Our 2026 reader survey is open until 7 June – anonymous, roughly five minutes. Please take a moment.
The Comment thread is afire with the usual (and senseless) India-Pakistan arguments (essentially which of the two is poorer). Q waves the whole question away by pointing at the figure, unimpressed by “an average Indian producing only $2,800 in GDP every year,” and asks what the point even is. There is a point, two in fact.
First: per capita and scale measure different things. Per capita describes the life of a citizen. Scale describes the weight of a state. A single integrated market of 1.4 billion people generates agglomeration, economies of scale, and a pull on capital and talent that no small rich economy can match (India’s ascent in the world of cricket is an extremely interesting meditation). That is why India passed Japan in 2025 to become the world’s fourth-largest economy, why it is the fastest-growing major one, and why it is on course to take third from Germany by around 2028. The market no exporter can ignore, the trade terms a four-trillion-dollar base can lean on, the air defence and roads it can fund: that is concrete power, and it is not nothing. Much of the gain is siphoned by a clutch of oligarchic houses, but the dynamism is real.
Second: however that same wealth does not buy what BB imagines it buys. India outweighs Pakistan in GDP by something close to eleven to one. It has still not turned Pakistan into its East Germany, a dependent satellite drawn quietly into its orbit and, in time, absorbed. Pakistan remains sovereign, armed, and unbought. Pakistanis are not running across the Punjabi wall to their ethnic kin.
In May 2025, after Pahalgam, the larger economy did not dictate terms: Operation Sindoor ended not in surrender but in a ceasefire announced, awkwardly, from Washington, with both capitals claiming the win.
Look West. Iran is a fraction of the wealth of the United States and Israel, yet it has absorbed the most advanced air forces on earth, kept its regime, and kept the knowledge to rebuild what was struck. The guns fell silent at a ceasefire, not a capitulation. Wealth buys reach. It does not buy outcomes.
BB treats the GDP gap as a deed of ownership over Kashmir, and assumes Kashmiris will swallow their pride for a higher income per head, that prosperity purchases consent. It misreads the Islamicate moral economy entirely. In that ledger ‘Izzat and Deen, dignity and faith, are not line items to be outbid. The Hyderabadi Harvard PhD still sings the song of his lost people.
Peoples who set independence above comfort have done so across the whole anti-colonial century, and no balance sheet has ever talked them out of it. Money may buy luxury but not loyalty.
What price will any Indian or Pakistani nationalist accept for their love and loyalty to their homeland?
CEASEFIRE ALERT: BB has requested that the current ceasefire they have with Kabir is extended to the entire Crescentiate (Q & E.K.)
Going forward none may reply to each other or refer to each. We will be deleting all interactions made after this alert.
If they wish to refer to each other’s comments, they may do so factually and neutrally in new posts.
Wonderful judgement BB – thank you very much for centring BP first!
I think they should disengage voluntarily.
But if gets too crazy, then certainly extend the “ceasefire”.
Yeah, I realized – what’s the point. Reality is reality. Comments won’t change anything.
Check this out:
https://theprint.in/economy/up-exports-cross-rs-2-lakh-crore-for-1st-time-odop-electronics-drive-boom-gautam-buddha-nagar-shines/2951411/
If UP can turn around, so can Bihar under the right person. Let’s hope Bihar gets its Yogi.
Yeah, we need the Gangetic plains to thrive.
I am willing to accede to the ceasefire requested by BB, on the strict condition that he completely ceases writing about Pakistan, Pakistanis, and the Pakistani diaspora or people of Pakistani descent. This prohibition applies to any form of mention – whether actively, in passing, or by direct reference – and explicitly includes any commentary on the nation’s culture, history, religion, art, society and sports, including cricket.
With all due respect, I think putting conditions on what people write about is not a good way to go. The “Saffroniate” wanted me to stop writing about India which I refused to do since I’m an intellectual and have the right to write about whatever I wish.
Similarly, I think we cannot insist that the “Saffroniate” not write about Pakistan at all. Though I do agree with you that they are a little too obsessed with the country.
I think writing about cricket is fine.
All of us are free to ignore any posts we are not interested in–or even ignore certain authors entirely.
In general, there do need to be topics other than India vs Pakistan on this forum.
people can write on what they like.
you have Authorial privileges; reply to them in the thread.
we actually think the Saffroniate get Pakistan and Pakistanis entirely wrong.
it’s how they have managed to turn once loyal Indians (pre-1940) into an entirely different peoplehood.
but we interrogate the matter. the point of BP is to go dispassionately understand the context
>it’s how they have managed to turn once loyal Indians (pre-1940) into an entirely different peoplehood.
I must register my objection to this flagrantly inaccurate assertion. It is the proponents of TNT who insisted on a right to a separate nation to insure and implement Islamic superiority that turned into an ‘entirely different peoplehood’.
Its a harsh term, but gaslighting does fit here.
That is not the point –
Pakistan is an invented term
It is a fake nation
But its people have willed it into a reality
How did this “failure” happen?
With respect the Commentariat are quick to impute views to us when we are simply asking the questions.
Pakistan is not India, which is a 5,000 year old nation.
But even after Bangladesh, even after Balochistan / there are 200million + Pakistanis willing to die for it and identify with it.
Even Israel has a 3,000 year old Peoplehood.
This is a fairly incredible phenomenon; a fake people with a fake nation with a fake ideology is as real and substantive as real nations with with really histories thousands of years earlier.
It is miraculous, as though God had wrought it?
Sorry but calling Pakistan a “fake nation” is offensive.
Pakistan is an “invented term” yes. But the nation-state has now been around for 80 years. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a reality and it is not going to disappear. As you say, 250 million Pakistanis identify with and are willing to die for it.
Is Bangladesh a “fake nation”? I don’t think we need to go down this particular road.
I wouldn’t be so sure of the “East Germany” moment never happening.
While India is “richer” than Pakistan now it hasn’t peeled away the way it will in coming decades.
Iran’s example doesn’t fly in this case because it has no connection with either Israel or United States culturally. Pakistan exists as the “not India”.
Many Pakistani writers have admitted to India “shining” makes them feel dim.
In the commentariat crossfire, someone from the Pakistani side mentioned how India was more “hungry” than Pakistan and linked an Al Jazeera article from 2022 citing the Global Hunger Index.
Thing is, in the present day India has overtaken Pakistan in the Hunger Index.
https://www.globalhungerindex.org/ranking.html
And that is indicative of what I am saying.
The few things that Pakistan was “better” at are going away. Fast bowlers. Lower poverty rates.
And if the situation is like this at less than a 2x pci differential, what about at 3x? 4x? 5x?
Unlike the North Koreans, Pakistanis cannot turn away.
Of course, no one is saying that Pakistan will become a part of India (even Indians don’t want it).
But a relationship India has with Bangladesh is not out of the realms of the possibility in the future IF current growth trajectories persist.
And remember, Bangladeshis are also Muslim subscribing to the ledger of “izzat and deen”.
The global hunger index article was from late 2022, a little over 3 years ago, not a crazy long time ago and is likely going to be worse due to oil prices skyrocketing and global inflation increasing – these economic pressures made India slip in the economic size rankings from 4th to 6th only a month ago.
Quoting some left-liberal Gen X Pakistani writer from something she wrote like 20 years ago is not a good proxy for understanding the Pakistani national zeitgeist. Pakistanis genuinely do not care if India prospers or surpasses us in development, all we care about is our sovereignty is respected and that India ceasing it’s support for terrorism in Pakistan that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis. Pakistan should never forgive and never forget. As for a Bangladesh-like relation, we can never be like them because we’re a much larger country and are not surrounded by India, we have many alternatives and alliances that Bangladesh unfortunately does not have and that’s because of our geography. I empathize with the Bangladeshis for they will always suffer from Indian interference and Neo-imperialism, through no fault of their own.
India can celebrate its successes in cricket – a sport nobody outside of South Asians care about while Pakistan can celebrate the fact it was the only country in the region to win an Olympic gold medal at Paris 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gFsdbm-AG2A
Also, Bangladesh is not a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan is. So that’s a major difference.
Pakistan is not immune to these “economic pressures”, and is even worse affected. So India’s ranking above Pakistan will remain. Let us talk about “likely going to be worse” when it happens.
Again, diaspora blind spot. There are multiple videos online of real Pakistanis cribbing about various stuff. Americans obviously do not care.
I wonder where Pakistan is. And what sport did their former Prime Minister play?
Like I said, North Americans cannot understand South Asians.
Congratulations. Truly commendable. India won the silver medal then. India also won the gold medal in the same event in Tokyo 2020. I wonder what medal did the Pakistan win then, if they even did win one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_fwcmyIfk
Pakistan is not immune to these “economic pressures”, and is even worse affected. So India’s ranking above Pakistan will remain. Let us talk about “likely going to be worse” when it actually happens.
Again, diaspora blind spot. There are multiple videos online of real Pakistanis cribbing about various stuff. Americans obviously do not care.
I wonder where Pakistan is. And what sport did their former Prime Minister play?
Like I said, North Americans cannot understand South Asians.
Congratulations. Truly commendable. India won the silver medal then. India also won the gold medal in the same event in Tokyo 2020. I wonder what medal did Pakistan win then, if they even did win one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_fwcmyIfk
India doesn’t look for any East Germany moment for Pakistan, it doesn’t expect Pakistan to be capable of it. It expects individual Pakistani states will find that they can better serve their Deen and Izzat away from a Punjabi hegemony. When 80% of families have trouble affording basic nourishment in Balochistan can that family be said to have ample Izzat to satisfy them? When farmers of Sindh find their land barren due to water from the Indus diverted towards the Cholistan desert by their army do you think they’re getting Izzat from the state? When a tribal person sitting in KPK is pushed becoming a refugee in Afghanistan for his mere Pashtun heritage (like 5,00,000 other Pastuns this year and 20,00,000 other Pastuns who were turned into refugees in the past 2-3 years) do you think he is being given Izzat?
India doesn’t need to satisfy these myriad people’s need for Izzat and Deen. It just needs to make the reality stark enough that it is clear that Pakistan as a state is unable to satisfy the needs for Deen and Izzat.
If you’re imagining a breakup of Pakistan that is never going to happen. It’s not 1971 anymore.
I very much doubt your concern for people in Balochistan and KPK is genuine. Probably, it stems from an anti-Pakistan attitude.
Btw, I have many relatives living in Peshawar. My paternal grandfather was born and raised there.
Yes of course please tell me more about how Kashmir is occupied but Balochistan which is on its 5th insurgency is rightful Pakistani land.
Kashmir is Disputed Territory.
Balochistan is unequivocally a province of Pakistan.
XTM wrote a precedent post on this. Please read it.
https://www.brownpundits.com/2025/12/21/why-balochistan-is-not-kashmir/
Thanks for quoting precedent.
No problem:)
This is a very repetitive argument.
Khan of Kalat disputed that claim at independence.
And?
The point is the status of both territories in international law. The entire world considers Kashmir Disputed Territory. That’s why the world speaks of “Indian administered” and “Pakistani administered” Kashmir. The LOC is a ceasefire line not an international border.
Balochistan is constitutionally a Pakistani province. The UN doesn’t dispute this neither does any country.
Not to litigate this but I will just restate my position having read a fair bit about the geopolitics of partition.
Any discussion on the secessionist issues of the subcontinent is incomplete without taking in to account the geopolitical milieu that informed and shaped those specific situations.
Kashmir is internationalized in no insignificant measure because Nehru believed the UN was a good faith actor that would try to solve the problem. It is another matter that he was manipulated in to doing so by Mountbatten and the Brits and discouraged from taking back PoK by the British C-in-C of Indian army in ’48. The calculus was to avoid any land connection between India and USSR to prevent access to the Indian Ocean region to the Soviets.
Having said that, I do not fully disagree with the Crescentiate. My limited point is that if internationalization is the only differentiator then the the said internationalized itself is fundamentally hollow. Of course, outside the Indian context, there are many examples that may contradict this too – Tibet, being a great case in point.
Going off that rationale then East Punjab, Hyderabad Deccan and the entire northeast of India is occupied land.
Don’t bring up Hyderabad Deccan. That gets these people really upset 🙂
these people?
Indian nationalists
It only elicits amusement from me.
I didn’t even know Pakistani nationalists even cared about Hyderabad, an extremely Telugu city.
Hyderabad is Telugu in a way Chennai is Tamil.
our understanding is that Chennai was extremely Telugu but shifted post Independence.
same with Hyderabad?
we are happy to be corrected as we were on Goa
Telugus were always a majority in the “city limits” but Muslims were more concentrated in the urban areas.
The “old city” of Hyderabad is still Muslim majority but current day Hyderabad has extended far beyond those boundaries (just like Byzantine Constantinople is a tiny part of Turkish Istanbul).
As an aside, an interesting point about Chennai. Coastal Andhra being part of Madras state and Chennai being the capital meant it had a huge Telugu population. Even the Telugu movie industry began there. All the big Tollywood families are from coastal Andhra and not Telangana (or Hyderabad state).
After the states re-division, they still made movies out of Chennai but because of playing second fiddle to the Tamil movie industry they shifted en masse to Hyderabad in the 1980s with the construction of Ramoji Film city.
All of the big Telugu nepo babies currently working (Prabhas from Baahubali, Ram Charan from RRR, Mahesh Babu from Varanasi) are all Chennai born.
The Indian Muslims in IT are disproportionately from Hyderabad.
It’s an interesting sub-culture since it is the Dakhani cultural complex. South Indian based Muslims who speak Dakhani.
We remember this Indian linguist on twitter say whenever he wrote on Dakhani, his tweets would blow up.
Like this Hyderabadi Harvard PhD chap (yes we know he’s a Yank as well but HHPhD is much more alliterative so forgive us!)
There is another very interesting thing; the irrendentist Muslim populations in Diaspora (Hyderabadis, Kashmiris) just adore Pakistanis in Diaspora..
We will write on this phenomenon in a future post. This doesn’t impact the geopolitical reality but as a sociological feature of the Muslim community abroad .. which in its own way is very powerful (for many reasons)..
Yeah, Hyderabad being an IT hub with educational institutes catering to it possibly contribute to this.
In a way, a reverse influence with Hyderabadi Muslims being influenced by the ruling Telugu elite (the entire IT push was Chandrababu Naidu’s idea).
One of the reasons for Indian Muslims being poorer than average that a lot of people miss is that Indian Muslims are disproportionately located in the poorer states.
The Indian government should really look to develop both Lucknow and Patna and revitalize Calcutta.
As of now the only true North Indian metropolis is Delhi.
in my opinion it would be great if 90 year old Muslims are interviewed about their “loss”.
Hope someone has done it 30 years ago, when a lot more were alive.
The ruling elite in Chennai (chenna nayaka pattanam) is Telugu, including the current CM
Admin Note: We will allow this final comment through but Ceasefire is now Enforced. Please do not engage BB in the comment threads.
Original comment: Well the illegal invasion and annexation is a subject in Pakistani patriot circles. When I speak to Hyderabadi Muslim immigrants in America, they talk about the cities Islamicate heritage and how it was a hub of a Turko-Persian and Yemeni culture, a lot of the ones I know in America always speak about their Turkic, Afghan, Yemeni or Iranian ancestries and they do retain quite a lot of influences in their culture.
With due respect diaspora abroad are quite disconnected from reality.
“Turko Persian and yemani”, well this justifies what the Hindus say as foreign Muslims or invaders.
Surprisingly no Indian Muslim claims foreign roots in open.
Ancestry of oweisi is a hot topic.
How about in Pakistan? Looks many there are proud of being foreign.
Except for the fact that there is no raging insurgency on the level of Balochistan there.
The “raging insurgency” is R&AW sponsored Dhurandars (terrorists).
Nobody picks up a gun to fight against a modern state without having been left any other option. If Pakistan had done the bare minimum of offering fair distribution of revenues extracted from mining, gas, etc it wouldn’t have come to this. No matter how much money any external org pumps into a region it cannot create grouses where none exist.
That’s actually a fair point when it comes to Balochistan.
But it also applies to Kashmir. Of course Pakistan supported the “insurgency” (or the freedom struggle from our POV). But India’s rigging of the 1987 (?) election played a major role as well.
As you say, people don’t pick up the gun unless they believe they have no other options.
You clearly don’t understand what’s going on. However I would say everything you said actually applies to Punjab/Khaalistan and their exploitation by the Indian state. The insurgencies in the northeast and previous rebellion in Punjab were due to state repression and exploitation.
Is any of your family living in a refugee camp like 3-4 million Pashtuns who have been forced into Afghanistan?
This is a ridiculous argument.
My family are natural born Pakistani citizens descended from Pakistani citizens. My paternal grandfather’s family was settled in Peshawar even during the British Raj. We are ethnically Kashmiri however.
The Pakistani government’s policy towards Afghan refugees is a separate topic which can be discussed but I have a feeling you’re not arguing in good faith.
ethnic Kashmiri- means mirpuri or from the valley?
From the valley. As far as I know my dada’s family was from Baramulla.
My nana’s father is buried in Srinagar.
Biharis and UPites are pretty big on Izzat maxing. Indians outside this stock will have extinction level TFR, and should be concetrating on how to keep these guys from replacing them rather than dreaming about how to Balkanize Pakistan.
It is the booming TFRs of Balochistan, KPK and Afghanistan vis a vis the rest of Pakistan that is actually the threat to the “Balkanization” of Pakistan.
The Kashmir insurgency dying down has a lot to do with their “extinction level TFR”
All ethnicities in Pakistan have somewhat similar TFR rates. So there is nothing much of concern.
what is extinction level TFR; the furore over birth rates misunderstands class and property rights.
A TFR of 1 where most Indian states are headed.. means that new population halves in one generation.. if lifespan is 3 generations this is a total population decline of 70% in 50 years. Where will property go if there are no heirs? To those who will be reproducing. (Biharis)
Even outside of balkanization, a non aggressive posture vis a vis India actually provide more “Deen and Izzat” to the average Pakistani by giving them economic prosperity as funds can be reallocated from military buildup.
Pakistani spending on education has been declining year by year and is now below 1% of GDP.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1978857
You can basically do a Bangladesh and maintain economic parity with India (at least on a per capita basis) OR you can do a Pakistan and then do a Bangladesh a few decades down the line with an even richer India.
Iran with it’s $400 billion GDP resoundingly defeated Israel/US’s $33 trillion in combined GDP.
This should be a wakeup call for people who think they will conquer the neighbourhood with spreadsheets.
Iran is not even a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan is.
So this argument is even more ridiculous.
Difference between a defensive war and an offensive one where one dreams of taking over Kashmir.
That’s why Op Sindoor failed and so will Sindoor 2.0 which Indians have been salivating about since last years defeat. Pakistan won’t initiate a war with India and I believe there’s only a political solution to the occupation of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh however if India attacks Pakistan again and it heads to an all out war then that just gives Pakistan and the Kashmiris the green light to change the borders.
Pakistan cannot change the borders. It has tried multiple times and failed each time.
And the Kashmiris didn’t come to their aid at any time either.
Fought on the side of India in 1948 and ratted out the Pakistanis in 1965.
The political solution has already been achieved. India keeps its part. Pakistan keep their part.
You can’t predict the future just like how you guys couldn’t predict your resounding defeat last year. 1948 and 1965 were a very long time ago. The generation that lived through that like my grandparents are either old or passed away. The rebellion of the 90s and early 2010s is more representative of what Kashmiris would do if they got assistance in a liberation war.
A political solution was Musharraf’s 4 point proposal which India turned down, now what most Indian military guys and defense analysts yap on about is “taking back Pok” (Azad Kashmir). Notice how in global maps Pakistan always depicts the Indian occupied side as disputed territory whereas India always uses maximalist maps showing even Pakistani sides as part of India – that shows who actually hasn’t moved on and doesn’t respect the wishes of the people of Jammu&Kashmir.
Musharraf’s 4 point proposal was dead on arrival. If a united Kashmir was formed as Musharraf wanted with free movements of people what stopped Pakistan from flooding it with Tribal Lashkars like it did in 1948. There’s good reasons the talks fell through.
Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s 4-point proposal was a back-channel framework designed to resolve the long-standing Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.
It aimed to offer a compromise that avoided redrawing borders while respecting the autonomy and aspirations of Kashmiris.
The four key points of the proposal are:
Phased Demilitarization: A gradual withdrawal of troops from the region by both India and Pakistan to reduce conflict and normalize daily life.
Self-Governance without Independence: Providing internal self-rule and autonomy to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, allowing them to manage their own internal affairs without granting full independence from the respective countries.
Soft Borders & Free Movement: Keeping the existing Line of Control (LoC) borders in place but making them “irrelevant” by allowing free movement, trade, and travel across the region for Kashmiris.
Joint Management/Supervision: Establishing a joint mechanism involving representatives from India, Pakistan, and both sides of Kashmir to oversee common interests, such as tourism, trade, and water resources.By the mid-2000s, this formula was heavily discussed in back-channel negotiations and marked a significant shift in Pakistan’s traditional stance on the Kashmir issue.
I don’t want to be pointlessly mean but this is one of the main reasons I have no faith in the track-2 level diplomacy. If the 4-point plan was such a well discussed document then the forum clearly has no idea regarding the intent of the govts on either side. Because there is no way it was acceptable for New Delhi.
And that’s why the Jammu&Kashmir dispute remains unresolved. New Delhi was never an honest broker for peace. It was all or nothing for them.
Yes because it was always about compromise for Pakistan when it waged 4 wars of aggression for larger chunks of J&K.
BP is just recovering from its latest border encounter – we are finally going to bed praying Hamza doesn’t cause any more havoc in Lyari..
I’m Jaskirat now.
Rizwan and Shirani will carry on the good work.
There’s only been 2 wars over Kashmir – first was a liberation war, second was also a liberation war but wasn’t executed properly. ’71 was not over Kashmir and Kargil was a border skirmish/limited conflict,
This plan had a brief window of “consideration” from the Indian side, in the early 2000s, because at that point the terrorism and murders were at their peak, while Indian state capacity to deter it was still coming out of its 1990s austerity measures.
To wit, the Manmohan Singh administration even had ministers publicly admitting defeat against the Naxalites.
Cut to 2026, the Naxalites have been decimated and exterminated as an armed threat to the state. Similarly, the ground realities for J&K, the variables in the equation with regards to terrorism, state capacity to defend and deter it, and the politico-administrative structure and tools to govern J&K – all of these have changed drastically.
Of course, from a Pakistani perspective, they would like to ‘turn back time’ to Mushy’s proposal – because its the best they can hope to achieve. Problem is, time has moved on a couple of decades. This is like Palestinians wanting to revisit what Palestine looked like in 1948 or 1967. It simply aint happening.
And yes, yes Pakistan isn’t Palestine, but the cold hard bottomline is when it comes to the ability to “coerce” India into concessions on J&K? It simply lacks leverage, just like Palestine.
The Palestinians have become legends in their resistance.
That’s a tangent. Point I am making is more about the utter lack of leverage that Pakistan has, in order to justify its grandiose delusions about ‘disputing’ J&K.
And to be blunt, while a non-trivial chunk of the Sunni Kashmiri in the valley was and likely is sympathetic to ethno-religious superiority and secessionist tendencies, the reality is that there is more than enough ambivalence baked in, that without active Pakistani participation and patronage, it is unable to sustain a viable resistance, let alone harbor any realistic hope.
This reminds us of Animal Farm.
The post colonial successor has now completed full circle.
A cursory look at the kabuki that is Pakistani ‘politics’ is, by orders of magnitude, a more stronger candidate for Animal Farm. No?
Interesting fuel for a post
This is why we love ceasefires.
We want to go to the root of the disagreement in all matter and assess them dispassionately
I…am avoiding making posts on Pakistan because even rational discussions or facts being pointed out are simply drowned out by accusations of ‘anti-Pakistan’.
There’s a lot of potential ‘material’ in a dispassionate discussion of how politics, democracy, representation and power dynamics play out east and west of the radcliffe line.
You can make posts.
Delete/edit the Pakistani commentators if you wish. BP allows authors full autonomy on their posts.
I do the same with bad faith Pakistani comments.
I would like it if you make such posts.
India was never British.
Kashmir has always been “Indian” – due to the Hindu heritage (you can see it in the names and temples), due to being part of various Indian polities based out of Delhi etc.
Yeah, just a very divided “resistance”, if at all.
All the leaders are dead or in jail.
This will end the same way like Khalistanis, Mizos, Naxalites etc.
The talks fell through because President Musharraf was removed from power.
I don’t think that his removal from office would have made much of a difference if that was the four-point plan he was choosing to forward. The demilitarization could have worked since maintaining an excess of military assets in the region is quite expensive, and it would have been more ideal to re-allocate the resources into other important areas. Even an increase in the autonomy of the local population via some process of federalism sounds somewhat realistic within reach. Even then, this still requires a lot of effort and trust between the leadership.
However, soft border and joint operations sound almost impossible as a concept. That requires an astrological level of belief between the two nations that was never a possibility in today’s world, much less the past. From an indian perspective, I would say there isn’t really an incentive to support any of those policies. For one, an open border could suggest that Pakistan could directly support insurgencies in Kashmir again, and it allows Pakistan an indirect influence over local populations. Any joint management would mean Pakistan being able to maintain some form of control over what is Indian territory from their perspective. Above all else, their question of finances and who exactly will be footing the bill for these operations and administrative functions. Like Kashmir has a million people living in difficult terrains that require extensive resources and money that someone has to bring. Even if we forget that, there is an even simpler problem: what is defined as Kashmir? Does include non-Kashmiri and non-muslim regions like Ladakh and Jammu.
India has no real incentive here since it doesn’t really want the lands that Pakistan controls, and it is mostly satisfied with its own land holdings. Above all else, the state doesn’t have a reason to accept Pakistan’s terms here. What guarantee is there that the next Pakistani leader won’t just change their mind about this agreement? So I don’t think that talks would amount to anything.
Exactly, you do not win at the negotiating table what you have lost in a war.
Why would India come to the table with Pakistan for anything regarding Kashmir considering India already has what it wants.
Hence, the diplomatic cold shoulder.
Of course, the Pakistanis could always fuel an insurgency to bring India to the table but then two can play at that game as is evident from recent events.
The Musharraf-Manmohan Plan is dead.
Pakistan has now gone back to our hard line position that a plebiscite must be conducted in the entire Disputed Territory.
Ever since 2019, the official term for what we used to call Occupied Kashmir is “Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir”.
https://youtu.be/RB4KUCT8hro
The situation of the Iran US war would have been the exact same if this was initiated by Iran.
When you got more to lose, you just choose to lose and go home. Aka the mercedes and the dumper truck example.
Iran invading the USA and winning?
@XTM:
I appreciate that you’ve trashed a lot of comments which were mostly mutual India-Pakistan trolling. However, some worthwhile comments by FlyDie and girmit (which were not even on the thread concerned) also got trashed. Just flagging that.
I would strongly recommend that EK and Q desist from this mutual India-Pakistan trolling. It’s not a good look for anyone. It’s of course easier said than done.
XTM such articles only serve to fan the flames. Its a game of never ending one upmanship.
The Hyderabadi PhD still sings the songs of his lost people, so by that yardstick all Akhand Bharat nationalists will also sing songs for both the land that is lost as well as the lost people no? 😀
The Hyderabadi American PHD.
😁
yes but that is actually an indictment; he wouldn’t be able to do that in India..
that is the point. Diasporas are both deranged and invested..
we will write on this.
this isn’t to say Hyderabad will become independent, but that the essence of Hyderabadi culture is migrating spiritually
those laments have some valence
Thing is Hyderabad was always Telugu majority and it has become even more Telugu post 1948.
Of course, the Hyderabadi Muslim in the diaspora can lament about it.
Current day Hyderabad is Ramoji Film City and the tech parks dotted around the city.
Hyderabad’s infinite FSI makes as a Maharashtrian rather jealous. It’s got the making of a top Indian city. Hyderabad might get into the leagues of Mumbai, Delhi and Bengaluru soon.
if Indian cities want to soar to the top they have to get their traffic sitch in order.
https://brahm.beehiiv.com/p/the-sky-above-s-o-paulo
That’s why massive infra push.
I was in Bombay over the past few days for some work (hence a bit quiet here lol).
The metro and coastal road meant I completely skipped the traffic.
Also as an aside, the new facial recognition DigiYatra features at the airport were a breeze to use. No boarding pass required – just show your face and walk in. I had seen it in Singapore many years back. Good to see it in India.
Also skyline coming up very nicely.
as you know we love India, that is Bharat.
we believe the idea of India has to transform to fit various constituencies, it’s interesting we have the most “Akhand Bharat” stance on this blog.
we do not believe economic prosperity and other such materialism holds a Union together. Man does not live by bread alone
I think the “Idea of India” is very all encompassing anyway.
Yeah. Chennai, Kolkata left behind.
yes both are fairly sleepy towns
Both are in turn, low-hanging fruit for further growth. The rising tide of Indian prosperity, is going to lift these 2 cities as well.
Chennai will eventually escape its internal DMK politics and catch up rapidly.
Kolkata has lot more work to do, but does have a shot. Time will tell.
Is it bad to be a sleepy town? One of the best things about TN is that all development is not concentrated in one citry like Karnataka, and it would be good for WB to distribute the fruits of development across to Asansol and Siliguri and Murshidabad as well.
I think many places in India are not built to handle the amount of people they currently do.
Yes TN and Kerala have very distributed models of development ..
how so? what is the overlap in the TN and Kerala ‘models of development’?
TN actually has a burgeoning technology and manufacturing sector, Keralam does not. Am I wrong?
The Chinese communist party ‘manages’ this issue with hukou and a firm police state. India…will never have comparable tools to address urban density.
I think Chennai has avoided the fate of other Indian metropolis due to its language insularity. Bangalore traditionally has been culturally open. This has been Chennai’s loss, nontrivially measured.
And its not just Bangalore, a whole bunch of so-called ‘Tier 2’ cities in the south are blossoming. Chennai will either adapt, or … not.
Bangalore is still like 40% of Karnatakas entire GDP, Mangalore is barely 20%. This kind of centralization is not sustainable and bad for the citys own future as well as the area around it.
I dont know why you think Chennai is not doing well, Chenna has investments from companies all over the world and will always be important due to it being the capital. It will continue to grow as long as TN is, not being as big as Bangalore and Mumbai is not a mark against chennai. If anything it is the opposite.
Hukou from what I read is basically a more sophisticated version of domicile policies that make it difficult for you to buy land if you are not someone who has lived in xyz area for some time, preventing the kind of speculation in residental properties that we see today. Laws are not applied in India not because we lack the capacity but because many industries and business houses benefit from having access to cheap labour. The people who stay in slums, are not there because no one wants them, the opposite in fact. It is due to support of these cronies that laws are not always applied.
Agree. If anything Chennai has thrived because the IT hub has been given land along the road to Mahabalipuram away from the main city. The traffic as a result isn’t even a fraction of that of Bangalore. Bangalore infrastructure especially the roads are terrible. Doesn’t matter which party is in power.
Anecdotally I’ve heard 32% in KA and 37% in MH is the current cut rate for any dealings with the govt. Not black, but all inflated to adjust for the cut. MH CM is clean but he is unable to prevent this level of corruption at the moment.
Law enforcement has always been the issue in India. The law exists, its just not enforced with an iron hand.
bien sure; we will explore this topic..
we wish to see the extension of India but we are also deliberating on how Jambudvīpa may be extended.
USA style
India is already extending socio-economically.
All sub-continentals – Indians and ‘formerly known as Indians’ – what is their primary option for advanced medical care? Before the Visa ban, how many thousands of Pakistanis flocked to AIIMS? How many Bangladeshis still do?
These numbers are going to keep going up.
Love it or hate it, both East and West Pakistanis can flex their ‘disdain’ for Bollywood, but will still watch Dhurandhar and Bahubali. The metrics don’t lie.
but East Germanification has not happened.
Vietnamese, Koreans and Germans accept they are the same people divided by a common line. Even the Taiwanese and Chinese do.
However Pakistanis believe they are different; that is fascinating and worth interrogation.
I don’t think any ‘side’ wants german style re-unification. ‘Live and let live’ is an almost universal consensus on the Indian side.
The challenge is ‘managing’ the small brother-big brother neighbor perception issue – and irrredentist Pakistani delusions of snatching parts of Indian J&K.
And the economic divergence in the subcontinent has been a major variable in ‘reducing’ both those challenges to minor headaches instead of genuine security threats of the magnitude where actual losses can be anticipated.
This is like East Germany & South Vietnam..
But North Korea needed a dynasty to hold it together.
Pakistan doesn’t have that.
Pakistan has their own Stasi. There is a rational argument to be made that Pakistan is run by a coterie of ‘Corp Commanders’ who decide which one of them will become the ‘Doge’. It could be Zia, Mush, Raheel, Munir, but the “Organization” largely calls the shots. Even senior ‘Capos’ can get ousted if they deviate from the ‘company’ line.
The “Awaam” of Pakistan are serfs. They do not get a say in who, or how, the Pakistani state is run. Sure, they don’t want to be part of ‘India’. But thats neither here nor there. They could want to continue ‘not recognizing Israel’, but if the ‘Organization’ wills it, it will happen.
The Organization wraps itself in the flag, and proclaims that its the “only” institution that works, the “only” thing that can save from India. Yesterday it was from India wanting to attack them, the new tag line is ‘saving Pak from Indian ‘hegemony’ – a dubious and subjective metric that……is essentially unachievable in reality.
It’s amazing, the power of tribal ‘belonging’ and especially the hatred of the ‘other’, it can allow to convince oneself of all kinds of things.
Yet.
Let the economies peel a bit further.
Anyways no one wants re-unification. More like a Spain-Portugal thing.
East Pakistanis are not as rabid as the West ones though. Little acting up once in a while but they know what’s what.
That they aren’t ‘as rabid’ is as much a function of their capabilities (lack of) as much as anything else.
Rabid?
As in supporting violence towards India
Also, if one talks to old hyderabadis who are non-muslims, they often have the same angst/nostalgia for their own version of the faded culture. The demographic influx of tier 3 and rurals into metro India is the phenomenon, not intentional marginalization. One can tell a very similar story about just about any other top-10 city in the country. The old core demographic has a lot of people settled elsewhere and has been displaced by new blood. This is often accompanied by linguistic shift.
Exactly, it is an extremely ‘human’ tendency to wax nostalgic about the past, and assert some sort of tribal ascendency about what could have been.
Extrapolating that into some sort of genuine undercurrent of ….dissatisfaction with India in the Deccan is….a stretch.
At least the gangetic Hindu has some valence for the Lucknow /avadhi culture etc.
The Telugu reddy and kamma have no love for hyderbadi culture probably except for the highly spiced byriani.
The hyderbadi rulers were hated oppressors.
I think that it’s more to which Hyderabadi ruler you are referring to here. For one, the pre-Nizam Golconda sultanate may not produce the same amount of dislike as the Nizam. For one, the Golconda sultans had a very close relationship with the local Telugu populations, including the introduction of Telugu as a major court language and direct patronage of classical dance styles like Kuchipudi that were regionally significant. The last Sultan of Golconda even relied on two Hindu brahmins from Warangal, who basically controlled the entire treasury. I mean, this sultanate made the Charminar, and they started to consider themselves (in the works I read) as the “Telugu” Sultanate.
Now, the Nizam will probably never see the same kind of opinion since they didn’t seem to have a close relationship with the general population on average. Many of the early Deccani sultans needed to rely more on the local figures and ended up being closer. Like the Ibrahim 2nd Adil Shah of Bijapur was close to his Maratha retainer so much that he spoke Marathi more fluently than Persian, and I am pretty sure he had a Marathi accent every time he did speak Persian. The Nizams were the Mughal empire of the North, ruling over what was essentially a completely foreign land, over a period of extreme religious crystallization and communalism. So, that was never going to work out in an ideal manner.
My basic point here would be the fact that many aspects of Telugu culture visibly shaped Hyderabadi culture long before the modern period. I mean, certain Telugu villages still celebrate Muhram with both Muslims and Hindus, which may stem from the legacy of the very Shia Golconda sultanate. So I wouldn’t be quick to discount the entirety of Hyderabad’s cultural perception by Telugu people purely based on the legacy of the Nizam.
wasn’t the founder of the Sultanate a South Indian Hindu convert?
Mir Qamar-ud-din Khan was the son of Ghazi ud-Din Khan and Safiya Khanum, the daughter of Sa’adullah Khan. Sa’adullah Khan was a Punjabi Muslim noble who was the Grand Vizier (1645–1656) of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan; during his tenure construction of Taj Mahal was completed.[10][11][12] His paternal grandfather Kilich Khan hailed from Samarkand in present-day Uzbekistan.[13] In 1654, Kilich Khan came to India for the first time while on his way to the Hajj (Islamic pilgrimage) during the reign of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.
So Hyderabad was found by a Punjabi Muslim..
Well, Hyderabad was founded by Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah of the Golconda sultanate. The Nizam just took over the city and formed a semi-autonomous region for himself around the time Sayyed brothers were screwing around with the succession and pissing off everyone all at once.
I dont think so, I think the founder of one of bengali sultante was a former south Indian brahmin convert.
Referring to Raja Ganesha?
Yes that is him.
the origin story for the founders of Ahmed Shahis and Imad Shahis are both based on captured local boys groomed to be leaders.
Yeah I think it was these people I had read about.
No, the founder of the Golconda sultanate was a Turkmen, i.e., the ethnic group of Turkmenistan. Most of the Deccani nobility came from the Delhi sultanate, whose aristocracy descended from Turkic slaves either from the times of Muhammad of Ghor or were brought at a later time alongside multiple foreign scholars. This mostly stemmed from the fact that sultans didn’t trust the local nobility since the Delhi sultans were killed by them. So they imported slaves and foreign scholars with less attachment to local politics since they would be more loyal to the sultan. There was even a saying that 1 slave is 50 sons. Even Ibn Battuta started his globe-trotting to enter the service of the Delhi sultanate.
So most of the Deccani sultans were originally Central Asian in origin, but they ended up marrying into local families of Hindu nobility, including a lot of Marathas.
One very strange fact. Whilst erstwhile rulers of Mysore, nizam, vijayanaGar, maratha etc are still around, the decendents of bahamanis are nowhere to be found.
Same with the Mughals. They must be still around, just living normal lives.
There are still descendants of Bahadur Shah Zafar living in slums in and around Delhi. Just that nobody cares for their royal bloodline as most live in poverty.
There are also descendants of Bahadur Shah Zafar and his other direct relatives living in Karachi who are pretty wealthy. My best childhood friend is one. I knew several others in my school – relatives, but not direct descendants- most are pretty well to do.. The ones I know live very low key lives, and don’t flex their status.. at least not in polite company.
I have also heard that there are many Mughals in Karachi who are poor too.. they get highlighted by the media because that’s a good cover story.. those are the ones who will flex their status more because they don’t have wealth.
As a general rule: after three generations, there is no guarantee who is going to be wealthy and who isn’t.. and a subset are going to turn out poor no matter how much inherited wealth or status they get. This is just a game of statistics.
Well, the kingdom of Mysore and Nizamanate survived into the colonial period, where they worked with the British, hence they survived. Many Maratha clans also survived into the colonial age and worked with the British as well. The Vijayanagara empire was composed of multiple dynasties rather than a singular family, so some of them survived. However, the main lines for these families did end; even the Aravidu dynasty’s main line ended when the last emperor died childless. The present lineages are disputed as well.
The Bahamanid were one family rather than multiple dynasties, and after Mahmood Shah, every ruler until the sultanate’s dissolution was a puppet of court ministers. Eventually, the last ruler of the Bahmanid dynasty was murdered at Ahmednagar after falling between the newly forming sultanates. The only surviving heir went to Mecca, which in the old days was kinda a death sentence, and he was never heard from again. There might have been some collateral branches, but the political environment was very brutal, with multiple backstabbing and death. So, they probably didn’t survive into the colonial period.
Where the descendants of the vijayanagar empire? Are you referring to those who became nayaks?
The descendants of people who were leading the deccani sultanates were either killed by Aurangzeb during his conquest or lost whatever social power they had over the years.
Tbh. hyderabadi culture is a multi faceted thing.
//this isn’t to say Hyderabad will become independent, but that the essence of Hyderabadi culture is migrating spiritually//
If we are specifically talking about Hyderabadi muslim culture then the center of gravity will always be where most of the population is.
The majority of Deccani muslims are in India, deccani muslims were not just the aristocracy of the Nizam states but peasants, traders, merchants all across the deccan plateau in states like Karnatka, telangana and maharashtra.
Unlike delhi that lost much of its muslim chracter due to mass out migration during partition, hyderabad still has a core muslim population which is continuous with the culture before it. Hyderabad-Karnatak has a politically mobilized population that has elements of both the nizam and lingayat cultures, with a visible middle class there as well. The maharashtrian section of this population is from Marathwada and suffers from the general backwardness of the region and are more influenced by north indian muslim culture due to influx of migrants from the north to maharashtra, which makes relating with the other populations who are native a little difficult.
For Hyderabad muslim culture in particular checking out the Hyderabadis by Daneesh Majeed is a great starting point, even Yunus Lasania is a good source to know more about the Nizam and how telangana muslims themselves adapted to the post operation polo situation.
Is he the same guy who was an assistant librarian in MIT?
you do realise that we are all for Jambudvīpa..
but yes it was interesting to us; he was doing his PhD at Harvard and getting quite a following at Substack..
He mostly writes about Islam which is obviously a very popular topic.
That’s the reason for the large following. He is a good writer as well.
we felt his Urdu post went on forever. then we realised he was taking a license since he is an academic
Yes, it was a very long essay.
Making your point without losing your audience is an art.
Of course, it was only some well intentioned banter (I hope) 🙂
Actually if you read what he wrote, aside from that one triggering line it was all about rediscovering some old Islamic poems or some such. Sounded more like nostalgia to me tbh.
There is a large Hyderabadi diaspora in Pakistan–mostly in Karachi. According to Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabadi_Muslims
I didn’t know that Maulana Maududi was Hyderabadi.
I know for a fact that the Pakistani-American journalist Wajahat Ali is of Hyderabadi descent (via Karachi).
Recently a Pakistani author named Arslan Athar wrote a debut novel focusing on the fall of Hyderabad called “Forty Days of Mourning”.
My understanding is that Maulana Maududi, while an honor to be able to claim him in full, was not considered a hyderabadi or dakhni even. He was raised in Aurangabad, but of fairly recent Hindustani heritage. While he was nurtured by dakhni institutions and perhaps the ambiance as well, his dialect and lineage were known to be non-native.
I think the Wiki list is of Muslims from Hyderabad State not the city.
I actually don’t know all that much about Maulana Maudoodi. I quoted him in my dissertation but mostly as a representative of the view that music is “haraam”.
I also know he was initially very against the creation of Pakistan and called the Quaid “Kaafir-e-Azam”. Later, of course, he moved to Pakistan and became the head of Jamaat-e-Islami.
Yup, he was from an aristocratic Delhi background on both maternal and paternal sides.
My understanding is that Maulana Maududi, while an honor to be able to claim him in full, was not considered a hyderabadi or dakhni even.
Not that I want to argue against your desire to claim him but are you sure you would feel honored (as a Hyderabadi Telugu I presume?) to claim someone who was vehement in professing what can most charitably be described as problematic positions – strict death penalty for apostasy, for example.
I don’t mean honor as in I’d want to garland his photograph or anything 😁 .He had a gigantic impact as a theorist. While i’d not even remotely share his vision, there was no surfeit of that rigour of intellect in India a century ago, so I find it impressive. Whatever intellectual culture that manifests a maududi i trust will also create liberal humanists too, so more compelling than a culture of mediocre, unoriginal, harmless men. I’m kannadiga btw, but was speaking broadly from a deccan pov.
Aurangabad/Khidki/Sambhaji Nagar are firmly withing the Deccan, deccani muslims are not just those who lived in Hyderabad but who in some form or the other had ancestors who came during the various Deccani sultanates or who converted under the aegis of some sufi missionary they facilitated.
Plus most deccani muslims, like many other communities of hindus as well come from the North of India and beyond as well.
Deccan is complex
Indeed, thats the definition i’m using, hyderabadi is a subset of deccani. In this specific case maududi was of recent enough hindustani origin not to be considered “mulki”. You may be referencing the many hindustanis who settled the bahamani, golconda, ahmed shahi, adil shahi territories in the 14th-17th centuries. They gestated for long enough to be dakhnis. This was not the case of maududi who was attested to be an outsider.
Another thing about scale is that it provides benefits that a smaller country with same per capita income won’t have.
This reflects in the GDP per capita and HDI (a more comprehensive metric) gap between the two countries.
While Pakistan has the GDP per capita that India had in the early-mid 2010s, their HDI is a further decade behind, being the same as India in the early-mid 2000s.
When Pakistan finally get to $2800 per capita in 20-25 years (in 2026 constant $), they will probably be worse off than India now.
@XTM
I think we had discussed this once before, but its a stretch to call Iran a minnow. Their GDP numbers reflect a sanctioned economy and weak currency, without these crisis-induced limitations we are looking at a 2.5x GDP correction (at least), within a few years. So the numbers are not a good signal for their real power, which is a rare high human capital, large territory country with one of the top oil reserves in the world. This puts them above the threshold of being a fragile entity.
In contrast, both India and Pakistan have relatively stable GDP trajectories that are better representations of economic output. Both are in vulnerable situations as they lack energy independence, are not particularly high human capital (yet), and their poverty makes them easy to manipulate via competing incentives from rich countries. One can say Pakistan has a challenge of debt management, but India still has a problem wherein the US could rug-pull the services export economy and other tactics. They key difference is, India’s trajectory is fairly consistently pointing the right direction, indicating that it may get out of the woods and actually achieve true sovereignty in the coming decade. This would be by having enough economic mass, strategic control over industrial supply chains, and trade intensity, that it would be impossible to completely muscle out of energy markets or sensitive defense imports. The path to this is fairly clear. The only risks to it are catastrophic political upheavals,but not the core recipe. All the ingredients are there to get to ~$7000 per capita GDP in current values by 2040. The important thing isnt that 2.3x GDP means 2.3X more power or influence. Its what it means for human development when a society operates with more efficiency, and the virtuous feedback loop that kicks in. At least where i sit, I’m already seeing undeniable signs of the dividend on human capital development that will keep the growth story somewhat resilient to shocks.
Somewhere between $3000 and $7000 is the tipping point to a new sovereignty echelon for a country this size. I may agree with the GDP irrelevance if discussing 10k and 25k countries of similar populations, there is a natural log like diminishing utility of national wealth after breaking out of subsistence. But no south asian country is there barring SL perhaps (its still too small and would have a higher clearance point).
As far as whether India will ever be aspirational to Pakistanis because of divergence, (which is itself not a foregone conclusion), i would also mention that influence/ soft power is a lagging indicator. The effect of current day economic dynamism will show in a decade or so. Tamil Nadu has a ~$6000 pc GDP and similar in nominal size to Egypt or Malaysia and growing *much* faster, not to mention PPP scales much higher. The story with Karnataka is similar, except much more concentrated the southern half of the state. I don’t wish a decade of stagnation on Pakistan, and I actually believe they are due for some acceleration, but theoretically, I do think that prosperity increases at this level are high utility for national security.
Yeah, you can already see it in the difference between the cricket teams.
The difference between 3k and 12k is more than the one between 12k and 48k.
The million dollar question is how to bring jobs to areas with no legacy. example -north karnataka, marathawada etc. Will incentives to Industrialists only help? This is becoming a difficult thing. Added to that is the Indian habbit of bad mouthing successful industrialists (ambani, Adam, tata)
I still think its a rather overestimation of US capability to think they could just instantly rug-pull most of India’s service exports. If they had those levers to pull they would be pulling them now considering they’re already firing on all cylinders regarding the tariffs dispute.
I find it rather hard to believe that SL is completely out of subsistence. Considering they just had a revolution in the recent past which led to a shortage of food, fuel and even paper of all things. Furthermore, their GDP per capita is only around 4500$, which would mean states like GJ, MH, TN, etc are all completely out of subsistence which I don’t believe to be true. Places like Marathwada, Vidarbha, North Karnataka, etc still need more development for me to think it has gotten to that point.
I only have anecdotes and imperfect data regarding this but just look at the nightlights of SL and compare it to some place like MH or TN and you’ll see that MH and TN are much brighter in comparison.
IMO Karnataka and Sri Lanka both seems like the same model hyper-concentrated growth in a single city which pulls up the per capita GDP.
I agree, but its still a lever, although ever shortening The fact that the current size and scale makes it difficult to simply cut-off is a great example of how growth matters.
We’d need to align on our criteria for subsistence, but i was referencing it notionally, there is a threshold somewhere. My experience in SL and their HDI metrics hint at being on a different level, and within India, perhaps Kerala and patches of other states are comparable. GDP PC figures are both meaningful but qualified by other factors, so one one hand SL gets more out of its 4500-5000 than many indian states, but it also has more import dependencies which would drive up its threshold for economic sovereignty.
Btw, just one detail wrt to Karnataka, its regional revenue imbalance is well known, but the most advanced region of the state is the malnad and coastal belt. Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts might be the most developed non-metro region of India, as it has the Kerala-like HDI + remittance economy but without business constraints. The large northeastern swathe of KA is a big challenge. In my view they need to seek opportunities within the Hyderabad – Pune – Mumbai corridor as well.
Shall reply to this when we have a moment
https://theprint.in/india/india-protests-pakistans-plan-to-hold-polls-in-gilgit-baltistan-polls-says-it-is-indian-territory/2952162/
Seems interesting .The so called international dispute cuts both ways!
Yeah, it should be kept alive as long as Pakistanis keep their claim alive.
India can protest all they like. Of course from India’s POV GB is part of “POK”.
The reality is that India has never controlled and will never control GB.
The Muslims of GB have zero desire to be under Hindu rule. The people of GB never liked the Dogras and rebelled against them in 1947.
The people of GB want nothing more than to be the 5th province of Pakistan. However, because of the Kashmir Dispute, Pakistan cannot make GB a province since that would legitimate India’s annexation of Occupied Kashmir.
It’s a different matter that post 2019 and the division of Occupied Kashmir into two Union Territories, India can be said to already have annexed Occupied Kashmir.
https://www.dawn.com/news/2005452/pakistan-categorically-rejects-indias-remarks-on-gb-elections-as-baseless
@XTM:
There needs to be some clarity on the ceasefire.
Is it just we are not allowed to reply to each other or not refer to each other?
I think not referring to each other makes any kind of discourse difficult. But if that is the case then I don’t want to see my name being taken by certain people. I will treat any such case as a serious ceasefire violation.
https://m.thewire.in/article/books/nehrus-kashmir-policy-and-its-consequences-told-through-the-experience-of-the-dogras
The wire gives interesting views on dogra rule in j&k.
Lord A.P. Wavell, the penultimate viceroy of India. It is a short, handwritten note written to someone – perhaps Attlee – as a coda to a report from his office to London – of his impression of Hari Singh after their first and possibly only meeting: “Maharaja Hari Singh struck me as one of two of the wisest and most sagacious rulers in the country [After a few more lines of praise the note concludes:] If there is a fault in him, it is a tendency to keep too much to himself and not seek the advice of others, except one or two who are closest to him
for the rest of India, maharaja Hari Singh was known as an indecisive, womanizer ruler.
Thanks for sharing The Wire article.
I have read Malika Pukhraj’s memoir Song Sung True. She was a court singer in Maharaja Hari Singh’s court. She speaks very highly of him in the memoir. In fact, the book is dedicated to Maharaja Hari Singh and to her husband.
For a broader perspective on the Dogras, you can read Mridu Rai’s Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects : Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691116884/hindu-rulers-muslim-subjects
Incidentally, The Wire article you shared mentions that the Quaid was trying to induce the Nizam of Hyderabad to accede to Pakistan despite the fact that Hyderabad State had a 63% Hindu population. Similarly, the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir had a 77% Muslim population.
If Hyderabad had to be part of India (and indeed it was taken over by force) then similarly Kashmir was a natural part of Pakistan.
If India’s argument is that the ruler had the right to decide–which is technically true– then India gets Kashmir (including GB and AJK) but should vacate the entire princely state of Hyderabad Deccan since the rightful ruler–the Nizam– did not accede to India.
What Pakistani nationalists cannot stand is India’s hypocrisy in keeping both Hyderabad and Kashmir.
A much better principle would have been to decide based on the religion of the majority population. In that case, India would have gotten Hyderabad and Junagadh. Pakistan would have gotten all of Kashmir.
See, I think a bigger factor that shapes a lot of secession stems from how population distributions didn’t always line up with the demographic numbers. Kashmir was composed of multiple regions, which included the Gilgit sections, Jammu, Ladakh, and the Kashmir valley itself. Ladakh was generally composed of Kargil shia muslims and Leh Tibetan Buddhists, who have strong nomadic origins. Both groups are roughly split in the region. Jammu used to be an equal split between Hindu and Muslim groups, with muslims having a marginal majority by 2-3%.
Communal violence during the Partition in places like Mirpur in Modern Pakistan ended up pushing a lot of Hindu groups, like the Dogra, into the Jammu region. This, in turn, triggered a reverse communal incident, which pushed the muslim population into the Pakistani side of modern Kashmir. The Kashmir valley was the only region with an absolute Muslim majority on the Modern Indian. If there were an actual vote, Muslims were the majority numerically, but they don’t even today fully control all the lands. There would have been disputes over how the land should be divided: district-based or wholesale-based on numerical superiority. In the end, India still controls all the lands that the non-muslims dominate, while Pakistan got the parts that the Muslims dominated. The only exception would be the valley region since that was fully muslim dominated, which contiously to hold onto because of regional connectivity reasons and water access.
The basis of most of the divisions of land during the partition was not based on numerical superiority, but population distribution, from my perspective. Hyderabad’s muslim population was mostly centred around the city, while the Hindu population dominated the countryside. You would find the reverse on the Pakistani side of Punjab, where the muslims dominated the rural regions and the non-muslims dominated the cities like Lahore. So the lands got divided by both countries based on distribution in some sense. Then, I doubt the leaders on both sides cared for principle since to value principle, you need to at least respect or like each other, which they never did to begin with. Nationalists today seem to care more about principles than the actual leaders did back then. I feel these discussions, whether by Indians or Pakistanis, don’t achieve anything meaningful since the time has passed, and it would be better for everyone to treat their own citizens, irrespective of religion, better.
The entire princely state of Jammu & Kashmir was 77% Muslim in 1947. Had it been part of British India and not a princely state if would have gone to Pakistan no questions asked. Jammu province was Muslim majority until the Jammu massacres killed a lot of Muslims or pushed them into AJK.
The whole issue arose because Kashmir was a princely state. Technically, the ruler of the princely state had the right to accede to whichever dominion he wanted. However, the idea was that the religion of the majority would be kept in mind.
Pakistani nationalists have a problem with the hypocrisy shown by the Indian side. The Nawab of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan but because the state was Hindu majority a plebiscite was held there. The Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to be independent but because the population was Hindu majority a “police action” was conducted there. Maharaja Hari Singh “acceded” to India (though Pakistan doesn’t recognize this accession). However, with a clear Muslim-majority population, it is our view that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan.
If the principle is that the ruler decided, India needs to hand over Junagadh to Pakistan. If the people decided, then a plebiscite must be conducted in Kashmir. India cannot have its cake and eat it too.
Kashmir is considered internationally Disputed Territory and will remain so until a solution is agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The LOC is a ceasefire line and not an international border.
The best compromise was the Musharraf-Manmohan Plan. However, Pakistan has now gone back to our hardline position that the plebiscite must be conducted. India has also gone back to its hardline position–as can be seen with the recent note of protest against the Gilgit Baltistan elections. GB has never belonged to India and Pakistan is perfectly justified in conducting elections there whenever we want.
Whether Indians want to admit it or not, the Kashmir Dispute is the core issue between the two countries. Pakistan considers it the unfinished business of Partition.
There are many ethnic Kashmiris living in Pakistan. My own family is ethnically Kashmiri-Punjabi.
I agree with your final conclusion that both sides need to treat their own citizens better. But the Kashmir Dispute needs to be solved. If not, both countries will remain in this current state of neither war nor peace with the occasional flare up. Pakistan is not going to give up on the Kashmir Cause.
Indian channels are showing demonstrations in gilgit baltistan. This has become fairly regular these days.
It’s election season in GB, I would not be suprised if Indian channels are likely passing off election rallies and sloganeering as some pro seperatist ‘demonstrations’ to their gullible Indian viewers.
There are regular demonstrations in all parts of the country for various reasons including GB. GB residents want to be included as 5th province of Pakistan and they are unhappy that they are part of the Kashmir issue and getting their political representation stonewalled.
Apparently serious news channels are banned by both countries but social media and YouTube rants deliberately kept..
Exactly, the GB election is being held today.
The people of GB are patriotic Pakistanis. There is no freedom struggle or “insurgency” in GB or AJK the way that there is in Occupied Kashmir.
It’s not a comparable situation in any way whatsoever.
Indian channels are really not trustworthy for anything tbh
Firstly, none of the points that you stated here ever truly addressed the very large question of what becomes of the 23% of non-muslims that live in that region. This 23% owns most of the land that forms Ladakh and Jammu, which I doubt they are willing to give up in favor of joining a country that will probably not treat them well. All of this works under the assumption that the Kashmiri people want to actually join the state of Pakistan rather than make a country for themselves. Another presumption here would be the belief that they value their own religious interest, which would drive a desire for them to go to Pakistan over their ethnic interest, which would drive them into being a separate country like Bangladesh. None of this explains why the practicality of an actual plebiscite will even work here. What happens if a district decides not to secede, but all the surrounding districts want to secede? How would the land be divided?
Furthermore, the political classes that make actual decisions in both Pakistan and India actually give a shit about the people living in that land. In geopolitics, practicality has taken precedence over principles and ethics. I am sure the control over the rivers and water resources is probably a greater driving force behind their decisions rather than some disagreements over a long-dead princely state and its long-dead rulers. Also, I am not really sure how returning to the need for a plebiscite or things about the Gilgit region is particularly a hardline position since it was always the average position for both governments. The fact that they wanted to even have a normal discussion was more of an anomaly since the dumb nationalist statements seem to be the norm for this issue.
There is an old belief in Kerala that the first person you see at the start of your day represents how the rest of your day goes. A lucky person brings a good day, and an unlucky person brings a bad day. How something begins will determine how it will end; a relationship that starts in death and the displacement of millions would never end in anything but violence. I doubt this relationship would have been better even without Kashmir being added to the mix. The fact that this relationship is stuck in a limbo would be better for everyone else, since the alternative was always going to be violence. In some sense, both have superficial similarities that would give the initial appearance of co-operation, but they are in some sense foreign to one another.
Lastly, the opinion of Pakistani nationalists about Kashmir means about as much as the opinion of Indian nationalists about the Gilgit region; most smoke with very little fire. India controls Kashmir and determines the policies based on their relationship with the local people as well as their personal interests. Pakistan controls the Gilgit region and will make decisions similarly. Neither country’s opinions about the other will ever truly make much of a difference in this stalemate, nor will it change how they behave. In the end, how people are treated, and they live their lives are determined internally; any external pressure will only cause them to double down on their behaviour and never stop. If Israel and Palestine have shown anything, it’s that external pressure doesn’t really work when everyone would rather sit around, avoid the crossfire, and try to obtain as many benefits as possible. I doubt this situation would be any different.
Above all else, I don’t even think that India, from my perspective, wants to have a relationship with Pakistan at this point, since everything seems to be in a free fall. I doubt they care about the average Pakistani layperson’s opinion, much less a nationalists opnion. Everything will bunch of useless diplomatic back and forth without any substance, in addition to a few bombs being thrown around and a bunch of dead civilians, followed by loud claims of victory. This will continue until one or, most probably, both countries die out.
On the question of the land being divided: That’s not how the plebiscite is supposed to work. See the UN resolutions. There is no question of the land being divided. The entire princely state is supposed to go with whichever country the majority of the people choose. There is also no possibility of an independent Kashmir. It’s a binary choice between India and Pakistan.
I think both India and Pakistan would have eventually gotten over the trauma of Partition had we not immediately gone to war over Kashmir. Of the 4 major wars we have fought, 3 have been over Kashmir. The only exception was 1971 which was about Bangladesh.
I would compare Kashmir to Alsace-Lorraine which only really ceased to be an issue after World War II. It’s now not an issue because France and Germany are both in the EU and the border is practically irrelevant.
On India not wanting to have a relationship with Pakistan: Both countries are neighbors. You cannot change geography. Eventually, a non BJP government will come to power in India. It may take a decade but it’s not like “Hindu Hriday Samrat” will be around forever.
The alternative to some kind of a settlement is nuclear war. Kashmir remains the biggest flashpoint between two nuclear-armed neighbors. We saw that last year. One terrorist incident led to drones and missiles. That can happen again at any point. I’m not endorsing this but simply pointing out reality. And the reality also is that Pakistan’s response to another “Sindoor” will be much harsher and disproportionate.
The status quo can continue or we can come to some sensible solution. In reality, that situation will have to be accepting the LOC as an international border. The Musharraf-Manmohan Plan called for this along with autonomy for Kashmiris.
Okay, that plebiscite objectively sounds horrible. The biggest issue is Ladakh, since it was never a part of Kashmir. The Dogra dynasty’s founder, with the help of the Sikh empire, conquered the region from the hands of the Namgyal dynasty, which used to rule the region. That plebiscite would favor the numerically superior Kashmiri over the minority Ladakhi population, which would revolt quite extensively since their future is determined by outsiders. If the Dogra king acceded to India without considering the Kashmiri people’s interest hence, resulting in insurgencies.
Why would the Ladakhi people, whose future was determined by a plebiscite that explicity favor a larger group, not just start an insurgency of their own? It is still the same reason, just with different people. Even now, the people of Ladakh and Kashmir aren’t exactly on good terms, considering the fact that they didn’t really oppose the dissolution in 2019 and the conversion of Ladakh into a union territory. On top of that, Pakistan is explicitly an Islamic republic, while India is at least legally a secular republic that comes with certain guarantees. That doesn’t particularly encourage non-Muslims in the region, and there is a rise of majoritarianism without constitutional checks.
In terms of Partition, I don’t think Kashmir’s exclusion would have made much of a difference here. The main central point of conflict for India at least stems from a broader identity crisis stemming from a difficult choice between a Hindu and a secular national identity. Pakistan might be able to easily forget the partition since there are no non-Muslim populations left in significant amounts that can shape politics, except in some parts of Sindh. For India, muslims are a fundamental part of every major region of India and shape local politics in many ways. The legacy of the partition continues with the poor relations between Hindus and Muslims as they fight over scarce resources. That isn’t exactly a formula for good relations, and Pakistan is part of the land’s history in a manner that isn’t exactly avoidable.
Lastly, Pakistan doesn’t really have much leverage on India. Nepal and Bangladesh control the chicken neck in addition to open border policy in Nepal’s case and Northeast connectivity in Bangladesh’s case. Sri Lanka is crucial due it key role in the maritime sea trade and how it can serve as a pathway for expanding Chinese influence alongside the Maldives, which serves a similar role. Bhutan is a protectorate that India is responsible for, and Myanmar has a civil war that can bleed over into the Northeast states.
Pakistan’s main leverage was access to Iran and Central Asia for energy resources like natural gas or oil. Iran is out of the picture with the recent war, which caused a shift to Russia. Central Asia went out of the picture with the Taliban’s rise and the new conflicts at the border with Pakistan-Afghanistan. The last main leverage that was available included promises of ensuring direct involvement in Kashmir and negotiating a solution. The Indian state believes that Pakistan will support insurgents or start wars in negotiating failing.
Even if these issues didn’t exist, there is literally no guarantee that agreements made will be followed if, say, the military or civil government gets into a tussle over who dictates final policy. Pakistan doesn’t have enough economic leverage or hold a meaningful enough geographic position that provides benefits. Additionally, Pakistan doesn’t shape the cultural landscape in the manner that say america could do via its soft power. Fundamentally, there is no incentive or particular benefit for the Indian state here.
Like I said, the current status quo is not sustainable. Maybe India thinks it is.
Kashmir remains a nuclear flashpoint. I don’t think anyone wants another terrorist incident followed by another “Sindoor”. I will repeat that Pakistan’s reaction to another “Sindoor” will be harsher and disproportionate. Pak Fauj is not playing.
It would be far better for everyone concerned if a solution is found to the core dispute. We all know that the only realistic solution is the Musharraf-Manmohan Plan. But this will have to wait for a non BJP government to come to power in Delhi.
In the meantime, India can restore statehood to Kashmir. That step doesn’t require Pakistan to do anything.
Rather than non-Kashmiris pontificating about Kashmir on this forum, it would perhaps be better to listen to what Kashmiris have to say:
https://thewire.in/politics/what-the-national-conference-congress-rift-reveals-about-jks-political-future
Kautilya, in his Arthashastra, says that there are four main remedies in diplomacy for dealing with conflict with your enemies: Sama-Conciliation, Dana-Gifting, Bheda-Trickery, and Danda-Force. Modi did Sama when he tried to visit Pakistan’s PM during his daughters’ visit to appeal to them with his personal charm. He probably did Dana at some point, either formally or informally, offering something to the opposite side. He used Bheda in 2019 when he tried to wait for the opportune moment to strip Kashmir of its statehood. Sindoor was the Danda step with displays of extensive force. Modi, the BJP, and literally every party follow this exact pattern for everything geopolitical. So, every time Pakistan uses violence, India will use violence, then Pakistan will use violence, and this cycle continues until a bunch of civilians die. India might start this cycle, or Pakistan might.
The thing I know is that diplomacy is not based on displays of force, but rather it is based on incentives and trust, something that is easy to lose and difficult to gain. Even if the BJP falls out of power, one is exceptionally certain: they are here to stay either as the leader or the opposition. I don’t really see negotiation happening anytime soon. This status quo will remain for a long time because any non-BJP party that comes after can’t lose face on a national level they will probably further escalate. Unless a non-BJP group comes with an absolute majority, where they don’t have to care about the BJP. There is probably no backing down here; Kashmir will get its statehood, but negotiations are probably not going to be extensive. It’s not like either India or Pakistan is changing its borders anytime soon or gains anything here. There is no diplomacy without trust; force does not lead to negotiations.
This he also assuming that non bjp parties thibk any differently.
It is the congress that despite the stupid actions of some of its neighbours initially, proved Pakistani complicity in 26/11 and sponsoring cross border terrorism
They themselves presided over a fall in deaths due to militancy even if they mever advertised the same and laid the groundwork for many counter insurgency actions against all kinds og insurgents
The congress govt will be as hawkish as any bjp govt as long as the military plays as much of a role as it does in Pakistani society.
Pakistanis hoping for less hawkishness from a non BJP government are sorely mistaken.
A non BJP government will be more liberal on the home front vis a vis Hindu-Muslim issues, not on terrorism.
The overton window has shifted.
Kashmir will get statehood back, not because of Pakistanis but because of their rights as citizens.
In about a decade when order has been restored completely I see them getting it back.
370 will never be restored.
//We all know that the only realistic solution is the Musharraf-Manmohan Plan. But this will have to wait for a non BJP government to come to power in Delhi.//
It is the congress government thst torpedoed the plan.
I know you are a Pakistani nationalist and think that the Pakistani fauj is more rational and righteous than Indian government but it is very difficult to trust a countey that literally trained and sent terrorists into your country for causing chaos. In the last few weeks you and others have been going on and on about how Sindoor is an attack on your sovereignty so you should understand how much of an attack 26/11 was as well. How can India be expected to have good relations with Pakistan if they violated our sovereignty that way.
Don’t mind me saying but the way you frame this puts all onus on an agreement not coming forth on the Indian government while the Pakistani army itself has a massive role in the state of things being the way they are.
We wont be coming to an consensus as long as the army does not admit its own wrongs.
I’m not interested in litigating this with you.
You cannot seriously compare “26/11” to “Sindoor”. 26/11 was an attack by non-state actors. Sindoor was an attack on Pakistan by the Indian state. They are not the same thing and to even attempt to equate them is a bad faith argument.
In the end, the Musharraf-Manmohan Plan is the only solution. Both sides know it. Borders will not change (which is obviously unacceptable to India). Pakistan gets to save face.
The alternative is the status quo, more Pahalgams and more “Sindoors”. Is that what you want? The next time, there is a Sindoor India will receive a disproportionate response. So be prepared.
In Pakistan, the Army is the government. If General Musharraf wanted the Musharraf-Manmohan Plan and had not fallen from power, this is what would have happened. No civilian politician would have been able to utter a peep. If the Field Marshal wants this as the ultimate solution that is what will happen.
However, this is all a moot point. We are now back to our hardline position that a plebiscite must be conducted. Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir is not an “integral part” of India and will never be. We don’t care what you think.
It’s interesting – the world has accepted Kashmir is disputed.
It’s going to take a long period of diplomacy to undo that.
International law is very powerful fwiw; it’s effectively delegitimised Israel in the span of 30yrs.
Kashmir remains on the agenda of the UN.
The UN Security Council just released its 2025 report which affirmed that Kashmir and Palestine are unresolved disputes.
“UN affirms Kashmir and Palestine are unresolved disputes”
By Anwar Iqbal
https://www.dawn.com/news/2005763
One must also see “what” is internationalized.
The West Bank and Gaza is seen as “not Israel” internationally so the post 1967 status is considered an “occupation”.
“Israel proper” is a UN member state and recognized by almost all of the world including the most powerful countries. Even a decent number of Muslim countries have come around and Trump is trying to get more on board via the Abraham Accords.
A lot of Kashmiri Muslim separatists consider “the Valley” “occupied” similarly (Jammu/Ladakh have no separatist tendencies). But thing is no one internationally recognizes this “occupation”. Kashmir is not a “partially recognized state”. Even Pakistanis don’t support this because it might lead to potential loss of territory.
Similarly for all of Pakistan’s insistence that Kashmir is “illegally occupied” by India, this “illegal occupation” is done by Pakistan too.
The correct term used internationally is “administered”.
And since “administered” is a lot more internationally palatable than “occupied”, the “international community” gives it some token acknowledgement without actually taking the more concrete steps it takes vis a vis Palestine (BDS, recognition of Palestine etc).
//Okay, that plebiscite objectively sounds horrible. The biggest issue is Ladakh, since it was never a part of Kashmir. The Dogra dynasty’s founder, with the help of the Sikh empire, conquered the region from the hands of the Namgyal dynasty, which used to rule the region. That plebiscite would favor the numerically superior Kashmiri over the minority Ladakhi population, which would revolt quite extensively since their future is determined by outsiders. If the Dogra king acceded to India without considering the Kashmiri people’s interest hence, resulting in insurgencies.//
The same can be said about partition as a whole. When you keep in mind most of the people who could vote were priveleged individuals and mostly males, with no requirement for mandatory voting of all eligible voters, the whole idea is really farcical.
The Kargili Shias and the Jammu Muslims (Pahadi/Gojri) have no interest in separation either so its not even 77%.
Anyways it is a moot point.
The one thing the Pakistan side doesn’t understand is why would India come to the table when India already has what it wants. That’s basic logic. It makes no sense for India to “hold a plebiscite” or “talk to Pakistan” regarding Kashmir when India is very happy with the status quo. Of course, officially a claim is maintained but that is more to do with the opposite side maintaining their claim.
Of course the Pakistani side can make an effort to foster an insurgency like in the 90s (and then ask India to come to the table) but there are two problems with that:
India’s state capacity in 2026 is way different than what in was in the 90s. Plus all of the anti-insurgency technology of the past twenty years is available to India.India can do the same back. Pakistanis might cry that those are not “international issues” but intelligence agencies and geopolitics don’t really care about “UN resolutions”.
India’s main objective vis a vis Kashmir is integration.
That’s why India removed Article 370 to remove the “formal” barrier and now the task is in to get the Kashmiris on board the India project like the Sikhs, Mizos etc were in the past.
Pakistanis might not like it but that’s fine. Like I said, they can add an extra minute of silence if it makes them feel good.
I agree that Kargil Shia and Jammu muslims don’t want separation or merger with Pakistan now, maybe it was different in the past. The basic reason is that both options don’t seem viable practically, nor does a plebiscite, since that requires a large amount of trust, which is nonexistent right now. Also, I believe that insurgencies are unviable in the present we are living in, where advances in technology and anti-insurgency protocols have made these things hard.
However, this doesn’t seem to be an ideal situation, but it isn’t the worst position either. However, integrating Kashmiris into India isn’t going to be as straightforward. Khalistan was easier to deal with because, at the end of the day, their centre point of existence was due to land owning feudal classes trying to maintain their dominance via religious extremism. The green revolution and the economic reforms more or less broke down the traditional feudal economic structure and system by replacing it with the present market economy.
The Mizo conflict was easier to resolve since most Northeast tribal conflicts had a lot of intertribal conflicts and a general existence outside the purview of the mainstream. This allowed the government more negotiating space with the militia. Kashmir is just easy to resolve in this manner since tourism was the main basis for economic growth, a sector that is heavily impacted by a lack of safety, like say a random terrorist attack. Kashmir also sits in many mainstream discussions, which doesn’t provide the negotiating buffering space. None of this includes the excessive military assets and expenses that are required to maintain this.
I haven’t gotten into the heterogeneous characteristics of Kashmiri society and their general political fragmentation.
India would want an end to cross border terrorism and not want to have kashmir as another front in war in the Himalayas.
I dont know why you keep on mentioning the mizos, there has been no insurgency in mizoram since the 1950s due to literal air bombing. Perhaps you arw referring to the nagas who were the first group to resort to insurgency and have largely been pacified?
Mizos signed the accord in the 80s.
Mizos in the sense that the insurgency is now zero.
Like I said, India can play this game as well. And due to demographics/geography, better too.
The same thing that became of the 15% of the Hyderabadi Muslims after India waged war on Hyderabad state and annexed it and usurped all Muslim landholdings?
A minority will be unhappy enough to migrate to India and the rest will stay and be absorbed by Pakistan.
On a general note, I have maintained that Kashmir issue will not be resolved diplomatically. If Palestinians never accepted Israel despite having no country and no army, there is very little chance of Pakistan,accepting the status quo in Kashmir given there is very little kinetic power differential with India. Maybe for the time being it may be quiet, but as you noted – it’s not just about plebicite and self determination of Kashmiris, it’s not even ideological, it has to do with Pakistan’s water and strategic security that is endangered with India legalizing Kashmir as its territory.
And as you also noted, there is no will in India to resolve this either so we will continue as before, with war breaking out every now and then.
I agree with the fact that this conflict is probably never going to end in our lifetime, at least. In terms of comparison with Hyderabad Muslims, this argument doesn’t work on a practical level. For one, historically the majority of mulsim in what is modern-day India tended to be clustered around historical cities like Ghaziabad or Rampur.
In the case of modern Telangana, there was a very specific dynamic that formed during the sultanate period where the Islamic nobility ruled the urban lands, while the Hindu nobility (like, say, the Marathas) ruled the rural regions. So most of the Muslims didn’t really live in the rural regions and were mostly limited to the city. Most of the muslims that did remain in the region came from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds and often were originally rural groups that migrated to the Urban centre seeking better opportunities. In fact, muslims are had a higher rate of urbanization in recent times in India. Additionally, Telangana is a Dravidian state where racial politics has always held more influence than communal politics. So, Hyderabadi muslims don’t face the full-blown force of communalism to the same degree, in addition to secular rules that they could still leverage.
The same situation doesn’t exist in Ladakh. Firstly, the entire region is very desolate and poor due to geographic reasons. A significant portion of the non-Muslim populations are rural and nomadic, which means they are a lot more spread out across the land. Even now, 2/3 of Ladakh is literally rural. These people would have remained irrespective of who took over the region. I mean, Kashmiri most certainly didn’t leave when India took over, I doubt the even more spread out Ladakhi people would have, irrespective of religion.
In terms of being absorbed into Pakistan, I don’t really think that will meaningful happened here. For one, India is a lot more decentralized, so they more negotiating leverage to work with. When the BJP imprisoned Sonam Wangchuk, massive protests broke out, and the government was forced to release the politician. Additionally, the Indian government generally doesn’t interfere on the local level with the people’s practices generally, like the do in the Northeast regions, where the BJP has even allied with actual Christian terrorists for political gain. None of this includes the fact that India hosts the Dalai Lama, so religiously and culturally, there is a close link with the Buddhist populations.
Pakistan is way more centralized, where it seems to be able to interfere more in people’s lives (for better or worse) and is basically an Islamic republic legally, in contrast to India’s legal secular framework that still restricts even the BJP at different times. In addition to the broader cultural differences and natural conflicts that exist. I mean, India has a hard time with Kashmiris due to cultural and religious differences; the same issues would exist for Pakistan with the Ladakhis. Kashmir, Ladakh, and Jammu are ethnoreligiously diverse, so this is always a given reality.
//The same thing that became of the 15% of the Hyderabadi Muslims after India waged war on Hyderabad state and annexed it and usurped all Muslim landholdings?//
All landlords lost their land holding no matter thr religion.
Hyderabad muslims are still present in hyderabad city in large numbers, their elite still benefit from their privelege and most of the Muslims who were poor before integration are still so but with more opportunities thsn before.
Hyderabadi muslims after mapullas, beary and other Konkani muslims, and bohras are among the most well to do muslim communities in India. Please read from authors like Danish Majeed and Yunus Lasania in India to know more about this.
The practical challenges you describe is why trying to partition the subcontinent in a matter of months was a huge mistake.
Almost as big of a mistake as the entire idea of partition itself. It is a pity that so much of the subcontinent energy is wasted in antagonism and fights between each other. If this were not the case we could literally have been the economic center of the world but that reality is not possible in the short to medium term sadly.
I mean, the partition was a bad thing, but I don’t think a unified land would have ended differently. A lot of the religious tensions predate the British and stem from the Mughal-Maratha wars, as stated by the scholar Ajay Vaghese. The colonial only exacerbates a pre-existing problem, and it culminated in what we saw. A unified country would have to live through the Cold War, where I am sure multiple insurgencies would have been supported by the U.S. or the USSR, depending on the alliances taken. Also, India would directly border soviet occupied afghanistan, which doesn’t seem like a choice. I mean, antagonism and civil war were kinda a given in this world.
Also, neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh could have anything economically relevant here. The most important thing that most countries need in this world today is shipping ports, since maritime sea trade is a major source of money. It’s the reason why inland regions tend to be worse now. A unified India heading into a civil war and spliting in mutiple countries would not have access to all those ports alongside the coastal Deccan and Far South.
In a sense, India inherited all the best lands in the partition, while Pakistan lost access to most of the valuable areas, especially the coastal sections. Which is kinda ironic considering that Nehru and Gandhi didn’t want partition, while Jinnah and the main figures of Pakistan wanted that movement in spite of getting the far less valuable regions.
I should say that this is a different way to see the Partition. Those who believed the vision that India offered chose to stay, while those who didn’t believe chose to leave. The indian muslims, Hindus, and the other religious groups chose to believe this idea despite its many flaws. At least, I try to conceptualize Partition through this lens as it is a better way to view things than thinking about what could have been because there is no points feeling regret over something that can’t be undone.
Both the Maharaja of J&K and the Nizam of Hyderabad acceded to India.
The Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Khan, formally acceded to the Indian Union on September 17, 1948 and spent the rest of his life as an Indian citizen.
On Gilgit Baltistan (which is having elections today):
“GB: politics of ambiguity”
by Azal Ali Shigri
https://www.dawn.com/news/2005805
GB deserves a post entirely dedicated to the issue. I don’t really know too much about the region but I do know that the residents of the area want to be full citizens of Pakistan and they want their region to become a province. However, because GB was part of the Maharaja’s state the legal opinion of the Foreign Office is that by making GB a province, Pakistan would be legitimizing India’s annexation of Occupied Kashmir–which we obviously don’t want to do.
Azad Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is technically not considered part of Pakistan (neither is GB). Azad Kashmir will be having elections on July 27.