Why doesn't India give Kashmir independence?
Kashmir was independent until the October of 1947 when Pakistan decided to forcefully annex it. The invading army took a big chunk of the state and plunged the state into darkness [by cutting the power supply]. After that the monarch of Kashmir invited India to save the country. Indian army entered the state and got rid of the invading group from two-thirds of the state.
Three years later, elections were held in Jammu & Kashmir and people said Yes! to joining India formally. Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir - A Constitution was written by the Kashmiris and that explicitly said that the state would be a part of the Indian Union.
Kashmiris eagerly waiting to see Nehru on his visit after the people voted to join India.
Since then, multiple elections have taken place as a part of Indian de acy and the people showed little intent of leaving India. Also, not many Kashmiris went out of India as a refugee [if India were an occupying force that would happened]. And most of the separatists are Pakistan funded. Kashmir Militant Extremists
India and Pakistan fought 4 major wars and each time Pakistan believed that the people would rise up against India & welcome the invading forces. Each time, the locals rose up against the invading forces and always tipped the Indian army. What the locals want is peace and the ability to run their own life. They want Pakistan to leave them alone and want their own go nment to reduce the armed presence created as a reaction to the neighbor's advancements.
In short, legally the state of Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India - through the monarch's instrument of accession and morally it is a part of India as most people have voted for it. There should end the story. Other than a few miscreants both in India and outside, people feel they are a part of India.
We have seen the legal and moral aspects. Let's see the practical aspects:
An independent state of J&K would never be left alone by the powers around it. The present condition of the state is way better than any of the adjoining regions. Becoming another Afghanistan is not in the best interests of the more tolerant Kashmiri ethos. The people of the state find it much more safer as a part of India than a part of Pakistan or any of the adjoining countries.
1.Besides the Muslim population, the state also has a large Hindu and Buddhist population. In case of an occupation by Pakistan, those populations would be decimated - similar to what happened in Sindh and Pakistani Punjab in 1947. The wholescale extermination of people is completely unacceptable.
In short, India has a strong moral ground and both Kashmiris and the rest of India find it comfortable with the present status quo. It is also fairly clear from our past experience that India leaving the state would cause more harm to the locals [especially Hindus and Buddhists and to some extent the Kashmiri Muslims as well] than India managing it. Yes, Indian go nment has a lot to do for both Kashmiris and rest of Indians - from uninterrupted power to eliminating poverty - but those are socioeconomic issues not geopolitical ones.
译文来源：三泰虎 http://www.santaihu.com/47216.html 译者：Joyceliu
Sreeja Nag, lived in India
If you mean India as in the Indian Government, then it's because the Kashmir Valley will get annexed by Pakistan in no time just like in 1947, if they don't cling on. And no go nment wants to take the blame of giving away what everyone assumes as "Indian territory" to a country (i.e. Pakistan) which has always been at war with India. The state also has geographic significance to India’s military, some cultural/religious heritage and sets a separatist-fail precedent, which I assume is worth the huge amounts of money the Central go nment spends on it. If you mean India as in Indian People, then it's because they believe Kashmir to be an "integral part of India". Both stands are unfortunate because it shows ignorance of or indifference toward to the opinion people currently living in the Valley.
J&K was an independent entity in 1947, attacked by Pakistan and defended by and annexed to India only by the will of its king/Maharaja. The Indian govt and their Maharaja promised the Kashmiri people a plebiscite to decide their fate: stay with India or go to Pakistan. The plebiscite never happened because the 2 UN prerequisites were never met - that Pakistan moves its troops out of PoK followed by India doing the same. Instead, a constitution was drafted in 1950 declaring J&K an "integral part of India" and its preamble fed to a generation of kids. No one cared what the J&K majority wanted - Valley, Leh, Lakadh, Jammu, etc. inclusive or separately.
If de acy had not been subdued by political need for more territory and power back then, we might have known the distribution of opinions across J&K and made a decision to break the state accordingly. Instead, an environment of imperialism was created which breeded jihad, which in turn needed force to control. In the last 68 years, Kashmir has been annexed to two nations. What Pakistan did by war violence and military procrastination for 65 years, India did by political procrastination (for ~40 years) and illegally hard state-sanctioned militarization (for ~20 years). Of course, it is simpler us to say Kashmir is an "integral part of India" while the Indian soldiers, Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri soldiers ('terrorists') get killed everyday, as political pawns of all those who treat it as a power game.
**PS: Pakistan has it worse than India, because they have a crippled de acy that gets broken by military rule every few years. Obviously then, the top shots there are at an advantage (financially and socially within the country) if the country is always at war.
Vinod Kumar, works at Samsung Telecommunications America
This is very interesting question. It’s actually not that simple. India considers Kashmir a part of india, and there is no provision in India’s constitution for a state to be independent. I would say your argument about being Muslim domain is invalid, as India has 172 million Muslims, and India declares itself a secular nation. I agree, Muslims are safe and have fre m in india like no other nation in world.
Secondly Kashmir consists of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir valley, It has one of major shrines for Hindu, It also has population of Hindu Pandits, who have been relocated as a result of they being target for terrorist. They would lose their permanent home if India gives Kashmir independence. So India has religious sentiment with Kashmir. You cannot compare this with scotland. Ask yourself would Israel give independence to palestine?
Now think of Army perspective, India got Kashmir at first place is because of Pakistan Aggression. Even if India decides to give independence to Kashmir, How long do you think it will stay independent, considering Pakistan and China’s aggression. If this happens, then it will be impossible for Kashmir to be independent again without India going in war with Pakistan and China, which has high probability of getting blown into a full fledged nuclear war. No Army would like to lose such a strategic advantage. Kashmir also has high mountain ranges, giving army strategic height advantage in case of war.
Think it as a business perspective, India has spent billions of dollars of its tax payer’s money, countless sacrifices of its armed personnel to protect Kashmir in return of nothing. It hasn’t gain anything. It would be a bad business decision too.
It also doesn’t make political sense too, as it’s a hot political issue in india and go nment which decides to go forward with this step, will end its political career as indians are emotionally attached to this issue, so no political party will dare to make this decision.
British only gave independence to india, as they were not able to control it, after second world war, think it this way, Would U.S give independence to Texas or California?
Arjun Ganguly, Incrementalism,then Revolutionarism
Others have already mentioned that Kashmir was acceded to India. That should be more than enough. There is no question of independence.
But going forward, why should India give up Kashmir? So that the muslims can slaughter and convert Hindus and Buddhists in Kashmir, like they have done in Pakistan and Bangladesh? So that muslims there show the audacity and immorality of refusing to take back Kashmiri Pandits after persecuting and throwing them out of their own homes?
And btw, what is Islam doing in South Asia? How did it spread here? Please remind me again.
Oh yes!! Through barbarism, war mongering and threats. “Convert or Die”, the motto of Islam. Muslims to this day celebrate “conquerors” who are known mass murderers of Hindus.
Despite all this, Hindus developed a secular Indian constitution that gives all sects of muslims more rights than they would have gotten in any other “Islamic nation”. That also means, we intend to protect the rights of ALL Indians, not just muslims.
Islam is a violent, political ideology. The focus should be on radical reform of this ideology and only then can a peaceful referendum be remotely considered.
Saurav Das, A proud Indian
The answer to your question lies in respect of 3 aspects:
- India being a secular country how does the question of Kashmir being dominated by any religious community impacts its secession?
Also important to note here is that people in Kashmir are regularly taking part in elections in Indian parliament and their own state assembly and council. Had they wanted secession would they not have boycotted the elections?
There is hardly any base in the theories of people wanting secession. People just want peace and development after 6 decades of troubles.
- Indian counstitution does not allow secession: The first article of our constitution declares India to be a "union of states". Our country is constitutionally declared as an "industrictible union of destrictible states". Even the supreme law making body of our country does not have power to give away any part of its territory.
- There will be a plethora of practical problems in granting independence to Kashmir: Kashmir is a geopolitical hot spot. Sandwiched between India, Pakistan and China there is no way an independent Kashmir can remain apolitical. Hell, even US might be interested in gaining a strategic base there for containment of China and Russia. The level of terrorism the state faces can not be handled easily. India with all its might is in such a bad state there, what chances would a newly formed state have.
So, neither is secession possible by law nor would it be in the interests of Kashmiris.
Himanshu Masurkar, Digital marketing | AdWords certified
Let's say hyper hypothetically, if India gives Independence to Kashmir (what they preach Azadi azadi) the very next second Pakistan will attack Kashmir and occupy it.
Now there could be 2 cases.
- Kashmiris will oppose the occupation and pelt stones like they do every Friday on our forces, result? Pakistan army will open fire and do mass massacre how it did in Bangladesh, cut every hand that holds stone. Kashmiris will become sl ves in their own country, terrorists camp will emerge like mushrooms and new Kashmir will become hell like POK so remaining with India is in their best interest.
- They will happily merge with Pakistan on the basis of religion which null and void their rhetoric, so they have no right to preach their version of Azadi. It's just a bluff and white lie to play the victimhood card.
Sethu Ramalingam, Associate Engineer at Qualcomm
Originally Answered: Why is India not giving independence to Kashmir by the resolution under the UN?
1.According to the original UN declaration, First Pakistan had to remove its troops followed by Indian occupation of PoK. Then, the referendum must take place. As Pakistan never did that in the 1950s, Expecting India to do the next step is not right.
2.Pakistan has made changes with its portion of the territory. It gifted some portion to China, divided PoK into two provinces Azad kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan and made some amendments regarding Gilgit Baltisan as a separate province.Now with these changes, the territory is not how it used to be, so there is no meaning to conduct the referendum now.
3.The expulsion of the kashmiri pandits has changed the demographics of the Indian part as well. Very few of them now reside in the valley, making a referendum meaningless.
4.This is my personal opinion. As per the agreement between the then Maharaja and the Indian Government, The entire state of J & K (including PoK and Gilgit Baltistan and territories given to china if I am right) belongs to India. There is no need for the Indian Government to set aside this agreement and conduct a referendum. This is like “ Whats mine is mine( other areas of pakistan ), but whats yours is negotiable(Kashmir))
5.These are all the points, other than the fact that kashmir is very valuable. Sethu Ramalingam's answer to Why is Kashmir so valuable?
6.Someone mentioned in the comments about the Simla Agreement. As per the Simla agreement, The issue of kashmir will be settled bilaterally, and this whole question of referendum by the UN becomes Null. This was agreed for the release of about 90000 Pakistani PoWs , but pakistan soon forgot about that.
Neelima Paravastu, no matter where I live, always an Indian
Who is this asking? Please think again.
Rightful Independence really? Just because some Brutes occupied and kicked out and killed all the Hindus and asking to separate, we need to do that?
Kashmir was/is an integral part of Bharath. Yes, Bharath was not a country but was a continent made up of lot small kingdoms. It was brought under one flag many times in the past, including Sri Rama’s time. There are many references about Kashmir in our Puranas and holy books. We read about Kashmir being the heaven on earth and Himalayas the wall of Bharat.
I am saying Bharath here because that is what it was until the British changed the name and India is the name cane after our independence from the British.
In Vedas and Puranas, it says Bharata Khandam means continent of Bharat. Bharata Khandam, it’s kingdoms and it’s people followed one faith, one lifestyle, one culture and that is Vedic faith and culture. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari we followed the same.
There were many greedy people from different countries invaded our beloved nation and killed, converted and divided. Already divided once and proved dangerous to our civilisation. Now another division will never let us Indians live in peace. Kashmir belongs Kashmiri Pandits, Pandits belong to Hindu faith, Hindu faith belongs to Bharat. We all belong to the same books of knowledge. Kashmir can never be separated.
Kashmir was included in India after Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh agreed to it. It hasn’t become part of India with force.
At the time of the partition, Kashmir was not part of Pakistan or India. They invaded it in October 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh fought them with the help of India. Then he accepted the offer made by India and signed the accession to make Kashmir part of India. Indian go nment decided they can only consider people’s opinions about where they want to live, only after the invaders are left. But they never left, instead killed, raped and converted the locals to make it Muslim majority region to force the go nment to let go of it.
There were so many resolutions and possible agreements which Pakistan never agreed to. It is not possible to come to an agreement with Pakistan, especially now. We want our Kashmir back, back to their original residents, back to its original country. It’s ours, we are never going to give it to Pakistan.
《吠陀经》和《古兰经》中的Bharata Khandam的意思是巴拉特大陆。Bharata Khandam是一个王国，它的人民遵循同一种信仰，同一种生活方式，同一种文化，那就是吠陀信仰和文化。从克什米尔到卡亚库马里，我们都是这样做的。