Hot answers tagged

57

why aren't more of the leading nations of the world stepping in to help make amends between these two countries and try to actively solve the recent Kashmir issue? Many of the “leading nations of the world” have stronger incentives to either not to get involved, or encourage the conflict further. Aside from India and Pakistan, there are several “leading ...


23

History provides the answer, such as it is. You can read a lot about it at Wikipedia on Kashmir and Kashmir Conflict. There was no country called India when the colonialists arrived. The regions was a network of independent states. While the British ruled directly in some places, in other parts of India rulership was by local kings (Maharajas) under ...


22

I will try to touch on all aspects here. Historical: As you have rightly pointed out, Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu ruler during that time(Maharaja Hari Singh). Now, Hari Singh was a stupid ruler. The British had given the Princely states the choice between the two dominions at that time. Hari Singh intentionally delayed his decision. Obviously, the ...


12

This is a burning issue recently. I will try to cover all bases here. TLDR: The region of Jammu & Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated state with a sizeable minority population. Its last Hindu king chose to join India in 1947 as the British left India. The newly created Pakistan wanted the region as it was Muslim dominated. Since then both nations have used ...


11

Article 370 is in Part XXI of the Indian constitution "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions". It was intended as a temporary measure. It was introduced in the 1950s when the Princely States were considering joining India. These states, which had been fairly independent under the British Raj, were given the options of retaining their partial ...


10

While democracy is one of the best-liked forms of government, that doesn't mean it is always the best-suited tool to make decisions. An important property of modern democracies is that while adhering to the choice of the majority, it respects the rights of minorities as well. If a democracy doesn't do that, it effectively becomes a "tyranny of the majority"...


9

To invite international arbitration would be to recognize that this is in fact the international issue that it is. But to quote from Wikipedia, "India has officially stated that it believes... Kashmir to be an integral part of India". You can read that article for more elaboration, but this is the simple answer to the question posed here. Why should India ...


9

Trump is by nature a foreign policy Jacksonian. This is a school of thought in the US that the proper role of the United States is to not interfere in other countries unless they have actively attacked the US itself, and that things like treaties and alliances only weaken the US when it does need to act. Anything the US does internationally is best done ...


7

The unwillingness of India to consider independence or cession of Jammu and Kashmir is unlikely to be an example of the sunk cost fallacy. What is 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. Why India is not engaged in the sunk cost ...


7

Probably because The de facto border carved in 1949 worked to India’s territorial and political advantage. The [1949] ceasefire line left the Indians with the bulk of Jammu and Kashmir’s territory (139,000 of 223,000 square kilometres, approximately 63 per cent) and population. The Indians had gained the prize piece of real estate, the Kashmir Valley, and ...


6

The answer is quite simple actually. The only dispute that the two countries have, is with regards to the territory that comprises of the Indian Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and the Pakistani provinces of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. India and Pakistan do not have any other disputes between them. Both the countries have signed ...


6

You got half the information right. Pakistan was created solely to tend to the Muslims in British India. That does not mean that India was made for the Hindus. In fact, India was open to anyone who wanted to be Indian irrespective of their religion. That explains why a lot of Muslims did not move to Pakistan when they had the choice. India today has more ...


6

Well, this is a endless debate but still I clear your doubt, India does not want Kashmir, but it is the integral part of Republic of India. At the time of dual theory was being implemented it was said that any province can choose any of the nation i.e India and Pakistan as well as they can maintain the neutral status and can run their state as independent ...


5

There are few facts we need to keep in mind before finding an answer to this question. Does history of India start form 1947? The history of India (or Bharat) does not start from end of British Colonial era or earlier with the arrival of Mughals. It dates back to thousands of years and we can only approximate the date on the basis of the dating of Vedas ...


5

Yes, article 3 of the Indian Constitution accords the parliament to alter the boundaries of a state or union territory. For this, the state legislature's views are not binding upon the parliament. So, In making state to UT or UT to state or merging a part of state to other state or some other combinations mentioned in the article 3, the parliament has it's ...


5

According to Wikipedia's article on Azad Kashmir: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Urdu: آزاد جموں و کشمیر‎ Āzād Jammū̃ o Kaśmīr, translation: Free Jammu and Kashmir), abbreviated as AJK and commonly known as Azad Kashmir, is a nominally self-governing jurisdiction administered by Pakistan. And further down in the Wikipedia article: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (...


4

Doesn't this Wikipedia article answer your question? It says, in particular, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, abbreviated as AJK and commonly known as simply Azad Kashmir, is a region administered by Pakistan as a nominally self-governing jurisdiction. (I added the bold face.)


4

I don't think you'll find a single reference that will accurately cover all ceasefire violations. It's a large area and I don't think there are neutral observers who have direct access to the entire area. In the past there was a UN mission, United Nations India-Pakistan Observation Mission (UNIPOM), which was tasked with observing the ceasefire. That mission ...


3

James K has already covered the historical part as to what was once temporary was later came to be interpreted as permanent, so I'm going to cover the part about removal of the Art 370. I suggest you read the Article 370 at least once for a better understanding. Unlike other articles of the Constitution of India (CoI) which can be amended or repealed via ...


3

Wikipedia has you covered. First, Kashmir article explains the history, with the main pertinent factor being that the population is majority Muslim (and therefore the problem is the same one that caused a division of the Raj into India and Pakistan in the first place). Second, Wikipedia on Kashmir conflict explains details: India claims the entire state of ...


3

This article lays out the reason it's making headlines: While exchanges of artillery and light weapons over the line are very common, intentional incursions by aircraft have not been publicly acknowledged since the two countries fought a war in 1971.


3

Phrasing the question in terms of "freedom from Pakistan" is clearly biased towards India. Full independence (from both Pakistan and India) is the most popular option across Kashmir as a whole, but even that is not supported by a majority. A deleted answer originally posted by user17569 cites the Chatham House survey published in 2010. This apparently ...


3

Simple answer: Politics Long Answer: International Border is the line that both countries and the rest of the world have agreed upon. Both LOC and LOAC are unofficial control lines which are taken by the armies.This border is not accepted by either nations as official. India still wants to take back Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir(Or Azad Kashmir as is called in ...


3

I'll take a contrary view and object that, in my opinion, there is a bit too much implicit expectation in this question that the India-Pakistan issue is solvable by outside intervention. It's not a bad question, and I've upvoted it, but its premise is a bit too optimistic. Skipping past cases where there was already a victor and the international community ...


2

If India wanted Kashmir so much then what stopped it from taking back Gilgit Baltistan and POK area of Kashmir, which are still under illegal control of the Pakistan Government. When ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh signed instrument of accession Kashmir became integral part of Republic of India. Entire Kashmir not just the present day Kashmir on the ...


2

The historical claims for both India and Pakistan are quite weak in fact. Kashmir could well have become independent, sort of like Nepal. Kashmir is quite remote from the rest of the subcontinent, tucked in in the midst of Himalayas, and it followed its own independent line of historical development. Kashmir was conquered by Emperor Akbar in 1586 and it was ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible