On 19-Aug-08, at 8:40 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Anyway, I'm curious: what sort of difference will it make in your life whether Kashmir is part of India or not? I'm asking about concrete things, not abstractions like "it would upset me".
To me, absolutely nothing. The Valley is a beautiful place that produces apples, cricket bats and saffron. Bollywood, for instance, quickly moved over to Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal (both of which have also have equally scenic Himalayan backdrops for song sequences) without missing the place much. The Pandits, who were dispossessed, will surely feel aggrieved, but how is this any different from the 1947 partition? Most of the pandits, unlike a lot of Bengalis from Bangladesh, were compensated with land/apartments in Delhi. I've visited Kashmir, back in 1988, about a year before the terrorism problem started, and there's been little or no tourism in the last 2 decades. I'm sure that Kashmir would be more than willing to provide ample visas to Indians wishing to travel there if they choose to secede.
India lost quite a bit of territory to China in the 1962 war, and sure, there was some feeling of national shame at having lost that war, but after 4 decades, I don't see anybody baying for revenge and a repossession of what we lost to the Chinese. So it is ultimately about machismo, because we _can_ bully the Kashmiris (and Pakistan), we must not give up, while the Chinese are in another league altogether.
But the bigger issue is what happens if they do secede and there's a sudden de-escalation in military expenditure. Somebody is sure to pull some strings to get a few more wars started elsewhere to make up for lost profits.
