Kashmir predicament: Who really started it?

India and Pakistan, the two nations that were divided on religious lines have been at loggerheads from the very beginning onwards. Of the many issues on which the two sides confront each other, Kashmir remains to be the central and core issue. But today, it has become an extremely complicated issue and no real solutions have come up that would satisfy the two sides.

So what really started the conflict?
All princely states were given an option to either accede with India or Pakistan, or remain independent. Though the third option of remaining independent was given, it was made clear that the princely states could hardly survive on their own. This was true for the landlocked state of Kashmir as well, as it would have to necessarily depend on either on India or Pakistan for trade.

However, the Hindu ruler of largely Muslim dominated Kashmir, Hari Singh chose to remain independent. In October 1947, Pakistan invaded Kashmir. Hari Singh now chose to accede with India. Subsequently India sent its armed forces to recapture Kashmir. It must be noted that this was took place immediately after partition and India had much larger millitary as compared to Pakistan at that time.

After India had captured two-third of the state, Pandit Nehru against the wishes of his home minister, Sardar Patel went to the UN Security Council. He intentions were pure but he was an idealist and not a realist. UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

However, Nehru soon realised that it was a grave mistake to take the matter to the Security Council. By 1948, the Cold war had began to start and the world politics was dominated and dictated by the big powers (US and USSR), who wanted to spread their influence with the Capitalist and Socialist blocs competing against each other. Pakistan never withdrew its troops from Azad Kashmir and thus the Kashmir dispute remained unsolved.

Other similar conflict
Kashmir isn't the only victim in the world of the selfish interests of the big powers. They created many other similar problems all over the world. Korea, Vietnam and Germany are some of glaring examples. While Germany's re-unification was peaceful, Vietnam had to fight a massive war. While USSR supported the communist North Vietnam, the US supported the capitalist South Vietnam. The Korea issue is yet to be solved and has now assumed dangerous proportions with the North Korea acquiring the nuclear capability.

If we look at all such conflicts, the two big powers rarely followed any ethics. For instance, during the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the US ignored the massive genocide that was going on in East Pakistan and threatened to intervene in the war.

The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the 'genocidal' activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram. When Pakistan's defeat in the eastern sector seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move which was a nuclear threat. The Enterprise arrived on station on December 11, 1971. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 into the Indian Ocean from 18 December 1971 until 7 January 1972. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean. As the United States were not ready to risk open nuclear warfare with the Soviets the Enterprise simply turned around and sailed back to the US. (Source)

This strategy of US didn't stop and it supported General Musharraf as the dictator of Pakistan until he was finally removed.

A lot many people in India blame Nehru for trying to be too idealistic. But it is the two big powers that must have to share the larger of the blame of creating the Kashmir issue, thus endangering nearly 1.5 billion people of the sub-continent. Subsequently, India has maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral issue while Pakistan has continuously tried to internationalize it.

India:The Weak State?

India has been called as a weak state numerous times, both by India and foreign experts. After every terrorist attack, such claims become even more common. Mumbai attacks were no exception to this and scores of socialites who were seen on News shows talked repeatedly about India being a weak state.

Some of the arguments that were made were just too ridiculous. Comparisons were being drawn between India and Israel or India and US. Why can't India hit-back like Israel? When Osama attacked US, it hit-back with an invasion on Afghanistan, why can't India emulate the same? If you visit some of the online forums, its is quite common for Pakistanis to ridicule the Indians using similar arguments.

A fact that is quite easily forgotten is that Israel has to deal with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah which neither have an air-force nor have any tanks or other armored force. India on the other hand is dealing with Pakistan, a nuclear power nation. The two are just incomparable.

India's comparison to US is even more ridiculous. It is often argued that after the 9/11 attacks, US constituted Homeland Security department and since then there haven't been any attacks on US soil. But what is easily forgotten that US is thousands of miles away from the epicenter of Islamic terrorism i.e. Pakistan, while India is just next to it. So it may be for US to invade Afghanistan without feeling any repercussions, but for India it is just not the same.

A better comparison would be to look at the recent happenings in North Korea and see if the US behaves any differently. North Korea conducted its second Nuclear Test last week. Simultaneously, it also conducted long range missile tests over Japan into the Pacific. It is believed that North Korea is now capable of hitting at least some of the US cities. Even though its weapons program is still at a very infant stage, the fear of nuclear weapons is immense. US allies in the region like Japan and South Korea were already in its range.

But the response from US has so far been measured. Apart from condemning the Tests, US seems to be working towards introducing fresh set sanctions and is presently looking to garner international support for same, particularly from China which has consistently supported the North Korean regime.

So where is the US bravado? It is quite obvious that US can't use the same tactics it used in Afghanistan here. North Korea has the fourth largest army in the World behind China, US and India. Its special forces are the largest in the World, believed to be around 180,000. It has developed long range missiles and now with its nuclear capability, it is miles ahead of Afghanistan.

Another reason why there is a perception of India being a weak state is because Indian Govt and their intelligence arm RAW have rarely tried to showcase its achievements and choses to remain in the background. We don't make movies on RAW while Hollywood keeps making movies showcasing CIA and its capabilities. The reasons are best known to the people in the higher echelons of RAW and I would not like to question that.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of RAW was breaking up Pakistan and creating a new entity called Bangladesh. If all the noises from Pakistan are to believed then RAW is actively involved in Afghanistan and Balochistan and is trying to keep Pakistan weak. The only problem is that it may take years before we get some results from their action. But that should not mean that they are not doing anything at all.

But since we are a democracy which offers right to speech, there will always be people to question the actions of the Govt. Hopefully this shall push it towards providing faster results on the ground.

I expect lots of readers may point towards India's bureaucracy and inefficiency, towards how there have been serious lapses, how there was a scan in bullet-proof jackets, and so. I do not discount that, but I would like to distinguish inefficiency in operations from strength or weakness in decision making. It is easy to call someone weak without looking into the challenges faced and also on its constraints of resources.