Kashmir ; a Lost Paradise

Kashmir Ð'-- a beautiful mountain state with clear rivers, evergreen forests and one of the highest death rates in the world. It is at the center of an age-old dispute between Pakistan and India that has dragged on from the independence of both nations over fifty years ago to the present time, with no resolution in sight. The combined population of the two nation totals over a billion, so no conflict between them is of passing importance, especially when nuclear weapons are involved. Pakistan and India share a common heritage, language, and traditions, yet the subject of Kashmir can push them to the brink of annihilation. Fifty years of animosity have built up as a result. A proxy war still brews in Kashmir, claiming dozens of lives every day, running up a casualty total over time into the hundred thousands. Kashmiris have suffered untold horrors and Kashmir has the notorious reputation of being one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints.

Pakistan and India both believe they have valid claims on Kashmir. If looked at logically and ethically, only Pakistan's claim can stand up to scrutiny. Successive Pakistani leaders have referred to Kashmir as the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, a fact reported on the Indian Embassy's Note on Kashmir. This refers to the major rivers originating in the Kashmir Valley on which Pakistan is critically dependent. India has little right on Kashmir, as each of their arguments, if not legally, is morally wrong.

We can start by recounting history, where the roots of the conflict lie. India was one massive nation made up of several states, ruled by the British. A long and difficult independence struggle culminated with the British choosing to leave India in August 1947. The Muslims of the land decided that instead of just a Free India, they would create a Free Pakistan for themselves as well. They were fearful that as a minority, the Hindu majority would trample their rights and religion. Both countries would be formed as soon as the British handed back control in August. The rulers of each individual state constituting India would chose which country to join, hopefully following the wishes of its people. This idea was fraught with problems. There were quite a few states that had a majority of one religion yet the ruler belonged to another faith. The states of Hyderabad and Junagarh were examples of this. Both had Hindu majorities and Muslim rulers. They both choose not to join India, but as their intentions were made public, the Indian army marched on and annexed the states. They removed the ruler of Junagarh and placed a "Provisional Government" in place, then used the excuse of "restoring law and order" to invade and hold a farcical plebiscite, which choose India. "India sought to justify its aggressionÐ'...on the plea that the rulers of Junagarh and Hyderabad were acting against the wishes of their people" states the report on Kashmir released by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. Keep this excuse in mind as you read on; the rulers of the states were acting against the will of the people, so India felt it had the moral right to interfere.

In Kashmir, the roles were reversed. The ruler was Hindu with a Muslim majority. Anticipating that the ruler would chose India, the people rose against him, and with the support of Pakistani tribesmen, ousted the ruler and set up their own government. Now the irony of the situation is that while the Indians did the exact same thing in Junagarh, they could not accept the state of affairs in Kashmir. The provisional government of Kashmir chose Pakistan, and a few days later the ousted ruler of Kashmir signed over the state to India, despite no longer being technically in power. The Indian army then invaded, with the Pakistani army following suit, and war broke out between the fledgling nations. The United Nations intervened in 1948 and set up a shaky ceasefire temporarily splitting Kashmir into Indian-held and Pakistani held areas. As the countries were divided in August 1947, millions of people were stranded on the wrong side of the border. There were huge massacres, massive looting and bloodshed as people tried to cross to their country of choice. Hindus were massacring Muslims in India, and Muslims were doing the same to Hindus in Pakistan. The death toll was estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Pakistan ended up with one-third of Kashmir and both India and Pakistan's economies were shattered by the cost of supporting war so early on in their existence

India claims that the rebels in Kashmir were not local, but actually Pakistan army officers and that the people of Kashmir themselves were fighting on the Indian side Ð'-- that they wanted to join India. One look at this argument reveals its faults. At that time, over 80% of the population were Muslim. People chose sides mostly according to their religion, and so Pakistan would have been the country of their choice. Although this logic may seem false on its own, with support it makes sense; how could Pakistan force their rule on an unwilling people, without objection? Surely an invasion by the small Pakistan army had to have some support from the locals otherwise how could it possibly have succeeded in holding off the much larger Indian army? Take the Indian argument that the legal ruler of Kashmir at the time was the Hindu prince rather than the provisional government that supported Pakistan. We can ignore the fact that the provisional government officially chose Pakistan before the prince chose India, meaning the Indian argument appears valid. Yet the situation in Junagarh was almost exactly the same, and to support the provisional government there and reject the one in Kashmir seems hypocritical. How can a nation apply certain rules to one and completely opposite rules for the other? If India believes its claim on Kashmir is valid for historic reasons, then it has no moral right to rule the state of Junagarh. You cannot have both states, without being fundamentally wrong in one state. Any Indian argument based on historical legality therefore falls flat in the face of such hypocrisy.

If we fast-forward to the present time, we see that the violent and bloody birth of Kashmir has led to an equally violent situation. The peaceful struggle for change over the years turned brutal by the end of 1989. The violence was "sparked in part by India's blatant rigging of an election in the state," says Peter Bienart, a writer for the New Republic magazine. The people had found that their methods for gaining political freedom were coming to naught. Several militant groups formed, and organized planned attacks on Indian military targets. These groups were on the extreme ends on the struggle for freedom, which remained largely peaceful. Kashmiris could not take Indian oppression and fought harder for change. The Indians responded