Chatham House: Pakistan Option Unpopular with Kashmiris

Chatham House: Pakistan Option Unpopular with Kashmiris

May 28 – A study by Robert Bradrock, a scholar from London’s Kings College for Chatham House, has found just 2 percent of Kashmiris on the Indian side favor uniting the disputed Jammu and Kashmir territory with Pakistan, and that support amongst other groups to do so was also a minority view.
The study involved interviewing 3,774 people in both parts of Kashmir in September and October of 2009. The findings contradict common Pakistani state and media statements that most Kashmiris wish to join Pakistan.
The survey showed that 44 percent of people on the Pakistani side favored independence, compared to 43 percent in Indian Kashmir. The author says in the 37-page report on the survey that this would put an end to the option for a Kashmir-wide vote as a possible way to resolve the issue, since the only two options envisaged under the UN resolutions proposing this in 1948-49 were for the whole of Kashmir to join either India or Pakistan; independence was not an option.
In the valley, the mood for independence still remained strong, with 75 percent to 95 percent of respondents favoring it as a final resolution.
The poll showed no support either for joint sovereignty or for maintaining the status quo. More than 58 percent of those surveyed were prepared to accept the Line of Control as a permanent border if it could be liberalized for greater people-to-people contact and trade. According to the survey, only 8 percent opted against making the LoC a permanent boundary.
This entry was posted on Friday, May 28th, 2010 at 5:05 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
------------------------
21 Responses to “Chatham House: Pakistan Option Unpopular with Kashmiris”
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
May 29th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Who in the right frame of mind would vote to opt to join a country where democratic governments are rare and are routinely deposed by its military, a country where organizations like ISI report to neither the Government nor to the military, a country which establishes training camps for terrorists and foments destabilizing actions in neighboring countries like India and Afghanistan, a country that might fall to organizations Taliban or Al Qaeda any moment?
Pakistan is a country which has no connection between its rulers (who have no qualms of receiving billions from USA in aid and siphoning a major portion of it to build their own fiefdoms) and its citizen who hate USA!
No wonder they would rather have a status quo!
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
May 29th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Chatham House should conduct another poll by giving only three choice:
1. Join Pakistan
2. Join India
3. Status Quo
The results might be very interesting…..
------------------------
The_Observer Says:
May 29th, 2010 at 8:10 am
The title is biased. This study is actually saying that the Kashmiris really want independence for the whole of Kashmir and not to be ruled either by India or Pakistan.
This is one of the unresolved issues left over from the British Empire in India.
------------------------
The_Observer Says:
May 31st, 2010 at 10:49 am
@K B Kale
Your multiple choice misses one selection. If you are arguing on the point of what the people of Kashmir want then the option that the whole of Kashmir be granted its independence is a legitimate one? That way the Kashmiris can deal with India and Pakistan on an equal footing.
------------------------
Chris Devonshire-Ellis Says:
May 31st, 2010 at 1:08 pm
The results appear to demonstrate that the indigenous population want independence. That, based upon the model of the British Empire hand back would appear to be the morally correct one. So why is that as an option apparently not on the cards and why is a 62 year old UN resolution standing in the way? – Chris
------------------------
Lone Star Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:55 am
Creating a small islamic nation sandwitched between India, china and Pakistan will be a disastrous move. A mini afghanistan is written all over it. At least the Indian Kashmiris enjoy Indians protecting them from Taliban, LeT, Al qaida etc. It will turn into a Kandhahar in no time with independence. scary indeed
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Plebiscite was to be taken to choose between merger with India or Pakistan. No state was given the freedom of remaining independent. By the same norm, Baluchistan would be a nation today!
I still feel that J&K could decide whether they wish to merge with democratic India or intermittent dictatorship in Pakistan!
Why can’t Pakistanis swallow the will of the people?
------------------------
The_Observer Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 7:29 am
@Lone Star
Why should the religion of the Kashmiri people be a bar to their independence? You could put forward the argument that it would actually be great for there to be a buffer state between India and Pakistan, i.e put some distance between the two. If you get both India and Pakistan to agree to Kashmir’s independence I’m sure the Kashmiri’s would want to remove any Jihadists themselves and defend their own borders. This could take place under the auspices of the UN and the US which could act mid-wives to such an undertaking. The US because it has interests in both India and Pakistan and can act as an “honest broker” (for once). That then frees Pakistan from worries on her eastern front and would remove the excuse of not helping out NATO more in Afghanistan.
@K B Kale
You are being disingenuous. First it was India who didn’t implement that original plebiscite and decided to absorb Kashmir into India instead. You then compounded your inconsistency by using a loaded question. I doubt if any new plebiscite with a limited choice would be considered fair by the Kashmiris or by the world community in general.
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 11:01 am
At the time of partition, all states were given only two choices viz. either join India or join Pakistan. If the choice of ‘independence’ was also given, we would be having 50-odd states of “United States of India”!
The UN Resolution you referred to also had a precondition of Pakistan vacating its encroachment on the occupied part of Kashmir State that Raja Hari Singh merged with India. Pakistan never kept their part of the bargain! All Pakistanis who are good in history know this but feign ignorance!
Anyway, today the erstwhile Hindus have been terrorized to flee their own State, so plebiscite is meaningless as a sizable part of the original Kashmiri population is in India.
Anyway, if Pakistan ever vacates its aggression thus allowing the plebiscite to be taken, it will have to be for either merger with India or Pakistan.
I hope this covers all areas of the arguments.
The fact is that in the “Chatham House poll” hardly any Kashmiri on either side of the “Line of Control” has shown ‘enthusiasm’ to merge with Pakistan. For Indians, it is not surprising, but difficult for Pakistanis to digest!
It is time Pakistanis become introvert and try to get another “freedom” from the Military and establish a good democratic government so that there would be some enthusiasm amongst the Kashmiris to even consider a merger with Pakistan. It’s time Pakistan becomes mature enough to take corrective actions at home!
------------------------
showkat Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I am a Kashmiri living in Indian part of Kashmir.
i respect all the views expressed here. people living in india and pakistan try to draw their own conclusions from the survey.
as a state subject, given choice, i would NOT prefer to join Pakistan. apart from religion there seems to be no reason for this bond and if i have to go by the religion then I am better of with Indonesia or Saudi Arabia or Malaysia or a host of other countries that are at the top of the list than to go to the bottom of the list.
this is what the survey has shown, but let us not draw conclusions at this point. let us take one more step and then analyse the results.
if u go back to my ‘choices’ you will find there are actually no choices mentioned there. THIS IS THE MAIN POINT I WISH TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO.
everybody is highlighting the 2 percent figure, but if u r honest then u need to juxtapose this 2% with the 95% figure as well.
if I am given to choose from independence or Pak I will surely choose independence, but at the same time if I am given to choose from India or Pak I will choose Pak.
Now try to draw conclusions from this!
------------------------
The_Observer Says:
June 5th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@K B Kale
So the Indians would be happy to have their country the way the British put their Empire in India together. What are you trying to say, that India reconstitute that? You would have to include Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim (oops! Forgot India already grabbed that last one). You would also have to step on China’s toes for parts of Tibet (oh, you are doing that already in AP). You would have thought that the Indians would be grateful to the British for India’s large landmass, the English language, the railways, civil service and common law but they often grumble about the British. If there was one mistake the British made it is the following. From my understanding of the history of Indian and Pakistani independence there was a lot of movement of Muslims in one direction and Hindus in the other just before independence. There was communal fighting and many died.
But back to the present. There is precedence for large minorities to break away from unwieldy country setups. The Americans and NATO started it in the former Yugoslavia and The Russians played mid-wife and delivered South Ossetia from Georgie.
Likewise, as the Indians got their independence from Britain, I think the Kashmiris should be given the opportunity to VOTE for theirs. And it should not be a restricted poll as that would be biased. The real will of the current voter population should be reflected in the final tally not the least worse of a restricted choice.
Think about it if India grants Kashmir independence she would have a buffer state between yourselves and Pakistan. India could remove a large number of troops there and with the savings improve the already fast growing Indian economy. India could also spend more time and resources cultivating cultural, diplomatic and economic ties with fellow S. Asian countries.
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
June 6th, 2010 at 10:53 am
This is becoming one-on-one dialogue, so this is my last response.
I am too small a man to go into a fresh procedure of solving Kashmir problem from the stage of “an undivided India”!
I was basically referring to the results of the Chatham House poll where I read about the reluctance of Kashmiris to merge with Pakistan. All Pakistanis should think of the reasons.
I don’t know whether you are a Pakistani citizen, but I genuinely admire Pakistanis! A country where democracy has existed more or less like punctuation marks between series of military dictatorships (Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia Ul-Haq and Musharraf) talks loudest about people’s will elsewhere!
So carry on and good luck to you all!!!
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Dear Mr Showkat,
I am happy to receive a comment from a Kashmiri person.
But I am confused as to what you wish to say! At one place you say, “as a state subject, given choice, i would NOT prefer to join Pakistan” and at another place you say,”if I am given to choose from India or Pak I will choose Pak”.
Anyway, I had drawn my conclusions which were confirmed by Chatham House report. It is case similar to Quebecois demand for a separate state. When a poll was held, the separatist party lost the vote!
------------------------
showkat kreeri Says:
June 8th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
dEAR K.B.KALE SAHIB
I am sorry to say, but if u had rather keenly read my post you’d have noticed that the point u r raising has already been raised and answered by me in the same post itself:
“if u go back to my ‘choices’ you will find there are actually no choices mentioned there. THIS IS THE MAIN POINT I WISH TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO”
when u say choose, u got to give options. when i say ‘given choice’ i did not mention the options ‘to choose from’.
To put it simply:
When options are
1. India
2. Pakistan
3. Independence
i will NOT go for Pakistan (i will choose Independence)
But if options are
1. India
2. Pakistan
then i will go with Pakistan
IT IS NOT THE ‘OPTION CHOSEN’ ALONE THAT MATTERS.
THE VARIETY OF OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM ALSO MATTER.
IN THE CASE OF THIS SURVEY YOU HAVE TO READ IT IN THE COMPLETE CONTEXT SO AS NOT TO GET MISLEAD BY THE RESULTS, PEOPLE SO VEHEMENTLY DEBATE ABOUT HERE.
PS: People here discuss the issue using hatred for each other. I am the sufferer of Kashmir problem, but i still consider Indians and Pakistanis my lost brothers.You can be good patriots even without hating the other country and their folk.I hope i did not offend anybody here.
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
June 12th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Dear Mr. Showkat,
Sorry for delay in responding. Was busy with some urgent work.
I believe none of us are ready to open the proverbial Pandora’s Box by opening the third “independence” choice! Not me, at least!!
The British left mainly because they were too weak to continue to run their empire after two consecutive wars, viz. WW-1 and WW-2, wore them down fully. They didn’t motivate us Indians to split their country. We did it-rightly or wrongly- all by ourselves.
Now we go back to the times of partition. There were innumerable Princely States in the then undivided India. The areas which were beyond the Princely States were split on the basis of population. But the Princely States were given a choice to either merge with India or Pakistan. None was given the choice of remaining independent because, purely for selfish reasons so that they could continue to rule, the Princes would have liked that.
So I had said we give only these two choices.
But today taking a plebiscite is meaningless because the Hindu population of J&K has been forced out from their homes.
If J&K wants to have the third choice of total independence and if it is given, it will doubtless open the Pandora’s Box because many states in Pakistan and India would voice their desire to be independent, particularly the rich states including mine.
Anyway, we are discussing hypotheses. A plebiscite is meaningless as a major portion of the Kashmiri population which was supposed to vote is no more in Kashmir. And Pakistan has not vacated the occupied part of the Valley as required as a pre-requisite to plebiscite.
But hypothetically if the opinion poll is taken about choosing India or Pakistan, despite the rhetoric of the type you have written, the sane section of Kashmiri population will vote to merge with India because Pakistan is not worth merging with.
I am sure Kashmiris know which side of the bread is buttered.
------------------------
dr hamidwani Says:
July 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am
there has been lot of blood shed here in the subcontient since the partation especially in the name of kashmir. the time has come to resolve this issue for sake of all the people who own the kashmir irrespective of religion. what i support is tha whole J&k which is kashmir on both sides of border ,leh/ladak & the part gifted by pakistan to china must be vaccated from the armies/security forces/police of all the occuping countries for a period of 10 yrs & shall be under control of UNO. let all migrants return to thier homeland & then after 10 yrs let there be honest refrendum as to what the people want & respect that.
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
July 9th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Dear Dr Hamidwani,
I can say that your suggestion looks like a logical solution and I could feel your honesty and sincerity in making this suggestion, but unfortunately it is more of a dream!
Non-Muslim migrants are unlikely to return for the fear of their lives; the very reason they left in the first place. I have many close Hindu friends who have left in this way and they say they can never return unless there is peace first in the valley.
So now it is “a hen or an egg” situation.
If Kashmir is permanently split along the current LoC and if LoC is accepted as an international border and if the militancy, either orchestrated or genuine, stops, there can be no progress towards peace.
Too many ‘if’s, isn’t it?
It is unfortunate, but that is the ground reality.
dr hamidwani Says:
July 10th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
then the unwanted blood shed will continue. I feel Great Britian has to play greater role in solving this ‘humane’ ,issuse as it was created by them. we kashmiris have been suffering sine 1931. do something please !!!
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
July 10th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
The division of India on religious basis was not British idea, but it was mooted by (if I remember right) Muslim League and Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Quaid-e-Azam) was the spearhead of this movement. So why bother the Brits?
That time, only two choices were on the table for the Princely States namely: merge with India or merge with Pakistan. Rightly or wrongly, it was not left to the people of these Princely States, but the rulers of these Princely States to deciede. Raja Hari Singh decided to merge with India.
No choice of “Independent States” was available.
So Kashmiris can vote for one of these two choics if ever a plebiscite is held which stipulates some pre-conditions which will never be fulfilled. That is why I said that plebiscite is a dream, a good dream. The Chatham report suggests that Kashmiris would prefer to be in India than in Pakistan. A very prudent choice, I must add.
If Plebiscite is ever held on the basis of these choices (miracles CAN happen!), I am sure that Kashmiris will vote for merger with India. Again a very prudent choice, I must add.
Who would choose to live in Pakistan by one’s own choice?
So my recommendation stands! Divide the J&K State at LoC and live happily ever after.
I have no more to add to this dialogue now.
------------------------
Carlos Says:
July 11th, 2010 at 3:51 am
If EVER India has to give up Kashmir, it will be only the Valley not Jammu or Ladakh. That too, after sealing off borders effectively to prevent Islamic terrorists from Kashmir and Pakistan from trying to enter India.
Also, after destroying ALL infrastructure created in Kashmir with Indian money.
Muslim Kashmiris deserve Porkistan. Its their Allah given right to be become jihadis and be martryed. They don’t deserve anything better.
------------------------
K B Kale Says:
July 12th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
No, Mr Carlos, this is no way to write and drive our Kashmiri brethren away from us.
They will see the futility of armed struggle and jihads and stop it and return to our fold. But if we write like this, they will be turned off towards India.
------------------------