[Reader-list] Why Kashmir has no case for self-determination

[Rahul Asthana]

"The Indian government, when it took the Kashmir issue to the United
Nations, promised such a referendum. It has not kept to that promise. If it
does so, then the matter can be easily settled."
Are you aware of the preconditions necessary for the referendum to take place?
Read this
http://www.boloji.com/myword/mw116.htm
"If all the UN Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 are considered, the following steps would be required to implement them. First, all Pakistani troops and police personnel would have to vacate Kashmir. Secondly, all non-Kashmiri Pakistani residents in Kashmir would have to vacate Kashmir. Thirdly, Indian army personnel would be posted in the whole of undivided Kashmir to restore peace and order. Fourthly, the Indian army would remain there until this was accomplished – in other words, all terrorist violence was ended. Then, and only then, would the Indian army reduce its deployment to a token presence required for ensuring peace. Fifthly, the State of Jammu and Kashmir would have to be restored to its original territorial status. Among other thing, the part of Kashmir illegally ceded to China by Pakistan would have to be restored to J-K before the holding of plebiscite."
And this-
http://kashmir.ahrchk.net/mainfile.php/after1947/9/
Also note that the UN resolutions do not give a choice of a sovereign Kashmir state,its either India or Pakistan.
So,please exclude the legalese of the UN resolutions from your arguments for self determination.
Lets talk about the other aspect- the principle of self determination as a basic and axiomatic principle of democracy. Most sovereign states do not provide for this.Anyway, let me give you a more general philosophical expostulation- no ethical principle known to mankind is axiomatic.Its derived from the consequences of such a principle.In other words the derivation of ethics or principles from any axiom is never absolute,its always based on the consequences.At best,the so called axiom serves as a guiding principle.So you are really can't escape from analyzing the principle of self determination of territorial boundaries in a consequential framework-specially when there are not many examples of such a principle being provided for in existing states.
Thanks
Rahul

--- On Sat, 7/18/09, shuddha at sarai.net <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:

> From: shuddha at sarai.net <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Why Kashmir has no case for self-determination
> To: "Pawan Durani" <pawan.durani at gmail.com>
> Cc: reader-list at sarai.net
> Date: Saturday, July 18, 2009, 1:41 PM
> Dear All, 
> 
> The case for, or against, self-determination, has to rest,
> finally, not in
> what others think, but in what those who desire the
> determination of their
> own destinies, believe.
> 
> Either we take a democratic principle seriously, or we do
> not. Either we
> believe that a popular majority's acquiescence to a form of
> sovereignty
> makes sense, or it does not.
> 
> My stand on the question of 'self-determination' for
> Kashmir has nothing to
> do with an argument for, or, against the possibility or
> necessity or
> desirability of a Kashmiri nation-state. That is not for me
> to judge. Nor
> is it for anyone other than those who will be its willing
> or unwilling
> subjects.
> 
> My position is simple. If the majority of the people of the
> Kashmir valley
> (please note that I am not talking of Jammu or Ladakh)
> believe that they
> should not stay within the Indian union, then, it is
> undemocratic to force
> them to stay. If, however, they demonstrate in a free, fair
> referendum,
> conducted by a neutral body, attended upon by international
> observers, that
> in fact they wish to stay within the Indian union. Then, it
> would be
> equally undemocratic to have them secede.
> 
> The Indian government, when it took the Kashmir issue to
> the United
> Nations, promised such a referendum. It has not kept to
> that promise. If it
> does so, then the matter can be easily settled.
> 
> Finally, just because we don't agree with what the majority
> of a people
> believe in, does not mean that we have the right to foist
> decisions alien
> to their will upon them. Kashmiri self-determination may
> be
> self-delusional, it may not be. But that is not anyone
> other than the
> people of Kashmir can, or should decide, for them, or on
> their behalf.
> 
> I may find Hindu or Islamic fundamentalism distasteful, and
> I will struggle
> against it passionately, but if, theoretically, the
> majority of the people
> were to accede to Fundamentalism, I would have to accept
> that this is in
> fact a reflection of their democratically expressed will.
> My job would then
> be to argue with them, consistently, clearly, passionately,
> if necessary,
> forever.
> 
> If it is patently clear that their will has been subverted,
> as it has been
> recently in Iran (or in the staged 'elections' that were
> held in Kashmir in
> 1987, which inaugurated the current more than two decade
> long period of
> unrest) then a commitment to democratic principles would
> have to mean a
> struggle to restore that will.
> 
> Vivek Gumaste has invoked many arguments in his text, but
> not a single one
> of them actually attempts to engage with what the question
> of the will of
> the majority of the Kashmir valley. Until a proper
> engagement with that
> question is undertaken, every argument for the forcible
> retention of the
> Kashmir, whether undertaken on pragmatic or idealistic
> grounds, need to be
> seen for what it would end up being - the ornaments of
> tyranny.
> 
> best, 
> 
> Shuddha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Self-determination is a lyrical, mesmerising phrase
> that sparks the
> > fire in a revolutionary and excites the cerebral
> neurons of a
> > libertarian, galvanising both into frenzied activity.
> But
> > self-determination shorn of its prerequisites and
> mindless of its
> > implications can prove to be a toxic, self-mutilating
> instrument with
> > deleterious consequences for its protagonists and
> antagonists. Nowhere
> > is this more evident than in the case of Kashmir where
> it holds an
> > uncertain future for its proponents in the Valley and
> can be the axiom
> > that seriously erodes the basic fabric of India's
> Constitution.
> 
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>