Should India give Kashmir up?

Agreed that this suggestion is unlikely if not impossible to ever occur. However, given that there are only two factions in Kashmir; a larger one that calls for an independent Kashmir and a smaller group that wants to join up with Pakistan. And neither wants to be a part of India.
Evidence of this is in polls and in the fact that there is no violence against the ruling-army in the Pakistan-held part of Kashmir; however, protests against Indian soldiers in Indian held Kashmir are often splattered in the international news media. Such as recently when India marked its independence on 15th August.

Indian soldiers have brutally shot and at times killed Kashmir protesters without remorse nor apology.
While both Pakistan and India claim to be democratic nations; this kind of behavior refutes that claim. As this attitude of shooting unarmed civilians who clearly do not want Indian occupation;is truly fascist and as undemocratic as can be.

India sometimes claims that China is giving military support to Kashmiri insurgents; at other times stakes the claim that Pakistan. Yet what we see on the news is Kashmiri civilians flitting stones at Indian soldiers and eating bullets in return. This type of footage is somewhat reminiscent of historical news clips on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

 

All the Yes points

Should India give Kashmir up?

Yes because... No because...

In the words of a Kashmiri

Ismail Sloan writes: 'Thus, according to the Indians, India has the right to all of Kashmir. When Pakistan built a road to China known as the Karakorum Highway, India protested to the United Nations and everywhere else that a road was being built across "their territory" without their permission.

However, Pakistan has a different view. The "Pathan agitators" were not from Peshawar. Rather, they were local Kashmiris who did not want to be part of India. Furthermore, the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler. He was merely a British appointee. There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Finally, the agreement was that any areas more than 70% Muslim would go to Pakistan. Kashmir has more than 90% Muslims and therefore clearly should have been part of Pakistan.

The main reason why I and most others take the Pakistan side is that numerous polls have been taken of the people of Indian Kashmir. Every one of these polls has had a similar result. Some want an independent Kashmir. Some (usually slightly fewer) want to join Pakistan. Almost none at all want to stay in India. The few who do want to stay in India are recent arrivals, primarily Hindus, who do not have long heredity links to Kashmir.

Nobody on the Pakistan side of Kashmir wants to join India, but a few would like to have independence' [[http://www.anusha.com/kashmir.htm]]

According to polls the majority of the people of Kashmir want an independent Country. and the rest want to be part of Pakistan. So, I don't entirely agree with Ismail Sloan.

The election in Indian administered Kashmir no doubt had a very low voter turnout and anyone opposing the pro-Indian party rule; would most likely have faced violent opposition from televised to be very abusive self-confessed Indian troops.

India is the world's most 'populated' democracy(being the 2nd most populated country in the World preceded by non-democratic China; thus largest) not exactly/actually the most effective form of democratic government.

The National Conference party and the Congress party together won 45 seats, one more than is needed for a simple majority in the 87-seat state assembly.

The two parties have started negotiations for an alliance so they can take power. The National Conference party won 28 seats, and Congress won 17.

"We are ready to align with the Congress party to form the next government," said Omar Abdullah, president of National Conference.

The seven-phased elections began in November, four months after India took direct control after the fall of a coalition government in the state. The elections ended last week, and vote-counting finished Sunday.[[http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/indian.kashmir.vote/]]

The poll spoke otherwise, against the point made. India is until this day considered the world's largest democracy, and thus the opinion of every citizen voting in the election counts. The pro-India party thus won in 2008 and are still in power, overpowering over the Pakistani favored league.

Should India give Kashmir up?

Yes because... No because...

Support for India

What about the war of 1971; When India severed East Pakistan from west Pakistan?
Did Pakistani forces not take over part of Kashmir?
Is that part not recognized as part of Pakistan by the U.N and the world?

Skipping important pieces of history as well as details of the present reality in India seems to be typical of those speaking for the Indian side.

The reality today is; the civilians of Kashmir are being battered,injured and killed at the hands of Indian soldiers.
The reality today is No citizen of Kashmir supports Indian occupation.

"A whopping 77 per cent are firm in their belief that a solution to the Kashmir problem does not lie within the framework of the Indian Constitution and a clear 72 per cent say categorically that it is independence alone which can bring peace in the violence-riven valley."-[[http://www.nancho.net/fdlap/kashmir/outlookf.html]]

India has been a hotbed for terrorism because of her neighbor Pakistan. Pakistan was created on the rather ominous grounds of religious conflict. Pakistan sometimes claimed(and still claims) to be secular and at other times Islamic. Copies of Jinnah's speeches archived in various universities in the U.K reflect this dichotomy from the very foundation of the nation.

Kashmir was(and is) ruled by Hindu leaders and even though it is/was a Muslim-majority state; she was not given to then east&west Pakistan because the leadership was very popular among the people. The British handed Kashmir over to India and so India feels that Pakistan and China's[[http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/104687/India/china-providing-tacit-support-to-kashmiri-militants-expert.html]] interference in this is unwarranted and only causes violence/bloodshed.

India finds the propulsion of terrorism on her soil rather disdainful and feels it must be stopped. [[http://www.google.com/search?q=support+for+India+in+Kashmir&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]]

Should India give Kashmir up?

Yes because... No because...

Give it to the Roma.

To make it easier, both of them should give it up and give it to the Roma people, who are experiencing the 2nd holocaust in Europe. This time not from the Germans but from the Jews. Jewish leaders such as Sarkozy, Traian Basescu, Silvio Berlusdoni, Petra Edelmannova, Nick Griffin, Angela Merkel, not to mention the Hungarian Jobbik Party with Jewish members. That way no one shell have it and it would stop the anger building.

Debates > Should India give Kashmir up?