Secession Dreams

What about the simply reason that they want to govern themselves? Obviously they feel strongly enough about their culture and their desire to live seperately with their own rules and customs. Why should they need any other reason besides this? Because this might disturb global politics? Well global politics is already oppressing this cultural minority. Of course India would lose power, perhaps this move would increase the number of populations wanting self-governance, this would in turn decrease the power of nation states as a whole. Of course this is "bad" if you look at it from the side of those states in power now that would "suffer" but just as equal is the "goodness" of self-governance that will result. I find it hard to believe that you are suggesting that although the state of India (or the individuals that make up that state) have caused atrocities and death for the population of kashmir that they should somehow accept this or appease this for some *possible* future that has improved relations. This is a horrible suggestion as it is, that it is not *enough* killing yet to warrant self-governance, perhaps this type of thinking would have worked in the beginings of the holocaust? Oh no, not enough Jewish people, "lower" races, and disabled people have been killed yet, therefore it is not a genocide, therefore there requires no action. How many people have to be killed to warrant the label "genocide"? More than one thousand? Two thousand? Please specify becaue you seem to "know" that there is no chance of a genocide of Kashimir. Your approach seems to be a rationalization of killing, trying to systematize a reaction to violence. This seems improbably if not downright inhuman, would you accpet such conditions yourself? If your family and friends were killed would this not be "enough" to warrant reaction? I find that hard to believe. That being said, why shouldn't every population have the right to self-governance? It seems to be an inherent right of all people by natural disposition (if it is not then what basis is our nation-state, is ANY conceivable nation-state as it is in the westernized world)? The real question is why the countries care so much about not letting populations govern themselves, why is this? Why does Georgia swear that the breakaway regions are somehow "theirs" and "rightfully" no less. This seems basis if not a convention of imperialism still existing. The answer I believe is that it removes power and territory, and a modern nation-state is more or less defined by these attributes. This is not abotu peace and security for all, do you really believe that? This is about power and manipulation like it always has been.

"There is no doubt that unauthorized arrests and detention, torture, and the killing of innocents, have occurred in substantial numbers. However, New Delhi has also taken remedial measures. " Oh, really? Exactly what "remedial measures" could possibly be effective for innocent people who were killed... in ANY numbers? Kashmir should never have been designated to be part of India, against the will of the majority of its people, in the first place. The authors' sanguine attitude toward the victims of that continuing injustice is testament to the contempt with which people of one ethnicity often regard those of another...and provide an illustration of the powerful human drive to resist governance by "others". Maybe, instead of engraving the nation-state system in stone, after two bloody, awful world wars, the "powers that be" ought to have been compelled, at last, to accept the principle of government by the consent of the governed, even if that requires the appearance of smaller independent, self-governing political domains than the world "leaders" and their bean-counters would prefer.

What is with indians and denying facts? Kashmir was never a part of india and please, look up some history books before you write another intellectual article like this.

I am Kashmiri myself and I agree with this article 100 % The best thing for Kashmiris at this point is to calm down and try to deal with their legitimate greviences in a non violent way. The should calmly accept they are Indian citizens and try to focus on improving their economy, cleaning up the environments and improving the socio-economic profile of their battered society rather than fight against India. The seccessionist movement has proven to be a complete failure, a quintessential zero sum game that has ruined Kashmiri society, and paradoxically made Kashmiris far more dependent on Indian largesse than they otherwise would have to be.

Misleading write-up on Kashmir

This is in reference to a write-up published in your magazine of September 3, 2008 Dreams of independence by Sumit Ganguly and Kanti Bajpai. The first point I want to put forth is that the people of Kashmir are not secessionists and their struggle must not be described as intended to secede Jammu and Kashmir from India. The discourse of secession could arise if Jammu and Kashmir would have been a part of India, whereas from all standards of law and international jurisprudence, it has never been so. It is clearly a case of invasion by India as its troops, on October 27 1947 occupied Jammu and Kashmir quite contrary to Kashmiris??? aspirations and in clear contravention of the Partition Plan of South Asian Sub-Continent. In view of the UN charter and the resolutions of the Security Council on Kashmir, the dispute basically involves the people???s right to self-determination.

If the writers have problems in using the words like genocide and extermination then the onus of responsibility lies on them as how to explain the killings of over ninety thousand Kashmiris by Indian troops during the last nineteen years. It has now been established by several independent probes that the occupation authorities have been engaged in killing people in fake encounters and custody. We should not lose sight of the fact that lately over nine hundred un-named graves have been discovered by a non-governmental organization in a sector called Uri. The European Parliament has passed a resolution to this effect while denouncing the human rights violations by Indian troops.

It is an eyewash that New Delhi has taken remedial measures by court-marshalling army officers for human rights abuses. Such announcements have indeed been made by the Indian government also but it could be appropriate if the writers had mentioned some specific cases in this regard. The fact is that the acts of terrorism in Indian held Kashmir are not being committed by the troops in their individual capacity but strictly under the orders of the authorities and in line with a pre-meditated plan to intimidate the people of Kashmir to submission.

The morality demands that India is asked to give Kashmiris their inalienable right to self-determination and immediately stop its state-terrorism.


Waheed Ahmed,
Islamabad.

At the time of Partition, the genreal idea was for Pakistan to be formed for all Muslims from the subcontinent and to comprise of all Muslim-majority areas. Therefore, Pakistan's argument that Kashmir should be a part of its country has some merit. Moreover, they even might have agreed for Jammu and Ladakh to stay with India. Transfer or Kashmir and the rest of the Muslims in India over to Pakistan seems one solution. This need not be achieved overnight but over a period of time, say, a transfer 100,000 persons plus 100 sq.km. of territory at one time. If this had started 60 years back, Kashmir and entire Muslim population would have been in Pakistan, rather than both being divided between the two feuding nations.

If only Kashmir were to be transferred to Pakistan, this would mean handing over India to right-wing Hindu parties who would ensure misery for the remaining Muslims in india for eternity. If it were to remain in India, it would mean dealing with an unhappy populace in Kashmir and endless bomb-blasts in the rest of the nation. It is very unlikely the Kashmiri Muslim people would ever be happy living in India even if their living standards improved suddenly. Their main wish is to be governed by Sharia, and not common law, which an Indian Constituition would never be able to be provide.

This option is something that should be considered with calm and logic instead of nationalistic and religious jingoism.

Waheed-

Your comments look as ridiculous as the authors' calling Pakistan, the regional power. Pakistan is a real pain in India's b~tt.

Pakistan can never dream of liberating J&K from India; enjoying the prosperous Kashmiri pizza. If you don't like a country, you better flee. Period!

There're thousands of Non-American-White kids born in USA every year.

Can they try to secede the country by states because they were born here, follow different beliefs, and don't want to live united any more????

Sound wierd, right?

I felt the same after reading your article.

Has newsweek gone nuts!!! hiring hindu fanatics to write about kashmir? Here's an idea how about hire a KKK member to write about slavery.

Kashmir banega PAKISTAN!!

Since when did Newsweek become a mouthpiece for Hindu Fascists? I havent read a more biased story for a long time

An interesting editorial, as long as you recognize that this is essentially the Indian government's point of view. I would personally disagree with the arguments made by Mrs Ganguly and Bajpai.

1.) It's interesting that they write that South Ossetia is the "worrying precedent" - this is presumeably an attempt to win over Western readers - one could make a stronger argument that Kosovo is a better precedent for an independent Kashmir. The unspoken problem of this fact (for India) is that the US and most Western European countries recognize Kosovo's independence, while India, fearing its own secessionist movements, does not.
2.) I flatly disagree with the authors' arguments that only genocide, "ethnic flooding" or gross violation of human/cultural rights are the benchmarks against which a territory's people may deign to declare independence. The former Soviet and former Yugoslavian republics declared independence over far less. No genocide or severe oppression forced Slovakia to declare independence either. Quite frankly, Britain's treatment of the Indian subcontinent in the 1930's was no more ham-fisted than India's treatment of Kashmir today. Indian troops shooting peaceful Kashmiri protesters smacks of Amritsar, 1919.
3.) This article conveniently omits mention of UN Security Council Resolution 47m calling for a vote on independence to be held among Kashmiris. Hmmm...
4.) Minority rights and regional stability are important issues for the international community to focus on as a country becomes independent, but once again, these concerns do NOT trump that territory's right to be an independent state (see Kosovo, Bosnia, Estonia, East Timor, etc.).

I find it supremely ironic that the Kashmiris are now using Gandhi's tactics of peaceful protest against the Indian state, and that the Indian government and its supporters are essentially using the same arguments as Churchill and the British gave against "Quitting India". I guess what goes around, comes around.

Exceptionally fair assessment - except for the fact that Kashmir has got more funding from the Indian central government than any other state. Pakistan is a failed state. To emulate failed ideology and align with a failed state would be sucidical for the ordinary Kashmiris. Nations can never ever be built in the name of religion and fanaticism. What ever prosperity (and the resulting ideology) you see in the name of religion in the Middle East is because of oil. Once the oil dries out (and I hope it dries out sooner than later), funding for terrorism will vanish.

If Kashmir were to be an independent nation, it will still be dependent on tourists for its economic survival. Has anyone thought about that? It will still have to sell its agricultural produce. Pakistan can not buy (and pay for) anything. China will squeze Kashmir out (like it is trying to do the poor African states). It will be a land locked country - worse than Nepal. Nepal, atleast has a mini economy and well establisehd tourism based infrastructure.

Come on guys, sit down and think logically. Go and visit different places in the region. Go to Afghanistan. Go and visit Karachi and Islamabad. And then go to India and stand outside Reliance plant in Jamnagar - world's largest oil refinery. Go and visit Banglore and Hyderabad - world's fastest growing IT hub. And then finally go to a very small village in India and see the local elections taking place. There is still lots of poverty and corruption in India but you will not see disillusion. Look at the females working in the farms and in multinational companies. Before you decide, just look around.