The subject of Kashmir routinely pops up in the Post and is discussed overenthusiastically by the Jakarta expat community ad infinatum/ad nauseum, and there is generally nothing new to add on either side!

So let me borrow from a study by London’s Kings College scholar Robert Bradrock, (Kashmir: Paths to Peace Opinion Poll, http://tinyurl.com/2bsxhkc). It involved interviews of 3,774 people in both parts of Kashmir during September/October 2009 for Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and a world-leading institute for the debate and analysis of international issues. Its conclusions surprised me!

I quote from this 39-page report regarding conclusions on page 35.

“Despite the complexity, some conclusions are clear. 81% say unemployment is the most significant problem facing Kashmiris [66% in PoK*, 87% in J&K]. Government corruption [22% PoK*
and 68% J&K], poor economic development [42% PoK*, 45% J&K], human rights abuses [19% PoK*, 43% J&K] and the Kashmir conflict itself [24% PoK*, 36% J&K] are all seen as major problems. 80% of Kashmiris say that the dispute is very important to them personally.

The two questions envisaged under the UN resolutions of 1948/1949, which proposed a plebiscite, were restricted to the choice of the whole of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir joining India or joining Pakistan. This poll shows that preference for those options is highly polarized. 21% of the population said they would vote for the whole of Kashmir to join India, and 15% said they would vote for it to join Pakistan. Furthermore, only 1% of the population in PoK* say they would vote to join India, while only 2% of the population in J&K say they would vote to join Pakistan. There is further polarization between the districts.

The option of independence has been widely promoted on both sides of the LoC over the last twenty years. However, although 43% of the total population said they would vote for independence, in only five out of eighteen districts was there a majority preference for the independence of the whole of Kashmir.”  (The original report refers to PoK as AJK!)

These results support the already widespread view that the plebiscite options are likely to offer no solution to the dispute.

One very important aspect of the UN resolutions which calls for a plebiscite in J&K and neither stressed by Pakistan nor highlighted by India is that the same resolution calls for a complete withdrawal of Pakistani troops from PoK as a mandatory pre-condition for holding plebiscite in J&K, thereby implying that Pakistan was the aggressor. (http://tinyurl.com/32ua68b or www.kashmir-information.com/historicaldocuments/112.html)

However, holding the plebiscite has been rendered further difficult due to eviction under duress of the Hindu population from the valley. This eviction under duress scattered Hindus all over India and the world, thus expunging their availability to vote in a plebiscite, if and when it is held.

But, the UN resolution of 1948/1949 has been superseded by the Shimla Agreement signed in July 1972 by the late Z.A. Bhutto (then president of Pakistan) and the late Indira Gandhi (then PM of India).

So it has only academic value now.

K.B. Kale
Jakarta

Popular

Diponegoro and the birth of Indonesian nationalism

Indonesia on brink of losing Lake Toba’s Global Geopark status

Japan to export used destroyers to Philippines to deter China