Statement by US President Barack Obama and India Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Statement by US President Barack Obama and India Prime Minister Narendra Modi

VISION STATEMENT FOR US-INDIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP: ‘CHALEIN SAATH SAATH: FORWARD TOGETHER WE GO’

Released by White House

Chalein Saath Saath, forward together we go. As leaders of two great democratic nations with diverse traditions and faiths, we share a vision for a partnership in which the United States and India work together, not just for the benefit of both our nations, but for the benefit of the world.

We have vastly different histories, but both our founders sought to guarantee freedoms that allow our citizens to determine their own destiny and pursue their personal aspirations. Our strategic partnership rests on our shared mission to provide equal opportunity for our people through democracy and freedom.

The currents of kinship and commerce, scholarship and science tie our countries together. They allow us to rise above differences by maintaining the long-term perspective. Every day, in myriad ways, our cooperation fortifies a relationship that matches the innumerable ties between our peoples, who have produced works of art and music, invented cutting-edge technology, and responded to crises across the globe.

Our strategic partnership is a joint endeavor for prosperity and peace. Through intense consultations, joint exercises, and shared technology, our security cooperation will make the region and the world safe and secure. Together, we will combat terrorist threats and keep our homelands and citizens safe from attacks, while we respond expeditiously to humanitarian disasters and crises. We will prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and remain committed to reducing the salience of nuclear weapons, while promoting universal, verifiable, and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament.

We will support an open and inclusive rules-based global order, in which India assumes greater multilateral responsibility, including in a reformed United Nations Security Council. At the United Nations and beyond, our close coordination will lead to a more secure and just world.

Climate change threatens both our countries, and we will join together to mitigate its impact and adapt to our changing environment. We will address the consequences of unchecked pollution through cooperation by our governments, science and academic communities. We will partner to ensure that both countries have affordable, clean, reliable, and diverse sources of energy, including through our efforts to bring American-origin nuclear power technologies to India.

We will ensure that economic growth in both countries brings better livelihoods and welfare for all of our people. Our citizens value education as a means to a better life, and our exchange of skills and knowledge will propel our countries forward. Even the poorest will share in the opportunities in both our countries.

Joint research and collaboration in every aspect—ranging from particles of creation to outer space — will produce boundless innovation and high technology collaboration that changes our lives. Open markets, fair and transparent practices will allow trade in goods and services to flourish.

Our people will be healthier as we jointly counter infectious diseases, eliminate maternal and child deaths, and work to eradicate poverty for all. And they will be safer as we ensure the fullest empowerment of women in a secure environment.

The United States and India commit to expand and deepen our strategic partnership in order to harness the inherent potential of our two democracies and the burgeoning ties between our people, economies, and businesses. Together we seek a reliable and enduring friendship that bolsters security and stability, contributes to the global economy, and advances peace and prosperity for our citizens and throughout the world.

We have a vision that the United States and India will have a transformative relationship as trusted partners in the 21st century. Our partnership will be a model for the rest of the world.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/30092014-vision-statement-us-india-strategic-partnership-chalein-saath-saath-forward-together-go/

Narendra Modi and Barack Obama September 30, 2014

Narendra Modi and Barack Obama September 30 at 8:00 AM
Narendra Modi is prime minister of India. Barack Obama is president of the United States.
As nations committed to democracy, liberty, diversity and enterprise, India and the United States are bound by common values and mutual interests. We have each shaped the positive trajectory of human history, and through our joint efforts, our natural and unique partnership can help shape international security and peace for years to come.

Ties between the United States and India are rooted in the shared desire of our citizens for justice and equality. When Swami Vivekananda presented Hinduism as a world religion, he did so at the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. When Martin Luther King Jr. sought to end discrimination and prejudice against African Americans, he was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent teachings. Gandhiji himself drew upon the writings of Henry David Thoreau.

As nations, we’ve partnered over the decades to deliver progress to our people. The people of India remember the strong foundations of our cooperation. The food production increases of the Green Revolution and the Indian Institutes of Technology are among the many products of our collaboration.

Today our partnership is robust, reliable and enduring, and it is expanding. Our relationship involves more bilateral collaboration than ever before — not just at the federal level but also at the state and local levels, between our two militaries, private sectors and civil society. Indeed, so much has happened that, in 2000, then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee could declare that we are natural allies.

After many years of growing cooperation since, on any given day, our students work together on research projects, our scientists develop cutting-edge technology and senior officials consult closely on global issues. Our militaries conduct joint exercises in air, on land and at sea, and our space programs engage in unprecedented areas of cooperation, leading us from Earth to Mars. And in this partnership, the Indian American community has been a vibrant, living bridge between us. Its success has been the truest reflection of the vitality of our people, the value of America’s open society and the strength of what we can do when we join together.

Still, the true potential of our relationship has yet to be fully realized. The advent of a new government in India is a natural opportunity to broaden and deepen our relationship. With a reinvigorated level of ambition and greater confidence, we can go beyond modest and conventional goals. It is time to set a new agenda, one that realizes concrete benefits for our citizens.

This will be an agenda that enables us to find mutually rewarding ways to expand our collaboration in trade, investment and technology that harmonize with India’s ambitious development agenda, while sustaining the United States as the global engine of growth. When we meet today in Washington, we will discuss ways in which we can boost manufacturing and expand affordable renewable energy, while sustainably securing the future of our common environment.

We will discuss ways in which our businesses, scientists and governments can partner as India works to improve the quality, reliability and availability of basic services, especially for the poorest of citizens. In this, the United States stands ready to assist. An immediate area of concrete support is the “Clean India” campaign, where we will leverage private and civil society innovation, expertise and technology to improve sanitation and hygiene throughout India.

While our shared efforts will benefit our own people, our partnership aspires to be larger than merely the sum of its parts. As nations, as people, we aspire to a better future for all; one in which our strategic partnership also produces benefits for the world at large. While India benefits from the growth generated by U.S. investment and technical partnerships, the United States benefits from a stronger, more prosperous India. In turn, the region and the world benefit from the greater stability and security that our friendship creates. We remain committed to the larger effort to integrate South Asia and connect it with markets and people in Central and Southeast Asia.

As global partners, we are committed to enhancing our homeland security by sharing intelligence, through counterterrorism and law-enforcement cooperation, while we jointly work to maintain freedom of navigation and lawful commerce across the seas. Our health collaboration will help us tackle the toughest of challenges, whether combating the spread of Ebola, researching cancer cures or conquering diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and dengue. And we intend to expand our recent tradition of working together to empower women, build capacity and improve food security in Afghanistan and Africa.

The exploration of space will continue to fire our imaginations and challenge us to raise our ambitions. That we both have satellites orbiting Mars tells its own story. The promise of a better tomorrow is not solely for Indians and Americans: It also beckons us to move forward together for a better world. This is the central premise of our defining partnership for the 21st century. Forward together we go — chalein saath saath.

A renewed U.S.-India partnership for the 21st century - The Washington Post

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/a-renewed-u-s-india-partnership-for-the-21st-century.336482/#ixzz3EoQeqtk2

India -21 Century Sea power

India: 21st-century sea power

India -21 Century Sea power

MARK COLVIN: China is not the only rising superpower in Australia's region, though it is the one that gets the most attention. But India is coming up fast on the rails, not just as an economic power but a military one too.

The arms watchdog SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) this year named India as the world's biggest weapons importer. Another report forecasts that India will spend about $80 billion on military modernisation programs by 2015.

And the country has plans to spend $45 billion over 20 years on sea power, 103 new warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines.

David Brewster, of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the ANU (Australian National University), has written a new book called 'India as an Asia Pacific Power'. I asked him why India needed this expanded navy.

DAVID BREWSTER: The reality is that they're not under any specific threat of attack along their coastline. But they do see the need to be able to project power through their navy in an area right from Somalia to Singapore and beyond. And they've actually defined that as their area of strategic interest - from Somalia to Singapore and beyond.

MARK COLVIN: So when they have a navy of several hundred ships, what are they going to do with it?

DAVID BREWSTER: Well it's the ability to act as the regional constable or policemen. So if there is a problem in some small island state or some smaller country in the region, instability, they can go in and sort it out and keep the peace. Just like the Americans do all over the world. And just like the Australians do on a much smaller scale in our own area in the South Pacific.

MARK COLVIN: In a sense that makes them an imperial power eventually. What do the smaller nations in the area think of them - of that?

DAVID BREWSTER: Yeah well you could certainly express it in those terms. Luckily for India that they've been quite cautious and benign through much of their history and really haven't exerted much military power beyond South Asia.

So, beyond South Asia most countries are relatively comfortable with seeing an Indian warship coming into harbour. Whereas countries would be less comfortable in seeing a Chinese warship floating around, for example.

MARK COLVIN: So India and China are the two big rising powers, there's clearly a lot of potential for friction there.

DAVID BREWSTER: Yeah, and it is a complicated relationship because they are also - have a hugely expanding trading relationship and economic relationship. So there's a lot of cooperation going on one hand, but there's also a lot of friction on the other hand.

MARK COLVIN: And they have been to war with each other at least once before, in 1962.

DAVID BREWSTER: That's' right. And that's when the Indian army was absolutely humiliated and defeated by the Chinese. And that humiliation still rankles in New Delhi and there are many in New Delhi who want to see that righted, that wrong righted.

But more immediately is the Chinese support for Pakistan and the fact that the Chinese proliferated nuclear weapons to Pakistan some 10, or more like 20 year ago and effectively armed their longstanding enemy.

MARK COLVIN: It sounds like a fairly lethal cocktail, possibly, further down the track?

DAVID BREWSTER: It is, although I think most in New Delhi and Beijing are very careful to keep the competition and rivalry within certain bounds. So they will make shows of things, but don't - they're careful not to overstep the mark.

MARK COLVIN: But further down the track, as I say, when each country will have several hundred ships afloat, it could get pretty dangerous?

DAVID BREWSTER: Certainly, and also very complicated. Because it's not India versus China it's really a three or four way match, because there's the United States there. And certainly over the coming years the biggest area of competition will be between China and the United States. India is much smaller but obviously growing very, very fast.

MARK COLVIN: Is it in that light that we should see President Obama's recent announcement, when he was here, of the troop rotations through northern Australia?

DAVID BREWSTER: It's certainly part of it. The United States is making great efforts to bring all of its Asia-Pacific allies much closer. Not just Australia but all of its allies. And it's also trying to gradually bring India into that sphere, at the same time as encouraging closer relationships between India and Australia, and Japan and India.

MARK COLVIN: But is Kevin Rudd sensible to do what he's doing, to argue for a closer triangular India-Australia-US relationship? Is it worth the danger of annoying Beijing?

DAVID BREWSTER: Well I think that decision's already been taken when the Government allowed the US troops into Darwin. Certainly in 2007 Australia backed away from a relationship between the United States, India, Japan and Australia. We backed away then. And that was probably a mistake, and that…

MARK COLVIN: That was because there was a danger that that four-party arrangement would have made China feel completely encircled in this region?

DAVID BREWSTER: That's what the claim was, but in fact all of those involved, including the United States, Japan and India and Australia got cold feet about it. But now the positions have hardened because China has been showing quite assertive behaviour towards all of its neighbours. So now I think there's a much greater consensus that there should be multilateral cooperation among the democracies around China.

MARK COLVIN: Some strategic thinkers are making comparisons with the early 20th century in Europe with the rise of Germany. When big power relationships shift to this degree, there's always dangers aren't there?

DAVID BREWSTER: Absolutely. And that's - there's very clear analogies there. In Europe there was the rising power of Germany that was butting up against the great world power of Britain. And there were, you know, a lot of other things happening.

So that's certainly a very easy analogy to make, but the hope is that we learnt our lesson from what happened there and we can create structures that bring China gradually into the international community in a measured way.

MARK COLVIN: David Brewster of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the ANU. His new book is 'India as an Asia Pacific Power'.

PM - India: 21st-century sea power 02/12/2011

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/india-21st-century-sea-power.144393/#ixzz3EocmCGfA

Is India prepared for war in the 21st century?

Is India prepared for war in the 21st century?
India desperately needs to upgrade the armed forcess war-fighting capabilities and tackle the problem of ammunition deficiency if it is to fight and win on the battlefields of the 21st century, says Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal (retd).

Army chief General V K Singhs leaked letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the CAGs recent report have revealed that the nations defence preparedness is cause for serious concern.

The chiefs letter has brought into the publicdomain a fact that has been known for long to army officers in service, and those who have retired from service.

The leakage of an ultra-sensitive Top Secret letter will certainly have an adverse impact on national security, as it has given undue advantage to India's military adversaries by publicly disclosing sensitive information about the deficiencies in the weapon systems, ammunition and equipment in service in the army.

However, now that these facts are in the public domain, they will help to focus the nation's attention on the need to speedily make up the shortages and give the army the wherewithal that it needs to fight and win future wars.

General V K Singh is not the first Chief Of the Army Staff to have apprised the prime minister about the poor state of preparedness; his predecessors have done soas well.
General K M Cariappa had gone to Pandit Nehru to ask for additional funds for militarymodernisation and was reported to have been told, 

India does not need an army, it needs a police force.

The ignominy of 1962 followed.
Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal (retd) is former director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi.
We will fight with what we have

The lt General Bipin C Joshi had written to then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao, urging him to help the army make up the long-standing large-scale shortage of ammunition.

While the shortage was worth over Rs 10,000 crore (Rs 1 billion), army headquarters had reportedly identified a -bottom line- figure without which the COAS said the army would remain unprepared for war.

Perhaps the countrys precarious financial condition in the mid-1990s did not allow Raoto provide the necessary funds to immediately make up the shortage.

A few years later, the Kargil conflict took place and the whole nation heard the then COAS, General V P Malik, make the chilling statement on national television

We will fight with what we have.
It is well known that India had to scramble to import 50,000 rounds of 155 mm ammunition for its Bofors guns, besides other weapons and equipment.
Stocks of tank ammunition and ammunition for other artillery and air defence guns were also low. It was just as well that the fightingremained limited to the Kargil sector and didnot spill over to the rest of the Line of Control or the plains.
Approximately 250,000 rounds of artillery ammunition were fired in that 50-day war.

India has just 10 days of critical ammunition
The defence ministry has sanctioned the stocking of sufficient ammunition to fight a large-scale war for 60 days. This is known as the -war reserve-.

As the army chiefs letter and the CAG report bring out, apparently not enough new stocks were procured to make up even the ammunition expended during the Kargil conflict.
Stocks of several critical varieties of ammunition for tanks and artillery guns have fallen to as low as less than 10 days war reserves.

Also, ammunition has a shelf life of about 12 to 15 years, at the end of which it is no longer usable for combat, but can still be used for training. Hence, the shortages continue to increase every year if action is not taken to constantly make up the deficiency.
The other major issue highlighted in the letter written by the COAS pertains to the continuation in service of obsolescent weapons and equipment and the stagnationin the process of military modernisation aimed at upgrading the armys war-fighting capabilities to prepare it to fight and win on the battlefields of the 21st century.

There is no long-term defence planning in India

While the COAS has pointed out several operational deficiencies, the most critical ones include the complete lack of artillery modernisation since the Bofors 155 mm Howitzer was purchased in the mid-1980s, -night blindness- of the armys infantry battalions and mechanised forces, the fact that the air defence guns and missile systems are 97 per cent obsolescent and the inadequacy of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, which has an adverse impact on command and control during war.

This sorry state of affairs has come about because of the flawed defence planning and defence acquisition processes, a grossly inadequate defence budget and the inability to fully spend even the meagre funds that are allotted.
Funds are surrendered quite often due to bureaucratic red tape, scams and the frequent blacklisting of defence firms accused of adopting unfair means to win contracts.

Long-term defence planning is the charter ofthe apex body of the National Security Council which meets very rarely due to the preoccupation of the prime minister and other members of the Cabinet Committee on Security with day-to-day crisis management.
As such, the 15-years Long-term Integrated Perspective Plans and five-year Defence Plans do not receive the attention they merit.

Can India face emerging defence threats?

The 11th Defence Plan, which terminated on March 31, 2012, was not formally approved by the government and, hence, didnot receive the committed budgetary support that would have enabled the three Services to plan their acquisitions of weapons and equipment systematically, rather than being left to the vagaries of annual defence budgets.

Consequent to the leakage of General V K Singhs letter and the major uproar in Parliament that resulted, the defence minister is reported to have approved the 12th Defence Plan 2012-17 and the LTIPP 2012-27 in early-April 2012.

While this is undoubtedly commendable, it remains to be seen whether the finance ministry and, subsequently, the Cabinet Committee on Security will show the same alacrity in according the approvals necessary to give a practical effect to these plans.

The defence budget has dipped below 2 per cent of the country's GDP despite the fact that the Services have repeatedly recommended that it should be raised to at least 3 per cent of the GDP if India is to build the defence capabilities that it will need to face the emerging threats and challenges and discharge its growing responsibilities asa regional power in Southern Asia.

The government will do well to appoint a National Security Commission to take stock of the lack of preparedness of the countrys armed forces and to make pragmatic recommendations to redress the visible inadequacies that might lead to yet another military debacle.

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/is-india-prepared-for-war-in-the-21st-century.178220/#ixzz3EoYhhBzv

TTP network in Karachi 'destroyed beyond repair': Rangers

TTP network in Karachi 'destroyed beyond repair': Rangers

In a report submitted to Standing Committee on Interior Affairs, Rangers official Colonel Tahir Mehmood said security forces have destroyed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s network in Karachi beyond repair.  

Rangers submitted a one-year review report to the committee and briefed the members about the operation in which they arrested hundreds of alleged criminals since it started on September 7 last year.

Giving numbers, Col Mehmood said more than 3,000 targeted operations were carried out in the crime-infested port city and and around 5,500 suspects were rounded up. He said around 2,300 were handed over to the police while more than 4,000 weapons were seized during the raids.

Col Mehmood informed the committee that land grabbing and street crime do not fall under the jurisdiction of Rangers, however, they have submitted a summary to the premier on how these crimes can be controlled.

Speaking about targets achieved in Lyari, the Rangers official said incidents of kidnapping and extortion have reduced by 55% since the beginning of the operation. Col Mehmood said the law and order situation improved in the neighbourhood as Rangers have set up pickets in the area.

Briefing the committee about what transpired on the night of September 24 when Rangers personnel arrested MQM members, Col Mehmood said the security officials went inside party office after their patrol was fired at in Gulshan-e-Maymar. He said Rangers arrested three target killers during the raid and that many of the arrested MQM workers were released soon after.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/768750/ttp-network-in-karachi-destroyed-beyond-repair-rangers/

Kashmir keeps turning up Editorial: The Hindu

Kashmir keeps turning up

Editorial: The Hindu (India)

THERE has seldom been a time when the domestic politics of India and Pakistan have not intruded into efforts to normalise bilateral relations. When Nawaz Sharif spoke at the United Nations about a plebiscite in Kashmir, the Pakistan prime minister was not so much addressing India as he was audiences back home. Mr. Sharif has not yet emerged fully from his battle for survival against Imran Khan. The cricketer-turned-politician is now planning to widen his protests for Mr. Sharif's resignation. The doggedness with which Mr. Khan is seeking to topple Mr. Sharif, and the parallel demands for regime change by Tahir ul-Qadri, a maverick cleric with a large following, have further weakened Pakistan's democratic moorings. The pakistan prime minister's tense relations with the army for a host of reasons -- his determination to punish former army chief Pervez Musharraf for the 1999 coup, and his avowed desire for friendly ties with India, to cite just two -- have compounded his insecurity. There is no doubt that the New York speech was a move by Mr. Sharif to blunt criticism by his opponents and detractors that he has been soft on India, and an effort by him to buy some peace with the army. Also, the Modi government's abrupt cancellation of the foreign secretary-level talks last month in retaliation for the Pakistan envoy's discussions with Hurriyat leaders in Delhi, did not help Mr. Sharif's domestic situation. The demands on Kashmir that he pressed at the General Assembly were those he had not raised for years, at least not since the historic 1999 Lahore Declaration, to which he and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee were signatories.

The two sides seem dangerously close to turning the clock back on Kashmir, wiping out the progress made on the issue in the intervening years, when -- if the principal actors of the period are to be believed -- it was “a semicolon away” from resolution. The challenge now before India and Pakistan is to pull back before rhetoric hijacks the debate. That can be done only by restoring the dialogue, not by keeping a finger on the pause button, as India has done. It is encouraging that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his speech at the General Assembly, avoided a slanging match with Mr. Sharif, and instead reiterated India's desire for “serious dialogue” with Pakistan in an “atmosphere free of violence.” That Pakistan remains eager to grasp the offer was evident in the conciliatory remarks made to The Hindu by Sartaj Aziz, adviser on foreign affairs to Mr. Sharif, after Mr. Modi's speech. Enough opportunities for dialogue have been lost already. India and Pakistan cannot risk the dangers created by a vacuum in diplomacy.

Fundamental Rights and the Kashmiri Refugee Vote, by Mazhar Iqbal

Fundamental Rights and the Kashmiri Refugee Vote

by Mazhar Iqbal   |  September 29, 2014

The current situation of fundamental rights of people in Pakistan Administered Kashmir and Kashmiri refugees in Pakistan poses news challenges. The Supreme Court of the region has initiated a scrutiny of legal and constitutional implications of the proposed abolition of 12 refugee seats in the house of 49 members.

In last June, a petition was filed for the cancellation of the refugees’ seats in the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan Administered Kashmir. The petitioners claimed that the symbolic representation of people from Indian Jammu and Kashmir through those who migrated from there to Pakistan was in utter disregard of the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan Administered Kashmir.

The part of Jammu and Kashmir that is under Pakistan’s control has a parliamentary democratic system.  Prime Minister of Pakistan Administered Kashmir (commonly known as Azad Kashmir) is the executive head and President is constitutional head. The parliamentary democratic setup in this part of the disputed region was introduced in 1970 on the basis of adult franchise.

The Pakistan Administered Kashmir Legislative Assembly comprises of 41 directly elected and 8 indirectly elected members, bringing the total number to 49. Of the 41 directly elected members, 6 are elected by people who had migrated from Jammu region, 6 by the refugees of Kashmir region and 21 by the people of Pakistan Administered Kashmir.

In electoral process, refugee seats play a pivotal role as they are easier to win. In order to secure a government in Pakistan Administered Kashmir, the contesting parties consider it vital to get a sweeping victory on those seats.

However, every election highlights the anomalies and violations of civil liberties in electoral system of the region. There has been a growing concern in various segments of society that allocation of seats in Pakistan Administered Kashmir Legislative Assembly is highly disproportional.  For example, it is believed by some of the key political players that Jammu is under represented while Kashmiri refugees are over represented.

A US researcher Cabeiri deBergh Robinson suggests that refugee seats in Pakistan Administered Kashmir Legislative Assembly represent an important symbolic claim, which gives legitimacy of on-going political system over all the people of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole.

Her research also highlights that the legal provisions that created the presumption of return arose out of a specific historical context. There is nothing inherently unalterable about them. Such representation is more like a gesture of goodwill aimed at showing solidarity with Kashmiris in Indian Jammu and Kashmir than actually addressing their social and political issues.

Initially, the Kashmiri refugees were kept in temporary settlements in various cities of Pakistan pending the final decision of the Kashmir dispute. However, later, they got permanent settlement in different cities and towns in almost all over Pakistan.  There were further phases of refugee movement in 1965 and 1971 wars between India and Pakistan. Another significant arrival of Kashmiri refugees was witnessed after the insurgency movement in late 80s.

Those settled in interior Pakistan have got dual voting rights. They can vote in Pakistan’s national and provincial assembly elections and also in Pakistan Administered Kashmir Legislative Assembly elections. However, the representation of people of Pakistan Administered Kashmir and refugees, who are housed in camps in Pakistan Administered Kashmir, is believed to be inconsistent with the size of the population.

Mobilizing social and economic resources in the aftermath of a conflict is a key factor in re-establishing sustainable communities. Despite of issues of governance, malpractices of local politicians in allocation of resources and controversies about Pakistan’s role in Kashmir affairs, people of this region are strong believers in democratic values. Equally, the Kashmiri refugee participation in local political system symbolically and materially demonstrates and reinforces the continuity of political role of various segments of Kashmiri society.

Division after division and decades of forced migration have created a plethora of complex manifestations all around the world. Kashmir is not aloof from such tyranny of history.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/09/29/fundamental-rights-and-the-kashmiri-refugee-vote/