Is Kashmir a disputed territory ?

The instrument of Accession was signed, so technically J&K should be a part of India. 

But I don't know what should be done. If the situation goes on like this, it is doing no good, if India goes into a war, and acquires the area, then also this won't stop. So, there is actually no peaceful end I see to this. Until, the whole area is granted independent status. Now this might sound absurd, cause that IS a part of India, but I guess that's the most peaceful end to it.

My dream is to see the whole of sub-continental area into a union. All the contries in peace. Much like the European Union.

But I read it somewhere, another reason Pakistan is so interested in the area is that the river Indus - the lifeline of Pakistan, originates from that area and so it is of strategic importance to Pakistan.

Also, we are forgetting here, a part of J&K - Aksai Chin, is under the PRC control. 

Kashmir is a cash cow if exploited for tourism.   I believe that is the reason why China and Pakistan have combined to create problems for India.   Unfortunately the annexation of Tibet by China has made it possible to logistically threaten India.

Mmmm... Agree with TF's point on Pak needing to get some sort of order, breaking up into smaller states. While we wait for that to happen, I wonder if giving more control to the states in the country, including Kashmir, would satiate their desire to be independent...

The Indian federal setup and resources don t allow us the luxury of giving more independence to states, breaking up of states whether Kashmir or AP would be suicidal in view of limited resources.  We cannot allow public to be taxed left right and centre and selling of natural resources which are free like Oil, Gas, Coal, Iron Ore, Cement etc to be sold at a premium

Just felt like saying it :

"Lamhe ne galti ki, Sazaa sadiyon ne payi."

every one and every country has to face some turbulence. It is prudence to root out any problem in budding stage. Every second passed is like a tougher situation and tougher price to be shelled at later stage.

People as of my knowledge are inborn with different traits, Liberals, staunch, very particular on religious script etc

.

Staunch ones easily get convinced and either lead the cause for their 

god or religion or follow their eloquent speakers.

It is proper governance and strict laws which control any eloquency by any leader whatsoever, and one has to sincerely take punitive action to curtail their venomous speeches which lead innocents to terrorism.

Pramod you are too diplomatic, shades of Lalooji.   Give your frank opinion dear

it is my frank irrevocable opinion boss: it is like this : Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I see bug of staunchism entering your veins dear. Immediately wear a red sapphire from the mogok mines of burma in your ring finger, lest..( I am serious)

,

I agree about bringing back the Kashmiri pandits and giving them protection and all. Frankly with Sheik Abdullah's support, India might have even won a plebescite in the region if it had been conducted and settled once and for all. But guess Nehru felt insecure and also not too sure of Abdullah's loyaties.

But I don't understand what role the king has. Do you also want to bring back the descendents of Mughal rulers to rule India and Pakistan as well ? Kings are gone and Hari Singh is a nobody. I don't see what some random king who anyway would have been overthrown by his people in the next few years has to do with the dispute at all even today. 

In my opinion, we should just take away J&K's special status and completely resettle the place with people from all over India like China is doing with Tibet and Xianjiang. And we should completely stop any socializing or talks with Pakistan and actively encourage freedom struggles in Sindh and Balochistan. 

crystal clear views @Fool, some of these type policy are run by America and other nations in tow. weakening others make one feel stronger. but :....."consequences: innocent lives.

@PL - I feel the current state of Pakistan is bad for people of both the countries and needs to break up for the good for all. If this state continues to exist for another 20 years, i am not sure if any of us in either country will be alive.

Yes let us resettle people from Punjab who are the original owners into Kashmir and than invite people from other states.  Well if you go back futher into times than it has been ruled by King Ashoka from Mauryan dynasty.  

I donot support such thing as human. I would encourage healthy democratic nation as a neighbour and support that irrevocably.

Umesh ji, I see you are getting over enthusiastic, as if solution is at hand.

Umesh ji, the thing is, we may talk endlessly on burning issues of kashmir, but I see no respite whatsoever in the years to come. blame it on politicians, or any one, but truth stands as it is.

I hope you understand me.

PL there should be no dialogue of Kashmir with Pakistan, since time immemorial it has been integral part of India.   Moreover Partition of the country has ensured that Pakistan got its territory.  The only mistake we seem to have commmitted is the seperation of Bangladesh, which is a b****er, because by this time the Pakis would have become bankrupt nation by trying to maintain Bangladesh territory.  If need be we should support cause of Pakistan once again to re claim Bangladesh and take back all migrants from India

Umesh ji,  why are you rigid on making a country bankrupt. Are you sure a bankrupt nation will heed to desirez of avowed fighting ( mentality that all it's grievances are the gift received from the other side. It will sell itself to your another neighboring enemy and try all possible ways to pamper and weaken and bring this country to same stature.

The politicians exploit and at expense of common innocent people, wait, and act only when they need votes to regain the seat. 

Every nation's honcho's least bother and has never taken Terrorism seriously and their fight against it is limited to safeguarding their own shells. They just talk of it. 

Now our country is victim of terrorism every now and then. What concrete steps has our country taken to counter them. 

our honcho's at top start blaming Pakistan of any ill happening and think their work is done and want America to scold them.

this is utterly undiplomatic. WHY NOT THESE SUCKER Bugs Leave the blame game and act. SECURE ALL BOUNDARIES. Employ and train more and more youth on patroling and severe checking processes. it is for our own safety only. Any known personality should be checked and frisked like the Americans do after the 9/11,

Well, umesh. I got a different view reading Ramchandra Guha's book. This Hari Singh was apparently a slimy character who wanted to try to have an independent nation and was arm twisted into acceding to India for the fear of being occupied by Pakistan - by the way then it was the Pakistan army and not terrorists. Both Indian and Paksitan states were acceding the princely states in the boundaries and it was fair game. 

And if we go by rulers preferences, the Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Junagadh opted to join Pakistan but were forced into joining the Indian state by the Indian army. The principle of partition was that anything on the borders which has Hindu majority goes to India and anything with Muslim majority goes with Pakistan. So by that principle, Pakistan staked claim on Kashmir it being a muslim majority state. But it being Nehru's birth place he did not want to let go. So he brought Sheikh Abdullah who represented popular opinion more to his side to ensure Kashmir joins India. In many of the princely states the people over threw the king to make their own choice and Hari Singh was an unpopular king. So his choice did not matter at all.

The main problem I feel is in the concept of the partion - the logic was muslims can't live happily in a Hindu majority state. But even after partition, India was left with large number of muslims who were even more minority after partition, which by the parition logic should have made their lives even more unhappy. And pakistan by its very logic of its formation has to fight for their rights. So the partion was really the shoddy deal - either it should not have been done or should have been clean split into a Hindu state and a Muslim state. And the way things are, there can not be any peace between Indiaand Pakistan unless Paksistan breaks into smaller states like how Bangladesh. Then peace may be possible with the smaller countries who do not carry the old legacy of the parition logic.  

We cannot erase history, it is one territory which was bought from British by paying a handsome 75 lakhs in 1846.   I believe by virtue of the treaty it is fully under the control of Dogra clans which was asceded to Indian Union.  Whether he was popular or unpopular is not up for debate.  It was transmigration of populace from across the border and chasing out the Kashmiri pandits, that Muslims have become majority in the valley.   It is now for the govt to correct the anamolies by bringing in the clan of the erstwhile king from Punjab into Kashmir for resettlement.   Secondly the linking of Railways will make it easier for people to resettle.   Finally the Indian govt has been spending billions subsidising foodgrains, fuel and all amenities to the valley.    Imagine when supplies were stopped at Jammu, people in Srinagar starved.   So we cannot entertain any claims or talk on Kashmir.

Partition of the Indian sub continent was a conspiracy to keep British interest active.   We need to move on.  I believe we should not have encouraged partition of Bangladesh, that was a b****er, can you imagine Pakistan would have become bankrupt by trying to maintain Bangladesh.