Issue Of Kashmir With Pakistan And India example essay topic

Kashmir - a beautiful mountain state with clear rivers, evergreen forests and one of the highest death rates in the world. It is at the center of an age-old dispute between Pakistan and India that has dragged on from the independence of both nations over fifty years ago to the present time, with no resolution in sight. The combined population of the two nation totals over a billion, so no conflict between them is of passing importance, especially when nuclear weapons are involved. Pakistan and India share a common heritage, language, and traditions, yet the subject of Kashmir can push them to the brink of annihilation. Fifty years of animosity have built up as a result.

A proxy war still brews in Kashmir, claiming dozens of lives every day, running up a casualty total over time into the hundred thousands. Kashmiris have suffered untold horrors and Kashmir has the notorious reputation of being one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints. Pakistan and India both believe they have valid claims on Kashmir. If looked at logically and ethically, only Pakistan's claim can stand up to scrutiny. Successive Pakistani leaders have referred to Kashmir as the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, a fact reported on the Indian Embassy's Note on Kashmir.

This refers to the major rivers originating in the Kashmir Valley on which Pakistan is critically dependent. India has little right on Kashmir, as each of their arguments, if not legally, is morally wrong. We can start by recounting history, where the roots of the conflict lie. India was one massive nation made up of several states, ruled by the British. A long and difficult independence struggle culminated with the British choosing to leave India in August 1947.

The Muslims of the land decided that instead of just a Free India, they would create a Free Pakistan for themselves as well. They were fearful that as a minority, the Hindu majority would trample their rights and religion. Both countries would be formed as soon as the British handed back control in August. The rulers of each individual state constituting India would chose which country to join, hopefully following the wishes of its people.

This idea was fraught with problems. There were quite a few states that had a majority of one religion yet the ruler belonged to another faith. The states of Hyderabad and Junagarh were examples of this. Both had Hindu majorities and Muslim rulers. They both choose not to join India, but as their intentions were made public, the Indian army marched on and annexed the states. They removed the ruler of Junagarh and placed a "Provisional Government" in place, then used the excuse of "restoring law and order" to invade and hold a farcical plebiscite, which choose India.

"India sought to justify its aggression... on the plea that the rulers of Junagarh and Hyderabad were acting against the wishes of their people" states the report on Kashmir released by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. Keep this excuse in mind as you read on; the rulers of the states were acting against the will of the people, so India felt it had the moral right to interfere. In Kashmir, the roles were reversed. The ruler was Hindu with a Muslim majority. Anticipating that the ruler would chose India, the people rose against him, and with the support of Pakistani tribesmen, ousted the ruler and set up their own government. Now the irony of the situation is that while the Indians did the exact same thing in Junagarh, they could not accept the state of affairs in Kashmir.

The provisional government of Kashmir chose Pakistan, and a few days later the ousted ruler of Kashmir signed over the state to India, despite no longer being technically in power. The Indian army then invaded, with the Pakistani army following suit, and war broke out between the fledgling nations. The United Nations intervened in 1948 and set up a shaky ceasefire temporarily splitting Kashmir into Indian-held and Pakistani held areas. As the countries were divided in August 1947, millions of people were stranded on the wrong side of the border.

There were huge massacres, massive looting and bloodshed as people tried to cross to their country of choice. Hindus were massacring Muslims in India, and Muslims were doing the same to Hindus in Pakistan. The death toll was estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Pakistan ended up with one-third of Kashmir and both India and Pakistan's economies were shattered by the cost of supporting war so early on in their existence India claims that the rebels in Kashmir were not local, but actually Pakistan army officers and that the people of Kashmir themselves were fighting on the Indian side - that they wanted to join India. One look at this argument reveals its faults.

At that time, over 80% of the population were Muslim. People chose sides mostly according to their religion, and so Pakistan would have been the country of their choice. Although this logic may seem false on its own, with support it makes sense; how could Pakistan force their rule on an unwilling people, without objection? Surely an invasion by the small Pakistan army had to have some support from the locals otherwise how could it possibly have succeeded in holding off the much larger Indian army?

Take the Indian argument that the legal ruler of Kashmir at the time was the Hindu prince rather than the provisional government that supported Pakistan. We can ignore the fact that the provisional government officially chose Pakistan before the prince chose India, meaning the Indian argument appears valid. Yet the situation in Junagarh was almost exactly the same, and to support the provisional government there and reject the one in Kashmir seems hypocritical. How can a nation apply certain rules to one and completely opposite rules for the other?

If India believes its claim on Kashmir is valid for historic reasons, then it has no moral right to rule the state of Junagarh. You cannot have both states, without being fundamentally wrong in one state. Any Indian argument based on historical legality therefore falls flat in the face of such hypocrisy. If we fast-forward to the present time, we see that the violent and bloody birth of Kashmir has led to an equally violent situation. The peaceful struggle for change over the years turned brutal by the end of 1989.

The violence was "sparked in part by India's blatant rigging of an election in the state", says Peter Bienart, a writer for the New Republic magazine. The people had found that their methods for gaining political freedom were coming to naught. Several militant groups formed, and organized planned attacks on Indian military targets. These groups were on the extreme ends on the struggle for freedom, which remained largely peaceful. Kashmiris could not take Indian oppression and fought harder for change.

The Indians responded by massive use of force. Hundreds of thousands more troops were sent into the troubled state, and killings increased daily. This touched off riots, communal feuds and further human rights violations. One tactic recorded by international human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, was to take young Muslim men, bring them to prison, torture and eventually kill them as a warning to others who might think about joining the freedom movement. Their bodies would then be returned to their families who were told they were killed in a "terrorist encounter". Dozens of men "disappear" in this fashion every day, never to be seen again.

Other methods of intimidation include burning down whole villages and localities of suspected freedom activists, and blaming it on the militants themselves. Numerous cases of rapes have also been reported, while the local "police", no more than an arm of the Indian military, sit back taking little action. They themselves know who the culprits are. The Indian method of heavy-handedness has had little success in quieting the fighters down. Instead of being intimidated, they launch revenge attacks on military targets both in Kashmir and in India. This leads on a downward spiral of killings and counter-killings, taking both sides nowhere.

Amnesty International has estimated that in just eleven years, about "34,000 people, thousands of who were civilians, including the elderly, children, women and other non-combatants have reportedly been killed" - a frightening statistic. When an internationally respected, unbiased source has shown this, Indian claims that Kashmiri losses are blown out of proportion through propaganda are shown to be false. There is an old adage which fits this situation perfectly - where there is smoke, there is fire. Surely, if the Kashmiris did not have some desire for change, some desire for freedom, there would be no fighting. The daily bloodshed points to unrest. If the people were happy with Indian rule, as the Indian government claims, then why are there 600,000 Indian troops within the state itself?

It would be understandable if they were patrolling the border, but they are strategically placed all over the state to maintain power. It is plain to see that the people of Kashmir do no want to remain under Indian jurisdiction. The Indian argument is that all militants are financed, trained and sent in from Pakistan, and the locals themselves are against them. They are described as foreign mercenaries, intent on causing trouble. This view does have certain valid points; militants operating in Kashmir are admittedly financed by certain Pakistanis; there are training camps on the Pakistani side of Kashmir and in Afghanistan; some of the militants fighting in Kashmir come from Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim countries. However, the claim that there is no local support is completely false.

Peter Bienart, a writer for New Republic magazine, agrees that while India has the right to demand that Pakistan stop supplying militants, "there is more than enough hatred among native Kashmiris to fuel the state's war of attrition for decades to come. ' How is it possible to get into Kashmir, find a place to hide, establish a center of operation, obtain supplies and information without any support from the local people? It simply cannot happen. If Kashmiris truly opposed the militants, they would have absolutely no chance of holding a sustained campaign against Indian occupation. The logistics of the situation prove this to be true. It can be seen that while most Kashmiris are in fact peace loving people, they are tired of getting nowhere with peaceful methods, and have suffered too much to take.

One of the two major militant groups involved, the Hizb ul Mujahideen, "consists entirely of local Kashmiris" according to Joshua Hammer of Newsweek magazine, again refuting India's "only foreign militants" claim. While all Kashmiris may not actively participate in the fight against India, a good deal support and aid those who do. This shows their endorsement of freedom groups. When looked at from a moral viewpoint, nobody, not the Indian soldiers or the Kashmiri people, deserve to die. Violence is not the best choice to try and gain freedom. But when a people are desperate, at the end of their rope, with little other effective alternative, fighting may be the only way they see.

It brings attention to their cause, which they hope can turn into international pity and help. The way of death has come only through desperation. It is obvious that change in the situation is necessary. This cycle of violence cannot go on any further. Both countries were on the brink of using their newfound nuclear weapons on each other in 1999, during the Kargil crisis, when a fresh round of fighting broke out in Kashmir between the freedom fighters and Indian army.

The military on both sides of the border had prepared for a war with nuclear weapons, had it gone that far. Who knows how far the fighting could have gone then? A resolution is clearly necessary. But what is the best method? The Indian point of view is that there is no local problem; the only disturbance is the result of Pakistani intervention. Therefore if Pakistan would stop supporting militants, there will be no problems in Kashmir.

Kashmir is seen as a purely internal matter, and only India should deal with it. India will not consider changing the status of the part of Kashmir it holds. This perspective obviously exacerbates the situation instead of helping it. The Indian government refuses to acknowledge the fact that at least some Kashmiris are unhappy with Indian rule. They have refused to compromise, claiming that Kashmiris are content with their current political situation.

For the situation to improve, the Indian government must accept that "the heart of the problem in Kashmir is political disaffection, not counterinsurgency", as the Washington Quarterly's political analyst Michael Krepon writes. India has also repeated refused to mediate with Pakistan on Kashmir, instead focusing on other, minor issues, and also does not accept third-party mediation. This means no other country, such as the United States, can discuss the issue of Kashmir with Pakistan and India. After the United Nations intervened in 1948 after the first war of Kashmir, they passed resolutions to hold a plebiscite, which is like an election where the people of Kashmir themselves decide where to go. They placed a set of preconditions in place for this, however; the armies of both Pakistan and India were to withdraw first. The plebiscite is the solution favored by the Pakistani government.

India initially claimed it would not hold a plebiscite because the pre-conditions had not been fulfilled, as both armies were still in Kashmir. After the 1965 Pakistan-India war over Kashmir, the Indians declared that the Pakistanis forfeited their right to hold a plebiscite by fighting. I can understand the first reason not to hold a plebiscite, but the second reason is ridiculous. It may be the only way to end the bloodshed in the region and perhaps even improve relations between the two countries, bitter rivals since birth. Another war will not solve the problem. Neither country will just give up its claim to Kashmir.

The Indian mistreatment of the local population does not seem to end, with the freedom activists turning into militants in increasing numbers. Both fighters and the Indian army continue to increase their attacks. Even if Pakistanis end their support for the fighters, the militants will continue to operate on their own resources, as long as their will for freedom lasts. And it is clear that leaving the situation in the India's hands for them to sort out will not work, as it has failed to achieve anything alone so far. Any solution must, as respected journalist A chin Va naik of the Calcutta Telegraph puts it, recognize that "the people of Kashmir themselves have a say in the determination of their future". Kashmiri independence is another idea, yet the drawbacks of giving Kashmir independence far outweigh its benefits.

Kashmir has been shattered by years of conflict. While its potential for earning off tourist revenues is enormous, Kashmir does not have the infrastructure to support its own economy if it becomes independent. It is doubtful that either Pakistan or India will support it if Kashmir chooses to become autonomous. There would also be countless problems with establishing a government, and the political parties within Kashmir mostly have militant wings that could destabilize each other.

A plebiscite is left as the fairest, as well as the most viable, option. The best way to implement it is for an international peace force, preferably that of the United Nations, set up base in Kashmir. Both Pakistani and Indian troops should then withdraw from their respective portions of Kashmir. The peacekeeping forces would maintain law and order in the state. To make sure there is no religious tensions, soldiers from non-Muslim and non-Hindu should comprise the troops.

Kashmir can then be divided into smaller districts for voting, which already exist. They would be given the option of choosing Pakistani or Indian governance. At the end, after votes are tallied, all groups involved must agree to respect the final decision of each district. Both countries would then take over whatever district chose them, and the border would be shifted accordingly. If there are any districts voting for one country, yet surrounded by districts choosing the other country, it would be handed over to the country that the districts surrounding it chose. This would mean a continuous borderline with fewer infrastructure and governance difficulties.

Several problems might be encountered in holding a plebiscite, many of which have been pointed out by Priam Ro hila, an Indian peace advocate, in his essay "The Kashmir Conundrum". I believe these can be easily solved. There is the question of who should be allowed to vote. People of non-Kashmiri origin should be allowed to vote, as they are living there and any major changes will doubtlessly change their lives. The voting list would be drawn up by the United Nations, to ensure fairness, in conjunction with local authorities. The U. N would also conduct the election.

Peacekeeping troops would ensure that there are no massacres or unrest during the re-location of Kashmiris who wish to leave their district. They would be granted safe passage, and the United Nations would provide support for them in their chosen destinations until they can support themselves. This would prevent a repeat of the bloodshed of 1947. A plebiscite is the fairest option for all sides concerned with Kashmir. It may be the only one acceptable to all sides. India must realize that only through compromise and negotiation can a resolution be hammered out.

This whole issue would not exist if it wasn't for the Indian army's heavy handedness and violation of basic human rights, to alienate the people of Kashmir. Current trends show this to continue, so the Kashmiris will not be pacified. Pakistan must also try harder to prevent militants gaining entry into the Indian side of Kashmir and clamp down on religious extremists who train the extremists. That way they can gain the moral high ground in the dispute, with India having no more excuses to commit atrocities. There must be a great deal of trust for both nations to pull their armies out of Kashmir.

The success of the plan depends mostly on the United Nations. It has to agree to put its troops in jeopardy, spend substantial amounts in Kashmir and take care of the state for a short period of time. Rome was not built in a day, goes the old proverb, and the "Garden of Eden" will not return to serenity in one either. This investment is worthwhile if there is even the slightest chance that there may finally be peace in the forests of the Kashmir Valley... one less nuclear flashpoint to worry about..