Should Kashmir just be a seperate country?

Should Kashmir be an indpendent country?

  • Total voters
    40
Swordfish and Fin, I want to be sure that you don't misunderstand something. In my opinion, the ideal situation would be for ALL of Kashmir to become an independent nation, not just the portion held by India. Of course that isn't possible because India, Pakistan and China aren't going to budge because of the other two conflicting nations there.

If Kashmir could become an independent nation ... all of Kashmir ... then it would create a buffer-zone of sorts in the most mutually hostile border region in the world. It is unfortunate that such a future cannot be negotiated for.
 
fingolfin361 said:
Assam? I thought China was under the impression it controlled Arunachal Pradesh.
Click to expand...


oopsy My Bad :sorry: ...... the Name is Arunachal Pradesh ...... how can i miss that I lived there for 5 years :thumb:

If Kashmir could become an independent nation ... all of Kashmir ... then it would create a buffer-zone of sorts in the most mutually hostile border region in the world. It is unfortunate that such a future cannot be negotiated for.
Click to expand...

I do Understand the Concept of a Buffer region ... Nepal , Bhutan serve that purpose well Between India and China .... However With Kashmir It is very Close to Indian national Intergity ....... If as a Secular County we accept Division on the Basis of religion many more Rebel Movements would be fuiled taking the example ...... It simply cannot Happen


Peace
-=SF_13=-
 
Then what hope is left, something would need to be done in order for the occupants to agree on a permanent boundary. No body sees that sort of deal coming any time soon so maybe a neutral nation should be established. I think UN troops could be used to quell insurgnecies if there was an independent kasmir.

Then a kasmiri army would be formed to handle their own patrols. India, China, and Pakistan could stop wasting their resources manning mountains and redirect it to improve their own security. Especially paksitan because of their problems in the west. Wouldn't it be better to have resolved the situation that way instead of leaving countries nearly on the brink of war over some insignificant province that was in legal limbo 60 years ago?
 
I believe that Swordfish's point is an interesting one. Hard to qualify though. Essentially (please correct me if I'm wrong) an independent Kashmir would become a major breeding ground for terrorism and anti-Hindu insurgents. I don't think that the three nations would do much worse than the current situation. The India-controlled portion of Kashmir has been the excuse and focal point of terrorism for decades. And why is that? From the Pakistani extremist's point of view, you have a region that is more Muslim than Hindu controlled by Hindus. And we fall back to the same ol': "Because it's mostly _________ religion, that territory rightfully belongs to us!!" Kashmir is composed of enough of a mixture of religions that it would be a reasonable location to try an experiment in non-religious border drawing.

Swordfish said:
If as a Secular County we accept Division on the Basis of religion many more Rebel Movements would be fuiled taking the example ...... It simply cannot Happen
Click to expand...
Here, I'm not understanding. You see, all three nations (Pakistan, India and China) would be required to give up their piece of the pie in order to create an independent Kashmir. Thusly, the basis of the division is not religious. It is based upon the borders of Kashmir as they were when Kashmir was a pseudo-independent nation. There's sure to be all sorts of whining and arguing over where the borders of Kashmir are supposed to be ... but the truly beautiful thing about it all is that this would be a large-scale reversal from the failed concept of "Hindu Zone"/"Muslim Zone" basis for dividing the India subcontinent.
 
Just a question to clear things out, when we talk here about Kashmir, do we mean the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, or the less well-defined area of the Kashmir valley?
 
I think it would be the less defined area as those tend to be the areas that are always a barrel of monkeys.
 
Isn't there enough bickering.Guys! Guys! first check your facts.
Their used to be the whole Of the Indian Nation adminstered by the British Raj which included Sri Lanka Or Ceylon as it was called.Ceylon was made a separate entity even before Independence for adminstrative reasons.Mainland India comprised of what is India and Pakistan today.Their were 700 Independent Princely States who were given an option to join either of the nations and the Hindu Ruler of Kashmir abstained ,refusing to recognize and face realities.Kashmir is a land locked country bound by The Great Himalayan Ranges in the north and with a contiguouus border with Pak and India.It has a poor economy with no industries , agriculture and tourism is their mainstay.With no access to a free market and limited resources it as a nation cannot survive and is bound to be gobbled by the regional powers.When Pak backed marauders started filtering through ,backed by the Pak Reg Army Units, the locals despite their religious affinity(maximum--muslims),were not spared.The womenfolk were raped and villages and farms pillaged.In desperation the King who all said and done was a benevolent despot agreed to accede to The Indian Union ,as he was aware of what awaited his loyal subjects.Since 1947 India has accorded a special status to Kashmir and they receive central monetary assistance and no outsiders can settle in Kashmir.The same is not true for Pok(Pak Occupied Kashmir),Punjabis And Sindhis have gradually moved in and the demographic pattern is changing.

Its true that religious affinity as the parameter for dividing the Sub-Continent was the yard stick for partition as insisted by The Muslim League as led by Mr. Md Ali Jinnah.What however is more true is that India has the 2nd largest Muslim population after Indonesia in the world and definitely more Muslim population than Pakistan.Our President Shri APJ Abdul Kalam is a Muslim by the way.

Where greed and avarice and personal ambitions of a community are concerned even religious affinities take second place.Bangladesh prior to 1971 was called East Pakistan and although there reps won an overall margin in the National elections of Pakistan they were not allowed to form a Govt.When they protested the West Pakis dominated by the Punjabi-Sindhi cliche let loose a reign of terror and genocide in East Pakistan.The banner of revolt was raised and India which stood all alone in the International forum and whose borders were bursting at the seams with the fleeing refugees from the estwhile East Pakistan ;aided the freedom fighters or the MuktiBahini liberated and formed Bangladesh.Ever since Pakistan which sees it as a humilation is on the lookout to foment trouble in Kashmir in an aggressive manner while maintaining a cloak of Military Junta which has held sway for the maximum period in its history and the feudalistic and outdated policies ,the countriys' economy has nothing to boast about and as such they have to depend on the USA for aid and have to put up an anti-terrorrist facade.
Kahmir going independent would open up a can of worms similar to the Balkan crisis after the fall of the Iron Curtain cohesion ,with every miority claiming independence and pre-ponderance.Are you guys aware that Kashmir still has pockets of Hindus and Sikhs? And what about Ladhakhis who are mostly Buddhists and have more in common wuth Tibetans, Ladhakhis also have a Shia-Muslim population who are not overtly fond of the Sunni Muslim dominated Pakistan.With the so called independence these minorities would be wiped out.Well friends the solution is not so easy.Maybe what Lee Enfield has to say makes some sense yet!

CHEERIO!:brave:
 
Last edited:
Pakistan says india commits atrocities in kashmir, india says pakistan has committed atrocities there as well. I don't know who to believe or if one side has committed more atrocities than the other or if they've both been fairly tamed. That's the problem with all this, both sides have become very biased on this subjects over decades of polarization because of a semi autonomous kingdom's decision during the partition.

Any reason you can give for kashmir not being independent you can apply to bhutan which is in a similar situation. Bhutan is doing very well for itself because of tourism and the people might be living a bygone lifestyle, but there's been peace there as well as some prosperity.

I don't think it would be a very great sacrifice if both nations were to just let kashmir go, there's nothing there to be gained, not even strategic bonuses. If it were up to me i'd make pakistan and india one nation at independence so that none of this would happen, but things played out differently. Seriously, just let it go.
 
I remember seeing a snippet of the violent climate of the area. I can't remember which channel it was, but I think it was PBS. In this example, the specifics don't matter a great deal. In some large city within India, there was a major riot by angry Hindu citizens. The reasons for the riot weren't necessarily obvious, but at the end of it, 700-900 Muslims were dead. The Muslim community retailiated with a series of bombings and 'typical' terrorist-style attacks racking up about 500 Hindu deaths. In that particular scenario, neither side was playing nice.

Roverlin please let me clarify my position. I think that an independent Kashmir consisting of Pakistani's, India's and China's portions would serve to defuse things in the region. Unfortunately, this would require three mutually hostile nations to cooperate and TRUST. Its a pipe dream that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. The point is that it would probably help defuse the general hostility in the region.
 
You there Thundering God you seem to have hit the nail with one phrase"its not going to happen".And I couldn't agree with WarMachine ultimately its all about regional strategy.An independent and concurrently a weak Kashmir would enable our neighbours an easily surmountable border to further roll down towards the heart of the Indian Nation.So we have to stop them that further.
Yes fudamentalists and vested interests have fomented trouble in the country but are you guys also aware of the obverse which probably due to media hype isn't so obvious? Are you aware that there are places of worship like the Ajmer Shariff in Rajasthan(Indian Province)and Hazrat Nizam-ud-Din shrine(IN DELHI THE CAPITAL OF INDIA) both Muslim assets(Dargahs) where thousands of hindu and muslim pilgrims pour in to pay their obeisance?This could only happen in an actual Secular country like India because of our beautful culture and tolerance for each other.Are you aware that Hindu-Muslim riots never occurred in India prior to the British Raj.The conqueror's had played their card of divide and rule very well.There was a time when the Congress and Muslim league jointly protested against the foreign rule.However this did not last.India and Pakistan as two nations is the Frankenstein the departing British Govt left behind when it was in a haste to pull out and hand over the reigns of the Govt to the country.
Ask Altaf Hussain the leader of Mohajir Quami Movement who stays in exile in England, a movemeent of the uprooted Muslims from the heartland of India who had migrated to Pakistan in the hope that Pakistan would be the promised land of all Muslims.They were meted out 2nd /3rd class citizen's treatment by ethnic Punjabis and Sindhis who were in predominance in Pakistan.On date the MQM tries to educate Indian Muslims and all those who are ready to listen the futility of the act of Partition.Ask Indian Muslims and they are all proud of their country and have contributed a lot in the nation building and are a proud part of the Indian Armed Forces many of whom have laid down their lives in the service of the nation while battling Pakis in the almost 4 wars we have fought against them and in the current proxywar against terrorrists sponsored by Pak ISI.
 
Last edited:
BullDog,Thanks partner! That sure was a nice compliment.Why dont you read some of my other posts where I have tried to introduce my countries army which is the 3rd largest in the world and second to none in valour.Pardon my boasting I guess we are all proud of our countries.Anyway thanks once again your compliment it was a morale booster.
 
#1 China #2 USA or Russia

I would support a demarcation line in kashmir but a proper peace between pakistan and india should accompany it. An independent nation would be nice and ultimately the most admirable goal, but i think realisitcly it's a long shot as things are. Maybe if musharraf holds true to his promises for free elections next year the pakistani govt will be more open with india. Who knows, if the koreas are getting along better and palestine might recognize israel, there's hope in kashmir as well.
 
Now if Kashmir did become an independent country just who would grantee it's Independence. No sooner had the Indian troops left the Rebels would move in and lay claim to the whole country. May be America would like to send troops there for an unlimited period to keep the peace between the two Protagonists
 
Well, according to the resource that OrTouch so kindly posted here:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/showthread.php?p=232848#post232848
... you guys have the rankings wrong. Firstly, it should be understood that bigger ain't necessarily better. If bigger was better, then the USA would have lost both wars with Iraq. So although the USA is a lot farther down the list than most people would have expected, I don't think there is a single nation on Earth that can match our militaries opperational effectiveness. (I also wonder where the numbers come from, but I'm much too lazy to look into it right now.)

Top Ten Largest Militaries in Active Military Personale:
1.) China 1,750,000
2.) India 1,100,000
3.) North Korea 950,000
4.) South Korea 687,000
5.) Pakistan 550,000
6.) Israel 530,000
7.) Turkey 498,000
8.) USA 471,000
9.) Russia 350,000
10.) Iran 325,000

Now that ranking list fits with another list I found elsewhere, but I'm wondering how Global Security's list could be so vastly different.
 
I couldn't tell you..Of course, as in another thread, militaries are not just decided by numbers of men and women alone. Training, technology, and allies are a HUGE factor as well.
 
Largest in number does not mean stronger or more powerful, as Godofthunder as pointed out.
So many factors come into play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top