Med911
May 21, 2010, 6:47pm
35
As Yahoo pointed out, the princely states did have the option to remain independent. I agree, this was not a viable option in most cases as the vast majority of these states were little more than glorified jagirs and zamindaris, and consisted of a few villages and a fortress. Even the larger princely states like Hyderabad, Bhopal, Udaipur, Mysore, etc were completely landlocked and surrounded by Indian territory on all sides. Jammu & Kashmir, however, was different - it was one of the largest and most prominent princely states in British India, and it shared borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China, and Tibet.
I agree that Kashmir would benefit from having access to (and friendly relations with) a stable Pakistan. To this day Kashmir has no reliable all-weather roads linking it to India; its only land link that’s usable year-round is the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad-Rawalpindi road, a vital economic link that has essentially been closed since 1948.
That said, I think the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris are not particularly interested in becoming citizens of Pakistan. While general opinions on Pakistan remain fairly positive, people have become increasingly critical of the fact that by the early-mid '90’s, Pakistan had essentially cut off the pro-independence, native-Kashmiri groups and shifted its support to foreign, right-wing Islamist militants who favor merger with Pakistan. Today, the only people in Kashmir who do support union with Pakistan are the Jamaat-e-Islami and other groups, who really only represent a fringe-minority in the region.
By profiting from a stable and prosperous Pakistan I meant as one of its provinces… Details aside, I believe Kashmir has much to gain from being a part of a much larger and ready established nation such as Pak.