Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
When Hari Singh requested India’s help after he was outnumbered by militants in Kashmir, why didn’t Indian leaders ask him to approach UN? Why did they swallow the mess of J&K instead?
What did India get in return: insurgency, militancy, separatists, article 370, liability to maintain a huge army to keep things under control, etc. Do you think it is a textbook example of sunk cost fallacy for India?
The unwillingness of India to consider independence or cession of Jammu and Kashmir is unlikely to be an example of the sunk cost fallacy.
The sunk cost fallacy occurs when the agent relies upon already paid, or sunk, costs in their calculation to make that calculation rational.
They need not rely upon past costs to make their calculation rational, because the costs and benefits of changing policy are indeterminate.
While there is no doubt that India is paying a steep cost for its policy of retaining Jammu and Kashmir, it is not at all obvious that changing policy will result in a future decrease in those costs that would be commensurate with the decrease in benefits. In fact, given that the networks for insurgency are well established, the militants who are currently attacking India might continue to do so, and might even be emboldened by success in forcing India to withdraw. Additionally, India would very probably pay an audience cost with the nationalists for abandoning an area they see as part of the Indian homeland as this other SE answer shows.
None of this is to say that cession of Jammu and Kashmir wouldn't be a preferred policy, only that the benefits and costs are relatively indeterminate, and consequently unlikely to rely primarily or solely upon the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Instead, there is more likely a status quo bias, based upon large uncertainties surrounding changes in course of action. Even if the government is calculating based upon uncertainty, they may still be using sunk cost fallacy argumentation in their rhetoric, and that would be an interesting addition, or separate answer.
What is the sunk cost fallacy?
the idea that a company or organization is more likely to continue with a project if they have already invested a lot of money, time, or effort in it, even when continuing is not the best thing to do
Individuals commit the sunk cost fallacy when they continue a behavior or endeavor as a result of previously invested resources (time, money or effort) (Arkes & Blumer, 1985).
Individuals sometimes order too much food and then over-eat ‘just to get their money’s worth’.
A person may have a $20 ticket to a concert and then drive for hours through a blizzard, just because she feels that she has to attend due to having made the initial investment.
If the costs outweigh the benefits, the extra costs incurred (inconvenience, time or even money) are held in a different mental account than the one associated with the ticket transaction (Thaler, 1999).
.
Do you think it is a textbook example of sunk cost fallacy for India?
No. Its not about any fallacy. Its entirely about national security and pride. Think about the following points:
Landmass: The area of Indian controlled Kashmir is 222,236 km². To put things into perspective, the area is bigger than the size of Belarus.
Strategic value: Four major rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Sutlej) flow through J&K from the Himalayas to Pakistan which are Pakistan's lifelines.
Economy: J&K is a major and popular tourist destination.
Honor and pride: Its ingrained in the nature of human beings that they are prepared to fight and even die for honor and pride. From Japanese Harakiri to Hundred Years' War, human beings showed how important pride and honor is. One of the modern examples is Abu Musa island. Latest example is Imia island (two micro uninhabited islands).
National security: Firstly, if J&K cedes from India, at least seven other states, aka, Seven Sisters (Arunachal, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura) of India will cede as they are already experiencing cessation movements and rebellions. Secondly, it is not guaranteed that Pakistan and China will stop stirring up more troubles for India even if India accepts J&K's independence.
