| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Some new insights into Kashmir |
| 2008-08-10 |
| Book review by Khaled Ahmed: Demystifying Kashmir by Navnita Chadha Beher Author Behera is 'impartial' on a subject on which Indians and Pakistanis can't shake off their nationalist positions. Pakistanis have lost the international community on their cause and nothing they say is considered right; the Indians used to present a closed mind to what they thought was a world convinced of the Pakistani case, but now they can feel easy looking closely at the Indian warts. The logic of losing and winning has emphasised realism and the Pakistanis are lost when their nose is rubbed into it. The book still looks anti-Pakistan but what can one do if Pakistan has been mostly wrong? The book begins by taking account of India's aim to gobble up the hundreds of states left unrealistically behind by the British in 1947. Pakistanis worked on the principle of 'Muslim majority' contiguous areas that could be roped in to swell up the territory inside Pakistan. India threatened the states with the label of hostile states till 551 of them acceded in three weeks. VP Menon and Sardar Patel pulled off the coup, but Kashmir remained on the brink, with a Hindu maharaja ruling uneasily over a majority Muslim population. Nehru was personally involved there because of the great Kashmiri Sheikh Abdullah who was close to the Nehruvian ideal of secularism. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #10 What are the Pakis gonna do with river sources? If they have the ability to poison the rivers it doesn't matter if they control the source or not. jihadis high in the mountain are no different than Jihadis in any other neighbor. There is nothing special about the high altitude. At the ranges we're talking because of hte altitude any attacks from kashimir into India would be wild, random, and virtually worthless and attacking armies don't gain speed as they race downhill, they instead increase the wear and tear on their vehicles and extend their supply lines because Kashmir is out of hte way. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-10 23:36 |
| #9 In addition, India will not allow the source of many of its major rivers to fall into the hands of a hostile state. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-10 17:01 |
| #8 The Himalayas are a wall that protects the Indian subcontinent from China. They are strategic to India. All those mountain valleys empty out onto the Gangetic plains. What do the Indians do when the valleys turn into jihadi training areas from which the population centers on the plains are attacked? |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-10 16:35 |
| #7 High ground is meaningless in this context. High ground is a tactical concern, not a strategic one. This ground is so high and so far from anything it couldn't be used against an enemy any more than capturing the top of the Himalayas could. Kashmir is not "on the way" anywhere and is in effect a side-track between in India and Pakistan. In fact controlling this high terrority in Kashmir is a problem, not an asset. The concept of high ground when used regarding kashmir is simply propoganda because its the easiest explanation to those that aren't sure what it really means. Both sides want Kashmir for face-saving reasons and not for any tactical rational. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-10 16:21 |
| #6 The Kashmir valley relies on the tax revenue from Jammu and the direct funding from Delhi. They know who butters their bread. They will however continue to agitate, since that keeps the gravy train running. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-10 12:32 |
| #5 Given that it's much better to be a Muslim or anything else in India than Pakistan -- except for that whole dhimmitude thingy for the untermenschen, of course -- any Muslim in the region who cannot see reality ought to be written off as not qualified to have an opinion. That said, those who don't see reality agreed to even by thinking Pakistanis will not be persuaded by propaganda outside of what their religious leaders manage to find in the Koran or the Hadiths. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-10 11:40 |
| #4 Kashmir is not worthless tactically. India will not surrender the high ground and leave the Gangetic plains vulnerable to attack. It will not surrender the source of the major rivers. 'Kashmir' is Hindu Jammu, Muslim Kashmir and Buddhist Ladakh. The actual valley itself (with its Muslim population) only occupies a small part of J+K state. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-08-10 08:05 |
| #3 For a good laugh, read Mushy's Bio for his pseudo explanation of the Kargil fiasco. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-08-10 05:48 |
| #2 Give Kashmir a few years of jihadi control and they will be just as anxious as the Iraqi Sunnis to get rid of them. But a lot folks will die in the meantime. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-08-10 03:36 |
| #1 Personally I favor India over Pakistan but if you put things to a vote in Kashmir I think the bulk would vote to join Pakistan. I could be wrong and the ethnic makeup may have changed (at least on the Indian side of the line of control) but I dont think so. So having said that India is in the wrong. Kashimir is worthless tactically (despite what Indians and Pakistani's will tell you about high ground) and the ongoing fighting has ruined its potential a vacation spot so it's worthless doubled. India really needs a propaganda offensive to convince the Muslims, on both sides, that being a Muslim in India is a good thing. That there are more Muslims in India than in any other country in the world and they are well treated and semi-prosperous. Probably wont' undo the Jihadi brainwashing but they need to do it anyway. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-10 01:37 |