The BBC's "Have Your Say" program was on the topic of the Arab protests and there were more than a few calls from Bahrain. The points of view were kind of split down the middle - with one group of Bahrainis - especially an expat in Britain taking the position that the protesters were vandals and ingrates - destroying malls and the like and ignoring the fact that the regime had provided economic growth, healthcare and housing for all Bahrainis. The others obviously were all "the regime must fall".
Are the Al Khalifa family better at media management than Mubarak? Are the pro regime people right about growth and housing and healthcare? Or is it just that the Sunni population are more articulate? Is there an Iranian hand here and the protests an attempt to unseat the Al Khalifa family?
Dr. Cole,
I have to take exception to your statement that India annexed Kashmir. It oversimplifies things.
Kashmir's ruler was a Hindu, and Kashmir was muslim majority state at that time.
Pakistan backed tribes invaded Kashmir, fearing that the Raja would accede to India - something that actually forced the King's hand - He wanted troops to repel the invasion, which the Indian government used to get an accession out of him. The Kashmir accession to the Indian Government was possibly more legal than the Hyderabadi accession.
If you look at the state - Jammu and Kashmir - the Indian portion is primarily made of Hindu majority Jammu, Buddhist majority Ladakh and Muslim majority Valley.
Pakistans slice contains "Azad Kashmir", Gilgit & Baltistan and the Northern terroitories.
If you go by this study, (commissioned by Gaddafi's son!) the breakup on the basis of polls is presented here.
Option
% Preference
Independence: 43%
Join India: 21%
Join Pakistan: 15%
LoC Made permanent: 14%
That 43% is concentrated in some parts of the Kashmir valley, and Ladakh and Jammu do not favour independence.
Say you want to do the right thing, how do you decide what it is? If you hold a plebiscite – and the results are as above – is the plebiscite conclusive?
The districts with the maximum support for an independent Kashmir are Srinagar(82%) and Anantnag(74%), while the districts with the least support for joining India are Poonch(6%), Baramulla(2%), Rajaur (0%), Srinagar (8%), AnantNag (22%) and Badgam(10%). The other districts have clear majorities wanting to remain part of India.
In Azad Kashmir(PoK) 44% want Independence and 50% want accession to Pakistan. It’s much more straightforward there, but a consolidated picture is less conclusive(Table 1).
If the right thing to do is give the state up - it is after all the wish of the largest % of Kashmiris, can Pakistan let go?
Now, there are a few caveats with the survey results - and they are quite indicative. In PoK, the polls only cover Azad Kashmir and the Northern Territories, and not Gilgit Baltistan, where the sentiment against the Pakistani government is much higher. Similarly there are a couple of districts in J&K where the desire for independence is higher than some of the districts polled. It would be fair to say that overall, the survey errs on the lower side of support for an independent united Kashmir.
Please remember that China too has annexed a portion of Kashmir - the Aksai Chin, and was also given a gift a large part of Gilgit Baltistan by Pakistan.
Another thing that is seldom mentioned is the issues on the Pakistani side of Kashmir - and how the Pakis tani Government funds only those groups fighting for a united Islamic Pakistani Kashmir - The LeT, Harkat Mujahideen etc and has sidelined or undermined secular groups like the JKLF.
Ultimately, Kashmir under India is more useful to Pakistan than an independent Kashmir. It allows Pakistan to blame the RAW for destabilizing Pakistan and funding terrorism and civil unrest.
My personal view is that this is a classic prisoner's dilemma. India does not trust Pakistan not to invade Kashmir if Indian troops pull out. Pakistan does not trust India not to reclaim PoK if it demilitarizes. Neither state is really interested in an independent Kashmir - though I suspect India will not really have issues unless Kashmir goes to Pakistan. Another thing that Indians feel strongly about is the ethnic cleansing (and this is not hyperbole) of the Kashmiri pandit community since the 80s.
Ultimately its a dance - neither side desires progress over the status quo. Maybe Obama understands that. And also maybe the fact that India is buying a phenomenal amount of defence equipment has something to with it.
The BBC's "Have Your Say" program was on the topic of the Arab protests and there were more than a few calls from Bahrain. The points of view were kind of split down the middle - with one group of Bahrainis - especially an expat in Britain taking the position that the protesters were vandals and ingrates - destroying malls and the like and ignoring the fact that the regime had provided economic growth, healthcare and housing for all Bahrainis. The others obviously were all "the regime must fall".
Are the Al Khalifa family better at media management than Mubarak? Are the pro regime people right about growth and housing and healthcare? Or is it just that the Sunni population are more articulate? Is there an Iranian hand here and the protests an attempt to unseat the Al Khalifa family?
The BBC link is http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2011/02/protests_in_bahrain_libya_and.html
Dr. Cole, Aren't the security forces in Bahrain imported Pakistani Sunnis given fast track citizenship - and isn't that a cause for friction as well?
Dr. Cole,
I have to take exception to your statement that India annexed Kashmir. It oversimplifies things.
Kashmir's ruler was a Hindu, and Kashmir was muslim majority state at that time.
Pakistan backed tribes invaded Kashmir, fearing that the Raja would accede to India - something that actually forced the King's hand - He wanted troops to repel the invasion, which the Indian government used to get an accession out of him. The Kashmir accession to the Indian Government was possibly more legal than the Hyderabadi accession.
If you look at the state - Jammu and Kashmir - the Indian portion is primarily made of Hindu majority Jammu, Buddhist majority Ladakh and Muslim majority Valley.
Pakistans slice contains "Azad Kashmir", Gilgit & Baltistan and the Northern terroitories.
If you go by this study, (commissioned by Gaddafi's son!) the breakup on the basis of polls is presented here.
Option
% Preference
Independence: 43%
Join India: 21%
Join Pakistan: 15%
LoC Made permanent: 14%
That 43% is concentrated in some parts of the Kashmir valley, and Ladakh and Jammu do not favour independence.
Say you want to do the right thing, how do you decide what it is? If you hold a plebiscite – and the results are as above – is the plebiscite conclusive?
The districts with the maximum support for an independent Kashmir are Srinagar(82%) and Anantnag(74%), while the districts with the least support for joining India are Poonch(6%), Baramulla(2%), Rajaur (0%), Srinagar (8%), AnantNag (22%) and Badgam(10%). The other districts have clear majorities wanting to remain part of India.
In Azad Kashmir(PoK) 44% want Independence and 50% want accession to Pakistan. It’s much more straightforward there, but a consolidated picture is less conclusive(Table 1).
If the right thing to do is give the state up - it is after all the wish of the largest % of Kashmiris, can Pakistan let go?
Now, there are a few caveats with the survey results - and they are quite indicative. In PoK, the polls only cover Azad Kashmir and the Northern Territories, and not Gilgit Baltistan, where the sentiment against the Pakistani government is much higher. Similarly there are a couple of districts in J&K where the desire for independence is higher than some of the districts polled. It would be fair to say that overall, the survey errs on the lower side of support for an independent united Kashmir.
Please remember that China too has annexed a portion of Kashmir - the Aksai Chin, and was also given a gift a large part of Gilgit Baltistan by Pakistan.
Another thing that is seldom mentioned is the issues on the Pakistani side of Kashmir - and how the Pakis tani Government funds only those groups fighting for a united Islamic Pakistani Kashmir - The LeT, Harkat Mujahideen etc and has sidelined or undermined secular groups like the JKLF.
Ultimately, Kashmir under India is more useful to Pakistan than an independent Kashmir. It allows Pakistan to blame the RAW for destabilizing Pakistan and funding terrorism and civil unrest.
My personal view is that this is a classic prisoner's dilemma. India does not trust Pakistan not to invade Kashmir if Indian troops pull out. Pakistan does not trust India not to reclaim PoK if it demilitarizes. Neither state is really interested in an independent Kashmir - though I suspect India will not really have issues unless Kashmir goes to Pakistan. Another thing that Indians feel strongly about is the ethnic cleansing (and this is not hyperbole) of the Kashmiri pandit community since the 80s.
Ultimately its a dance - neither side desires progress over the status quo. Maybe Obama understands that. And also maybe the fact that India is buying a phenomenal amount of defence equipment has something to with it.