Re: Kashmir burns again as India responds to dissent with violenc
Balochistan is an internal territory of Pakistan. It would be akin to me broaching the subject of the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency; this is India’s internal affair and Pakistan has no locus standi in the matter. Kashmir, on the other hand, is an internationally recognised disputed territory; India’s claim of Kashmir being an integral part of the Union is not recognised by the UN or an affirmed claim under international law. You can see the difference.
On a side note, Balochistan is not a homogenous province. I believe the province contains more Pushtoons (who have no seperatist agenda) than the Balochis. The common Balochi, as of yet, has not taken up active resistance against the Pakistani state (the day this happens, Pakistan has lost Balochistan); trust me, the internet tends to suggest an over-alarmist situation in Balochistan. Things are bad, but not that bad. So far, the insurgency has been lead mostly by the tribal sardaars. It has not filtered down to the common man. This has happen in Indian-Occupied Kashmir (see my comment above about what happens when the common man takes up resistance in an insurgency).
You are right to suggest that symbols commemorating Pakistani identity are actively discouraged in parts of the province. Just last night, Balochi insurgents stopped and searched a bus, and shot all Punjabi travellers on board. This is creating friction with the Pushtoon of Balochistan; their Pushtunwali code prevents them from mistreating visitors to their land (and Punjabi teachers, doctors and professors are seen as just that).
You see? I can have a frank discussion about the situation in Balochistan because academic discussion has no room for jingoism. You should set aside your Indian patriotism and look at the issue objectively.
Pakistan is under no obligation to unilaterally do anything. In this day and age, such feats are met with nothing but disdain and seen as nothing but weakness. Certainly, the country has made mistakes in its administration of Azad Kashmir, but ultimately, its track records with the Kashmiris is countless times better than India’s excess in IOK. The proof is in the pudding; no large scale disturbances are seen on the Pakistani side of the LOC; no rioting, no protesting against the Pakistani state, and no stone throwing on the Pakistani army (in fact, the Azad Kashmir regiment is one of the largest in the Pakistani Army). The Pakistanis are not seen as occupiers.
Unfortunately, you have fallen into the same pitfall that so many Indians fall into. You have taken the current situation and effectively ignored it by compartmentalising the current unrest into an insignificant box. The labels you use it to identify the box are the same as all your politicians: ‘only a misguided and emotional majority of Sunni Kashmiris’, ‘concentrated in Kashmir Valley’ etc etc. You are wrong to suggest that the Kashmiris did not want independence 20 years ago. They did, but the armed uprising only began 20 years ago. Initially, Pakistan provided support for that uprising, but as I mentioned before, that support is now practically non-existent. The unrest is completely indigenous.
As for the Kashmiri pundits, any future plebiscite will have to take them into account. Controversy exists as to the real reasons behind the exodus of the pundits. The case isn’t so clear cut as ‘Muslims kicking Hindus out.’ With regards to Jammu and Laddakh, they were part of the Princely State of J&K, and part of the current state of J&K in your Indian Union. Obviously, if a plebiscite is held, the majority vote will count. The Hindus and Buddhists in these provinces are not significant enough in number (and would not be signficant enough in number even with the Pundits) to prevent a majority vote for independence.
Omar Abdullah is not a representative of the voice of the Kashmiri people. Just yesterday, a shoe was thrown at him by a Kashmiri policeman.
Pakistani law does not permit a Pakistani resident to aquire land in AJK. The Trans-Karakoram Tract was only temporarily ceded to China. It’s ultimate fate is to be decided with the final solution of the Kashmir dispute. The demographic balance in AJK has hardly changed; in fact, with the influx of refugees from IOK, the balance has shifted in favour of the Kashmiris and not the other way around as you would claim.