« Prev Page

Secession Dreams

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Without a compelling case against the Indian government, the onus is on the supporters of secession to show that they won't make things worse for Kashmir. Are the secessionists themselves capable of providing good democratic governance? Will they ensure human rights, free and fair elections, and just administration? Will minorities in an independent Kashmiri state be safe under a Kashmiri government? In other words, is there evidence that those asking for rights have a robust "culture of rights"?

Going by the pronouncements and actions of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference—the umbrella group that claims to enjoy the support of a large section of Kashmiris—and given the violence perpetrated by the militants in the name of secession, the answer is an emphatic no. The Hurriyat has been rather coy about its political values including the future of ethnic and religious minorities and the nature of an independent Kashmir, and it has no record of electoral politics; while the militants have attacked not just the armed agents of the Indian government but also unarmed civilians, Muslims and Hindus, with great regularity. If these are the future rulers of a putatively independent Kashmir, then secession is dubious.

Finally, could Kashmir be truly independent in a geopolitical setting of contending regional great powers, namely, China, India and Pakistan? The prospects are not encouraging. Would an independent Kashmir bring peace between these three? Clearly, the issues between them go far deeper than the status of a small state. Kashmiri secession might encourage others near and far to hive off, might energize Islamic militants farther afield, and might destabilize both India and Pakistan. This presages not geopolitical peace, but disaster.

Ganguly is the director of research of the Center on American and Global Security at Indiana University, and an adjunct fellow at the Pacific Council on International Policy. Kanti Bajpai is an expert on India's security and is a regular commentator in the Indian media.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Salim @ 01/09/2009 5:47:44 AM

Sure I agree with you that Kashmir should have right to govern themselves in fact I would say every town, every village, every family and every person should have right to govern themselves. There should not be any state but everyone should be state in himself/herself.
Yes Indian state started this violence, it was Indian state who through all the Kashmiri Pundits out of Kashmir.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Salim @ 01/09/2009 5:22:13 AM

Sure I agree with you that Kashmir should have right to govern themselves in fact I would say every town, every village, every family and every person should have right to govern themselves. There should not be any state but everyone should be state in himself/herself.
Yes Indian state started this violence, it was Indian state who through all the Kashmiri Pundits out of Kashmir.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: H.nazar @ 12/28/2008 2:46:04 PM

Kashmir was a state before the notion of India as a state. The Kashmiri's were never given a choice for independence.
The Kashmiri's do not want to be a part of India, how do I know this? As a Kashmiri I and every other Kashmiri I know of Wants FREEDOM FROM INDIA.
The UN has required India to carry out a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people, will India do this?. The answer is No, because India knows too well that the Kashmiri's would choose independence. I ask this of India and Indians who are masquerading in their 'democracy' to vacate our land, take your 500,000+ atrocity committing soldiers with you(see Amnesty International reports of Gang rapes and fake encounter murders by the 'brave Indian military').
THE above article could have easily been written by an INDIAN PROPAGANDIST, OOH actually it has been.. KASHMIRIS have never accepted Indian colonialism.