Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Kashmir
The issue of whether the region of Kashmir should be an independent state, part of India, or part of Pakistan, has been a source of serious conflict ever since India and Pakistan were partitioned into two different countries in 1947. When that partition occurred, the two new countries were divided along largely religious lines: most residents of the new country of India was Hindi, while most residents of the new country of Pakistan were Muslim. Kashmir, however, did not have any one dominant religion that could guide its destiny. The issue of who should govern Kashmir has been a source of contention and three wars since 1947 along with persistent border disputes.
Part of the difficulty is that the two regional powers, India and Pakistan, both feel that Kashmir should be part of their respective country. However, many Kashmiris feel that Kashmir should be its own independent state and will be dissatisfied no matter which country ultimately might rule them (Kumar M., 2005). Meanwhile, since India's Prime Minister Nehru first brought the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations in 1948, it has been the longest-existing territorial dispute in front of that organization (Kumar M., 2005).
"In 1947 the majority of Kashmir's residents were Moslem. However, its ruler was Hindu. In addition, in large areas the residents were Buddhist. While Kashmir shares a border with Moslem Pakistan, along that border lived a variety of religious groups including Sikh as well as Hindu and Muslim (Kumar R., 2002). Thus while most of the region was divided along religious boundaries, Kashmir really has no one clear and dominant religion.
What M. Kunar (2005) accurately describes as "deep-rooted animosity and distrust" has made conciliatory efforts at real compromise difficult for nearly six decades (Kumar M., 2005). Because both Pakistan and India are now nuclear powers, the conflict over Kashmir makes the instability of great concern to other nations.
The history of the region is problematical. Pakistan believed that Great Britain, who was in charge of the partition of India into two states in 1947, would be on its side because it suited Great Britain's interests at the time to help ensure Pakistan's survival (Kumar R., 2002). However, Great Britain knew that the issue...
Within three months of the partition, religious war broke out among Sikhs as well as Hindi and Muslims living in Punjab, resulting in multiple massacres, and peasants revolted in Kashmir. Pakistan, sensing that the Kashmiris might side with them, entered that war, and Pakistani tribesmen went to Kashmir to fight (Kumar R., 2002).
The Prime Minister of India, Jawararlal Nehru, hoped that a democratic election would help settle things, but Pakistan sent in troops to help the Pakistani tribesman. However, local Kashmiris supported the Indian troops who had entered the fracas (Kumar R., 2002).
Lingering hostilities between India and Pakistan after the partition persisted into the 1970's. In 1965, after the Indian government imprisoned a popular Moslem leader, Pakistan invaded Kashmir, once again erroneously believing that Kashmiris would support their actions and mount a revolt. Indian and Pakistan fought over Kashmir for a third time in 1971 after India interfered in internal Pakistani issue (whether the Eastern portion of that divided country should secede from Pakistan or not). This time, India saw a decisive victory. They captured a significant amount of Pakistani territory and captured nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers (Kumar R., 2002).
In all these conflicts, one important factor was continually overlooked by both Indian and Pakistan: the desires of the Kashmiri people themselves. Kashmir wanted sovereignty in 1947, but instead was given only the choice of joining Pakistan or joining India. Kashmir recognized its multi-ethnic nature and did not want to join with either country, but was not given that choice (Kumar R., 2002). While Kashmir has been informally divided between the two countries, both India and Pakistan have governed poorly, with problems including harsh repression and political corruption. A significant portion of the turmoil in Kashmir comes from the combined effects of this multi-faceted corruption and the fact that Kashmir has never sought to be a part of either India or Pakistan (Kumar M., 2005).
The Kashmiri had been difficult to…
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hardgrave, Robert L., Jr. 1998. Kashmir 1947: burdens of the past, options for the future - four perspectives. The Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, March.
Kumar, Manav. 2005.The Hidden Conflict: False Optimism and Silent Strategy in Kashmir. Harvard International Review 26.
Kumar, Radha. 2002. Untying the Kashmir knot. World Policy Journal, March.
Constructivism is based in a socio-political framework and must be interpreted according to the specific moral proclamations that pervade the minds of the inhabitants of a nation and also the leaders who put forth such laws. Social constructivists would argue that the Kashmiri people have endured a painful history full of bloodshed due to international conflicts. The formation of Kashmir as an independent nation has yet to come, but
Additionally, it is important to note that the perceptual nature of truth, even as it is unexamined does not in itself make truth genuine -- and that all is not relative. Instead: Bhaskar contrasts a relative and developing ethical naturalism with a rational moral realism. Ethical naturalism is at the level of moral rules designed to guide actions, and these change over time with changes in our ethical concepts (for
history of Pakistan and India and how they have progressed since winning independence. India and Pakistan Relations History of India and Pakistan relations There is no doubt about the fact that ever since the partition of the sub-continent that took place more than 50 years ago India and Pakistan have been arch rivals. Their animosity goes back to a long time ago and finds its main causes in religion and history, which
' Indians across the political spectrum, especially the country's powerful nuclear weapons establishment, are critical of the NPT, arguing that it unfairly warps international hierarchies to the disadvantage of the non-nuclear-weapon states" (1998:15). In its efforts to balance the pressures from the international community with its own self-interests in formulating foreign policies, the position adopted by India has been starkly different than other countries. In this regard, Karp concludes that,
history of events in the twentieth century, one might surmise that the twenty-first may not be all that different. Why? Because human nature and the pursuit of self-interest has not changed from one century to the next. To explain what drives international relations, Joshua Goldstein provides a brief history of the world, in addition to information about the geographical features and the consequences of different nation's economies. (Goldstein, 2003)
Stabilizing International Relations in East Asia and Possibility of Institutionalization The current relationship status between nations in East Asia is souring as the clock ticks. There is major instability with regards to the security problems especially as far as the North and South Korea are concerned. An arms race is going on with North Korea trying to accumulate Weapons of Mass Destruction. Recently it announced of its possession. This project aims