Kashmir should become independent from India
Debate Rounds (3)
1. The majority of Ethnic Kashmiris are Muslim.
Even today, the only part of Kashmir that isn't of Muslim majority is Jammy. This is because India has promoted migration to Kashmir, as a way of saying, "Hey everyone, Kashmir isn't a Muslim land!".
2.Human Rights Violation by India against ethnic Kashmiris
There is random disappearances of any person who dares to speak out against the Indian Government. Indian police force (most of whom aren't even from Kashmir), abuse their powers. Torture has even been used. There have been more than 93,000 innocent deaths in Indian Occupied Kashmir from 1989 to June, 2010.
3. Kashmiris do not want to be part of India
Most kashmiris want to be independent. Many less would like to be part of Pakistan. Even less for India.
1) Located in one of the most unstable regions in the world in terms of terrorism
2) Could only set themselves up for an invasion from any one of possibly 3 neighboring countries
3) Independence doesnt gurantee stability
4) Independence doesnt gurantee safety meaning human rights violations could continue or worsen
5) Predominantly Muslim nation could set up a Sharia Law society
6) Really bad time economic wise to become independent
7) Just because a region is of different religious affiliation in the rest of the country doesnt justify secession
8) How would the country even generate tax income in an area that has no resources?
- 1 - The Kashmir region sits right next to the place that Al-Qaeda once called home, and there are numerous militias and warlords located near them who if Kashmir became independent, may try to move in and take advantage of the area to operate out of. If Kashmir were to become independent, they would be a prime target for terrorist cells and extremists top operate out of and plan attacks around the world, or against Pakistan and India. If this were to happen and it was bad enough the US may even intervene and try to pour billions into a third world nation to fight terrorism and might do a poor job of doing it (after all we tried the same thing with Pakistan and they still hate us)
- 2 - Kashmir has been fought over for years now, many times in all out war. But if this tiny region were to suddenly become independent, they would immediately become exposed to be completely overrun through a military takeover by Pakistan, India, or even China who has been a part of the Kashmir conflict. Kashmir doesnt have any way to get its hand on a decent sized or advanced military to repel India, Pakistan or China, so if Kashmir decided to become independent right now and succeeded then it could all come crashing down in a year through military conquest, or military re-conquest....
- 3 - Kashmir is by far a very unstable region, and independence does not guarantee stability for a country. Iraq's new government is handling things poorly, Afghanistans new government is a joke, Egypt is still frustrated with a lack of results from their new government, even America during its independence went through hard times to become a stable region. independence would give Kashmir a brand new government but whether or not the governemnt would even be able to function and hold itself together is anyones guess. Independence does not equate to stability
- 4 - Independence doesnt also end human rights violations committed against them. A new government can turn out to be just as cruel as an old government to its own people, look at Kashmir's neighbor Afghanistan, who when the Taliban took over had promised their own people peace and prosperity, and then a year later made it so that even kite flying was illegal. New governments dont always have an incentive to treat their own people like people, and that is very evident in the modern day conflict regions of the Middle East where the Kashmir region lie. Independence wont guarantee an end to humans rights violations if the new government is just as twisted as the old one, and since we dont even know if a new government could be stable its impossible to guarantee it wont be cynical...
- 5 - Kashmir is a predominantly Muslim society, so it is possible that if it became independent, the people may install a government that operates strictly according to Sharia Law and al of its hard core conservatism, religious based ideologies. Such a government is possible in heavily Muslim areas like Kashmir and if the government did operate via Sharia law then all those other possible breakdowns of stability and escalation of human rights violations could easily become a reality. Even if it isnt run by a sharia law society, who would run it? a king? a democracy or a republic? a dictator? Many new countries start out as republics but it only takes one military coup and bam, dictator for decades. Kashmir becoming independent may open the doors for another monarchy or dictatorship to take form in an area surrounded on three sides by nuclear powers and on the fourth side by the country that was the home to Al-Qaeda...
- 6 - The world is in the worst economic setback since the Great Depression.... It might not be a very good time to become a brand new nation seeing as investors are watching their money carefully and wont come to the aid of a brand new small, Muslim majority country located next to Afghanistan and Pakistan in one of the most volatile areas in the world. It is debatable if investors would come at all, but it can be agreed that the Kashmir region would have a much better chance of being financially invested in by investors during boom times when people have money to spend then during bust times when people are watching their money more than ever. Many nations that are born during recessions also tend to not do so well in the short term and long term future....
Libya became independent right as the 1970's recession hit and look at them now, they just got out from under Africa's longest dictatorship
Nepal had a government change from a monarchy to a republic in 2008 when the financial mess took place and they currently live in third world conditions.
Same thing happened to Serbia which was also the site of mass human rights atrocities before becoming independent.
The worlds newest country, South Sudan, also became an independent country last year, and Sudan was the country responsible for the Darfur tragedies that are still going on right now.
Independence doesnt guarantee economic prosperity which for a nation as poor in wealth and resources as Kashmir is a must.
- 7 - Just because a region ahs a different religious affiliation than the rest of the country doesnt mean it cant live comfortably under that nations rule. India is currently the second largest country in the world in Arabic population and they are the country that has the largest number of Muslims living under free speech laws. Kashmir becoming independent and possibly replaced by a dictatorship or heavily conservative sharia law republic could cost people their freedom of speech, which is a human rights violation in itself
- 8 - Kashmir is a rural area that makes nearly all of its income and trade from agriculture in a region as ricky as the Himalayas which lie right next door. There isnt much money available to sustain a government in Kashmir and have enough funds to improve education, infrastructure, defense, etc. and wont be able to fund such improvements with the limited sources of income they have without running up a monstrous debt which would quickly cripple the economic credibility of the nation, scaring away investors, and sentencing the area to poverty for years to come...
- 9 - in 2005, an Earthquake the same caliber as the one that destroyed San Francisco in 1906 struck the Kashmir region which resulted in the death of almost 1500 people in Kashmir along with 75,000 deaths in the surrounding region
This Earthquake struck in the Middle of Pakistan, but a stones throw further northeast and you would be smack in the middle of where Kashmir would be. Many of the deaths were caused by poor construction of buildings which is the status of almost every building in the Kashmir region. The amount of aid needed to fix the areas affected could cripple the new country, but if it remained as part of India or Pakistan aid could flow in much faster and help the area recover, if it could recover at all. The Haiti quake happened years ago and despite all the aid they got they still havent rebuilt their capital city, imagine the fate that Kashmir would have if the same happened to them...
I will now address my opponents arguments:
1: If Kashmir becomes independent, Terrorist cells will operate from there
Most of the militias in Kashmir are kashmiri people fighting to be free. After independence, most of them will return to their farms, family businesses,etc. I do not deny that Al qaeda supports these militias. BUT, the average kashmiri is tired of war, close to nil will support terrorist training camps and cells. Al qaeda isn't as powerful as it was. Their main targets are Britain, America and Afghanistan. The terrorist groups that attack India and Pakistan are based in India and Pakistan, which is where most of their funding and almost all of their personnel are coming from. It is also not really strategic for al qaeda to have cells and camps in Kashmir. Anything coming in or out of Kashmir is scrutinized over and over and over again. Even more so on India's border. Al Qaeda would much prefer their camps on the lawless Pak-Afghan border. Any Kashmiris who still wanted to fight would just go to the pak-afghan border.
2. Kashmir will simply be invaded by one of the Surrounding countries.
First, lets look at another small country, sandwiched between two superpowers. Bhutan. Bhutan has reason to be swallowed up by China or India. China's reasoning could be that Since Bhutanese culture is so close to Tibet's, it is actually apart of Tibet and so, since Tibet is part of China, so is Bhutan. India's reasoning could be that, since the Bhutanese Ngultrum and Indian rupee are pegged together, and that India's and Bhutan's military work together to protect it, it might as well become part of India. But still, do this day, Bhutan is independent and has its own king. In Kashmir's case, China will not be a likely candidate because it has a strong relationship with Pakistan and wouldn't want to waste that relationship on a small piece of land. Also, China is trying to create a better relationship with India, another booming economic power. The point is, why would China waste either of these strategic relationships for Kashmir? Now to Pakistan. Pakistan is too weak economically to take Kashmir. The majority of Kashmiris don't want to be apart of Pakistan and so if Pakistan were to invade, They'd have a guerrilla movement to put down. Pakistan has followed America's advice in Kashmir over the years, i.e., getting Nawaz Sharif to surrender at Kargil after Bill Clinton talked with him. If America tells Pakistan to stand down, under the current government, Pakistan will stand down. India is a rising economic star and wouldn't like the bad publicity of invading a small country that finally broke free of them.
3. About stability, I didn't mean Economic stability but that Kashmiris wouldn't have to worry about saying the wrong thing, being at the wrong place, getting abused by the Indian Army or police, or getting caught in the crossfire in a gun battle. About economic stability, my opponent is right. Not many people invest in a new country, regardless of where it is, what is the main religion its people follow,etc. Also, Nepal was a 3rd world country before the government change. The only reason the government changed was to bring peace between the monarchists and the Maoist rebels. It is getting better though. Although the Kashmiri economy is mainly Agricultural, there is many other fields in which Kashmir can excel. The mountains, rivers and Valleys of Kashmir are picturesque, and tourism there has been flourishing. If there is even more stability, The number of tourists will likely increase. Kashmir is known for Cashmere wool and knitting. Crafts could be exported or sold to tourists.
4. Independence will not stop human right violations.
Almost all Human Rights Violations in Kashmir are committed by police or the Indian army. The militias do kill informants, but so does every other armed group in the world. The chances of a democratically elected government violating the human rights of their own people, who have just broken free of a power who abused them for six decades is extremely low. The point that my opponent makes seems to be that, because it's not guaranteed that the human rights violations will stop, its better for Kashmiris to just take it instead of trying to gain freedom. If you follow that logic, Americans should have just kept dealing with unfair taxes and abuses dealt to them by the British because it wasn't certain that this new government would tax fairly and not just do what the British did to them.
5. Kashmir might become a Sharia state
There is two parts to my counter argument on this topic
1. Full blown Sharia will most likely not be enforced due to Kashmiri culture.
The kashmiris have their own style of music, which is forbidden in some interpretations of Sharia. They also have art which show faces of people, which again is forbidden in some interpretations of Sharia. No doubt, that since Kashmir has a Muslim Majority, there might be Islamic laws introduced, or they may follow parts of Sharia, like most gulf states do.
2. It's their choice. We can all scream about how bad Sharia is until we're blue in the face, but if it was a choice, given to the Kashmiri people, and they vote to become a Sharia state, it's their country, not ours.
6. Muslims live perfectly happy in India
This isn't very true at all. Muslims are on the average, more poor than their Hindu counterparts. In the early 2000's the Hindu fanatic group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, was involved in the Genocide of Muslims and Christians in the state of Gujarat. They also destroyed Babri Masjid, an old mosque ordered by Babur, the first Mughal Emperor. The RSS isn't just a fringe group, It has 5 to 6 million registered members.
1) Terrorist cells in Kashmir
"Most of the militias in Kashmir are kashmiri people fighting to be free. After independence, most of them will return to their farms, family businesses,etc."
Thats exactly what people thought would happen after Afghanistan was invaded by the Russians in the 1980's. The people took up arms and fought the Russians and once the war was won, America simply left expecting the country to simply return to a state of normalcy, instead the nation plunged into civil war as factions of militas now armed to their teeth fought for power over the nation which allowed other terrorist organizations to move in and cet up operations, such as Al Qaeda. The same could happen for Kashmir since it is literally right next door to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"It is also not really strategic for al qaeda to have cells and camps in Kashmir"
Al Qaeda operates out of any hell-hole they can infiltrate and recruit, that is why they operate in Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, etc. Kashmir would just be a fresh name that appeared on that list, it is very strategic considering it is located right next to the country that Osama was hiding in...
"Any Kashmiris who still wanted to fight would just go to the pak-afghan border."
Yeah but if Al-Qaeda successfully recruits enough people from Kashmir they will infiltrate the place since they just found a new source of recruiting fighters to then send to the border, that is if they dont decide to take up operations against India.
2) Possible invasion from other powers
You claim Kashmir wouldnt be invaded because Bhutan hasnt been invaded yet. But Bhutan has not been the site of struggle or the sight of 3 wars and many more standoffs by India and Pakistan and China for the past 30 years, that title belongs to Kashmir. As for possible invaders, China overran Tibet which pissed off nations surrounding the area, ad they have clashed with India before over control of parts of Kashmir so it is only possible. Pakistan meanwhile has the capability to invade a weak Kashmir nation since they have held control over parts of it from India, three times. Pakistan and US relations meanwhile have been deteriorating ever since the War in Afghanistan started, and after the US was found to operate within Pakistan without their permission the Pakistani government has been growing hostile towards US intervention ever since. India meanwhile would be the biggest candidate to overrun an independent nation they have fought tooth and nail to control and hold and it only takes one leader with bad common sense to use India's rising power to overrun parts of Kashmir that 5 years earlier was part of India.
3) Economic stability
The two things that could drive an entire economy in Kashmir would be agriculture and tourism. Tourism though would be a very large issue since it would only take a rash of attacks, bombings, or a news story showing how terrorists operate out of Kashmir to scare off all the tourism the small and unremarkable country could otherwise generate. That would put the economy based entirely off of farming meaning that poor 3rd world farmers would now have to support the economy entirely. That is a recipe for disaster since economies based off of primarily agriculture and a bit of tourism only needs one disaster to cause the country to break down entirely (Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq). Economic stability drives political stability, if a country has a poor or failing economy it only makes it a hot spot for breeding terrorists, chaos, and civil war....
4) Human Rights
I admit the new government committing civil rights violations was a little crazy, but if militants are already killing reporters in the region, then these militias, not the government, may commit such atrocities if they feel they have a chance to overthrow the government and rule Kashmir their way.
I am not saying that the Kashmiris should just take it, if they really want human rights violations to stop all they have to do is bring attention to the genocides, show the wickedness of India's treatment of them, or appeal to the UN for assistance or order. You do not need to declare independence to stop human rights violations when a little intervention by the United Nations would fix the problem....
5) Sharia Law
Culture does not decide government, and it sure as hell cant stop it either. In Afghanistan they had many aspects of their own culture that would conflict with Sharia Law, including art and music. That did not stop the Taliban from implementing Sharia Law though, and the minute Sharia Law became law, all that culture and art vanished as if it was never there in the first place. The only way people can prevent Sharia Law from becoming national law is through organized mass protests (like Egypt is witnessing right now) or through direct warfare to overthrow the government (Afghanistan 5 years ago). Either way Sharia Law is quite possible in this predominately Muslim region, and stopping it from becoming law is only possible through two options which both lead to extended periods of chaos and anarchy.
6) Economically unwise to become independent,
The Pro actually said in point 3 that many people wouldnt invest in the new country, and now that the third way for an independent Kashmir to become economically stable is gone (Agriculture, Tourism, early investment) that leaves Kashmir very vulnerable to collapse, especially since tourism is a weak aspect of economic profit in itself.
7) Muslims in a Hindu Country
It is true that Muslims are worse off economically than Hindu's, but the same could be said about Blacks living in America during the Civil Rights movement. Just because a race or ethnicity of people live in a society dominated by another race or ethnicity doesnt mean all hope is lost. Due to India's rising economic power, it is possible that Muslims living in India could reach equality with Hindus much like African Americans did in this country.
If I recall correctly, African Americans didnt try to become independent and form their own country even though they were suffering from abuse from their own country. They protested, boycotted, and marched to raise awareness and soon achieved their goal of equality, and if Muslims in India and Kashmir want equality, they must grit their teeth and fight through the onslaught that comes in peaceful protest, they cannot simple secede.
Also, Muslims in India have rights that many other Muslims do not enjoy in other Muslim countries. In India, Muslims have a right to free speech, free expression, free enterprise, voting rights, and basic civil rights that many Muslims dont enjoy in other countries.
8) Lack of resources in Kashmir
Unaddressed by the Pro
9) Possible natural disasters in a poor country
Unaddressed by the Pro
1) Terrorist cells in Kashmir. Once again, Almost all attacks on India and Pakistan are from India and Pakistan. Understand that the Border between India and Pakistan is maximum security. Why would a struggling Al Qaeda bother to set up a camp that would take more resources and is far more dangerous to cross than the almost wide open border between Pakistan and Afghanistan?? Look at it from a strategic viewpoint.
2) Other countries invading Kashmir
About Pakistan acting hostile towards America, that was just Zardari and his friends trying to appease the angry Pakistani public. They will listen. Pakistan also realizes that invading Kashmir will most likely spark off another war with India. Don't get me wrong, Pakistan doesn't like India, but they also wouldn't like a war on two fronts, plus another internally.
3) Economic Stability
There wont be a cause for bombings, shootings, terrorists operating out of Kashmir because if India is gone, so is the Independence movement. Plus, a few bombings obviously don't stop people from visiting Northern Ireland. If there's any risk for tourists being shot, it would be now when there is gun battles between Indian forces and Kashmiris.
4) Do you know the U.N.'s track record for actually improving the situation? They ALLOWED the Srebrenica genocide to happen. They gave a supposed "safe area" filled with Bosnian Muslims over to the Serbians surrounding the city. The UN kindly turned a blind eye towards the killings of Sikhs in the 1980's , a religious minority, and even attacked their holiest building. In 2011 the human rights watch said India "yet to prosecute those responsible for the mass killings".The most they do now is send a strongly worded message to the accused. They give aid in Africa and even do an OK job of keeping the peace there, but a rising star like India would not allow UN boots on the ground.
5) I can't keep debating on this topic, because it's turning into "Is Sharia good or bad". This isn't the purpose of this debate. If the Kashmir people CHOOSE Sharia, it's their choice.
6) Muslims in a Hindu country
The comparison of African Americans during Jim Crow and Segregation doesn't compare to the treatment of Muslims, Christians and Sikhs by Hindus. This leads me to wonder if my opponent watched the video. It is clearly said by many victims that either the Indian Police just watched, or that they encouraged or even participated in the raping of Muslim women, Killing of Muslims, and burning of their villages. Sure, it's written in India's laws that Muslims have freedom speech. But when people are raping, burning, and killing people in your community, and some of the people who participate are supposed to "uphold the law", something tells me you don't have much chance of exercising that right.
7) Natural Resources of Kashmir
Kashmir has plenty of Minerals, not to mention timber from their forests. Copper mining is also a possibility. Water can be harnessed into energy by hydroelectric dams
8) Natural disasters. I can't argue this, its nature.
(The character limit is at 8000....)
The terrorist argument isnt limited to groups targeting only Pakistan and India, its about the fact that Kashmir is located in one of the most hostile regions in the world where militias and terrorists alike operate and kill civilians every day, and should Kashmir become independent from India and Pakistan then they lose all means of funding and fighting terrorists which would allow them to operate or just recruit from Kashmir. Kashmir is already a hotbed for terrorism, ad the countries that border the area are even more riddled with terrorism meaning should Kashmir become independent it would be another country where terrorists could operate out of
2) Open to invasion
The Pro only addresses the Pakistani argument now, claiming that "About Pakistan acting hostile towards America, that was just Zardari and his friends trying to appease the angry Pakistani public. They will listen. Pakistan also realizes that invading Kashmir will most likely spark off another war with India." But that is 2/3rds opinion and 1/3 theory since Kashmir would be independent and an invasion by Pakistan would not call for an Indian armed response. There is also the possibility that India would invade to reclaim its territory that they feel belongs to them.
3) Economic stability
"There wont be a cause for bombings, shootings, terrorists operating out of Kashmir because if India is gone, so is the Independence movement..... If there's any risk for tourists being shot, it would be now when there is gun battles between Indian forces and Kashmiris." Am I the only one who sees this as a little contradictory?
"Plus, a few bombings obviously don't stop people from visiting Northern Ireland."
That is because Northern Ireland is actually a nice place to visit, not almost entirely Muslim, not already swarming with armed terrorists, and since then has become a very peaceful region. Kashmir in itself is very poor economically since it relies completely on agriculture, and tourism could be non existent if Kashmiris, Indians, Pakistanis, terrorists, and militias all started to blow themselves to hell, and resource wise Kashmir has nothing they could benefit well from.
Economic stability doesnt rest just on peace, it rests on electricity, heating for homes, and adequate access to fresh water, and Kashmir is lacking in ALL of those categories.
4) Independence does not guarantee an end to human rights violations
Appealing to the UN was only one of many options that Kashmir could undertake to end the human rights violations. And even then the Pro only highlight the errors the UN has made in the past even though the UN has had quite a handful of accomplishments, some of which came in Kashmir!
As for my other arguments about how independence does not guarantee civil rights, The Pro has conceded that Kashmir, like Afghanistan, could look stable for now but could easily descend into all out civil war as militias and terrorist cells alike take up arms to fight for control should the new Kashmir government be too weak to maintain power or order.
5) Sharia Law
Pro concedes that if Kashmir became independent, it could potentially become a sharia law society...
6) Muslim in a Hindu country
"The comparison of African Americans during Jim Crow and Segregation doesn't compare to the treatment of Muslims, Christians and Sikhs by Hindus."
Im sorry did I miss something here? African Americans in the 1960's were routinely beaten, falsely arrested, killed, framed, had their homes set on fire, denied basic rights, etc. African Americans had it so bad in the 1960's that an entire organization called the KKK had the sole purpose of existing just to torture, kill, and get rid of black people....
Since African Americans lived primarily in the southeastern US, it could be argued that they should have decalred independence, but instead they organized, campaigned, boycotted, used the government, and petitioned to one by one have basic rights given back to them and today they are far better off than they were 50 years ago. The point is if you want to end civil rights violations, independence is not the best answer, or even a sensible answer.
7) Natural Resources in Kashmir
According to the Pro's sources, the only resources Kashmir has is stone, poor quality coal, and wood..... The sources say nothing about Kashmir having any actual useful resources such as oil, natural gas, decent quality coal, or water... Much of Kashmir is underdeveloped, without electricity, and without any form of modern tools so access to the only thing you can find in Kashmir (rocks) would require significant equipment and investment to get to in the first place. Such investment though might not come at all since, as argued and dropped before, foreign investors are hesitant to invest in new countries, particularly ones with as much instability as Kashmir, and so for Kashmir to exploit its rocks it may not come at an economical price or could also yield unsatisfying results.
8) Natural disasters
The Pro concedes that natural disasters do happen, but fails to fully handle how such natural disasters could cripple Kashmir. Earthquakes, blizzards, and droughts alike all make life hard in Kashmir since such natural disasters constantly shut down electricity and access to water for a region that lives off of agriculture. Such natural disasters could easily cause Kashmir to become a resource poor, economically unstable, terrorist-ridden, catastrophe waiting to happen.
Kashmir has witnessed cruel treatment from India, however due to Kashmir's location to unstable regions in the world, location near terrorist hotbeds, dispute over Kashmir by three nuclear nations, the poor economic stability of the region, the poor political stability a new government in Kashmir would have, the poor timing that Kashmir would become independent during a global recession, the poor infrastructure and poor value in resources Kashmir has, and the natural disasters that frequently cripple life in Kashmir, Kashmir should not become independent to try to end Human Right's Violations. Kashmir would be better off bringing attention of their plight to India and the outside world and improve their situation from within rather than try to declare independence and then do the same thing but with no access to money or a stable functioning government....
I thank the Pro for a wonderful debate and I thank all the voters for reading
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: His refutations and arguments where fantastic! Also he had many more sources and mpat of which where reliable. A win by Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.