kashmir (was Re: [lbo-talk] Al-Qaeda agents...)

[ravi]

uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
> ravi wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 

well, i presented [above] the facts as i understand them. and i provided
further reasoning on why i believe these facts suggest that a referendum
(that provides as a choice at least some strong form of autonomy) is a
fair solution. if you have a different set of facts or a different
interpretation, please do correct me... i am not even sure if and where
you disagree with my words!


> 2. There is never going to be a referendum in Kashmir, even if India
> was legally or morally required to do so.

perhaps. but again, what are we debating here? what the real world
possibilities are? if so, yes it is very probable that india's political
and military power might protect it from having to do the morally right
thing. however, i made my initial post to address the issue of the
justification of the claims of minority/regional groups/communities, not
the realpolitik of the situation today.

	--ravi