Role of USA in Kashmir

[johnee]

There can be only two resolutions to the Kashmir issue.
The ideal one is that India gets back PoK which is rightfully ours. But then thats the idealistic scenario. We know Pakistan is not going to hand it back. Winning it militarily is not an option and cannot be achieved. Not that I am doubting our forces, but then its not feasible as I have learnt from many army pros.

The second is that the status quo remains and the LoC be converted to a permanent boundary as controlled right now including Siachen.
This option will not be acceptable to Pakistan as it just wants more land from us. We have already lost a third to them and will not handover anymore. So if the US wants to resolve this for Pakistan, then it has to pressure Pakistan into accepting status quo and stop all forms of terrorism against India.
Anything other than that is unacceptable for India.

Yusuf,
why should we even commit ourselves to making LOC as IB? For all practical purposes, LOC is IB and we maintain the status quo. POK may not be achievable now, but who knows about the future. In another decade, if Pak can survive, they would be considerably weaker and we would be much more stronger. And if we have Kashmiris endorsing India's claim, then we can even try to take over POK........

India should not make any concession from its current position: 'Jammu and Kashmir(including POK) is an integral part of India'.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Yusuf,

The option I'm proposing pretty much makes the LoC into a border, but a "soft" border. The Pakistanis would want some kind of face saving concession for turning the LoC into a border, and this is an acceptable one. In fact, something similar was being discussed between Indian and Pak officials in 2007 before the talks were postponed, and they were apparently, "very close to clinching a deal" and solving the issue once and for all.

Ideally, we can dream about having all of J&K, but that will simply not happen. In fact, over 6 decades, Kashmiris have become more and more opposed to Indian rule, and the trend does not seem to reverse anytime soon. We can either use heavy handed tactics to force them to be part of India or use this US suggestion to our advantage, and get a solution that will be favourable to all parties involved.

As soon as the Pak army stops supporting the terrorists, and moves actively against them, they will be finished. The same thing happened in the late 80's when the Pak army decided to stop supporting Khalistani terrorists, and the movement died out within a few years.

Also, once we manage to convince the Kashmiris that such a solution is the best one for them, they themselves will resist the terrorists, and without popular support, a militancy cannot sustain itself and will die a natural death.

 

[Arjak]

i doubt the people of pok anymore wants to be part of india.So,is forcing pok to be a part of india an option??? ofcourse we can get the land back,which is an integral part of india,but can we get it back without the people i mentioned?? i fear more bloodshed in the valley,if that occurs.

 

[Yusuf]

As long as Pakistan doesn't control Indian Kashmir, I think we can have a number of solutions that can make such a deal possible.

What about this: Kashmir is demilitarised. Pakistan does the same on its side. Residents of the whole of J&K are free to travel anywhere and settle anywhere within J&K. They are also granted dual citizenships of both India and Pak.

In return, the PA and government officially give up claims on Indian Kashmir and vice versa, and the two army chiefs publicly sign an agreement to that effect. They also abolish all the terrorist training camps.

For this concession, the US publicly assures India of its support in the UNSC.

Its not an acceptable solution for India. One, we cannot trust the Pakistanis to stay quiet and let Kashmir be free. The only way to ensure that is to have UN/International Peacekeepers and in no way will India ever allow that to happen.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

i fully endorse the point thrown in by paaji (singh) of not letting pakistan off the hook to what ever extent they have been hooked, though with hafees saeeds's allowed to roam free puts a question mark on whether we even have them slightly by the hook. under obama the real interest of the us is to make sure that india and pakistan are back on the dialog table so that their fear of this region being a nuclear flash point does not come true and before that make sure the indian troops on the border move back to their pre 26/11 positions, so that they can continue their own interests in the afpak region. one can not see where are the indian interests being taken care of in all this, and from the looks of it the mms lead government looks all too keen to oblige on the same, its not even been a month to their forming this government and rumor mills are full of news of mms-zardari expected meet in russia on the side lines of sco meet. looking at the larger picture i can not understand why our troops still hold on the positions where they are presently, because from the looks of it, this government looks the last one which would militarily hit those terror training camps in pok and pak punjab, then why this drama. there is a clear lack of clarity of what to do next and i am damn sure that in another 3-6 months from now we will be talking to pakistan as if no 26/11 happened and our troops would have been moved to pre 26/11 positions.

this government should be very clear, if they want to hit those terror camps then they should do it and make sure pakistan repents for daring to do a 26/11 or if they have no balls to do that, then move the troops back and provide pakistan the political space that they are so desperate for right away than do it in another few months. while moving those troops back india should also officially announce that we are a soft state and it makes no difference to us if we are battered left, right and center for the only thing we will do is posturing and nothing more because an indian life is just too cheap.

 

[Singh]

As long as Pakistan doesn't control Indian Kashmir, I think we can have a number of solutions that can make such a deal possible.

India claims not only the Kashmir under "our control" but also occupied Kashmir. Our policy is that Kashmir belongs to legally, but we are willing to concede occupied lands to occupiers in interest of regional peace.

What about this: Kashmir is demilitarised. Pakistan does the same on its side. Residents of the whole of J&K are free to travel anywhere and settle anywhere within J&K. They are also granted dual citizenships of both India and Pak.In return, the PA and government officially give up claims on Indian Kashmir and vice versa, and the two army chiefs publicly sign an agreement to that effect. They also abolish all the terrorist training camps.

Kashmir was demilitarised from 1950 uptil 1989. When the terrorists first came and drove out all the Kashmiri Pandits.

Prior to late 80s, many Pakistanis used to cross over to Kashmir in the summer to be employed in tourism sector. My uncles learnt horse riding in Kashmir from a Pakistani for eg.

Punjabi-Dogri-Kashmiris of PoK are extremists, and will never let a non-Sunni muslim resident of Kashmir in their territory. And all will face intense discrimination in India and Pak. As it is, India is taking decades to grant Pakistani refugees citizenship of India, those refugees who willingly came to India.

Such agreements have been signed before, UNSC resolutions, Simla Agreement 1972, and at the time there were no terrorists too.

For this concession, the US publicly assures India of its support in the UNSC.

We had already given such concessions earlier and they came to bite us later. In 65, 84 and presently through an ongoing proxy-war nee terrorism.

Good fences with an army fastidious in guarding makes good neighbours in the subcontinent

 

[Yusuf]

Yusuf,

The option I'm proposing pretty much makes the LoC into a border, but a "soft" border. The Pakistanis would want some kind of face saving concession for turning the LoC into a border, and this is an acceptable one. In fact, something similar was being discussed between Indian and Pak officials in 2007 before the talks were postponed, and they were apparently, "very close to clinching a deal" and solving the issue once and for all.

Ideally, we can dream about having all of J&K, but that will simply not happen. In fact, over 6 decades, Kashmiris have become more and more opposed to Indian rule, and the trend does not seem to reverse anytime soon. We can either use heavy handed tactics to force them to be part of India or use this US suggestion to our advantage, and get a solution that will be favourable to all parties involved.

As soon as the Pak army stops supporting the terrorists, and moves actively against them, they will be finished. The same thing happened in the late 80's when the Pak army decided to stop supporting Khalistani terrorists, and the movement died out within a few years.

Also, once we manage to convince the Kashmiris that such a solution is the best one for them, they themselves will resist the terrorists, and without popular support, a militancy cannot sustain itself and will die a natural death.

We are not going to give the Pakistanis any face savers after what they have done to us in the last six decades.

Please give me your source which states that Kashmiris dont like Indian rule. The recent elections show that they are very much interested in India. Dont get into voter turnouts as that is influenced by boycotts and terror threats. But in general the Kashmiris know that they are better off with India than Pakistan and they even know that even independence is not a sustainable option for them.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Kashmir was demilitarised from 1950 uptil 1989. When the terrorists first came and drove out all the Kashmiri Pandits.

Prior to late 80s, many Pakistanis used to cross over to Kashmir in the summer to be employed in tourism sector. My uncles learnt horse riding in Kashmir from a Pakistani for eg.

Punjabi-Dogri-Kashmiris of PoK are extremists, and will never let a non-Sunni muslim resident of Kashmir in their territory. And all will face intense discrimination in India and Pak. As it is, India is taking decades to grant Pakistani refugees citizenship of India, those refugees who willingly came to India to escape the harsh treatment there.

Such an agreement was signed, Simla Agreement 1972, and at the time there were no terrorists too.

Singh,

What I'm proposing is essentially an "official" open border between PoK and Indian Kashmir, with some added benefits thrown in for residents of J&K. In the past whatever may have happened, but Kashmir was still disputed territory. Once the governments of both India and Pakistan as well as the Pakistan Army make this a "signed and sealed" deal, there shouldn't be any more problems.

The next step would be for both parties to go to the UN and affirm that a final solution has been agreed upon, and that the relevant UN resolutions should be stricken. Once that is done, Pak's basis of argument for all these years will also evaporate.

 

[jackprince]

Known,
Ideally, a soft border may solve the problem. But nothing is ideal in Indo-Pak relationship. Pakistan may withdraw it's forces, but the soft-border would be a free haven for 'jihadis' to enter India and commit terroist act deep inside. We, Indians, don't and shouldn't take the chance of trusting Pakistan ever. The Kashmiris always had the chance to actively oppose terrorists, but most of the time they didn't and as a result they suffered. Also, in Kashmir, may be minority but quite a no. of people have been supporting Indian govt. for a long time, doing this sort of act will be betrayal to them too, not only to the troops and pundits who suffered. Also, will this soft border ensure that pundits could return without any fear of persecution? Others may forget, but we Indians must not that Kashmir is not for the Muslim inhabitants only, but it belongs to Pundits too. Thousands have died to protect it, it is our govt/'s responsibilty to ensure that they didn't sacrifice in vain.

But I think converting LoC into international border might be good move. This issue has to be solved, and IB is a good solution. I bet none in POK would like to be part of India anyway, why should we drag it?

btw, who the heck is US to dictate or even propose what we do in Kashmir or elsewhere in our country, when they themselves are occupying other countries? India had never been pawn to any super-power, and it shouldn't be. US might support India's bid to UNSC, but if it supports China or some other is bound to veto it. Also, UNSC has long lost it's importance.

 

[Yusuf]

Yusuf,
why should we even commit ourselves to making LOC as IB? For all practical purposes, LOC is IB and we maintain the status quo. POK may not be achievable now, but who knows about the future. In another decade, if Pak can survive, they would be considerably weaker and we would be much more stronger. And if we have Kashmiris endorsing India's claim, then we can even try to take over POK........

India should not make any concession from its current position: 'Jammu and Kashmir(including POK) is an integral part of India'.

We cannot have terrorism in our country for the next ten years. Nor can we wait for Pakistan to fall into the hands of the extremists. That will be worse as then there will not be even a remote possibility of any resolution. We need to get it done before all that happens so that we are secure with what ever we have.

 

[S.A.T.A]

The concession that shaffer is talking about are not essentially something that benefits Pakistan,it basically entails India could be encouraged to take steps that would allow America to effectively counter Pakistani position that the its border on the east is too sensitive to allow redeployment of forces concentrated on the indian border to the NWFP.

If Token withdrawal of offensive forces or resumption of stalled talks and CBM's is what is being envisaged,in return for a UNSC seat, then it must be given a serious hearing.

These concessions can be withdrawn at anytime in the future,but not a permanent UNSC seat.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Please give me your source which states that Kashmiris dont like Indian rule. The recent elections show that they are very much interested in India. Dont get into voter turnouts as that is influenced by boycotts and terror threats. But in general the Kashmiris know that they are better off with India than Pakistan and they even know that even independence is not a sustainable option for them.

Yusuf,

Don't be a spokesman of the MEA. I know what India's official position is, but let's be honest here, there have been mass demonstrations in Kashmir against Indian security forces for the past 2 years, and militancy raging for the past 20. Let's not forget, the original armed uprising in Kashmir was an indigenous one, and it was later that Pak started supporting terror groups too. Kashmiri separatist leaders of various factions enjoy mass support and are able to rally people for the cause of "Kashmiri liberation". There have been human rights abuses by the security forces and some more by the militants.

Even now, every day there are protests and curfews in place. The media coverage makes it seem like Kashmir is under siege, and commoners in hundreds and thousands turn up for anti-India rallies at the drop of a hat.

 

[Yusuf]

But I think converting LoC into international border might be good move. This issue has to be solved, and IB is a good solution. I bet none in POK would like to be part of India anyway, why should we drag it?

I would not be sure of that. The common people living in the PoK have a dogs life. No rights as Pakistanis. They cant even protest there. Whatever happens is crushed and it doesnt even appear in the media. Do you know that Gilgit Baltistan has a movement against Pakistani occupation? It might not be to favor India, but it sure doesnt want to be part of Pakistan.
People know that the Kashmiris in India have rights, and special ones at that under constitutional amendments. They know they will have freedom in India.

 

[Yusuf]

Yusuf,

Don't be a spokesman of the MEA. I know what India's official position is, but let's be honest here, there have been mass demonstrations in Kashmir against Indian security forces for the past 2 years, and militancy raging for the past 20. Let's not forget, the original armed uprising in Kashmir was an indigenous one, and it was later that Pak started supporting terror groups too. Kashmiri separatist leaders of various factions enjoy mass support and are able to rally people for the cause of "Kashmiri liberation". There have been human rights abuses by the security forces and some more by the militants.

Even now, every day there are protests and curfews in place. The media coverage makes it seem like Kashmir is under siege, and commoners in hundreds and thousands turn up for anti-India rallies at the drop of a hat.

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.
They did have once upon a time when there were indeginous Kashmiris fighting. All that was lost when foreign mercenaries took up the fighting.
There have been human rights abuses, but the thing is that because India is a free country you know about it through the media. Ever heard of that from the PoK where the people of Gilgit Baltistan are subjected to a lot of abuses?

 

[Known_Unknown]

Ideally, a soft border may solve the problem. But nothing is ideal in Indo-Pak relationship. Pakistan may withdraw it's forces, but the soft-border would be a free haven for 'jihadis' to enter India and commit terroist act deep inside. We, Indians, don't and shouldn't take the chance of trusting Pakistan ever. The Kashmiris always had the chance to actively oppose terrorists, but most of the time they didn't and as a result they suffered. Also, in Kashmir, may be minority but quite a no. of people have been supporting Indian govt. for a long time, doing this sort of act will be betrayal to them too, not only to the troops and pundits who suffered. Also, will this soft border ensure that pundits could return without any fear of persecution? Others may forget, but we Indians must not that Kashmir is not for the Muslim inhabitants only, but it belongs to Pundits too. Thousands have died to protect it, it is our govt/'s responsibilty to ensure that they didn't sacrifice in vain.

JP,

I'm not saying that there should be no security in the state. It is still going to be part of India. Indian Kashmir could be allowed to raise its own paramilitary force composed of Kashmiris, but funded and equipped by the central government, with the key commanders being Indian army personnel. If terrorists strike after the deal, then they will lose mass support for their cause, and they will be chased and hounded out of their hideouts like what's happening in the NWFP to the Taliban right now. Take a look:

Pakistan sends gunships to support anti-Taliban militia - Yahoo! News

Pakistan's military sent helicopter gunships to a northwest region Tuesday to support armed villagers who have risen up against Taliban to avenge a deadly mosque blast, an official said.

Hundreds of tribesmen in Upper Dir district took up arms Saturday, a day after 38 people were killed in a mosque suicide bombing there, and have stormed villages where extremists are holed up killing 14 fighters, the army has said.

The militia -- known locally as a lashkar -- were on Tuesday surrounding Shatkas and Ghazigai villages, where militants are believed to be hiding.

And I'm sure the pandits will be welcomed back in Kashmir. Every major leader in Kashmir, whether he be from a political party or the separatists has voiced support for the proposal. The only necessary thing for this to happen is the end of the export of terror from the Pak side.

 

[F-14]

Article 370 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Soham]

I would not be sure of that. The common people living in the PoK have a dogs life. No rights as Pakistanis. They cant even protest there. Whatever happens is crushed and it doesnt even appear in the media. Do you know that Gilgit Baltistan has a movement against Pakistani occupation? It might not be to favor India, but it sure doesnt want to be part of Pakistan.
People know that the Kashmiris in India have rights, and special ones at that under constitutional amendments. They know they will have freedom in India.

Well technically, even the Indian part of Kashmir is on curfew most of the time and the Indian Kashmiris aren't allowed to protest either.

To understand their sentiments, you need to talk to them. When I did, they were quite clear in their perspective. They have no love for India, even lesser love for Pakistan. They just want to be left alone as a separate country. They called us "Indian" and "Hindustanis"... quite dissapointing to hear that in one's own country, but well, such is life.

On the topic, I would say that we shouldn't soften our stand on Kashmir. Britain, France and Russia are already support our bid. The Chinese promised non-interference (a bit skeptical about this), which leaves us with the US. I'm sure they'll crack under eventual pressure from our supporters everytime this issue rises.
Secondly, I don't believe that we should give up Kashmir for a UNSC seat. The free border theory won't work because Pakistan will continue a covert support for terrorism. An open border would be a bliss for the Jehadi-influx.
Thirdly, history has clearly shown us who the aggressor is, and a military withdrawal can be expensive in the future should the PA decides to carry out another misadventure. A chunk of land lost, if not recovered by the time the world steps in, can tilt the diplomatic tables their way.

 

[jackprince]

Even with a million troops securing the LoC, again and again the terrorists enter India through LoC. Just imagine how easy it would be to enter with only BSF and Paramilitary forces' gurding thousands of miles of border on that kind of difficult terrain. Also, if 'soft border' means people from POK can come and go with little difficulty, who will screen them?

 

[Yusuf]

Well technically, even the Indian part of Kashmir is on curfew most of the time and the Indian Kashmiris aren't allowed to protest either.

To understand their sentiments, you need to talk to them. When I did, they were quite clear in their perspective. They have no love for India, even lesser love for Pakistan. They just want to be left alone as a separate country. They referred to us as "Indian" and "Hindustanis"... quite dissapointing to hear that in one's own country, but well, such is life.

Curfew in ordered to maintain law and order.
There is a problem there and that is accepted by one and all. But what is the support level. The local people may hate India and Pakistan, but they too know that independence has long gone out of the window. They know they can get a better life with India rather than Pakistan.

 

[Soham]

Curfew in ordered to maintain law and order.

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.