[Reader-list] Kashmir

[junaid]

Dear Shivam, 

I am as curious as you are to know how many people in Kashmir want statehood. It is for this reason a plebiscite should be conducted. Not the one which UN suggested, but something that gives people a lot more choices. Choices like: More integration with India (Removal of Art. 370 etc.), More Autonomy within India (like the pre-1953 status), Joint Governance (Both India and Pakistan decide, along with Kashmiris), Total Accession to Pakistan, Autonomy within Pakistan, or Total Independence and Integration of Two Kashmirs. 

A recent poll conducted by Indian Express and CSDS in India, Pakistan and Kashmir came up with a generally-known fact that most people (it said 87 percent) in Kashmir want independence. Even if we assume a five to ten percent margin of error, the aspiration for Independence seems overwhelming. In the referendum in French-speaking Quebec region of Canada, for its independence, the new state could not come into being just because it lost by a couple of percent of votes. The European Constitution lost by a thin margin in the French referendum two years back. May be India might get lucky in Kashmir.

Across the border there are a number of organizations which seek Independence and Integration. But if they want to remain in Pakistan they should be free to do so. A referendum there would answer our questions.

On staying neutral etc. I would say even if Kashmir does not stay neutral, is it an adequate argument to deny its people their rights. The neutrality logic works like in Preventive Detention. At least, there are some people who are kept in preventive custody for they may have a bad record, but Kashmir has not even been given a chance.

Junaid

***********************************  

Shivam Vij wrote: 

Dear Junaid,

Your arguments are well taken. The excuses that you list often do sound
excuses to deny Kashmiris their right to self-determination and the
parallels with British India are noteworthy. However, the experience of
small countries within south asia - bangladesh, sri lanka, nepal and
particularly bhutan - find it impossible to be neutral. that seems to me to
be idealism inspired by the valley's beauty!

Secondly, how do I know how many in Kashmir want statehood. And I am even
more curious about the political aspirations of those in Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir. I know nothing of them, certainly not from non-partisan sources.

Best
shivam

On 16 Sep 2007 11:58:19 -0000, junaid <justjunaid at rediffmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder how the mainstream Indian discourse on Kashmir has been
> internalized, so much that independence for Kashmir as a non-possibility is
> seen as natural and obvious. What is it that makes even the Indian
> Kashmir-sympathizers take anything-short-of-independence as axiomatic? Why
> can't anyone here make a reasonable, educated argument about why this should
> be the case?
>
> Do not speak of size, for Kashmir (valley) is definitely larger than many
> countries in the world. If you speak of its land-lockedness, then I can
> count you a number of European and Asian countries that are small and
> land-locked. If you speak of three Asian bullies—India, Pakistan and
> China—surrounding it, then I must say international treaties, bilateral
> non-aggression pacts, and Kashmir's neutrality will be Kashmir's best
> defense. Aren't so many small countries surviving, and actually doing well,
> with really no defense in place, but just goodwill and international norms?
> If you say, lack of economic self-reliance, then I will just point to the
> great natural and human resources in Kashmir.
>
> And if it is a unique case, then let it be a unique country in the world.
> Weak, Poor, and Defenceless. But a country whose people are the masters of
> their fate.
>
> If you are still stuck up on "anything-short-of..." argument then I must
> tell you Kashmiris really don't give a damn. They fight for freedom, and
> they will surely learn how to handle it. Before British left Indian
> subcontinent, they used to make a similar argument. The Indian visionaries
> made the counter argument that you can't learn to love freedom and democracy
> unless you taste it. Although Indians have not come up to the expectations,
> and its elite--Brahmanical as well as corporate--have cozened and defrauded
> the lower castes and the poor, yet India is not doing that badly. Since
> Kashmir is not beset with so many contradictions like post-independence
> India, I guess it will outdo India in preserving freedom.
>
> Kashmir is too beautiful to stay occupied.
>