Kashmir - the paradise on earth- is in a persistent crisis for the last 60 years
Kashmir valley consist of different tribes and completely separate geographic entities.
The Mughal King Akbar took hold of the valley in 16th century. That is when Islam started spreading across the valley. In 1846, under the terms of treaty of Amritsar, the british sold the beautiful valley of Kashmir to Hindu ruler Dogra ruler, Gulab Singh.
Thus, people of different linguistics, religious and cultural traditions were all brought under the jurisdiction of the same ruler. Muslims were in majority while Hindus and Sikhs became the minority. A century later when sub-continent was portioned in 1947, Maharaja’s Grandson could not decide whether to join Pakistan or India. However, the state remained independent for 2 months, until finally tribesmen from Pakistan started conquering different regions of the valley. India also launched a blitzkrieg and conquered two third of the valley. Lines were drawn through the valley with one part under control of Pakistan while the other came under control of India. This was the start of the conflict which was going to push the valley to stone age in the coming days.
For over fifty years, India and Pakistan have fought over Jammu and Kashmir both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table; both countries wanted to absorb it within their borders, neither of them has succeeded in doing so entirely.
The indian government made a formal request to UN for a ceasefire. The recommendation by United Nations formulated in 1948-1949 was that Pakistan and India should proceed to hold a plebiscite.
The plebiscite never happened which is not surprising. The problem for India was that majority of population in Kashmir are Muslims whose feelings were attached with Pakistan. The Plebiscite also required demilitarization of the region, which is only possible if Pakistan and India trust each other.
Several wars have been fought by Pakistan and India over the area. The situation has been aggravated during Russian invasion of Afghanistan and then US invasion of Afghanistan which caused spread of militancy in the region. India leveraged itself by criticizing Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism and extremism in the region.
Mishal Malik --wife of a famous freedom fighter yasin malik
India will never hold plebiscite for two major reasons: first India consider the conflict as a bilateral problem between Pakistan and itself, UN resolution of 1948 is not applicable here. Second India holds an image of greatest secular country worldwide, if Kashmir is able to get independence from Indian union, it can instigate other regions of India for same objective. India is home to more then 100 million Muslim population and it will fight tooth and nail to safeguard its stability.
Pakistan on other hand is constantly highlighting the human rights violation at the international forum. Pakistan wants United Nations Military Observer Group for india and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to implement its resolution for a referendum. The confusion arises on how to practically arrange the voting. The first pre-requicsite for a referendum is the demilitarization of the region, Pakistan will have take a bold step first to withdraw its forces but it will actually give space indian troops. The sense of trust among the nations is not enough to demilitarize the region. Pakistan can use help of UN troops for the process of demilitarization but India will refuse it by labelling the conflict as bilateral and not allow external influence.
A decade after thousands of Kashmiris took to the streets to demand azadi there was still no clarity on how they could achieve their objective, when neither Pakistan nor India was prepared to contemplate azadi as meaning independence. Even so, commentators and observers continued to analyse the Kashmiris’ demand for self-determination in order to see what the consequences might be if a plebiscite were held. Firstly, would it be fair on all the inhabitants to hold a unitary plebiscite where the voice of the majority might prevail at the expense of the minority? Or should there be a regional plebiscite which would let ethnic groups decide according to their regions, even though this would inevitably formalize the partition of the state?
Secondly, if, on the basis of a majority vote, the inhabitants of the entire former princely state chose to become independent, how could one possibly free the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir away from Pakistan, and Ladakh and Jammu away from India? On the other hand, if there were a regional vote, and only the valley chose independence, how could it survive? Furthermore, how could the Government of Pakistan continue to insist that the Kashmiris be given the right to determine their future and then permit them only the option to choose between India or Pakistan? Would, in reality, India and Pakistan concede anything at all? What could be the basis for a consensus or would the conflict continue?
UNO is hypocrite organization
Very interesting post.
I actually have a friend who is from Kashmir and she tells me all kinds of things about it.
Oh great.