Headline on CNN about Leh floods: Death toll from Kashmir flooding rises to 112
Correction: Leh is not in Kashmir. There was no flooding in Kashmir.
A Vaishno Devi Pilgrim: I just returned from Kashmir. Things are peaceful there.
Correction: Jammu is not in Kashmir. There is no jehad in Jammu.
A University of Texas Website Article: refers to the 1999 war in Kargil, Kashmir
Correction: Kargil is not in Kashmir. It is in Ladakh province.
One of the frequent gripes that Kashmiris have about people from mainland India is that they don’t understand Kashmir and Kashmiris. That is true to a large extent. One of the myths that needs to be broken is that “Kashmir is J&K”, because it is actually only a small part of it – 6.98% to be exact. Even the saying that “From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, India is one” is not correctly worded because Kashmir is not the Northernmost part of India; Ladakh is. And if you believe in the official Indian map, then Gilgit and Aksai Chin are the Northernmost parts, none of these being part of Kashmir. Kashmir is well South of the Northern tip of India, so it is geographically a natural part of India. Even Azad Kashmir or PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) is not Kashmir. In this blog post I will explain why this discussion is important, considering the existing imbroglio going on in the Kashmir valley.
It has served some of the players in the game well to confuse the issue of Kashmir’s location and boundaries as much as possible. Most people, when asked about where Kashmir is on a map, will point to the “head” shape on the top of an Indian map and say “here it is!” (see the black arrow in the map below). They could not be farther from the truth. Look at the following map and see for yourself where Kashmir actually is.
The above official Indian map shows the complete state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India, and the rough boundaries of Kashmir are shown in red. 
For a more “non-partisan” view, click the map on the right from Wikipedia, showing the Kashmir valley within a red boundary line.
Now, what is the difference between Kashmir and the state of Jammu and Kashmir? Well, Kashmir is the dispute and J&K is not. Kashmir is the Muslim majority area and other parts of J&K are not. Kashmir is what is shouting “Go India Go” (This is not a cheer in Kashmir!) and other parts are happy being India. Kashmir is a small part of Jammu and Kashmir. Compare the following land areas:
| Area of Kashmir: | 15,520.3 sq km (Wikipedia) |
| Area of J&K under Indian Control: | ~101,400 sq km (Forest Survey Website) |
| Total Area of Undivided J&K: | 222,236 sq km (Wikipedia) |
Thus Kashmir is about 7% in area of undivided J&K, and about 15% of J&K under Indian control.
So, how do you define Kashmir? Well, the best way to define it is to ask Kashmiris themselves. In Kashmiri language, everything outside the valley is called “nebar”, i.e., outside or foreign. Kashmir is a geographically smaller portion of the larger state of Jammu and Kashmir, which comprises the provinces of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh. Kashmir is Kashmir province only, comprising of previously undivided districts of Anantnag, Baramulla and Srinagar (now divided into 10 smaller districts). Kashmir is where Kashmiris natively live and where Kashmiri language is natively spoken. It is also this region of Kashmir that has dominated the politics of the region for the last 63 years.
Now, why is this distinction between Kashmir and J&K always fudged and why is this distinction important? It is this small part of the state that is a pain in the neck for India, because it is this Muslim majority portion that is holding the whole state and region to ransom. It is this Muslim majority portion of 7% of the state that cannot see itself fitting in a non-Muslim India. Jammu in the South of the state has a Hindu majority population, ethnically similar to neighboring states of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh; Ladakh in the North of the state has predominantly Buddhist and Muslim population, ethnically similar to neighboring Tibet. Both are fine being India. It is just Kashmir that is inhabited by a large majority of Muslims (97%) that cannot see itself being India. The small population of non-Muslims has diminished with each migration and a history of conversions over decades and centuries. It is this geographically small portion that is the tinderbox of violence. It is this beautiful valley that was called Heaven on Earth and has now been turned into hell by the Islamic separatist violence. It is the majority of inhabitants of this small area (not of the state) who are clamoring for azadi (independence) for this small land of Kashmir. The diversity of the state fits perfectly well within diverse India, but this diversity does not belong to the green-flag waving, stone pelting separatists of Kashmir.
It has been a political compulsion for every party in the game to keep the disparate parts of this former princely state cobbled together. Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh have nothing at all in common. Each has its own dominant ethnicity, its own dominant religion, its own topography, its own climate, its own diverse culture, its own distinct major language. No other state in the region has such intra-state diversity. Even India’s linguistic reorganization of states in the 1950s did not result in a division of J&K because of its “special status”. India apparently wants to keep the state together because Jammu and Ladakh act as a bond between Kashmir and the rest of India. India perhaps thinks that separating Kashmir out will be the first step towards its complete secession from India. Pakistan, on the other hand also keeps J&K clubbed together so that it can lay claim to the whole state and perhaps negotiate away the non-Muslim areas if it comes to a negotiation. For the same reason, apparently, they named the area they occupied as AJK (Azad Jammu Kashmir) when it is neither Azad nor Jammu nor Kashmir. The languages spoken in PoK are Pahari, Mirpuri, Gojri, Hindko, Punjabi, Pashto (Source: Wikipedia) and none of these languages is even close to Kashmiri. The people living in PoK are ethnically different from Kashmiris. This also means that the LoC has created no divided families.
But what is the compulsion of Kashmiri separatists to keep talking about J&K, when they actually are only bothered about Kashmir? Kashmiri Muslims, in their arguments against Indian rule say that they are ethnically different, they have a different dominant religion, and so on. Most of them don’t see themselves as Indians. But then, it is exactly those things that set them apart from Ladakhis and Jammuites, who do see themselves as Indians. In fact, Kashmiri Muslims have been fighting against the rule of Dogra King from Jammu even before they started fighting against Indian rule. So, how do they resolve this paradox? How can they lay claim to other conquests or purchases of the Dogra king when they fought against being under the Dogra king himself. Ladakh, Baltistan, and Gilgit were not even part of the state when Dogras purchased it from the British. Apparenlty, Kashmiris have two main reasons for talking about J&K, rather than Kashmir — one, since Pakistan no longer remains a flauntable destination, and with Islamic extremism having lost its flavor the world over, they need to be seen as desirous of a “secular azadi”, rather than an “Islamic accession to Pakistan”; secondly, it gives them something to bargain for with India.
The fact that Kashmir is actually a very small part of Jammu and Kashmir has other ramifications too. Since Jammu and Ladakh are happy being part of India, it makes no sense to impose so called “azadi” on them. Now that leaves Kashmir with its 15000 sq km area as one of world’s smallest land locked countries – bigger than only Vatican City, Luxembourg and couple of other non-countries. How valid and how long-lived will this “independence” driven by Islamic fanaticism be? Obviously, since they will have just divorced India, they will be absorbed into Pakistan in no time. This is what some of the Kashmiri leaders want in the first place, but is that what most Kashmiris are bargaining for? Will they get a special status like Article 370 in Pakistan? Does such a small land area have enough resources to sustain itself as a country?
The fact that Kashmir is actually a small part of Jammu and Kashmir also negates the “democracy logic” for separation of Kashmir from India. Yes, majority is authority in a democracy, but the majority concentrated in a 7-15% area of a state taking or influencing a decision for the whole state is equally undemocratic for the rest of the state. Why would a Dogra person living in Kathua want to live under Nizam-e-Mustafa? Kashmir is flanked on three sides by areas which are definitely India, and on the fourth side by an area occupied by Pakistan. For a sovereign democratic country, how large does a locality have to be to give its residents a right of self-determination? For the sake of democracy, does it make sense to ask a Muslim majority mohalla in Hyderabad or Meerut whether they want to stay in India? In fact, if we give any credence to Kashmiri Hindus’ demand for their piece of the homeland (Panun Kashmir), which they want to be an integral part of India, Kashmiri separatists are left with even less of a “country”.
In retrospect, the only solution that would have made more sense would have been, in 1947, to carve out the valley and give it to Pakistan. That did not happen because of the incongruent composition of the state — a Hindu king ruling a state composed of Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim regions. If that had happened, the region would have been much more peaceful. My community (the Kashmiri Hindus) would have been settled in other parts of India, just like other migrants from Pakistan were. Whether Kashmiri Muslims would still have been happy, it is hard to tell. But I am sure there would have been no “freedom movement”. Now, with hindsight being 20/20, Kashmiris should thank heavens for the incidents of 1947 and be happy they are not part of the failed state of Pakistan.
Azadi just doesn’t make any sense to me. If Kashmiri Muslims see themselves primarily as Muslims aligned with Pakistan, then accession to Pakistan makes sense. If they see themselves as secular, inclusive people, then what is wrong with being part of India? All others in the state, other than Muslims of the valley, see themselves as Indians.
As an Indian, I see it clearly that the trouble in the valley has reached cancerous proportions. Although it is hard to stop the rest of the country from bleeding in case of an extreme measure, it may make more sense to either cure it completely or cut it off. Either integrate the valley completely into India (no Article 370, no autonomy, no special status) or cut it off. Blast the Banihal Tunnel and let them go to…. heaven. Kashmiris should however stop the hypocrisy of secularism, azadi and caring about Jammu and Ladakh. Go be “independent” or join Pakistan and see if your future generations are thankful to you for that. Given the small size of Kashmir, and the size of area already with Pakistan and China, it won’t make much difference to India’s map. And then, who is to stop us from keeping showing it in India’s map? 
It is painful to see the violence, the killings, the inconveniences in Kashmir. But why are people getting killed? Isn’t the presence of army in Kashmir the consequence, rather than the reason, of the separatist movement? If the religion inspired protests end in Kashmir, would anyone be hurt? Kashmiri separatists know the answer to this. They know they can stop getting their children killed any day, but then, how will they get Sharia and Nizam-e-Mustafa?
However, no-one in the Indian government has the willpower to facilitate either of the extreme solutions — full integration or full severance. So, it is in the interest of Kashmiri Muslims to go for status quo ante: give up fighting, stop the anti-India jihad and start going to schools, offices, cinemas, gyms, even bars. Go into pre-1989 mode, sans Hindus. Hindus have already been pushed out – they will never return. They have never returned in the past — just keep renewing your fake invitations. You can continue dominating the rest of the state. With Article 370 intact, you make sure you can settle down anywhere in India, but no outsider settles down in Kashmir. So, you can have the best of everything. Just drop the stones.
–
20-Sep-2010
An update: Read my next post on the subject: Is Kashmir Not Even That Big?. This is based on additional information from the BBC site.
Mr. Ashok Kaul
I did visit your website. Though the contents are different than here but sentiments are same. I respect your emotional bonding and deep rooted pain and hurt that reflects through your writings. The only way to reclaim our roots is to fight back with all the stubborn means that AHIMSA and unconditional love and passion possess. At the same time we should send a clear signal that AHIMSA does not teach us being cowards. We are the most courageous ones.
Lots of love
Regards to you Mr. Ashok Kaul.
Dear Mr. Koul:
I have read your article on Kashmir and am in complete agreement with you. I have also expressed somewhat similar thoughts in my blog which you may be interested in reading. Please visit http//chiriyakhana.blogspot.com. and I would appreciate your comments and further suggestions for reading.
It is not for any Geelani or Kaul to decide to give away Kashmir to Pakistan now or in 1947. Pakistan is in itself the bloody torn limb of Hindu India. And if Kaul doesnt realize even now that giving something to these jihadis and crusaders only whets theor appetite for more of the same then he will never realize it. And if Kashmiris gripe is that ‘mainland India’ (what a cute term for the parent)doesnt really know Kashmir and Kashmiris then two other things are equally true – for most North Indians south of the Vindhyas everything and everybody is a Madrasi; and secondly wasnt it the samw Kashmiris who bought the lemon which the sunni muslims sold them – the Kashmiriyat lemon and thus alienated themselves from the Hindus outside Kashmir? kashmiri Hindus themselves need to get some facts right not only about themselves but about the whole of Bharata sanatana bhumi.
I think unpatriotic people like Arundhati Roy and Syed Ali Shah Geelani should read this write-up. This should knock some sense into the so called literary head of Arundhati Roy.
Kashmir is named after an ancient Hindu sage — Rishi Kashyap. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism in Kashmir in the name Islamic jihad. Before harping on Arundhati Roy’s brainless fudge on Kashmir and hysterical diatribes against all things Indian and India, we need to ask WHY:
1) Those “peaceful protesters” have killed 60,000 people over the past 20 years during their “non-violent struggle” for Kashmir to join Pakistan?
2) They have ethnically cleansed over a million Kashmiri pundits and Sikhs from the Kashmir valley?
3) They have launched a campaign of terror and intimidation against all secular Kashmiris and imposed their own brand of virulent intolerant Wahabi Islam in the Kashmir Valley?
4) They have no popular support and have never won any election in Kashmir where the people have defied threats from the terrorists to vote overwhelmingly for state governments who want to remain a part of India?
5) Pakistan has been giving “moral assistance” to “peaceful protesters” in addition to infiltration of madrassa-trained “freedom fighters” across the LoC for the last six decades?
6) Roy needs protection from the “evil” Indian army while in Kashmir?
Consider this – say journalists in China were to call for an independent Tibet, they’d be quickly thrown into prison, and if lucky, avoid broken bones. Here you have a below average journalist, Arundhati Roy, who goes on to write that Kashmir was never an integral part of India! Really?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/arundhati-roy-ka…
Was Pakistan not a part of India not too long ago? And why did the Hindu maharaja of Kashmir sign the letter of accession with India? Or maybe Kashmiri pundits never existed? Or perhaps, inside her twisted brain, among the dozens of Muslim-majority regions within India, none was actually a part of India ever? Or in her viewpoint, maybe India never existed, and therefore every state should call for independence? How does anyone know that Roy didn’t secretly get foreign cash to put on a show of whistleblower while openly engaging in seditious writings? What does she want? Dissolution of the union? Or starvation and death of millions on the Indian subcontinent in the future by carving out yet another state, just to please some intellectually deficient folks like her? Does free press means a journalist should write how he or she ‘feels’ depending on mood on a given day?
Liu Xiaobo is a true scholar and wrote to his government about reforms on free speech guaranteed by his country’s constitution. Roy’s behavior is the exact opposite — she is taking undue advantage of free speech and free press to trample on India’s constitution and sedition laws (section 124A).
With journalism in particular, there is a difference between scholar and squalor. To cite another example, Roy says Maoists are “Gandhians with Guns.” Anyone who knows even an ounce of Gandhi will tell you that the phrase is an oxymoron and an insult to a great man who courageously stood up for a non-violent freedom struggle.
A clarification long sought by all parties to the struggle.
Should make them realise the TRUTH & the whole TRUTH.
Dear Mr Kaul
Last year, I wrote a letter to Mr Asif Durrani, Deputy High Commissioner of Pakistan in London after I met him at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Bournemouth.Here is the letter:
“Dear Mr Durrani ji
It was a pleasure meeting you in the Kashmir fringe meeting in Bournemouth on Sunday. I am sorry if my questions seemed to be a bit off-putting to you but I am a passionate believer in Indo-Pak friendship and feel that the ultimate solution of the Kashmir problem lies in India and Pakistan joining hands together in a long-lasting friendship as has been done with Germany Britain & France after centuries of conflict.
I would like to propose a concept to the leaders of both our great nations which will help in finding that illusive solution. The concept is not of United States of India with Pakistan as a state but a concept based on equality – somewhat like the association of three nations England, Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom. I would like to call it United Countries of Indian Subcontinent (UCIS) which would include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. UCIS will have open borders inside with free trade within the boundaries which will be protected by a combined army from the five nations from outside. This will bring unprecedented prosperity to the region just as it was before the British came to our sub-continent. UCIS will be a nuclear power equal to USA, Russia or China with a guaranteed permanent seat on the UN security council. I believe that because biologically we are from the same “stock” this solution will work. Of course it will require political will on all sides.
I would appreciate your comments on this concept.”
I am still waiting for a reply. Any comments about this solution from you?
Dinesh
There are few following things to be done in the most simpler manner to solve this paradox:
1. Agree that there is a problem in the Valley and set priority to solve this.
2. Create a ‘Think Tank’ less the corrupt politicians and babus,to suggest ways and means to be adopted in a time frame say about three months to the maximum.
3. One of the suggestions have to be removal of Article 370. Afterall you can have different standards for different states within a country and yet remain one.
4. God helps those who help themselves. Therefore involve Pandits to fight this battle, sacrifice in the true spirit and regain back your area.
5. We talk about presence of Terrorist training Camps in POK. What are we doing ourselves about removal of these.Particularly when we show this area in illegal occupation of pakistan.
6. involve openly the various ehinic groups of POK to fight againsta Pakistan, similar to what Pakistan is doing for the kashmiris openly.
7. Never forget that pakistan understands only one language, so speak that only and never show any sign of weakness, their being a Nuclear state notwithstanding.
8. Have a clear long term policy about say 4-5 years, with moultiferous approaches to deal with this problem at evry opportune moment; like SAARC, Common Wealth,UNO or anyother forum.
9. Give clear signals to those who side with Pakistan, kashmiri separists and even opporunist Indians seeking cheap publicity at nation’s cost.
hey guyz comon u got to be kidding out here by writing this kinda stuff..everyone knoes wat kashmiris want..since this blog refers to a foolish kashmiri pandit so lemme make it clear ..kashmir can neva be safe with india neither with pakistan..its ur hatred for pakistan that makes u drag pakistan everytime u people talk abt kashmir..kashmiris have a diffrnt class altogethr and we will be a successful nation without india..guyz stop worrying abt pakistan or taliban invading kashmir..just improve ur living standards or else come to kashmir and hav a look..it will take indians anothr 50 years to match the living standards of kashmiris..so better is stop watching aajtak and india tv and stop fooling around ..better is wake up and behave like humans not like ignorant biharis …hehe…
@nadeem
Please confirm that when you talk about Kashmir, you are only talking about real Kashmir, not Jammu or Ladakh. Since you have a different “blood”, it does not match Dogra blood or Ladakhi blood either. That is exactly what I am saying in my blog post. If Kashmir cannot be fully integrated, it should be let go. I would actually like to see in my lifetime how the vale of Kashmir survives as a nation. Best of luck.
Bang on target Mr Kaul
Can all Indians take part in the voting to determine the fate of Kashmir? No…
Similarly why should Kashmiris decide the fate of Ladakhis and people from Jammu.
Also
Population of valley: 4 million (according to wikipedia)
KPs migrated: 4 lakhs
Legitimate share of KPs in valley= 10% of land
means 1500 sq Km out of 15000
So that leaves the effected KM dominated valley to 13500 sq KM
Let them decide their fate with that amount of land.
We will be happy for them.
[...] बंद होने से ही हो सकती है। – मूल अंग्रेज़ी लेख से लेखक द्वारा स्वयं अनूदित। AKPC_IDS += [...]
We have seen that China and Pakistan occupied indian land ie., Aksai chin by china and kashmir by pakistan, then why don’t india occupy their land and as well as our land
[...] Kashmir Is Too Small For Azadi: http://kaulonline.com/blog/2010/09/kashmir-is-too-small-for-azadi/ [...]
@Kaul,
A nice article indeed.I just like to know a few more things – you said the word “Kashmir” is a region restricted to Kashmir valley alone (which doesnt include Azad KAshmir and Gilgit Baltistan)where the majority of population who are Kashmiri muslims is actually concentrated and how the people living in Jammu and Ladakh have a different say even though they are in minority.
So my question is how about regions like Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir,which are part of PoK?, what is the demography over there and what is their position on this issue?,would they stick with PoK or want independence or want to merge with India?….How about Akshai chin?, what is their say?
@Sharath
Thanks for your comment. I cannot say much about the people of Gilgit-Baltistan with any expertise. You can google the subject as well as I can. All I can safely say is that people of this region are exclusively Muslims, so they would not have any specific affiliation with India. It is only the Kashmir valley that is under dispute as far as local population is concerned. All other regions are, in my opinion, happy with the status quo.
@kaul
So, would that mean that the argument of having a plebiscite for entire J&K including PoK may not end up being favorable for people in Jammu and Ladakh region(who are most non muslims)?.The reason why I’m asking this is becausea lot of people have said that a plebiscite for only India’s J&K would be unfair on India,Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir also needs to be considered.On the other hand you have said that people who want Azadi from India are from Kashmir valley who even though are majority,constitute only 15% of territory India’s J&K.The remaining are Jammuites and Ladakhis who dont want Azadi.Now do you believe that inclusion of regions of PoK(who may not have any special affiliation with India) ,along with Kashmir valley would blunt your argument since its not 15% territory anymore,it works out to be a major chunk .If you include PoK for plebiscite,you have population of Gilgit-Baltistan,Azad J&K and Kashmir valley who may vote for Azadi or accession with Pakistan while you have Jammu and Ladakh who would vote for India.Population wise,as well as territory wise,they may be of majority,so if you keep a plebiscite for entire J&K,do we have the risk of losing out Jammu and Ladakh regions?
@Sharath
I believe there is no justification in lumping these disparate regions together. As I explained these are at least 3 states in one, which should have been separated out in 1947 and divided according to religious population. If J&K had been a normal state of the Indian Union, it should have been or would have been divided on linguistic basis in the 50s. Now, if there is a plebiscite, it should be only for Kashmir valley, or should be separately held for separate regions. Kashmiris cannot be allowed to decide the fate of people of other regions, just as Kashmiris are (rightly) not accepting Indians to decide for them. What I am saying is, let this 15% region go if they cannot live with us, but don’t let them decide for the whole region.
I also wonder why someone can’t make a movie on Kashmir where Kashmir does get independence but then show why its a bad idea and after having trouble, people realize that its better to be with India..lol
@Sharath
Kashmiri Muslims’ argument is they don’t want Indian rule, even if India is a great country. For example, would you want to be ruled by Britian or US, given that they are great countries. Any such movie would always be seen as propaganda, no matter how impartially it is made.
Hello Kaul,
Thanks for this eye-opener ! Thanks for pointing out how tiny Kashmir is — to think that such a speck in the map can terrorise a whole nation !!
I have now written off the people of Kashmir — they have inflicted too much pain on the nation — and it is not worthwhile to worry about them anymore !
Ram