Should Kashmir be unified under or as a single state?

Résumé du document

Since the departure of the British from the region in 1947, the Kashmiri population never stopped suffering form the struggle and wars between Pakistan and India. In this conflict, everybody had first their own reason to struggle for Kashmir but the conflict soon became about national pride. The problem is that by being concerned about their own national pride, both India and Pakistan forgot about the fate of 12 million people made of Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists and wishing peace and self-determination. Today, it seems hardly possible to expect that any of these countries will be welcomed as the ruler of the Jammu-Kashmir region after all the turmoil both caused. In this debate paper, we will concentrate on the possibility of an independent Kashmir by arguing first that historically, Kashmir was never meant to be bound to any other country and that India has no legal ground for claiming Kashmir.

Extraits

[...] Debate: be it resolved that Kashmir should be unified under or as a single state? TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION Historic Background 3 A Kashmir history of independence B Problem of the Maharaja International Law defines Kashmir as a State A Kashmir is a State and a Nation B Article 370 on autonomy of Kashmir C The Right to Self-Determination The Indo-Pakistan deadlock CONCLUSION: 4 INTRODUCTION Since the departure of the British from the region in 1947, the Kashmiri population never stopped suffering form the struggle and different wars between Pakistan and India. [...]

[...] Dhar. An outline of the History of Kashmir. http://koausa.org/Crown/history.html Ranjan. K. Agarwal. Should India and Pakistan allow a plebiscite on self- determination in Kashmir? http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=221. May Slomanson, William. Fundamental perspectives on International Law. 3rd Edition. San Diego: Clark Baxter Slomanson, William. Fundamental perspectives on International Law. 3rd Edition. [...]

[...] Kashmir going to India is a threat to Pakistan itself but also its “raison être” as a Muslim nation. Also, Pakistan fears a Hindu hegemony as many think India's goal is to unify south Asia under Hinduism. Kashmir going to Pakistan is not more acceptable as it would the beginning of the country's division to Indians, and would be an attack towards its “raison être” as a secular Nation. Hence, no side is willing to agree to the other's demand and a plebiscite is the only solution to the controversy and will possibly end the long running dispute between India and Pakistan. [...]

[...] Slomanson, William. Fundamental perspectives on International Law. 3rd Edition. San Diego: Clark Baxter pp 331. Slomanson, William. Fundamental perspectives on International Law. 3rd Edition. San Diego: Clark Baxter pp 340. http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/jkunresolution.html http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=221 Slomanson, William. Fundamental perspectives on International Law. 3rd Edition. [...]

[...] As a consequence, Kashmir can still be considered as a disputed territory. By August The United Nations passed the Resolution on Kashmir[11], stating that Kashmiris should choose to accede either to India or Pakistan through a free and democratic plebiscite. The problem is that no possibility to choose independence was given to Kashmiris but yet, makes clear that only a referendum held under the United Nations would be valid. A bigger problem with that resolution is that it was based on the peaceful withdrawal of Pakistan at that time. [...]