The Instigator
karththegeld
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Xie-Xijivuli
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

J&K should fully accede to the India

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,730 times Debate No: 7568
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

karththegeld

Pro

Thanks in advance to whomever accepts this debate.

If the topic isn't clear, this debate is about whether the entirety of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) becomes part of India; or goes with the other options of becoming a sovereign nation, acceding to Pakistan, or remaining partly acceded to India.

I have taken the position that Kashmir should fully accede to India, my opponent takes the position that Kashmir shouldn't fully accede to India.

And I'll start.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J&K has 4 options:

1) remain partially acceded to India- India maintains control of foreign affairs, communication, and defense
2) become fully acceded to Pakistan
3) become a sovereign nation
4) become fully acceded to India

I'll start with opt. 1 and move down through to opt. 3 saying why those options wouldn't work, then state my reasons for the option I have chosen as best (opt. 4).

1) maintain position as is with the Indian Government in control of foreign affairs, defense, and communication

Pakistan would keeps it's 1/3 of J&K which was taken by the time the cease-fire was called in 1949. Meaning there would be constant attempts at "rescue" from Pakistan. With these attempts comes bloodshed, already more than 2,000 lives have been killed over this conflict.

There would continue to exist a problem within the three areas of J&K (Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh). A majority of Jammu wants full integration with India. A majority of Kashmir fears religious persecution in the future. And a majority of Ladhakh fears religious persecution as well. A decision made must provide to appease the wants of the populations of all the three areas.

2) J&K fully accedes to Pakistan

To start with, 14 distinguished Muslims in India sent a memorandum to the UN in 1951 stating:

"...to rescue the 3 million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus... Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of 40 million Muslims in India—a strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow Muslims"

Even with it's religious argument, Pakistan fails because it sacrifices more than 10 times the number it claims to be "saving."

Also, the general population of J&K does not care to accede to Pakistan. As a society should work to achieve what is in the best interests of the people, J&K should not accede Pakistan.

If J&K does accede though, the Tibetan Buddhists in Ladhakh and the Dogra Hindus suffer from religious persecution by Muslims who want to create a nation entirely for Muslims.

3) J&K becomes a sovereign nation

First and foremost, J&K, due to its ethnic diversity would suffer from internal problems. There would be constant disagreement on what actions should be taken because there would be 3 sides to the argument (2 of which almost always contradict).

J&K would need constant military aid as Pakistan, which has demonstrated the want to use military options to "liberate" the Muslims in J&K, would invade every so often.

The constant military need would also lower the money available for the government to do other things for the benefit of the State and its people.

Now, why J&K should fully accede to India.

4) J&K fully accedes to India

The secular government of India would be able to work things for the benefit of all religious groups, solving a problem that exists in the other 3 options.

Sheikh Abdullah, one of the most prominent leaders of J&K said:

"From my experience in the past four years, it is my considered judgment…that the presence of Kashmir in the Union of India has been the major factor in stabilizing relations between the Hindus and Muslims of India"

If J&K was, as Sheikh Abdullah said, the stabilizing factor, then Muslims in J&K would not have to fear religious persecution when a part of India. The same would also apply to the Buddhists in Ladakh as their religion falls in closely with Hinduism. No group would have to suffer religious persecution as a result of acceding to India, whereas, the two religious minorities (Hindus and Buddhists) would suffer as a result of acceding with Pakistan.

There would be no need for constant aid, as Pakistan would not be able to bother Kashmir as often without going to war with India, which, in Pakistan's current economic state would be disastrous without accounting for the bloodshed.

All in all, India is the better choice.

I await my opponent's response.
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

Thanks to karthegeld for the debate! I hope one of us will become more enlightened on the subject.

Now, for those of you thought Kashmir was only a really nice fabric, The Kashmir conflict actually refers to the territorial dispute over Kashmir, the northwestern-most region of the Indian subcontinent. Many people claim Kashmir: China, the inhabitants of Kashmir, India, and Pakistan.

*I believe Kashmir should become an independent nation.*

MY OPPONENT CLAIMS:
//First and foremost, J&K, due to its ethnic diversity would suffer from internal problems. There would be constant disagreement on what actions should be taken because there would be 3 sides to the argument (2 of which almost always contradict).//

Is not the United States a melting pot of ethnicities, cultures, and religions? Is not the United States a great country; it is one of the most powerful!

Kashmir is full of different races, you are correct. Most of the violence you describe here, though, is due to the people of Jamma and Kashmir expressing their want to be a free country,

MY OPPONEnT SAYS:
//J&K would need constant military aid as Pakistan, which has demonstrated the want to use military options to "liberate" the Muslims in J&K, would invade every so often.

The constant military need would also lower the money available for the government to do other things for the benefit of the State and its people.//

Pakistan needs a loophole, as does India. They need a reason to march into Kashmir. There reason is the Muslim population. Pakistan has enough to worry about -- namely China and India. Pakistan knows if it invades Jammu and Kashmir, they will spark a major conflict -- so they will not do so.

The money made by Kashmir would be sufficient, especially when you subtract Indian taxes.

MY POINT is, that if Kashmir were to become part of one of the main three nations that want it (China, India, Pakistan) it would spark major conflict between countries who already hate each other. Just imagine three nuclear powers getting closer and closer to the tipping point.
Debate Round No. 1
karththegeld

Pro

Thank you Xie-Xijivuli for accepting this debate.

I'll be starting with what my opponent says, then proceed to sum up my argument and conclude my argument.

I'll begin with the China thing. If China does feel it should claim Kashmir, it is most impractical logic. Roughly 1% of the population consists of Tibetan Buddhists, the other 99% are Hindus and Muslims. China has only a practical claim if the population of Tibetan Buddhists was a considerably large portion of Kashmir.

The United States is very ethnically diverse. The United States I can't say is a great country as "great" is a bit ambiguous, but yes the USA is very powerful if you consider the amount of nuclear weapons at it's disposal.

The difference between Kashmir and the US is that the ethnic groups of the US do not quarrel for power. Ethnic nationalism is very high in that area. Hindu nationalists want full integration with India. Muslim nationalists would only fear persecution, but as I had said previously, Sheikh Abdullah says otherwise. Kashmir seems to prevent conflict between the Muslims and Hindus of India. Thus, when Kashmir becomes entirely part of India, then Hindus and Muslims in India will most likely NOT dispute.

In response to the-reason-India-and-Pakistan-march-into-Kashmir argument, I say:

India never marched into Kashmir without adequate reason: Pakistan invades and the Kashmir Government asks India to defend their lands. Note here that PAKISTAN not India was the one that marched right on in.

Pakistan did not have adequate reason to march in either. I believe I have already mentioned this, but the Muslims in Kashmir do not want to be a part of Pakistan. Furthermore, if Pakistan wants to rescue the 4 million Muslims in Kashmir from "the tyranny of a handful of Hindus," then Pakistan is obviously willing to sacrifice 100 million Muslims in India. I would like to stress that the number saved is a mere 2.5% of the number lost. And, in my opinion, that is a very bad reason.

Onward to my opponent's argument.

That sounds good, but I find it flawed. If Kashmir became a part of Pakistan, millions of Kashmiris would die; so, Kashmir will not choose to accede to Pakistan. China's claim is impractical, and most countries would agree. If China was to assert it's claim when Kashmir chose to accede to India or Pakistan, then the UN would be called upon. The UN would then proceed to point out how 1% of the population does not give enough reason for China to make a valid claim and call the land its own. But if Kashmir chose to accede to India; then Pakistan would not bother as it would mean almost certain defeat, and China, as I mentioned before could not make a strong move.

I believe that was also a fairly good way to conclude my own argument, so I will leave it at that.

The source of all my information is: India, Pakistan, and Kashmir: Antinomies of Nationalism by Ashutosh Varshney.

Lastly, vote for me (pro/aff).
Xie-Xijivuli

Con

//I'll begin with the China thing. If China does feel it should claim Kashmir, it is most impractical logic. Roughly 1% of the population consists of Tibetan Buddhists, the other 99% are Hindus and Muslims. China has only a practical claim if the population of Tibetan Buddhists was a considerably large portion of Kashmir.//

>>You seem to think China cares about its reasons. Well, it doesn't. When China marched into Tibet, they had little reason. Same with Taiwan.

It does not matter if the majority is Tibetan, Muslim, or anything else -- all these countries want is the land and income sourced for Kashmir.

//The difference between Kashmir and the US is that the ethnic groups of the US do not quarrel for power. Ethnic nationalism is very high in that area.//

>> At one time, there were many ethnic problems in the United States. For instance, slavery and segregation. We worked past those and now we have equality -- as much as a 300mil population can get, that is.

//Hindu nationalists want full integration with India. Muslim nationalists would only fear persecution, but as I had said previously, Sheikh Abdullah says otherwise.//

>>Abdullah is one man. Abdullah, being the main man in control of Kashmir, could be easily corrupted.

Muslim nationalists wouldn't only fear persecution. You are forgetting the very unstable time we live in. My guess, and, modeling after most of the Middle East, is that there were be an organization dedicated to succeeding from India and become independent.

//Kashmir seems to prevent conflict between the Muslims and Hindus of India. Thus, when Kashmir becomes entirely part of India, then Hindus and Muslims in India will most likely NOT dispute.//

>> Keyword: Most likely.

As I said before, there will probably be opposition is the Muslim community -- or any, for that matter -- on joining India.

//India never marched into Kashmir without adequate reason: Pakistan invades and the Kashmir Government asks India to defend their lands. Note here that PAKISTAN not India was the one that marched right on in.//

>> Fair enough. Keep in mind, though, that I think Kashmir should be its own country. I think all of the countries should just back off.

Onward to my opponent's argument.

//That sounds good, but I find it flawed. If Kashmir became a part of Pakistan, millions of Kashmiris would die; so, Kashmir will not choose to accede to Pakistan. China's claim is impractical, and most countries would agree. If China was to assert it's claim when Kashmir chose to accede to India or Pakistan, then the UN would be called upon. The UN would then proceed to point out how 1% of the population does not give enough reason for China to make a valid claim and call the land its own. But if Kashmir chose to accede to India; then Pakistan would not bother as it would mean almost certain defeat, and China, as I mentioned before could not make a strong move.

I believe that was also a fairly good way to conclude my own argument, so I will leave it at that.

The source of all my information is: India, Pakistan, and Kashmir: Antinomies of Nationalism by Ashutosh Varshney.

Lastly, vote for me (pro/aff).//

>> You have never addressed the possibility for Kashmir to separate! It sounds like the best solution, and no country would get mad at one another. I do not want any of the three to get Kashmir, rather make it independent.

IN conclusion, I believe Kashmir should become fully independent to avoid the most conflict. My opponent hasn't refuted this idea, so I strongly advise you to vote Con. Thank you all!
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by HeedMyFeed 8 years ago
HeedMyFeed
If I could vote, I would vote Pro.

Con was somewhat non responsive, and made some unwarranted claims.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
karththegeldXie-XijivuliTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
karththegeldXie-XijivuliTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
karththegeldXie-XijivuliTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23