Current affairs, General knowledge and everything you need to know.
Why is the refugee crisis all over the news? How is this related to Syria? Why should we care at all?
This video by Kurzgesagt will throw some light on the topic and will make it easy to understand the crisis in a better way.
To understand the root cause of this migration deeply, watch this amazing video by Vox.
Kashmir was independent until the October of 1947 when Pakistan decided to forcefully annex it. The invading army took a big chunk of the state and plunged the state into darkness [by cutting the power supply]. After that the monarch of Kashmir invited India to save the country. Indian army entered the state and got rid of the invading group from two-thirds of the state.
Three years later, elections were held in Jammu & Kashmir and people said Yes! to joining India formally. Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir – A Constitution was written by the Kashmiris and that explicitly said that the state would be a part of the Indian Union.
Kashmiris eagerly waiting to see Nehru on his visit after the people voted to join India.
Since then, multiple elections have taken place as a part of Indian democracy and the people showed little intent of leaving India. Also, not many Kashmiris went out of India as a refugee [if India were an occupying force that would happened]. And most of the separatists are Pakistan funded. Kashmir Militant Extremists
India and Pakistan fought 4 major wars and each time Pakistan believed that the people would rise up against India & welcome the invading forces. Each time, the locals rose up against the invading forces and always tipped the Indian army. What the locals want is peace and the ability to run their own life. They want Pakistan to leave them alone and want their own government to reduce the armed presence created as a reaction to the neighbor’s advancements.
In short, legally the state of Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India – through the monarch’s instrument of accession and morally it is a part of India as most people have voted for it. There should end the story. Other than a few miscreants both in India and outside, people feel they are a part of India.
We have seen the legal and moral aspects. Let’s see the practical aspects:
In short, India has a strong moral ground and both Kashmiris and the rest of India find it comfortable with the present status quo. It is also fairly clear from our past experience that India leaving the state would cause more harm to the locals [especially Hindus and Buddhists and to some extent the Kashmiri Muslims as well] than India managing it. Yes, Indian government has a lot to do for both Kashmiris and rest of Indians – from uninterrupted power to eliminating poverty – but those are socioeconomic issues not geopolitical ones.
The drawback and benefits to India if Kashmir becomes independent state/country again.
In August 1947, Kashmir was an independent state. However, within a month, Pakistan’s armies were closing in Srinagar and the king was left with no option but to join India. The king had no power to stop a major army in its gates.
There lies the problem. Given Kashmir’s location (bordering China, Pakistan, Afghanistan and erstwhile Soviet republic of Tajikistan) it will never be left alone by the powers around it. It is only a third of Afghanistan’s size, making it much easier for the great powers to play the game here just like they did & do in Afghanistan. By adjoining half-dozen troubled provinces in India’s neighbors, the state will become a huge marsh for terrorism to breed. Can India afford to have another instable neighbor?
Jammu & Kashmir borders the prosperous plains of Punjab and fairly accessible to the national capital (~ 6 hours/500km of driving in the plains from New Delhi to the borders of J&K). Thus, controlling the state would give India’s enemies (both nations and terrorist organizations) a direct access to India’s heart. Anyone who wants to put a knife in India’s heart will try to have a camp in that state and the government there will be too weak to prevent this from happening.
There was a time when Afghanistan had plenty of Buddhists and Hindus. Now, it doesn’t. The Buddhist relics at Bamiyan got mercilessly destroyed and the same mercy was shown to the minorities. The same could happen in Kashmir if India vacates the place.
Apart from the valley around Sri Nagar, Jammu & Kashmir is a state with a significant population of Hindus and Buddhists. In the map below, the Muslim dominated parts of the north & west are already with Pakistan. Of the rest, there is a huge region of blue and beige. These two are the primary reasons India wants to cling on to the state.
The only connection that India has with the mighty river of Indus (that gave our country its name) is Kashmir. Besides the cultural importance, Indus system is the biggest source of water to India’s northwest. Although we gave up Indus waters (along with Jhelum and Chenab) to Pakistan, we got Pakistan to give us Sutlej, Ravi and Beas instead. Without the access and bargaining power of Indus, India will be left without a lot of water. That means more poverty and famines. Indus also helps us generate useful hydro power.
The state is landlocked and having hostile enemies all around will push the state into economic despair (like Afghanistan). Trade and tourism will suffer. Without India to bankroll, the state would be unable to afford more infrastructure projects. Most of its taxes will be spent guarding its borders and fighting civil wars.
India is a diverse political union built upon a share culture that has lasted thousands of years. Kashmir is a core part of this culture and any separation would weaken the Indian union. (hattip: Dhruv Pathak). Central Europe and Central Asia have been through such separations and it takes decades for such regions to settle down after a major separation.
For the sake of completeness, I will also include the benefits to J&K as an independent nation:
These benefits are substantially less than the mayhem that will come from the separation.
In short, making Kashmir an independent nation would be a terrible thing for everyone living in Kashmir and rest of India. Thus, you can be guaranteed that India will not cede an extra inch of land in that state regardless of whatever threats it is put into.
Here are some things that’ll make it easy for you to understand this issue.
However, it also faced increasing violence. In 1990s, both sides finally turned to the table, where the Palestinians agreed to the legitimacy of Israel and Israel in return offered to quit regions like the Gaza strip that was assigned to the Palestinians as per the 1947 partition. Israel also returned Sinai to Egypt and negotiations were on the Golan Heights.
Summary: The region’s central location between different civilizations meant massive invasions and migrations throughout history. Different groups claim ownership over the land through their historic association. One such group, a descendant of an ancient native tribe, rules Israel. Another descendant of an ancient tribe rules “Palestine”. Both sides want more land, citing history and keep fighting.
Because Saudi Arabia is a good ally. What should the US do, bomb it? Isolate it? Guess what Saudi Arabia would be like if it were abandoned? Far, far worse. As it has been pointed out a bazillion times, Saudi Arabia isn’t filled with people yearning for Jeffersonian democracy. By and large, without the current administration there, it would actually be far, far worse. The Clerics there are incredibly powerful and the King knows that if he pushes them and the people too quickly, too far, too much, they will do what ALL people do when they’re pushed hard: push back. This is the political pendulum effect.
The Kingdom’s leaders are actually extremely liberal compared to the people they rule. They know that you can’t go from backwater, conservative Sharia-state to modern nation-state in a century. Just ask the UK or Germany — these nations took centuries to go from oppressive theocracies to modern nations. Saudi Arabia is being asked to do so in the historic equivalent of overnight.
The US and Saudi Arabia need each other. The US doesn’t need Saudi petroleum. Contrary to rumors, the US gets a small percentage of oil from the Kingdom and in the event of its total absence, not only would that actually be good for the US (it would immediately spike oil prices way above the critical mass for American fracking to become cost effective again, thus fueling a huge American petroleum renaissance). The US needs Saudi Arabia because global security is founded upon the #1 fuel source that allows our current global way of life to exist. Saudi Arabia needs the US because it hates Russia and Iran more than it hates anybody —including Israel— and the US guarantees the free shipping lanes and a supply of powerful arms. By supplying Saudi Arabia with all her arms (or upwards of 90% of them), the US keeps the Kingdom on a leash. Without American spare parts, if the Kingdom were cut off, the equipment (that is highly technically advanced) would grind to a halt. That is upwards of $2 trillion dollars in military arms, all useless in a year. That’s a powerful leash.
This is what drives global politics. I repeat this in all these questions: the morality that governs individual lives doesn’t scale up to nation-states. Nations operate on pragmatic ideas that are about balance and efficacy. If they operated on the kinds of ideals that govern our lives, they couldn’t get anything done. You and I give them that permission. Individuals cannot lock people in cages, send them to kill others, seize their property or take a sizable chunk of their income every month. Governments can. They have to because they need to do things that we cannot do. They have to weigh interests that individuals —outside of those professionally dedicated to either doing them or studying what they do— cannot easily understand. That’s not to say that you can’t ‘get it’, but it takes work, the kind of work most people in their dunning-kruger, unbending idealism and lack of time/committment ability cannot bring themselves to do.
The US does put pressure on the Kingdom to update its way of treating people. Is it as fast as us in the west would like? No. But then, if the US meddled more, then people would decry the US for “Yankee imperialism”. If it does less, then we’re “careless, selfish Yankees”. Right now, like all things in life (and yes, you do this too), the US finds a functional, pragmatic medium —a compromise point— where it maintains free movement of the most vital substance on the planet, applies slow and steady pressure on the Kingdom, gets it as a cornerstone of its global security footprint and ensures that the Kingdom is secured from the things that threaten it. Is it perfect? No. But it works.
By: Dan Holliday
Prepare for GD/PI 