By account of the fine historical details raised, as well as things written me by PM from someone of Kashmiri ethnic background, it seems some things are clear:
1) By legal accession, Kashmir is an Indian State and has never ceased to be that.
2) Mountbatten's letter about his government's 'wish' is merely that. There is no legal standing for a 'wish'.
3) India has pumped gazillions into the state. Its residents are, in essence, one of the better off welfare states in the world. At the same time that its residents clamor for independence, they lack the means to support themselves without India's aid, in the style to which they've become accustomed. Furthermore, I can see that India has legit reasons to desire a better return for its heavy investment, because.....
4) Were Kashmir to become independent, it would likely founder economically. In addition to its current religious animosity to India, that would further aggravate it, as increasing poverty is a sure way to gain increasing violence..... and
5) India has been subject to numerous separatist movements in other states. Should this continue from state to state, it would collapse into numerous countries. Though I see nothing to indicate it is in such a precarious state to cause such dominoes to fall, it cannot accede too easily to independence movements, as that could make the process seem like a walk in the park.
6) Yet, as Ike noted, the outcome in the UN provided for a plebiscite to occur, which, whether Pakistan helped cause or not, does remain as a fairly legitimate resolution. I would ask: shouldn't an overwhelming majority of the people have the right to self-determination?
7) And I'm well aware of a strong counter argument or two. Consider the Confederate States of America. Our Federal government chose to counter that right to self-determination, based on the overall good of the country. India seems to be making the same argument. Additionally, within Kashmir, property has been seized and blackmail occurs that has, for the most part, benefitted Muslims and harmed the interests of Hindus (I'm talking property, not personal safety, because I have yet to hear the personal casualties of either side).
8) The difference, it seems, is that our unCivil War had one significant difference. In assessing majority will, there was a significant minority will that could not register their wishes: the slaves. For that matter, many poorer whites also didn't vote, though an educated guess is they'd propably support secession as well. Furthermore, that separatist movement would have split the US roughly into halves, which was clearly more threatening to its viability than if, say, Oregon chose secession alone.
Beyond that, I can see that Jammu & Kashmir is a sizable chunk. Very importantly, its nearest border is approximately 300 miles from India's capital of New Delhi.
lib.utexas.edu
A part of it seems to be under Chinese control, as well. However, as things exist now, the border that India has to defend now in that region (about 60% with Pakistan, 40% with China) is almost 4 times as long as it would have to defend against a probably hostile J/K INSTEAD OF Pakistan and China. From a militarily strategic viewpoint, this may be easier to accomplish. And it leaves only the smallest of borders between India/China to defend.
From a religious standpoint, it also marks a clear dividing line between a heavily Muslim population and a Sikh/Hindu population to the south.
lib.utexas.edu
(Question: are the Sikhs more allied with Muslims or Hindus in this region?)
Whether viewed militarily or religiously, there may be an argument made for India to pemit a vote of independence.
And coupled with the simple fact that the vast majority of the region wants independence, it suggests that India will either have to become enormously repressive to maintain control, or to permit the independence effort to succeed.
From a practical standpoint, it almost seems (and certainly, my lack of expertise on the area leaves me ripe for error in my assessments) that it's not as much a question of WHETHER J&K will fly solo, but WHEN AND UNDER WHAT TERMS?
If I'm remotely correct to that point, I can only guess at a resolution. It seems India deserves some monetary recompense for individual property losses. It seems that it's to the mutual advantage of J/K and India to create an outcome that permits the new fledgling nation to survive economically, to further reduce tensions.
And what about Pakistan? J/K is more religiously allied with Pakistan and it seems that Pakistan ought to have some obligation to assist economically so the burden does not fall on India alone. Perhaps there's no legal basis for a fair distribution of economic burden, but I'd say there's clearly a humane obligation, to aim for something that diminishes the violence.
Additionally, because of the supercharged nature of fundamentalist religions (and here, I will not hesitate to say that the responsibility is greatest on the Muslims), I think this is also a proper place to utilize the UN. I'd suggest a DMZ between India and J/K patrolled by an international force, to prevent any further encroachments on other Indian states, with the UN committed for 2 yr terms, with renewals as needed.
Ultimately, it's important to note that J/K has many natural advantages that can aid it, if its peoples can demonstrate the capacity to work for economic success. If those folks choose to maintain a welfare mentality and simply blames everyone else for short-term inconveniences and economic hardships, it will remain a violence-prone pain in the butt for everyone. And if that continues, and the psychological weakness of victimhood reigns, it will ultimately be ripe to be overthrown, and rightfully so.
Not necessarily because of any moral argument, but simply because victimhood in itself is an inherent flaw in any population of living creatures, and I think it's time the world wises up to that fact. Thus, there's a biological instinct that ultimately works against populations that believe victimhood can prevail against creativity and productivity.
If J/K goes free and cannot raise itself above that self-defeating trap, it will fall prey only to human nature. No matter what religious or moral arguments are advanced, history is the best guide, because history is the circuitboard that defines how people inevitably ARE, not how we might wish people to BE.
(I have a coupla hours now to solve all the rest of the world's problems.... please take a number and I'll be with you soon.... <GGG>)
Bottom line? I think India should resolve this through intelligent hard-nosed negotiations, and not yield to every demand. But it should keep a keen eye on economically peace-enhancing outcomes, even if some short term economic injustice falls more heavily on India. A little statesmanship and magnaminity now works best in the long run.... and puts it back onto J&K to walk their talk. |
