What is Kashmir’s long-term plan if they gain independence from India?

[Mamoon]

Let’s assume that a miracle happens, Pakistan’s tactics finally work after 73 years. India succumbs under pressure and gives up J&K.

What next? All the talk is of why Kashmir should get independence, but there seems to be no talk and no plan of how Kashmir is going to sustain itself after gaining independence.

It is an overpopulated nation in a small valley. The Kashmiri youth will obviously not be welcome in India (at least for many years) so no job opportunities there.

Similarly, India won’t trade with them either.

Pakistan will help them to score points over India, but there is only so much we can do. We are barely hanging by a thread and and begging other countries and institutions for survival.

Surely, we cannot help Kashmir enough in terms of financial aid, trade and jobs to get them up and running, considering our own financial problems and the very high levels of unemployment in our own country.

Other countries who have ties and interests in India will not help them just like they are not helping now.

What would be their AJK strategy? If they leave AJK alone, they undermine their own ideology. If they truly believe that Kashmiris deserve their own homeland, then that includes the people of AJK as well.

If they hope to merge AJK into their new sovereign state, will Pakistan cooperate? AJK is very important for Pakistan agriculturally and in terms of tourism as well.

Talk is cheap - Pakistan can now claim that they are ready to hold a referendum in AJK, but when the time comes, will they be ready to part ways with such an important region and can they afford to do it?

Will the people of AJK want to leave and Pakistan and join a new country with no plan? We are told that they are very happy to be a part of Pakistan, so why would they opt to join the newly formed Kashmir country?

Let’s say the people of AJK have a change of heart and they decided to leave Pakistan and join the new Kashmir country. What if Pakistan resists and pulls of an East Pakistan-like genocide to maintain authority in AJK?

What if there is an Operation Searchlight 2.0? The East Pakistan separatist movement was successful because it had India’s support.

In this scenario, India will obviously not help the AJK separatist movement and Pakistan will have no problem in suppressing it.

If J&K ends up joining Pakistan instead of establishing a separatist movement, what do they expect? Pakistan, as mentioned before, can barely sustain itself and the load of the entire Kashmir valley will be too great for our already crippled economy.

Furthermore, in the above scenario, the Kashmir region will be heavily militarized because of the border with India. Moreover, India will ensure that the region remains destabilized by utilizing non-state actor and proxies.

That is probably true even if they are able to become a sovereign state. India will definitely send their regards. Will Kashmir have enough resources to have its own forces? Will it have an Air Force? What are they going to fly? Pakistan will equip them but for how long and to what extent?

In other words, Kashmir will be destabilized forever whether it becomes independent or if it becomes a part of Pakistan.

If they had a genuinely solid long-term post independence plan, they would have shared it with the world and it would have increased the pressure on India to grant them independence.

Unfortunately, no such plan exists and as we explored the different alternatives, Kashmir does not come out as winners in any scenario.

Their only hope is to accept the status as part of India, put down their weapons and stop riding on the coat-tails of the Pakistani establishment. If they are willing to talk and give up their demands for independence, India will also soften its stance.

The current arrangement since August 5 is not ideal for India either. It is costly both in terms of financial resources and human capital.

It is time for the people of J&K to thing pragmatically and rationally and rely less on emotion and rhetoric. Otherwise, they will continue to shed blood and lose their youth for no end result.

They will be considered traitors today but the future generations after hundred years will thank the current generation for thinking with their brains and not hearts.

 

[Rana]

The plan is, they have no plan. They would rather become a failed state than be with India. Thats what needs to be respected.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

What's the long-term plan of a newborn child?

 

[Azzurri]

Your hypothetical essay highlights at best the cons of Kasmir‘s independence. I’d very much be interested to read another essay, where you possibly highlight some pros of Kashmir joining Pakistan or being Independent too. Just to provide you a little clue, you could start with revenue generating potential of Kashmir valley, be it the export of fruits, carpets or tourism.
You got to be unbiased and balanced in your assessment.

 

[Mamoon]

Your hypothetical essay highlights at best the cons of Kasmir‘s independence. I’d very much be interested to read another essay, where you possibly highlight some pros of Kashmir joining Pakistan or being Independent too. Just to provide you a little clue, you could start with revenue generating potential of Kashmir valley, be it the export of fruits, carpets or tourism.
You got to be unbiased and balanced in your assessment.

The reason why I wrote an essay on the cons is because I don’t see any realistic pros.

Can Kashmir prosper on exports of fruits and carpets? What about industrial growth, presence of corporations and MNCs, what about jobs for the youth etc.?

Who would be their major trading partners? Trade has to be mutually beneficial. Any country that trades with the independent Kashmir would risk derailing its trade ties with India.

As far as tourism is concerned, you are assuming that an independent Kashmir would be safe. However, that is not a realistic assumption because India will deploy its non-state actors and proxies to destabilize Kashmir.

Will Kashmir have the military power to fend off Indian non-state actors?

 

[Mamoon]

The plan is, they have no plan. They would rather become a failed state than be with India. Thats what needs to be respected.

Is that sensible? Is that the future they want for their children and future generations?

What’s the point of being independent when you are a failed state that doesn’t have money, jobs, security and ranks extremely low in terms of human development index?

If that is how the Kashmiris think, then no wonder the world doesn’t pay much heed to their absurd separatist movement. If you don’t have a solid plan then no one is going to buy into your demands of independence.

 

[Mamoon]

What's the long-term plan of a newborn child?

A newborn child doesn’t have a long-term plan, but the parents do, especially the responsible ones.

They set aside money for education, they make wise investment decisions and start saving money.

The independent Kashmir state is the newborn child here, and Kashmiri separatists are the parents.

Unfortunately, the parents don’t have a clue of what they are going to do with their future child but still want to have a kid. That’s what you call bad parenting, and no wonder the world isn’t giving much attention to Kashmir’s struggle for independence.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Let’s assume that a miracle happens, Pakistan’s tactics finally work after 73 years. India succumbs under pressure and gives up J&K.

What next? All the talk is of why Kashmir should get independence, but there seems to be no talk and no plan of how Kashmir is going to sustain itself after gaining independence.

It is an overpopulated nation in a small valley. The Kashmiri youth will obviously not be welcome in India (at least for many years) so no job opportunities there.

Similarly, India won’t trade with them either.

Pakistan will help them to score points over India, but there is only so much we can do. We are barely hanging by a thread and and begging other countries and institutions for survival.

Surely, we cannot help Kashmir enough in terms of financial aid, trade and jobs to get them up and running, considering our own financial problems and the very high levels of unemployment in our own country.

Other countries who have ties and interests in India will not help them just like they are not helping now.

What would be their AJK strategy? If they leave AJK alone, they undermine their own ideology. If they truly believe that Kashmiris deserve their own homeland, then that includes the people of AJK as well.

If they hope to merge AJK into their new sovereign state, will Pakistan cooperate? AJK is very important for Pakistan agriculturally and in terms of tourism as well.

Talk is cheap - Pakistan can now claim that they are ready to hold a referendum in AJK, but when the time comes, will they be ready to part ways with such an important region and can they afford to do it?

Will the people of AJK want to leave and Pakistan and join a new country with no plan? We are told that they are very happy to be a part of Pakistan, so why would they opt to join the newly formed Kashmir country?

Let’s say the people of AJK have a change of heart and they decided to leave Pakistan and join the new Kashmir country. What if Pakistan resists and pulls of an East Pakistan-like genocide to maintain authority in AJK?

What if there is an Operation Searchlight 2.0? The East Pakistan separatist movement was successful because it had India’s support.

In this scenario, India will obviously not help the AJK separatist movement and Pakistan will have no problem in suppressing it.

If J&K ends up joining Pakistan instead of establishing a separatist movement, what do they expect? Pakistan, as mentioned before, can barely sustain itself and the load of the entire Kashmir valley will be too great for our already crippled economy.

Furthermore, in the above scenario, the Kashmir region will be heavily militarized because of the border with India. Moreover, India will ensure that the region remains destabilized by utilizing non-state actor and proxies.

That is probably true even if they are able to become a sovereign state. India will definitely send their regards. Will Kashmir have enough resources to have its own forces? Will it have an Air Force? What are they going to fly? Pakistan will equip them but for how long and to what extent?

In other words, Kashmir will be destabilized forever whether it becomes independent or if it becomes a part of Pakistan.

If they had a genuinely solid long-term post independence plan, they would have shared it with the world and it would have increased the pressure on India to grant them independence.

Unfortunately, no such plan exists and as we explored the different alternatives, Kashmir does not come out as winners in any scenario.

Their only hope is to accept the status as part of India, put down their weapons and stop riding on the coat-tails of the Pakistani establishment. If they are willing to talk and give up their demands for independence, India will also soften its stance.

The current arrangement since August 5 is not ideal for India either. It is costly both in terms of financial resources and human capital.

It is time for the people of J&K to thing pragmatically and rationally and rely less on emotion and rhetoric. Otherwise, they will continue to shed blood and lose their youth for no end result.

They will be considered traitors today but the future generations after hundred years will thank the current generation for thinking with their brains and not hearts.

What I feel could happen in the scenario Kashmir joins Pakistan is: China will poke it's nose in there immediately and start building their infrastructure like they did with POK. Once China is in full control, it is bad news for Kashmiris, taking on China with stone pelting in a situation were they dont like the way the Chinese conduct themselves etc will see them getting bulldozed like the Ughyur Muslims while Pakistan turns a blind eye. After all China runs the show. Then those Kashmiris will be wishing they never separated from India after all, this is the Kashmiris we are talking about here, they have this incredible ability to go from one screw up to a bigger screw up in no time.

I still can't believe, because of their violent ways and behaviour it eventually led to the removal of article 370. All They had to do was live in peace and they could be practically lived how they wanted as an independent country but NOo they found a way to screw it all up...

 

[Hitman]

The fact is they have no plan. All they know is that India is their enemy and they want independence.

 

[Azzurri]

The reason why I wrote an essay on the cons is because I don’t see any realistic pros.

Can Kashmir prosper on exports of fruits and carpets? What about industrial growth, presence of corporations and MNCs, what about jobs for the youth etc.?



Who would be their major trading partners? Trade has to be mutually beneficial. Any country that trades with the independent Kashmir would risk derailing its trade ties with India.

As far as tourism is concerned, you are assuming that an independent Kashmir would be safe. However, that is not a realistic assumption because India will deploy its non-state actors and proxies to destabilize Kashmir.

Will Kashmir have the military power to fend off Indian non-state actors?

Kashmir valley has huge potential. Their biggest asset is their hydroelectric power. That alone can generate a huge chunk of revenue. every new country takes time to develop industries, so will Kashmir. Off course it won't be a cakewalk and will take some time but surely it's not something which is impossible.

Besides, India isn't some superpower like China or the US. Multiple countries including China itself as well as several central Asian countries would be willing to trade with Kashmir. Meddling in Kashmir affairs won't be of any benefit to India in the long run. You are basically refuting every positive probability linked with Kashmir but at the same, your statement is taking into consideration every single probability which favours India post-Kashmir independence.

 

[Jin Chacha]

A newborn child doesn’t have a long-term plan, but the parents do, especially the responsible ones.

They set aside money for education, they make wise investment decisions and start saving money.

The independent Kashmir state is the newborn child here, and Kashmiri separatists are the parents.

Unfortunately, the parents don’t have a clue of what they are going to do with their future child but still want to have a kid. That’s what you call bad parenting, and no wonder the world isn’t giving much attention to Kashmir’s struggle for independence.

Rather than parents and children, a better analogy in this case is that of an abusive relationship. It often happens in our society that even parents and family advise their daughters to stay in a relationship with abusive husbands because they won’t be able to survive independently. It is up to the victim to decide if she is ok with regular abuse for financial security and possible future welfare of her children or if she wants to take the risk and end the relationship whatever the consequences. The Kashmiris face a similar choice. In both cases though, it is very hard to swallow the bitter pill of compromising with someone who has physically assaulted you and violated your self-respect. There are also relatives and acquaintances who encourage you take one decision or the other for their own vested interests and in some cases even have a role in amplifying the disagreements.

In both cases though, the ultimate decision has to be taken by the victim and the weight of emotional and physical scars is often more significant than rationality and future well-being. If all major decisions of the world lacked an emotional component, we would be living in a very different (but not necessarily better) place.

 

[Hornbill]

China will invest heavily in independent kashmir, educated kashmir youth will get tech jobs but they will have to stay silent on issues like mistreatment of uyghur muslims, even now most of them are not concerned about it.

 

[kk1992]

The fact is they have no plan. All they know is that India is their enemy and they want independence.

As if any of those who were being oppressed had a plan? Their plan was simple, gain independence from oppressing regimes, I'd imagine that would be priority for anyone who is being put in open jail and deprived of their basic rights.

 

[Hitman]

As if any of those who were being oppressed had a plan? Their plan was simple, gain independence from oppressing regimes, I'd imagine that would be priority for anyone who is being put in open jail and deprived of their basic rights.

I'm merely replying to the question asked by the OP. I couldn't care less whether they have any plans or not.

 

[kk1992]

I'm merely replying to the question asked by the OP. I couldn't care less whether they have any plans or not.

OP want to discredit Kashmir's struggle for freedom against 1 Million plus occupying army and Pakistan's support for peace and freedom for Kashmiri by directing attention for his own satisfaction asking what is the plan after Kashmir gets freedom from occupying Army of India and BJP.

To that, as if any occupying group had a plan other than to be free? The idea, struggle and fight is and has always been to be free.

 

[MenInG]

What do all small nations of the world have? They will create job opportunities and business opportunities once they have control over their destiny.

 

[kk1992]

OP want to discredit Kashmir's struggle for freedom against 1 Million plus occupying army and Pakistan's support for peace and freedom for Kashmiri by directing attention for his own satisfaction asking what is the plan after Kashmir gets freedom from occupying Army of India and BJP.

To that, as if any occupying group had a plan other than to be free? The idea, struggle and fight is and has always been to be free.

occupied*.

 

[kk1992]

What do all small nations of the world have? They will create job opportunities and business opportunities once they have control over their destiny.

Apparently Kashmiri are too stupid to do all that.

They do not have a plan, they haven't put out the blue print as to how they will create more jobs and since kashmiri haven't, no one is taking them serious for their struggle against freedom, really? That is why no one is taking them serious?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Post reeks of a colonial mindset, where the natives are too dumb to make their own decisions. Whether they became Switzerland or Congo it should be there decision.

An independent Kashmir Valley can get millions of tourist from all over the World. They could also merge with Pakistan any time they want. 6 million more people wont make a huge difference to Pakistan economically. But most importantly an independent country is where they don't have to be worried about their daughters being raped, there sons being killed, where they dont have to live in fear anymore.

As for the people of AJK, they pretty much Punjabi Muslims. No Punjabi Muslim area would ever choose to join India, after the genocide of Punjabi Muslims in East Punjab and Jammu.


With that said it might be more pragmatic for them to get maximum autonomy, like South Tyrrol (German part of Italy), or Aland islands (Swedish part of Finland) for now. Get max autonomy and then push for independence (peacefully) later.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Is that sensible? Is that the future they want for their children and future generations?

What’s the point of being independent when you are a failed state that doesn’t have money, jobs, security and ranks extremely low in terms of human development index?

If that is how the Kashmiris think, then no wonder the world doesn’t pay much heed to their absurd separatist movement. If you don’t have a solid plan then no one is going to buy into your demands of independence.

So If the Kashmirs come up with an economic plan on how they would function as an independent country, India and the rest of the World will be ok with them being independent? Really?

The solution for them is to create an environment where the rest of India does not want the valley to be part of India anymore.

Ways to do this can be done by the following:

1 - First thing is to give up an armed struggle.

2 - Push for Maximum autonomy for an interim period. Something like Aland Islands or South Tyroll. Like Ronald Reagan said A half of loaf of bread is better than no loaf of bread.

3 - Show zero gratitude for the money that India is spending on the Valley. They valley needs to be subsidized from the rest of the country, and now that they have separated Ladakh, that amount will increase.

With the trifurcation of the state and India keeping Ladakh and Jammu seperate, the Indian population might be more willing to get rid of an economically burdensome valley.

A similar example is of Chechnya. Russians crushed the rebellion, and destroyed Chechnya. However they are now spending so much money on them, there are polls that Russian population will be willing to let Chechnya leave. Its an ego thing. You don't want to lose a territory militarily, but you are willing to get rid of it on your own terms. And if the majority of Indian population does not want the Valley to be part of India, then both Congress and BJP will be willing to let it secede.

4 - Start eating Beef openly. Make Beef and not lamb the main meat dish in their cuisine. No more giving up meat to appease the other community in the Valley.

5 - Accept that the idea of Kashmiriyat was a myth. Pandits supported the Dogras, who created a dark age for the Kashmiri Muslims. Millions of Kashmirs had to flee to Punjab, with the most well known descendants being of Nawaz Sharif's family. Pandits have also supported India's atrocities against them. They need to realize they have more in common with Punjabi, and Sindhi and Urdu Speaking Muslims, then with Pandits.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=148149]Gharib Aadmi[/MENTION]

Tourism industry depends on security. There is no doubt that India will destabilize Kashmir through the use of non-state actors. How will Kashmir deal with them? Will they have enough military strength? For how long and to what extent will they ride on Pakistan’s help?

The prosperity of an independent Kashmir depends on the extremely optimistic assumption that India would let them live in peace. That is certainly not going to happen at least for many decades. Any country in India’s position would try to destabilize them in order to prove that they were better off when they were part of India.

 

[Mamoon]

OP want to discredit Kashmir's struggle for freedom against 1 Million plus occupying army and Pakistan's support for peace and freedom for Kashmiri by directing attention for his own satisfaction asking what is the plan after Kashmir gets freedom from occupying Army of India and BJP.

To that, as if any occupying group had a plan other than to be free? The idea, struggle and fight is and has always been to be free.

You seem to be complaining but you are not answering the questions I raised in my OP. If yo are incapable of answering them its fine.

 

[Lonewarrior]

why assume it ? just gve them independence to see what will happen .....

 

[Mamoon]

What do all small nations of the world have? They will create job opportunities and business opportunities once they have control over their destiny.

All small nations do not have a 100 times bigger neighbor with 100 times the resources who will serve as their enemy. It is simple - if Kashmir gains independence, India will immediately becomes its biggest enemy. How will Kashmir thrive in this environment and to what extent will Pakistan be able to support them?

Also, what will be their AJK policy?

 

[Mamoon]

So If the Kashmirs come up with an economic plan on how they would function as an independent country, India and the rest of the World will be ok with them being independent? Really?

The solution for them is to create an environment where the rest of India does not want the valley to be part of India anymore.

Ways to do this can be done by the following:

1 - First thing is to give up an armed struggle.

2 - Push for Maximum autonomy for an interim period. Something like Aland Islands or South Tyroll. Like Ronald Reagan said A half of loaf of bread is better than no loaf of bread.

3 - Show zero gratitude for the money that India is spending on the Valley. They valley needs to be subsidized from the rest of the country, and now that they have separated Ladakh, that amount will increase.

With the trifurcation of the state and India keeping Ladakh and Jammu seperate, the Indian population might be more willing to get rid of an economically burdensome valley.

A similar example is of Chechnya. Russians crushed the rebellion, and destroyed Chechnya. However they are now spending so much money on them, there are polls that Russian population will be willing to let Chechnya leave. Its an ego thing. You don't want to lose a territory militarily, but you are willing to get rid of it on your own terms. And if the majority of Indian population does not want the Valley to be part of India, then both Congress and BJP will be willing to let it secede.

4 - Start eating Beef openly. Make Beef and not lamb the main meat dish in their cuisine. No more giving up meat to appease the other community in the Valley.

5 - Accept that the idea of Kashmiriyat was a myth. Pandits supported the Dogras, who created a dark age for the Kashmiri Muslims. Millions of Kashmirs had to flee to Punjab, with the most well known descendants being of Nawaz Sharif's family. Pandits have also supported India's atrocities against them. They need to realize they have more in common with Punjabi, and Sindhi and Urdu Speaking Muslims, then with Pandits.

It will give their separatist movement considerable credibility which they don’t have at the moment. They will have strong grounds for demanding independence because they can be self-sufficient. The biggest problem for Kashmir (apart from making India its enemy) is the lack of human capital. They are simply not enough people in Kashmir to build a new country especially when their biggest enemy is 100 times bigger and more resourceful.

 

[kk1992]

You seem to be complaining but you are not answering the questions I raised in my OP. If yo are incapable of answering them its fine.

LOL.

You are suggesting that Kashmiri should give out blue print of as how they would create jobs.

You want answer to that question?

Simple answer, NO!

 

[AdamM97]

This post reminds me of those Indian apologists who defend the British Raj.

”Oh sure they were oppressive, but at least they built railways”.

Once again, you can stop pretending that you’re a pragmatist and only want the betterment for the people of Kashmir.
If you truly are a pragmatist, why are you so critical of Imran Khan’s silence towards the Uyghur genocide in China? Surely, a pragmatist like you would support IK’s ”pragmatic and calculated” silence.

 

[Mamoon]

Kashmir valley has huge potential. Their biggest asset is their hydroelectric power. That alone can generate a huge chunk of revenue. every new country takes time to develop industries, so will Kashmir. Off course it won't be a cakewalk and will take some time but surely it's not something which is impossible.

Besides, India isn't some superpower like China or the US. Multiple countries including China itself as well as several central Asian countries would be willing to trade with Kashmir. Meddling in Kashmir affairs won't be of any benefit to India in the long run. You are basically refuting every positive probability linked with Kashmir but at the same, your statement is taking into consideration every single probability which favours India post-Kashmir independence.

Do you think India would simply all the hydropower projects to the newly formed Kashmir state which they built with federal money? It is not that simple. These projects involves billions of rupees and are built over long term contracts. Indian will demand compensation or transfer of these projects. How will it be facilitated?

Furthermore, your assumption that meddling in Kashmir affairs won’t benefit India is weak. Pakistan has meddled in Kashmir for 73 years and it has not benefited from it. It has lost multiple wars, it has cost us billions and billions of rupees and it also cost us our Eastern half. However, it has not deterred us and remains the cornerstone of our foreign policy because it feeds our ego. It is a power struggle.

India will not let Kashmir live in peace but it will have to prove that they are not better off as an independent state.

 

[Mamoon]

This post reminds me of those Indian apologists who defend the British Raj.

”Oh sure they were oppressive, but at least they built railways”.

Once again, you can stop pretending that you’re a pragmatist and only want the betterment for the people of Kashmir.
If you truly are a pragmatist, why are you so critical of Imran Khan’s silence towards the Uyghur genocide in China? Surely, a pragmatist like you would support IK’s ”pragmatic and calculated” silence.

Pretend? I don’t care at all. I am only interested in what their long-term plan is, because their separatist movement comes across as extremely delusional that is not based on practicality.

 

[Mamoon]

LOL.

You are suggesting that Kashmiri should give out blue print of as how they would create jobs.

You want answer to that question?

Simple answer, NO!

So you don’t have answers to my questions. You cannot even try. Alright.

 

[kk1992]

So you don’t have answers to my questions. You cannot even try. Alright.

you want me to answer your hypothetical question and promote the idea that people should stop fighting for freedom just because they would be bombed and killed because their enemy has more weapons or how long they have fought for freedom against occupying radical groups, now must stop because it has been over 70+ years?

did you took a walk in afghan hash growing farm before you typed that up?

 

[Mamoon]

The major difference between the independence of the subcontinent and Kashmir is the vastly contrasting human capital potential.

Both India and Pakistan had greater population than Britain. There was/is tremendous potential for growth.

J&K has less people than Lahore and Delhi.

They will end up with a thriving enemy with
1.3 billion people, and a so-called friend with 210 million people that is limping on one leg to sustain itself.

In this environment, it is not possible for the independent Kashmir to sustain itself and develop.

The Kashmir separatist movement is built on weak grounds with no practical future and does not deserve to be supported.

The Kashmir youth need to wake up and live in the real world. They should not repeat the same mistakes as their forefathers.

 

[Mamoon]

you want me to answer your hypothetical question and promote the idea that people should stop fighting for freedom just because they would be bombed and killed because their enemy has more weapons or how long they have fought for freedom against occupying radical groups, now must stop because it has been over 70+ years?

did you took a walk in afghan hash growing farm before you typed that up?

I think you haven’t even read my questions. I am not talking about their ongoing struggle, I am asking what they will do if they gain independence.

How will they develop their economy, how will they contain Indian hostility and non-state actors, who will be their trading partners, what will be their AJK policy - will they exhibit hypocrisy and leave AJK alone or will they take on Pakistan and hope that they let AJK go.

Afghan hash farm? You seem frustrated at your inability to answer my questions.

 

[kk1992]

I think you haven’t even read my questions. I am not talking about their ongoing struggle, I am asking what they will do if they gain independence.

How will they develop their economy, how will they contain Indian hostility and non-state actors, who will be their trading partners, what will be their AJK policy - will they exhibit hypocrisy and leave AJK alone or will they take on Pakistan and hope that they let AJK go.

Afghan hash farm? You seem frustrated at your inability to answer my questions.

Like many other freed countries have in the past.

Goal is freedom.

There is not other debate.

All other is hypothetical, which is an attempt to discredit Kashmir struggle and Pakistan's support for Kashmir struggle.

Imagine, if my ancestors were to stop fighting for freedom just because they thought, "the massa will provide me a roof over my head, provide me a bread to bite, provide me clothes to cover my body, I must stay occupied because massa provided me with all that".

Stay away from that hash farm.

 

[AdamM97]

Pretend? I don’t care at all. I am only interested in what their long-term plan is, because their separatist movement comes across as extremely delusional that is not based on practicality.

If everyone went by your logic, then no separatist movement should be encouraged as it always leads to bloodshed and chaos. The same could be said for populist revolutions that want to overthrow oppressive regimes(the Arab Spring for example), and if I remember correctly, you supported an overthrow of the IK government by JUI-F.

Still, an indendent Kashmir would actually benefit the Kashmiri population if India continues to centralize its power under the BJP government. For one, an independent Kashmir would focus more on developing Jammu & Kashmir instead of getting ignored by New Delhi. To say that they wouldn’t survive economically is absurd.

I also don’t understand your point about Jammu and Kashmir being overpopulated. Look at Bangladesh, they’re doing much better than all of their South Asian counterparts on almost every social and economic indicator.

If Bengalis had been ’pragmatic’, ’practical’ and ’rational’ back in 1971 and surrendered to Pakistan, they would’ve been worse off, and you probably agree with me on that. I doubt that East Bengalis were thinking of a ’long term plan’ while getting massacred by the Pak army.

Pragmatism has its limits, it’s based on the notion that we already know what’s right for us, when in fact, we often don’t.

 

[JaDed]

IIRC you have already discussed this..

 

[mustang]

Let’s assume that a miracle happens, Pakistan’s tactics finally work after 73 years. India succumbs under pressure and gives up J&K.

What next? All the talk is of why Kashmir should get independence, but there seems to be no talk and no plan of how Kashmir is going to sustain itself after gaining independence.

It is an overpopulated nation in a small valley. The Kashmiri youth will obviously not be welcome in India (at least for many years) so no job opportunities there.

Similarly, India won’t trade with them either.

Pakistan will help them to score points over India, but there is only so much we can do. We are barely hanging by a thread and and begging other countries and institutions for survival.

Surely, we cannot help Kashmir enough in terms of financial aid, trade and jobs to get them up and running, considering our own financial problems and the very high levels of unemployment in our own country.

Other countries who have ties and interests in India will not help them just like they are not helping now.

What would be their AJK strategy? If they leave AJK alone, they undermine their own ideology. If they truly believe that Kashmiris deserve their own homeland, then that includes the people of AJK as well.

If they hope to merge AJK into their new sovereign state, will Pakistan cooperate? AJK is very important for Pakistan agriculturally and in terms of tourism as well.

Talk is cheap - Pakistan can now claim that they are ready to hold a referendum in AJK, but when the time comes, will they be ready to part ways with such an important region and can they afford to do it?

Will the people of AJK want to leave and Pakistan and join a new country with no plan? We are told that they are very happy to be a part of Pakistan, so why would they opt to join the newly formed Kashmir country?

Let’s say the people of AJK have a change of heart and they decided to leave Pakistan and join the new Kashmir country. What if Pakistan resists and pulls of an East Pakistan-like genocide to maintain authority in AJK?

What if there is an Operation Searchlight 2.0? The East Pakistan separatist movement was successful because it had India’s support.

In this scenario, India will obviously not help the AJK separatist movement and Pakistan will have no problem in suppressing it.

If J&K ends up joining Pakistan instead of establishing a separatist movement, what do they expect? Pakistan, as mentioned before, can barely sustain itself and the load of the entire Kashmir valley will be too great for our already crippled economy.

Furthermore, in the above scenario, the Kashmir region will be heavily militarized because of the border with India. Moreover, India will ensure that the region remains destabilized by utilizing non-state actor and proxies.

That is probably true even if they are able to become a sovereign state. India will definitely send their regards. Will Kashmir have enough resources to have its own forces? Will it have an Air Force? What are they going to fly? Pakistan will equip them but for how long and to what extent?

In other words, Kashmir will be destabilized forever whether it becomes independent or if it becomes a part of Pakistan.

If they had a genuinely solid long-term post independence plan, they would have shared it with the world and it would have increased the pressure on India to grant them independence.

Unfortunately, no such plan exists and as we explored the different alternatives, Kashmir does not come out as winners in any scenario.

Their only hope is to accept the status as part of India, put down their weapons and stop riding on the coat-tails of the Pakistani establishment. If they are willing to talk and give up their demands for independence, India will also soften its stance.

The current arrangement since August 5 is not ideal for India either. It is costly both in terms of financial resources and human capital.

It is time for the people of J&K to thing pragmatically and rationally and rely less on emotion and rhetoric. Otherwise, they will continue to shed blood and lose their youth for no end result.

They will be considered traitors today but the future generations after hundred years will thank the current generation for thinking with their brains and not hearts.

This is an interesting question. The answers can have 2 variations
#1 - Morality or political stance based answers which will either support or remove credence for Kashmir's ability to stand as an independent country or which can say "how dare you question Kashmir's ability?".
#2 - Neutral, objective response getting into the geo-political+economic feasibility of Kashmir as an independent country while not getting into the right or wrong about Kashmir being independent.

For the record - I support an independent Kashmir (Pakistan controlled and Indian controlled Kashmir valleys), Gilgit/Baltistan going to Pakistan and Jammu/Ladakh going to India. This is from my moral compass and opinion, and something I feel is good in an ideal world. I would say our emotional sides would advocate a solution like this (or all of Kashmir/Jammu/Ladak going to India/Pakistan depending upon your individual loyalty).

What makes an interesting discussion for this question is the rational/logical analysis regarding this scenario leaving behind our emotional side for what we want and using only our left brains to look at what/how could this play out.

My rational/logical 0.02 ( = 2 cents for those of y'all not familiar with that)

This will be a small landlocked country surrounded by 2 big nations hating each other. Good news for independent Kashmir is that it is out of a seemingly abusive relationship with one (India) and has cozied up with the other (Pakistan) so it is not hatred from all sides for them.

Economy - Agriculture (fruits, dry fruits etc per my understanding) will be the core for at least 20 years. Contrary to belief tourism will not be a big driver for at least 15-20 years if not more. Bulk of Kashmir's economy will be commodity driven and main consumers will be Pakistan and perhaps some of the central Asian countries to begin with. How unique are these products only to Kashmir? Are they unique enough to give them a good pricing power? Economic growth is primarily from agricultural commodities which in turn is from the net profit of selling these agricultural profits.

Profit = Revenue - Cost (basic rule of a market economy). Profit here = Kashmir's national income as I mentioned above. To increase profit you either increase revenue or decrease cost in that equation in blue. Increasing revenue means having more pricing power for your agricultural produce so initial customers (Pakistan, Central Asian countries, maybe China) pay a decent amount. Decreasing cost means having highly efficient large scale agriculture, storage, logistics processes that reduces waste and costs less. This is impossible for a new nation to achieve right away.

Contrary to some opinions hydroelectric power may not be a source of economic input - Kashmiris need power for themselves, transporting power elsewhere assumes a surplus, and a good grid network to ensure low cost transportation. They will need all the power they want for society to function and also for agriculture/business. Kashmir will have no means for oil & gas or other critical needs and they need to use any little surplus power for these critical resources.

Self-sustained economy will be very weak because of above factors. Two external economic infusions will happen here.

#1 Pakistan - as a friendly nation Pakistan will inject whatever little it can (since it's own economy is weak) in the form of aid, tourism, business investments. These will come with a condition of political alignment for which independent Kashmiris will be happy (so long as they remain independent).

#2 China - This is a major catch. Chinese investment/money is never "free". Infrastructure projects will come in the form of loans+interests, access to commodity (agriculture) and other resources (hydro-electric power) at predetermined prices. So you are looking at long term economic reliance and becoming a dependent/satellite state of China (maybe Kashmiris are happy that way, who knows).

Society - Money/economy ain't everything! As a society Kashmiris will be happy (poorer yet happier) at least in the short run and maybe also in the long run. They have religious/cultural/language freedom.

Military - Will be minimal to non-existent. But they will have protection from Pakistan and China. Assuming both India and Pakistan agree to territorial boundaries of Kashmir, it will have some level of protection through the UN charter.

Politics - Once initial euphoria of independence is done with, 2 things could happen. There will be a pro-Pakistan and a pro-self sustained independence groups as political entities. There could also be growing concerns about becoming political vassals of China and to a lesser extent of Pakistan as economic/military dependencies upon these 2 countries keeps growing.

Why tourism economy will take longer - This is because high dollars from tourism kicks in only when there is a high volume of high paying tourists. So we need western and OECD countries, and perhaps Chinese tourists coming over in large volume. You need political stability, no terrorist or religious extremism, open minded culture that makes western women+families feel safe enough. As hospitable as people are in that region, it will take at least 2 more decades of continuous positive changes to make this happen. Consider this - Pakistan controlled Kashmir and places like Skardu are actually equally or a lot more beautiful than Indian controlled Kashmir. People are also hospitable there. Do you see large volumes of tourism there yet though even from Chinese protection? Hopefully it will happen soon but it is a SLOW process.

 

[Mamoon]

If everyone went by your logic, then no separatist movement should be encouraged as it always leads to bloodshed and chaos. The same could be said for populist revolutions that want to overthrow oppressive regimes(the Arab Spring for example), and if I remember correctly, you supported an overthrow of the IK government by JUI-F.

Still, an indendent Kashmir would actually benefit the Kashmiri population if India continues to centralize its power under the BJP government. For one, an independent Kashmir would focus more on developing Jammu & Kashmir instead of getting ignored by New Delhi. To say that they wouldn’t survive economically is absurd.

I also don’t understand your point about Jammu and Kashmir being overpopulated. Look at Bangladesh, they’re doing much better than all of their South Asian counterparts on almost every social and economic indicator.

If Bengalis had been ’pragmatic’, ’practical’ and ’rational’ back in 1971 and surrendered to Pakistan, they would’ve been worse off, and you probably agree with me on that. I doubt that East Bengalis were thinking of a ’long term plan’ while getting massacred by the Pak army.

Pragmatism has its limits, it’s based on the notion that we already know what’s right for us, when in fact, we often don’t.

By overpopulated, I mean that the Kashmir valley is not big enough for their growing population especially when their youth will find it hard to get jobs elsewhere. In terms of total population, they are around 14 million, which is less than the population of Delhi and Lahore.

In my view, they don’t have enough human resource to build a country especially with an infinitely larger and resourceful hostile enemy next door, and a so-called friend (Pakistan) who will not be able to sustain them forever.

You are ignoring the role India would definitely play in destabilizing Kashmir.

Moreover, the comparison with East Pakistan is off. East Pakistan hit the jackpot by getting rid of the baggage that is West Pakistan, but they could be self-sufficient because their population was actually greater than West Pakistan even after the genocide in 1971. The greatest resource for any country is human capital, and everything builds from there provided that you have the right policies.

Another advantage for East Pakistan was that they didn’t share border with West Pakistan and were shielded by India, safe from Pakistani non-state actors.

Kashmir with 14 million people and non-existent military will be at India’s mercy.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=144392]mustang[/MENTION]

That is a remarkable post. Thank you for the insights.

My take on this is that India will take a leaf out of Pakistan’s book and make destabilization the focal point of its foreign policy.

Since 1947, Pakistan’s foreign policy has centered around ensuring that they maintain their presence in J&K and support militants to exert pressure on India. Since Pakistan’s foreign policy is dictated by the military who is the real power in the country, and the military needs perpetual conflict to stay in power, Pakistan has ensured that they maintain hostility in the region.

If Kashmir gains independence from India, the latter would definitely aim to destabilize Kashmir and prove the point that they were better off with India. Will Kashmir be equipped to deal with India’s non-state actors? With 14 million people and a non-existent army, how will Kashmir deal with the Indian threat?

The UNSC has proved ineffective when it comes Kashmir and nothing should change on that front.

 

[mustang]

This is an interesting question. The answers can have 2 variations
#1 - Morality or political stance based answers which will either support or remove credence for Kashmir's ability to stand as an independent country or which can say "how dare you question Kashmir's ability?".
#2 - Neutral, objective response getting into the geo-political+economic feasibility of Kashmir as an independent country while not getting into the right or wrong about Kashmir being independent.

For the record - I support an independent Kashmir (Pakistan controlled and Indian controlled Kashmir valleys), Gilgit/Baltistan going to Pakistan and Jammu/Ladakh going to India. This is from my moral compass and opinion, and something I feel is good in an ideal world. I would say our emotional sides would advocate a solution like this (or all of Kashmir/Jammu/Ladak going to India/Pakistan depending upon your individual loyalty).

What makes an interesting discussion for this question is the rational/logical analysis regarding this scenario leaving behind our emotional side for what we want and using only our left brains to look at what/how could this play out.

My rational/logical 0.02 ( = 2 cents for those of y'all not familiar with that)

This will be a small landlocked country surrounded by 2 big nations hating each other. Good news for independent Kashmir is that it is out of a seemingly abusive relationship with one (India) and has cozied up with the other (Pakistan) so it is not hatred from all sides for them.

Economy - Agriculture (fruits, dry fruits etc per my understanding) will be the core for at least 20 years. Contrary to belief tourism will not be a big driver for at least 15-20 years if not more. Bulk of Kashmir's economy will be commodity driven and main consumers will be Pakistan and perhaps some of the central Asian countries to begin with. How unique are these products only to Kashmir? Are they unique enough to give them a good pricing power? Economic growth is primarily from agricultural commodities which in turn is from the net profit of selling these agricultural profits.

Profit = Revenue - Cost (basic rule of a market economy). Profit here = Kashmir's national income as I mentioned above. To increase profit you either increase revenue or decrease cost in that equation in blue. Increasing revenue means having more pricing power for your agricultural produce so initial customers (Pakistan, Central Asian countries, maybe China) pay a decent amount. Decreasing cost means having highly efficient large scale agriculture, storage, logistics processes that reduces waste and costs less. This is impossible for a new nation to achieve right away.

Contrary to some opinions hydroelectric power may not be a source of economic input - Kashmiris need power for themselves, transporting power elsewhere assumes a surplus, and a good grid network to ensure low cost transportation. They will need all the power they want for society to function and also for agriculture/business. Kashmir will have no means for oil & gas or other critical needs and they need to use any little surplus power for these critical resources.

Self-sustained economy will be very weak because of above factors. Two external economic infusions will happen here.

#1 Pakistan - as a friendly nation Pakistan will inject whatever little it can (since it's own economy is weak) in the form of aid, tourism, business investments. These will come with a condition of political alignment for which independent Kashmiris will be happy (so long as they remain independent).

#2 China - This is a major catch. Chinese investment/money is never "free". Infrastructure projects will come in the form of loans+interests, access to commodity (agriculture) and other resources (hydro-electric power) at predetermined prices. So you are looking at long term economic reliance and becoming a dependent/satellite state of China (maybe Kashmiris are happy that way, who knows).

Society - Money/economy ain't everything! As a society Kashmiris will be happy (poorer yet happier) at least in the short run and maybe also in the long run. They have religious/cultural/language freedom.

Military - Will be minimal to non-existent. But they will have protection from Pakistan and China. Assuming both India and Pakistan agree to territorial boundaries of Kashmir, it will have some level of protection through the UN charter.

Politics - Once initial euphoria of independence is done with, 2 things could happen. There will be a pro-Pakistan and a pro-self sustained independence groups as political entities. There could also be growing concerns about becoming political vassals of China and to a lesser extent of Pakistan as economic/military dependencies upon these 2 countries keeps growing.

Why tourism economy will take longer - This is because high dollars from tourism kicks in only when there is a high volume of high paying tourists. So we need western and OECD countries, and perhaps Chinese tourists coming over in large volume. You need political stability, no terrorist or religious extremism, open minded culture that makes western women+families feel safe enough. As hospitable as people are in that region, it will take at least 2 more decades of continuous positive changes to make this happen. Consider this - Pakistan controlled Kashmir and places like Skardu are actually equally or a lot more beautiful than Indian controlled Kashmir. People are also hospitable there. Do you see large volumes of tourism there yet though even from Chinese protection? Hopefully it will happen soon but it is a SLOW process.

Couple of additional points ...

Politics - More on the 2 entities that I see happening.

The pro-Pakistani political entity will be dominated by the Hizbul or other pro-Pakistani factions and of course have a stronger vote base in former Pakistan controlled Kashmir regions. These groups will be have a more religious bend. They will also be more open to external capital investments from China or Pakistan for development projects (even if those come with conditions). Pro-Pakistan groups will have a mix of opinions ranging from being ok with Kashmir outsourcing defense to Pakistan (think Bhutan and India) to fringe elements within party even favoring union with Pakistan. Their economic and political stance will be on the conservative side with some of the party elements even leaning into Wahhabi strain of Islam.

Pro-self sustained faction (let's call it pro-independence to make it easier) will be dominated more by off shoots of Hurriyat, JKLF type groups. This group will want Kashmir's existence as a sustainable entity without economic/political slavery by it's bigger neighbors. They will be averse to capital investments given that and will want more organic economic growth from within even if it is a slower growth. They will also be relatively more pluralistic and view all Kashmiris (muslims, hindus, or buddhists) as Kashmiri brethren (to whatever applicable extent). Thus their economic and political stance will be more socialist/liberal in nature.

Human/Knowledge capital - This could be the biggest challenge for an independent Kashmir valley. Per macro-economics one of the biggest drivers of a country's economy over time is technology/knowledge capital. Coupled with good governance, entrenched knowledge capital can quickly transform a country from shambles to growth (post WW2 Europe, Japan). This knowledge capital engine is very slow to heat up though and takes 2-3 generations at the least even with sustained good policies. Kashmir really lacks this as of now and it could be their biggest challenge. Their literacy rates maybe on par with South Asia (not sure yet) but the penetration of professional education and advanced degrees among their society is very low. Combine this with no major educational institutions with home grown pool of faculty, and also combine this with less propensity to leverage women's knowledge capital (women's education, literacy, employment) ... you can see not just current dearth of knowledge capital but also the future prospects being not strong as things stand now.

 

[troodon]

If gained independence from India, they will immediately join Pakistan.

We heard these slogans plenty of times - Pakistan se rishta kya- la ilaha illallah!

For Muslims, religion trumps everything. If they get disillusioned after a few decades of being part of Pakistan, they might become like Balochistan.

 

[AdamM97]

By overpopulated, I mean that the Kashmir valley is not big enough for their growing population especially when their youth will find it hard to get jobs elsewhere. In terms of total population, they are around 14 million, which is less than the population of Delhi and Lahore.

In my view, they don’t have enough human resource to build a country especially with an infinitely larger and resourceful hostile enemy next door, and a so-called friend (Pakistan) who will not be able to sustain them forever.

You are ignoring the role India would definitely play in destabilizing Kashmir.

Moreover, the comparison with East Pakistan is off. East Pakistan hit the jackpot by getting rid of the baggage that is West Pakistan, but they could be self-sufficient because their population was actually greater than West Pakistan even after the genocide in 1971. The greatest resource for any country is human capital, and everything builds from there provided that you have the right policies.

Another advantage for East Pakistan was that they didn’t share border with West Pakistan and were shielded by India, safe from Pakistani non-state actors.

Kashmir with 14 million people and non-existent military will be at India’s mercy.

Right. But a lot of nations have smaller armies. The US is the world’s strongest military machine to have ever existed. Going by your logic, all countries should give up because of America’s military domination.

Just because Bangladesh had a larger population, doesn’t mean that it was self-sufficient. If anything, it was a liability considering how small the country is. Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated nations on earth. I really don’t see your point about population. Also West Pakistan was doing much better than East Pakistan, partly because the industrial cities were in West Pakistan, and partly due to our bias and negligence towards the East Bengalis. A large population can be an asset, but also a liablity, in fact, Pakistan is doing worse today because of our large population.

Your point about Kashmir having a ’hostile’ neighbour like India also doesn’t make any sense either. Taiwan still survives and is doing well despite their larger and hostile neighbour China’s claims to the island. Like Taiwan gets help from the US against China, what will stop Kashmir from asking help from a larger China. At the end of the day, all small nations are at the mercy of larger nations, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.


At the end of the day, I can’t see Kashmir getting independence anytime soon. This is of course a hypothetical question after all.

 

[AdamM97]

If gained independence from India, they will immediately join Pakistan.

We heard these slogans plenty of times - Pakistan se rishta kya- la ilaha illallah!

For Muslims, religion trumps everything. If they get disillusioned after a few decades of being part of Pakistan, they might become like Balochistan.

Nope. Muslims value ethnic/national/tribal ties quite a lot. If that wasn’t the case, Kurds wouldn’t fight the Turks and Persians wouldn’t hate Arabs. The Qur’an does say that the Ummah should trump all ethnic/national/tribal ties but Muslims don’t really follow that.

 

[troodon]

Nope. Muslims value ethnic/national/tribal ties quite a lot. If that wasn’t the case, Kurds wouldn’t fight the Turks and Persians wouldn’t hate Arabs. The Qur’an does say that the Ummah should trump all ethnic/national/tribal ties but Muslims don’t really follow that.

Caste, ethnic and racial differences among Muslims only comes once they are not under non-Muslim rule.

As long as they are under non-muslim rule, their first duty is to get rid of non-muslim rulers.

 

[Mamoon]

Right. But a lot of nations have smaller armies. The US is the world’s strongest military machine to have ever existed. Going by your logic, all countries should give up because of America’s military domination.

Just because Bangladesh had a larger population, doesn’t mean that it was self-sufficient. If anything, it was a liability considering how small the country is. Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated nations on earth. I really don’t see your point about population. Also West Pakistan was doing much better than East Pakistan, partly because the industrial cities were in West Pakistan, and partly due to our bias and negligence towards the East Bengalis. A large population can be an asset, but also a liablity, in fact, Pakistan is doing worse today because of our large population.

Your point about Kashmir having a ’hostile’ neighbour like India also doesn’t make any sense either. Taiwan still survives and is doing well despite their larger and hostile neighbour China’s claims to the island. Like Taiwan gets help from the US against China, what will stop Kashmir from asking help from a larger China. At the end of the day, all small nations are at the mercy of larger nations, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.


At the end of the day, I can’t see Kashmir getting independence anytime soon. This is of course a hypothetical question after all.

This is where I disagree with you. China’s Taiwan policy will be nothing like India’s Kashmir policy.

China did not compete with an enemy state for Taiwan. Here, it is not just about Kashmir but about the power struggle between India and Pakistan.

If Kashmir thrives independently, it will strengthen Pakistan’s narrative indefinitely and people will look back at the past with a different lens.

Hence, India will ensure that Kashmir remains destabilized in order to prove a point to not only Kashmir but also to Pakistan. China has little motivation to be aggressive towards Taiwan, but India will have plenty of motivation to be aggressive towards Kashmir.

Moreover, you only help other countries when you get something in return or you have an agenda. If China helps Kashmir, the U.S. and it’s allies will immediately side with India.

Kashmir will continue to be a battleground for proxies. Surely this is not the type of freedom the people want. The bitter truth is that the Kashmir valley will always be a playground for the bigger powers.

Also, what about their AJK policy? Will they be hypocrites and undermine their own ideology, or will they bank on the false hopes that Pakistan would shoot itself in the foot and give AJK to them on a platter?

They really don’t seem to have a plan.

 

[SamNJ]

Obviously it will descend into another civil war with pro Pakistan groups like Hizbul,LeT & JeM fighting for merger with Pakistan while pro Independence groups fighting for Kashmir as Independent nation.
And more than 6 7 districts of Kashmir valley region India will not cede anything although chances of even that happening are close to none.

 

[PakLFC]

What Kashmiris really want is complete independence from both Pak and Hind with Pak helping them attain that. I say give it to them for goodness sake so the entire region can progress together. I agree with the above poster that in the event of securing independence from India various groups will divide along the lines of pro-Pak and pro-independence Kashmiris.

 

[Azzurri]

Do you think India would simply all the hydropower projects to the newly formed Kashmir state which they built with federal money? It is not that simple. These projects involves billions of rupees and are built over long term contracts. Indian will demand compensation or transfer of these projects. How will it be facilitated?

Furthermore, your assumption that meddling in Kashmir affairs won’t benefit India is weak. Pakistan has meddled in Kashmir for 73 years and it has not benefited from it. It has lost multiple wars, it has cost us billions and billions of rupees and it also cost us our Eastern half. However, it has not deterred us and remains the cornerstone of our foreign policy because it feeds our ego. It is a power struggle.

India will not let Kashmir live in peace but it will have to prove that they are not better off as an independent state.

Firstly, once independent, Kashmir isn't obliged to compensate India. No matter, how much money India poured into Kashmir. INDEPENDENCE means they will have leverage over their resources. India invested money in occupied territory without the consent of Kashmiris and there wasn't any binding contract between the Kashmiris and GOI.

Secondly, once more, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that Pakistan's involvement in disputed occupied Kashmir makes more sense as compared to the possible involvement of India in independent Kashmir after it's independence from India itself.

Lastly, by the looks of it, in this argument, you have clearly made up your mind. You aren't interested to argue but to reaffirm your false notion by hook or a crook, that independent Kashmir isn't self-sustainable.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

A newborn child doesn’t have a long-term plan, but the parents do, especially the responsible ones.

They set aside money for education, they make wise investment decisions and start saving money.

The independent Kashmir state is the newborn child here, and Kashmiri separatists are the parents.

Unfortunately, the parents don’t have a clue of what they are going to do with their future child but still want to have a kid. That’s what you call bad parenting, and no wonder the world isn’t giving much attention to Kashmir’s struggle for independence.

So you are trying to say that no child with bad parents has ever made it big in life?

Or, if we take it the other way, no orphan has ever in the history of the world done anything of note?

 

[Mamoon]

So you are trying to say that no child with bad parents has ever made it big in life?

Or, if we take it the other way, no orphan has ever in the history of the world done anything of note?

What do you call parents who are deliberately bad parents? You call them bad parents.

What do you call parents who deliberately desert their child, effectively making him/her an orphan? The word ‘bad parent’ won’t do justice.

That is what the people of Kashmir are doing. They want independence, but they don’t seem to have an idea of what they are going to do if they get independence.

It is one of the biggest reasons why their independence is failing to gather international support and why Pakistan has failed spectacularly to draw international attention in spite of relentless propaganda.

The latest is that Saudi Arabia has told us to go away when we requested a meeting on Kashmir at the OIC, and this happened only two months after they told Imran to sit down as he was about the board the plane for the KL Summit.

Pakistan has suffered unprecedented levels of humiliation and embarrassment for supporting a clueless, idealistic and impractical independence movement that has no future and thus, does not deserve to be supported.

Saudi Arabia and other countries are fully justified in ignoring it.

As far as the human rights violations are concerned, they are of course unacceptable. The actions of India cannot be justified.

However, it takes two to tango. As long as there is active militancy in Kashmir and people take up arms even though they don’t have a long-term plan, they will face oppression from the Indian government.

Hence, it is imperative that after decades and decades of failure, Kashmir changes its tactic and so should Pakistan if it wants to put an end to its embarrassment.

If the people of Kashmir want to spill the blood of their youth in a battle that they cannot win, it is their choice.

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=144392]mustang[/MENTION]

That is a remarkable post. Thank you for the insights.

My take on this is that India will take a leaf out of Pakistan’s book and make destabilization the focal point of its foreign policy. Since 1947, Pakistan’s foreign policy has centered around ensuring that they maintain their presence in J&K and support militants to exert pressure on India. Since Pakistan’s foreign policy is dictated by the military who is the real power in the country, and the military needs perpetual conflict to stay in power, Pakistan has ensured that they maintain hostility in the region.

If Kashmir gains independence from India, the latter would definitely aim to destabilize Kashmir and prove the point that they were better off with India. Will Kashmir be equipped to deal with India’s non-state actors? With 14 million people and a non-existent army, how will Kashmir deal with the Indian threat?

The UNSC has proved ineffective when it comes Kashmir and nothing should change on that front.

In this thread you have wrote a number of times India will use terrorists to attack Pakistan.

So by your own logic, you will be ok with PAF jets bombing RSS schools were children are being branwaished? Pre-emptive strike to stop them growing up as terrorists?

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

What do you call parents who are deliberately bad parents? You call them bad parents.

What do you call parents who deliberately desert their child, effectively making him/her an orphan? The word ‘bad parent’ won’t do justice.

That is what the people of Kashmir are doing. They want independence, but they don’t seem to have an idea of what they are going to do if they get independence.

It is one of the biggest reasons why their independence is failing to gather international support and why Pakistan has failed spectacularly to draw international attention in spite of relentless propaganda.

The latest is that Saudi Arabia has told us to go away when we requested a meeting on Kashmir at the OIC, and this happened only two months after they told Imran to sit down as he was about the board the plane for the KL Summit.

Pakistan has suffered unprecedented levels of humiliation and embarrassment for supporting a clueless, idealistic and impractical independence movement that has no future and thus, does not deserve to be supported.

Saudi Arabia and other countries are fully justified in ignoring it.

As far as the human rights violations are concerned, they are of course unacceptable. The actions of India cannot be justified.

However, it takes two to tango. As long as there is active militancy in Kashmir and people take up arms even though they don’t have a long-term plan, they will face oppression from the Indian government.

Hence, it is imperative that after decades and decades of failure, Kashmir changes its tactic and so should Pakistan if it wants to put an end to its embarrassment.

If the people of Kashmir want to spill the blood of their youth in a battle that they cannot win, it is their choice.

This is not my answer. My question was a simple "yes" or "no" question. I don't need to reiterate the question since you are a really smart person but just for clarity let's go again with a slight addition; is it possible for someone to make it in life with no parents, bad parenting, and/or delusional dumb parents?

 

[imrankhannsu]

Just out of curiosity what industries does Kashmir have? I am assuming agro based ones?

If they were to be independent, surely they would think of exporting goods

 

[TrentDevil]

Just out of curiosity what industries does Kashmir have? I am assuming agro based ones?

If they were to be independent, surely they would think of exporting goods

I think the major one is Apple industry:

The apple trade, worth $1.6 billion in exports in 2017, accounts for nearly a fifth of Kashmir’s economy and provides livelihoods for 3.3 million.

Maybe Saffron as well but i guess you are correct, mostly agro based stuff

 

[imrankhannsu]

I think the major one is Apple industry:

The apple trade, worth $1.6 billion in exports in 2017, accounts for nearly a fifth of Kashmir’s economy and provides livelihoods for 3.3 million.

Maybe Saffron as well but i guess you are correct, mostly agro based stuff

Thanks bro. I was also assuming it would be an agro-based economy. I will gladly buy stuff from Kashmir to help their economy. But being land locked it becomes tricky to export something Nepal has to harshly face.

In the UK one has to be careful when buying dates and vegetable items. Sometimes they come from Israel and I avoid them.

These days some ethnic shops (mainly Arab) sell dates specifically from Palestine.

 

[Pakistanian]

My response is coming tomorrow. Heads up.

 

[AdamM97]

This is where I disagree with you. China’s Taiwan policy will be nothing like India’s Kashmir policy.

China did not compete with an enemy state for Taiwan. Here, it is not just about Kashmir but about the power struggle between India and Pakistan.

If Kashmir thrives independently, it will strengthen Pakistan’s narrative indefinitely and people will look back at the past with a different lens.

Hence, India will ensure that Kashmir remains destabilized in order to prove a point to not only Kashmir but also to Pakistan. China has little motivation to be aggressive towards Taiwan, but India will have plenty of motivation to be aggressive towards Kashmir.

Moreover, you only help other countries when you get something in return or you have an agenda. If China helps Kashmir, the U.S. and it’s allies will immediately side with India.

Kashmir will continue to be a battleground for proxies. Surely this is not the type of freedom the people want. The bitter truth is that the Kashmir valley will always be a playground for the bigger powers.

Also, what about their AJK policy? Will they be hypocrites and undermine their own ideology, or will they bank on the false hopes that Pakistan would shoot itself in the foot and give AJK to them on a platter?

They really don’t seem to have a plan.

Again you’re simply assuming that India’s Kashmir policy will be different without giving a proper reason for it. Your post includes lots of ’ifs’ and ’buts’.

Most independence movement don’t have a proper economic plan for the future, and those that have often find themselves backtracking and changing plans once they achieve independence.

FYI, Taiwan has been under Japanese imperial rule, so you’re wrong that China isn’t competing with an enemy state for Taiwan. The US and Japan are always propping the Taiwanese up as a means to counter China. Taiwan and the South China Sea in general is the main battleground for China and the US. Most foreign policy experts understand that China won’t be able to become a proper superpower unless its navy can counter the US main navy and control Taiwan.