“In effect, the consequences of the alliance in 1987 were even worse than the act of keeping Sheikh Abdullah in jail for most of the time between 1953 and the early 1970’s”
“Kashmir in Comparative Perspective” - Sten Widmalm
“In February 1975, exhausted by over two decades in jail, Sheikh Abdullah re-emerged on Jammu and Kashmir’s political terrain.”](http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1714/17140040.htm)
“Demands that led to Sheikh Abdullah spending two decades in jail.”](http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20000710/cover.html)
The last two quotes are from mainstream Indian magazines, from articles written by Hindus. Either you’re in denial, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.
As much as I disagree with that characterization, you’re completely ignoring the main point. Realities have changed in Pakistan…frankly, the country has more than enough problems to deal with on its own soil to be worrying about Kashmir (when was the last time you heard a Pakistani leader describing Kashmir as “shahrag-e-Pakistan?” Musharraf’s much touted “four point plan” involves Kashmir remaining under Indian administration. And in any case, if the UN were to step in and create an independent Kashmir, Pakistan wouldn’t go against world opinion like that.
India’s dismembering of the original, impractical set-up of Pakistan doesn’t undermine its existence as a nation.
In any case, this discussion is irrelevant, as the Kashmir movement isn’t a religious one.
First of all, a number of Pandits do support the independence movement…one of the leaders of the APHC, Bhushan Bazaz, is a Pandit. The late HN Wanchoo also comes to mind…he was killed by Indian security forces back in the 1992 for reporting Indian human rights violations in Kashmir…today his son is involved with the JKLF.
Nor do I think the involvement of Pandits changes the inherently nationalistic nature of the Kashmir movement. Back in the 1940’s, some of the most prominent pro-Pakistan activists were left wing Pandit leaders…does that make the Pakistan movement any less “Muslim?”
Let’s see…we’re ethnically, culturally, and linguistically more similar to Central Asia than India. We have a distinct history, mostly separate from India’s…which has lead to the formation of a distinct national identity. Oh, and there’s also the issue of our wildly unpopular, illegal occupation by India (which no other Indian state can claim)…followed by decades of political and social oppression.
India should go and militarily occupy Bhutan…brutally suppress any opposition…and amend its constitution to declare that Bhutan is an “atoot ang”/“intergral part” of India. Then, when the Bhutanese people demand independence, the government should just repeat “Bhutan is an integral part of India” ad nauseum…and insist that only Buddhist extremist militants want independence…while demanding to know on what criterion, other than religion, the Bhutanese can claim a separate identity.
Perhaps most of Jammu & Kashmir was in favor of joining Pakistan back in the 1940-50’s.
But the Kashmir movement was as much about azaadi back in 1989 as it is today.