What to do with Kashmir ?

[ravishingravi]

Please avoid any kind abuse or allegations ( to th extent possible ). How do we solve this issue ? Obviously whether we like it or not, we will have to talk with Pakistan. To my mind, the region has become a problem for India even though I know a section would want to be a part of India simply because they see greater opportunities for growth. But there are sever issues with how CRPF has dealt with the situation there. So should we go back to the UN resolution ? Some say that resolution has been invalidated. Or should we do another partition. PS Mods this is tricky issue and there could be hate mongering. Please take care of it

[Prakat]

firsties.

[ganeshran]

The LOC needs to be converted to the international border. That is the only possible solution on Kashmir. I dont see all three countries - India, China and Pakistan allowing a new independent nation in one of the most strategically important areas. If a nation is formed, it will again become a site of proxy war between India and Pakistan.

[Stuge]

We have already dicussed this several times .Our discussion won't make LOC into International border .Even though I agree thats only solution.

[Asim]

Could there be any better solution than asking Kashmiris themselves what they want...

[yoda]

India should give it up to Pakistan so that we can see what their next excuse for terrorism is.

[cricfan001]

Pakistan over the years, specially during Zia's period turned Madrassas into employment centres for Jihadis to fight in Kashmir, similar to the way they have done in Soviet Union. The minds of these "jihadi" people are indoctrinated with afterlife "pleasures" and they are doing everything possible to create havoc in Kashmir. It is a great psychological boost for them to create massacres with impunity as they are brainwashed with afterlife pleasures. I agree even our security forces have committed some of the atrocities but everyone will agree that the increase in the security forces in Kashmir happened only after cross-border sponsored terrorism took its a dangerous fold in the late 1980s onwards. Why no one talks about the atrocities committed to the resident Hindu community during these years, they were driven out of their homes and took refugee in Delhi and other neighboring states. The media does not highlight this because it is "pseudo secular", who are happy to highlight selective atrocities. Coming to resolving Kashmir, yes LOC could be a solution for everlasting peace but I highly doubt even after this Pakistan would stop its activities. India should not never abandon Kashmir, already we have suffered enough through all these centuries through our meek attitude. All ravaging armies from parts as far as Greece/Mongol/Afghan/British/Dutch/French/Portuges and what not, came here and plundered here, why because we were meek and we thought in "Peace for everyone and universal brotherhood". But, these centuries have taught a valuable lesson for us, no matter what "Your national interests" are paramount and nothing comes before that. We still espouse "universal brotherhood" but will respond back forcefully, when others try to disturb our nation through terrorist activities. "Religion" as a strategic asset has become indoctrinated in Pakistani establishment be it ISI/Military. Also, one of the other problems I see here is, the "muslim ummah"/"muslim brotherhood" concept espoused by all muslim nations, this concept is again dangerous for any sovereign nation. The simple reason being it creates pan-nationalism among muslim nations and creates dangerous situation for the neighbours who are "non-muslim". Do you ever realise, why all muslim nations always try to meddle in internal affairs of far-off countries which have got nothing to do with them? They meddle in the affairs, when they see their "muslim ummah" in those conflicts. So, is it not a dangerous precedent being set already, wherein instead of fighting for "universal justice" or "universal brotherhood", these muslim nations are restricting themselves to their "religious affiliation"?. We can only hope to have peace with Pakistan, if it genuinely turns itself into a liberal and secular society in the lines of Turkey and stops using "religion" as a state sponsored weapon against Indian state. Until, this is resolved in Pakistani society no matter what, Pakistan would continue to foment terror in India.

[Asim]

^ so now "muslim ummah" became a problem for you :) The fact is muslim countries have gone far far away from this concept, I wonder how would you have responded if reallly the true concept of Muslim Ummah gets implemented or restored today like it was before 1920s. Today it hardly even touches its true soul and concept bro

[cricfan001]

dear asim, please tell me why is that muslims only respond to conflicts in far off lands, only when muslims are involved? Is it not because of "muslim brotherhood"?. Is it not true that muslim nations try to meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations either directly or indirectly via proxies, when muslims are involved? I leave to your conscience to come up yourself with honest answers. If there was a concern for universal justice and universal brotherhood, then I would be the first to support that, but in my view any concerted support just based on religion or sect is narrow and would create more problems in the world. The concept of "muslim ummah" has faded now because other non-muslim countries are more vigilant and also some muslim countries like Turkey etc., have drastically changed their attitude and gone to liberal and secular way by educating their masses properly. But, make no doubt it will arise again, when these "jihadi" terrorist outfits are continually given sanctuary and support by these fundamentalist states, who use them as a strategic asset against an enemy. Muslim nations should learn justice and liberalism is a two way process, once they start responding positively to non-muslims, then rest of the world would recognise their positive intentions. Till that time, rest of the non-muslim nations should remain vigilant and ensure their safety from these brainwashed "Jihadis", who have nothing to lose even if they create deadly consequences for innocents either muslim/non-muslim. I would definitely worry, if the state uses religion as a tool for creating havoc and hatred between people. Religion is for person's spiritual development and not a tool to be used for either a direct war/ proxy war. As I said in one of the posts earlier, mainstream religious leaders in Pakistan should come out and issue statements denouncing these "Jihadis". Also, not only denouncing in statements but implementing that in spirit, would have lasting peace with India. Till that time peace with Pakistan is a dream only. Anyway, it is always better to live with hope rather become hopeless. I would love and hope for peace but not at the cost of losing my nation's personal interests.

[Asim]

dear asim, please tell me why is that muslims only respond to conflicts in far off lands, only when muslims are involved? Is it not because of "muslim brotherhood"?. Is it not true that muslim nations try to meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations either directly or indirectly via proxies, when muslims are involved? I leave to your conscience to come up yourself with honest answers. If there was a concern for universal justice and universal brotherhood, then I would be the first to support that, but in my view any concerted support just based on religion or sect is narrow and would create more problems in the world. The concept of "muslim ummah" has faded now because other non-muslim countries are more vigilant and also some muslim countries like Turkey etc., have drastically changed their attitude and gone to liberal and secular way by educating their masses properly. But, make no doubt it will arise again, when these "jihadi" terrorist outfits are continually given sanctuary and support by these fundamentalist states, who use them as a strategic asset against an enemy. Muslim nations should learn justice and liberalism is a two way process, once they start responding positively to non-muslims, then rest of the world would recognise their positive intentions. Till that time, rest of the non-muslim nations should remain vigilant and ensure their safety from these brainwashed "Jihadis", who have nothing to lose even if they create deadly consequences for innocents either muslim/non-muslim. I would definitely worry, if the state uses religion as a tool for creating havoc and hatred between people. Religion is for person's spiritual development and not a tool to be used for either a direct war/ proxy war. As I said in one of the posts earlier, mainstream religious leaders in Pakistan should come out and issue statements denouncing these "Jihadis". Also, not only denouncing in statements but implementing that in spirit, would have lasting peace with India. Till that time peace with Pakistan is a dream only. Anyway, it is always better to live with hope rather become hopeless. I would love and hope for peace but not at the cost of losing my nation's personal interests.

Bro! you have very much rightly pointed out that why Muslims only responds to any conflicts in far-off lands, fair enough but have you ever tried to thought other way around, the problem you told is EFFECT, try to find the CAUSE which lies in other side of picture. It’s true that Muslims react together in some far-off land issue that is because that far-off land directly targets Islam in each incident. Suppose any killing by some Mr John or Tom in USA will always be one incident within that individual and got nothing to do with his religion but if same crime is committed by any Muslim; it will be a breaking news that a MUSLIM terrorists did blah blah and the religion of Islam will be declared responsible in that incident.... so tell me why the Muslim people and states from far far off lands will not object when their whole religion is blamed for any individual act. No matter if it is one person or one organization is involved, as long as they will try to deal with "ISLAM" instead of only those particular responsible object, you will continue getting this type of reaction which is very obvious. In short, muslims reacts tgether because muslims and their religion gets targeted together from other nations and in each corner of world.

[cricfan001]

I agree Asim on your sentiments that no religion should be branded on a whole. But, we should realise these type of brandings of muslims heightened only after 9/11. These terrorists do inhumane crimes in the name of "Islam" and in turn malign their religion. Taking last 10 years into account, can you honestly name any other terrorist outfit in the world, which has caused so much destruction and havoc in so many parts of the world by invoking the name of the "religion" for its dastardly acts. Again, in my view, once muslims start to look at themselves inwardly, then I'm sure most of the problems would be solved. Is it not true that most muslim nations treat their minority communities with impunity ? Is it not true that most muslim nations do not harbor secularism/liberalism? As I said above, to me justice and brotherhood is a two way process, it is like give and take. When you only demand for taking and not ready to give, then conflicts are bound to arise. In medieval times, Christians too used to run crusades but times have changed and there no such crusades. Once you separate religion from the state and embed only in the minds, then only world would be at peace, else these terrorists will commit crimes continuously. Believe me, if muslim nations start giving their masses real education instead of madrassa related hate education and once they start adopting liberal/secular methods of life, there will be lesser conflicts in this world and most of us would be at peace.

[yoda]

No matter if it is one person or one organization is involved, as long as they will try to deal with "ISLAM" instead of only those particular responsible object, you will continue getting this type of reaction which is very obvious. In short, muslims reacts tgether because muslims and their religion gets targeted together from other nations and in each corner of world.

You very well know that is not true. 1. US drove Saddam out of Kuwait - from one Muslim country to another and OBL starts a war cause US was polluting Mecca and Medina 2. US went after AQ terrorists (not all muslims everywhere in the world) in AFG and OBL becomes a hero in the Muslim world WTF?

[ravishingravi]

Could there be any better solution than asking Kashmiris themselves what they want...

Say 40% want to go with India and 40% want to go with Pakistan and rest want an independent state, what will you do.

[someone]

Again you cannot fix a symptom that is Kashmir. Kashmir is and never will be the "real" problem. Anyone who thinks even after if Kashmir issue is settled with what Pakistan completely wants (which really actually could happen given our incompetent and coward government in near future sadly),and still think that there will be no more conflicts about India is completely wrong. The issue is about religion and not Kashmir.

[achilles]

Kashmir was granted to India with the same document with which we granted land to Pakistan. So before questioning Kashmir, Pakistan should question its own existence

Some panel member on Times Now :D

[triam]

Asim, Let me ask you a simple question A lot of Pakistanis repeat this statement "Why not do what the people living in Kashmir want?", from a democratic stand point it is a commendable view. But my question to you would be "Will you recommend the same thing for people in Baloch and NWFP?" or if someone not Pakistani suggests that as a solution you will respond with "It is an internal issue to Pakistan?" P.S. This is not to state that there is no problem with Kashmir and India has to seriously think hard about how to solve it. But I find the attitude of most Pakistani duplicitous and hypocritical when they say "Why not let Kashmiris decide?"

[Asim]

Asim, Let me ask you a simple question A lot of Pakistanis repeat this statement "Why not do what the people living in Kashmir want?", from a democratic stand point it is a commendable view. But my question to you would be "Will you recommend the same thing for people in Baloch and NWFP?" or if someone not Pakistani suggests that as a solution you will respond with "It is an internal issue to Pakistan?" P.S. This is not to state that there is no problem with Kashmir and India has to seriously think hard about how to solve it. But I find the attitude of most Pakistani duplicitous and hypocritical when they say "Why not let Kashmiris decide?"

Ans is simple, did you ever found a single Pakistani asking India to poll people of say Gujrat, Bihar, Assam or Manipur to ask what they want? No... same way you cant compare NWFP and Balochistan with Kashmir in this issue because Kashmir is called a "disputed area" and honestly speaking personally I would like ANY... PEACEFUL solution and you can understand it wont be possible unless you dont take people of Kashmir themselves on board...

[Asim]

Say 40% want to go with India and 40% want to go with Pakistan and rest want an independent state' date=' what will you do.[/quote'] Good ASSUMPTION... but at least let it happen first...

[ganeshran]

Gujrat and Bihar dont have any secessionist movements. Assam and Manipur do have some level of secessionist sentiments but if you hold a referendum, majority will still prefer to stay with India. Kashmir wouldnt even have been with India if Pakistan had not started the tribal invasion of 1948. Maharaja Hari Singh was looking for a way to stay independent and not accede to either India or Pakistan. But to pressurize him, Pakistan organized its military and some militia and invaded J&K. Hari singh's forces were too little to resist Pak forces, so he asked India to help. Indian government refused to send in troops without the state acceding to India first, which Hari Singh reluctantly agreed to. It was then the Indian army set foot in Kashmir and took control of what is Indian administered Kashmir today. There was a UN resolution demanding Pakistan to withdraw its forces (which was summarily ignored) Meanwhile Pakistan handed over control of 1/5 th of Kashmir to China (Aksai Chin) bringing in one more party to the already crowded conflict. My solution is for Kashmiris to have complete administrative autonomy in the region with their elected representatives making decisions for them. The visible security forces should be cut down in the cities. However the army presence in the border areas should not be reduced. The local government can take charge of all decisions except defense and foreign policy.

[Sachin=GOD]

Gujrat and Bihar dont have any secessionist movements. Assam and Manipur do have some level of secessionist sentiments but if you hold a referendum, majority will still prefer to stay with India. Kashmir wouldnt even have been with India if Pakistan had not started the tribal invasion of 1948. Maharaja Hari Singh was looking for a way to stay independent and not accede to either India or Pakistan. But to pressurize him, Pakistan organized its military and some militia and invaded J&K. Hari singh's forces were too little to resist Pak forces, so he asked India to help. Indian government refused to send in troops without the state acceding to India first, which Hari Singh reluctantly agreed to. It was then the Indian army set foot in Kashmir and took control of what is Indian administered Kashmir today. There was a UN resolution demanding Pakistan to withdraw its forces (which was summarily ignored) Meanwhile Pakistan handed over control of 1/5 th of Kashmir to China (Aksai Chin) bringing in one more party to the already crowded conflict. My solution is for Kashmiris to have complete administrative autonomy in the region with their elected representatives making decisions for them. The visible security forces should be cut down in the cities. However the army presence in the border areas should not be reduced. The local government can take charge of all decisions except defense and foreign policy.

AFAIK the state Govt in Kashmir already enjoys many privileges that other Govt don't have. And there won't be any "administrative autonomy" as such if the army presence is maintained as it is (of course I am in favor of army still being there) and complete administrative autonomy would still not solve the age old problem - Pakistan will still say "Kashmir hamara hai'. This thing has to be solved one way or the other and sitting on the fence is no longer an option.