Cross-Posted with the World Policy Journal Blog
America's rapprochement with India, and its centerpiece nuclear agreement, is a bright star in the otherwise murky firmament of the George W. Bush years. India is a large power; it is a secular, democratic power, not influenced by Islamist radicalism. Its large Muslim population of 140 million seems generally -- so far -- not attracted to that kind of fanaticism.
India is a country with a population of 1.17 billion whose numbers are destined to exceed those of China by 2050. (Pakistan's population, much smaller, but not insignificant, is roughly 180 million). The advantage of the U.S.-India rapprochement, in the short and medium term, lies in the fact that this huge country is right next to a string of Muslim countries whose populations are generally (though not universally) hostile to U.S. interests.
Because of the strategic importance that the United States places on both India and its troubled sister, Pakistan, policymakers in Washington have periodically tried to play the role of peacemaker in the region, hoping to push both nuclear-armed countries to resolve the bad blood between them -- which, for the most part, has revolved around the contested province of Kashmir.
In 2009, U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke reportedly tried to include India in his Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak) portfolio, which seemed to mean that he wanted to take a crack at the Kashmir problem. The Indians, however, would have none of it, and AfPak remains limited to the two nations that make up the somewhat unwieldy conjunction.
Steve Coll, in a New Yorker article on March 2, 2009, brought to light a parallel or "back" channel in Indo-Pak negotiations that took place during the regime of Pervez Musharraf. If the discussions had succeeded, and it appears they came close, it could have resulted in a sort of free movement of populations across the Kashmiri line of separation -- without a change of sovereignty between the advantageous Indian and unimpressive Pakistani portions. However, Musharraf went into a political tailspin after his dispute with the Pakistan judiciary and had to leave office in August 2008. With his departure, the talks seem to have ended. Ironically, according to Coll, the Indians had come to trust Musharraf, despite the fact that he was the main instigator of the abortive Pakistani attack at Kargil, in Kashmir, in 1999.
The arrangement nearly worked out reflects the Indian insistence that the line of separation (called the Line of Control) must not be altered, as this could affect the status of the Indian-held Valley of Kashmir, the beautiful "jewel in the crown" of the whole affair. Moreover, from the Indian point of view, ceding any part of Indian-held Kashmir, in what would be seen as for religious reasons, would compromise the Indian political philosophy of secular government.
In any event, a settlement now seems extremely unlikely in the short term, especially after the horrific attacks on Mumbai in November 2008 which originated in Pakistan. As long as Kashmir remains as it is, unequally divided, Islamabad will likely never be satisfied, which means we can expect more Pakistani agitation inside India and an increasingly stronger riposte from New Delhi. There is definitely a fear that the two Pakistan-sponsored terrorist groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are not only still active; worse, extrapolating from the attack on Mumbai, these groups may have set their sights on more ambitious targets, unleashing havoc within India's metropolitan cities rather than engaging India's massive deployments in Jammu and Kashmir.
So where do things stand now?
New Dehli seems intent on dialing down tensions. In October 2009, India withdrew two divisions (30,000 troops) from Kashmir. Still, India is estimated to have roughly 120,000 troops massed along the Line of Control which separates the two Kashmirs. Overall in the state, the exact number of Indian forces is not known but probably numbers in the hundreds of thousands.
Islamabad, for its part, may be likely to exercise greater restraint, given the horror that resounded internationally over the Mumbai attacks. Whether Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)--which has long trained and supplied Islamist militias in the region with the aim of destabilizing Indian control--continues to support its proxy armies or no longer can keep them on a leash is another matter.
At the moment, in winter, the insurgency in Kashmir usually dies down, only to flower again in the spring. Yet, this week saw a suicide attack in Lal Chowk, the nerve center of the capital, Srinagar. The attack was claimed by a third terrorist group, Jamiat-ul-Mujahidin, with the announced goal of demonstrating that militancy in Kashmir is not over.
But should the United States attempt to mediate this ongoing struggle? Certainly, there are a number of analysts and officials in Washington who believe that a lasting peace in Kashmir would lessen the strains between these two nations and allow Pakistan's army to focus on more pressing problems -- such as the rise of a powerful domestic Taliban that has inflamed the Afghanistan border regions and increasingly threatens and attacks the urban centers.
My answer is a simple "no." Kashmir does not constitute a negotiation in which Washington should get involved, even if it is 97 percent Muslim (in the Kashmir portion of the Jammu and Kashmir state) and was handed over to India by its Hindu maharajah in 1947. (The Hindu-majority Jammu portion of the state is the ancestral homeland of the Kashmiri Brahmins, whose most illustrious offspring was Jawaharlal Nehru).
The temptation for U.S. policymakers to get involved in the dispute is latent. In October 2008, Barack Obama, a month before he was elected, stated that "working with Pakistan and India to try to resolve the Kashmir crisis in a serious way" was among the "critical tasks for the next administration." Pakistan, as the irridentist party, would welcome it; indeed, the attacks by Pakistan-sponsored groups in Kashmir and elsewhere in India may be aimed in part in provoking the U.S. to intervene on the dispute. (Note the U.S. did intervene, and succesfully, at the time of the Kargil attacks).
But the overriding consideration is the new U.S.-Indian relationship which risks being diluted or worse, damaged, by an American intervention on the Kashmir issue which, almost by definition, would call into question the permanence of the Line of Control. India is too important to Washington to be left with a threat to its status quo, which has been in place for 60-plus years. India is the heir-state to British India. It retains the capital of British India, Delhi, and its government infrastructures. Pakistan has a new name ("land of the pure") and a new capital, Islamabad. The partition, occasioned by Muslim fears of being submerged by a Hindu majority, and which the British did not prevent, is now regarded by many as having been a mistake.
Moreover, the Obama administration already has its hands full, both domestically and overseas. With two ongoing wars, potential conflict in Iran, and recalcitrant partners in New Delhi and Islamabad, brokering a resolution in Kashmir seems a sight too far.
Kashmir is one case in which the U.S. tendency to remake the world order should be held in check. Unless tensions escalate dramatically, this is a conflict that India and Pakistan should sort out bilaterally. Hands off Kashmir!
Charles Cogan was an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1954-91. His first overseas posting was to New Delhi, 1957-62, and later he was the chief of the Near East South Asia Division in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA, 1979-84. He is currently an associate at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School.
Shirin Sadeghi: Border Dance: India and Pakistan's Daily Ritual
How Pakistan and India's daily ritual reveals more about their similarities than their differences.
You cannot have a fair election in the presence of more than 700, 000 troops in Kashmir. Since Kashmir being an international issue, India sometimes orchestrates these fraudulent elections, when needed, to give an impression to the outside world that Kashmiris are participating in the Indian electoral process and thus are happy with India. Just a few years back, after massive civilian uprising against Indian rule, India again started fabricating stories that 60% people took part in assembly elections in Kashmir. Please refer to what world-renowned aurthor Arundhati Roy has written about this election in her recently released book. The excerpts of this book which expose Indian election hyporcracy in Kashmir are available on this website under the title " What Have We Done to Democracy". Please click on the link to read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arundhati-roy/what-have-we-done-to-demo_b_301294.html
Knowing that so called elections are not producing desired effect on the world level, even the Pro-Indian chief Minister of the Indian-occupied Kashmir Omar Abdullah has admitted that the election were held just for the local governance, not for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, which involves three parties, Pakistan , India and Kashmir; elections therefore has nothing to do with the settlement of the dispute.
You said that the instrument of accession doesnot exist because one historian debated that in his thesis. You say now that the elections are fake, because one writer feels so.
Let me tell you one thing: Opinions DONOT change Facts.
There goes your credibility! When the US surrenders to AQ, India will follow suit with surrendering to the Pakistan ISI.
Pffft!
I would disagree with S Agra on one thing after reading his brilliant posts - most people here I've talked to - old, young, rich, poor, educated, not - have accepted that the Kashmir valley is part of India, however questionable the accession may or may not have been in '47.
They'd like an independent state, sure - but a good part of that sentiment is because they equate independence with a withdrawal of security forces, especially the CRPF, from their neighborhoods, an end to the human rights abuses and pre-emptive, disproportionate violence security forces commit while enjoying immunity from prosecution for the crimes. They've come to terms with the very real fact that an independent Kashmir would last all of 5 minutes before someone - Pakistan or someone else - would take over, starting the whole mess all over again.
Army should be in a place to protect the people, but in Kashmir, Indian army is holding millions of Kashmiris on gun point and committing worst crimes that human race has ever seen. Whether militants are in Kashmir or not, if local people don't want Indian army in Kashmir, why should India insist on keeping army in front of each and every household in Kashmir. Kashmiris don't want Indian army because they are the state-sponsored killers in Kashmir. No Indian should be proud of what Indian army is doing in Kashmir. It is ironical to say that Kashmiris want Indian army out of Kashmir but like India.
What were you doing for 30 years? You cannot sneakily undertake ethnic cleansing of place and then ask for plesbicte. And regarding your comments on army, i think you are either poorly read or more likely confusing yourself with your Pakistani Army.
And if Pakistan is so concerned abour Kashmir, why did gift a part of the state wihtout even consulting with the Kashmiris? So much for the talk of concern. Defence and security decisions cannot be made based on the whims and fancies of a group of persons living in srinagar. If the so-called concerns of Kashmir really worries Pakistan, let it take the first step of dismantling the innumerous terror camps which have thousands of kids picked up by the ISI. Supporters of Terrorism have NO right to talk about human rights when these same terrorists are killed by the forces. Period.
I'm not a Kashmiri, though I live in Kashmir with my Kashmiri husband. Over the past nearly 1 year I've spoken to people about the dispute and what their wishes are. Overwhelmingly, they want peace, they don't want to live in a miltarized zone, they want normalcy. They would welcome a just solution, they wouldn't protest the involvement of a UN or American broker, as long as their own voices may be heard as well. What they don't want, overwhelmingly, is anything to do with acceding their land to Pakistan, and the right to self determination has nothing to do with a desire to join a failing state which has done so much to destabilize the region, fueled the violence and kept the loose-cannon paramilitaries in camps all over this city.
Then the independence of Baluchistan.
Finally, freedom for the Nation of Aztlan.
Then we can talk about the independence of Pakistan occupied Kashmir
And since you are probably shaking your head in disbelief, let me ask you this... why must a resolution to the Kashmir issue be conciliatory to all the parties? Everyone feels that their faction has suffered more and so no matter where the negotiated point falls, everyone will feel they have been cheated, not given their due. Holding a plebiscite in Indian Kashmir now will be like awarding the class bully with donuts, a certificate for exemplary behavior, and having him throw pies at all the teachers during assembly. The bully needs to be grounded, disciplined and reprimanded and that is the only correct course of action.
UN resolutions were not implemented as Pakistan did not withdraw its forces from the occupied territories. Moreover, Pakistan never gave up aspirations of usurping the remaining territory of Kashmir, and despite its their best efforts in 1947,1965, 1971, and 1999, and its support for first the Sikh insurgency in Punjab and then the Muslim insurgency in Kashmir, Pakistan has been unsuccessful in attaining its goals. And through the years, politicians in Pakistan have used the rallying cry to free its Muslim brothers from the tyrannical Indian occupation of Kashmir. Meanwhile the poor oppressed people of Kashmir were reaping the benefits of free and fair state elections, land reform, free enterprise with a booming agriculture, horticulture and tourism industry. The insurgency started in 1989 as a result of fraudulent elections on 1987 which were had been rigged according to most accounts. Though initially local, the insurgency increasingly drew militants from across the Muslim world and after 20years was being fought mostly by foreign mercenaries on the payroll of the Pakistani Army. Meanwhile as a result of the conflict, the subsequent militarization of the region, the internal displacement of the (fill in whatever number you feel fit) hindus, the (fill in whatever statistic you are inclined to believe) murders, the demographics and psycho graphics of the region have been severely altered.
For the same reason( 1.17 billion people; a thriving democracy; secular nation; plurality of views; ensured rights of minority etc etc), huffpo should have many more India analysts ( who know the region a little) with more articles on India.
With such a 'sizable' country and such a big and successful Indian community in the US ( educators, scientists, doctors, a thriving business community, not to talk of the hugely successful tech specialists) its a shame that the 'weight' of writing and articles on India is such miserable numbers.
India and US are natural partners - if US tones downs its offensiveness and Indian reduces its defensiveness a little - and far too important players in the times to come to be ignored!
1. Kashmir is the root cause of the problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Both India and Pakistan are trying to compete out, and weaken, each other in Afghanistan to gain control over full Kashmir territory, thus destabilizing South Asian region and spilling over the violence to the whole world, including USA . Given that both these countries are nuclear powers, world powers must step in to solve the Kashmir dispute to prevent any nuclear catastrophe.
2. If we don't look at this conflict as emotional zealots or self-centered on-lookers, we will realize that hundreds and thousand of people, including Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris have been killed so far. The indirect effects of this conflict are that millions of Indian and Pakistanis still go to bed hungary, and human misery abounds in the streets of Delhi and Mumbai. Since Kashmir is the battle ground, major brunt of this conflict is borne by Kashmiris.
Solution: Kashmir dispute is not a mere a territorial dispute, it involves the future of millions of Kashmiris. Since India boasts to be a democratic country (though many doubt democratic and secular claims by India), let it demonstrate to the world that it honors democratic values by allowing free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir.
You are parroting the used and abused root cause theory; only if Kashmir, Palestine or Chechnya etc are solved as per the liking of 'some', it'll end the miseries of millions living in world. That is a convenient but a bogus argument.
No one disputes Kashmir has to be resolved peacefully. It cannot be solved with the help of the UN or the US because it will not have the buy in from the stakeholders. In fact, India, Pakistan and the locals were close to a permanent deal in 2007. It's them who has to solve it and the US can encourage a dialog.
There is a no issue or dispute as far as India is concerned. The state acceded to India in 1947. There was a Shimla Accord to honour and accept the Line of Control as the international border, but it has not been respected by Pakistan. You cannot invade a land, drive away its inhabitants and then ask for the "right of self determination'. India has already compromised on its land enough by letting go of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Nothing more needs to be done. You tell me, just because the USA has more China in Sanfransisco, would it give the city to CHINA??
There is a no issue or dispute as far as India is concerned. The state acceded to India in 1947. There was a Shimla Accord to honour and accept the Line of Control as the international border, but it has not been respected by Pakistan. You cannot invade a land, drive away its inhabitants and then ask for the "right of self determination'. India has already compromised on its land enough by letting go of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Nothing more needs to be done. You tell me, just because the USA has more China in Sanfransisco, would it give the city to India??
As a humanitarian, I wish all the disputes in world to be solved, so that humans can live as a human race, not as Indians, Pakistanis or Kashmiris. We can solve the disputes only if we confront the reality. As enshrined in the UN resolutions, Kashmir is a disputed territory. This dispute has lead to four wars between India and Pakistan, who are still fighting proxy wars in each other’s countries as well as in Afghanistan. Hundreds of Pakistanis and Indians have been killed in these fights, not to mention 70, 000 Kashmiris who too lost their lives to this conflict.
Accession treaty of 1947 you have mentioned in your comment is a fake document if it exits anywhere. A British historian, Alistair Lamb, has proven beyond any doubt that there was no accession treaty signed by Hindu King of Kashmir. More importantly, India signed the UN resolutions seeking plebiscite in Kashmir after the controversial accession treaty. By signing the UN resolutions on Kashmir, India by herself challenged the validity of the accession document.
Western nations define their countries by values, not by boundaries. It is no wonder that a person of Chinese origin proudly calls himself an American. Indians define themselves in the context of the territory and not by values. India has therefore trampled human values of freedom and justice to retain the territory that they think is theirs. India has committed far more state-sponsored killings than any of the worst dictatorships in the world.
Question is : whose "Right"? The Kashmiri muslims dont believe in the accession by a Hindu king whom they never accepted in the first place. But, that is the SELECTIVE history they like to stop at. If one dwells further down the History pages, we find a different reality emerging. The ORIGINAL inhabitants of the state, including the valley were the Pandits and the Buddhists. After the mughal invasion, the entire Pandit population were either forced to flee or converted if they want to stay back. In a sense, these muslims we see in the valley are the descendents of the Mughals and have no legimitate right to the land or to self deterrmination. This ethnic cleansing happened much much before 1980s militancy rise.
So, if according to the Muslim world's view , Israel cannot claim the land, where do these muslims stand in the entire issue? You cannot invade a place, drive away the original owners, stay there for hundreds of years and then ask for "Right of Self determination"!
India and the world cannot and willnot afford to risk its security with the creation of ANOTHER islamic state in SouthaAsia
USA is perfectly OK when Pakistani ISI (their official itelligence agency) and Pakistani Army train, fund, arm the terrorists who kill Innocent Indians.
USA does not have any problem when innocent Indians dies in Mumbai, India lost more Innocent people in the hands of Pakistani Terrorists than anyone.
USA always defends Pakistani Terrorists because Pakistan is important.
USA should help India destroying Pakistani Terrorists.
There cant be Good terrorists in this world. Its time USA helps India to destroy the Terrorists who are been trained by the Pakistani Army.
For this world, India which is the worlds largest Democracy and a secular country is more important than a failed and terrorist country like Pakistan.
How can USA allow Pakistani Terrorists to attack Democratic India.
I thought USA is a country which fights for the Democracy. Then I think USA should help India from the Pakistani Terrorists.
The continuing conflict over Kashmir has caused inestimable harm to the security of the region and indeed the world.
The resolution of this conflict could only significantly go toward the stamping out of the current world-wide terrorist siege which we are all witnessing in the past few years.
Do we sit on our hands for another 60 years without having the people of Kashmir vote in a plebiscite and be forced endure another of those 60 years of this intolerable situation on the Subcontinent?
The option of plebiscite in Kashmir which was designed in 1948 is not relevant today. Kofi Annan voluntarily admitted this on his trip to South Asia during his tenure as the Secretary General of the UN. Morever, the UN never gave Kashmir an option to be independent; it asked to choose between India or Pakistan.
A lot has changed on the ground between then and now. No one disputes a peace deal is necessary. But only India, Pakistan and locals can determine the solution. The decision to make the Line of Control a permanent border while letting the people to commute easily across the border is a rational solution which Manmohan Singh and Musharraf were also arriving at.
If Pakistan takes steps to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure on the Indo-Pak border, the solution to Kashmir can be peacefully solved through dialog in months.
Virtually every objective attempt at determining public opinion in Kashmir has shown that the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris do not want to remain under Indian occupation. In a 1995 survey, India’s Outlook magazine found that only 7 percent of Kashmiris would be satisfied with greater autonomy under India; 19 percent favored merger with Pakistan, while 72 percent wanted independence. In 2002, UK-based MORI carried out another poll across Kashmir with similar results--9 percent of Kashmiris favoring Indian citizenship, 13 percent preferring Pakistani citizenship and 78 percent showing no preference (presumably because independence was not an option on the survey). More recently, a 2007 survey sponsored jointly by the Indian Express, Pakistan’s Dawn, and CNN-IBN, found that 87 percent of Kashmiris want independence, while only 7 percent want to remain under Indian rule.
To foist a solution upon Kashmir that would, in effect further lock the state into the Indian Union, would by all indications be deeply unsatisfactory to the vast majority of Kashmiris. Frankly, there can be no stable resolution to this conflict until the will of the Kashmiri people is taken into account.
Though I do not agree that it is the US who should be the arbitrator between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, I DO agree with you that the UN Security Council's Resolutions on Kashmir are still valid despite the number of years which have elapsed. And those resolutions should be implimented.
It is thus the UN which should be the arbitrator.
The lack of resolution of the Kashmir conflict is a major contributor to the chaotic situation which continues to exist on the Indian Subcontinent.
"The Hindu-majority Jammu portion of the state is the ancestral homeland of the Kashmiri Brahmins, whose most illustrious offspring was Jawaharlal Nehru."
This is wrong. The Hindu-majority Jammu region of the state is the ancestral homeland of the Hindu Dogras and not Kashmiri Brahmins. Both are ethnically and culturally very different from each other. The Kashmiri Brahmins (generally known as Kashmiri Pandits) whose most illustrious offspring was Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, are the natives of the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley. Around 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits were forced to migrate out of the Kashmir valley when violent insurgency erupted back in 1989.
Thanks for pointing out the factual error.
However Jammu region doesnt just comprise of HIndu Dogra's .. There are Gujjar's, Pahari's, Kashmiris and other ethnic groups living in the region. Out of the 6 divisions in Jammu, 3 are Muslim majority areas and rest with sizable Muslim populations.
What happened in 1989 is always debatable and there number of Pandits who left the valley was 150000 as per the official figures, NOT 300000 as you have mentioned.