US Policy on Jammu and Kashmir

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 29 Sep 2011 10:52

I have been wondering what the current US policy is, regarding Jammu & Kashmir.

Recently there has been some blowing hot, some blowing cold.

On the one hand, people like George Perkovich, Mike Mullen, Christine Fair etc. make reference to the wish that "solving Kashmir" (i.e. India giving Kashmir to Pakistan) would make life easier for the US in Af-Pak. But is this reflective of US policy? Or is this the opinion of a dwindling number of Paki apologists?

On the other hand, Ghulam Nabi Fai has been shut down in the US, with enough fanfare to embarrass even a few American politicians like Dan Burton. Yes, this is primarily to put pressure on Islamabad/ISI. However, with all his experience as a "Cashmere" activist over the years, Fai could have been valuable to the US as well, IF the US wanted to keep up its own pressure against India over J&K. What does it mean that they have exposed him and thrown him in the garbage?

Also, Americans as high up as Bill Clinton and Madeline Halfbright were once so pro-Paki on Kashmir, that they would go to any extent to bash India with "Human Rights" allegations. Both of those worthies once declared that the LeT's "Chttisinghpora Massacre" of 36 Sikhs, was carried out by the Indian Army (or by "Hindu Militants.") These days there seems to be a lot less *obvious* pandering by America, to the Hurry-rats' propaganda line. Why is this? Something like the alleged "unmarked graves found in J&K" would have been trumpeted out the wazoo by Robin Raphel types in the 1990s; yet the story seems to have largely disappeared from Western media attention within a few days of its appearance. Even the Pakistani attempts at stirring up a stone-throwing "Intifada" in J&K last year, were largely ignored and quickly forgotten by most of the American media.

Why is America not using these sticks to beat India, as it used to do for so many years? Has it given up on separating J&K from India? Or is it doing something sinister behind the scenes, adopting a new tack?

Please choose the explanation for this American behaviour on J&K, which seems most likely to you.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 29 Sep 2011 11:13

This thread is a tacit admission that J&K is not an "internal affair" and US opinion matters. In a way it legitimises the "disputed" tag.

Whats next? Poll on US policy on Nagaland?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Sep 2011 11:14

Voted one, the conviction of the GOTUS has nothing to with the correction of the position held by them. It is the current dispensation in India that has made up its mind to solve Cashmear in out lifetimes. While I don't believe it has to do with the desire to win a Nobel prize.

It has every thing to do with the desire to appease TSP. Hoping that such an act will earn us some peace and quite.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 29 Sep 2011 11:18

SRoy: Not at all. "Tacit" admissions exist only in the company of closeted fears (hum aisey baat karengey tho log kyaa kahengey/sochengey?)

India's sovereignty over J&K is not in question here, only the US intention towards India regarding J&K. US policies will reflect their intentions.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2011 13:12

I think US right now simply wants India and Pakistan to come to some agreement on J&K, which it hopes would reduce the Indian bogey that is used in Pakistan to torpedo any US requests to Pakistan.

Secondly US uses Kashmir as a tactical lever to entice Pakistan to cooperate by promising support on Kashmir. It doesn't work because Pakistan wants these promises fulfilled up front, before it changes its spots.

IMO, US can't really hope of having any bigger dreams on Kashmir than that!

Lately US is unsure whether any of the above tactics can get Pakistan to cooperate, or whether any real Pakistani expansion into Kashmir would really be of any use to America's strategic interests. The partial disillusionment in Washington about the usefulness of pursuing the above objectives means America is ever more disinterested in supporting Pakistan's position, and hence the parting of ways.

I have not voted, as I don't know which option really captures the above situation!

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 29 Sep 2011 13:21

i don't agree with any of the options. US is meddling in J&K solely because TSP demands it to do so. They issue statements and appear to be on TSP's side trying to push India into a more agreeable position wrt to TSP's demands. More than that I don't think US has any interest in J&K. They have no leverage over India, unlike with TSP, to get things done the way they want, other than perhaps a few US-pasand politicians and politicla parties at the help in GOI.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Sep 2011 14:40

The US will never make India give up Kashmir. Please pardon the piskology but Indians are
1. Convinced that others are traitors and only I (ie oneself) am patriotic and that eveyrone else is ready to give up Kashmir.
2. Strongly opposed to another partition of India no matter who wants it

We can talk abut anything. We can talk about giving Kashmir away. But it ain't gonna happen. And that is why the US ain't gonna make it happen. Tough shit.

That is what is lovely about this thread. Discussion about Kashmir is up for grabs. Like I give you guys permission to talk as much as you want about Angelina Jolie. Will start thread if you like. But you won't get her.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Sep 2011 15:01

Yes, only to be shared between shiv saar and that Brad Pitt!

Of course, once Brad Pitt joins BRF, shiv saar would not be able to claim all these things!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Sep 2011 15:21

I voted the last -- but that is not quite what I think. What I think is that US has similar intents and methods as it had previously towards Kashmir, but is going through a "Quo Vadis" moment w.r.t. to its entire Pak-Af policy.

Once it resolves in its mind what its future course of action is likely to be in the region (contain India, keep propping Pakistan, hand over to China and run for dear life) --- will we see what is its "new" course of action.

It may be that the new is return to the old, but too early to say, right now.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 29 Sep 2011 20:05

The last chapter of Sarila ji's "Shadow of great game" is quite revealing. West will not allow entire J&K to go away frmo India. Only enough to break her contact with CAR. I do not think they expected TSP would have donated the land to PRC..

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 29 Sep 2011 21:00

I voted that "The US has given up on ever being able to change the status quo in Kashmir." This is not for lack of want, but because Kashmir would be landlocked, with only two 'routes in', one being Pakistan (already a problematic route to Afghanistan), or India (not even a remote option, to service an Kashmiri 'client state').

America's support for the TSP post 9/11 has not born the fruits that were wanted (as we all know), and the discussion has now turned to taking direct action against the TSP itself.

America is not looking to do Pakistan any more favours, having already felt the sting of TSP ingratitude.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 29 Sep 2011 21:24

Last option for me. Wiki leaks confirms this option and MMS inspired brotherly love for pests across the border gives me low hopes for J&K in the near and middle term.

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 29 Sep 2011 21:45

shiv wrote:The US will never make India give up Kashmir. Please pardon the piskology but Indians are
1. Convinced that others are traitors and only I (ie oneself) am patriotic and that eveyrone else is ready to give up Kashmir.
2. Strongly opposed to another partition of India no matter who wants it

We can talk abut anything. We can talk about giving Kashmir away. But it ain't gonna happen. And that is why the US ain't gonna make it happen. Tough shit.

That is what is lovely about this thread. Discussion about Kashmir is up for grabs. Like I give you guys permission to talk as much as you want about Angelina Jolie. Will start thread if you like. But you won't get her.

I dont share your optimism on either the Indian government's "nationalistic" credentials nor the Indian masses' "deep attachment" to Kashmir and their aversion to another partition, when it comes to Kashmir.

I personally think that if any government loses Kashmir (either on the negotiating table or otherwise), the political fallout of that dismemberment in India would be at most one election cycle and probably not even that. I think the Indian public will feel as strongly about losing KAshmir as perhaps, one petrol and kerosene price rise.

Then again, what does it matter, what I think. I could be totally wrong about this.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Sep 2011 22:17

Kashmir is not going anywhere period. I think living room patriots just don't get it.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 29 Sep 2011 23:46

How about a topic on US policy on Kerala? n

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 30 Sep 2011 01:23

shiv wrote:Kashmir is not going anywhere period. I think living room patriots just don't get it.

Right, Sir. Just like Pakistan was never supposed to happen, until it happened.

And then, Sir, just like, Pakistan could never be a threat to India, until it happened.

And then, Sir, just like Bangladesh was not supposed to get hostile to India, until it did.

And then, Sir, the Maoists were never supposed to win in Nepal, until they did.

And then, Sir, just like POK was "an integral part of India", until it is now defacto recognized as Paki by everybody.

And then, Sir, the Chinese were never seriously supposed to claim Arunachal, until they did.

And then, Sir, just like the Paki under the garb of Taliban were never supposed to return to Afgan, until they will.

I humbly and respectfully state, Sir, that I can be wrong and in any case, who cares what I think, anyway.

But, I cant help but say, that even if it is strongly felt that Kashmir is not going anywhere, ONE SHOULD NEVER GET COMPLACENT OR OVER CONFIDENT and there are many steps that Indian can and should take, that makes it even more of an impossibility, which it is not doing at the moment. Everyone on this forum knows what those steps are and agrees with them, including you, Sir. I need not repeat them here, as those steps are not exclusively my ideas nor are they any product of original thought on my part. Hubris is dangerous for anyone, but in the Indian context it is doubly so, as the Indians have a unique knack of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I would never presume to sit on an armchair, in your august presence, Sir, or of this forum. I will be happy with the wooden bench or even stand, leaving the armchair entirely to you, Sir.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Sep 2011 01:50

US interest in Kashmir is limited to keeping their munna happy and obedient. Munna currently wants the whole of Kashmir, which the US knows is not feasible. Hence the constant harping about the "need for dialogue and resolution of the dispute". If hypothetically their munna was satisfied with making the LOC the international border, the US would be toeing that line.
In any case, US opinion on Kashmir is the last thing we need to be worried about. Any compromise on Kashmir will happen if and only if our own leaders sell us out. So what we need to be worried about is if all the people in our government actually have the interests of our country at heart.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 30 Sep 2011 02:44

I agree with nachiket, so my pick for the poll is "none of the above".

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2011 09:54

shivajisisodia wrote:Right, Sir. Just like Pakistan was never supposed to happen, until it happened.

And then, Sir, just like, Pakistan could never be a threat to India, until it happened.

And then, Sir, just like Bangladesh was not supposed to get hostile to India, until it did.

And then, Sir, the Maoists were never supposed to win in Nepal, until they did.

And then, Sir, just like POK was "an integral part of India", until it is now defacto recognized as Paki by everybody.

And then, Sir, the Chinese were never seriously supposed to claim Arunachal, until they did.

And then, Sir, just like the Paki under the garb of Taliban were never supposed to return to Afgan, until they will.

I humbly and respectfully state, Sir, that I can be wrong and in any case, who cares what I think, anyway.

But, I cant help but say, that even if it is strongly felt that Kashmir is not going anywhere, ONE SHOULD NEVER GET COMPLACENT OR OVER CONFIDENT and there are many steps that Indian can and should take, that makes it even more of an impossibility, which it is not doing at the moment.

shivajisisodia ji,

great post!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 10:19

shivajisisodia wrote:
But, I cant help but say, that even if it is strongly felt that Kashmir is not going anywhere, ONE SHOULD NEVER GET COMPLACENT OR OVER CONFIDENT and there are many steps that Indian can and should take, that makes it even more of an impossibility, which it is not doing at the moment. Everyone on this forum knows what those steps are and agrees with them, including you, Sir. I need not repeat them here, as those steps are not exclusively my ideas nor are they any product of original thought on my part. Hubris is dangerous for anyone, but in the Indian context it is doubly so, as the Indians have a unique knack of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I would never presume to sit on an armchair, in your august presence, Sir, or of this forum. I will be happy with the wooden bench or even stand, leaving the armchair entirely to you, Sir.

Well I wasn't actually going to reply until Rajesh gave his approval to what I consider a rhetorical but substance free argument. The comfort of the seat you choose is your prerogative. Comfort is after all in the mind.

As I see it I wold stop caring for the Indian union if Kashmir were given away. There have to be sufficient nationalists in India to fight and stop that, but it is my firm belief that if some Indian government gives Kashmir away in negotiations I believe that India would need a rethink.

I believe that Karnataka along with a few other Southern Indian states would be better off seceding from the Indian Union before their resources and culture are bartered away by a democratic Indian polity that uses the voting power of overpopulated central/northern Indian states that have known nothing but subjugation in the past. If Indians from those states are willing to migrate to the Southern Indian fragment of India and contribute to it as a separate nation with control of most Indian ports and the peninsula they would be welcome. That new nation would have a more confident outlook on the future of India than what I hear on here.

Mind you I have reasons to be more confident whether India remains intact or not, but have been told here that I am overconfident. I believe that you are being overconfident about Indian survival as a nation. For me, Kashmir is a test case for India the nation. if India the nation is incapable of holding Kashmir, then it needs to be broken up. What's left of it can be up for grabs for anyone. i will only care for what is around me in the South and I know there are a lot of people who will feel similarly. "nationalism" and "national integration" is nonsense if a nation cannot stay intact.

Let the people who feel India is about to break up work hard to stop that. I am working hard enough as it is. If India still breaks up, I know my hard work will crate a new and prosperous nation around where I live. It won't go waste.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2011 12:17

Yes, Kashmir is a test case. If Kashmir falls, I'm going to turn Islamic and then I'll go and subjugate South India!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Sep 2011 12:51

the strategic value of kashmir is only really for those powers in geographical proximity
for unkil to view an independant kashmir as a 'base' is illogical
it is landlocked with complete dependence on india (and pakistan) for access of any kind
look at the fun unkil is having in supplying afghanistan?
even for the chinese, possession of kashmir per se yields little
for the paks - the logical arguement was the river heads and watershed... but that is easily managed through civil agreements with amicable neighbours
the reality of kashmir is that it is an ideological and emotional logic for the definition of a civilisational entity - namely ours, and its economic viability is utterly linked to that of the rest of india - simple geography dictates that.
kashmir cannot be separated from india
the only solution that was probably on the table was LOC = IB, i find it hard to imagine any indian political party offering more
in my view, in the fullness of time - the rest of kashmir will come back into the fold of bharat

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 13:49

Modern India is a contract where Indian states exist within certain bounds defined by the constitution. If one state can be given away the contract is broken. No contract no India. It is another matter to ask if J&K can be lost in a war. Unless you are an astrologer who can predict the loss of J&K in war you will think J&K is part of India and one day it won't be part of India any more. That is all.

How much confidence do I have that J&K will not be lost in war? Am I over confident? Underconfident? The questions are pretty stupid actually . Just wake me up the day J&K goes and tell me I was wrong. Until then my 100% confidence will be 100% correct. If J&K goes then my 100% confidence will be 100% wrong. There I have filled up a paragraph with rhetoric minus substance. But just one para, not an entire series of posts.

Time pass onlee We have a shrinking nation run by traitors led by foreigners sucking up to alien religions. A loser nation. Why worry so much about Kashmir? Rahul Mehta is right. We need freedom from Kashmir.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 13:56

When was Jammu and Kashmir including PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan and Aksai Chin ever part of India? This question is not a joke. If someone knows the answer please post. If the question sounds stupid and makes you angry that is OK so long a you can post an answer, If you don't have an answer keep your anger to yourself.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 30 Sep 2011 14:38

shiv wrote:When was Jammu and Kashmir including PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan and Aksai Chin ever part of India? This question is not a joke. If someone knows the answer please post. If the question sounds stupid and makes you angry that is OK so long a you can post an answer, If you don't have an answer keep your anger to yourself.

I'll be equally interested to know. It appears to me that the answer is not simple. I'll dig out a very old post of mine that asks the same question as what you are asking now.

But you have to establish 2 baselines to your question.
1. What do you mean by ever in "ever part of India"?
2. Is the questions line of logic applicable to any other part of India?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 15:56

SRoy wrote:
But you have to establish 2 baselines to your question.
1. What do you mean by ever in "ever part of India"?
2. Is the questions line of logic applicable to any other part of India?

Roy please do dig up those posts of yours. Your objections above are 400% valid.

Parts of India have been under control of someone or the other at various times in history. India can vary between a romantic notion, a geographically defined entity and a coherent nation state. All three of these have not coincided under one ruler/flag very often.

I tend to view India as a geographic entity with he Himayalas to the north and he Indus river to the north west. The peninsula from Kutch to the mouth of the Brahmaputra are India. To the east India is bounded by the mountains that separate us from Myanmar. Unfortunately this view of India has very fuzzy borders and is of no use for any nation state.

But if you are going to draw borders one can draw a line anywhere, But typically borders lie at physical barriers - rivers and mountains and seas. Technically and politically we have to stick to the defined borders of India as currently accepted. This leaves the Indus pretty much in Pakistan. It also leaves the Ganga-Brahmaputra estuary in Bangladesh.

If we are to stick to the agreements that were reached at the time of independence, not only was Pakistan created, but Kashmir was an independent kingdom under Hari Singh who was initially undecided about accession to India or Pakistan. It was a Pakistani invasion of J&K that led to Hari Singh acceding to India. JK then legally became india, bt from that moment on it was almost fully undr Pakistani control with Paks approaching Srinagar. India had to vacate these troops up to the current LOC n the west.

In the east Aksai Chin had been part of a the J&K territory and the border was with Tibet, not China. That was in 1947. The PRC did not even come into existence till 1949 so here was no qustion of disputing any borders until well after the first India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. China claimed Tibet in 1950 (or 51) but accepted n "Autonomous Tibet". So again there was no boundary dispute and no "Indian military presence in Aksai Chin. It was in 1959 hat the Dalai Lama came to India and China formally annexed Tibet. In the 3 years between 1959 and 1962 India discovered that Chna had built a highway through Aksai Chin - and area that India had left unguarded and unpoliced. Of course the Indian armed forces were not totally idle in that period. 1961 was the year when Goa was liberated from an intransigent Portugal and India was making new enemies.

Essentially the PRC that marched into Tibet went right ahead and built a road through Aksai Chin while India was not looking. India had been too busy looking at the Western border with Pakistan perhaps. Aksai Chin was lost by inattention.. "Lost" is a poor word for something we never exerted ownership of. One can call it criminal neglect - but those are facts that we have to live with.

Why did India police the LoC in West west and not Aksai Chin? Does anyone have any reasons apart from Nehru's blind trust that the terrain was hostile? It is a different matter that India may have been driven out of Aksai Chin anyway even if we had forces there - but we did not occupy the place in the first instance in order to be "driven out" AFAIK. Why were there no Indians in Aksai Chin?

Clarly Kashmir was a state that joined India in a hurry and the defence of its borders, which were India's new borders, had no plans. India had n plan on how to defend Kashmir. the reasons seem easy enough to explain in the West. we had to get the Pakis out - they were already there. But in Aksai Chin - we did not even bother going there. Why?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 17:40

Indian Survey Map in 1950 with Aksai Chin boundary "undefined"

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 30 Sep 2011 17:41

shiv wrote:
Well I wasn't actually going to reply until Rajesh gave his approval to what I consider a rhetorical but substance free argument. The comfort of the seat you choose is your prerogative. Comfort is after all in the mind.

As I see it I wold stop caring for the Indian union if Kashmir were given away. There have to be sufficient nationalists in India to fight and stop that, but it is my firm belief that if some Indian government gives Kashmir away in negotiations I believe that India would need a rethink.

I believe that Karnataka along with a few other Southern Indian states would be better off seceding from the Indian Union before their resources and culture are bartered away by a democratic Indian polity that uses the voting power of overpopulated central/northern Indian states that have known nothing but subjugation in the past. If Indians from those states are willing to migrate to the Southern Indian fragment of India and contribute to it as a separate nation with control of most Indian ports and the peninsula they would be welcome. That new nation would have a more confident outlook on the future of India than what I hear on here.

Mind you I have reasons to be more confident whether India remains intact or not, but have been told here that I am overconfident. I believe that you are being overconfident about Indian survival as a nation. For me, Kashmir is a test case for India the nation. if India the nation is incapable of holding Kashmir, then it needs to be broken up. What's left of it can be up for grabs for anyone. i will only care for what is around me in the South and I know there are a lot of people who will feel similarly. "nationalism" and "national integration" is nonsense if a nation cannot stay intact.

Let the people who feel India is about to break up work hard to stop that. I am working hard enough as it is. If India still breaks up, I know my hard work will crate a new and prosperous nation around where I live. It won't go waste.

Sir, I agree with everything you say in this post with one exception. I will bring out the exception in the end, but let me comment on this and your one subsequent post.

1) You are right that Kashmir is a test case for India and if it goes, India probably goes with it, it breaks up.

2) You are also right, that in pure military terms, it is extremely difficult, if not a 100% impossible for the Paki to wrest our Kashmir away from us. Although, Kargil has shaken my confidence. Before Kargil I did not think possible that the Paki would be able to move several kilometers into Indian territory, go undetected for almost a year if not longer and be so extremely difficult to dislodge. In fact, Kargil was an extremely difficult and expensive war for India in lives, morale and money. ALSO, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PEAKS OCCUPIED BY PAKI IN KARGIL, WHICH ARE STILL UNDER PAKI CONTROL, AS INDIANS COULD NOT DISOLDGE THEM IN TIME FOR THE CEASE FIRE TO GO INTO EFFECT AND THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT LIED TO ITS OWN PEOPLE AND HID THIS FACT FROM ITS OWN PEOPLE AND LET THESE POINTS TO THIS DAY IN PAKI CONTROL. WHATS TO PREVENT SUCH A SCENARIO ON A LARGER SCALE, MAYBE NOT ALL OF KASHMIR, BUT SMALL PARTS, LITTLE BY LITTLE. THERE IS ALREADY SUSPICION THAT THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT IS HIDING THE CHINESE TAKING OVER OF INDIAN TERRITORY SQ FT BY SQ FT. But in the real world, even in the past, I cant remember a scenario where it was ever only a pure military battle anywhere. In the real world, a geo-political and diplomatic cold war is constantly going in between rivals and enemies, sometimes even between friends. When a military confrontation breaks out, the geo-political and diplomatic war doesnt stop, it actually intensifies and a "war" is always fought simultaneously on the military front, political front and diplomatic front, for the duration of that "war". While in pure military terms, Paki may not be able to win Kashmir, but under the guise of a political settlement, the Indian government can give away Kashmir, piece by piece, not by calling it "giving away of Kashmir", but calling it "diluting the borders", "granting autonomy to the Kashmiris", or "reunification of Kashmiri families", or "land for peace" with peace guaranteed by the West, or any such name. Afterall, India did secede some 10000 acres of land to BanglaDesh recently. No one called it a "military defeat" of the Indians, it was called "enclave exchanges" in the interest of peace and reunification of families or even "border adjustments" etc. The more the political pressure on India, which can be caused to a great extent by militancy in Kashmir and massive and sustained terrorist attacks on the rest of India, Indian government can buckle and try to find "safe names" to call a giveaway, because the current Indian establishment "dhoti shivers" at the name of an all out war and lies to its people that our "economic growth" will be at stake in case of war and this is "not the right time" to fight a war, lets just wait till we become a super power and then we will deal with the Pakis, they say.

3) With all due respects to you, Sir, and I respect you immensely, just the fact that you personally will start thinking of seceding from the rest of India or will turn in favor of South India seceding from the rest of us, does not change this military-political-diplomatic scenario on the ground, nor does it change the actual nature of the Indian establishment. It also, Sir, with due respects, does not change even ten minds within the general population, because in order for your hearfelt plea and pain to be understood, one has to be a nationalist and you will not find too many nationalists within Indian masses today. If you make a plea of secession in the event India gives away Kashmir, Sir, you are more likely to be an object of derision and jokes in India today, rather than your plea changing any minds, which in a healthy society, they should. I personally am, Sir, however, taking the liberty, as a North Indian, to ask for your help, in seeking and successfully obtaining assylum in the newly formed South India, in the event that KAshmir is given away and your idea of secession actually occurs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 17:46

shivajisisodia wrote:I personally am, Sir, however, taking the liberty, as a North Indian, to ask for your help, in seeking and successfully obtaining assylum in the newly formed South India, in the event that KAshmir is given away and your idea of secession actually occurs.

If you are already an Indian citizen as opposed to being a PIO who gave up Indian citizenship for other reasons I would see no problem here. Just give me a buzz on the day Kashmir is given away. Till then there should be nothing for me personally to worry about. What you choose to do is not my business.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 17:47

India's 1954 map

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 30 Sep 2011 17:50

shiv wrote:When was Jammu and Kashmir including PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan and Aksai Chin ever part of India? This question is not a joke. If someone knows the answer please post. If the question sounds stupid and makes you angry that is OK so long a you can post an answer, If you don't have an answer keep your anger to yourself.

Exactly, Sir. These are the sort of the arguments that the cowardly and corrupt Indian Government wil use to "give away" territory. If one did not ever have the territory, there is no problem in giving it away, right ?

Your question, Sir, is very Nehruesque. I remember Nehru saying something like (and I am paraphrasing), "Why should we bother with a piece of land, where not even a blade of grass grows?"

There is not much distance to travel from the above Nehru argument to asking something like, "why should we not do away with borders between two Kashmirs, and allow the entire JK to be ruled jointly by India and Pak, if it buys us peace and kudos from the International community, not to mention each politician getting a few millions each from the Sheikhs in the gulf, perhaps a Nobel prize or two and hell, despite our previous stand, when was the last time, KAshmir was NOT a disputed territory ?"

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Sep 2011 17:58

personally my view is that who had what part of kashmir is irrelevant
its ours, we're going to keep it and we're going to get the rest of it back
(all lands from sunrise to sunset arguement)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 18:06

More on Aksai Chin. First the text, will produce maps later

http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/562/562-vk-singh.htm

Worried by the Russian advance into Central Asia along with their own anxiety to fix borders, the British now started work on defining the border between Ladakh and Tibet. A number of expeditions sent to the area found that the choice lay between the Karakoram and the Kuen Lun ranges. W.H. Johnson, an officer of the Survey of India, who had passed through the area on his way to Khotan, recommended that the boundary lie along the Kuen Lun mountains. He may well have been guided in this by the fact that the Kashmir government claimed that their territory extended to these mountains. Johnson was supported by John Ardagh, the Director of Military Intelligence, and this proposed boundary came to be called the Johnson-Ardagh Line. My comment:This line included Aksai Chin

Lord Elgin, the then Viceroy felt that this line was too far forward and would be difficult to defend. An alternative alignment which skirted the northern edge of the Karakoram range was proposed by George McCartney, the British representative in Kashgar who discussed this with the Russian representative in Kashgar as well as with Chinese officials. This line was then also formally proposed to the Chinese by the British Minister in Peking, Sir Claude Macdonald. This line thus came to be called the McCartney-Macdonald Line. My comment: This excluded Aksai Chn as being difficult to defend

Though India inherited the borders of Kashmir with Sinkiang and Tibet as decided by the British, neither the Indian government or the state of Jammu and Kashmir took any steps to actually extend their control beyond the Karakoram range and into the Aksai Chin plains. To an extent this was understandable. Till January 1949 India was busy in a war with Pakistan over J&K and it was only with great difficulty and daring that it was able to ensure that Ladakh did not fall to the Pakistanis. Even after the ceasefire there were many more pressing problems to attend than to look after a far off forgotten frontier where no one lived and through which no threat was envisaged.

In March 1956 the Chinese began to construct a road to link Sin-kiang and Tibet. The first that India knew about this was when the Chinese reported its completion. Maps accompanying the report showed both Aksai Chin in Ladakh and territory up to the Himalayan foothills, east of Bhutan as Chinese territory. It is not necessary for the purpose of this paper to recount the tortuous discussions which took place during the fifties, except to state that no concrete proof was provided by the Chinese that this territory belonged to them. Nor is it necessary to recount the ill-advised Â‘Forward PolicyÂ’ followed by the Government of India leading finally to the outbreak of hostilities in October 1962. During the talks, the Chinese put forward what they claimed was the boundary.

Two alignments were put forward by them, one in 1956 which to a large extent coincided with the McCartney-Macdonald Line and the other in 1960 which pushed the line even further east. The Chinese produced no documents to prove the authenticity of these lines other than two secret maps produced by the Carto-graphic Bureau of the Chinese General Staff and the other by the Bureau of Survey of the Chinese Ministry of National Defence. During the 1962 operations the Chinese advanced up to their 1960 claim line, and in some cases even beyond. While they did withdraw from areas they had captured in the east, no such withdrawal took place in Ladakh and the Line of Actual Control lies even further east than what was originally claimed by them.

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 30 Sep 2011 18:07

shiv wrote:
Just give me a buzz on the day Kashmir is given away. Till then there should be nothing for me personally to worry about. What you choose to do is not my business.

This quote of yours reminds me for some reason of Mohammad Shah Rangila. I am quite sure that it was he who said it. " There is nothing to worry about, Dilli abhi door hai".

If the US, being far far away, has several arms of its policy establishments worry about KAshmir, every minute of every day (scores of Americans, if not more, make a good living, analyzing Kashmir has become their profession), why should we Indians not worry about Kashmir and our national integrity, every second of every minute of every day and be very very vigilant of everybody, our enemies, our government and even some of our people ? Particulary, like I have said in one of my previous posts, in view of the fact that we are Indians and are inheritors of a tremendous legacy of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory with the current political dispensation as bad or worst than we have ever had in our entire history. When I read Indian History, including very recent history, I am amazed and absolutely flabbergasted by the strategic, tactical and intentional blunders that we have commited as a people and astounded by so many defeats, which should never never have happened as all conditions in those defeats were so heavily in our favor and we had such overwhelming odds for victory.

And thank you in advance, Sir, for your anticipated help in seeking assylum. I promise, in the event that assylum is granted to me, I will join the South Indian army to combat people like RajeshA from North India who would have turned Islamic, changed their names to RasheedA and such and attack us South Indians to convert us to Islam.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 18:10

Lalmohan wrote:personally my view is that who had what part of kashmir is irrelevant
its ours, we're going to keep it and we're going to get the rest of it back
(all lands from sunrise to sunset arguement)

The problem may be that Aksai Chin is difficult to hold. I am not sure how it would be in this day and age though. I suspect that it would be possible to gain territory there and cut off Chinese logistics, but I am not sure what benefits would accrue - given that China might want to ease pressure by attacking in the east.

PoK is a different issue

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2011 18:19

shivajisisodia wrote:And thank you in advance, Sir, for your anticipated help in seeking assylum. I promise, in the event that assylum is granted to me, I will join the South Indian army to combat people like RajeshA from North India who would have turned Islamic, changed their names to RasheedA and such and attack us South Indians to convert us to Islam.

shivajisisodia ji,

nothing doing! If the South Indians leave the North Indians to fend for themselves, then sooner or later, the Islamized North Indians would also pounce on the South! So it is not only for North Indians to save Kashmir. It is just as much a South Indian problem.

Gondor should not stand alone against Mordor! Rohan too would share the burden!

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 30 Sep 2011 18:21

^^^^^

1) Sir you dont compromise the territorial integrity of your country, merely because it is difficult to hold.

2) The reason, Aksai Chin, was never fully under Indian control in the past was, because technology did not exist to exercise full control easily. Let me turn the question around. When was the last time, the Chinese or even the Tibetans had full control over Aksai Chin ? It didnt prevent them from annexing it and performing engineering, technological and logistical marvels by building a highway at that height and terrain and then constantly maintaining that highway, to exercise full control over it, as they do now. If Aksai Chin in 1962 was not very accessible from the Indian side, it was even less accessible from the Chinese side, but yet it didnt stop them from taking it and retaining it. I would imagine, "grass doesnt grow in Aksai Chin, even today", yet the Chinese hold it tightly. The Chinese succeeded in their technology and political options of controlling a territory they never controlled in the past, the Indians failed to exercise their options of retaining what they at least had some nominal control over. That is the difference, Sir.

But then again, Sir, who cares what I say. I may be completely wrong to worry about these things. "Dilli abhi door hai" and Banglore, the presumed new capital of the South India, if and when it ever seceeds, is even further away.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 18:27

RajeshA wrote: nothing doing! If the South Indians leave the North Indians to fend for themselves, then sooner or later, the Islamized North Indians would also pounce on the South! So it is not only for North Indians to save Kashmir. It is just as much a South Indian problem.

Gondor should not stand alone against Mordor! Rohan too would share the burden!

Rajesh there is an element of bait and switch going on here and since we have collectively trashed this thread let me tell you why there is no hope for India. You see, India has not been defended due to lack of nationalism. And once nationalism declines to the extent that India starts fragmenting by secession of various parts, those parts are going to be swallowed up by he Islamized hordes. The interesting part here is that the islamized people - first from the west and later converts in North India all have the very unity and nationalism whose absence is being lamented.

The simple conclusion is: convert or you are loser. Some people want to be losers. They are welcome to be whatever way they want.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2011 18:29

shivajisisodia wrote:^^^^^

But then again, Sir, who cares what I say. I may be completely wrong to worry about these things. "Dilli abhi door hai" and Banglore, the presumed new capital of the South India, if and when it ever seceeds, is even further away.

You are wrong alright. But who am I to try and correct you. I can only state what I think.

shivajisisodia · Post by **shivajisisodia** » 30 Sep 2011 18:47

shiv wrote:
The simple conclusion is: convert or you are loser. Some people want to be losers. They are welcome to be whatever way they want.

Again, with due respect, Sir, I am an unabashed proponent of what you said in this quote. "Convert or you are a loser".

I have no hesitation in saying to everyone "Convert to Hindu Nationalism and Militant Hindu Nationalism or you are a loser". Militant Hindu Nationalism is the need of the hour and this type of democracy that we have which is imported from the "West" is inimical to Hindu Nationalism. If we take a deep dive in our own religion and culture, we will find our own form of inherent Hindu pluralism and liberalism, upon which we can build our own democracy, which will be rooted in Hindu religion, culture and traditions and protect them. This "western" and "imported" democracy is less pluralistic, less liberal and less humane than what we find in our own traditions and will never work for us, and in fact destroy us.

And Sir, you ABSOLUTELY, always have the privilege to CORRECT me. Our Hindu culture and tradition teaches me to grant the utmost respect to a fellow Hindu, a fellow Nationalist and a fellow Indian and always always be open to learning and be corrected.