The Crown of India

Current map of Kashmir indicating the various regions under different administrations. The entire area within the thicker black border was the Kingdom of Kashmir under Hari Singh (Source: Indian Defense Review)

Few issues dominate Indian foreign policy like Kashmir.  For as long as modern India has existed, Kashmir has been a thorny issue and I suspect it is likely to be so for many decades to come.  It has been the cause of at least three wars and innumerable skirmishes.  It has been described as a tinderbox given its ability to initiate war between two nuclear powers.  It has been a practice ground for Islamic militants, most of them non-Kashmiri.  Most of all, it is the place where two groups with everything in common except religion come together.  Many blame the Kashmir issue on Pakistan and the creation of Pakistan in the first place.  This is a rather interesting point.  For while Pakistan is certainly the cause of most of the problems today, the problem cannot be blamed on its creation.  In fact, it is interesting to note that there was perhaps no way for Kashmir to have ever been a peaceful region, a Switzerland of sorts.  To understand this, perhaps a little recap of history is helpful.

As we all know of course, when the British left India, they gave the princely kingdoms the choice to either side with India, side with Pakistan, or become independent.  While the vast majority went one way or the other, Kashmir (or rather its king Hari Singh) chose independence.  So, if nothing further had happened, Kashmir today would have been an independent country nestled in the Himalayas between India, Pakistan, and China.  I imagine it to have been much like Bhutan, except Muslim.  Except for a few things of course.  First, India rejected the notion of breaking up the nation.  Our founders had dreamt of and fought for a united India as it had culturally existed for centuries.  The British were bringing up this issue of multiple nations at the last minute.  So a Balkanisation of India was completely contrary to the Independence movement.  Nevertheless, a Pakistan was being formed as a supposed home to the Muslims of the subcontinent, never mind that India would continue to have more Muslims.  Since Pakistan saw itself as the natural nation for all Muslims, it was only fitting that Muslim majority Kashmir should join it.  After all, what need is there for "one home" for Muslims if each Muslim majority region became its own country.  Most importantly, what was preventing other regions within Pakistan, often with little but religion in common, from forming their own little countries.  For example, why shouldn't there become countries such as Balochistan, Sind, West Punjab, and Pashtunistan?  So an independent Kashmir brought into question the very idea of Pakistan.  On the other hand, India's founding fathers envisioned a secular country for all people of the subcontinent.  For them India was not a country of Hindus and not defined by religion in any way.  It was the home for all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent.  An independent Kashmir or a Kashmir as part of Pakistan threatened the very concept.  It would be admitting that people of different religions or different regions cannot be under one central India.  In other words, it brought into question the very idea of a unified India. 

Now imagine if Jinnah and the Muslim League had never existed to demand a Pakistan.  Such what-if scenarios are fascinating to me and in future posts I wish to explore this concept further.  You will be amazed at how different our world (and yes, not just the region) would have been today had one man not lived.  But sticking to Kashmir, I feel that had Pakistan not been formed, Kashmir would have become an independent country.  I am sure the Indian government would have tried to coax it into joining the union as it did with other princely kingdoms.  As much as I idol worship Sardar Patel, I think even a man of his abilities would have failed to bring Kashmir into the fold.

There are three possible scenarios I envision:

1. Kashmir would have remained independent but with great internal strife with three religions and being landlocked.  I imagine that such a Kashmir would have been roped into the Cold War with Communist Russia attempting to depose the king and Western countries attempting to bring democracy.  Having to virtually conduct all its trade through an India that resented its existence would not have helped.
2. China would have invaded it during its invasion of Tibet and at the very least taken the regions of Aksai Chin, Leh, and Ladakh, if not the entire country itself.  We would have then seen the kind of freedom struggle we are seeing today in Tibet.  Except it is likely to have been way more violent as it would have been fought not by otherwise peaceful Buddhist monks but militant Muslims supported by international jihadi groups and other groups covertly supported by India.
3. India would have invaded it to take it by force.  It would have then existed as a part of India but with a simmering separatist movement supported again by the Chinese government, international jihadi organizations, and perhaps local groups dreaming of a Switzerland of the East.

In all three scenarios, Kashmir would have been far from the gorgeous valley that I remember from my visit in 1989.  I have painted a rather grim picture of a region that is without doubt one of the most beautiful parts of the world inhabited by a beautiful peaceful people.  This is however the fact of reality, that as humans we have found a way to make a fight for God, King, and Country paramount in our lives.  To be sure, I do not think the future need be this grim.  I hate to leave the post here, but will do so to not only maintain brevity but leave you with food for thought.  The fact is that none of the three scenarios presented above happened, and Kashmir finds itself pulled in different directions.  I remain hopeful and confident that Kashmir will soon become a proud region and once again take over the mantle it held for millenia - The Crown of India.

You Cannot Be Serious.

Perhaps nothing touches human emotion like the death of a child.  While any death is sad and tragic, it is hard to see a young life's passing as not being senseless and unnecessary.  I guess we can see rationale behind an adult's death at times: the person's own actions led them to it (think Darwin Awards), the person was evil and deserved it (think Hitler or Osama bin Laden), or perhaps death was best for an elderly who has been in pain for a long time.  For a young child however, it is hard to imagine these things.  This is why their deaths are so  emotional, and the biggest reason why the shootings at Newtown were do different from all the shootings that preceded it and that will undoubtedly follow.  

When the NRA kept silent for about a week after the Newtown shooting, I was hopeful that perhaps they were doing some serious soul searching and would finally come out with some meaningful options and compromises.  Their eventual suggestion, to arm teachers with guns, confirmed to me that the NRA has absolutely no interest in seeing things change.  They do not see the killings in Newton as any more of a rallying cry for gun control than the death of some gang member in an inner-city.  They care about one thing and one thing only, the ability of gun manufacturers to continue selling guns and for "macho" gun owners to continue adding to their collection.  

This week Congress is holding hearings on gun control.  There are a number of proposals on the table which should be common sense and frankly do not go far enough for many people, including me.  The proposals are to ban assault rifles, limit magazine capacity, and require background checks on ALL gun sales.  I cannot understand why these are so disagreeable.  Nobody needs an assault rifle.  I was recently reading a hunting magazine (that is mostly all that is available in East Texas) where the author was specifically mentioning how an assault rifle is not used for hunting.  It is not used for sport either and nor for self defense.  So what is it for besides war and killing as many people as possible in the least amount of time?  Ditto for high capacity magazines.  Even shotguns are restricted in how many shells can be loaded at one time for a hunt.  The reason: to give the game a fair chance.  What is incredible is we allow deers and ducks a fair chance but not innocent people in a theater or classroom!  Finally there is the question of background checks.  Everyone, including the NRA, agrees that it is a mentally deranged individual that goes on a shooting spree.  So why not try to implement a method that tries to prevent that individual from getting a gun in the first place?  

During these hearings on gun control, the NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre also provided testimony.  One of his core messages was that law-abiding gun owners should not be burdened due to the actions of bad people.  My question is why not Mr LaPierre?  Law abiding citizens are "burdened" in many things in our daily lives to prevent abuse and mis-use.  Here are some examples:

• Airport security - I intend no harm, so why do I have to stand in line and go through the x-ray?
• Prescription medicine - I am responsible to know what I need to take and how many, why do I need a doctor and pharmacist?
• Drinking at 21 - I was an adult at 18, so why can I not get a drink just because some 18-21 year olds binge drink?

In these cases and for that matter any instance where there is security or checks, honest, law-abiding, and honorable people are burdened to prevent abuse.  In cases such as airport security this is a good thing, because I am willing to wait 10 minutes and go through a hassle to ensure some crazy person does not kill me.  I would think gun owners would feel the same way.  And even if they do not, I think the public has a right to demand it to ensure their own safety.  Surely gun owners can take on a little burden to prevent another innocent child from dying.

These controls may not stop everyone nor prevent another shooting from taking place.  But if they prevent even one more Newtown from happening, it would all be worth it.

Dont Come Without a Solution

Before I begin with this post, a disclaimer is needed.  I work for a major oil and gas company, which means that my livelihood comes from the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons.  Furthermore, my graduate degree was in Combustion, meaning that I have spent a fair bit of time studying (and now benefiting from) the oxidation of hydrocarbons - a process that naturally produces CO2 and hopefully not too many other nasties.  I do not think any of this matters, but I am surely going to be accused of bias, so it's important I mention it.  

In the last few years or so, there has been a lot of talk of climate change and the effect that humans are having on the temperature.  It has certainly become a little bit of a fad to be in support of this cause, which is unfortunate because Hollywood celebrities are usually not the best scientists.  Now I am not anti-global warming or a climate change denier.  The truth is I do not know.  Quite honestly I do not think anybody knows for sure.  Are temperatures rising - well yes, we can measure it directly and we see they have risen.  Are humans impacting the Planet and its climate - of course, you cannot have 7 billion people going about their business without impacting the environment.  Are humans emitting more CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases - yes, we know that for sure too.  Does a greenhouse gas cause temperatures to rise - ah, tricky question: yes, but in what quantities?  Has Earth's temperature risen before, even before there were homo sapiens - yes, we see that from a number of sources that Earth's temperature has been cyclical.  What we know for sure is, humans are emitting a substance that has the potential to raise temperatures (which are rising) but the Earth has also gone through periods of cold and hot before.  Are we in a cycle, or are we shifting the path of the roller-coaster by our weight?  I do not think anyone knows for sure.

Okay, so the ardent "environmentalists" argue that we cannot afford to do nothing.  Worse, they blame industries like Oil & Gas for destroying Earth.  I have news for such people: We NEED Energy.  This is a fact of life, and especially a fact of modern life.  We need energy for virtually everything we do - from getting hot water in the morning, to lights, to the A/C or heat, to transportation, to plastics, to the clothes we wear, to the food we eat, and to basically everything we do.  In fact today we use energy even for things that are nowhere near being necessities for life or living comfortably.  What need does someone have for an iPad or a high power stereo or a giant TV.  None, but these things make life more enjoyable, and they require energy.  Contrary to popular belief, this energy does not come from the socket.  Chances are, something had to be burnt to produce that energy.  

So if you are going to make a big deal about climate change and how we are evil for burning oil, gas, or coal, propose a solution for meeting society's need for energy.  The solution cannot be for all of us to live in caves.  This general quality of life cannot be reduced and for that matter cannot be denied to people who do not currently have it.  They have every right to aspire to it.  So I say it again, bring forth an alternative to fossil fuels.  Often the very same environmentalists have already written off nuclear, so what remains?  Yes, I know, renewables.  In another post I will write more about renewables, but here is the reality. Renewables are great and offer a lot of promise.  But they are no where near sufficient for our needs and will never be.  There are too many fundamental problems to overcome and while I will continue to support having my tax dollars fund the research, the reality is renewables can never be the complete answer.  So think of something else, because currently every American consumes about 311 million BTU's of energy a year, or around the equivalent of 16,000 of the type of burner you see at the top.  If you truly care, come with a solution that provides this kind of energy, or dont bother.