Tri- Lateral Talks: When Bi- Lateral Just A'int Enough

Pakistan emphasizes that talks between them and India must be maintained to not only solve the issues in Kashmir but for the development of the entire South Asia region. However, this was followed by a request to bring in a third party to form the trilateral talks with parties representing Pakistan, India and the people of Kashmir.

Pakistan has said that the Kashmiri people will be the most affected by the outcome of the talks and therefore need to be privy to the talks themselves. This statement has largely been supported by the Kashmiri people and has shifted the baton of power towards Pakistan in the minds of the people.

Source: dnaindia.com

India has no concrete statement regarding this issue and this has left a taste of uncertainty in Kashmir.  The Kashmiris who support India now wonder whether they made the right choice as it makes sense to involve the Kashmir people in the talks. Since Kashmir welfare is the top priority, people believe that India should let a third party join the talks and ensure that the discussions are steered in the right direction.

One of the reasons India could be forestalling is because this could mean complicating and undermining the position that India is in.  It is widely believed that India was on the verge of completing the talks that provide India a favorable outcome.  Pakistan, seeing no way out, decided that involving a third party would not only prolong the talks but change the entire dynamics of it, effectively starting the talks afresh.

This would hinder the welfare and growth that Kashmir is currently experiencing and also prolong any legislation that the people are waiting for as the presence of these talks would provide obstacles to the smooth functioning and development of Kashmir.

No Maps for these Territories

The Senkaku/ Diaoyu are a cluster of islands off the coast of Taiwan that are in close proximity to both Japan and China. The reason that these islands have been a source of conflict is that they are of Geo- strategic importance to both China and Japan who are both competing to expand their sphere of influence in the region. Japan has the distinction of being one of the countries that has an amount of consideration for land claims, even if it does not skimp on security arrangements to back its own claim.

Map Unveiled by China in 2014
Source: dailymail.co.uk

Under Shinzo Abe, there has been a distinct change of narrative that has emerged from Japan. Its distinct nationalist flavor now has diluted some of the bi- partisan brownie points that Japan might have earned in political discourse if it had maintained its school textbooks, and the different claims made by different countries over contested regions.

It is in this vein that I hope to bring up the Jammu and Kashmir and Arunchal Pradesh land issues that India faces in its interaction with both China and Pakistan. We shall stick with the problem of POK and the Aksai Chin region, since we are dealing with the Kashmir issue here. 

Status Quo Boundaries
Source: economist.com

As Claimed by Pakistan
Source: economist.com

As Claimed by China
Source: economist.com

As Claimed by India
Source: economist.com

Here I propose that as opposed to being militant and shrill about the land issues, it would make sense to educate children in the actual politics of land and how these varying claims also have varying degrees of legitimacy and Indians being aggrieved by this issue makes us no better than that one spokesman of the People’s Republic of China who claims that Arunchal Pradesh and China’s claim to it is for the purposes of ensuring that the people of China have an understanding of China’s “maritime” and “geographical” claims, as it were.

The only people who can legitimately be aggrieved by this situation are the people in the contested territories. Both the valley and Aksai Chin. Where, when the politics of the South East Asian region play out, we treat their homes like tiles on a chess board. 

Sources/ References:

The Economist on the Controversial Border Issue

China and the Modi visit to Arunachal Pradesh

China and Arunachal Pradesh

The Kashmir Conflict: A Historical Context

Kashmir is a matter of conflict between India and Pakistan before independence. It has lead to wars between these countries.  They have fought three wars for Kashmir, which includes the wars of 1947, 1965 & 1999. India is claiming the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir including Kashmir valley, Ladakh and most of Jammu. Pakistan has approx. 37% of Kashmir, known as ‘Azad Kashmir’.

In 1947, British rule in India ended with creation of a new country, Pakistan (earlier, part of India). All the states were free to choose either to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. At that time, Jammu and Kashmir had majority of Muslim population ruled by Hindu King, Maharaja Hari Singh. He chose to join India. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the newly created Pakistan wanted Kashmir as it was Muslim dominated. The king did not decide anything for months and Pakistan sent a troop of raiders to force the king to join. The king fled to India and agreed to join India in return for protecting Kashmir from Pakistanis. Soon, India & Pakistan were involved in the war in 1947 & Pakistanis were pushed back.

Kashmir belongs to India as the last king had signed the instrument of accession to join India. Its history and culture is similar to the India.

Pakistanis has encouraged separatists for 5 decades and now, China has involved to be in aid of Pakistan.

Essentially, it is a two party conflict (between India & Pakistan) where external parties are quite interested.

Kashmir - My Perception

Kashmir denotes a larger area that includes Indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir (consists of Jammu, the Kashmir valley and Ladakh), the Pakistan-administered territories of Azad Kashmir and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract.

The Kashmir dispute is a major territorial conflict between India and Pakistan that dates back to 1947.

The question is: To whom does Kashmir belong: India or Pakistan?

Well, it depends on who you ask.

As an Indian, I would say that Kashmir was not a part of British India and was an independent province under British suzerainty. Partition does not govern where Kashmir belongs. Accession is a matter to be decided by each Princely state. In 1948, when Pakistan attempted to annex Kashmir, the Hindu ruler of Kashmir signed up to accede with India to get India’s protection. He was supported by Sheikh Abdullah, the Muslim leader of Kashmir’s popular political party.

But if you ask any Kashmiri, he/she would say that the future of Kashmir should be determined by Kashmiris. Not by India, not by Pakistan. Some may want to remain in India, some may want to join Pakistan or some may want to be independent.

Though in reality,

Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. It is not easy for political super powers to adjudicate on this matter and force either India or Pakistan to do what the political powers think is fair.

Public opinion in both India and Pakistan are so entrenched that any politician who cedes Kashmir away will never get re-elected. Kashmir can be taken away only by force. Such force against a nuclear power is not easy; not available.

Therefore, the LOC is likely to remain a de- facto international border splitting Kashmir unfortunately into two: one under Pakistan control, one under India control.

Such a beautiful place and such a wonderful people caught in such a milieu of politics!

- Mosam Acharya

This is an opinion piece written by the author who has been credited, and the views that are expressed are exclusively hers.

Secularity, Autonomy, and Article 370

Article 370 was drafted in 1947 with the intention of being a temporary provision due to the ongoing territorial conflict between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region. This clause grants special autonomous powers to the state and the debate over whether it should be abrogated or retained is still ongoing. 

The concessions given by Article 370 showed clear discrimination between the majority and minority communities. It resulted in the religious oppression of the Kashmiri Hindus who are the largest minority community in the region causing the numbers to dwindle even further. So while the rest of India enjoyed secular rights, a greater divide was formed in Kashmir due to the unequal rights of the communities. 

Source: thehindu.com

When Article 370 was drafted the condition for its abrogation was an agreement between the President of India and the Constituent Assembly. That Assembly is now defunct as it was disbanded in 1957 and hence, Article 370 can be abrogated without much delay - a point that has been raised quite often in arguments regarding this issue. However, this topic is multi-dimensional and can’t be viewed from just a single viewpoint. 

Any changes or the removal of Article 370 may result in a more secular and equal state but it would also cause dissatisfaction among the people of the Muslim majority community. The government is dependent on the votes of this community as well, causing a certain amount of delay and thought to be put into the option of making changes to this clause. People in this community aren't eager to become a part of the Indian nation either, claiming to be comfortable with their socio-economic scenario. 

Indian citizens may express discontent at not being allowed to enjoy the same privileges in Kashmir that they do in other states of India. While there may be an ongoing conflict about whether Kashmir belongs to India or Pakistan, a part of it remains under the Indian Territory and Indian citizens should be able to exercise their rights even there. This also gives rise to the question of whether every state in India should have its own laws governing the extent to which people can exercise their freedom.

Around the time of Independence, the Kashmiris were reluctant to become a part of India and preferred to remain an autonomous state as they felt separated from the rest of the nation. Now, India is secular and every religious community enjoys a certain amount of freedom and rights within the nation while Kashmir remains separated without that reason remaining. 

- Purnima Bala 

This is an opinion piece written by the author who has been credited, and the views that are expressed are exclusively hers.

Kashmir: Our Problem?

The Kashmir issue is many sided and has more layers than people would care to admit, since not admitting to the complexity of a problem is a lot easier than respecting the multi- varied dimensions of it. As said before, the problem that Kashmir poses to New Delhi is similar to any other counter- insurgency operation that has been undertaken by any government.

In military parlance the term used for a situation that had multiple points of origin and no clear targets, or easily identifiable/ tangible objectives (such as Afghanistan and the International NATO forces) was called a "Cluster Fuck". Which while apt couldn't be spoken of in the presence of official, so it was abbreviated to CF and then referred to as Charlie Foxtrot. The insurgency threat in the valley is a CF if there every was one.

You have a mostly Hindu peace keeping/ security force that is an almost entirely Muslim area. This split on communal lines need not exist, but the fact that it exists must not be ignored by politico's who have the power to shape the lives of entire families who inhabit the Kashmir valley. The constant threat that a child in the valley is in, can't be easily described.

A riot in progress
Source: http://kashmirinfocus.com

The Indian government has not done a great job at inspiring any sort of trust in the people. In addition the politicization of every issue that the state deals with ensures that the state will continue to be split on communal lines as long as political parties see it fit to do so. A recent example is how the BJP decided it was ethical, or at least alright to start accusing Abdullah and his National Conference of not ensuring that flood victims were rehabilitated and the disaster as a whole was contained.

The Jhelum floods over
Source: ibnlive.in.com

The Assembly election have presented another significant problem. The alliance between the PDP and the BJP seems quite perfect, but if one looks deeper, it seems to be a little counter- intuitive to have an alliance between two parties that are on completely opposite sides of an ideological spectrum. One of the strongest criticism of the UPA I and UPA II was that even though Dr. Singh might have been well meaning, he was curtailed by different factions of his coalition that just refused to co- operate on certain issues. Thus are the perils of a parliamentary system. The PDP and BJP alliance in the state legislature are going to be beleaguered by problems that can't even be imagined, and we didn't even have to wait very long before a comment crediting the Hurriyat for ensuring that elections went off without a hitch ensured that a parliamentary session was interrupted.

There might be any one solution to this problem, in truth there can't be, not when there are so many different factions that are vying for their own version of the promised land, or at least their home. Here is where David Malone again comes to my mind, and like he said, if India bases it's argument on the fact that the people of Kashmir are Indian, then why don't we begin acting like they are?

- Anirudh R.

This is an opinion piece written by the author who has been credited, and the views that are expressed are exclusively his. 

Couplet- 7

Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast. 

English Translation:
If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this.
- Amir Khusro

Said to have been said of the northern land that is now Jammu and Kashmir. Sources differ on whether Amir wrote it on Kashmir or whether Jahangir famously uttered this Farsi couplet when surveying the land.