Should Kashmir just be a seperate country?

Should Kashmir be an indpendent country?

  • Total voters
    40
WarMachine

WarMachine

Active member
Due to poor boundry settlements on the part of the British and Indians during the independence of the indian sub continent, this entire province has experienced nothing but troubles. Now India, China and Pakistan lay claim to this region, would it be better to just make it a neutral country and let the people there get on with their lives?
 
No, India and Pakistan need to resolve this issue amongst themselves and China's claims are quite frankly ludicrous, they are simply trying to make a grab for territory. This is an issue that Pakistan and India need to resolve together, through discussion because a peace in the Kashmir will go along ways towards a much more permanent peace than they currently have.
 
Its primary source of income is agriculture and tourism. The reason there's conflict over it is because there's a problem with who actually controls it. Pakistan was supposed to received all the surrounded majority muslim areas but kashmir's ruler agreed to give control to India. They've been fighting over who was the rightful government for awhile now. China got involved since Pakistan ceded a part of their claim to them which made no sense and was done when China and India didn't get along. Look at this to learn more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir
 
Independent country? are you joking? ... Imagine if tomorrow Mexico attacked USA suddenly without USA having any idea and in this process took away Arizona and New Mexico. Now there have been conflics between USA and Mexico over who should get those two provinces.
Suppose after 50 years I asked a question similar to this question here...

Should Arizona and New Mexico be a separate country?

What would be your answer then?
 
The Indian Continent used to have as many separate kingdoms as Europe had before Britain unified it as one State. Now would either India or Pakistan stand for Kashmir being a separate Country, personally I don't think so as this could well open the floodgates for similar requests
 
I don't think freeing the sweater will change the situation. China, India, and Pakistan will still fight to annex it.
 
Kashmir isn't that great of a province, there's no valuable resources there and it costs a lot of money to keep troops there because of the elevation. If it were seperate then Pakistan and Indian could act in its mutual defense and actually work together on something for once. This could all be resolved with strong international support and support at home in those countries. Think about it, the UN might finally be able do something meaningful diplomatically rather than just sign a truce ever once in a while.
 
Thanks Italian Guy.

Seems warmachine did not read my post in this thread. I need an answer.

If India should work with Pakistan and do something constructive, then I should say USA should work with Taliban and do something constructive for once.
 
An answer towards that arizona and new mexico situation? Here's my answer, they belong to the USA pure and simple because Mexico has had no control over them for over a century.

The reason why kashmir is different is because it's a muslim majority area and pakistan was guaranteed all the muslim majority areas contiguous to it. It was given over to India instead and both sides have claims to it that are hard to dispute, because no one had controlled it for a long time. The British should have seen this coming but just assumed it would be resolved sometime.

I don't think that pakistan and india working together would be a bad thing since ethnic tensions in both countries would die down a bit and pakistan can actually concentrate their resources on tribal insurgencies rather than manning posts 20,000 feet high. India would benefit as well because their muslims are targeted for violence by entire communities with deadly riots breaking out periodically.

Not to mention their nukes, not cool at all if they were ever used in another war between the two heavily populated countries.
 
War Machine....How long did Mexico exert control over places Texas,Arizona and New Mexico. Are you saying that once a country has held a peice for 100 years or more they entitled to keep it no matter what. Now about the British should have seen this coming, well when we were running India all these places were run by India. When it came time for us to leave a certain party a Mr Jenner I think it was wanted an independent Muslim state. Now Gandhi bent over back wards to try and stop this happening and offered all sorts of concession to Jenner but with out avail. Things then boiled over and caused one of the largest mass migrations the world had ever seen. Also the blood letting, on both sides was massive. Now Kashmir was awarded in the negotiation to India but the country split down religious lines and the only answer is to have a settlement along the current cease fire lines. The bits that India has she keeps and the bits that Pakistan has they keep and end it there. The only thing then to do is to try and stop the local population taking pot shots at each other and causing a further incident.
 
Last edited:
The difference was that when mexico controlled those states when no one lived there. The united states came in and populated the western part ofthe country, before that it was territory as worthwhile as Alaska. That settled who controlled the area.

Kashmir is different though since it could be like nepal or bhutan where it's in the norhern part of the sub continent but influenced by a few powers. I know pakistan was created by separatists, but that is a decision made in the past and people have to deal with the situation now.

Believe me i would like to see an agreement over the demarcation of kashmir and let the problem rest, but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Rather than have another split in a province like Punjab, perhaps leaving it intact and independent is the wiser choice. After all what would either country gain from controlling the region? Nothing more then if they didn't control it.

It would be nice to think that the subcontinent can get along and that kashmir can be settled, but people just have problems letting things go in these sort of situations, it's sad but there are other solutions.
 
Free the sweater, and Taiwan can have all the damn Kashmir bouquets that plague my yard.

ON that note, the country's likely to be annexed to somebody else sooner or later after it's formally a separate entity anyway, so...
 
Enough of this comparison between Kashmir and the Southwest. There is one huge fact that is being overlooked when comparing these two locations. First Texas won a victory over Mexico to get their independence and then after years of arguing over the border the US annexed Texas (up to the Rio Grande) and clearly beat the hell out of Mexico forcing them to not only give up Texas but the entire Southwest. Neither India nor Pakistan has gained a clear victory over the other so neither can dictate how the lines shall be drawn.
 
Kashmir originally was one of the hundreds of princely states in the British Raj. Come independence the ruler of kashmir wanted to have his kingdom a seperate state as well. Because of pakistani tribals nearly overcoming his regime, he asked for military assistance on behalf of india if kashmir joined the country, which they did. It's all very messy after which involved pakistan and india fighting each other.

The point is that kashmir was trying to be independent in the first place and it looks feasible that the region can be a seperate state if it wanted to be. It isn't fully integrated into any country so there's hope that there can be some sort of agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top