First of all, Hurriyat is not a reliable entity . How can you believe a party whose support base has never been tested(as they've never contested in elections) ? They've two fractions - it's most unlikely that they both will agree on same points.
Don't know much about your evaluation of Nehru - but possibly he feared that Pak army will occupy the whole Kashmir by hook or crook if Indian troops were removed. Don't forget both US & UK had close ties with Pakistan at that time.
But first one question - are you a Pakistani ? Why are you mum about the PoK ? Don't those ppl want independence ? Can you specifically give me the source(i.e. link) of your info ? I've my own 'survey' - A poll of over 50,000 in a small pop of 4m , showed that 96%
of Azad Kashmiris wanted total indpendence from Pakistan (Sony News
The Kashmir issue is much more complex now. It has three clear divisions - Kashmir Vally, Jammu & Ladakh. Whaen you say 'Kashmiris', most of the cases it refers the ppl of Kashmir Vally. Ladakh has a 50% population of Buddhists, & the Amarnath Shrine Row showed clear divisions between Kashmir & Jammu.
As much I know, Kashmiris today hate Pakistan more than India, & most of them what 'self-rule'/autonomy, if not independence. I personally 've no problem with autonomy(of Kashmir Valley), but independence is not acceptable - considering the fuming socio-political condition of nearby regions,Kashmir will not be able to sustain as a peaceful sovereign state. But even fr autonomy,there are two 'thorns' I think -
1) What about those Hindus, who were forced to leave Kashmir in early & mid '90s ? Have anyone ever wanted to know what they want ?
2) The current condition of Pakistan is really worrying. It might happen in near future that Taliban would try to expand their 'base of action' in Kashmir(like they did from Afghanistan to Pakistan). In such case, Kashmir would be a very important land for India to stop them, & Indian govt would need full control over Kashmir.
Later Addition : the example you've given doesn't prove the legitimacy of your demand. In the last few years, MNS has been the the most active political party in India - we've seen many processions led by them; many heated debates, but what is their position in elections ? They just acted as 'spoiler' for SHS-BJP coalition. & Hurriyat leaders doesn't want to participate in elections becoz it's 'imposed' by Indian state, but they're ready to take services provided by India ! Few years back, UN Observers came to monitor the election in J&K; it was a good opportunity for Hurriyat to prove their support-base, but still they didn't participate in elections. Why ? If they were confident about their support, they would've participated, becoz their success in election would only prove the legitimacy to their demand.
& about Hizbul-Muzahidin - it's true that Sayeed Salahudeen once was very popular among the Kashmiris, but now the common Kasmiris are sick of the violence, becoz it has disastrous effect on their life & economy ; they want a peaceful solution of the Kashmir issue.
By the way, I've cleared my position on this matter earlier in my answer , but you still haven't. Why are you silent about PoK(Azad Kashmir & FANA) ? Don't you view it as a matter of consideration ?
More Addition : OK, I found the the 'much-hyped' CSDS survey, & found a basic fault - the poll was conducted on only 226 persons, all from Srinagar, where the total population of Kashmir Valley is almost 4 million(from wikipedia) ! From the recent elections, it has been proven that rural Kasmiris have casted their votes in a higher number than urban Kashmiris, thus showing more faith on Indian state-held elections. But there was possibly no representative of rural Kashmir. Also, the idea of 'Azadi' was largely discarded by the representatives of Jammu( 255 in number ). There are some other aspects which you haven't mentioned. I've provided the link below.
Adding More :
Internet !! Well, that's what I like most ! Now, there are some info about 'Azad Kashmir' -
1) " The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council is a supreme body consisting of 11 members, six from the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and five from the government of Pakistan. Its chairman/chief executive is the president of Pakistan. Other members of the council are the president and the prime minister of Azad Kashmir and a few other AJK ministers." (from Wikipedia).
Now, why those 5 Pakistanis ? Why should representatives of Pak govt directly control the administrative matters of an 'autonomy' ?
One thing, though Pakistan granted 'autonomy' to the Kashmiri part they occupy, they've never withdrawn their troops, thus unwilling to implement the UN plebiscite. & the autonomy, too, is heavily controlled by Islamabad.
2) While submitting the affidavit during elections, every candidate of 'Azad Kashmir' has to acknowledge it as a part of Pakistan. Few years back, some candidate were barred from election becoz they declined to do the same.(get some info http://www.thehindu.com/2006/08/15/stories/2006081503691000.htm)
3) A 2008 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Pakistan administered Kashmir, was 'Not Free'. It also criticized the Pakistani Government saying 'The appropriation of land in the Northern Areas by non-Kashmiri migrants from elsewhere in Pakistan, with the tacit encouragement of the federal government and army, has led to dwindling economic opportunities for the local population and an increase in sectarian tension between the majority Shia Muslims and a growing number of Sunnis. (detail - http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,463af2212,469f2dcf2,487ca21a2a,0.html)
other links - http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/4.htm
Now one thing must be noted - Indian govt has resrticted the activities of non-Kashmiris in J&K. A non-Kashmiri can't buy land in Kashmir.
4) There ARE some agitations among the ppl of Azad Kashmir & FANA. At least two separatist groups are present in FANA - Balawaristan National Front & Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement, largely as a result of 'annexation' of Gilgit-Baltistan into the mainframe of Pakistan. They demanded for autonomy for long time, & only this year Pak govt were forced to accept their demand.
Even the ppl of 'Azad Kashmir' have rallied against Pak occupation - http://kashmir.ahrchk.net/mainfile.php/v3n1/314/?print=yes
& there are many Kashmiris(from Pak part) living in England, who voice for independence of Kashmir from Pakistan. They held a conference recently.
& I'm not mixing up Plebiscite with state assembly elections - even you've accepted the importance of local elections. If Hurriyat does't consider Kashmir as a part of India, then they shouldn't participate in General(Lok Sabha) elections, but they SHOULD field candidates in local elections. Why don't they do even that ? Do they fear that their actual 'popularity' will be exposed Or just dodge elections in the fear that their popularity will fall if they can't properly handle the administrative works ?
& in every democracy, few ppl, elected by the populace, decides the framework of administrative & other aspects. These ppl act as the representatives of the majority population & their wish/demand. They have to value the sentiments of those ppl who elected them. Plebiscite is a different thing, but from that you can't come to a conclusion that the members of assembly can't solve the Kashmir issue. Most of these members are 'seasoned' politicians with vast experience, & that's why they have been entrusted by people to lead the state..If you have no faith on them, then how can you be so 'confident' about common people ?
Finally, there are many concerns about Human Right violations in Kashmir by Indian Army, but what about the terrorists (often called 'freedom-fighters') ? Even your 'beloved' HM is guilty of such acts ! & what about the right of Hindus, banished from Kashmir, in their land ?
& another point - the representatives of Kashmir in CSDS survey voiced for an 'unified' Kashmir with parts from both India & Pakistan. If, in future, suppose that Indian part of Kashmir is granted sovereignty, then obviously the Pak part will want to achieve the same & form a 'united' Kashmir ; they'll get support from 'sovereign' Kashmir. What will be Pak's stand then ?
· 10 years ago