You are on page 1of 3

A QUESTION to a kashmiri : independence,

union with Pakistan, and union with India


We were taught in grade 3 that India has many states and Union territories. But as I grow older, I realized no, india is
not just divided into states and union territories , but the margins if seen minutely are shocking . We were told that
india has a state, Jammu and Kashmir that shares borders with Pakistan , China was one state and we used to think
that all the problem faced by people over there is shared equally being one. But sooner I get t know that no! its
KASHMIR(one of the three sections of jammu and Kashmir ladakh, jammu and kashmir) which is facing problem .
Currently what map Indian look of J&K, can be devided with five major parts. All five parts are disputed. Some are
occupied with Pakistan , some part are occupied with China or gifted to China.

Actually Jammu & Kashmir is like this :

Also I read the wiki and get to know some stuff which has already given rise to separation (which is what they are
asking for in majority)

1. We were told and always knew We the Indians have a national tricolor flag, constitution of india , but here
in Jammu and Kashmir is the only Indian state to have its own official state flag along with national flag and
constitution.
2. This Census report 2011 of Jammu and Kashmir region does not shows that just because Kashmir has
maximum number of muslims thats why they are facing problems. According to political scientist Alexander
Evans, approximately 99% of the total population of 160,000170,000 of Kashmiri Brahmins, also called
Kashmiri Pandits, (i.e. approximately 150,000 to 160,000) left the Kashmir Valley in 1990 as militancy
engulfed the state.
3.

%
% % % % % Buddhist
Division Population
Area Population Muslim Hindu Sikh and
other
%
% % % % % Buddhist
Division Population
Area Population Muslim Hindu Sikh and
other

Jammu 25.93% 42.89% 5,378,538 33.45% 62.55% 3.30% 0.70%

Jammu
and 100% 100% 12,541,302 68.31% 28.43% 1.87% 0.89%
Kashmir

Kashmir 15.73% 54.93% 6,888,475 96.40% 2.45% 0.98% 0.17%

Ladakh 58.33% 2.18% 274,289 46.40% 12.11% 0.82% 39.67%

4. Jammu and Kashmir is the only state in India which enjoys special autonomy under Article 370 of the
Constitution of India, according to which no law enacted by the Parliament of India, except for those in the
field of defence , communication and foreign policy, will be extendable in Jammu and Kashmir unless it is
ratified by the state legislature of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of
India over Jammu and Kashmir has been extended.

Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when the maharaja of the state signed the
instrument of accession. Alas, such legalisms become irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and
princes, including the Mughals, acceded to the British Raj. The documents they signed became irrelevant when
Indians launched an independence movement.

The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, the jewel in its crown, and would
never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear we are in similar denial on Kashmir.

The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a
Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The
Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.

But while India claimed that the Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it did not accept Junagadh's accession to
Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh, just as Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir. The difference was that Pakistan
lacked the military means to intervene in Junagadh, while India was able to send troops into Srinagar. The Junagadh
nawab fled to Pakistan, whereas the Kashmir maharaja sat tight. India's double standard on Junagadh and Kashmir
was breathtaking.

Do you think the people of Junagadh would have integrated with Pakistan after six decades of genuine Pakistani
effort? No? Then can you really be confident that Kashmiris will stop demanding azaadi and integrate with India?

The British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir, supported
accession to India subject to ratification by a plebiscite. But his heart lay in independence for Kashmir, and he soon
began manoeuvering towards that end. He was jailed by Nehru, who then declared Kashmir's accession was final and
no longer required ratification by a plebiscite. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant,
since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy.

Alas, democracy in Kashmir has been a farce for most of six decades. The rot began with Sheikh Abdullah in 1951: he
rejected the nomination papers of almost all opponents, and so won 73 of the 75 seats unopposed! Nehru was
complicit in this sabotage of democracy.
Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first
fair election held, and was won by the Sheikh. But he died after a few years, and rigging returned in the 1988
election. That sparked the separatist uprising which continues to gather strength today.

Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the Valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority. But the
Raj also had long quiet periods between Gandhian agitations, which involved just a few lakhs of India's 500 million
people. One lakh people joined the Quit India movement of 1942, but 25 lakh others joined the British Indian army
to fight for the Empire's glory.

Blimps cited this as evidence that most Indians simply wanted jobs and a decent life. The Raj built the biggest railway
and canal networks in the world. It said most Indians were satisfied with economic development, and that
independence was demanded by a noisy minority. This is uncomfortably similar to the official Indian response to the
Kashmiri demand for azaadi.

Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir,
not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest
poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections 1977, 1983 and 2002 were
perfectly fair.

India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi. And ruling
over those who resent it so strongly for so long is quasi-colonialism, regardless of our intentions.Kashmir should not
given be a choice to leave India and be autonomous completely because by doing so the sacrifice of all the soldiers
and their families who laid their life for national integrity would be in vain . Other states will follow pursuit and start
asking autonomy and our country's integrity will be disintegrated .There will be no peace and only chaos

You might also like