It appears many first-time readers and commenters have thrown their hat in this discussion.

Please keep the discussion civil: thrash out arguments and don’t engage in personal attacks.

Since you seem to be of the view that you have a good grasp of reality, may be you understand the concept of leverage. Just may be.

You also ignore the reality of the domestic economic situation in the US or the fact that it has about 6 months to turn around the fiasco that their Aghan occupation has become – otherwise, they have no option but to start drawing down. Obama could try to do something about Kashmir – out of deseperation, not out of a position of strength.

So somehow a country that is losing its leverage in the international arena every day with its economic situation getting worse, is going to get itself into the middle of a situation that it could nt influence even at the best of times. Unless of course it was favorable to India (Kargil). And that too after the last 8 years of the Bush administration has lead the US to shed its hyphenated view of India for the first time.

Even Pakistan knows how to use what ever leverage it has. And here we have people who are worried about how we are going to “stave off” America. Its all very scary. And i thought Halloween had already come and gone. Silly me.

Oh boy, that took a long time to get out of you. Let’s review

a. You fear that India would lose a plebiscite.

b. You feel bad about the fact that there are big demonstrations about Indian rule. And yet you dont want to give them a chance at a plebiscite.

c. You have pooh poohed away the elections saying that they dont really amount to much. You never answered why secessionists could take part in the elections themselves and prove that they speak for a majority of Kashmiris.

d. For what ever reason, Farooq is the one who has imaginative solutions – not that he has ever proved anything about why we should even take him seriously.

e. You still think that India and Pakistan can buy into a solution that both will be happy with – when Pakistan is under attack from jihadis internally, asking the IMF to bail it out and is at its weakest position in the last 15 years.

Ok, you cleared things up – thanks.

What is the basis for this belief that negotiations will lead to Pakistani aggressiveness? It is true that Pakistan is in a weak position today but that does not mean India can dictate terms to them. Like any other country, they will not accept terms that are not acceptable in their interest (a good example is how a weak China walked away from a settlement with the powerful British on Tibet in 1914). What we must work for is a reasonable solution that saves face for both sides. The South Tyrol model has been suggested as a possible template to build upon.

How is abolishing Art.370 going to solve the Kashmir problem? It will simply aggravate matters without bringing us any closer to a settlement. Any final settlement will have to incorporate a special arrangement for Kashmir that is consistent with a settlement we arrive at with Pakistan. That is all the more reason to retain Art.370.

Sanjay,

You make some novel assertions. If I understand you correctly, Pakistan’s backing for the anti-India insurgency is to distract Pashtuns from their own troubles with the Pakistani government. But if that was the case, that contradicts the well established fact that the Taliban which is entirely dominated by Pashtuns was aided and abetted by the very same Pakistani government – if they feared Pashtun rage so much, they would surely not have been so stupid as to empower the same people! Besides, a signficant part of the Pakistani army is made up of Pashtun and so is the Northern Light Infantry, a paramilitary organization. Clearly, there is more to Pakistani policy than a single minded focus on preventing Pashtunistan.

Nagarajan Sivakumar,

You ask why I do not demand a plebiscite. For the same reason that India has always refused to conduct it – the big fear of losing it. Neither India nor Pakistan can afford to lose on Kashmir, hence all the more reason to find a compromise that both sides can live with.

I am unclear about your other points. Yes, I understand that the US is having economic problems but so are a lot of other countries on the planet. Yes, Pakistan has been caught playing a double game vis-a-vis the US. But that is not all that different from similar Israeli claims about Palestinian perfidy. Nevertheless, there is something of a roadmap towards a settlement in that case which is a significant first step. There is no reason that a similar set of principles cannot be laid out here that can be followed up provided other conditions are met.

You seem to be writing on the premise that a compromise on Kashmir cannot be made without redrawing borders. That is not necessarily so. The question is how. Some people have suggested the South Tyrol option or a variant of the Dixon plan. There may well be other remedies but there is no reason to say that there is not any. As Mirwaiz Umer Farooq is fond of saying, imaginative solutions are more than possible.

Kashmir is only one of the many issues that we have been facing, as byproducts of the partition fiasco. India may not be a big power in the eyes of the US and its surrogates. But, it doesn’t mean that we have to meekly ask/accept third party mediation on territorial issues with neighbours. The good old days of cold war, US playing self-appointed super cop etc. are gone long time ago.

I did not say that Obama will meddle in Kashmir as soon as he sat at his desk. You do not seem to dispute my main point that the sum total of the Kashmir-issue interests which are nurtured by todays elected reps do not amount to much. This sum-total alone represents the Indian states position on Kashmir. As the effort required to stave off America rises beyond a point, there will not be enough juice left in the house. No one elected on a narrower-interest platform can afford to expend too much energy on larger issues.

>> Seriously. Get a grip. Please.

You mean a grip on reality ? I would be happy to take you on a tour on my blog.

As far as the nuclear issue goes, the US is not holding the resolution of the Kashmir issue as per Pakistan’s wishes as the condition for nuclear co-operation. They have an eye on the enormous business opportunities that come out of an energy hungry India. Opportunities that we will gladly give to the French and the Russians if the US does not play ball.

I dont know which is worse – our lack of clarity or our excessive hand wringing or our always latent inferiority complex.

Seriously. Get a grip. Please.

I dont know how to put this to you but the second round of polling in Kashmir is now estimated at 65%. And it is very very clear why there has been an uptick in polls because people have now tired of the separatists ! they want to get on with their lives – look forward to something that involves progress, peace and normality. Secessionists have not exactly offered that – nor have they even ATTEMPTED to do so.

Also, who exactly is offering a panacea ? I am sorry but what exactly is your idea of a democracy ?- it is not meant to be a cure all even in the best of times. It is a mechanism that attempts to help

Nothing stops secessionist movements from directly participating in the elections – it is not enough to say that the PDP and the NC have taken their stance – that would be political smartness on part of those two parties. No one denies that the pro-secession crowd has supporters – the critical question is do they have the majority support in the Valley – if they do, they wouldnt be lamenting how Kashmiris have turned traitors to their “cause” and their call for boycotting elections would have had some resonance.

But according to you, all these elections are useless and the solution is …. actually you still have not made ONE WORTHWHILE SUGGESTION. You know why ? You dont have one.

I asked you point blank – why not be honest enough to demand a plebisicte as a solution to the problem. Why are you avoiding that ?

2.”Right from the time of Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, every leader at New Delhi and J&K has been acutely aware of the need to have an agreement between India and Pakistan on the one hand and a second between India and J&K on the other to secure the future of Kashmir. There is no reason to believe that has changed now. It suffices to note that the issue cannot be resolved without the buy-in of both parties”

Let’s leave aside all arguments as to why India has a historical claim to Kashmir or the fact that out first PM was from Kashmir – or the fact that this region got its name from Sage Kashyap and has a history that is as old as the religion of Islam itself for a minute.

If you really think that both parties to this “dispute” need to buy in to the proposed solution, please EXPLAIN why you are not advocating a plebiscite.? In fact that is all Pakistan is asking for – a right for “self determination” as they call it.

If I now say that India wont buy in into it because of the fact that it has no obligation to listen to a minority how ever noisy and terrorist threatening it may be, what exactly are you going to propose now ?

Please tell me how this fantasy of yours is going to come to life.

3. “Governments do many things at the same time – that is why you have so many departments. There is no reason to believe that the economic crisis cannot be handled alongside diplomacy.”

Bwahahaha !!! Thats why Governments have so many departments !! This is the cutest explanation that I have heard for a bloated and inefficient Government.

It is easy for you to say that living in India – even as i type this, CitiGroup is now begging for a bail out for Washington. If you are keeping count Lehmann Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG have all ceased to exist in their present form – did I mention that Detroits car manufacturers are on the brink of collapsing ?

You have NO CLUE about the enormous domestic and international challenges the United States faces – and yet you blithely believe that enough number of Government Departments should do it – to borrow a phrase, big Government is no panacea.

Why dont you take the time to actually read some American opinion on this issue ? Daniel Larison is his name – Eunomia is his blog. He has a far better understanding of the sensitivity of the issue than some one like you who is seemingly in India. Shame.

4.”We take the Pakistanis at their word as far as evolving the principles of a settlement is concerned.”
You lost me at taking Pakistanis at their word. I have not heard a more clueless line of argument not to mention the shocking ignorance about how the Pakistan military always has play edup the threat of India to keep itself relevant. And how the military is bigger than any democratically elected civilian Govt.

But hey sweep all those concerns under the rug. But here is the kicker – if “Pakistan reneges on its commitment” we show the world its perfidy !!! Yippee, problem solved – how did it work for us in Kargil ?

Here in the US people are already talking about Pakistani perfidy vis-a-vis Afghanistan.

And you believe that the world will see their perfidy if they go back on their word. Poor, innocent you. Tell me that you arent kidding me.

5.”Irrelevance of the borders does not mean no ‘concept of borders’. It means creating a system that bridges the two parts of the state politically. How that is worked out in practice remains to be made public (P.S.Jha had an article on this about a year and a half ago on the details of the proposal but nothing further has been heard upon the matter).”

Why would any one want to hear any proposals about building “bridges” to two parts of the state ? Pakistan claims the entire state – in fact India has flexible enough to allow for the LOC to be the border.

You cannot possibly be this naive. I dont know what else to say.

6. Your point about the US playing a facilitatory role in one intractable conflict (India-Pakistan over Kashmir) while simultaneously blaming it for the Israel-Palestine conflict (over the very idea of Israel) is mildly amusing.

If you dont have a solution to propose for the problem AND YET at the same time adamantly refuse to be content with the status quo, why should any one listen to you ?

What meaningful ideas or information have you contributed to this discussion ? Seriously, other than embarrassing yourself. were you just blowing out steam as to how “unjust” your country has been ? Assuming that you are actually Indian.

I have an idea – lets exchange more corrsepondence on this matter – I live in Chicago – i wont tell you my exact address – you have to some how find that out and send me a letter any ways. Does nt make sense does it ?

Neither does your stance of saying that both sides need to buy into a solution for this intractable conflict which has been raging for the last 60 years to be facilitated by a country that is on the brink of losing its super power status if it does not take care of its own enormous domestic problems.

May be you should request the US Government to create a “Department for Kashmir affairs”. That would do the trick.

Good luck.

India’s position on Kashmir is akin to a gel like substance. By agreeing that there is something that needs to be resolved inside its borders, you have lost the plot. The other side would press for international involvement at least as ‘moral support’ on its side only because it is all uphill from where they stand. India has no right to deny the other party seeking help from ‘interested’ third countries.

The ideal stand of India must be – ignorance.

There is nothing that needs to be resolved in Kashmir, at least nothing that should concern you as a foreign power. How about some more tea ?

Wait ! But, the above stand will not happen. Firstly, there are issues like the threat of nuclear weapons, unchecked terrorism, threat of collapse in Pakistan. These issues have to be addressed by New Delhi if it had to harden its stance.The above requires a major coagulation of large interests in India.

Let me play back my broken record. India is not set up today to handle it.. The next elections will make it worse, and the election after that will make the already worse worse. Remember, India is SOLELY represented by the set of human beings in parliament and state assemblies. If they are nothing but a federation of narrow interests, then so is this country. This cannot be papered over.

So, what do we free agents – the 10% and falling – do ?

We just hold on to these policies, such as the bilateral framework, for a while. Until the last few who hold such views in the state apparatus retire due to old age. Then America will inevitably get involved and broker a deal between the two countries. This will happen simply because it will be too much effort to prevent it from happening. You cant really fault people like Bobcat for saying, ‘Shoot, this is going to happen anyway. Why not do it now and save 10-15 years”

Nitin,

Apologies for this cynical post. But you know my views !!

Which group was ethnically cleanest from Kashmir valley because of their religion? Are people in Pakistani side of J&K better off than Bharatiya side?

The bogusness of human right groups and their mouths in media like NYT is obvious.

It’s Pakistan that’s burning itself out by trying to compete miltarily with India, as part of its revanchist mindset. These people can’t even competently manage their economy, and they’re trying to blame all their woes on India and Kashmir? Like I said, Pakistan’s territorial dispute with Afghanistan is much older and deeper than its dispute with India over Kashmir. Let Pakistan first settle its territorial dispute with Afghanistan, which is a far more serious and pressing issue, and then they can come talk to us about Kashmir.

The fact is that Pakistan’s claim over NWFP has artificially divided the Pashtun people. This is what’s caused Pakistan to promote jihadism and Islamic nationalism as a subterfuge to distract Pashtuns from their natural desire to reunify and undo this artificial border created by the British.
As a matter of fact, it’s no coincidence that the newly formed Pakistan quickly dispatched Pashtuns in particular to seize Kashmir from the perilous clutches of infidel rulers. Jinnah was mainly interested in providing the Pashtuns with a distraction.

So the Afghan-Pak territorial dispute is the genesis of all other disputes in the region. That artificial bifurcation of Pashtunistan sticks out like an eyesore, and any rational person can’t help but notice it. It’s only shallow people like you who’ll turn a blind eye to it, bobcat. The foreign policymakers affiliated with the US Democratic Party are a bunch of Europe-tilting extra-territorialists who attempt to hide their Atlanticist leanings behind grandiose rhetoric of ‘enlightenment’, ‘internationalism’, ’supporting democracy’, etc. Meanwhile they’re happy to do business with any Pakistani dictator they can find, and are not above using jihadism as a tool to advance their own blood-feuds with Russia. It’s no small coincidence that the Taliban rose to power during the Clinton years.

What India does need to do eventually is get rid of Art. 370. It is discriminatory, and is a reason why ethnic cleansing of the sort seen in the valley could have been carried out with impunity.

India needs to negotiate with Pakistan – it cannot dictate terms and conditions. We are no doubt in a reasonable position today to do that.

Nagarajan Sivakumar,

There are numerous flaws in your arguments.
1. You are simply echoing the delusion that electoral participation is an acceptable panacea for a solution. If that was the case, the Kashmir problem ought to have been history by now after all these elections we have had. Not only do the separatists continue to muster huge numbers for their rallies, they have even successfully gotten the mainstream political parties to change their stand to insist upon a resolution of the issue – both the NC and the PDP have taken that position of late. The last time the PDP won the election, it was because it had successfully appropriated many aspects of the separatist agenda and enjoyed the tacit support of hte HuM. Does any of this suggest even remotely that the separatist agenda has lost its flavor in the valley? Hardly. Let me reiterate – if this were simply about the political fate of the few who make up the Huriyat conference, no one would care. But their stance enjoys considerable traction in the valley. Neither New Delhi nor the Governor are fools to engage the Huriyat in dialogue if they did not enjoy any popularity.

2. I agree with your point that the Huriyat ought to join the electoral process and compete. But the fact that it has not happened does not mean that we should put everything else on hold till it happens. Right from the time of Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, every leader at New Delhi and J&K has been acutely aware of the need to have an agreement between India and Pakistan on the one hand and a second between India and J&K on the other to secure the future of Kashmir. There is no reason to believe that has changed now. It suffices to note that the issue cannot be resolved without the buy-in of both parties – (whether the Huriyat is actually involved or not is less important. The prominence the group has gained is because of our failure to reach an agreement with Pakistan).

3. Governments do many things at the same time – that is why you have so many departments. There is no reason to believe that the economic crisis cannot be handled alongside diplomacy. The crisis is not anything unique to America. Nor has it led to a crisis of confidence in the American economy. The greenback is not about to fail nor is America’s preeminent position in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region in peril. It may be debatable whether Americans are smart but there is no doubt that American diplomats are – they have achieved much over the years to testify to that fact.

4. We take the Pakistanis at their word as far as evolving the principles of a settlement is concerned. For example, everyone knows what the outlines of a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians is. That is still a first but important step that has been accomplished. On Kashmir, we deal with whoever is in power in Pakistan (army/civilian). If the agreement is reneged upon, then we showcase that as an instance of Pakistani perfidy.

5. Irrelevance of the borders does not mean no ‘concept of borders’. It means creating a system that bridges the two parts of the state politically. How that is worked out in practice remains to be made public (P.S.Jha had an article on this about a year and a half ago on the details of the proposal but nothing further has been heard upon the matter).

6. As for the failure of American diplomacy in the Israel-Palestine crisis, America has played a prominent role in creating the problem and no small role in perpetuating it. The overarching influence of AIPAC upon domestic American politics has ensured that the American role remains lopsided. The question is whether the same analogy holds true for India-Pak as well. There is no reason to think so. India enjoys a growing profile in the US today. And US perception of Pakistan is way different from its view of India. The US enjoys enough influence on both sides and yet, neither can claim to have dominant control over US policy the way Israel has. Given these facts, any facilitatory role the US plays cannot be to India’s disadvantage.

7. You point out that I did not propose a solution. True but that was not the intent of my comment.