> > 1. You have not explained why India should hold a referendum in Kashmir.
> the british installed a hindu ruler over
> the predominantly muslim kashmir. it can be claimed that it was his
> religious identity that caused him to vascillate on the choice of which
> of the two new nations to join. it seems clear that even he preferred to
> not join either nation. i am not sure what the thoughts of the majority
> muslims he ruled over, were. further, there seems to be some technical
> questions surrounding the time of signing of the accession and the
> landing of indian troops in kashmir (in response to pashtun attacks).
> also, if i understand the history correctly, india agreed to a
> plebiscite in 1947, and a plebiscite/referendum has been called for by
> the UN multiple times.
1. India is not required hold a plebiscite/referendum in Kashmir. I suggest you ascertain the facts and the legal position about Kashmir's accession.
2. There is never going to be a referendum in Kashmir, even if India was legally or morally required to do so.
Ulhas