re: Kashmir:
You're right, more sites say 70% Muslim, rather than 80%, for the total population. Every site I looked at, agreed the Muslims are a solid majority of the population, and have been since long before 1947.
And it is also true, about 300,000 Hindus, virtually the entire non-Muslim population of the Kashmir Valley, were violently expelled around 1990. The Hindus have done no comparable ethnic cleansing.
It is probably true, that numerous foreign Islamic fighters have entered Kashmir, intent on waging Jihad. But they could never have sustained their revolt, if the people who live there didn't support them. Any successful guerrilla revolt is dependant on the support of the civilians in the insurgent area. Without that support, no amount of external money or soldiers can succeed.
The fighting started in 1947, when Pakistan tried to conquer Kashmir. There has never been a plebiscite, or a free election, in the Pakistani-controlled areas. There has never been peace, since 1947. At best, there were some periods of armed truce. But the conflict started then, and has never been resolved. There was large-scale armed conflict in the 1960s.
When the Pakistani soldiers entered, the unelected Hindu ruler gave up on his first idea (an independant Kashmir), and acceded to India. But that agreement limited India's powers to foreign affairs, and promised a plebiscite, to ratify it. India has repeatedly violated Kashmir's promised autonomy, by dismissing governments, and fixing elections. The fraudulent 1987 election, led directly to the 1989 rebellion, and the ethnic conflict which expelled the Hindus from the Kashmir Valley. The promised plebiscite has never happened.
The Chinese grabbed a chunk of the province, too. Like everyone else, their control is based on military conquest and occupation, not the "consent of the governed".
And that's why the killing goes on and on: the soldiers, not the voters, decided the frontiers. Kashmir was "given" to India, by a ruler who had never been chosen by the people, and therefore he had no legitimacy (if you believe legitimacy flows from the people, rather than from God, or prior conquest, or anything else). The agreement by which India annexed Kashmir, is also illegitimate, because it has never been ratified by plebiscite. China's and Pakistan's rights to what they've conquered, are equally illegitimate, for the same reasons (no consent of the governed).
Here's how a permanent peace could happen:
1. Everyone agrees to act on the principle that the people who live on any given piece of ground, get to choose what country they belong to, and who governs them. Everyone agrees soldiers don't get to make these decisions.
2. India, Pakistan, and China remove their armies from the entire area of Jammu and Kashmir. That includes "irregulars" and "freedom fighters".
3. The UN takes over, with a large army (from neutral nations). This army has the weapons and mandate to control the ground.
4. All the refugees are allowed to return, given back their property, and all minorities are guaranteed rights.
5. The UN supervises a plebiscite, for the people to choose between India, Pakistan, or independance.
6. The frontiers are redrawn, based on the results of the plebiscite.
7. The parts of the State that choose to join India or Pakistan, can negotiate their accession. The UN army leaves, after those agreements are made, and after an independant Kashmir (if any) is established and recognised by all its neighbors.
8. The UN guarantees all borders.
My guess is, the vote would result in:
1. India gets the Hindu, Buddhist, and Shia areas.
2. The Kashmiri-speaking Sunni area gets independence.
3. Pakistan keeps what they hold now, possibly losing some Shia areas to India or Kashmir.
4. China gets nothing.
Until the military and political frontiers coincide with the demographic frontier, the conflict will go on and on, with the constant risk of escalation into a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. |
