still has heck of a lot more land dedicated to agriculture than Pak Punjab. 

 

Switzerland, Austria, etc. are different, they all have stable borders for a very long time now. The rest are not doing so well but most importantly, the rest are not 100 million people who profess Islam, which means worsening situation there = rise in terrorism. 

That is not a smart idea. Diminishing Pakistan, by say Balochi Independence, would be to India's interest. But it won't happen without war, either. This is Pakistan, where rule of law is non-existent and Army will level entire villages if it smells sedition. 

The best way to deal with pakistan, IMO, is to bring the legality of Kashmir more into the spotlight while totally sealing borders with them, while encircling them.

 

[zen]

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Huh ?! An independent Pakistani Punjab would be 'peacefully de-populated' of Pakistani Punjab just exactly how ?!

Sure. Baluchistan independence would suit them quite nicely and they may become pro-India. But pray tell, why would Sindh be so happy with the solution ? Do you think Sindhis won't see the opportunity in becoming the SOLE gateway for Punjab and immensely profit from a relatively stable and barrier-free trade link with Pak Punjab ? Heck, power would concentrate more into Sindh if Sindh became the ONLY sea-access of Pakistan.

 

And bhai, the power of terrorism, is that just a dozen successful ones, which probably costs just a few hundred people involved, causes entire nations to change policy. By fanning the flames of terrorism & fractiousness in our immediate backyard, its not going to end well. If you study closely, almost all successful nations have stayed successful by formenting peace in their immediate vicinity.

 

Bhai, Punjab is a lot less fertile than Bengal is & despite poorer Bengali farm yields (due to worse shortages in Bangladesh), Bengal still has heck of a lot more land dedicated to agriculture than Pak Punjab. 

 

Switzerland, Austria, etc. are different, they all have stable borders for a very long time now. The rest are not doing so well but most importantly, the rest are not 100 million people who profess Islam, which means worsening situation there = rise in terrorism. 

That is not a smart idea. Diminishing Pakistan, by say Balochi Independence, would be to India's interest. But it won't happen without war, either. This is Pakistan, where rule of law is non-existent and Army will level entire villages if it smells sedition. 

The best way to deal with pakistan, IMO, is to bring the legality of Kashmir more into the spotlight while totally sealing borders with them, while encircling them.

 

What I implied that not all 100M (based on the number that you gave) Pak Punjabis would need to live in Punjab. Much like how not every muslim went to Pak 

 

What is wrong if Sindh would want to profit from Pak Punjab by serving as its gateway? It would be up to the two nations to work that out.  Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, etc. are land locked too and not complaining with their lack of access to sea. Pak Punjab can use the Chabbar port that Ind is building if it likes 

 

There is no peace with Pakistan at the moment so I don't know why are you writing as if things are ok at the moment and they will turn bad if Pak is broken up 

 

If Pakistan is broken up. Non Pak Punjab states have an opportunity to prosper. Pak Punjab can be contained too because it is not only up against Ind but also other neighboring "countries" who would want to fight against terrorism. Pak is the epicenter of terrorism because its establishment allow it to flourish. Newly formed states will not allow that and they would also be focused on teething problems of the new nations so there energy could be spent on doing something positive 

 

As you can see, the things that you portray as problems are not big issues

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by rett

[rkt.india]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Locals-burn-Pakistan-flag-protest-escalates-in-PoK-over-rigged-polls/articleshow/53447106.cms

 

NEELAM VALLEY: People in Neelum valley in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on Friday took to the streets to protest against rigged July 21 elections, which was won by Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party.

The PML-N bagged 31 out of the 41 seats up for grabs, while the Muslim Conference and Pakistan People's Party bagged three seats each.

The protesters had to face the police wrath as they burnt Pakistani flag and raised slogans against the government.

Besides blackening election posters, the protesters also burnt tyres, blocked traffic and clashed with the police personnel deployed on duty.

 

 

 

Widespread protests have been witnessed in the major PoK towns, including Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Chinari and Mirpur, after members of the PML (N) killed a supporter of the Muslim Conference (MC) in Muzaffarabad.

 

 

 

Locals allege that the elections in PoK are always fixed in favour of the ruling party in Pakistan, in current instance, for the PML-N.

 

@Asim miya

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, rett said:

What I implied that not all 100M (based on the number that you gave) Pak Punjabis would need to live in Punjab. Much like how not every muslim went to Pak 

Well, not every muslim left his/her home to move to Pakistan, but Punjabi Pakistanis aren't going to move in large numbers because Punjab became independent.

Quote

What is wrong if Sindh would want to profit from Pak Punjab by serving as its gateway? It would be up to the two nations to work that out.  Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, etc. are land locked too and not complaining with their lack of access to sea. Pak Punjab can use the Chabbar port that Ind is building if it likes 

Actually, not having sea access has majorly impeded these nations. Mongolia is right now in the middle of their biggest ever economic crash and that is largely due to lack of sea access. Same with the Stans. 

And like i said, none of them are 100 million people being landlocked.

 

Quote

There is no peace with Pakistan at the moment so I don't know why are you writing as if things are ok at the moment and they will turn bad if Pak is broken up 

 

So just because there is no peace in the region, it is going to get peaceful by making things worse ?  Things will go far worse when you encourage further violence in your immediate backyard.

Quote

 

If Pakistan is broken up. Non Pak Punjab states have an opportunity to prosper. Pak Punjab can be contained too because it is not only up against Ind but also other neighboring "countries" who would want to fight against terrorism. Pak is the epicenter of terrorism because its establishment allow it to flourish. Newly formed states will not allow that and they would also be focused on teething problems of the new nations so there energy could be spent on doing something positive 

 

As you can see, the things that you portray as problems are not big issues

You have no idea of what you are talking about. Pak Punjab won't be contained by making it fight everyone else around it. Most of Pak leadership is Punjabi. If you break their country into many pieces, it won't stop the same Punjabi elites from fomenting terrorism, it will only encourage them further. Newly formed states will add further fuel into the fire and as i said, find me a prosperous country that forments further instability in its border zone, like you propose.

Independent Baluchistan aside, every additional division of Pakistan is to the detriment of India and the immediate neighborhood.

Its naive to think otherwise.

 

[zen]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Well, not every muslim left his/her home to move to Pakistan, but Punjabi Pakistanis aren't going to move in large numbers because Punjab became independent.

Actually, not having sea access has majorly impeded these nations. Mongolia is right now in the middle of their biggest ever economic crash and that is largely due to lack of sea access. Same with the Stans. 

And like i said, none of them are 100 million people being landlocked.

 

So just because there is no peace in the region, it is going to get peaceful by making things worse ?  Things will go far worse when you encourage further violence in your immediate backyard.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. Pak Punjab won't be contained by making it fight everyone else around it. Most of Pak leadership is Punjabi. If you break their country into many pieces, it won't stop the same Punjabi elites from fomenting terrorism, it will only encourage them further. Newly formed states will add further fuel into the fire and as i said, find me a prosperous country that forments further instability in its border zone, like you propose.

Independent Baluchistan aside, every additional division of Pakistan is to the detriment of India and the immediate neighborhood.

Its naive to think otherwise.

 

As I said, there are always pros and cons for almost everything. The problems that you are highlighting are not major issues for me. The benefits that the independent states get out weights the cons in my book

 

There are so many countries that are landlocked including Nepal. There are countries that have access to sea but have nothing much to show. So in the end, it depends upon how the states work an agreement out. It could be like NAFTA

 

If terrorism increases in Pak Punjab, it can be contained through the support of other states. The  borders with it can also be managed more efficiently as Ind would not have to worry that much about incursions coming through Sindh

 

With Kashmir already Ind's and other states independent and going about their own business, there would be not much motivation and support left for the terrorists

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by rett

[Muloghonto]

27 minutes ago, rett said:

As I said, there are always pros and cons for almost everything. The problems that you are highlighting are not major issues for me. The benefits that the independent states get out weights the cons in my book

They most definitely do not in the 'book' of most experts. I've not heard a 'dismemberment of Pakistan is a great idea for regional stability' from any expert source.

Quote

There are so many countries that are landlocked including Nepal. There are countries that have access to sea but have nothing much to show. So in the end, it depends upon how the states work an agreement out. It could be like NAFTA

Nepal is not a muslim majority country where people look to jihadism when things go bad.

Quote

If terrorism increases in Pak Punjab, it can be contained through the support of other states. The  borders with it can also be managed more efficiently as Ind would not have to worry that much about incursions coming through Sindh

this is super-naive. If terrorism increases, then having more or less states in the region matters not a jot. And terrorism does not get curtailed by border differences. Terrorists who use Nepal or Bangladesh as entry points to India are not impeded by the fact that Indian border with pakistan can/would be sealed. They will simply use third party transit to come and go as they please.

 

Quote

With Kashmir already Ind's and other states independent and going about their own business, there would be not much motivation and support left for the terrorists

The fact that they would be poorer due to being landlocked and greater competing political interests (direct consequence of having more nations) would fuel further terrorism.