"For example, right after Partition and even just prior to Nehru's death in 1964, there was a path to a peaceful solution advanced by India"
What was the peaceful solution advanced by India?
Posted by dcc at January 24, 2009 02:20 PMWow. Seldom do I ever see such detailed and well thought out posts about the Subcontinen. Klein's assertion is ludicrous but he makes because it's intellectually cheap.
When it comes to Kashmir and its insurgency...No one questions why all of a sudden in 1989 it exploded. Did something 150mi to West in Afghanistan end? Did the ISI have the funding/expertise/personnel to funnel Jihadi's into Kashmir from it operations in Afghanistan against the soviets.
The LOCAL indigenous insurgency has largely been defeated. Hizbul the main Kashmiri terrorist outfit only limits its attacks to Kashmir.
LeT,Jaish and the rest of the other supposed "Kashmiri" groups are wholly based and manned by Pakistani Punjabi's. The ethnic group that controls the Army and by extension the country.
One must not forget that Pakistan(again Army) invaded India 4 times and was defeated in all attempts including the liberation of Bangladesh and humiliating surrender.
This hurt ego is the main reason they give sanctuary to terrorists to wage a cowardly proxy war by sending murderous terrorists to kill unarmed men, women and children in India.
Posted by Nemo at January 24, 2009 03:00 PMKlein reminds us that the Evangelical trait of dualistic simplicity is in fact endemic to our whole culture.
And perhaps he is a creature of the American teaching of history which is learning about a notable event at a certain date which in our minds replaces the actual chaotic movement of events to a series of snapshots.
Finally, the UN for all its virtues, has had the unfortunate effect of freezing events for decades.
War has forever been about winners and losers. Only rarely have things returned to the pre-bellum situation.
Russia invades S.Ossetia Georgians get defeated, Ossetians trash Georgian villages send Georgians to their motherland.
Israel pushes Arabs into Gaza. Truce follows. UN feeds them and Gaza is a problem now for 60 years.
In the more normal course of events the Arabs would have been pushed to Arab states and gotten on with their lives.
Back to India. The Brit Viceroy Mountbatten was given the task of the dividing India (why is another question). India was not a country but an area ruled by the Brits in a variety of ways. Mostly dependent on how the area was acquired. Many were still "princely states" under British control. This is the way the Brits ruled a lot of places. It was not dissimilar to the US under articles of Confederacy with major states rights.
So the state of Kashmir was not like the state of Kansas. When the Brits pulled out they gave power back to the princes. Now the head of Kashmir was neither Hindu nor Moslem, but a Sikh. His ancestors had managed to conquer a number of lesser states and it was frozen when the Brits moved in. Being neither Hindu or Moslem he had hoped to keep it a Sikh ruled kingdom. But the Moslems had already counted it as theirs (the "K" in Pakistan)The same tribes that later supported AQ felt cheated and invaded Kashmir. The Sikn prince realized he had to chose and chose India.
Now here to me is the fact that makes me feel Kashmir is Indian. Mountbatten, the appointed referee called a foul on the Paks and immediately gave help to the Prince. He at least felt that the Moslems had no claim by the rules he had set up and that the Moslem League had agreed to.
But the UN called a truce, froze the line and partition followed. And has been frozen for about as long as Gaza
plschwatz,
There is an inaccuracy in your post. The Maharaja (King) of Kashmir was hindu (Maharaja Hari Singh).
I am glad that this post points out the factual untruths in Mr. Joe Klein's remarks. I think it is pretty much par for the course where he is concerned. In any case, Mr. Obama was wise to drop Kashmir on this matter, because there is no way he is going to get India to make compromises to a terrorist sponsoring nation like Pakistan for some unclear and ill advised American policy goals. Attempts by any US government to insert itself into this matter will only spoil any improvement in relations with India
Posted by krishna at January 25, 2009 04:33 PM