In a very interesting development, Pervez Musharraf, the military dictator of Pakistan, has indicated that he is considering lifting his country's claim to the state of Kashmir, if India is willing to do likewise. This is a highly unexpected twist in the Kashmir saga as both India and Pakistan have avidly maintained that Kashmir is a part of their respective countries (though in recent times, India has been pushing for the Line of Control to be declared an international border effectively splitting Kashmir, a solution vehemently opposed by Kashmiri Muslims but supported by all the other minorities).
There is huge pressure now on Indian PM Manmohan Singh to declare that India has no claim on Kashmir and move forward with the peace process. In a brave but brilliant move, Musharraf has stormed onto the moral high ground in this issue making it very difficult for India to do anything but follow suit.
But politics aside, this is fantastic news for Kashmir; the best since Partition surely. If the resources that have gone into fighting the six-decades long war for Kashmir had been put into its development, then Kashmir would probably be a rich, industrialized country by now. But as such, it is one of the most underdeveloped, underprivileged parts of the Indian sub-continent. Rich in natural resources, and natural beauty, Kashmir is well endowed to be successful. After years of war and poverty, there may finally be light at the end of the tunnel......
4 comments:
But hang on - if both countries gave up their claim on Kashmir, doesn't it become a seperate nation?? Surely that can't be right, moral highground or not? We can't forget that the Pakistanis INVADED Indian territory in the first place, right? I'm no nationalist (in the true sense of the word), but this seems a bit... :s
I really hope those Herald ppl start delivering the paper soon!!! lol
well....yes, pakistan broke UN conventions and international law by invading kashmir, but the big mistakes were made by nehru-
1. not kicking the pakistani army (and the pathan mercenaries they sent ahead of them) out of kashmir when they were in full retreat thereby splitting kashmir into 'indian kashmir' and the ostentatiously named 'azad kashmir'. now its true that expression of free speech is somwhat limited on the indian side of the LOC, but to call pakistani occupied kashmir 'azad' is absolutely farcical.
2. promising the kashmiris a referendum on independance once the region was settled. of course with pakistan-backed insurgency in kashmir it is rather difficult to hold a referendum, but because of nehru's foresightless promise, india is made to look dishonest and deceitful on the world stage, hence india has no political support on the issue.
so the only solution is to give kashmir independance. but i think it has to be conditional-
1. jammu and ladakh become states of india. the non-muslim population of kashmir should be given the option of migration to jammu, ladakh or other parts of india.
2. the kashmir valley and 'azad kashmir' can join together to have their referendum or have independance.
3. if history repeats itself and pakistan invades kashmir again, then india should have political immunity if it chooses to come to the kashmiris' aid. with pakistan's turbulent history, musharraf's word means nothing when the next dictator comes into power.
Yeah I was going to mention Nehru, but that would have made my comment too long :p
But imho Kashmiri independence would, if made a reality, set an extremely dangerous precedent - imagine the potential for turmoil when any given state decides they're not getting enough of a say on the national political agenda - this could easily work in two ways (and many other ways besides):
1. the state really thinks their needs are not being met while being part of Hindustan.
2. (probalby more likely) some self-serving cheif minister declares his state an independent nation (personal gain, corruption - the old story).
Then where would democracy be? Certain states pop immediately to mind - Bihar, some of the smaller and more eastern states (esp those that could come under Chinese influence and be coaxed away). And of coures India is, in many ways, a patchwork quilt of independent identities - on social, cultural and indeed, religious grounds. For instance, did not the Sikhs of Punjab attempt to seperate from India - to form their own Baluchistan?
It took strong leadership to hold the nation together at that point - again, it must be so. Surley even considering Kashmiri aazadi would be ruinious to the democracy that is India... and handing political victory to Pakistan on a silver platter, besides!
firstly, the sikh state was supposed to be akalistan- balochistan is the westernmost province of pakistan populated by balochi tribesmen.
secondly, how "hindustani" are the sino-tibetan tribes of north-eastern india??? those states (particularly arunachal pradesh and nagaland) are a huge drain on resources and prevent the development of the rest of india. if they want independance, i say good riddance. they should have the foresight to realize that as soon they opt out of india, they leave themselves open to chinese invasion. once that happens, their culture will be slowly eroded and erased similar to the tibetans, uighurs and other minorities invaded by china. india is the only thing preventing this from happening. if they dont realize this, well thats their problem. india has already been held back enough by these upstarts.
thirdly, pakistan can have their victory. who cares?? what they cant have is jammu and ladakh. the kashmir valley will never love india, so whats the point?? tens of thousands of young men have been sacrificed protecting the kashmiris from pakistan. but if they dont want that protection, then let them face pakistan alone. why should the youth of india be spent defending these ingrates??
Post a Comment