Jammu and Kashmir in Numbers

The State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under India’s administration accounts for roughly 3% of India’s land area and 1% of its population. Of this 1% population, roughly two-thirds is Muslim and the rest is divided amongst Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. Of the two-thirds of the Muslim population, approximately 90% lives in the Kashmir valley. It should be noted that because of terrorism, a part of the non-Muslim population was forced to move out of J&K. J&K is divided into Kashmir Valley (16%), Jammu (26%) and Ladakh (59%) regions. In terms of population, Kashmir Valley accounts for roughly 54% of its population, while Jammu and Ladakh account for the balance. As for the contribution towards economy, J&K accounts for less than 1% of India’s GDP (Nominal, 2012-13).

When people talk about the issue in Kashmir under India’s administration, they are by and large referring to the issues that those residing in the Kashmir valley are supposed to have with the Indian administration. In terms of numbers, we are talking about approximately 0.5% of the total land and population of India, and 16% area of J&K.

So the question is why there is a perception that such a small proportion of India’s population has issues with blending with rest of India, a land of extreme diversity? In a land of over 1.2B people, there are going to be a few issues here and there, but a large majority of India’s population is united despite its diversity.

Pakistan’s Propaganda

One explanation is the propaganda created by Pakistan which occupies the Azad, Gilgit and Balistan regions of J&K. China occupies Aksai Chin. A brief glance at the history would tell that when the princely state of J&K was deliberating on whether to join India or Pakistan, some tribal groups, along with Pakistani Army disguised as tribal militants, marched towards J&K’s capital Srinagar. The Maharaja of Kashmir immediately joined India under the treaty that governs the formation of Pakistan as well. Indian Army entered J&K to stop the ill-advised invasion by Pakistan and its supported groups. Since then majority of J&K is shared between the two neighbors, while a portion remains with China. The propaganda by Pakistan is against India only.

The next question is why there is a need for Pakistan to continue with such propaganda against India? The answer could be explained by how the military establishment in countries such as North Korea control their citizen. The military establishment has either directly or indirectly controlled Pakistan for most part of the country’s existence. The only way for the army to continue to be supremely important in the country is by keeping its citizens under fear of external threats – India. It should be noted that Pakistan itself was formed because of its perceived threats of being a part of a secular and diverse country.

Despite having strong relations with Islamic countries including neighbors such as Afghanistan and Bangladesh, a secular and diverse India with a majority of Hindu population is portrayed as one wanting to destroy Pakistan as a part of its crusade against Islamic States. In order to maintain its stronghold in Pakistan, the Pakistani military keeps the hostility with India burning through the Kashmir issue. The Pakistani establishment then portrays India’s retaliation and strong approach to protect its land against Pakistan’s intrusion in its internal matters and the use of terrorism as a policy as an attack on Pakistan by India. So whether Pakistan attacks or India retaliates, it furthers the cause of Pakistani Army.

Another reason for grievance for Pakistani Army is the setback it suffered by the formation of Bangladesh, a former territory of Pakistan liberated with India’s support in the 1970s. Therefore, Pakistan Army has deep rooted hostility towards the Indian Army. Since Pakistan is governed directly or in-directly by rogue military establishment, most of its resources including its secret service, the infamous Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is devoted to causing unnecessary upheaval in the region. And, as mentioned before, any retaliation against Pakistan can also be conveniently portrayed as an attack on Pakistan. The control enjoyed by the Pakistani military establishment in its country is directly proportional to the instability in the region.

Now the question is why any country would want to occupy Pakistan, a country without abundant natural resources, economic benefits, productivity, and stability? The economic and social cost of occupying Pakistan would probably be higher than potential benefits. However, delusional Pakistan continues to arm itself and fund its military to guard against the false external threats. The nuclear state even refers to its nuclear arsenal as “Islamic Bomb” as if the arsenal is to be used against non-Muslims only. Afghanistan, another country that shares border with Pakistan, has issues with the unreliable Pakistani military establishment as well. Pakistan also wrongly assumes that by possessing nuclear arsenal, it has immunity and the military establishment can continue to do whatever it pleases in the region to maintain its position in the nation.

Coming back to the Kashmir area under Pakistan’s occupation, the area has not seen any substantial growth or prosperity. Despite being termed as “Azad” (Free), the Azad Kashmir region is not free and is overseen by Pakistani government. Pakistan has also divided the region in to Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas (The Gilgit-Balistan region which are a part of the former princely state of J&K). Additionally, Pakistan ceded a part of Kashmir to China, a great gesture by a country that cares for Kashmiris and their land. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) is also used to support separatist movements in India to destabilize the region.

Pakistan continues to fuel the Kashmir issue by provoking the status-quo at the Line of Control (LoC) and by exchanging fire on the border, along with fueling separatist movements. Pakistan also asks for plebiscite in the region. In hopes to separate Kashmir from India, Pakistan has also influenced the demographics in the region by driving a large number of non-Muslim population out of the region and creating confusion amongst the Muslim population. If Pakistan was serious about plebiscite, the Kashmir under its occupation would be free. The primary condition of U.N. resolution is that Pakistan first removes its forces from Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas. Pakistan army has not fulfilled this condition since 1947, continues its military presence in the region, and uses the region to support terrorist networks. As a result, the region is in turmoil, confused and unable to leverage on India’s growing economic success.

A peek inside Pakistan reveals that a large majority of population in Balochistan, the south-western state of Pakistan, is also unhappy to be under the direct / in-direct rule of Pakistan’s military and exploitation of its resources. If there is a region that truly needs to determine its future through plebiscite, it is Balochistan. If Pakistan truly believes in self-determination, it should extend that right to the people of Balochistan first. Pakistan is quick to point out instances of recent referendums such as the Scotland and Crimea referendums so why not practice what it preaches by conducting a plebiscite under neutral observation in Balochistan?

Another big question is – For how long can the region continue to be used by the rogue Pakistan military establishment to attain its goals? Remember this is the same establishment that, on one hand, pretended to assist in the capture of Osama Bin Laden; and, on the other hand, hid Osama Bin Laden in its backyard.

The Way Forward

As can be seen through the lens of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Baluchistan, Pakistani Army has little interest in the will of the people except for using them to attain its selfish objectives. While India sees no incremental benefits in fighting a war with Pakistan. In such a scenario, what could be the way forward?

Should India and Pakistan accept the current Line of Control (LoC) as international boundary?

Should India work to reclaim Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas, the areas that belong to the former princely state of J&K which agreed to join India? The treaty is the part of the same process that supports the creation of Pakistan. If Pakistan does not honor the treaty, does it mean it questions its own creation too?

Should a right for self-determination be given to the people of Pakistan especially in areas such as Balochistan which have been held hostage by the interests of Pakistan military establishment, a condition that the people of that region did not bargain for when they decided to join Pakistan? No region would have bargained to be ruled by dictators.

Should organizations such as U.N. step in to control states such as Pakistan and North Korea, who believe that having a nuclear arsenal gives them immunity, a right to blackmail the world, and a licence to their military establishment to do as they please? Is there a need to dismantle the nuclear arsenal of such irresponsible countries?

While we ponder over the solution to the Kashmir issue, ironically, it should never have been a problem in the first place. It is a manufactured problem.