“Maximum Autonomy with Divided Sovereignty”: An Extrapolation of Eqbal Ahmad’s Solution to the Kashmir Conflict

IF 0.4 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice Pub Date : 2022-05-31 DOI:10.1080/10402659.2022.2081497
K. Varigonda
{"title":"“Maximum Autonomy with Divided Sovereignty”: An Extrapolation of Eqbal Ahmad’s Solution to the Kashmir Conflict","authors":"K. Varigonda","doi":"10.1080/10402659.2022.2081497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Kashmir conflict, ongoing for over seventy years, is no closer to a resolution. The separatist insurgency that had emerged in the late 1980s, along with attendant military action, has claimed over 50,000 lives till date. However, the three major parties to the conflict, the Indian state, the Pakistani state and the Kashmiri separatist movement continue to have mutually-intractable positions. How might these positions be reconciled? Eqbal Ahmad’s proposal attempts to reconcile the three positions through the prism of “maximum autonomy with divided sovereignty.” This essay extrapolates Ahmad’s proposal, and presents two distinct facets to the solution: Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistin to become full territories within the Pakistani state; the Jammu region and Ladakh to become full territories within the Indian state; and the Kashmir valley to become an independent Kashmir state. The independent Kashmir state would share its sovereignty, to a limited extent, with India and Pakistan. This paper extrapolates the contours of Ahmad’s proposal, particularly in the context of previous attempts by India, Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists to force a resolution in their favor.","PeriodicalId":51831,"journal":{"name":"Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice","volume":"34 1","pages":"574 - 585"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2022.2081497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Kashmir conflict, ongoing for over seventy years, is no closer to a resolution. The separatist insurgency that had emerged in the late 1980s, along with attendant military action, has claimed over 50,000 lives till date. However, the three major parties to the conflict, the Indian state, the Pakistani state and the Kashmiri separatist movement continue to have mutually-intractable positions. How might these positions be reconciled? Eqbal Ahmad’s proposal attempts to reconcile the three positions through the prism of “maximum autonomy with divided sovereignty.” This essay extrapolates Ahmad’s proposal, and presents two distinct facets to the solution: Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistin to become full territories within the Pakistani state; the Jammu region and Ladakh to become full territories within the Indian state; and the Kashmir valley to become an independent Kashmir state. The independent Kashmir state would share its sovereignty, to a limited extent, with India and Pakistan. This paper extrapolates the contours of Ahmad’s proposal, particularly in the context of previous attempts by India, Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists to force a resolution in their favor.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“主权分割下的最大自治”:艾哈迈德解决克什米尔冲突的外推
持续了70多年的克什米尔冲突仍然没有接近解决。20世纪80年代末出现的分离主义叛乱,以及随之而来的军事行动,迄今已夺去了5万多人的生命。然而,冲突三方——印度、巴基斯坦和克什米尔分离主义运动——仍然存在相互棘手的立场。这些立场如何调和?埃克巴尔·艾哈迈德的提议试图通过“最大限度的自治与分裂的主权”来调和这三种立场。本文推断了艾哈迈德的建议,并提出了解决方案的两个不同方面:阿扎德查谟和克什米尔以及吉尔吉特-巴尔蒂斯坦成为巴基斯坦国家内的完整领土;查谟地区和拉达克成为印度国家的完整领土;和克什米尔山谷成为一个独立的克什米尔国家。独立的克什米尔邦将在有限范围内与印度和巴基斯坦分享主权。本文对艾哈迈德提议的轮廓进行了推断,特别是在印度、巴基斯坦和克什米尔分离主义分子此前试图强迫达成有利于他们的决议的背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice
Peace Review-A Journal of Social Justice INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Extractivism in Mexico: Questions of Geopolitics, Geoeconomics, and Human Rights The Power of Education in a Globalised World: Challenging Geoeconomic Inequalities Navigating the Ukraine War: Unraveling the Interplay of Geoeconomics, Geopolitics and Deterrence The Role of Geopolitical Risk in Conflict Analysis: Critical Insights Competing Regionalisms in the Asia-Pacific? Versatile Sustainable Development Issues in FTAs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1