Solving Kashmir

Last week, a lot of attention was focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, since the leaders of the two countries were visiting President Obama in Washington. But nobody seems to be talking about an obvious (if difficult) solution to at least part of the problem Pakistan finds itself in currently -- solving the Kashmir problem once and for all.

Pakistan certainly has enough problems on its plate, and without getting into their internal political and military situation too deeply, part of the problem with the Taliban and other extremist groups having a safe haven in northwest Pakistan is that the Pakistani military is reluctant to engage too many of their troops with the militants, because of their long obsession with India. The militant groups are expanding their influence from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) to the Swat Valley and beyond. This is a little too close to the nation's capital city for comfort, and the Pakistani troops are now pushing back.

But reports are that they're only sending about 15 percent of their army to do the job. This is because most of the Pakistani army is busy with their traditional foe, India. And since the two nations are now both nuclear-armed, things can get tense along the border. This tension is at its highest point in the Kashmir region.

Kashmir is a valley in the mountain ranges at the skirts of the Himalayas. The entire region, now known as Kashmir and Jammu, was once a principality in the area where China, India, and Pakistan meet. Part of the problem is that just looking at a map doesn't accurately give a good picture of the region, because most people live in the area that India administers currently. The Pakistani area is very mountainous, and the Chinese area is primarily an ancient dead sea -- an alkaline desert. All three countries have claims on the region for differing reasons that stretch back to the 1800s (and earlier -- Kashmir is in a part of the world where territory and fealty has changed hands many times throughout history).

When Britain partitioned India following World War II (when Pakistan was created), the Kashmir region was supposed to hold a vote on which country they wanted to be part of (independence was even supposed to be on the table). This vote has never occurred. Pakistan and India both moved troops into the region. India says the ruler of the area signed a document putting them under Indian control. Pakistan says this document (if it even exists, they claim they haven't seen the original) was signed after Indian troops entered, under duress.

China, meanwhile, had never agreed to give up its claims on the region, and (while India and Pakistan were busy with each other) quietly built a military road through their section. For China, the mostly-worthless chunk they claim isn't important in and of itself, it is important for a route from one region to another within China.

Since then, many wars have been fought over the boundary lines. India and Pakistan have fought both on a large scale, and in small-scale low-level raids pretty much ever since the British left. India and China fought their own conflict over their dividing line as well.

In other words, resolving the issue and drawing final national boundary lines between the countries will be about as easy as getting Israel and Palestine to agree on a map. It's not going to be easy. But that doesn't mean the Obama administration shouldn't make the attempt (or may already be making the attempt, for all I know). Because getting everyone to agree over the issue would go a long way towards ratcheting down the half century of distrust and tit-for-tat military actions between India and Pakistan. Meaning Pakistan could free up some of their army to keep control of their own national territory.

In this case, border lines have already been drawn by the United Nations. Between India and Pakistan it is known as the "Line Of Control" (LOC) and between India and China the "Line of Actual Control" (LAC). The LOC has been in place since 1972. Pakistan, in this division, gets the Northern Areas, China gets Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract (or the Shaksgam Valley region), and India gets Jammu and Kashmir. The Siachen Glacier, which is kind of where all three countries' claims meet, is usually left as an area with no clear dividing line. India has even built a 460-mile-long fence (a double fence topped with concertina wire and mined in between) just inside their side of the LOC, to reduce infiltration and weapons smuggling into its region.

The real sticking point between India and Pakistan is the Kashmir Valley itself. This region was mostly Muslim before the British left, and Pakistan claims it on that basis -- that if an election had been held, it would have joined Pakistan. This is a reasonable argument, from the population data available. But India has held it since then (it's on India's side of the LOC). And this would be the major point of dissention in any negotiations over drawing final boundary lines in the region.

President Obama and the American media have managed to start the American public thinking of regional solutions to problems that span national boundaries in the area (although I refuse to use the current in-vogue term "AfPak" to describe Afghanistan and Pakistan, both because it is way too cutesy and because it is insulting... look into how "Paki" is used as a slur by the British to see what I mean). But Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the only countries in this region. And if we're going to seriously talk about the problems Pakistan faces, it is naive to leave India and Kashmir out of the equation, because that is Pakistan's main military concern (and not defeating the Taliban, no matter how happy it would make America if they did so).

Whether it is in public, with full diplomatic "summit" flourishes and pomp, or in quiet rooms in Switzerland exploring diplomatic back channels, getting Pakistan and India and China together to discuss finally resolving their border disputes in the Kashmir region once and for all would be a stunning diplomatic achievement for any president. The stakes -- obviously with three nuclear powers -- are enormously high. The chance for failure is also high, since this conflict has been going on for over half a century now. But if Pakistan and India could declare peace and accept a line through the region as their final national boundaries, it could pay off huge dividends in the fight against terrorists.

America could help draw the final lines, or the United Nations could take another crack at it if need be, or even long-delayed elections could be held in the region, as initially promised by the British. China probably wouldn't go along with elections (nobody lives in their claimed area), but the Chinese/Indian line is a lot less contentious than the Pakistan/India line to begin with, so perhaps that part of it could be taken off the electoral table.

But whatever peaceful resolution turns out to be the best for all concerned would be discussed in a summit or in those back channel dialogs. It wouldn't happen overnight, no matter what was agreed upon. And while in general it's in America's interests to not have a nuclear war anywhere on the planet, we don't really have a dog in this fight. America doesn't really have an invested stake in what happens in any particular place in Kashmir, in other words. But if Pakistan and India could finally "stand down" militarily from the border regions, it would free up the Pakistani military and make it easier for them to clean up their own back yard in the FATA. Which is indeed an American objective. Meaning the effort -- even if ultimately fruitless -- to finally resolve the Kashmir problem would be worth the attempt by the Obama administration, because it could pay off big dividends in another fight -- one that we are much more invested in than the Kashmir situation.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

 

Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant

Comments

[jaysan]

Why lie? Pakistan attacked Kashmir by dispatching PASHTUN TRIBALS to invade it. India only militarily responded after this. Now why did Pakistan send Pashtuns to attack Kashmir? Simple, Pakistan was afraid of the restless Pashtuns wanting a separate state of their own, especially if the Maharaja of Kashmir and local Kashmiri politicians were to go their own way in forming an independent state, instead of joining Pakistan.

Clearly, Pakistan's problems with keeping the Pashtuns under its control pre-date the Kashmir issue, and are actually the preceding cause for the Kashmir conflict. Trying to meddle in Kashmir won't solve Pakistan's basic problem of trying to control a Pashtun people whose membership in Pakistan is only a fragile legacy of British colonial conquest.

If the US attempts to push India around on Kashmir, then Indians will only push back, and the US will have absolutely no friends in the region. Given that Asia's other giant, China, is already asserting itself in ways that will come back to haunt the US, then the Democrats' craven throw-liberty-under-a-bus foreign policy will only destroy their influence across the continent.

[Khirad]

It is amazing how discussions of Pakistan and Afghanistan leave the elephant out of the room, isn't it? It's all interrelated. This is why I read papers like Hindustan Times and Dawn online.

[Alethia]

Vishix:

I agree with you that there should be no outside interference in either India's or Pakistan's affairs. I wish India and Pakistan got so close that Pakistan could call on India to help route the Taliban.

I even agree on some of the points which you alluded to. (Though it's debatable who has more Muslims-India or Pakistan). That's not so important.

But you are missing two points. First, it's what Kashmiris want that must be satisfied, not the terrorists, not Pakistan, but the common people who live Kashmir (including Pandits).

Second, you are clearly wrong. The Pakistani masses overwhelmingly are not fundamentalists and yearn to be close with Indians. They clearly were grieving at the loss of life in the Mumbai massacre, but everybody jumped all over them so suddenly, accusing the government and people of doing that terrorism. They got defensive. They were ready to reach out to you and felt sympathetic toward you.
As you can see now, they are having trouble keeping the fundos at bay even in their own country.

[vishix]

A recent poll out finds that 42% of Pakistanis believe the Mumbai massacres were carried out by India! This is your idea of Pakistanis wanting to be close to Indians??

"When asked if they believed it to be true that the attacks were carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), only seven percent replied yes, another seven percent replied maybe, and 78% said no. In response to an open-ended question as to who they thought was responsible for the attacks, the top three replies were India (42 percent), I don't know (33%), and America (20%)," the International Republican Institute (IRI) said in a release.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4521582.cms

Until they start taking responsibility for their actions and STOP DENYING EVERYTHING they will not get an ounce of sympathy from me or any normal human. It brings my blood to a boil listening to their lies and excuses.

They are getting eaten up alive from inside and all they can do is blame others and beg the west for money and aid. At least have the decency to admit their mistakes and take some responsibility for once in their life.

The best solution for the world is for that failed state to break up and disappear into the annals of history.

[Alethia]

But that's not going to happen, Vishix.

[vishix]

Kashmir is an issue between India and Pakistan. There can be no interference from the US or other countries. You can report on in all you want but no country can interfere in that region. I'll quickly list some of the transgressions from the Pakistanis in Kashmir:

1. Invading Kashmir first
2. Gifting a part of Kashmir to the Chinese
3. Losing 3 wars overs Kashmir they started
4. Using terrorists & violence to displace all the Hindu Kashmiri pundits
5. Using terrorists to fight a proxy war with India since 1989
6. Supporting and aiding Pakistanis terrorist jihadis in infiltrating and attacking Indians

Reasons Pakistan cannot have a claim on Kashmir:

1. Killing 3 million fellow Muslims in Bangladesh
2. India has more Muslims than Pakistan
3. Islam as a political system is violent, intolerant and expansionist
4. Kashmiri Raj chose to join India once Pakistan invaded
5. If Kashmir were a part of Pakistan it would be Afghanistan 2.0

Let India handle the situation as it becomes a regional power.

[KoolBreez]

Pakistan invaded a yet undecided Kashmir. Kashmir's ruler asked India for help. The Indian position was that they couldn't interfere between two sovereign regions and that is when Kashmir joined the Indian union. Then India sent troops to defend a border which was now its own.

The LoC is where the troops were at the end of the conflict. A referendum can't occur without Kashmir returning to its original boundaries which can't happen because Kashmir joined the Indian union and part of it is occupied by Pakistan.

This is a stale-mate of Pakistan's creation which its dictators have been exploiting to distract its citizens away from all the internal issues that have now become painfully clear to the world.

When USSR invaded Afghanistan, US support poured in to Pakistan to help Al Qaeda. Pakistan diverted part of the money and arms and started sending local jihadis into Indian Kashmir to blow things up.

After the Russians left Afghanistan, an emboldened Al Qaida under the direction of ISI and the cover of Pakistani army decended upon Indian Kashmir thereby creating an 'independence/separatist ' movement which the Kashmiris themselves never wanted.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. The monster turned on its creator. 'Solving Kashmir' is a ridiculous approach because it is an artificial problem created by the very people who are now destabilizing Pakistan.

Paradoxically, the recent Taliban action in Pakistan is the only true indigenous 'independence' movement in this whole equation that spans six decades.

[NoToGOP08]

America missed its opportunity during the Cold War when they backed Pakistan over India.

With Pakistan close to becoming a failed state, and India now well on its way to becoming a major economic power, the US can only stand by and hope for the best.

[RajInRich]

Everyone keeps talking about the resolution of Kashmir and if elections were held in the Kashmir valley today they entire population was vote for being joined to Pakistan. This is simply not true from all accounts by every media outlet that has covered this area.
Pakistan claims this land because it is majority muslim, that religion was basis of the creation of Pakistan.Well there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan...
This will not be solved till Pakistan controls its own Military and media and provides education and jobs to its population. The entire foreign policy of Pakistan is to oppose India... This will not sustain and we are seeinig the results today...
Pakistan needs to turn inward for a decade and solve the daily problems of its own people and provide education and jobs.. When the youth of the country see that they can compete with India and the rest of the world economically and socially the entire idea of extremism will not appeal to them. I know this utopian.. but unless you aim for the stars you will not reach the sky...

[arnoldfriend]

The soundest post so far. Finally someone who seems to know a little something and isn't all one sided.

[Strategy]

Contd:--

1999: Kargil : Another Infiltration attempt by P@kistani army regulars.
2001 to --- : Terrorist attacks all over India.
Now, P@kistanis always make it sound like India doesn't want to solve this problem but the fact is every time India tried to negotiate with P@kistanis, they back-stabbed. A prime example is 1999 Kargil war when the political leaders where talking peace and Gen Musharraf was busy planning Kargil war.
Now P@kistanis are essentially telling the world : "Give us Kashmir else we will give the nukes to Jihadis"
Good luck pressurizing India on Kashmir. That will be the best way to turn 1 billion Indians against you instantaneously!!

[arnoldfriend]

Yeah, a bunch of Hindus is no threat to Muslims or jihadist muslims.

[Strategy]

This is how P@kistani Blackmail works!! ( I am not accusing the author of any wrong doing).
1947: Maharaja of J&K chooses to remain independent.P@kistani "Tribesmen" (aka "Freedom fighters" , aka Jihadis ...and yes P@kistani Army regulars which P@kistanis will never agree) invade the sovereign state to merge it with P@kistan. Maharaja seeks India's help ,signs "Instrument of Accession" which is available on Indian Home ministry website for everyone to see, Indian army arrives in the valley ,fighting continues through Jan 1948 . Indian PM Nehru goes to UN to seek a resolution .
UN passed several resolutions since 1948 , primarily asking both the countries to pull out armies and hold referendum/plebiscite. P@kistanis somehow have this feeling of "birthright" over Kashmir , so they don't want an option of Independent State of J&K and they don't want to hold referendum in P@kistani administered Kashmir (whose demography has been systemically changed over last 60 yrs.)
What happens next: They refuse to pull out Army , so did Indians and they were right because who will know P@kistanis better than Indians?
1965 : Operation Gibraltar : Designed by P@kistani Army to infiltrate guerrillas in Indian Kashmir.Please google for details. Unsuccesful.
1989 : Beginning of P@kistani supported armed insurgency in the valley.resulted in ethnic cleansing of minority Kashmiri Pandit population from the valley. Several Hundred thousands of Kashmiri Pandits are living like refugees in their own land for 20 yrs now.
Contd:-----

[Alethia]

I do believe it is imperative for there to be a solution to the Kashmir dispute. But I don't think the US should get involved. It should not and could not pressure either India or Pakistan on the subject. Both are very sensitive to outside pressure and both have no problem telling the US where to go.

India and Pakistan have a well-remembered experience with colonialism. They are among the founders of the Non-Aligned movement and are the virtual precursors of what is sometimes called the so called "Third World." India is a global power and Pakistan is a regional power - both well-respected in among the "Developing" countries.

Both countries must come to the conclusion themselves and between themselves to move ahead and solve Kashmir. They should recognize the graveness of allowing the dispute to fester.

However, public discussion on the topic, as Mr. Weigant has so illustriously commenced, should go ahead.

[Strategy]

And who exactly should Indians talk to? Zardari ? Kiyani ? Gilani or Fazall-ur-Rahman?

[jaysan]

Good points, Strategy.

Any Pakistani authority is automatically undercut by hardliners, who don't abide any peace-making moves. When Nawaz Sharif balked at Musharraf's unprovoked attack on India in Buddhist-majority Kargil, then the Pakistani establishment quickly turned against him. The same Nawaz who was elected with a thumping majority, was quickly and suddenly declared "corrupt", "incompetent", etc in typical Orwellian flip-floppery by the Pakistani establishment. What policies had suddenly changed Nawaz from majority-leader to "corrupt" and "inept", within the mere space of weeks? Nothing -- he had simply bailed out of Musharraf's war. That was enough to destroy Nawaz Sharif's political fortunes within weeks, and for Pakistanis to embrace Musharraf's coup with open arms.

By contrast, when have any Indians shown a desire to embrace coups in their own country? The stark contrast between the 2 peoples in this respect is illustrative of the basic difference in character between them. Islam originates from outside the region, and has a totally different character to East Asian culture. It is not accommodating of democracy, or of peace-making over conquest.

It's only Europeans who recently developed a close love affair for Islam -- particularly the militant variety -- because they found it useful for fighting the Russians. Indeed, many European hardliners, including even those masquerading as liberals, do wish to preserve Islamist militancy for use against any future confrontation with the Russians. They know they don't have a prayer of taking on the Russians without the hat trick of Islamist militancy.

[zanzig]

Here is something that you might be interested in: it's the letter from Sir Hari Singh, the last Maharaja of Kashmir to Lord Mountbatten, the last English Viceroy of India. The historical facts are fascinating.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2511438/Letter-From-Maharaja-Hari-Singh-to-Lord-Mount-Batten-by-Asif-Raja

[zanzig]

Historically Kashmir (with some fluctuation of borders) has been successively: Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. When the Brits fell out with the Sikhs who were ruling in the 1800's, they sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh, who extended his territory to what is roughly today's borders. The last Maharaja Sir Hari Singh is rumoured to have delayed signing any decree in August 1947 (as an independent ruler he was given a choice of whether to join Pakistan or India) but Pakistan invaded to force his hand and he asked for help from the Indian Government in exchange for seceding to Indian rule. It was in the 1947 invasion by Pakistan that they acquired the land now known as Azad Kashmir and which they refuse to return. Personally I believe your argument is right, Chris, and that both India and Pakistan should be forced to return to the 1956 areas of control and forget all else. The only claim the Chinese have anywhere near Kashmir is because the Pakistanis signed a Sino-Pak Treaty and gave to the Chinese Indian land! The territory that comprises Jammu and Kashmir has never in recorded history been any part of Chinese dominion.

[Alethia]

The central issue of Kashmir is the people of Kashmir. Borders and territorial disputes follow. If you can satisfy the democratic aspirations of Kashmiri people, peace between India and Pakistan will follow and final borderlines will be drawn.

Both countries have promised the Kashmiris the right to choose what they want. The UN is on record as having assured the same.

India and Pakistan are naturally resistant to any deal that favors the other.

They, in concert with the Kashmiris, should sit together and sort it out.

The international community can help by encouraging them to do so, but world peace is now at stake and both India and Pakistan should realize this.

[jaysan]

The 1948 plebiscite has lapsed, and has been superceded by numerous elections held in Kashmir over decades. Even Pakistan acknowledged this when it signed the 1972 Shimla Accord with India. Just because the US-backed war in Afghanistan destabilized Kashmir, doesn't legitimize revisionist history that claims Kashmir has always been gripped by rebellion from the start. Sorry, but that's just fabrication. Kashmir has only been gripped by insurgency since the 1990s, and attempting to re-write history using the artificially distorted situation of the last 2 decades is absolutely untenable.

There is no power on Earth that can separate us Indians from our own sovereign territory. Neither can the Pakistanis do it, nor can the Americans do it. Attempts by the United States to move in this direction will not only be futile, but will only damage US interests in the region.

[cherry33]

The major waterways must go thru Kashmir. India wants the water, so it reroutes it their way. Pakistan is starving, in part due to this. It's water, baby.

And sorry, Kashmir is and was legitimately majority Muslim. Although, I am sure NOW most Kashmiris would wish to stay w/ India and I could hardly blame 'em.

Oy, Pakistan shoulda never split from India. The smartest thing both could do is find a way to reunite, b/c NOBODY is gonna be happy w/ what they get if they're seperate. As long as India is more successful b/c of water resources and such, they'll have a terrorist state next door. And as far as I'm concerned, both countries have a rightful claim to resources in both lands. It's an unnatural border that has been made up and it's all falling apart.

[jaysan]

Buddy, the "Muslim majority" in Kashmir has always lived in the concentrated urban pockets like Srinagar in the Valley of Kashmir, which only comprises 15% of the land. The rural districts comprising 85% of the land area were always Hindu majority, at least until Pakistan's terrorists began ethnic cleansing in the past 2 decades by murdering innocent villagers.

[jsehgal]

Kashmir is a bogus issue. All of pakistani breast beating aside, the only goal of pakistan is in line with its muslim masters in mecca and medina. The aim is to establish muslim rule as an empire from Spain to India with arabia in the centre. If India hands over Kashmir to pakistan, the next demand will be other areas of India where there is a sizeable muslim population. This demand has already been started by al-quaida - they want the states of Hyderabad and Orissa to be handed over to pakistan.
Americans wanting to 'settle' the issue of Kashmir shows their arrogance, as if they are capable of solving these problems. Recent history in this regard is not very encouraging. Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan (where 9/11 was actually planned and executed)?
There is one way the Americans can help. Stop funding enemies of democracy - islam and pakistan. This alone should save you a bundle and a lot of grief. Recognise pakistan for what it is: your mortal enemy because of religion.

[cherry33]

Um, I think you getting a little ahead of yourself. The country of Pakistan was not formed by Pakistanis to establish worldwide Muslim rule. Your slippery slope logic is funny though.

[thetruthhoits]

Okay, first Afghanistan is where 9/11 was planned, not Pakistan, Buddy.

Second, Pakistan and India are basically the same people who separated and formed an artificial border between themselves. Why is Pakistan, therefore, any less entitled to Kashmir which is part of a continuos piece of land?

The fact that you fail to see a distinction between Islam and any possible rights Pakistanis have to resources and land in Kashmir is laughable. I'm not saying Kashmir should go to Pakistan, but since you failed to focus on the real issue at hand I thought it needed to be mentioned.
And another thing - America wanting to help "settle" the issue is arrogant even if the issue has contributed to terror coming from the region and spilling into America? Oh, really? The problem from Afghanistan spilling into tribalist Pakistan while Pakistan's army is too busy watching over water resources being kept to India while allowing terrorists to advance has nothing to do w/ us?Hmm, okay let's stop funding Pakistan so they can definitely stop Pashtun tribalists from pushing toward the nukes. "Yeah, that oughta show them swarthy Muslims, Paw."

[KoolBreez]

"Pakistan and India are basically the same people who separated and formed an artificial border between themselves."

Really? You see no difference?

I see people who can create the following as being fundamentally different:

Largest democracy / Islamic dictatorship
One of the largest economies/ failed state..

"Why is Pakistan, therefore, any less entitled to Kashmir which is part of a continuous piece of land?"

What does continuity of land have to do with the price of potatoes in Idaho? Why is Mexico any less entitled to California?

[arnoldfriend]

I get the feeling you do a lot of breast beating on a daily basis. Like here.

You're arrogant because you think you know about the politics between India and Pakistan. Let me tell you a hurtful truth - you know less than nothing. (And Iraq is not an example of America trying to use diplomatic influence since they invented the problem themselves). And 9/11 planning happened in Afghanistan. What makes you think settling the issue w/ Kashmir means war or insurgents? Put down your cowboys and Indians dolls (no pun) and consider diplomatic talks. Man, if you didn't vote for McCain and Bush, they're certainly feeling the loss of your vote now b/c you sound just like 'em.

The president of Pakistan doesn't care to spread Islam, only people in the Taliban and their affiliates. Pakistan is not a conspiracy, so calm yourself.

[Princeton123]

Why should we settle with only Spain to India? We can go all the way to Philippine. (I hope you read my sarcasm).

On a serious note, Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junaghar were illegally and forcefully occupied by India.