Borders of India

Drawing the Line An analysis of political borders and India’s tenuous relationship with its neighbors Student Materials Packet Name: ____________________________ Part 1: Drawing the Line The Physical and Cultural Geography of South Asia You will begin your investigation with a close analysis of the region’s physical landscape and demographic divisions. The primary tool of your analysis will be an interactive map with various layering components. Follow the directions and record your answers in the space provided next to each question. Access this interactive map of South Asia. Activate the “Modern Borders” layer by clicking the tab on the right side of the map. Now add the “Country Names” for ease of reference. 1. Follow the directions detailed below, adding specific layers to the map to reveal how the region’s physical landscape may have influenced the location of political borders in South Asia. a. Add the “Main Rivers” and “Other Rivers” layers. What do you notice about the location of major rivers relative to the placement of political borders of India? b. Add the “Mountains Lite” layer. To what extent do major mountain ranges like the Himalayas appear to influence the location of the region’s political borders? c. Add the “Volcanic Soil” and “Cotton Farms” layers. India’s volcanic soil, also referred to as “black cotton soils”, has played a central role in India’s historic cotton production. The nutrient-rich farmland has proved profitable and remains a major component of India’s export economy. In fact, India is the leading cotton producer in the world today. Where is cotton production located relative to the subcontinent’s political borders? 2. Deactivate all of the layers with the exception of “Modern Borders” and “Country Names”. Now you will explore the main cultural regions of India. a. Add the “Languages” layer. What are the major languages spoken among the peoples of the subcontinent and how are these languages distributed relative to the political borders that now subdivide the region? 1 b. Unclick the “Languages” layer and add the “Muslims 1947” layer. This layer reveals where Muslims were living in the region when India gained independence from Great Britain. Where is the greatest concentration of Muslims located? c. Add the “Hindus 1947” layer. Where are most Hindus located in 1947? To what extent does the concentration of religious groups (Muslim and Hindu) appear to have influenced the creation of political borders in 1947 (refer back to the “Age of Borders” image to identify the boundaries created in 1947). d. Cross reference your layered 1947 map with a more recent 2011 map illustrating the geographic distribution of India’s religious followers. To what extent is modern India religiously diverse today? 3. Conclusions: Synthesize the information you have gathered so far. a. What variables/factors appear to have been most influential in determining the location of India’s current political borders? b. What questions would you like to explore as we dig deeper into the historical roots of India’s national boundaries? 2 Part 2: Drawing the Line An investigation into the Historical Context This next step in your investigation introduces you to the historical context in which India secured its independence. A timeline and video clip will provide you with an overview of major developments leading up to and immediately following India’s independence. Secondly, a collection of primary sources will invite you to appreciate how competing visions for the region’s future ultimately determined the contours of India's political borders. By the end of this exercise you will begin to see how efforts to pave a peaceful path for India’s future paradoxically provoked new conflicts among various groups that still rage today. A. Timeline South Asia, a region defined by its physical landscape, religious history, and economic dominance in the spice trade and cotton production, became the focus of Britain’s colonial ambitions in the early 1700s. The War of Plassey (1757) and the Sepoy Mutiny (1857) emerged as watershed moments in Great Britain’s successful campaign to dominate the Indian subcontinent. However, the peoples of India actively resisted British rule, and their campaign for independence gained momentum in the early 20th century. Two groups, the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, led the effort to secure India’s independence. Amidst the ashes of World War II, their efforts proved effective. Great Britain agreed to withdraw from the Indian subcontinent in 1947, but its long-awaited departure reinvigorated domestic tensions among religious groups and forever transformed the political and cultural landscape of the region. (Timeline Source: Stanford History Education Group) In 1919, Indian leaders began fighting for independence from Great Britain. At this time, two major ethnic populations existed in India: Hindus, who were the great majority, and Muslims, who were a minority. Many Hindus hoped that India would remain united once the British left. But some Muslims, especially leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, worried about being a minority. When the British finally left India in 1947, they divided the Indian subcontinent, creating an independent India and a new state, Pakistan, for Muslims. They called this division the Partition Plan. 1930s The idea for a separate homeland for Muslims is introduced. 1935 Great Britain reforms policies to grant greater independence to Indians. Muslims worry they will be a permanent minority in a fully independent India. 1940 Muslim leader Jinnah calls for the establishment of Pakistan as a separate state for Indian’s Muslims. 1944 Hindu leaders fail to convince Jinnah to keep India unified. Aug.1946: Hindus and Muslims clash in Calcutta over formation of interim government. Approximately 5,000 die. March 1947 The British Government sends Louis Mountbatten to India to determine a plan for transferring power to Indians before June 1948. June 3, 1947 Mountbatten announces the Partition Plan and speeds up the transfer of power by ten months. August 14-15, 1947 Transfer of Power: India gains independence from Great Britain. August 16-17, 1947 Decision for partition boundaries is released and published. Migration and violence due to partition continues until the end of 1947. B. Video Overview 3 Watch “India-Pakistan partition explained.” Use the information presented in the video to answer the following questions. 1. In 1947 British India was divided into two new nations, India and Pakistan. What was the religious makeup of each of these two nations? 2. Using statistics from the video, explain how the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent impacted the peoples of the region. 3. Consider the deeper historical roots of religious tensions in the region. What was Britain’s “Divide and Rule” strategy and how did it nurture hostilities between Muslims and Hindus? 4. Who were the leaders of the Indian National Congress and what was their fundamental goal? 5. Who was the leader of the Muslim League and how did his goal for the region change over time? 6. Identify and describe the various developments (globally and regionally) that persuaded Great Britain to withdraw from the Indian subcontinent. 7. Who was in charge of partitioning British India and what factors did he consider as he divided the region? 8. The Horror of Partition: Describe at least three ways in which the implementation of the Partition Plan provoked violence and profoundly changed the demographics of the Indian subcontinent. C. Primary Source Analysis 4 1. Passages from the Presidential address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League (Lahore, 1940)1 Muhammad Ali Jinnah, known as the founder of Pakistan, served as president of the All-India Muslim League from 1913 until Pakistan’s independence on August 15, 1947. Although he initially joined forces with Mahatma Gandhi in a focused effort to create a unified secular India, his vision for the region’s future changed by the mid 1940s. When British came to the table to negotiate its withdrawal from the subcontinent, Jinnah pushed for the creation of a separate Muslim state. “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their perspectives on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s].” “The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government, will be the herald of the entire break-up, with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after one hundred fifty years of her rule, nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.” “Muslim India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years, and any repetItion of such a government must lead to civil war and [the] raising of private armies, as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to [the] Hindus of Sukkur when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not they must emigrate.” “Mussalmans [muslims] are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood. One has only got to look round. Even today, according to the British map of India, out of eleven provinces, four provinces where the Muslims dominate more or less, are functioning notwithstanding the decision of the Hindu Congress High Command to non-cooperate and prepare for civil disobedience. Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory, and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. 2. A modified passage from The Discovery of India, written by Jawaharlal Nehru and published in 1946. 1 For more biographical information and insight into the historical context of this source, see “Why was British India Partitioned in 1947? Considering the role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah” https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/why-was-british-india-partitioned-in-1947-considering-the-role-of-muhammad-ali-jinnah 5 Nehru was India’s first Prime Minister and a prominent member of India’s National Congress during the early to mid 20th century. He actively campaigned for India’s independence, spearheading the “Quit India Movement'' during World War II. Imprisoned by British authorities for his civil disobedience, Nehru wrote the following passages that were later included in his 1946 publication. 2 “Any division of India on a religious basis as between Hindus and Muslims, as proposed by the Moslem League today, cannot separate the followers of these two principal religions of India, for they are spread out all over the country. Even if the areas in which each group is in a majority are separated, huge minorities belonging to the other group remain in each area. Other religious groups, like the Sikhs, are split up unfairly against their will and placed in two different states. In giving freedom to separate to one group, other groups are denied that freedom . . . If the economic aspects of separation are considered, it is clear that India as a whole is a strong and more-or-less self-sufficient economic unit. If the division is made so as to separate the predominately Hindu and Muslim areas, the Hindu areas will not be so hard hit. The Muslim areas, on the other hand, will be economically backward. Thus, the odd fact emerges that those who today demand separation will suffer the most from it. The astonishing fact remains that those who propose “Pakistan” or partition have consistently refused to define what they mean or to consider the implications of such a division. They move on the emotional plane only . . . It is difficult to imagine any free state emerging from such turmoil, and if something does emerge, it will be full of contradictions and insoluble problems.” 3 2 https://sheg.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/download-pdf/India%20Partition%20Student%20Materials_0.pdf 3 1909 record of religious concentrations within India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India 6 3. The excerpt below is from a 1967 interview with Lord Louis Mountbatten Source: Collins, L. and Lapierre, D. (1982). Mountbatten and the Partition of India. U.K.: Garlandfold LTD. (pp. 57-58). Lord Louis Mountbatten reluctantly accepted the position of Viceroy of India in 1947. He was a highly decorated British military commander, but he lacked the political expertise necessary to oversee India’s delicate transition to independence. Mountbatten and his wife arrived in India in March 1947. The political climate that greeted them was combative. Competing visions for India’s future wrangled for influence: Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress wanted a united, secular India, while the Muslim League, led by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, pushed for the division of India and the creation of a separate Muslim state. Mountbatten and his wife, who had been close friends with Nehru, were initially optimistic that dreams of a unified, independent India could be realized. However escalating violence between Hindus and Muslims ultimately convinced Mountbatten that a Partition Plan was the only viable option. The following excerpt from a 1967 interview reveals Mountbatten’s candid appraisal of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the chief advocate of the creation of Pakistan. It’s worth noting that Jinnah died just one year after India secured its independence. Q: When you revealed to Jinnah what a “moth-eaten Pakistan” would be in his plan, were you trying to drive him to face the reality of what he was asking for in the hope that it might bring him to his senses? A: Correct. I was trying every trick I could play on him I was trying to appeal to him in every way I possibly could. But you see he had discovered the extraordinary success he’d been able to have through continuing to say no. This was unbeatable. And he’d made this discovery before I came out [to India]. The only difference between the various negotiators he’d had before me was that he had no audience before which to say no, and it’s not the same thing to say it to one person. He had no gallery to play to. The only time he had a gallery, he just had to nod his head. It’s my experience that people talk quite differently when they’re alone than when there are other people listening. Q: In researching for Freedom at Midnight we made the astonishing discovery that Jinnah was dying of tuberculosis in 1947 and that his doctor didn’t expect him to live for more than six or seven months. Were you aware of this? A: Not only was I not aware, but nobody was away. Nobody had a clue and I’m glad I didn’t because I just don’t know what I would have done if I’d known that. You see Jinnah was so much of a one man band. If somebody had told me he’s going to be dead in x months would I then—I’m asking myself this question now—would I have said, Let’s hold India together and not divide it? Would I have put back the clock and held the position? Most probably. I have a feeling Jinnah may not have known himself he had tuberculosis. He was a very severe, cold and repressed person. Nothing would have surprised me about him. He was an extraordinary creature. However, it is clear that Wavell and others knew that Jinnah was seriously ill by the time I reached Delhi. No such rumour reached me, my wife, my staff, my daughter, nor any of my immediate British staff. The previous British staff, if they knew about it, kept it to themselves. This was disastrous because if I had known, things would have been handled quite differently. Liaquat Ali Khan was a man one could deal with, an Indian gentleman. Jinnah was a lunatic. He was absolutely, completely impossible. I don’t think we would have waited for him to die because that, I don’t think we neither could have afforded the time, nor could we have felt certain of it. But what we could have done is to argue with him in a very different way. I assumed I was dealing with a man who was there for keeps, and had Pakistan as his object on which I couldn’t steer him around. If, in fact, suppose for a moment that Jinnah had died, literally before the transfer of power, I believe the Congress would have been so relieved that their arch enemy was dead—and none of the others were regarded as anything more or less than Jinnah’s shadow—we would have been dealing on a basis where Congress would have been prepared to give up much more and the others would have been ready to accept that. It’s a horrifying thought that we were never told. 7 Name: ____________________________ Student Synthesis of Primary Sources See Source #1. Summarize in your own words Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s justification for the division of British India and the creation of a separate Muslim state. See Source #2. Jawaharlal Nehru, leader of the Indian National Congress, directly challenges Jinnah’s plan for India’s future. What insight does Nehru share regarding the reasons for creating a united, secular India? How and why is Lord Louis Mountbatten critical of the Partition Plan just 20 years after the agreement was finalized? Consider the physical and cultural geography of the Indian subcontinent, reflect on the historical context surrounding the 1947 Partition plan, and review the tragic events that unfolded in the months immediately following India’s independence. Given what you know now, what would you have done if you were Lord Mountbatten in 1947? Justify your plan of action for the newly independent subcontinent by citing specific evidence from our investigation. 8 D. Literary Challenge Once leaders decided to partition British India into two separate nations, they recruited Sir Cyril Radcliffe to draw the borders that would divide a newly independent India from the Muslim state of Pakistan. Radcliffe had exactly five weeks to accomplish this seemingly impossible task. His efforts were complicated by unyielding demands from both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, unreliable census records, and a muddied vision for how to secure the region’s longterm peace and prosperity. The resulting boundary, dubbed the Radcliffe Line, was announced on August 17, 1947. Its pathway snaked through the subcontinent, creating two new nations, provoking violent conflicts, and prompting one of the largest human migrations in world history. Not surprisingly, Radcliffe’s partition plan attracted criticism from all over the world. In fact, two decades after the plan was implemented, Anglo-American author WH Auden penned a poem entitled “Partition”, lambasting Radcliffe and his British contemporaries for the reckless speed with which they dissected the subcontinent. Partition (1966) by WH Auden Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission, Having never set eyes on this land he was called to partition Between two peoples fanatically at odds, With their different diets and incompatible gods. 'Time,' they had briefed him in London, 'is short. It's too late For mutual reconciliation or rational debate: The only solution now lies in separation. The Viceroy thinks, as you will see from his letter, That the less you are seen in his company the better, So we've arranged to provide you with other accommodation. We can give you four judges, two Moslem and two Hindu, To consult with, but the final decision must rest with you.' Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day Patrolling the gardens to keep assassins away, He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect, But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot, And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot, But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided, A continent for better or worse divided. The next day he sailed for England, where he quickly forgot The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not, Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot. ASSIGNMENT: Inspired by WH Auden’s example, write your own poem about the partition of British India. Your poem should be written from the perspective of Jawaharlal Nehru or Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Review the primary sources you read earlier. Carefully consider each man’s unique vision for India’s future and decide which individual you would like to give voice to in your poem. To receive full credit, you must submit at least two quatrains (eight lines total) that accurately reflect the views of the leader you chose (Nehru or Jinnah). Include a title for your poem that clearly identifies the historical figure you are spotlighting. 9 Kashmir: What to Know About the Disputed Region The Indian government’s surprise move to strip autonomy from part of Kashmir heightens tensions with Pakistan over the disputed region. The Indian government has inflamed its decades-long dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, a mountainous region claimed by both countries. On Monday, New Delhi revoked a section of its constitution that granted the India-controlled part of Kashmir some autonomy, prompting protests and heightening the risk of conflict between the nuclear-armed rivals. What is Kashmir’s status? Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region, has been claimed by both Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan since the end of British colonial rule in 1947. The region is now separated by the 450-mile Line of Control, with hundreds of thousands of troops stationed there. Disputes over Kashmir’s status have fueled three wars and periodic bouts of violence. Kashmiri separatist groups, who have long resisted India’s control, exacerbate those tensions. China also claims a small part of the region. The India-controlled part, which makes up about 45 percent of Kashmir, has been officially recognized by New Delhi as the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Home to more than twelve million people, roughly 1 percent of India’s population, it is the country’s only Muslim-majority state. India’s constitution—specifically Article 370—for the past seventy years allowed the state to make its own laws. It also effectively banned nonresidents from buying property and working in local government. But Jammu and Kashmir’s special status ended this week when New Delhi abolished Article 370. The government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, also announced that Jammu and Kashmir would be downgraded from state and split into two union territories, giving New Delhi more control over the area’s affairs. Pakistan condemned India’s move, saying it would consider “all possible options to counter the illegal steps.” At the same time, the United Nations urged both countries to exercise restraint. While Islamabad has previously welcomed outside mediation to resolve the Kashmir issue, India has consistently resisted it, and diplomatic talks have been stalled for years. 10 Update March 30, 2021 In late February, India and Pakistan announced a cease-fire along their de facto border in the contested region of Kashmir. In a joint statement, the two countries’ military authorities said that there will be a “strict observance of all agreements, understandings and cease firing,” while also claiming they will seek to “address each other’s core issues and concerns” to ensure sustainable peace between the two long-time enemies. The announcement essentially revives a 2003 cease-fire agreement along the Line of Control, or LoC, as the de facto border is known. It was followed on March 18 by a speech by Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, in which he called upon both countries to “bury the past and move forward,” generating some optimism among India-Pakistan watchers. 11 Part 3: Drawing the Line Negotiating a Solution to the Crisis in Kashmir Student Names: ________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Policy Solution: ________________________ Step 1: Familiarize yourselves with the policy solution assigned to you. Carefully consider how your proposed solution to the crisis in Kashmir fits within the broader historical framework of the region. Be mindful of the religious divisions, competing political agendas, and various attempts at peace. Identify possible positive and negative consequences of your policy proposal. Remember that your proposal is just one of seven options that will be presented during the class debate. To persuade the audience to adopt your proposal, you must be prepared to argue that your option outlines the best path forward. To do this, you will need to recognize the possible weaknesses of your plan, while asserting that the benefits outweigh these costs. Step 2: Write an opening statement. Your opening statement should clearly outline your policy proposal and provide an overview of the evidence that supports your position. Step 3: Debate Preparation Prepare for the debate by considering other policy positions your classmates might present. You may want to spy on other groups to gather information. Remember that in order to win the debate, you must persuade the audience that the options presented by the other groups are deeply flawed. 12 PROPOSED POLICY POSITION #1: Maintain the status quo EXPLANATION: Kashmir has been a flashpoint between India and Pakistan for more than 50 years. Currently a boundary - the Line of Control divides the region in two, with one part administered by India and one by Pakistan. India would like to formalize this status quo and make it the accepted international boundary. But Pakistan and Kashmiri activists reject this plan because they both want greater control over the region. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: In 1947-1948 India and Pakistan fought their first war over Jammu and Kashmir. Under United Nations' supervision, they agreed to a ceasefire along a line which left one-third of the state - comprising what Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the Northern Areas administered by Pakistan and two-thirds, Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley, administered by India. In 1972, under the terms of the Simla agreement, the ceasefire line was renamed the Line of Control. Although India claims that the entire state is part of India, it has been prepared to accept the Line of Control as the international border, with some possible modifications. Both the US and the UK have also favored turning the Line of Control into an internationally-recognized frontier. But Pakistan has consistently refused to accept the Line of Control as the border since the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley would remain as part of India. Formalizing the status quo also does not take into account the aspirations of those Kashmiris who have been fighting since 1989 for independence for the whole or part of the state. 13 PROPOSED POLICY POSITION #2: Kashmir joins Pakistan EXPLANATION: Pakistan has consistently favored this as the best solution to the dispute. In view of the state's majority Muslim population, it believes that Kashmiris, if given the opportunity, would vote to become part of Pakistan. However a single plebiscite held in a region which comprises of peoples that are culturally, religiously and ethnically diverse, would create disaffected minorities. The Hindus of Jammu, and the Buddhists of Ladakh have never shown any desire to join Pakistan and would likely protest the outcome. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: In 1947 India and Pakistan agreed that the allegiance of the state of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by a plebiscite. Had the majority voted in favor of Pakistan, the whole state would have become part of Pakistan. This no longer seems to be an option. A plebiscite offering the choice of union with Pakistan or India also does not take into account the movement for independence which has been supported by political and militant activists since 1989. India has long since rejected the idea of a plebiscite as a means of settling the Kashmir issue. Instead the government argues that the people have exercised their right of self-determination by participating in elections within the state. However the demand for a plebiscite to be held, as recommended by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten in 1947, and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, is still considered by some as a way of letting Kashmiris exercise their right of self-determination. 14 PROPOSED POLICY POSITION #3: Kashmir joins India EXPLANATION: Such a solution would be unlikely to bring stability to the region as the Muslim inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, including the Northern Areas, have never shown any desire to become part of India. However, Prime Minister Modi, bolstered by the enthusiastic support of Hindu Nationalists throughout India, is confident that he can subdue any localized opposition. Afterall, India has the world's second-largest military force, a stark reality Pakistan is poorly positioned to counter. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: In 1947 India and Pakistan agreed that the allegiance of the state of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by a plebiscite. Had the majority voted in favor of Pakistan, the whole state would have become part of Pakistan. This no longer seems to be an option. A plebiscite offering the choice of union with Pakistan or India also does not take into account the movement for independence which has been supported by political and militant activists since 1989. India has long since rejected the idea of a plebiscite as a means of settling the Kashmir issue. Instead the government argues that the people have exercised their right of self-determination by participating in elections within the state. However the demand for a plebiscite to be held, as recommended by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten in 1947, and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, is still considered by some as a way of letting Kashmiris exercise their right of self-determination. 15 PROPOSED POLICY POSITION #4: Independent Kashmir EXPLANATION: By granting Kashmir sovereignty, affording its local residents complete control over its economy and government, we might be able to secure an end to the decades-long conflict. However, the difficulty of adopting this as a potential solution is that it requires India and Pakistan to give up territory, which they have been historically unwilling to do. Any plebiscite or referendum resulting in a majority vote for independence would likely prompt fierce opposition from both India and Pakistan. It would also be rejected by the inhabitants of the state who are content with their status as part of the countries to which they already owe allegiance. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: An independent Jammu and Kashmir might also set in motion the demand for independence by other states in both India and Pakistan and lead to a "Balkanization" of the region. In the 1960s, following discussions between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir, a group of Kashmiris demanded that the entire state should become independent as it was prior to the Maharajah's accession to India in 1947. The movement for independence of the entire state is mainly supported by Kashmiris who inhabit the more populous Kashmir Valley and who would like both India and Pakistan to vacate the areas they are occupying. These activists base their claim on the fact that the state was formerly an independent princely state, is geographically larger than at least 68 countries of the United Nations, and more populous than 90. This movement is not supported by India or Pakistan, both of which would lose territory. And in view of the likely regional instability, an independent Kashmir is not supported by the international community either. 16 PROPOSED POLICY POSITION #5: A smaller independent Kashmir EXPLANATION: An independent Kashmir could be created from the Kashmir Valley currently under Indian administration - and the narrow strip of land which Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This would leave the strategically important regions of the Northern Areas and Ladakh, bordering China, under the control of Pakistan and India respectively. However both India and Pakistan would be unlikely to enter into discussions which would have this scenario as a possible outcome. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: If, as the result of a regional plebiscite, which offered the option of independence, the majority of the inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley chose independence and the majority of the inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, (excluding the Northern Areas) also chose independence, a smaller, independent Kashmir could be created by administratively joining these two areas together. This would leave the predominantly Muslim Northern Areas as part of Pakistan and Buddhist Ladakh and majority Hindu Jammu as part of India, with the possibility that some Muslim districts of Jammu might also opt to join the independent state. Although Pakistan has demanded a change in the status of the Kashmir Valley, it depends on water from the Mangla Reservoir in Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir and would be unlikely to permit loss of control of the region. India is still committed to retaining the Kashmir Valley as part of the Indian Union and has refused to consider holding a plebiscite in any part of the state. Regardless of the aspirations of the inhabitants, to date neither country has contemplated a situation where the end result would adversely affect their own interests. 17 PROPOSED POLICY POSITION #6: Independent Kashmir Valley EXPLANATION: An independent Kashmir Valley has been considered by some as the best solution because it would address the grievances of those who have been fighting against the Indian Government since the insurgency began in 1989. But critics say that, without external assistance, the region would not be economically viable. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The movement for independence in the Kashmir Valley gained momentum in the late 1980s when Kashmiris protested against their continuing allegiance to the Indian Union. In the present day, if a regional plebiscite offered independence as an option, it is possible that the majority of Kashmiris would vote in favor of independence. With an approximate land mass of 1,800 square miles (80 miles long, 20 to 25 miles wide) it is much larger than Monaco and Liechtenstein – but only one-tenth of the size of Bhutan. Whether or not the rest of the state retained its current political affiliations, many Kashmiris therefore believe that the valley could be viable in its own right. In terms of livelihood, the valley could sustain itself through tourism, handicrafts and agriculture. But an independent Kashmir Valley would also need to retain good relations with its neighbors in order to survive economically. Not only is the region landlocked, but it is snowbound during winter. An independent Kashmir Valley would have the advantage of giving neither Pakistan nor India a victory out of their longstanding dispute. But although Pakistan might favor the creation of an independent Kashmir Valley, India would be unlikely to agree to the loss of territory involved. Autonomy of the same region under the Indian Union is also an option; Pakistan is more likely to request a 'joint protectorate' in order to safeguard the Kashmir valley's political integrity and economic development. 18 PROPOSED POLICY POSITION #7: The Chenab formula EXPLANATION: This plan, first suggested in the 1960s, would see Kashmir divided along the line of the River Chenab. This would give the vast majority of land to Pakistan and, as such, a clear victory in its longstanding dispute with India. The entire valley with its Muslim majority population would be brought within Pakistan's borders, as well as the majority Muslim areas of Jammu. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: With the inclusion of Ladakh, which also lies north of the Chenab river, India would be left with approximately 3,000 square miles of territory out of 84,000 square miles. This solution would require the voluntary agreement of India to give up territory which it wants to retain. It is impossible to see what benefit India could derive from the transfer of so much land, and why the government - or the inhabitants of the region who are not contesting their status - would ever agree to such a solution. It also does not take into account the movement for independence which has been extremely vocal ever since the insurgency began in the 1980s, and whose supporters have been demanding independence of all or part of the state. 19 20