6 ms·

Kashmir has been disputed between India and Pakistan for several decades now.

by evgenyp 7y ago

SubuSS 7y ago
And China
Razengan 7y ago
Has anybody thought of asking the people of the disputed region which country they’d like to be a part of?
- suprfsat 7y ago
  Yes, and 97% of Crimea voted to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
  - dmix 7y ago
    It's interesting that all of the prior polling by relatively politically neutral organizations (UNDP, Razumkov Centre), even dating back to 2009-2011 before the civil war, showed widespread support for at a minimum secession from Ukraine, including multiple polls showing a majority supporting joining Russia (consistently 65% to 70% in favour) yet the whole idea of Crimeans having a voice in their own statehood was rejected outright by the UN and others. > Razumkov characterized Crimeans' views as controversial and unsteady, and therefore vulnerable to internal and external influences. It's true the Russian run referendum is probably a very corruptible process and unreliable but there's no clear indication that the majority of Crimeans were actually against the idea. Which IMO should matter more than what the foreign UN diplomats and think-tanks believe is best for them. > Gallup poll found only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people. The other side of it is whether that even matters with in the context of Ukraine's sovereignty and other issues of statehood. Plus referendums should probably not be happening in moments of anarchy. But it's not a good look for the west when trying to win them over by blaming Russian interference while glossing over potentially legitimate local support.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      There was "potentially legitimate local support" from Germans living in Danzig and the Czech Sudetenland, too. The overriding principle of international law is that you shouldn't use your army to invade neighboring countries.
      - dmix 7y ago
        Indeed, it would be far more defensible if they merely seceded themselves instead of joining the bigger guy next door, with the direct intervention of their army beforehand. I'm a big fan of smaller states and more localized governments which closer reflect the people (see: Canada, Scandinavia, Singapore, Taiwan, HK, South Korea, etc). Few people talk about the US's massive population, economic, size/scale of modern western governments growth vs the past when talking about today's political and class divides. So my general point is that the needs/wants of the Crimeans themselves shouldn't be merely tossed aside and ignored just because Russia played a role. Especially if we're trying to prevent this from happening again. Taking the UN's elitist evil Russian boogieman approach leaves the world more vulnerable to this sort of thing, not less. Just like with ISIS/Iraq/Syria, the locals needs matter a lot more than we give them credit.
        bushin 7y ago
        Ukrainians didn't think that Russians are evil boogiemen and look what happened to them. Better safe than sorry.
        dmix 7y ago
        Did you not follow the whole Ukraine civil war where the entire point was the gov was going non-NATO and pro-Russian? The vast majority of Ukraine stood up to Russia at significant costs to themselves. I agree with a lot of anti-Russian stuff (their overarching geopolitical approach not the hysteria that’s used as a political tool in the west), but that's a very strange counter-example to use...
        7y ago
  - jariel 7y ago
    Funny that the 'referendum' was not held until they were under military occupation by the power that forced the 'referendum' and that the results were staunchly in support of said military occupier. The referendum was boycotted, not subject to external validation, in a land that was already corrupted. "Invading a country and then holding a referendum at gunpoint whilst avoiding all transparency" I think seriously lacks legitimacy particularly if there was no imperative for the invasion (i.e. Ukrainian leaders were not putting those from Crimea in concentration camps or whatever).
  - drran 7y ago
    I suspect that this number is much higher. 127% maybe.
- pintxo 7y ago
  Don‘t be crazy /s/
- input_sh 7y ago
  Nope, you're the first human in history who has thought of that. Sarcasm aside, it's because India knows it'd lose in the referendum. The area is >60% Muslim, India has committed some horrible atrocities in the area, and there's just no way the majority of people there today would vote for India (decades ago, it would have been the opposite). Hence, India will do anything it can for the referendum to just not happen.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Kashmir is also a defensible natural barrier with a lot of mountains. If it's surrendered to Pakistan, that likely makes it harder for India to defend itself. That's not a justification, but it's a reason for India to want to keep it above and beyond the interests of the people-in-Kashmir-who-want-to-stay-part-of-India. It's kind of similar to Crimea (maintains access to the Black Sea) and, in historical terms, Thrace or East Prussia or Gdansk. In fact, after both World Wars people kind of decided it was easier to relocate people behind whatever borders were strategically agreed upon rather than try and build borders around which country the people already living there wanted to live in.
  - cmonnow 7y ago
    > India has committed some horrible atrocities in the area Hah. Boiler plate blame-the-other-of-your-faults strategy. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus Ethnic cleansing of Hindus who were mass-exoded out of their homelands through threat of murder and rape via public loudspeakers in the 90s. Innumerable terrorist attacks perpetrated by Pak ISI instigated and based agents ever since Independence, through Operation Gibraltar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar Kashmir was divided in partition in 1947. Pakistan didn't like it. They invaded Kashmir. Indian army held them at current Line of Actual Control. Since then they've been attacking it. Rape is a blotch to be condemned. It's been a unfortunate side effect of every war ever fought, by both sides. WWII - Germany vs Russia, and Russia vs Germany, for example. Taken from Human Rights Watch Report - "Rape in Kashmir: A Crime of War" 1993: "In some cases, women have been raped by militant forces as a way of punishing other family members believed to be informers or suspected of opposing the militants. In other cases, members of armed militant groups have abducted women and raped them after threatening or murdering other members of the family." Terrorism is a huge infestation problem, especially in Kashmir Every country has to deal with it strong-handedly as a duty. Every country since the beginning of time has introduced curfews and curbed liberty for security (TSA screenings hello?) for peace keeping. It's no secret the benefits outweigh the risks for the majority of peaceful population.

Kashmir has been disputed between India and Pakistan for several decades now.

SubuSS 7y ago

And China

Razengan 7y ago

Has anybody thought of asking the people of the disputed region which country they’d like to be a part of?

suprfsat 7y ago
Yes, and 97% of Crimea voted to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
- dmix 7y ago
  It's interesting that all of the prior polling by relatively politically neutral organizations (UNDP, Razumkov Centre), even dating back to 2009-2011 before the civil war, showed widespread support for at a minimum secession from Ukraine, including multiple polls showing a majority supporting joining Russia (consistently 65% to 70% in favour) yet the whole idea of Crimeans having a voice in their own statehood was rejected outright by the UN and others. > Razumkov characterized Crimeans' views as controversial and unsteady, and therefore vulnerable to internal and external influences. It's true the Russian run referendum is probably a very corruptible process and unreliable but there's no clear indication that the majority of Crimeans were actually against the idea. Which IMO should matter more than what the foreign UN diplomats and think-tanks believe is best for them. > Gallup poll found only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people. The other side of it is whether that even matters with in the context of Ukraine's sovereignty and other issues of statehood. Plus referendums should probably not be happening in moments of anarchy. But it's not a good look for the west when trying to win them over by blaming Russian interference while glossing over potentially legitimate local support.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    There was "potentially legitimate local support" from Germans living in Danzig and the Czech Sudetenland, too. The overriding principle of international law is that you shouldn't use your army to invade neighboring countries.
    - dmix 7y ago
      Indeed, it would be far more defensible if they merely seceded themselves instead of joining the bigger guy next door, with the direct intervention of their army beforehand. I'm a big fan of smaller states and more localized governments which closer reflect the people (see: Canada, Scandinavia, Singapore, Taiwan, HK, South Korea, etc). Few people talk about the US's massive population, economic, size/scale of modern western governments growth vs the past when talking about today's political and class divides. So my general point is that the needs/wants of the Crimeans themselves shouldn't be merely tossed aside and ignored just because Russia played a role. Especially if we're trying to prevent this from happening again. Taking the UN's elitist evil Russian boogieman approach leaves the world more vulnerable to this sort of thing, not less. Just like with ISIS/Iraq/Syria, the locals needs matter a lot more than we give them credit.
      - bushin 7y ago
        Ukrainians didn't think that Russians are evil boogiemen and look what happened to them. Better safe than sorry.
        dmix 7y ago
        Did you not follow the whole Ukraine civil war where the entire point was the gov was going non-NATO and pro-Russian? The vast majority of Ukraine stood up to Russia at significant costs to themselves. I agree with a lot of anti-Russian stuff (their overarching geopolitical approach not the hysteria that’s used as a political tool in the west), but that's a very strange counter-example to use...
        7y ago
- jariel 7y ago
  Funny that the 'referendum' was not held until they were under military occupation by the power that forced the 'referendum' and that the results were staunchly in support of said military occupier. The referendum was boycotted, not subject to external validation, in a land that was already corrupted. "Invading a country and then holding a referendum at gunpoint whilst avoiding all transparency" I think seriously lacks legitimacy particularly if there was no imperative for the invasion (i.e. Ukrainian leaders were not putting those from Crimea in concentration camps or whatever).
- drran 7y ago
  I suspect that this number is much higher. 127% maybe.
pintxo 7y ago
Don‘t be crazy /s/
input_sh 7y ago
Nope, you're the first human in history who has thought of that. Sarcasm aside, it's because India knows it'd lose in the referendum. The area is >60% Muslim, India has committed some horrible atrocities in the area, and there's just no way the majority of people there today would vote for India (decades ago, it would have been the opposite). Hence, India will do anything it can for the referendum to just not happen.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Kashmir is also a defensible natural barrier with a lot of mountains. If it's surrendered to Pakistan, that likely makes it harder for India to defend itself. That's not a justification, but it's a reason for India to want to keep it above and beyond the interests of the people-in-Kashmir-who-want-to-stay-part-of-India. It's kind of similar to Crimea (maintains access to the Black Sea) and, in historical terms, Thrace or East Prussia or Gdansk. In fact, after both World Wars people kind of decided it was easier to relocate people behind whatever borders were strategically agreed upon rather than try and build borders around which country the people already living there wanted to live in.
- cmonnow 7y ago
  > India has committed some horrible atrocities in the area Hah. Boiler plate blame-the-other-of-your-faults strategy. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus Ethnic cleansing of Hindus who were mass-exoded out of their homelands through threat of murder and rape via public loudspeakers in the 90s. Innumerable terrorist attacks perpetrated by Pak ISI instigated and based agents ever since Independence, through Operation Gibraltar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar Kashmir was divided in partition in 1947. Pakistan didn't like it. They invaded Kashmir. Indian army held them at current Line of Actual Control. Since then they've been attacking it. Rape is a blotch to be condemned. It's been a unfortunate side effect of every war ever fought, by both sides. WWII - Germany vs Russia, and Russia vs Germany, for example. Taken from Human Rights Watch Report - "Rape in Kashmir: A Crime of War" 1993: "In some cases, women have been raped by militant forces as a way of punishing other family members believed to be informers or suspected of opposing the militants. In other cases, members of armed militant groups have abducted women and raped them after threatening or murdering other members of the family." Terrorism is a huge infestation problem, especially in Kashmir Every country has to deal with it strong-handedly as a duty. Every country since the beginning of time has introduced curfews and curbed liberty for security (TSA screenings hello?) for peace keeping. It's no secret the benefits outweigh the risks for the majority of peaceful population.