17 July, 2010

The Kashmir Calculus

Submitted to Mainstream

Federation for Peace in Kashmir, Asia Times Speaking Freely Section, http://www.atimes.net/speakingfreely/

http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2010/07/would-an-all-kashmir-federation-provide-stability-and-peace/
========================================================

Abstract: After a period of relative calm, Kashmir is on the boil again. Over the years, analysts have come up with a plethora of way-outs of this tangle. While accepting the Line of Control as the international border is one among many theories, none seems to take the bold path. This essay attempts a workable and pragmatic solution to this ‘singular’ security calculus from the Indian nationalistic perspective by proposing an “All Kashmir Federation”.


To an average high school science candidate in India, the mathematical intricacies of Calculus can appear to be intractable, at least in the preliminary approach. He or she would waste no time indeed to curse both Newton and Leibnitz to eternal perdition for innovation of the subject. Furthermore, it becomes a tormenting exercise to solve problems involving applications of the same.

And Calculus can turn out to be bizarre as one goes up the ladder in his or her educational enterprise.

Even then, any graduate or post-graduate or even a doctoral candidate in analytical or numerical studies would ‘feel’ better off in the domain of the ‘Calculus’; rather than indulge in the dangerous game of predicting, leave apart ‘attempting’ the solutions to the sub-continent’s most high-profile and refractory security calculus : The Kashmir Imbroglio.

Today’s Kashmir traces its roots to Kalhana’s Rajtarangini as its earliest known History. The book stands in a different league altogether based on the credentials of representing a proper History writing tradition in Ancien “Hindu” India which was dominated by Puranic story-telling.

Islamicizaton of Kashmir took place in the most flagrant manner through the Mongol invasions in the early fourteenth century. Though there had been zealots and bigots in the land to have attempted purges against the Hindus of the area, still the socio-cultural ethos of ‘Kashmiriyat’ was not outrightly undermined for centuries.

Later on, after the degeneration of the Mughal Empire, Kashmir passed under the political subjugation of the Sikhs who had to ‘offer’ Kashmir to the Imperial Raj as a war indemnity at the Treaty of Lahore in 1846. The geopolitical significance of the territory was either not appreciated by the Britishers (which seems very unlikely) or they considered it to be in their best economic interests to sell Kashmir to Gulab Singh thereafter.

While ‘running’ away from the sub-continent, Great Britain completely sidelined the Butler Committee recommendations (1927) regarding the Princely States. Hence, the princes were left in the lurch and Kashmir was no exception. Though Jinnah’s two-nation theory had emerged victorious by then but the princely states of Kashmir and Hyderabad remained as contentious issues between the two nascent states of India and Pakistan.

The Instrument of Accession signed by Hari Singh, the minority Hindu king ruling over a Muslim majority princely state became a major issue of ‘tug of war’ between India and Pakistan. The latter rued the fact that Hyderabad having a sizable Muslim population could not be co-opted. Thus, Kashmir had to be bagged somehow.

Contingent of Afghan fighters aided and abetted by the Pakistan military discovered their ‘rallying cry’ to be ‘Chalo Srinagar’. However, it never fructified due to the timely intervention of the Indians.

Nevertheless, the K-Calculus was authored just about then. There were two solutions at that juncture which could have been adopted by Delhi. First, it could have ‘completely’ driven away the ‘hooligans’ sent from the western side of the Indus and established its authoritative structures. Or it could have allowed the Kashmiris the ‘right to self determination’, that too only after clearing the whole area of the foreign elements. However, Delhi did neither of these. Rather it moved the United Nations (UN) and permanently helped draw the Line of Control (LOC).

And thus was born the ‘Kashmir Ulcer’.

Federal autonomy in the form of Article 370 was something the Indians offered to the Valley as a definite measure of amelioration. But the Kashmiris have been nonplussed in discovering the waning away of the article with time; for forty long years, from 1948 to 1988. Kashmir’s Prime Minister being relegated to a ‘Chief Minister’ and ‘Sadr-i-Riyasat’ engineered to act as a ‘Governor’; equivalent to any other province in India. A progressive merger with mainland India diluted the provisions of the said article and gradually raised the temperatures of the serene Valley, so symptomatic of the relative calmness of the demographic profile.

Delhi was basically toying with the idea of ‘propping up’ ‘puppet regimes’ in Kashmir so as to facilitate its own entrenchment. The power hungry Abdullahs, the efficient Indian bureaucracy and the poise of Indira Gandhi even helped it to succeed to a remarkable extent in that venture. Nevertheless, the threat came from the expected direction, and that was Pakistan.

The loss of Bangladesh and the bludgeoning of the Punjab insurgency were the factoids which Pakistan could never reconcile to. It needed a different outlet for outpouring its grievances against its ‘childhood enemy’ and Kashmir was it. And since 1989, the valley has seen a ‘real’ insurgency and has surely inflated to be one of India’s Internal Security Threats (IST). Pakistan’s proxy war with India through the jihadis has been a persistent programme, irrespective of the regimes in Islamabad.

There are three major perspectives and hence approaches toward the Kashmir Calculus: the Indian, the Pakistani and the Kashmiri. The last perspective does not have a homogeneous outlook. It again has three components; the political elite of the province, the separatists, and the jihadi elements.

The political elite (the Muftis or the Abdullahs) of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir would like to perpetuate the Indian stand point of ‘status quo’ so as to bolster its power bastion. On the other hand, the separatist elements led by the All party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) has gradually softened its stance and now are more prone to demanding greater autonomy under the Indian Constitution. On the other hand, the jihadis like the Lashkar and Jaish et al. represent the extreme end of the insurgent spectrum and to a large extent harbour the Pakistani agenda of destabilizing India.

The Indian approach to the Calculus has been unmethodical, at times undiplomatic and for most of the times since 1989, tactless and bare. Thus the paramilitary forces are called upon at will whenever the state police founders and the army takes over whenever the paramilitary falters to control mobocracy of the genre of the Palestinian Intifada. And Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is clamped with intermittent frequency.

Very recently, in the backdrop of the civilian casualties in Srinagar; the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leader Mehbooba Mufti was not pert while lampooning the Centre of having deployed the Army in the city when the very force was overtly reluctant to fight the ‘Maoists’ in the Red Corridor. However, these political harangues occulted by emotional moorings visibly tend to undermine the fact that Jammu and Kashmir has a distinctly different geostrategic significance vis-à-vis the rural hinterland.

And the fact of the matter is that open impudence on the part of the Indian authorities clearly exhibits the ‘Pakistan factor’ behind the problem. Nonetheless, flouting of democratic ethos by both the Centre as well as the Kashmiris keeps on aggravating the malignancy.

Few months back, Indian Home Ministry was stoutly following the ‘Quiet Diplomacy’ in dealing with the Kashmir Calculus. That in fact lent some credence to New Delhi. Furthermore, the Indo-Pak ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) was also not showing signs of fatigue and the jihadi hooliganism had subsided to a considerable degree. Diplomatic pressure on Pakistan by USA must have been a rational reason behind this downturn. Moreover, for all practical purposes, the jihadi elements had their job cut out in the Af-Pak region. In sum, the ‘Ulcer’ was not causing unbearable pangs to neither the masses nor to the political masters.

The ‘Shopian case’ provided the turn of events and the fireball has again engulfed the Valley. The Army has been inducted almost robotically without paying heed to the consideration of reverting back to the Riot Police. If the state police are inadequately built up for these operations even after two decades of continuous insurgency, then it is New Delhi which has to share a large part of the blame.

Analysts have almost exhausted themselves in criticizing the role of the paramilitary or the army and the consequent human rights violations. The Pakistani civil-military elite have been factored in the analyses and the question of ‘greater autonomy’ for the valley has been deliberated at length. Sometimes prolixity has outweighed solutions, making the calculus of either differentiation or integration of the province encumbered with verbose.

Territorial Kashmir has five sub-regions: the ‘core’ Kashmir valley (populated by Sunni Muslims), the Buddhist-majority district of Ladakh, and the Hindu-majority Jammu; all under the Indian jurisdiction. The Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) has Muzaffarabad and Mirpur. The Gilgit-Baltistan agency is also under Pakistan’s domination and it has recently obtained some constitutional concessions from Islamabad.

Yes, China comes into the picture as another major contender as some parts of Ladakh is under its sway since the 1962 war with India. Moreover, Pakistan has ceded parts of its Northern ‘pie’ to Beijing.

Hence, if one treads toward a solution of this quagmire then one is led to a myriad of possibilities. From the Indian perspective, the author feels the path as charted out below shall serve a definite purpose in mitigating the present state of affairs. Nationalism should be the guiding principle when solutions to Kashmir are chalked out, but in no way jingoism should intervene.

Shall it be a genuflection for India to accept LoC as the international border? That seems, however, to be the most feasible option at this point in time since it is veritably out of consideration that the Indian foreign establishment carrying a historical pedigree of pacification can risk a full-fledged conventional war with a nuclear-enabled Pakistan, verily infested with militant-theocratic elements. Well, even if India does that, shall it douse the fireball of hatred against India and bring peace to the region? Will Pakistan whole-heartedly accept this solution? What will happen to the freedom movement of the Sunni Muslims? Shall it evaporate with time? The author does not subscribe to the view that India’s acceptance of the LoC as the international border would put an end to the persistent insurgency in the valley because the freedom movement of the Kashmiris has already taken an awkward turn, if not a point of no return.

Another solution to this calculus that was doing the rounds during General Musharraf’s regime was to treat Kashmir as South Asia’s Andorra and go for a joint administration of the region under the aegis of both India and Pakistan. In fact, in both these solutions, we are outrightly relegating to the background the feeling and ‘consciousness’ of the masses of Jammu and Kashmir. Decisions are being formulated from above and mass participation is being completely ignored. Anthropological and ethnographic dimensions of the imbroglio are being submerged under the debris of ‘statist’ policies and demagogy of the Maulvis; occlusion of the subaltern is necessary fallout of this approach.

Is India ready to seek a solution of this calculus or eager to obtain a Pyrrhic victory against the Kashmiri masses and embroil itself in an asymmetric low-intensity conflict for at least decades to come? The answer by all guesstimate ought to be an unequivocal yes for the solvable. And if that is the case, is India ready to forego its claims to the Valley? The answer may be fraught with vehement debates. But a majority of the Indians are by all probability ardent votaries of freedom and democracy. At least, that is what they have stood for the last six decades and that is what they have fought for about two centuries. It was based on a similar premise that the Indian Army strolled into Hyderabad against the obdurate Nizam and his band of Razakars and it was based on a similar belief that our then Deputy Prime Minister had steamrolled the Nawab of Junagadh.

Hence presently India should not shy away from granting the Kashmiris their ‘right to self determination’. But hang on. India had agreed to the same in the early 1950s after the mediation of the UN. The Pakistan Army never withdrew its forces from its area of domination and hence no ‘plebiscite’ was actually carried out. Demography of the valley has changed since then; more so since the armed insurgency commenced in 1989. So, what kind of a referendum now?

Still, there can be a referendum. First, the ‘Kashmiri Pundits’ have to be moved from their dilapidated camps in Delhi and rehabilitated in Jammu. For all practical purposes, settlement in the valley of Kashmir should be a foregone conclusion for this group by now. And this rearrangement is an onus not only on the Indian government but also on other groups in contention if they seek a solution to this ‘Kintifada’.

Thereafter, region by region plebiscite has to be arranged under the auspices of the UN. That should be done only after the Indian, the Pakistani and the Chinese Army and paramilitary move out from their respective positions, which can happen in a phased manner but within a reasonable time frame of six months. From the withdrawal of the respective armies and the paramilitary till the adoption of a new ‘constitution’ for the “All Kashmir Federation” comprising the five sub-regions as provinces, the territory needs to be administered by the UN having no Indian or Pakistani or Chinese observers.

The five sub-regions shall have the freedom to choose amalgamation with either India or Pakistan or China or join the Federation. By all means, contiguity of borders shall not be violated. It shall be a close to an impossible scenario that Jammu would like to cling to China or Gilgit-Baltistan to India.

The envisaged ‘Kashmir Federation’ may follow the US federal system as the archetypal. Prima facie, it should be a win-win situation to all the parties.

However, to implement the above, one needs to start a multi-party dialogue encompassing all the incumbents, even with representatives of the pyromaniac jihadi elements; provided they abjure arms for the time being. But who would bell the cat? As the major power in South Asia, it would do no harm to India’s prestige if it takes the lead. China can also catapult itself into the South Asian region as a major actor if it initiates this direct negotiation. The players have basically to come out of their yoke of intransigence.

For all this to fructify, the masses of South Asia needs a set of well-intentioned leaders who can not only think ‘out of the box’ but have the will to factor in democracy in the region. Otherwise, any attempt at bringing peace in Kashmir would be temporary and hence nugatory in the long run. The fundamental point would be critically missed.
=======================================================================

18 comments:

  1. Dr Kanchan Garai says:

    Nice article! It seems to similarities to what proposed by Musharaf and Manmohan.


    In my opinion no solution is best solution for India. In the whole process the jihadis are losing, Pakistan is losing money to keep a huge army and prestige due to state sponsored terrorism tag. India is losing too but it can probably afford that loss!
    If the same status continues either pakistan will give up or their army and the government will fight with each other or something worse will happen to them. India does not have to look for a solution, it is the urge of pakistan and the jihadis. India may choose a solution if it likes any offered by them. It is more like a poor man fighting a court case against a rich man

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kumar says:

    Dear Uddipan

    I had a cursory look at your paper. I will of course study it in greater detail at leisure. Please allow me to share my thoughts on this issue.

    Firstly, I think there never can be a solution to this dispute which will satisfy all the parties. Secondly, if Kashmiris (without making any distinction between separatist, and elite and so forth) are agreeable to greater autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution, Pakistan, be rest assured will not permit it. Importantly, the very existence of Pakistan is linked to the dispute in Kashmir. Pakistan will cease to have meaning and a rationale for existing as a State, if Kashmir issue is solved. Keeping Kashmir alive is the only way to distract the people of Pak from the various internal problems faced by Pakistanis. Pak has seen civilian rule and military dictatorship right from its inception. Neither the democrat nor the tyrant came close to solving this issue.

    Assuming, (even for the sake of hypothesis) two leaders on either side arrive at a settlement, will it lead to India and Pakistan co-existing peacefully? The answer is obviously in the negative. The forces in play in Pakistan, like the hamas in Palestine, seek the destruction of Hindu kafirs and Hindu India. As long as this mind set prevails, succeeding generations on either side will continue to battle each other on one or the other issue.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Sir,

    This is really a very good article mixing mathematics and politics to a high level. It touches most of the corners of Kashmir problem and also have new vistas. I have some points to make.

    1) I believe Kashmir problem is also linked with economy, literacy and other social parameters. Do we generate sustainable employment for Kashmiri youths? Are we able to keep them busy with economic instruments ?
    Government has to boost Kashmir's economy inspite of the political problems. Why the literacy rate is so poor in J&K? We know we have separatists and are backed by our western neighbour but that cannot stop our social developments. So to me, employment is a main problem in Kashmir.
    We need to have more educational institute, state sponsored universities, we need roads, railways, safe drinking water, energy. We have to work overtime since we have backlogs of 60 years.

    2) Another point, deployment of army, "sophian case", killing of young Kashmiri people will give a powerful card of "human rights violation" to Pakistan. We should not allow them to play to gain international support.
    So high-level talks between India and Pakistan has to be economy-oriented.
    If Pakistan wanted to play Kashmir card we can deny them outright and at the same time we shall assure them that we shall not play "terrorism" card.
    I believe the talks have to take a new turn and discussion board should include more of Trade and commerce officials. We need to negotiate our interlocutor with this saying we shall reject "terrorism" card and they need to reject "Kashmir" card. I know this is very difficult but we can seek back-channel diplomacy for this.

    3) India need to prop up more Muslim leaders (I feel we don't have many at this juncture) whom the Kashmiri Sunnis can relate. He might not be from Kashmir but will have an all-India impact. We need that who can act as proper "nationalist negotiator"

    Thanks
    Avijit

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Sir,

    This is really a very good article mixing mathematics and politics to a high level. It touches most of the corners of Kashmir problem and also have new vistas. I have some points to make.

    1) I believe Kashmir problem is also linked with economy, literacy and other social parameters. Do we generate sustainable employment for Kashmiri youths? Are we able to keep them busy with economic instruments ?
    Government has to boost Kashmir's economy inspite of the political problems. Why the literacy rate is so poor in J&K? We know we have separatists and are backed by our western neighbour but that cannot stop our social developments. So to me, employment is a main problem in Kashmir.
    We need to have more educational institute, state sponsored universities, we need roads, railways, safe drinking water, energy. We have to work overtime since we have backlogs of 60 years.

    2) Another point, deployment of army, "sophian case", killing of young Kashmiri people will give a powerful card of "human rights violation" to Pakistan. We should not allow them to play to gain international support.
    So high-level talks between India and Pakistan has to be economy-oriented.
    If Pakistan wanted to play Kashmir card we can deny them outright and at the same time we shall assure them that we shall not play "terrorism" card.
    I believe the talks have to take a new turn and discussion board should include more of Trade and commerce officials. We need to negotiate our interlocutor with this saying we shall reject "terrorism" card and they need to reject "Kashmir" card. I know this is very difficult but we can seek back-channel diplomacy for this.

    3) India need to prop up more Muslim leaders (I feel we don't have many at this juncture) whom the Kashmiri Sunnis can relate. He might not be from Kashmir but will have an all-India impact. We need that who can act as proper "nationalist negotiator"

    Thanks
    Avijit

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Uddipan-da,



    It is very difficult to substantiate our demands of Kashmir as an integral part of India. Some points which I thought -



    1) Patel integrated India following diplomacy, force and persuasion. Kashmir was one of them. Although demographically it was mostly Muslim inhabited but the then king signed "Instrument of accession" and sought India's help to protect J&K. Since then Kashmir has been integral part of India and our Constitution does not allow parliament to secede any area which is a part of India to any country. No govt. in power can secede kashmir.



    2) Historically Ashok ruled Kashir from Magadh, Delhi Sultanate, Mughals ruled Kashmir from Delhi. So historically it was mostly administered from India. Although this logic is not at all valid as formation of Pakistan was not depended on History much (Kaniska who ruled Kashmir was not ruling from India as such, instead from Peshawar). Even most of areas of Pakistan also mostly ruled by government from India.



    3) Kashmir is strategically important to India. It would provide us a route to 5 "stans". Some important passes cut through Kashmir. India could also control the river waters since most rivers are generated from Kashmir.





    4) Formation of India not depended on religion; it was Pakistan who depended. Kashmir accepted to be a part of India in 1948. Pakistan should not demand Kashmir now on the basis of religion since it was Kashmir who signed the agreement.



    I believe in political solution as well but I also firmly believe it is hard to come. The situation is very complicated. My point is any solution should be tried without much criticism as many discussions will spoil the game. Your options are welcome.



    Thanks

    Avijit

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Avijit,

    we are all discussing on a theoretical plane,,,,,,,its not only diffcult but may be far fetched at this juncture thats what i have written in my essay. we need 'well-intentioned' leaders to implement this......(i have written abt this too)

    my fundamental point is "the people of J&K"

    i very well appreciate the geostrategic imp of J&K,,,,but thats not the point of concern......if India speaks volumes of multicultutralism, then why not allow the kashmiris their 'right to self determination'?

    if geostartegy is so imp for us, then let us build bases in Central Aisa & Afghanistan! Why shy away?

    otherwise, lets not act as hypocrites; So lets out & out employ force in J&K & make LoC the international border.

    what i suggested was an All kashmir federation on the lines of our Cabinet Mission of 1946.

    If Jammu remains with us (after the Pundits are resettled) as well as Ladakh, then what more should India pray for?

    If U say secularism is the backbone for India to hold Kashmir, then the ppl of that place need to be consulted. I am not advocating Kashmir to be given away to Pakistan. on the basis of religion (which is ridiculoius) )but let it decide its own fate.

    A Kashmiri federation would still have secular strands.

    uddipan-da

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Uddipan-da,



    Yes, I agree with you. LOC as international border is advocated by US also. We need to either positive in the sense of setting military bases in Central Asia/Afghanistan or "strongly" believe in the Gandhian way. Bifurcation theory is a good one but I am impressed with a Kashmir Federation which you mentioned in your article.

    Anyway, this is really a masterpiece which shows your depth and understanding to such a deep level. After a long time, I got such a good article to digest on Kashmir issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. hi,,,
    well .. the title is very very interesting and appropriate,,, i.e kashmir ulcer... now .. the detail of the article is itself very informative... but as you have given me the freedom to express my opinion i will say that you can make the article a bit more intense like giving the readers some food for thought.. by putting some questions !! leadership and its effect on kashmir is or can be a burning question ... and special emphasis on nehru becoz he is the man behind ....bt may be i m goin out of th topic becoz u have written abt security and...defence... i can be wrong!! becoz i lack depth on the topic... but i have one idea... i want to send some witings ... bt i need some time ... if that is fine then i can express more appropriately wat i mean to say..ofcourse if that is fine wid u... hope u nt gettin late?

    thanks
    durba

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Uddipan,
    I read your article on J&K. The solution you suggest is the 'ideal' one. Do u think that either the Indian or the Pakistani authority will agree to it? For all these years, all New Delhi has done is wait, wait and wait! Innocent civilians keep getting killed to noone's consternation!!


    Best regards,
    Deepshikha

    ReplyDelete
  10. W.r.t Kashmir...I have few things to say [ plain thoughts, no criticism ] -->

    1) As per my current understanding, J & K has Jammu, PoK, Kashmir valley, Ladakh and Azad Kashmir.

    I thought Gilgit-Baltistan was a part of PoK. But you have treated them separately. Am not quite clear on who dominate areas of Azad Kashmir - will do some research and get back to you.

    2) What I think is, the political heavyweights [ especially the ones in power in the valley ], should seriously try to build their credibility brick by brick post Amarnath/Shopian/recent clashes.

    3) An effort should also be made to rope in the substantial section of young people who feel disenfranchised by the political system and are hostile to India.

    4) Another thing which can be done is set up local citizens' bodies to liaise with administrators and police along with investments in education and enterpreneurship as well as non lethal crowd control technologies.

    Bottom line is, that there has to be a change in attitude of policing bodies and people who are at the helm of affairs.

    Regards -
    Indira Mukherjee.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Madhura Roay exclaims:

    "After a long time I read an article pertaining to South Asian Politics as exams are towards the end,but Sir,what I felt is that isn't the concept a little bit Utopian? As you pointed out that who will bell the cat,I also felt that may be the suggestions are right, but shall any person or for that matter any country act as interlocutor?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Skand says:

    The federation of Kashmir is a pragmatic approach. However assuming it
    to be a solution to the Kashmir Problem is debatable. It does gives
    the Abdulla Family, (Dallas as they are fondly called in valley), a
    Sultanate of their own. The Huriyat leaders, Mehbooba et al get their
    share of booty. It gives so called Islamic Intifada a new moral high
    ground, Al Quida a new base but a common Kashmir will be deprived of
    his existence.
    This thought however does merits attention if we see it in a bigger
    perspective. A Federation of United Republics of South Asia (FRSA).
    This Federation includes Republic of India with its integral
    Autonomous regions of Kashmir Valley, Assam Nagaland & Manipur;
    Islamic Republic of Pakistan with its integral Autonomous regions of
    Northern Areas, Pukhtunkhwa and Sind; Bangladesh with Chittagong
    Autonomous Region, Sri Lanka with Tamil Autonomous Region, Nepal,
    Bhutan & Maldives.
    The Federal Authority will constitute the Central Committee & Peoples
    Parliament. The peoples parliament will be elected on basis of the
    prevailing method of election ( Jirgas, tribal Hohos,etc.)The central
    committee will be amalgamation of representatives of Government of
    constituent Nations. The Federal Authority will be responsible for
    Defence, Foreign Affairs and Economy only.
    The federation will have a common defence arrangement & common market
    and currency.
    This will not be feasible without addressing concerns of Peoples
    Republic of China. The FRSA& PRC will sign a treaty of friendship and
    cooperation. China will be offered access to Indian Ocean through
    trade corridors of Chumbi- Natula-Kolkatta –Dhaka, Sutlej Highway to
    Gandhidham, and Indus Highway to Karachi.
    This is Utopian.
    This will directly challenge the Western Hegemony. Their sphere of
    influence in Asia and Middle East will cease to exist. Saudi Arabia
    will cease to be the Mulla of Islamic World.
    So they won’t let it happen.
    And the tools will be our short sight ( blind if I may say so) politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Dr Mukherjee,

    Your piece is interesting. You are as entitled to have a position as anybody else.

    Best wishes,

    N.V.Subramanian

    ReplyDelete
  14. abrar said:

    mr Mukherjee has given a well intetioned’out of the box’solution to the kashmir issue. This is the type of suggestion that should be coming out more as part of the solution.

    The only problem i see in this is the trouble is in Indian Held Kashmir and this is where a solution is needed. A district wise plebicite is very practical and let those districts decide where they belong.As most suffering and casualties have happened in IOK that is where this should be implemented.

    As for areas under Pak or Chinese control,their amalgamation should be with held till the result and implementation of the plebicite takes place.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Harry said:

    1. Plebiscite only when the Pak Forces withdraw. They will never!!! Not happened since 1950!!

    2. As regards Azadi in Kashmir, there is a call for Azadi in Baluchistan too!!! Nations do not cede territory just because there are such calls and agitations.

    3. Yes there is unrest in the Valley off and on. So it is in Karachi!!!
    This is internal problem of India. The Government is dealing with it as Pak Govt is dealing in Karachi.

    4. Pakistan has openly been declaring its policy for BLEEDING INDIA. India and the World should never surrender to such blatant aggression.

    5. India has to reply Pakistan in the same coin otherwise Pak Military feels they can get away with any thing.

    6. It is a pity that Pak Generals have not learnt any thing from military fiascos against India in 1965, 1971 and Kargil. Indian leaders may not be using strong words as Pak leaders do but they are men and women of steel. Beware and do not test their limits of tolerence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sunaina BAloch said:

    India must support Baloch movement whole heartedly. Gross violation of human rights in Balochistan is not know outside pokistan. INDIA MUST HELP BALOCH FREEDOM FIGHTERS, we call freedom fighters “SARMACHARS”.

    LONG LIVE BALOCHISTAN
    DEATH TO PAKISTAN

    ReplyDelete
  17. in Boloji,

    Mr. Mukherji brings out an interesting solution. However, a few questions:

    1. In a federation that will have a majority Muslim population, what chance is there of a secular constitution? Evidence even in our south asian neighbourhood is that - Muslim nations purge the hindu (and other) minorities. From close to 20% to less than 2% today in Pakistan.

    How can this be explained to Hindu Majority of India?

    2. Should Kashmir be allowed to succeed on the basis of religion,
    What if there are attempts all over India to drive out muslims out of their homes?

    How would you counter people like RSS/BJP from asking for a referendum in India, for making India a "hindu nation"? With emotions running high, there is no saying how a referendum of that sort will turn out.

    3. Can an independent, land locked country exist with dignity? We have examples of Afghanistan which has been made a haven for terrorists. Why would Kashmir be any different?

    harkol
    08/12/2010

    ReplyDelete
  18. I reply:

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    1. Good point abt the Const. However, the sub-regions have their independence to be a part of the Federation. Suppose if Jammu wants to join the federation, then I guess the Const Assembly framing a new Const for Kashmir shall obey by secular credentials. Oherwise Jammu shall remain a part fo India.

    If its only the valley which shall remain free, then let it remain with only a non-secular const.

    2. Not at all. Thats not my point at all. Kashmir shall not be allowed to go for a plebiscite on the basis of religion. It is a wrong premise. Kashmir, if it goes for a plebiscite at all, then it has to be based on the UN mandate that both India & Pak were supposed to be parties after independence.

    Presently, it is unclear to me at least the standpoint of the right wing parties in India regarding the Kashmir issue. If they want a Greater Kashmir, an integration with POK, how they plan to achieve it?

    3. Well, land locked countries: lets talk abt the 5 stans in Central Asia; Afghanistan's neighbour....have they been turned into terrorist havens? Afghanistan's case is quite different. Its not a Taliban haven for being land locked. Then whats the case for Pakistan; having access to the sea?

    Dr Uddipan Mukherjee
    08/12/2010

    ReplyDelete