I didn't realise I was so convoluted in what I wrote earlier. Sorry.
As a matter of fact, I do think that Pakistan should be challenged to hold the
plebiscite at the same time, and under the same conditions, terms and so on, as
India. The reason I would exclude China is that I believe that there is
practically no population in either the earlier annexed area of the Aksai Chin,
or in the territory near the Gilgit pass transferred by Pakistan by mutual
treaty in the 70s (I think). There is no reason not to ask them to do this,
for what it's worth, except that they'll argue, with some plausibility, that
the UN Resolution applies to the legal extent of Kashmir, not to areas wrongly
shown as part of Kashmir due to British mischief and Indian obduracy. Can't
ever win that one, certainly not by sweet reason.
Why I believe Pakistan should be challenged to hold the plebiscite at the same
time is that they've actually managed to make a major hash of administering
their portions.
I'm referring to the pre-Talibanised state of mind of Swat and Gilgit; it was
quite clear that the general population there were restless and uncomfortable,
never mind that the Wali of Swat was a regular Army officer of uncommon common
sense. Gilgit too was a region which didn't think very highly about staying
inside Pakistan. It was only the areas around Muzaffarpur - the Mirpuri areas -
which (at some times) were belligerently pro-Pakistan. And not all the time,
either. Please don't forget that in earlier days, they too were brutalised by
Pathan raiders and Punjabi carpet-baggers.
In recent years - recent months, actually - the increasing Talibanisation of
Swat and Gilgit has changed the situation quite a bit. I still believe that
given a truly free choice, even Swat and Gilgit is likely to vote for a third
solution, an independent Kashmir, as will the Mirpuris and the Valley. And then
the fat will be in the fire.
As you have pointed out, ruling Kashmir means effectively subsidising Kashmir,
to the extent of spending nearly 10 times as much on Kashmir as on the rest of
the country. India has successfully spent it on the wrong things; it's time to
give Pakistan a chance to pay. It's odds on that they'll land up paying for the
wrong things and doing the wrong things as they've done with such brilliant
consistency elsewhere - where have they run a successful administration?
Baluchistan? The Sind? Pakhtunistan? Swat? Gilgit? All run as colonies of the
Punjab - and tying themselves up into knots.
//Off topic - apologies, all, rant follows; take diversion.//
And good riddance to them, too; maybe we'll then get down to the serious
business of sorting ourselves out of the mess that our right-wing mercantile
elements have got us into in the forest states. Maybe also that will release
enough energy to get us to focus on what needs to be done, to ensure that
Manipur and Mizoram and Tripura even stop hating the rest of India so
intensely. Only if we demonstrate that we understand and can act on our
understanding of what is needed for these three will we ever succeed in either
Nagaland or even in Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal.
If you ask me my candid opinion, we need a separate Caesar for the East.
Something like a Deputy Prime Minister permanently chartered to manage the
territory of India east of Koch Bihar in a way that satisfies the citizens in
those parts. It isn't going to happen some time soon out of Delhi. And soon
we'll be talking about parts east of Darbhanga if we don't act quickly; the
Koches had their own empire, parallel to the Ahoms and to the Bodos, and don't
need much reminding, not with the Indian Gurkhas standing at their elbows and
jogging them every now and then.
//Back to Kashmir, Vir Sanghvi and thought experiments.//
So let's offer a plebiscite, conditional on Pakistan doing the same, and
provided a neutral enough body runs it.
If Pakistan doesn't agree - most likely case - we need to make that the
one-point agenda for all future meetings, while simultaneously bringing back
democracy and the rule of law in the Valley, until the Pakistanis wish that
they'd never put that damn 'K' in their name.
What if they agree?
If the plebiscite goes for Pakistan, let them take over the mess and sort it
out. Neither the ISI nor anybody else there will want to hear about a single
other issue for the next century or so. Think how much peace that'll get us in
the neighbourhood.
If the plebiscite goes for an independent Kashmir, leave behind whatever exists
and march out, keeping Ladakh and Jammu out of the deal. Let them become
another CIS state if they want, or get modern and develop and become a reliable
partner on the borders if they can. Good for them. Every small nation needs a
break.
And if they vote for us, Shiv can buy the beer.
bonobashi
PS The geopolitical argument - we need the land buffer to keep our capital safe
- doesn't really hold water, IMO. We could discuss that later elsewhere.
--- On Thu, 21/8/08, Divya Sampath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Divya Sampath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [silk] Vir Sanghvi on Kashmir
To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
Date: Thursday, 21 August, 2008, 2:36 PM
--- On Thu, 8/21/08, Bonobashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't this then a lovely opportunity to suggest that the
> plebiscite take place simultaneously all over the earlier
> administrative areas of Kashmir? That should set a nose or
> two out of joint! Of course, we run the risk of learning
> that they, too, want to stay away. Tough.
>
The 'earlier adminstrative areas' of Kashmir would include areas now
under the control of Pakistan and China. It is interesting: the popular
consensus is that India should conduct a plebiscite. I happen to agree. It's
also interesting though, that no one expects either Pakistan and China to
conduct a plebiscite in the areas of Kashmir contolled by them, which they
essentially gained control of through military means. So - either
- we assume that the people in those areas are perfectly satisfied with their
current regimes
or
- if they are not satisfied, and also want independence as a seperate Kashmiri
nation, their opinions and tights don't matter as much as the opinions of
those in the Valley. Curious, no?
No one believes that either China or Pakistan would consent to a plebiscite,
any more than they would consent to holding one in Tibet or the North West
Frontier province.
None of this changes my opinion that India should conduct a plebiscite, at
least in the Valley. Should the denizens of the Valley indeed opt for
independence from both India and Pakistan though, it would be immensely
difficult for the new nation, land-locked as it is, and completely snow-bound in
winter, to survive without substantial support (read: subsidies) from its larger
neighbours.
cheers,
Divya
Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Go to
http://in.webmessenger.yahoo.com/
