In this week’s print issue of the New Yorker, there’s a long, satisfying piece by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll on India and Pakistan’s attempts to resolve the status of Kashmir over the past few years. The big surprise is just how close the two countries were to permanently resolving the seemingly insoluble problem. The agreement, which was in its final stages in the spring of 2007, was never put into effect or publicly revealed because it was being finalized just when Pervez Musharraf’s government began to unravel. Musharraf had hoped to simply postpone the public summit where the deal would have been announced, but instead the whole thing had to be shelved.
The article isn’t online at the New Yorker‘s web site, but you can read it here, at the New America Foundation:
By early 2007, the back-channel talks on Kashmir had become “so advanced that we’d come to semicolons,†Kasuri recalled. A senior Indian official who was involved agreed. “It was huge–I think it would have changed the basic nature of the problem,†he told me. “You would have then had the freedom to remake Indo-Pakistani relations.†Aziz and Lambah were negotiating the details for a visit to Pakistan by the Indian Prime Minister during which, they hoped, the principles underlying the Kashmir agreement would be announced and talks aimed at implementation would be inaugurated. One quarrel, over a waterway known as Sir Creek, would be formally settled.
Neither government, however, had done much to prepare its public for a breakthrough. In the spring of 2007, a military aide in Musharraf’s office contacted a senior civilian official to ask how politicians, the media, and the public might react. “We think we’re close to a deal,†Musharraf ’s aide said, as this official recalled it. “Do you think we can sell it?â€
Regrettably, the time did not look ripe, this official recalled answering. In early March, Musharraf had invoked his near-dictatorial powers to fire the chief justice of the country’s highest court. That decision set off rock-tossing protests by lawyers and political activists. (link)
And from there that it just went downhill for General Musharraf. Now, with weak and unstable new leadership in Asif Zardari, and a possible change in leadership coming in India as well this spring, it’s unclear whether anything can be done anytime soon.
The actual details of the almost-agreement aren’t spelled out entirely in the article, but we do get some promising inklings:
To outsiders, it has long seemed obvious that the Line of Control should be declared the international border between India and Pakistan–it’s been in place for almost forty years, and each country has built its own institutions behind it. Musharraf, however, made it clear from the start that this would be unacceptable; India was equally firm that it would never renegotiate its borders or the Line of Control. The way out of this impasse, Singh has said, was to “make borders irrelevant,†by allowing for the free movement of people and goods within an autonomous Kashmir region. For Pakistan, this formula might work if it included provisions for the protection–and potential enrichment, through free trade–of the people of Kashmir, in whose name Pakistan had carried on the conflict.
The most recent version of the nonpaper, drafted in early 2007, laid out several principles for a settlement, according to people who have seen the draft or have participated in the discussions about it. Kashmiris would be given special rights to move and trade freely on both sides of the Line of Control. Each of the former princely state’s distinct regions would receive a measure of autonomy– details would be negotiated later. Providing that violence declined, each side would gradually withdraw its troops from the region. At some point, the Line of Control might be acknowledged by both governments as an international border. It is not clear how firm a commitment on a final border the negotiators were prepared to make, or how long it would all take; one person involved suggested a time line of about ten to fifteen years.
One of the most difficult issues involved a plan to establish a joint body, made up of local Kashmiri leaders, Indians, and Pakistanis, to oversee issues that affected populations on both sides of the Line of Control, such as water rights. Pakistan sought something close to shared governance, with the Kashmiris taking a leading role; India, fearing a loss of sovereignty, wanted much less power-sharing. The envoys wrestled intensively over what language to use to describe the scope of this new body; the last draft termed it a “joint mechanism.†(link)
Though fragile, this seems to me to be potentially workable, as it gives most parties a little bit of what they had hoped to get from a final resolution. Indeed, this story makes me feel somewhat optimistic, for once, about Kashmir. (If they did this once, they could do it again if and when political conditions are right in both Delhi and Islamabad.)
There’s a great deal of other interesting material in Coll’s article, including material related to the 11/26 attackers (definitely Pakistan backed, no surprises there) as well as India’s troubling history of “disappearing” Kashmiri separatists. Overall, he has a very balanced and informed perspective (neither pro-India nor pro-Pakistan); it’s well worth a read.
50 · PJ said
I am sorry. I was agreeing with sulabh at #33 and SecularPlease who brought up Congress in #35. All I was doing was supporting the BJP party and Hindutva fundamentalism, which represents all that is wonderful and beautiful about India. Is that so wrong?
I wasn’t suggesting an equivalence, though groups like the BLF have launched what one might term terrorist attacks on pakistani targets, so y’know, not the nicest folks either. (Weirdly I remember ready some article about how the balochis were training together with tamil tigers. man, if India was actually funding them, then some support indirectly went to the ltte..)
But I also think its a bit simplistic to say the bombay attacks were arbitrary butchery and savagery; they were savage, but clearly not arbitrary. As with most terrorist attacks, they did have underlying strategic aims. It seems logical that those that launched the attacks on mumbai did so with the aim of destabilizing the current, weak civilian government in Islamabad, bloodying India and getting a military response out of India as well. This includes your usual militant/terrorist outfits and probably some ISI and certain military segments that despise the Bhutto clan as well.
It’s cold and frankly inhuman, but everything can be thought of in terms of the strategic chess game, innocent lives be damned. And, sadly, that’s how they are thought of in both countries, though as you point out, the scale of Pakistan’s game against India is far more brutal and terrible, and perhaps unsurprisingly, leverages religious fanaticism as opposed to the more secular nationalist goals of the baluchis.
51 · bjp said
Ah. I bet it’s nice to retreat to glib one-liners whenever you’re forced to actually critically examine your biases. That cognitive dissonance must be a bitch.
53 · PJ said
Why are my comments so offensive or glib? Why is a defense of the BJP so irksome to you?
54 · bjp said
If yourstrawmen, weren’t actually strawmen, but serious comments, then I’m afraid you’re in violation of site policy mein freund.
55 · PJ said
It is extremely hurtful to hear you say that Hindutva is so disgusting that support for it and its leaders is unacceptable.
Priya – “Well he forgot to mention the innumerable Hindus who have been killed or driven out from Jammu. Innocent non-Muslim villagers continue to massacared at regular intervals and not to mention the Army family members. This was not highlighted in the article.”
Not Jammu, it was Kashmir, from where, in 1989, almost the entire Kashmiri Hindu population was ethnically cleansed by the Jehadis. While this barbarity was happening, Kashmir’s Muslims remained silent. Indeed, I myself witnessed Kashmiri Muslims marking Hindu homes, in Srinagar [the capital city], which they intended to occupy once the Hindus were driven out. To date, many Hindu homes have been usurped by Muslims or bought for dirt cheap prices from their refugee owners. During the 90s there was a new broker class, which traveled to the refugee camps, buying property from the hapless Hindus, who were in desperate need of funds. Kashmiriyat my ass.
In 1989, following the friday evening prayers, every city mosque’s Mullah would wrap up with a call to arms and a demand that the Kafirs [unbelieving Hindus] leave Kashmir or face the wrath of Allah’s soldiers. The very same soldiers who only months ago had defeated the mighty Soviet Army in Afghanistan. Hindus who lived in Srinagar could hear those sermons in the comforts of their living rooms, and I can only imagine the fear they must have experienced every friday. There were lists of prominent Hindu names [straight out of the Nazi playbook] on the city Mosques’ front gates; the lists named those who were to be killed by the jehadis in the upcoming weeks. And killed those on the list were, by the likes of Yasin Malik and Javed Mir and Shabir Shah.
Like Kashmir’s majority Muslim population, I , too, want to live independent of India and Pakistan, but not at the cost of Kashmir’s Hindu population, who had lived in the valley long before the birth of Islam. And, until the Hindus are rehabilitated back into their ancestral homes, I don’t believe we deserve freedom or even greater autonomy.
Play nice or be deleted. This isn’t the place for petty tit-for-tat arguments. Do you really expect to solve this dispute in a comment thread or just prove who has a bigger d*ck? It would be best to limit your discussion to the content of Amardeep’s post.
57 · Zainab said
I don’t know if a 1950 plebiscite would have been a better solution before facts on the ground changed irreparably, but the brutal fact is, at this point, I think this is realistically a non starter. There has been too much blood and displacement for anything to happen. At best. what one can hope for is the division of Jammu from Kashmir, and some sort of free movement zone that this supposed deal envisaged.
I am not at all convinced by the story Coll paints, especially with the catchy title of a near miss, despite the Nixon in China angle he is pushing with Musharraf. The critical line in the entire story is:
What is the point of a backroom deal without public buy-in? No half-sane self-interested government (or the Pakistani military) would advocate a deal which would force both countries to walk back their rhetoric and historical claims significantly, unless they knew they wouldn’t get killed at the polls for advocating it. In both countries, I don’t think there is a mass fatigue with Kashmir (at least in India, this war is fought mostly in the shadows as far as the larger populace is concerned. They do not directly see the economic, military, human, or strategic costs to the war) in either country, to the contrary, it is clearly a strongly evocative issue – one of national identity and a nationalist example of Pakistan’s ability to resist the existential threat posed by its giant neighbor – in Kashmir, so why would the public be willing to give up so much, especially with right wing religious radicals on both sides putting pressure on the parameters of the discourse?
Not to mention the increasing Taliban incursions into Pakistan, which some say might actually be fueled by more radical elements of the ISI and the army in order to extend America’s tenuous military resources, and force it to effectively “concede” Afghanistan to the Pakistanis, as opposed to leaders aligned with India. The only hope I see is if there is a Pakistani grassroots opposition to the Taliban, and the public feels that a deal on Kashmir and an agreement with India of some sort would actually help restore a modicum of order to Pakistan, probably through broad and deep economic interaction and investment in Pakistan. And that’s a pipedream.
Why don’t they just divide the land? half to India and half to Pakistan.
Does India really need Kashmir for anything?
“i don’t know if India can play a similar role between Shia/Sunni or Sindhi/Punjabi/Mohajir faultlines in Pakistan.” ponniyin, pakistan already claims that india does that. and i believe some of their allegations might be true, due to some info from family in indian intelligence (prima facie, what should stop RAW from secretly helping pakistani separatists, except a markedly pro-peace chief executive like IK Gujral or its own incompetence?). of course, we have no terrorist training camps equivalent to muridke (we have some pan-islamic radical organizations, but those are certainly not sympathetic to india). india’s economically disenfranchised youth, when radicalized seem to like to create mayhem within the country, more than going across the border. not that i like war or state sponsorship of terrorism, but if that were the only option left on the table, then i’d like to see what the bajrang dal, vhp, shiv sena, sri ram sene, and durga vahini can do for their country.
“Vajpaye seemed to have the right combination of knowledge of geo-politics and in statesmanship – but he by the time he became PM he was too old.” sulabh, i’m curious: did vajpayee have any special expertise in geopolitics? like in the way colin powell or condoleeza rice or holbrooke type people have? i don’t recall reading any such thing recently, but let me know if you know of something.
52 · jackal said
There has been the long running saga of Sarabjit Singh, who was sentenced to be executed by Pakistan for being a RAW agent who committed terrorism in Pakistan, but whose sentence has been commuted after it became a diplomatic issue. India of course denies they have anything to do it, and given the absolute lack of information, it is very hard, for me at least, to get a handle on the degree of Indian involvement in insurgency inside Pakistan. But I can see how Pakistan might think dissimulation on even something as egregious as the Bombay attack might seem just par for the course for them in the back and forth with Indian intelligence.
60 · nm said
The area is an odd number. They don’t know whom to give the overflow to.
“OOGA BOOGA BJP! MODI! RUN!” you know, the sad thing is that some very unfortunate people in Gujarat must have felt this same emotion, but in a more visceral and immediate way.
60 · nm said
This poster is a troll.
From the WP: What does Pakistan want? Pakistan favors a plebiscite, as called for in a 1949 U.N. resolution, in which the residents of Jammu and Kashmir would vote on which country they want to join. India refuses to consider a plebiscite
What Does India Want? India regards Kashmir as an integral part of the Indian nation. It describes the Pakistani occupation of portions of the region as illegal. It wants Pakistan to cease support for cross-border terrorism launched by groups that want to unite Kashmir with Pakistan.
So, the rulers of jammu and kashmir decided (for the people and without a vote) to join india. Now, the pakistanis are saying let the people of jammu and kashmir decide for themselves what they want. isn’t that fair, if you believe in democrac?
You should really have been paying attention in history class before opining here. Or should consider reading a textbook. A few blog comments are hard to make up for a life so obviously untarnished by even a modicum of historical knowledge.
61 · portmanteau said
I think Vajpayee is considered one of the more successful ministers of external affairs that Indians have produced. His wiki entry has the dates and achievements and such.
As far I am concern his masterstroke was gate crashing the Nuke-Club and then fending off Albright and her piece-of-crap deputy Rubin to avoid signing CTBT. In spite of his overt display of affection, Clinton was not such a good friend of India. Clinton is the one who uttered the ‘K’ word, calling it the most dangerous place in the world. Vajpayee and his government were put under a lot of pressure by Americans still he emerged out of that without conceding much. Indians also enjoyed relatively better relations with its other neighbors during his tenure.
I can now see why Sulabh called me a troll. You seem to have strong views on this issue and seem to support only one side, but they are two sides to every issue and when I read things like this, it does allow me to see the pakistani point of view and I can see why india doesn’t want to put this issue up to a vote: they’d most likely lose the vote because kashmir is majority muslim.
In 1947, the Maharajah of Kashmir, a Hindu installed by the British, decided neither to seek independence nor to join Pakistan, despite the fact that the majority of his people were Muslims, but to surrender the territory to India. The British governor-general, Lord Mountbatten, insisted only that a referendum or plebiscite of the Kashmiri people be conducted.
What do the majority of the people in Kashmir want?
62 · Rahul said
Ah yes, that case. You know, I wouldn’t surprised if Pakistan/the ISI was exaggerating/making up shit about what India’s intelligence services are doing. RAW et al certainly do have assets in Pakistan, as they well should, and probably have been engaging in straightforward espionage/ covert support of assets, as they well should. But, at the same time, from what I’ve read, RAW has become increasingly dysfunctional with corruption/incompetence in the leadership and some high profile ‘defections’ and failures. And like others have pointed out, its not like India would be supporting Pakistan’s key internal enemies right now — the various pashtun groups/organizations, while elements of the pakistani military/civilian establishment certainly could be supporting key enemies of India in terms of danger/stability.
Any equivalency thus is flawed, just by the circumstances and interests of the nations and the third party groups that constitute their respective enemies.
69 · nm said
How about some of that ol’ fashioned textbook reading to know what the f you’re talking about, eh? You watch a documentary, you’re an expert on caste, you read an article, now you’re an expert on Kashmir.
SM interns say you are not PG, although that one did demonstrate a sphinx like ability to keep popping up even as previous IP addresses were swatted, so even if you’re not PG, you are well on the way to replacing it.
70 · jackal said
I am not making a claim of equivalency in any absolute moral sense, just in perception in Pakistan politics. And it is sensible that India won’t be aligning itself with extreme Islamists, but Pakistan does offer a veritable smorgasboard of anti-state options, so the RAW does have some maneuvering room.
Me neither, but I just don’t have any ability to know what the extent of truth and deception is in these issues. As you say, RAW’s biggest defence might be its incompetence, but maybe Sarabjit was one of the “success stories” (or maybe not, just that it is completely murky even to someone like me who has some level of knowledge of the politics on either side and has tried to make an effort to figure it out).
The plan was insanity in India’s part:
This would be a bad idea even if Pakistan was just an poor unstable country. Taking Rob point there is nothing to prevent Islamic terrorist groups from setting up sleeper cells, infrastructure and laying plans for a future Islamic republic. It would be the logical thing for any group that believes in the Supremacy of Islam to do — it would be idicy on their part to forgo such an opportunity.
There is already an UN treaty to govern water rights. India agreed to the UN treaty in a large part to buy peace with Pak. Obviously, with 20/20 hindsight we know it did not work. Why would giving up further control get peace? Adding Kashmiris to the mix would just decrease India’s leverage. This takes away a potential stick, that currently India can wield, without providing any benefit.
Kashmir already gets way to much autonomy — rights that apply to the rest of India do not apply here. Sure Jammu and Ladakh ought to be made seperate states in order to preserve their culture, but it is not anything India needs Pakistan’s help for. Various terrorist groups are well entrenched in POK (as the earthquake response showed.). Giving them more autonomy would make Pak’s Swat decisions seem enlightened in comparision.
Manmohan is just extending the Gujaral doctrine. I doubt that anyone could actually miss what a failure it was. So I’m guessing that Manmohan felt that trading personal acclaim for India’s security was a no-brainer for him.
33 · sulabh said
heir apparent – this was the worst amongst other mistakes.
Kashmir including Jammu and Leh, or just the valley?
If it is the valley, does the ‘people’ include the displaced Hindus?
Even if it just the current Islamic residents, why should the preferences of the people in the valley override that of the state? By that logic, every Muslim-dominated area in India can ask for autonomy. And this is precisely why it will never be granted.
Pakistan is America’s Yogoslavia — it will break apart in the next few years, right after the US cuts aid because of its own financial problems. And just as Europe is living with the Balkan mess, India will have to live with the much larger, and complex, Pakistan mess. Pakistani Kashmir would be kinda like Macedonia — got autonomy, can’t do much with it, so wants to join the EU.
The interesting question is how the nukes will be handled.
1.I can very well understand Musharraf not consulting his subjects. But the UPA govt, MMS, how did they ever think they can get away with this, without taking the Parliament into confidence?
2.The only final solution that will/should work is the one described by Zainab. But that is not ‘realistic’ because ‘Kashmiriyat’ is pure bs.And yes, J&K already has a lot more autonomy than other Indian states, through a special constitutional provision.
3.Hiving out Leh and Jammu as a separate state, and forming a de-militarized zone in Kashmir+POK+Chinese Kashmir, could be attempted.Kashmiri Hindus can then actually hope to visit the Sharada Peeth. But the pre-condition would be complete elimination of Jihadi forces from Pakistan and Kashmir.Hoga kya?
4.Realistically speaking, instead of the above (3) happening, it is likely that Pakistan would descend into further anarchy and Talibanisation.India should just focus on getting stronger militarily, economically, and bide its time.May be go all out to help Afghanistan come out of the mess.A balkanised Pakistan would be a headache and cost India a great deal, but it is a real possibility.India must prepare for that eventuality.And I don’t think one can trust the same people (who have come up with this non-paper) to strategise effectively for such eventuality.
5.Okay, so what about the Nukes? Bring China, Russia, and the US to the table.See where it goes.Indian strategists should not mind China taking a bit of Pakistan, provided the nukes are eliminated.US gets may be another year or two, before they will run away from the mess.China and India have to deal with this situation jointly.No other go.
Why not?. Sonia Gandhi and the Congress are best buddies with Deobandis and the other org. started by Maulana Maududi. They should probably help their buddies on the issue of Pakistan. They are “secular” in the Indian context. 🙂
Already, Shiv Sena is talking about Hindu suicide squads. As an Hindutvadi I’ll see what I can do in that front. But we don’t have the equivalents of Quran / Hadiths to goad Hindus to martyrdom. you know suicide jobs are err.. tough unless you brainwash enough by hell/paradise/god/prophet/this life/after life etc..etc. we’ll think about it. it looks like that time is fast approaching..
“Already, Shiv Sena is talking about Hindu suicide squads. As an Hindutvadi I’ll see what I can do in that front. But we don’t have the equivalents of Quran / Hadiths to goad Hindus to martyrdom. you know suicide jobs are err.. tough unless you brainwash enough by hell/paradise/god/prophet/this life/after life etc..etc. we’ll think about it. it looks like that time is fast approaching..”
what happened to the purported efficiency and ‘get-the-job-done-no-nonsense’ attitude of modi? iron-pumper advani was a pretty great motivator in 1992. i don’t buy your non-equivalence theory. religion can always be used to insidious ends; i have seen the bhagvad gita ‘do what you need to do, even if it harms your family’ to justify lots of bs. i just don’t see why hinduism is exempt, especially as great cruelties are justified by its practitioners. just yesterday, a mob lynched a low-caste boy near aurangabad because he was going to meet his upper-caste girlfriend. if this is not extremism, then what is?
i find hinduism to be a beautiful tradition in many cases. especially the concept of desert/karma. unfortunately, it is just as prone to manipulation by politically-motivated goons, and as saturated with close-minded adherents as other religions are. as far as i am concerned, all extremist religious zealots are a pox on humanity. and if they really believe in extreme ideologies (creationism, holocaust denial, islamic caliphate, hindu rashtra), they are also lacking in empirical ability and intelligence (and hence, immune to persuasion by reason).
ps: deoband issued a statement today that the indian constitution should be sacred to all indian muslims and they must be loyal to it. sri ram sene, i’m counting on you to one up that. what? you were busy following women in bangalore and threatening to assault them? oh, maybe tomorrow then. pps: congress and bjp: equally bad. vote-bank politics. ’nuff said.
“I think Vajpayee is considered one of the more successful ministers of external affairs that Indians have produced. His wiki entry has the dates and achievements and such.”
yes, i believe that was in the late 1970s. But given that Kashmir and South Asia generally have been super-sensitive since the Cold War, multi-actor theaters, and witnessed covert and overt strategic changes, I would have thought that keeping up with it in any meaningful way would be a full-time job. So he does have experience as a successful External Affairs Ministers, but no special involvement after that, right? I just wanted to know if he was roped in for some back-channel diplomacy, or any deal-making after his official tenure.
Thanks for clarifying.
It is kinda generic, not the kill the polytheists / idolators stuff we find in other places. but it will be a good start though.
he..he.. good joke. 🙂
35 · SecularPlease said
Hear, hear. He had his faults but the man accomplished a lot and never gets credit for it. The nuclear and missile deterrent was also accelerated under him which forced the Chinese to back off their extremely aggressive patrols in the North East. This put an end to their belligerence and these incidents… “Mr. Jiang mockingly told Mr. Chirac: “Each time we tested them by sending patrols across, the Indian soldiers reacted by putting their hands up.” Mr. Jiang raised his own hands up to drive home the point to Mr. Chirac, who was aghast.
Which brings up another point that we rarely see South Indian PM’s.
Interesting article. I think the questions Coll quotes the Indians as asking — is the army on board — is the right one. And I think the answer was yes — as long as Musharraf was in charge. But India is a democracy where elite consensus matters, and Indians (see comments like DizzyDesi above) are not ready for the compromises that peace would entail. They aren’t ready for assymterical federalism.
I think its pretty likely that the next military dictator of Pakistan (due in about 2017 or so) could make the same deal. But I don’t see India ready to accept. Sorry Kashmiris — you’re out of luck.
Even if it just the current Islamic residents, why should the preferences of the people in the valley override that of the state? By that logic, every Muslim-dominated area in India can ask for autonomy. And this is precisely why it will never be granted.
The valley is not in the same category as any other Muslim dominated area in India. There is an actual ongoing conflict over Kashmir since 47.
I think Ikram is quite right that the Indian consensus for now is against granting Kashmiris any autonomy.
Kashmir already gets way to much autonomy — rights that apply to the rest of India do not apply here.
Or maybe they get too little autonomy. Without the special rights, what started in Kashmir in the late 80s and 90s would have started in the 50s.
Pakistan only gets to lecture the world about Jammu and Kashmir (that is the official name of the state) when it reinstates all the ethnic Kashmiris it displaced from Pakistan-administered Kashmir; POK is full of the more “muscular” Punjabi settlers, deemed suitable by the Pakistani government for controlling the province. A plebiscite now, as people have mentioned, is meaningless given that the demography has changed and there is no Art 370 operating in Pakistani Kashmir (as there is in Indian Kashmir). And of course, would someone please ask China (nicely) to return Aksai Chin so that we could have a plebiscite there too? I believe the Pakistani government loved Kashmir so much that it decided to share some of it with China. I can see that happening in my lifetime – not.
When Punjabi and Pashtun jihadis are not pushed across the border to slaughter everyone in sight, well then the two countries can talk. Right now, keep the troops patrolling – it’s a big country and a big army and it is national territory, not some far away foreign land like Iraq. The mission is clear. India’s record on the state is not perfect, but there is no way any Indian government is going to let a small sliver (the Kashmir valley) of a small state be separated from the country for purely religious reasons. Creating a theocracy in South Asia has already proven to be a disaster – as the dismal record of Pakistan shows. Partition was and is a political mistake. It should not be repeated. Within the parameters of the Indian constitution, there can be any number of permutations, combinations and adjustments. But there should be no partition repeats.
“Or maybe they get too little autonomy. Without the special rights, what started in Kashmir in the late 80s and 90s would have started in the 50s.”
We need only think about the detentions that happen in Kashmir, which would be illegal/not tolerated elsewhere in India.
And before anyone brings up the following: outsiders/non-domiciles buying land is illegal in other areas where the state has an interest (eg areas in Himachal Pradesh) and you need permits to visit other sensitive borders of India too.
“Which brings up another point that we rarely see South Indian PM’s.” You know the bigger point is that we don’t have capable candidates for PM. Perhaps if Indians cared more about criteria like: qualifications, integrity, no criminal convictions, not being a puppet of dynastic leader or a facilitator of mass murder, no pandering to communal/caste/regional rifts, we’d have better governance. unless we get more rigorous in our screening, we’ll end up with what we deserve. check out that video; it is funny but so so sad.
It is sad that so much progress was made, and could not be pushed through because of what is now called ‘Musharraf’s death spiral’. The progress lay in that the two sides could both envisage a solution that departed from the stated positions of each, and that it was achieved by the parties themselves, without external mediation. But it seems to me that the precariousness of the deal was built-in, and not accidental. The vulnerability from Musharraf leaving the scene underlines not so much Musharraf’s political flat-footnedness alone (though it does do that) – it underlines the broader crisis of legitimacy that could not but have undermined the deal at some point. But there was also a delay that the Indian side asked for – because of state elections in February 2007 in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarkhand, Goa and Manipur. A deal that is so vulnerable to political posturing and grandstanding means that a cross-party elite consensus on its details was not evolved, probably because it could not be evolved. In a democracy, even with the kind of irreconciled polity that India has, this is not an accidental vulnerability. But I see the real vulnerability of the deal in its misdiagnosis of the problem of Kashmir. Although both sides ‘went beyond’ their stated totalist positions, the deal did not seek to consciously break the nation-state paradigm, which, apart from being unviable in the long-term as a construct governing world affairs, is also singularly unsuited to South Asia, especially with the faux federalism that both India and Pakistan practice. The Kashmir issue isn’t just about whether it should go to Pakistan or India, or how much to each, it is also about how each nation-state runs even the nominal federalism it claims to subscribe to. To me, the corrollary of Kashmiri autonomy (to the extent it is in fact real and not just nominal) is to have more autonomy elsewhere in India and Pakistan, not less for Kashmir.
Still, the joint mechanism the deal mentions (but the article does not spell out) is a beginning in that direction. What would hopefully follow is a kind of joint sovereignty, where Kashmir would be part of both India and Pakistan, as well as wholly something in itself (not partitioned, significantly autonomous, and with many trappings of nationhood). This would require, in time, for India and Pakistan themselves to do the same thing, both vis-a-vis each other as well as their other states and provinces. There would then be multiple, overlapping, non-exclusive, layered sovereignties, held together by geography and economics, not religion or ideology.
Oh, you mean this I suppose.
Amen to that
Oh, you mean this I suppose.
Yes, actually and other unrest. The Jihadis were not chasing out the Pandits in the 60s and 70s. There was internal peace in Kashmir for a few decades. My point is that the special provisions probably went a long way in pacifying the Valley populace for decades.
To those who read that article: please be aware that Kanchan Gupta is a notorious shill for the BJP. Just read his columns for ‘The Pioneer,’ and it will be obvious that his journalistic perspective is more than a little biased.
Ikram – “Sorry Kashmiris — you’re out of luck.”
I wish the Pakistanis would stop worrying about us poor Kashmiris [btw, are the pakistani elite aware that the “boys” they sent to help us in 1989, ethnically cleansed kashmir’s minority hindu population?], and start worrying about the monster that they created, who is now eating Pakistan from the inside.
We Kashmiris will manage on our own, thank you very much. Like in October 1947, when Pakistani Army regulars, disguised as tribals and armed Pashtuns invaded Kashmir, they were easily able to defeat the small number of Maharaja Hari Singh’s forces, and within days, the Pakistanis controlled the border town of Baramulla and were marching towards the capital city of Srinagar; along the way, they were looting, raping and pillaging anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path, including Muslims and the nuns of the Saint Joseph Convent School in Baramulla. As you know, Nehru, after signing the treaty of accession with Hari Singh, ordered Indian Army to fly into Kashmir where, Kashmiri Muslims, who had just witnessed first hand how much their Muslim brethren from across the border worried about them, helped the Indian Army rid the valley of the aggressors. Of course, how the Indian government failed to capitalize on the goodwill of that time, will go down history as one of the biggest mistakes in India’s history.
Even though much time has passed since 1947, I would still not misread the recent anti India demonstrations as a desire to live under Pakistani control; we don’t wish to end up like Swat. Indeed, given only a choice between India and Pakistan, I am confident Kashmiris who, last year turned out in large numbers to vote out the ruling party; something you can not do if an army general or a mullah is your lord and master, will choose India. So, once again, please stop worrying about us.
p.s. yes, i am aware that there are some kashmiris, particularly the jamat-e-islami variety who want to join pakistan, so that they may one day establish a global caliphate. but thankfully they are few in number and increasingly marginalized.
Sharmishta:>>POK is full of the more “muscular” Punjabi settlers,
You must be new here. The correct terminology is: POK is full of more “muscular” Scythian settlers.
M. Nam
POK is full of the more “muscular” Punjabi settlers
Reference to POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) makes as much sense as the name of ‘Azad Kashmir’ given to it by Pakistan. I like Pakistan Administered Kashmir or Indian Administered Kashmir better. I think CNN uses ‘Administered’ terminology as well.
We Kashmiris will manage on our own, thank you very much. Like in October 1947, when Pakistani Army regulars, disguised as tribals and armed Pashtuns invaded Kashmir, they were easily able to defeat the small number of Maharaja Hari Singh’s forces, and within days, the Pakistanis controlled the border town of Baramulla and were marching towards the capital city of Srinagar; along the way, they were looting, raping and pillaging anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path, including Muslims and the nuns of the Saint Joseph Convent School in Baramulla. As you know, Nehru, after signing the treaty of accession with Hari Singh, ordered Indian Army to fly into Kashmir where, Kashmiri Muslims, who had just witnessed first hand how much their Muslim brethren from across the border worried about them, helped the Indian Army rid the valley of the aggressors. Of course, how the Indian government failed to capitalize on the goodwill of that time, will go down history as one of the biggest mistakes in India’s history.
Your comical and ridiculously selective rendition of history omits the fact that there was a massacre of Muslims by the Dogras which set the chains of the infiltration of Pakistani militias into motion. To somehow insinuate that the Valley Kashmiris were supporting the Indian army is laughable at best.
You purport to be a Kashmiri Muslim, but your narration is right out of some Bharat Raksha website.
Zainab –I am not a Pakistani. Any more than you are. I suggest you try PakDefenseForum. You’re more likely to find what you’re seem to be looking for. A fight.
Jointmechanism wrote: But it seems to me that the precariousness of the deal was built-in, and not accidental.
Yes on the Indian side. It’s hard for a democracy to conduct negotiations in secret and come out with a fait-accompli. The de Klerk-Mandela negotations had to be ratified by white South African voters. And many in Israel never reconciled to the Oslo accords. I don’t think India is not capable of doing what its governemnt tried to do.
But on the Pak side, it matters less. The Kashmir issue is not subject to democratic oversight, as Nawaz Sharif proved in 1999. If the army is on board, nothing else matters.
As for the joint, layered, overlapping soveriegnty — I recall another much-loved long-time Sepia commentor with a different handle used to promote this idea. Too bad he’s not around…
90 · Zainab said
So, if india is confident that the people of kashmir will vote to remain a part of india, why not let them vote then?
But then, I read this from pagal and wonder who is telling the truth amongst all of you? Are you saying the kashmiri’s will vote against joining india?
“Your comical and ridiculously selective rendition of history omits the fact that there was a massacre of Muslims by the Dogras which set the chains of the infiltration of Pakistani militias into motion. To somehow insinuate that the Valley Kashmiris were supporting the Indian army is laughable at best. You purport to be a Kashmiri Muslim, but your narration is right out of some Bharat Raksha website”.
I’ll leave now before i’m accused of being the famous troll PG!
93 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
pretty clear what “zainab’s” game is from the comments on various threads, i think.
Acually, in Jammu and Kashmir, they did vote – in 1956 (not sure of the exact date) via an elected Constituent Assembly that ratified the Union with India, with the famous (or infamous, depending on your POV) special provisions. Unfortunately, that referendum only applies to Indian Jammu and Kashmir and has yet to be conducted in Pakistani Kashmir and in Chinese Kashmir. Given the demographic changes in both other places, I doubt that a plebiscite will take place anytime soon. In any case, the legality of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India is not under dispute. Even the United Nations does not dispute the legality of Hari Singh’s accession to India. It was Nehru, the democrat, who insisted on conducting referenda in all princely states that acceded to India, whether they did so voluntarily or via military action. Hence the referenda in Hyderabad, Goa, etc. This was so that the will of the majority of the people was at least given a voice. Unfortunately, given the invasion and then the three-way split of Jammu and Kashmir, it is impossible to ascertain the will of all of Hari Singh’s original domain, not just the will of bits and pieces of it.
PAFD, Zainab is a troll, who may or may not be macacaroach and other such handles. Zainab claimed to be from Kashmir in earlier comments too and made over the top claims. Beware !!!
I don’t understand. The Pathans and other Pakistanis purportedly came to protect
KashmiriIslamic honour, and proceeded to achieve this by raping, killing, looting and burning their way through the state (Rape of Baramula- October 1947). Very strange modus operandi indeed.Between these fits of irrational laughter, the Pakistani military leadership came up with …(drumroll)…Operation Gibraltar.
nm
Of course my friend. All you have to do is move your Scythian and Pathan chums, AND the Pak army out of POK and ask taller-than- mountain friends to hand over Aksai Chin,. Then we would be doing it by the book . There was a reason why India had agreed to a plebiscite when it did. Pakistan stalled it at the time. Alas, that ship has sailed. On a related note, wouldn’t it be fun to have a Balochistan plebiscite?