Role of USA in Kashmir

[Known_Unknown]

Spokesperson of the MEA? Im telling you what the ground position is mate. A few thousands protesting is not mass support. We get hundreds of thousands of protesters in India when there is a bundh call or a protest march or a political rally. 99% dont know why they are there in the first place. So telling that the militants have a big support base is false.

The population of the entire valley is around 4 million. So look at it from that perspective. There are curfews in place far more frequently than in any other place in India. Look, we can live in denial like the Govt has been doing or face up to the reality that Kashmir has become a nuclear flashpoint today, and it is becoming increasingly impractical to mortgage the future of India on the altar of Kashmir.

Kashmir has been treated in India like a holy cow, and any hint of concession is taken to be a sacrilege. Even when we have no hope in hell of capturing PoK short of an all out nuclear war, we are taught that J&K is an "integral part" of India. We cannot allow the pestering problem of Kashmir to prevent our goal of becoming a great power.

If we have to make some concessions, then let it be so-our main security problem will disappear and we will be able to concentrate on growth, like China has been able to do for the past 3 decades.

 

[Yusuf]

And to put down protests.
They wish Kashmir to function as a tourism fed-economy, like Switzerland, free of India or Pakistan.
Its another matter that they don't understand their survival is dependent on India, and they are a strategic point, not going to be given up by any side.

Only violent protests are put down. You dont have curfew everyday nor do you have violent protests everyday. Its obvious that to protect ordinary citizens from the violent protesters, the government will impose curfew.
Also dont forget that the entire state of J&K has been ruled by Kashmiris and that is sign enough of the importance India gives to Kashimiris.

 

[Soham]

The population of the entire valley is around 4 million. So look at it from that perspective. There are curfews in place far more frequently than in any other place in India. Look, we can live in denial like the Govt has been doing or face up to the reality that Kashmir has become a nuclear flashpoint today, and it is becoming increasingly impractical to mortgage the future of India on the altar of Kashmir.

Kashmir has been treated in India like a holy cow, and any hint of concession is taken to be a sacrilege. Even when we have no hope in hell of capturing PoK short of an all out nuclear war, we are taught that J&K is an "integral part" of India. We cannot allow the pestering problem of Kashmir to prevent our goal of becoming a great power.

If we have to make some concessions, then let it be so-our main security problem will disappear and we will be able to concentrate on growth, like China has been able to do for the past 3 decades.

How ?
How can we trust Pakistan to stop all terrorism activities ?
Does India become any less dangerous to Pakistan then ?

 

[Yusuf]

The population of the entire valley is around 4 million. So look at it from that perspective. There are curfews in place far more frequently than in any other place in India. Look, we can live in denial like the Govt has been doing or face up to the reality that Kashmir has become a nuclear flashpoint today, and it is becoming increasingly impractical to mortgage the future of India on the altar of Kashmir.

Kashmir has been treated in India like a holy cow, and any hint of concession is taken to be a sacrilege. Even when we have no hope in hell of capturing PoK short of an all out nuclear war, we are taught that J&K is an "integral part" of India. We cannot allow the pestering problem of Kashmir to prevent our goal of becoming a great power.

If we have to make some concessions, then let it be so-our main security problem will disappear and we will be able to concentrate on growth, like China has been able to do for the past 3 decades.

A few thousands from four million dont constitute mass support.
Its the state of Pakistan that is living in a state of denial mate. We are clear in our views. That India is willing to consider PoK to Pakistan itself is magnanimity on the part of India.
If you know Pakistan well, then even an inch conceded to them will be considered as a victory and a signal to them that now they can get more from India. Then will you consider giving away part of Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat also to them to buy peace?
Pakistan can never be trusted and so either by US pressure or whatever, the only option is for them to keep PoK and stop what they have been doing.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Guys, I'm not saying that the soft border should be unconditional. My proposition is thus:

1) India and Pak governments and Pak Army sign a bilateral agreement affirming that the Kashmir has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. If necessary, involve the leaders of major J&K parties and make it a trilateral agreement.

2) Pak makes international and bilateral commitments to stop export of terror into India.

3) The governments of India and Pak approach the UN, and ask that the UN resolutions on Kashmir be discarded. That way, Pakistan's legal basis for demanding a plebiscite will vanish.

Once this is done, there will be no basis for export of terror, since the Kashmiris, and Pak Army would have publicly accepted the solution.

 

[jackprince]

On the other hand, that would be message to extremists and separatists that if violence and terrorism brought 'freedom' to Kashmir, we could achieve that too. The extremists won't stop and think that India has done anything out of rationale or for a greater goal, to them it will be sign of weakness on part of GoI which should be exploited. And, if it happens you will see how everyone in Pakistan will shout that India has lost and they could claim further territory in another war or covert terrorist war in another part of India.

Also, then China might start another proxy war in AP or other places in North-east.

 

[Yusuf]

Guys, I'm not saying that the soft border should be unconditional. My proposition is thus:

1) India and Pak governments and Pak Army sign a bilateral agreement affirming that the Kashmir has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. If necessary, involve the leaders of major J&K parties and make it a trilateral agreement.

2) Pak makes international and bilateral commitments to stop export of terror into India.

3) The governments of India and Pak approach the UN, and ask that the UN resolutions on Kashmir be discarded. That way, Pakistan's legal basis for demanding a plebiscite will vanish.

Once this is done, there will be no basis for export of terror, since the Kashmiris, and Pak Army would have publicly accepted the solution.

1) Too idealistic isnt it. How do we trust Pakistan? Can we risk doing that and put ourselves in even deeper crisis?

2) Pakistan doesnt know what commitment is.

3) UN resolutions a archaic and are not respected by either side.

 

[Known_Unknown]

On the other hand, that would be message to extremists and separatists that if violence and terrorism brought 'freedom' to Kashmir, we could achieve that too.

Kashmir is disputed territory. There's no question of separatism, Kashmir will still be a part of India.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Like the national security advisor noted during the Amaranth land row,the Hurriyet does have a significant support base,even when in minority that base is vocal and quite visible.Over the years Indian dispensation has actively worked at distancing the Hurriyet from the armed insurgent groups and then succeeded in splitting the Hurriyet between the Moderates and the extremist.

Even if they do admit it in the open and appear quite to the contrary,all the p[layers involved in the Kashmir clearly understand the present phase of demonstration and street activism is primarily organized by the extremist faction led by the Gilani faction.the primary motive of the Gilani faction is to preempt any move by the moderates under Mirwaiz Umar Farooq to open up dialogue with the state or central govt,which was the key reason why the Hurriyat split in the first place.Recently Sajjad Lone one of the key members of the Moderate faction even contested the elections in Kashmir,though the moderates have been fielding proxy candidates in assembly election for some time now.

The Gilani faction is clever at exploiting fractional issues and rally their supporters on to the street,but India will bide its time and so will the moderates.Gilani and their supporters in Kashmir and Pakistan are desperate to retain the edge,but with things in Pakistan being the way they are,it will be only a matter of time before we do a Punjab in Jammu & Kashmir.

P.S:Lot of the discussion is bit off topic.

 

[jackprince]

Pak has been swearing by all their forefathers for last few years that they don't export any kind of terror to India or supports any terrorist organisations etc. Does that mean they don't? They claim that they didn't provide support to Mumbai terrorists. Is that true? Verbal or written commitment doesn't mean anything unless one have the will to see that through. Pakistan can't do that - that would mean a national identity crisis.

 

[Daredevil]

Guys, I'm not saying that the soft border should be unconditional. My proposition is thus:

1) India and Pak governments and Pak Army sign a bilateral agreement affirming that the Kashmir has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. If necessary, involve the leaders of major J&K parties and make it a trilateral agreement.

You are being too naive in believing Pakistan. The problem with Pak is it is not willing to accept anything less than Kashmir because we have their jugular vein as many of their rivers come out of Kashmir. I will be happy with LOC=Permanent IB, but alas, Pakistanis will not stop there.

2) Pak makes international and bilateral commitments to stop export of terror into India.

Pakistan in past and most recently (banning JuD and arresting its leaders, Kargil, ceasefire across LOC, export of terrorism) has made international and bilateral agreements and you can see their fate.

3) The governments of India and Pak approach the UN, and ask that the UN resolutions on Kashmir be discarded. That way, Pakistan's legal basis for demanding a plebiscite will vanish.

Once this is done, there will be no basis for export of terror, since the Kashmiris, and Pak Army would have publicly accepted the solution.

UN resolutions on J&K issue are non-binding, India doesn't give two hoots about this resolution. So, don't worry about them.

 

[Yusuf]

SATA, i know the entire discussion is OT, but I am allowing it as the discussion is pretty healthy on a sensitive topic. Will consider changing the title.

 

[Yusuf]

You are being too naive in believing Pakistan. The problem with Pak is it is not willing to accept anything less than Kashmir because we have their jugular vein as many of their rivers come out of Kashmir. I will be happy with LOC=Permanent IB, but alas, Pakistanis will not stop there.



Pakistan in past and most recently (banning JuD and arresting its leaders, Kargil, ceasefire across LOC, export of terrorism) has made international and bilateral agreements and you can see their fate.



UN resolutions on J&K issue are non-binding, India doesn't give two hoots about this resolution. So, don't worry about them.

Pretty much what i said earlier, but with examples. Thanks.

 

[Known_Unknown]

1) Too idealistic isnt it. How do we trust Pakistan? Can we risk doing that and put ourselves in even deeper crisis?

2) Pakistan doesnt know what commitment is.

3) UN resolutions a archaic and are not respected by either side.

If we can't ever trust anyone, then the issues will continue to linger for another 2 generations, and there will be more mayhem and destruction all around. What for? To keep a piece of land whose residents neither like us nor want us.

This is the problem of the Indian state. We don't know the meaning of the word "territorial concession". The ghost of partition still haunts us and makes it impossible to give up even an inch of our land, even if it means securing a brighter future for the next generation of Indians. Every little territorial concession is taken to be the beginning of a domino effect of separatist movements that will eventually tear us apart.

If we're not confident in our nation building ability 6 decades after independence, we're probably one of the most insecure countries in the world. Countries solve territorial disputes all the time. China and Russia had territorial disputes over which they even went to war, but the resolved them in the 90s or so. In the late 50s, China offered to negotiate an end to the border dispute by letting us keep Arunachal Pradesh in return for Aksai Chin, and Nehru refused. In those times, he might have been excused, as India has just been through partition, but if today, more than 6 decades later, we still won't go of our hard stand, no one can help us.

 

[Mohan]

Talks with Pakistan as always failed will fail again considering the seriousness on the other side of the border. They thrive on hate against India and now they are earning $$$ through black mailing and begging. US is only interested in solving its own problems in the region. This is the time to give it back to them diplomatically that enough is enough please. In my view Pakistan is having a free run here and US is doing all what is asked of it by Pakistan.

 

[Daredevil]

If we can't ever trust anyone, then the issues will continue to linger for another 2 generations, and there will be more mayhem and destruction all around. What for? To keep a piece of land whose residents neither like us nor want us.

When it comes to geo-political or geo-strategic issues, the word 'Trust' doesn't have any value. We have trusted Chinese and even said 'Hindustan-Chini bhai bhai' and also let them have UNSC seat and see where we are and what happened to us and how we are being treated even now by China. We got zero value out of it and indeed we lost many a things as a result.

This is the problem of the Indian state. We don't know the meaning of the word "territorial concession". The ghost of partition still haunts us and makes it impossible to give up even an inch of our land, even if it means securing a brighter future for the next generation of Indians. Every little territorial concession is taken to be the beginning of a domino effect of separatist movements that will eventually tear us apart.

You already answered your question yourself. We don't know what is 'territorial concession' and so we don;t commit to such things.

If we're not confident in our nation building ability 6 decades after independence, we're probably one of the most insecure countries in the world. Countries solve territorial disputes all the time. China and Russia had territorial disputes over which they even went to war, but the resolved them in the 90s or so. In the late 50s, China offered to negotiate an end to the border dispute by letting us keep Arunachal Pradesh in return for Aksai Chin, and Nehru refused. In those times, he might have been excused, as India has just been through partition, but if today, more than 6 decades later, we still won't go of our hard stand, no one can help us.

We are confident in our National building and that is why we have retained all our states despite their vast diversity in culture, language, religion, race etc etc and despite many uprisings in different states be it in Punjab or Mizoram.

Quite recently during ABV regime, China has promised that it will recognize Arunachal as part of Indian if India agrees Tibet is part of China. India has done the favors and is yet to be reciprocated by China. Sorry to say this, you seem to be naive when it comes to geo-political and strategic issues.

 

[Known_Unknown]

We have trusted Chinese and even said 'Hindustan-Chini bhai bhai' and also let them have UNSC seat and see where we are and what happened to us and how we are being treated even now by China. We got zero value out of it and indeed we lost many a things as a result.

Rhetoric may win you popularity contests, but it doesn't resolve disputes. India at that time refused to even acknowledge that there was a dispute, and moved up the Army into territory claimed by China, right upto the Mcmahon line. China insisted throughout the 50s that they did not recognise the border that was unilaterally demarcated by the British, and Nehru chose to ignore them while singing "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai"

And btw, India supported China in its UNSC bid against Taiwan, but then so did a whole lot of other developing countries. And we were never offered a UNSC seat, so no question of giving up ours. That's just a myth.

Quite recently during ABV regime, China has promised that it will recognize Arunachal as part of Indian if India agrees Tibet is part of China. India has done the favors and is yet to be reciprocated by China. Sorry to say this, you seem to be naive when it comes to geo-political and strategic issues.

You're mistaken. The Quid Pro Quo was Sikkim in return for Tibet, and they kept their word.

 

[Yusuf]

If we can't ever trust anyone, then the issues will continue to linger for another 2 generations, and there will be more mayhem and destruction all around. What for? To keep a piece of land whose residents neither like us nor want us.

This is the problem of the Indian state. We don't know the meaning of the word "territorial concession". The ghost of partition still haunts us and makes it impossible to give up even an inch of our land, even if it means securing a brighter future for the next generation of Indians. Every little territorial concession is taken to be the beginning of a domino effect of separatist movements that will eventually tear us apart.

If we're not confident in our nation building ability 6 decades after independence, we're probably one of the most insecure countries in the world. Countries solve territorial disputes all the time. China and Russia had territorial disputes over which they even went to war, but the resolved them in the 90s or so. In the late 50s, China offered to negotiate an end to the border dispute by letting us keep Arunachal Pradesh in return for Aksai Chin, and Nehru refused. In those times, he might have been excused, as India has just been through partition, but if today, more than 6 decades later, we still won't go of our hard stand, no one can help us.

Mate you have to understand that the State of Pakistan and its rulers survive on being anti India. And with its military and intelligence filled with extremists, it will not stop even if we give away a further half of Kashmir that we have. They will crop up more issues. Probably claim Hyderabad and Junagadh as well.

 

[johnee]

Frankly, I am astonished by this suggestion to give concessions to Pak. What exactly has Pak done so far for us to give them these concessions? Most probably these concessions will be interpretted as sign of our weakness. Mind you the terrorists that are fighting for 'freedom of Kashmiris' have now mutated themselves into a force that wants to establish 'Islamic rule' all over India(and world), so givingup Kashmir(or even New Delhi) will not solve any problem. We would then commit the same mistake which the Paks did by having a peace deal in Swat.......

India is in advantageous position rightnow, we need to maintain the status quo. Others and that includes US will try to bring us down from that position(becoz that is against their geo-political interests). I highly doubt the role of US here. US is aware that Pak is anti-Indian force and will remain so forever. US has just used it to bring India under some influence. Without Pak's presence or threat, India would be considerably free from any US' influence. That would mean that US would lose this region to India and China.......

 

[tharikiran]

You are being too naive in believing Pakistan. The problem with Pak is it is not willing to accept anything less than Kashmir because we have their jugular vein as many of their rivers come out of Kashmir. I will be happy with LOC=Permanent IB, but alas, Pakistanis will not stop there.



Pakistan in past and most recently (banning JuD and arresting its leaders, Kargil, ceasefire across LOC, export of terrorism) has made international and bilateral agreements and you can see their fate.



UN resolutions on J&K issue are non-binding, India doesn't give two hoots about this resolution. So, don't worry about them.

Totally agree with captain here. Can't trust the Pakistani's. You give them Kashmir, they will ask for the rest of India. We have come so far without being a permanent member of the security council. What drastic powers does it give us other than vetoing sometimes.....

Better to control the rivers. Keeps them in check. And I strongly believe India should never allow any other country to interfere in Kashmir.