J&K News and Discussion-2011

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2011 19:03

One of the things that I am frequently amused by is invocation of historicities in a discussion on realpolitik..All these allusions to "hindu" influence over Kashmir (rishis, Ranjit singh's armies) have no basis in getting anything concrete for the Indian nation state as it stands today...Stretching these historicities, we need to lay claim to the whole of Pakistan, continue right up to Afghanistan (after all, gandhara was in "India", and Kabul was part of many "Indian" empires), then shift eastwards towards Burma, of course Bangladesh, even Chola suzerainty Java/Sumatra- how can we forgte that?...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2011 19:08

Anindya wrote:The Chenab plan is yet another Pakistan keeps what it has-but let's negotiate with what India keeps, approach to negotiation. That's why the Neelam plan was proposed by some of us. The plan had broad receptivity amongst MEA staffers, but little political support to take it forward.

who were these "staffers"? Many of them would have retired by now..Surprising that none of the prolific ex-mandarins writers have brought this up...Jaswant Singh doesnt mention it either in his memoirs..I would be interested in knowing what the "us" talking about the Neelum plan had in mind on issues of integration, capacities (of the Indian state), political objectives etc when they articulated the plan...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2011 19:09

International forces seeking at the minimum a partition of Kashmir and at the most increased psychological sops to Islamism to hopefully have greater leverage on Pakistan - should be told that they are being fooled by Indian academics or media and political mouthpieces. The establishment voice may paint overwhelming Indian "hatred" for the "Hindu/saffron" as a foregone conclusion, and hence any Indian sentiment as Kashmir being also a "Hindu" holy land as being false and a "revivalist" marginal voice. But if the outside regimes rely on this they will make exactly the same mistakes that they continually make about the strength and representativeness of regimes in Asia or Latin Africa who are friendly to them.

Professional and political Hindu elite may self-flagellate their birth culture to prove their ideological loyalty and commitment to the "west", and hence may even jump up and down shouting about the "reality of the situation" in J&K and hence the need to "concede" in territorial and structural terms to Pakistan and claims of Islamic self-determination. But the west will only have itself to blame if one fine morning they wake up to see these professional/political voices claiming to speak on behalf of the conscience of their entire culture suddenly turn out to be liers who were merely acting as propagandists - creating a false impression about the real sentiments of the majority about J&K.

Instead of carrying out back-channel and shifty-eyed so-called negotiations, will any GOI dare take a referendum [without EVM's] on the J&K issue with the general public of India?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2011 19:16

I am amused by the selective use of "historical claims" in arguments. Any claims of "Kashmiriyat" is based on historical claims - for any cultural distinction needs a history. Such claims when made by Muslims are not found amusing by those who find Hindu claims on Kashmir amusing. Even status quo - and legalese on Kashmir, about the antics of JLN etc - are also based on historical claims. Why should we accept "historical" claims that are traced to JLN or some conditional appeal once made to UN!

It is the inherently dishonest tactics of propagandists or apologists who favour claims of Kashmiryiat -overtly or covertly - to be amused by "historical claims" when made by the non-Muslim viewpoint, but find no such amusement when "historical" arguments are made by Islamists or their proetectors within successive Indian rashtra and regime!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2011 19:27

And of course, whoever talks of kashmiriyat is basically deluding himself - it is as much a reality as sundry foreign conspiacy theories being blamed for India's misfoirtunes!

Ceteris paribus condition (IMO) - KMs are somewhat radicalised, have a political issue and are sullen-to-hostile towards India....Anything else is fancy woolly pseudo historicities!

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 06 Feb 2011 19:48

The islamists are easy and direct. They are clear and open about what they are against.
The most dangerous for the rashtra are: "commies" and other assorted socialistic peddelers. One can be pretty sure whatever the commies come up, it is bound to generate exactly opposite of what they strive for. Neither security nor development, nor distribution of equality nonsense.
The word on the street was, all the commies in E.bengal were given a stark choice by Islamists to defend their own kith, kin and women or save their souls. Most of them betrayed their own kith to live another day to betray once again the rashtra.
With such a socialistic world view it is no wonder the peddlers will be on overdrive when it is cosy in the security provided by nationalists. BTW, once the islamists take over, as in E.Bengal, pakistan etc., all the commies will be never heard of again.

neither security, nor prosperity, not even minimum modicum of dignity will be provided by the commies and socialists. Till the menace of the socialists are addressed, the islamists will have nothing to fear. BTW,where are all the socialists in islamist dominated societies?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2011 19:56

The party so lambasted for trying to raise the national flag in Srinagar, should perhaps consider taking the issue of Kashmir Valley directly to the people in all of India except "Kashmir" where they have been banned from "entering" by most of our eager-to-appear-loyal born-as-Hindu intellectuals, professionals, and Congress/Left spokespersons.

There should be a pressure building up for "direct democracy" on such issues where they are feasible to explore. Agenda on which elections take place are usually local, and do not have explicit issues with foreign policy implications. But the legitimacy gained from such "local issues" is used at the centre to carry out foreign policy decisions - or larger issues for the nation internally that are not always possible to tie down to local needs. So there is a logic for such issues as the "fate" of Kashmir Valley to be filtered through "direct democracy", and a case should be made for an internal India-wide referendum.

The blind supporters of regimes in power, who aggressively want us to believe that the regimes are doing everything "in our interest" are probably also working on behalf of the regimes they work for - to prevent this public scrutiny and exploration.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2011 20:09

Each and every claim by any Kashmiri Muslim of having grievance against India as an occupying force, as Islam being the essential core of "Kashmiri" "civilization" - any current "radicalization" (here of course forgetting history is most useful - for reporting actual history would show that the current radicalization is rather tame compared to what was unleashed by "peaceful Sufis" when the valley was really Islamized) - all can only be logically supported by claiming a distinct, always and totally Islamic "Kashmiri civilization" completely separate from the rest of India. Every current claim of distinction and grievance and radicalization is dependent on that ubiquitous "Kashmiryiat" claim - which is again in turn entirely "historical".

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 06 Feb 2011 21:25

I should squat at somebody's house and throw them out and tell them I am amused by their historical claims of living there..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Feb 2011 22:59

somnath wrote:One of the things that I am frequently amused by is invocation of historicities in a discussion on realpolitik..All these allusions to "hindu" influence over Kashmir (rishis, Ranjit singh's armies) have no basis in getting anything concrete for the Indian nation state as it stands today...Stretching these historicities, we need to lay claim to the whole of Pakistan, continue right up to Afghanistan (after all, gandhara was in "India", and Kabul was part of many "Indian" empires), then shift eastwards towards Burma, of course Bangladesh, even Chola suzerainty Java/Sumatra- how can we forgte that?...

Are you Indian. Do you belong to the nation.
Indian economic expansion will influence all of these regions.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Feb 2011 23:00

somnath wrote: Re Chenab plan, it is now part of numrous Kargil anthologies..HAvent heard anyone really dismiss it out of hand..There was a discussion between Naik and Mishra (we also have Naik's own recollections), the proposal was on the table..But EOD, nothing came out of it...Thats all that matters...
...

I thought you are smart enough to see thru this charade. I underestimated the addiction of dhimmitude.

Please consider this scenario...

Let us assume I represent yindoo-pundamentalists and you the democratic-paki government.

I propose a "Indus Plan" as a possible solution to J&K issue in one of our track-III diplomacy. Under this Indus Plan, I propose that Pakistan will keep west of Indus where as East of Indus will be given to Bharat, as shown in the image.You respond with either an emphatic NO or a pitiful smile as you found it unworthy of your status even to respond.

But I continue with my devious plans by advertising my Indus Plan using my chamchas in Paki-bollywood media, Baloch Rebels and create some saffron terror in Mujaffarabad, Karachi etc.,

During the years, I will use my 3.5 friends to publish some lifafa articles in strategic-bharat, akhandbharat-affairs etc magazines.

One fine day my ex-yaaressess minister Doggy-raja comes out with a revelation that Pakistan did discuss

***

And imagine you come across a all-knowing RANDE professing the "Sindh plan" as a legitimate option to solve JK issue in Paki-rakshak forum...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Feb 2011 23:04

somnath wrote:One of the things that I am frequently amused by is invocation of historicities in a discussion on realpolitik..All these allusions to "hindu" influence over Kashmir (rishis, Ranjit singh's armies) have no basis in getting anything concrete for the Indian nation state as it stands today...Stretching these historicities, we need to lay claim to the whole of Pakistan, continue right up to Afghanistan (after all, gandhara was in "India", and Kabul was part of many "Indian" empires), then shift eastwards towards Burma, of course Bangladesh, even Chola suzerainty Java/Sumatra- how can we forgte that?...

Let us assume you are right in your liberal world. What claim Pakis have in JK (forget about Pakistan) in that liberal world?

A. Is it just because they asked for it?
B. Is it because Kashmiri muslims are muslims?
C. Is it because GOI is negotiating this issue with Pakistan?
D. Is it because western lifafa articles said so?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 06 Feb 2011 23:11

@ Somnath,

Krisnaji, good analysis of the Chatham House poll..

Thanks.

The key issue (for me) really is that of the valley (we dont havea problem in Ladakh and Jammu)...In the valley and in PoK, the sentiment for azaadi and Pak overhwhelms any for India in political terms...This despite the problems internanly with Pak...TO somehow think that roti kapda makaan worries will transcend the sullenness of the KMs is a big leap of faith, something that huge investments over teh years havent fructivied into...Fact is, there wil never be any human situation anywhere when there isnt a ground for grievances..It is there in all states - but how many rise in protest at each pretext? We will be able to take a dispassionate view of the situation only if we realised that fact..The GOI has, over the years...At least so it seems to me...

1) This is your view- what facts?? I hope dispassionate view is taken and applied in the right context.
2) you dont want to read and understand chatham polls the latest poll.This is not a 100% complete poll as it did not incorporate some areas where India is strong, POK etc. we dont know the sentiments in POK. Another is there is large scale settlements of TSPians in POK to change the demography compared to kashmir pandits thrown out of their homeland.So your statements do not hold much water unless you claim it is your personal view which is ok as we have differences of opinion.
3) What huge investments have been translated into industries employment opportunities in KV?? Saying that they have not been fructified is disingenous and not going to the root of the problem. True GOI has spent enormous amounts of grants etc where is it going is the question. Roti kapda makaan is a problem the world over also including KV. read the chatham poll please. Sullenness of KMs is intimately realted to it. Militancy is a big dampner of it. hence the large scale rejection of separatists. If separatists had support they would have swept polls and pushed for autonomy independence etc. It is easier to grab power and destroy within than outside. this is not lost on the separatists. Hence they do not contest elections or come a cropper.
4) take Junagadh and hyderabad and some other areas around independence- they wanted to align with TSP but where are the aspirations now. they are happy in Indian union. a) one of the reasons is they are not divided like J&K with halk in india and other in TSP with relatives in trouble both sides. b) No evil influence of TSP on junagadh and hyderabad to instigate independence movements. recall TSP trying to get foothold in muslim dominated areas in some places of India, but rebuffed resoundingly by Indians despite some hiccups.
GOI has been doing its best to salvage the situation, agreed. But the leadership has its bouts of momentary madness once in a while which scr*ws up the things. Other democratic institutions and individuals have to mop it up over weeks/months and years to bring it back to health.

J&K is a border state to our misfortune with division of people. The people want free movements across the LOC which is genuine but for the evil influence of TSP scr*wing the whole issue.

Kashmir is a problematic child with India because of the neighbour. It is like this- you have a house with a child. The child gets sick frequently- like loose motions, common cold, fever, malaria etc. you keep treating it with medicines. Now you complain that as the child always gets sick , abandon the child. Does this sound valid!! A good parent will not abandon his/her child if it is treatable. If not treatable will look after the child as long as it lives!!
The main reason here is there is uncleared garbage outside the house. Lot of mosquitoes/germs are present. Along with it there is a drug addict(take it as an evil cousin) giving drugs to the child. Unless these are cleared the child gets sick all the time. Now why do not other children(Bihar, junagadh, hyderabad any other state etc) get sick- because they are strong build with good nutrition and do not have the bad influence of evil cousin. Here the problematic child is not allowed to eat good food/nutrition to build the strength to defeat the infection. The parent is not able to stop the influence of evil cousin on the child and clear the garbage.

Now both India and TSP are made of people with similar histories. This cannot be denied by anyone. They went thru' different paths since independence. This cannot whitewash the common similarities. It is like 2 brothers living in same house under evil influence (call it shakuni mama). India became better off as it fended off the evil influences. TSP succumbed to it over the years. The results are here to see. This cannot be denied. Evil influence begets evil influence is in play today. Look at the friends of TSP- all are capitalizing on its enimity with India to cut down both TSP and India. If TSP can get rid of its evil influences then TSP and India combo can be a world power. For that to happen it has to be detoxified of its drugs/bad influences. Develop friendly relations with India. It is a win win situation.
How ever much TSP claims it is “not India” --the more it comes back to Indian influences

. It is like a demon having fear of Lord , always remembering the Lord ultimately getting moksha due to the process itself.

India should not abandon TSP but continue its work of detoxifying the evil influences.
Even if India TSP cannot be one nation at least TSP should not be inimical to India and host evil influences on India through 3rd parties.(shakuni mama)

Bottom line is detoxify TSP in Indian subcontinent. We have little choice or we will be destroyed or stunted in growth.IOW destroy TSP give peace a chance. Shakuni mama will have little role if TSP can set right its priorities.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Feb 2011 23:12

somnath wrote:One of the things that I am frequently amused by is invocation of historicities in a discussion on realpolitik..All these allusions to "hindu" influence over Kashmir (rishis, Ranjit singh's armies) have no basis in getting anything concrete for the Indian nation state as it stands today...Stretching these historicities, we need to lay claim to the whole of Pakistan, continue right up to Afghanistan (after all, gandhara was in "India", and Kabul was part of many "Indian" empires), then shift eastwards towards Burma, of course Bangladesh, even Chola suzerainty Java/Sumatra- how can we forgte that?...

Secondly, if real politic is the basis for negotiating an issue -

What incentive India has to give any part of JK state Independence or to concede to Pakis given

- Pakistan's diminishing economy, sovereignty, and national-strength
- India's firm control over the state
- India's growing clout in international arena

Why would you want to lose your upper hand if real-politic is the bottom line?

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 06 Feb 2011 23:42

I would be interested in knowing what the "us" talking about the Neelum plan had in mind on issues of integration, capacities (of the Indian state), political objectives etc when they articulated the plan...

Aahh!! - the "had you thought of all the parameters that I can name" question!

Do you believe that Integration (whatever that means) and capacities of the Indian state (which is rapidly changing) had been thought through for the Chenab plan?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 06 Feb 2011 23:50

somnath wrote:And of course, whoever talks of kashmiriyat is basically deluding himself - it is as much a reality as sundry foreign conspiacy theories being blamed for India's misfoirtunes!

Ceteris paribus condition (IMO) - KMs are somewhat radicalised, have a political issue and are sullen-to-hostile towards India....Anything else is fancy woolly pseudo historicities!

Ceteris paribus condition (IMO) - KMs were not somewhat radicalised, did not have a political issue and are not sullen-to-hostile towards India.

1) radicalised- not earlier. KP and KMs were living together for many ages. recently they were radicalised. India did not do it. KPs did not do it.
2) political issue- there would be political issue if entire J&K was within Indian borders. TSP is our bad neighbour with evil intentions. As long it exists there will be trouble as TSP raison d'etre is destruction of India. TSP is on drugs supplied by shakuni mama. If evil influences are removed there will be no political issues. Give peace a chance destroy TSP. main issue with people is movement across LOC- due to unfortunate division sullenness is present- not due to India but to TSP actions. If TSP becomes friendly to India with no evil intentions, surely J&K can become one. India-TSP combo can become world power.
3) sullen-to-hostile towards India- read the chatham polls however imperfect it is and 2).
Anything else is fancy woolly pseudo historicities.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Feb 2011 00:17

Zardari: India will have to give up Kashmir

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 07 Feb 2011 01:42

Everytime India decided to talk to Pak we hear these deliberate "up-the-ante" statements. But India still persues these talks.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Feb 2011 02:58

High funda words but cannot understand national interest!

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 07 Feb 2011 03:02

^^^ Zardari is speaking what the client states sponsors are saying. Give some or lose some

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 07 Feb 2011 03:23

etch and dee issue onlee. raise the pitch but bend down when things get hot.
all for chai biskoot onlee. TSP rises the pitch, India demurs. end result no movement on either side.
India knows TSP machinations but still....
for how long the charade works.
does cause butterflies in stomach though.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 07 Feb 2011 04:11

Muppalla wrote:Everytime India decided to talk to Pak we hear these deliberate "up-the-ante" statements. But India still persues these talks.

Lets cut TSP some slack on this. It is India that is trying to fool and evade the issue. TSP has basically said that talks need to focus on Kashmir. Now, its up to India to say f%^ck off, which is what I'd like India to say. But whats the point in agreeing to talk, and then play these useless games of not willing to talk Kashmir? Or better still, India should point blank tell TSP that Kashmir is only a symptom of a deeper maliase, and unless and until TSP gets its act together, all these talks are a waste of time.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Feb 2011 07:36

Ajatshatru wrote:Generally speaking, "little things amuse little minds" (esp. little minds of brown sahibs

It does, it Ajatshatruji...I leave the "high thinking historicities" to the Einsteins of Indian strategic thought, who of course have a definitive idea on how to achieve the goals of akhand bharat!

Krisnaji,

here is the J&K state budget at a glance..

http://jakfinance.nic.in/budgetDetails.pdf

In FY2010, >80% of the state budget is going to come from the Centre, or 13k crores...That translates to >13k of central invetsment per capita - highest BY FAR of probably any state in the union (some of the NE states might have similar numbers)...The result? J&K has the LOWEST level of poverty (defined by % of people below poverty level) in India..

http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/news/prmar07.pdf

If there is still enough resetnment in the valley for a miniscule % of the valley to be "pro India" (Chatham poll!), what would you conclude? That we need even more "economic development" before KMs can come around? In the meanwhile, Pakistan's economic indicators have gone massivley behind India's, which means that Pak prospereity levels would be even more behind J&K's..Despite that, there are more "votes" for Pak than for India...What does that tell you?

It tells me (and yes, that is an opinion, but one based on the facts above) that ther eis a political problem, not an econmic one..

krisna wrote:4) take Junagadh and hyderabad and some other areas around independence- they wanted to align with TSP but where are the aspirations now. they are happy in Indian union. a) one of the reasons is they are not divided like J&K with halk in india and other in TSP with relatives in trouble both sides.

Extremely disengenuous examples...Neither Hyderbad and Junagadh "wanted to align" with Pak - both hindu majority states wanted (but naturally) to join India...The "join Pak" was the fantasies of their (muslim) rulers...So we did not need anymajor "economic package" to bring Hyderabad and Junagadh "hapily" in the Indian mainstream..

krisna wrote:If TSP can get rid of its evil influences then TSP and India combo can be a world power. For that to happen it has to be detoxified of its drugs/bad influences. Develop friendly relations with India. It is a win win situation.

Now THAT is a principle held qite closely by the Wagah candle wallahs....

Admirable intent, but facts are a tad too difficult to overcome...

RamaY wrote:And imagine you come across a all-knowing RANDE professing the "Sindh plan" as a legitimate option to solve JK issue in Paki-rakshak forum...

Let us assume you are right in your liberal world. What claim Pakis have in JK (forget about Pakistan) in that liberal world?

A. Is it just because they asked for it?
B. Is it because Kashmiri muslims are muslims?
C. Is it because GOI is negotiating this issue with Pakistan?
D. Is it because western lifafa articles said so?

RamaYji, whos saying any plan is "legitimate"? The limited point is that various balloons are floated up in the air at various points in time...And legitimacy is given only through Parliamentary action...

Disregarding the "liberal" world, if Pakistan does not have a stake in J&K (by hook or by crook, legit or not), why is it that every single govt of independent India has committed itself to talking to them about it? Do we talk about Gujarat? Or Punjab? Or Rajasthan? the interesting thing is how we have systematiclaly mad ethat stake more and more irrelevant, sanctified the LoC and now talk at our own whims...So who's losing?

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 07 Feb 2011 08:13

somnath wrote:One of the things that I am frequently amused by is invocation of historicities in a discussion on realpolitik..All these allusions to "hindu" influence over Kashmir (rishis, Ranjit singh's armies) have no basis in getting anything concrete for the Indian nation state as it stands today...Stretching these historicities, we need to lay claim to the whole of Pakistan, continue right up to Afghanistan (after all, gandhara was in "India", and Kabul was part of many "Indian" empires), then shift eastwards towards Burma, of course Bangladesh, even Chola suzerainty Java/Sumatra- how can we forgte that?...

Somnath,

Would you like to set a cut off date beyond which history can not be invoked in realpolitik discussion?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 07 Feb 2011 08:46

@ somnath,
I have agreed to the fact that J&K receives enormous amount of economic assistance.
You said

The GOI has pumped in more per capita mney into J&K than it has for any other state..HDI numbers for J&K are at the upper tier of the Indian range...But the problem persists, because there is a political problem with the KMs...(FRankly, if economy was the issue, Bihar should have been up in arms by now)...

I said

True GoI has pumped lot of money into J&K. But the returns are absymal due to lack of encouragement in setting up industries, lack of encouragement of entreprenuership, corruption,governanace issues.

3) What huge investments have been translated into industries employment opportunities in KV?? Saying that they have not been fructified is disingenous and not going to the root of the problem. True GOI has spent enormous amounts of grants etc where is it going is the question.

You said

Fact is, there wil never be any human situation anywhere when there isnt a ground for grievances..It is there in all states - but how many rise in protest at each pretext? We will be able to take a dispassionate view of the situation only if we realised that fact.

this was the reason for taking junagadh hyderabad and some other areas like Bihar etc. considering your own statement, even J&K has a problem with separatists. They create some noise each time - recent being in summer when snow melted and ombaba was due to arrive in India. why is there periodic protests once in a while. with rest of the time hibernating and enjoying Indian hospitality. One should take dispassionate view of situation and assess it in the right context.
You said

Extremely disengenuous examples...Neither Hyderbad and Junagadh "wanted to align" with Pak - both hindu majority states wanted (but naturally) to join India...The "join Pak" was the fantasies of their (muslim) rulers...So we did not need any major "economic package" to bring Hyderabad and Junagadh "hapily" in the Indian mainstream..

J&K acceded to India whereas TSP invaded J&K. J&K assembly ratified the accession to India. Plebiscite not held due to TSP not agreeing to vacate, but had invasion of TSPians into POK/azad kashmir. India has maintained the status. Majority of J&K have agreed to accede to India as per the democratic aspirations thru elections over the years. Only thing left is to get the POK/azad kashmir which will occur in due course of time.
One should take a dispassionate view of situation in the right context.

If there is still enough resetnment in the valley for a miniscule % of the valley to be "pro India" (Chatham poll!), what would you conclude? That we need even more "economic development" before KMs can come around? In the meanwhile, Pakistan's economic indicators have gone massivley behind India's, which means that Pak prospereity levels would be even more behind J&K's..Despite that, there are more "votes" for Pak than for India...What does that tell you?

It tells me (and yes, that is an opinion, but one based on the facts above) that ther eis a political problem, not an econmic one..

Honestly did you read the chatham poll please-- In this polls POK and some pro India regions not included. separatists region mainly included.
Votes for TSP - combined is 15% ( AJK- 50% and J&K 2%- here AJK is composed of TSPians settled from other areas of TSP. India has not done large scale demographic changes)
votes for India is 28% ( mind you this is in the separatist regions and not the more pro India regions. many non muslims driven out also, no demographic invasion by non kashmiris)
what does the above facts tell you? It tells me and yes that is an opinion based on facts above that there is a huge problem. the problems are

Q ‘What do you think are the main problems facing people in Jammu and Kashmir/Azad
Kashmir these days?’
For a very large majority of the population (81%) unemployment was thought to be the most significant
problem faced by Kashmiris (66% in AJK and 87% in J&K). Government corruption (22% AJK and 68%
J&K), poor economic development (42% AJK, 45% J&K), human rights abuses (19% AJK, 43% J&K) and
the Kashmir conflict itself (24% AJK, 36% J&K) are all given as main problems.

Conclusions
Quote:
Despite the complexity, some conclusions are clear. 81% say unemployment is the most significant
problem facing Kashmiris (66% in AJK, 87% in J&K). Government corruption (22% AJK and 68% J&K),
poor economic development (42% AJK, 45% J&K), human rights abuses (19% AJK, 43% J&K) and the
Kashmir conflict itself (24% AJK, 36% J&K) are all seen as major problems. 80% of Kashmiris say that the
dispute is very important to them personally.

Quote:
The poll shows that most Kashmiris see economic problems as high on their list of priorities, most
notably unemployment. Given that the conflict is likely to be exacerbating the economic problems of
Kashmir, a resolution will be crucial to improving the day-to-day lives of the Kashmiri people, the vast
majority of whom think, as this poll demonstrates, that the conflict is ‘very important’ to them personally.

It is very disingenous of you to claim otherwise.
The facts speak for themselves -- in predominantly polarised environment of KV where radicalisation is high, non muslims have been thrown out and separatists have support across the border.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Feb 2011 09:30

krisna wrote:this was the reason for taking junagadh hyderabad and some other areas like Bihar etc. considering your own statement, even J&K has a problem with separatists.

Are you saying Hyd, Junagadh and Bihar have (or had) "separatist" issues? Has there ever been a movement in any of these places to get "independence"? the example of Bihar is moot in the "economic deprivation" logic...If economic depirvation would cause separatist movements, we should have had one in Bihar many years back! And how are Bihar, Junagadh and Hyd linked in anyways?

Majority of J&K have agreed to accede to India as per the democratic aspirations thru elections over the years.

Maybe, maybe not - different discussion...The discussion here was not whether people in Jammu and Ladakh want to be within India, of course they do..The basic assumption is that the valley muslim does not, thats all..And the approach is, if they dont tough luck, we simply craft our strategies taking that as a ceteris paribus condition..

krisna wrote:Honestly did you read the chatham poll please-- In this polls POK and some pro India regions not included. separatists region mainly included.

For the purposes of this discussion (on the opinion of valley muslims) - the key numbers are : Srinagar (88% for either indepndence or Pak), Anantnag (76%), Baramula (97%) and Badgam (82%). This, despite all the central econimic munificence (which you agreed with) and prosperity (which you dont, strangely!, calling for even greater "industrialisaiton and the like)..BTW, why do you say PoK is not included?!!!The support for the indepence/Pak is 94% in PoK...Further, Jammu is covered as well, have you seen the numbers? Its predictably pro-India...

All that I take away from the numbers is what is shown up periodic anecdotal evidence - a questionable rape case in Shopian triggers mass protests, a relatively mild measure on the Amarnath yatra gets even "mainstream" politicians to join the seperatists...The political problem is with the Kashmiri muslim...

We need to recognise that, there is no need to "pander" to that, but need to be kept in mind while crafting our strategy..Thats all..

Dipanker wrote:Would you like to set a cut off date beyond which history can not be invoked in realpolitik discussion

History is useless for anything other than being of moral/legal corroborative value..the hard work in realpolitik has to be in terms of actual capacities, thats all that matters...after that history can be written, modified, even invented! Who cares...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Feb 2011 09:33

Why do we need to waste bandwidth on the leftist version of the JK solution here.
There are enough forums to discuss this

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Feb 2011 10:30

Somnath wrote:
RamaYji, whos saying any plan is "legitimate"? The limited point is that various balloons are floated up in the air at various points in time...And legitimacy is given only through Parliamentary action...

Disregarding the "liberal" world, if Pakistan does not have a stake in J&K (by hook or by crook, legit or not), why is it that every single govt of independent India has committed itself to talking to them about it? Do we talk about Gujarat? Or Punjab? Or Rajasthan? the interesting thing is how we have systematiclaly mad ethat stake more and more irrelevant, sanctified the LoC and now talk at our own whims...So who's losing?

GOI is negotiating Jk with pakis because it correctly understands the motives of players that are pulling Paki strings since 1947.

It has to entertain this nonsense at some acceptable cost until it can turn the tables on 3.5 friends. This is what various administrations since 1947 are doing.

The change that MMS admin is trying to bring in this policy, IMHO, is that they want to give up this fight forever as they have little understanding and faith in Indicness. Their vision of india stops at Japan model.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 07 Feb 2011 10:52

RamaY wrote:The change that MMS admin is trying to bring in this policy, IMHO, is that they want to give up this fight forever as they have little understanding and faith in Indicness. Their vision of india stops at Japan model.

Even after being nuked by US, still bow down to US, but Japanese by and large are still nationalist. MMS has no vision for India; he has a "South Asian" vision in tune with US gameplan. Recall his "borders to be made irrelevant" mantra. Even US citizen SV who is part of MMS's cabal was peddling that. I agree MMS has little understanding let alone any faith in Indicness.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 07 Feb 2011 11:12

But is Pakistan and 3.5 friends buying what MMS is trying to sell. For them he probably looks like another
Yindoo snake oil salesman who can put anyone to sleep with his feeble voice.

When MMS talks of irrelevant borders, Pakis fear that India will extend its natural borders upto Khyber.
For us, MMS might be a sheep in sheep's clothing but Pakis don't know if inside he is still a sheep. hence the stalemate.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 07 Feb 2011 11:13

Are you saying Hyd, Junagadh and Bihar have (or had) "separatist" issues? Has there ever been a movement in any of these places to get "independence"? the example of Bihar is moot in the "economic deprivation" logic...If economic depirvation would cause separatist movements, we should have had one in Bihar many years back! And how are Bihar, Junagadh and Hyd linked in anyways?

what is the problem- I countered your own statements with mine. Now you are quoting that statement. Please re read your post and mine. pointless to keep dragging on .wonders never cease.

Maybe, maybe not - different discussion...The discussion here was not whether people in Jammu and Ladakh want to be within India, of course they do..The basic assumption is that the valley muslim does not, thats all..And the approach is, if they dont tough luck, we simply craft our strategies taking that as a ceteris paribus condition..

J&K assembly ratified the accession to India which includes KV also.
One does not do piece meal divisions of a state and talk about it. As long as J&K is one state then J&K has aceded to India. AJK and POK are left to be absorbed which will take time.

For the purposes of this discussion (on the opinion of valley muslims) - the key numbers are : Srinagar (88% for either indepndence or Pak), Anantnag (76%), Baramula (97%) and Badgam (82%). This, despite all the central econimic munificence (which you agreed with) and prosperity (which you dont, strangely!, calling for even greater "industrialisaiton and the like)..BTW, why do you say PoK is not included?!!!The support for the indepence/Pak is 94% in PoK...Further, Jammu is covered as well, have you seen the numbers? Its predictably pro-India...

POK is not included- please go through the chatham polls.
The main issue facing them is economic worsened by militancy. Militancy is not caused by India. It is not caused by all KMs but a section of them egged on by separatists.
You have not answered my questions- because you choose to convenietly ignore it. I questioned though GOI gives enormous grants/money where does it go.
Your post mentioned

Despite that, there are more "votes" for Pak than for India...What does that tell you?

now you have conveniently inserted independence to the paki votes. Paki votes are 6% and 7% in srinagar and badgam.
chatham polls--

However, there is no clear majority in prospect for independence either. In J&K there is a majority in
favour of outright independence for the whole of Kashmir in only four districts, all in Kashmir Valley
Division. In five further districts support for independence is 1% or less.

An end to all militant activity is also seen as very important. In J&K, 77% of the population think an
end to militant violence will help to bring a solution – highest in Kashmir Valley Division,

In KV- all in 90% and above in srinagar baramula badgam and anantnag wanted an end to militancy. very high percentage - virtually all of them dont want violence. here the question arises -- if they want independence how will they achieve it- by non violence/gandhian satyagraha. If so why dont they win elections. It should be cake walk in KV.
one wants independence but end violence - what does it mean??
The main problems in KV is
1) Unemeployment is over 90% in srinagar, baramulla, badgam and anantnag.
2) corruption varies between 50-75% in KV
3) poor economic development varies between 30-40% in KV
4) human rights abuses varied between 50-80%
5) kashmir conflict 43% 28% 13% and 24% in srinagar anantnag badgam and baramulla in KV.
Please note multiple answers were permitted- despite that KMs voted more for unemployment corruption rather than independence. this is very clear.

Hence despite GOI spending enormous sums of money it is not reaching the people due to mismanagement. It is really shocking that over 90% are unemployed in KV. These people are easy targets for separatists. This creates a show of strength which is assiduosly propagated thru' news media. But the reality is different.

Mind does not want to know what the eyes do not want to see.
facts are present but it is upto us to explain it in a plausible way. One should be dispassionate about it.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Feb 2011 11:42

krisna wrote:what is the problem- I countered your own statements with mine. Now you are quoting that statement. Please re read your post and mine. pointless to keep dragging on .wonders never cease.

Krisnaji, I did..And I dont get it - you said

take Junagadh and hyderabad and some other areas around independence- they wanted to align with TSP but where are the aspirations now

My simple point is that they never "wanted to align" with Pak, and to start with their "aspirations" were with India! So where is the comparison to J&K!

krisna wrote:POK is not included- please go through the chatham polls.

Page 19 of the report - district-wise distribution of the choice of AJK..

krisna wrote:You have not answered my questions- because you choose to convenietly ignore it. I questioned though GOI gives enormous grants/money where does it go

Presumably through the same delivery channels that the rest of India has - and victim to the famous "15 paise for every rupee" syndrome...But whatever be the systemic leakages, the fact that it has made the average poverty levels in J&K the lowest in the country means that if anything, it is having an impact..

now you have conveniently inserted independence to the paki votes. Paki votes are 6% and 7% in srinagar and badgam

I am not "conveniently" inserting anything..A solution that gives "independence" would suit the Paki strategic objectives fine, in fact multiple rulers from Pak have constantly harped upon the theme of "self determination" for a long time...

krisna wrote:Hence despite GOI spending enormous sums of money it is not reaching the people due to mismanagement. It is really shocking that over 90% are unemployed in KV. These people are easy targets for separatists.

1. Leakage in delivery is true for the whole of India, a much in Kanyakumari as it is to Kashmir.
2. 90% unemplyment - source of the data?!
3. Again if unemployment can create separatists, West Bengal should have been a juicy target since the '70s

The theory that the issue in Kashmir is that of economic development has been sought to be projected many times..That is why every time a PM visits J&K, there is an "economic package" thrown in...In terms of outcomes, it has had its impact...But the political problem persists...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Feb 2011 11:43

I think there is no harm in applying the same standards in BRF that we want for KV, "those who cant bat for India, get out". After all we must me consistent shouldnt we?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2011 11:58

somnath wrote:
<SNIP>

Kanson wrote:Fantasy? India Gandhi and Army Generals at that time had this 'fantasy'. But didn't materialize. Before that during Nehru time, Generals had this 'fantasy'. Later Gen. Sunderji had somewhat similar 'fantasy', though we don't know what his final game plan was
Was J&K in the scope of our plans in 1971? Maybe you can illuminate a bit more..Ditto for Brassstacks...

<SNIP>

Brasstacks was all about POK......with maneouvers in plains being deception for assault on POK under Operation Trident.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Feb 2011 12:11

rohitvats wrote: Brasstacks was all about POK......with maneouvers in plains being deception for assault on POK under Operation Trident.

Interestin, any sources? Op Trident was the naval attack on Karachi in 1971?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2011 13:00

^^^Op Trident was planned operation against POK in 1987.....as for source, dicussed at times on BRF (especially in discussions durign Kargil War) and Ravi Rikhye's book - 1987 - The War that never was

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Feb 2011 13:51

^^^It ould be interesting to read the book then...(if that is the only source)...Importantly, it was widely reported that Gen Sundarji had amased 400k troops along the Raj border - thats a huge number for a "feint"...Did we have the resources to shift these troops quickly to the Kashmir theatre for a mountain war, acclimatise them, and then launch an attack to overrun PoK?

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 07 Feb 2011 13:54

somnath wrote: One of the things that I am frequently amused by is invocation of historicities in a discussion on realpolitik

I am sure you didn't mean this seriously, because before this statement, you were discussing historicity yourself:

The Indian position (bilateral issue between India and Pak) got frozen somewhat in 1972 after teh Simla accord...It is only after India (and Indians) gained enough confidence about themselves through the last 2 decades...A new generation of Indians replaced an eariler generation of rank underperformers...

and here you are asking people to go through history of the issue "fully":

For all those who jump up and down crying "sellout" at every discussion point, it might be useful to go through the history of the issue fully..Gives different perspectives..

So now when you claim to be amused when others are alluding to historicity it sounds as if a mental block has come up that allows only selectively including certain historicity.

The bottom line is that with respect to Kashmir the agenda has always been imposed on India whether it was Islamic invaders looting India through Afghanistan or the British dividing India (as the ultimate result of their divide-and-rule policies). The Indian position has been and is a reaction to this agenda that has been imposed either through "histrocity" or through current attempts (terrorism, kargil, etc).[/color]

somnath wrote: I agree with you, getting back POK borders on fantasy.

It is a fantasy only under the current and past reactive dispensation of successive GoI, but for those who believe in setting the agenda and shaping things for the future, it is not a fantasy but a realpolik necessity. I don't mean an overt war and this doesn't have to mean a full integration of PoK into India. What it does mean is recognizing that a non-existent Pakistan is in India's long term interests - an entity which is better handled when broken into its seperate pieces rather than as a pakjabi dominated whole - this is what would be good for not just peace in India, but global peace as well.

About LoC being our maximalist position, actually it has far greater strategic benefits than is given credit for..One, and the biggest, is the sanctifying of the LoC as a de facto border that is delineated and documented..

Again, no one in pakistan is capable of enforcing any agreement from their side and those who do carry some weight (i.e the army and the mullahs) are not inclined to do so. Consolidating the LoC is a complete waste of time, it will never happen as long as Pakistan continues to exist in its current form.

Now if we keep harping on the "whole of PoK" as our position, the borders never get defined...

No, we talk about fulfilling Pakistan's wish for complete disintegration and then picking up the pieces in a form that is suitable for Indian interests and realpolik.

In terms of our negotiating positions, well we can afford to be a bit more blase in the knowledge that possession is 9/10th of the law..We are not fighting a legal battle here...Whateve we do in "talks", we can alwaysresind without any harm to actual ground positions...whether its Chenab plan, soft borders or anything else...That is why I say that we are seting the agenda

Reacting to the agenda that has already been set, not setting the agenda.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Feb 2011 14:21

^^^ Dhimanji, studying history to gain a perspective is useful..But invoking history of Rishis, Sikh armies et al without having an iota of capacity on the ground is not realpolitik, because no one gives a damn..That was the limited point...

don't mean an overt war and this doesn't have to mean a full integration of PoK into India. What it does mean is recognizing that a non-existent Pakistan is in India's long term interests - an entity which is better handled when broken into its seperate pieces rather than as a pakjabi dominated whole - this is what would be good for not just peace in India, but global peace as well.

Now that is a separate discussion. Balkanisation of Pak per se...We have some capacities there (presence in Afghanistan, equity in Sind/Balochistan etc)...Developing on that theme would be a more worthwhile exerise than fantasies of integration of PoK into India....

Dhiman wrote:Consolidating the LoC is a complete waste of time, it will never happen as long as Pakistan continues to exist in its current form.

Consolidating borders is a waste of time! So you would prefer international borders to remain disputed, with references to UN and every other worthy commenting on it?

Reacting to the agenda that has already been set, not setting the agenda

Look at our actions in the last 15-20 years...We insisted on "bilateralism" - it has become a bilteral matter with no foreign govt comenting on it anymore..the UNSC has taken it off its agenda...We talked of inviolability of the LoC - sanctified during Kargil...We talk when we want to, we break off talks when we want to (has Pakistan ever "broken off" talks in the last 15 years?)...When we talk, the enduring agenda - Composite Dialogue, Soft Borders, Talks on Terror only, Talks on muliple issues - they are all set by us...W break off, we come back and continue where we think it is appropriatre to ake off from...Who is setting the agenda?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 07 Feb 2011 16:05

Sanku wrote:I think there is no harm in applying the same standards in BRF that we want for KV, "those who cant bat for India, get out". After all we must me consistent shouldnt we?

Remember Kabir.