Thanks Sarsapilla, Infiniti. I am Pakistani (my parents emigrated) but have lived in the US all my life. I consider myself American but want to see Pakistan do well because of the ethnic tie and also because Pakistan doing well is in America's interests given the rise of Islamist terrorism and the use of Pakistan as the headquarters of Jihad, Inc. in recent years.
[QUOTE]
I don't think you care about Kashmiri self determination
[/QUOTE]
That depends on how you define care. If by care you mean whether I lose sleep over it then I don't care. If you mean that if I were ruler of the world would I give Kashmir a plebiscite? Yes--but I would do the same across the board. There are four areas in Russia and Georgia alone with separatist movements (Chechyna, Dagestan, South Ossetia, and Abhkazia).
[QUOTE]
You're mistakenly comparing secessionist movements with a faulty colonial partition where the rights of the Kashmiri peoples ability to decide their fate were usurped. Furthermore, the UN resolutions brought to the table by India, i might add, bring a historical precedence nd is an internationally recognized disputed territory.
No comparison with Baluchistan, Waziristan or even Quebec.
[/QUOTE]
That is your position and the Pakistani position. That is not the Indian position. Unless you can convince India of that you cannot get them to hold a vote. As far as India is concerned that is Indian territory. No country is going to voluntary cede a province.
The same could be applied to Pakistan. Pakistan was created out of the same colonial partition. Would you then favor a vote for Baluchistan and the NWFP? How about the Kurds? Did anyone ask them if they wanted to be part of Iraq when the British created "Iraq"? Tibet? And so on. This is the problem with allowing such a vote as far as other nations are concerned. If Kashmir is allowed such a vote why not Tibet, the Kurds, or the South Ossetians? This would affect two veto-wielding nations. Why would China or Russia allow a Kashmiri plebiscite given the implications it would have for them?
[QUOTE]
but that does not mean that we Pakistanis (Not YOU) give up on the issue. It is our moral responsibility to continue to bring the issue on the table and continue to fight the good (diplomatic) fight.
[/QUOTE]
At what cost? 60+ years of unending hostility, the constant threat of nuclear war, and the siphoning off of limited resources that are needed for social services and economic development for military purposes. Pakistan trades more with Afghanistan than India. This is ridiculous. India is a rising country. Pakistan is fortunately located next to the two rising Asian giants. It should tether itself economically to them and benefit from their rapid growth. In 50 years Pakistan will neighbor the two largest economies in the world. Do you propose Pakistan have no meaningful relationship with the second largest economy because of a quixotic Kashmir dream? What is Kashmir worth? It has no economic or strategic value.
[QUOTE]
On the flip side, you must concede that Kashmir is never and will never truly be a part of India. As the only Muslim majority state with a distinct culture that is more similar to Tibet, Pakistan's Northern Areas, Pakhtunkhwa..Kashmiris will never truly be a part of India. India will HAVE To continue to pour military and developmental resources to convince (coerece?) Kashmiris into becoming Indians with no sucess. Indian economic and political trajectory is hampered and will continue to be hampered by this regional issue.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Kashmir is useless. Only national pride keeps both Pakistan and India obsessed with it. India would be wise to give it up, or at least grant it independence and make peace with Pakistan.
Jammu is majority Hindu, Ladakh is majority Buddhist. Does the religious logic then mean these parts of Kashmir get a separate vote? Give Jammu to India, Ladakh to China? This is the logical extension of the notion that since Kashmir as a whole is Muslim it should be part of India. If the goal is truly self-determination why hasn't Pakistan proposed this? Perhaps this could be a basis for a deal. Allow India to keep Jammu and Ladakh and give the Kashmir Valley portion, where most people in Indian Kashmir live, to Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
While conevntionally the military match up there is no comparison, however lets not forget the winds of politics, future competition between India and China and various internal weaknesses within the Indian Union. Pakistan lost a great opportunity in '62, don't you forget it.
[/QUOTE]
The key difference between 62' and now is nuclear weapons. In 62' Pakistan would have had a good shot at taking Kashmir but even if China and India go to war today Pakistan would risk a nuclear war if it attempts to take Kashmir.
[QUOTE]
your hypothetical does not include the fact that India does have no first use policy when it comes to the Nukes. If that is set aside during times of war, surely you can expect an equally brutal Pakistani retaliation that will annihilate the nation known as India.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I believe an India-Pakistan war should never be fought for it can never truly be "won" by either side. The losing party would face immense political pressure to use nukes and the other side would retaliate. Is losing the major cities of both countries worth Kashmir?