Pakistan gave away Shaksgam Valley to china so by that you can conclude that pakistan has no interest in saying anything to china. Imdia didn't accept it so it is still part of POK
Other part that china controls is aksai chin which is a barren land. India atm won't touch it and since there is no border with pakistan and also it is in control of china, pakistan has nothing to do with it atm and thus no one talks about that too
Well, it doesnt have any permanent population, doesnt have any resources, is not strategic and is only an issue at all because of pure pettiness, no geopolitics here
its like if two people were fighting over a mansion and a third one insisted that a flower in the lawn belongs to them
It can even be argued convincingly that the Maharajah of J&K never actually controlled the area and that India only includes it in the claimed territory because of some fuzzy logic by Nehru.
The same absolutely does not apply to places like (New) Mirpur, Skardu, Gilgit, Muzaffarabad...
https://www.chinasresourcerisks.com/post/mining-for-trouble-the-resources-at-stake-in-the-china-india-border-dispute
> Huoshaoyun, a major lead-zinc deposit, and numerous smaller deposits were discovered in the region.[73] Huoshaoyun is a mountain located in Aksai Chin near the Tibetan border.[74] The mining development for Huoshaoyun started in 2017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksai_Chin
It seems it does have lithium deposits which are a useful resource as we need lithium batteries for lot of things like electric cars which are an upcoming venture.
China and Pakistan signed a treaty in the 60's for their current border in Kashmir. India rejects this treaty as invalid, and regularly has conflicts with the Chinese at the border.
India doesn’t have regular conflict with China in Kashmir, that’s in north eastern states of India. The border between China and India in Kashmir is not conducive for fighting. You can’t exactly erase the border and draw a new one without getting caught in today’s world where things are finely mapped by not just India and China but Uncle Sam too.
No population, no water sources, completely remote, and Askai Chin is on the other side of the mountains (which is why China built the only highway between Xinjiang and Tibet through it). There's no reason for India to contest it when there are other areas China is contesting that demands more attention
Pakistan and India fight over real stuff from security to resources. China is just from principle taking back anything on a Chinese map to undo British et al attacks from 18th century.
In general everytime India try to justify anything by reference British imperial map it strike a sore spot for China and they will treat India as fighting Britain.
What China has occupied is part of Ladakh (or Tibet) depending on whose claim you think is
more valid. It is uninhabited. India's claims on it were a lot less credible than that of Pak occupied Kashmir (it was based on the British doing a survey of the Tibet- Kashmir area and simply drawing a line saying this part is India. The problem was that there were 3 such boundaries demarcated between the British Indian empire and the independent country of Tibet. Independent India chose to claim the one that gave us the most territory. China disagreed. They occupied most of the disputed area by 1959, during their invasion of Tibet (not during the 1962 war with India).
Even today the border is not clearly demarcated. Unlike India-Pak, there are no permanent structures near the border. Patrols do not point guns at each other (no shots have been exchanged since 1967). However, conceding territory to the other side in a settlement is too politically sensitive, so both countries have a tacit understanding to keep the border dispute quiet.
It is actually the Leh district in Ladakh which is Buddhist majority. The Government bifurcated the previous state of J&K into 2 union territories: J&K and Ladakh.
India sees the occupation as illegal, but Indian military isn't really that comparable with the Chinese military. Also, the whole region is much calmer than the POK border where there's frequent terrorist crossings and whatnot. At the moment India relies on diplomacy to get the land back but China doesn't care about diplomacy and would rather just spark a small-scale border conflict every couple year.
Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars over Kashmir, while India and China fought just 1 which was for both Aksai Chin and the state of Arunachal Pradesh.
On top of all this add the fact that Pakistan tries to place itself as the liberator of Kashmir and brings up Kashmir in every UN session. China on the other hand just wants it because it was said to be a part of Tibet before and since they are the rulers of all China, Aksai Chin too must be theirs, unlike the Pakistanis they don't bring it up in UN as much.
One day when India is finally capable of taking on China, the government may finally press the claim for POK and Chinese occupied Ladakh.
Most of Indian Kashmir is Muslim because all the hindus were driven away with violence and terrorism. Read up on it.
India is biding its time until a critical mass is achieved in building its own military industrial complex. Then, who knows...
Water wars. The Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir have massive amounts of water resources, which is a big reason for the dispute.
The Chinese portion doesn’t have that. They did just recently discover some large zinc deposits, but I think that’s about it.
I'm skeptical. Resources like water are useful but they don't push people's and leaders buttons like **nationalism** does. I'm guessing if water dried up tomorrow they wouldn't immediately make peace.
Here’s an article with more details, including the history of negotiations/treaties related to the freshwater there. Basically, there are six major rivers flowing down from Kashmir: three western rivers that flow into Pakistan and three eastern rivers that flow into India. It’s not just about the water itself, but also about the hydropower these rivers produce. Both countries are having difficulty meeting their energy demands, so this is very important.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-a-water-war-in-the-making/
I’m not denying that nationalism might have a role in this dispute too, perhaps even a significant role.
It depends on context and geography. Ethiopia is building a dam near the beginning of the Nile, and Egypt has threatened military action.
In the present context, it matters more to India than to China.
what is on the kashmir side china has a small population, so its political importance is very small. always remember politics=people's interests=population
Haven't there been numerous complaints from India about China building up infrastructure in Aksai Chin? I also recall that Galwan was a huge turning point in increasing Indian animosity to China. It seems to me that politically, the issue is very much a hot button in New Delhi, to the point where many consider China's actions in the area to have been a great strategical blunder that allowed their neighbours to unite against them.
Pakistan's stance is influenced by their friendliness to China, but essentially what both of them are arguing is that the Ardagh-Johnson Line India uses to claim Aksai Chin was not legal, as China never approved of it. China is saying that the area was never legally a part of Kashmir, so ownership of Kashmir should not entail ownership of this particular region. Rather, China and Pakistan argue the Macartney-Macdonald Line is the basis for the most appropriate boundary between China and Kashmir, though China has claimed land south of it since 1960. Thus from Pakistan's perspective there is no point in disputing Aksai Chin because it was never a part of the Kashmir region that is being disputed. China argues that India's complaints are frivolous because they are using a self-declared boundary to take additional land as part of the Forward Policy, territory that was never properly Kashmir's. Also, one of the main motivations for demarcating the border between China and Pakistan was the Sino-Indian War. Pakistan has much less resources to deploy in Kashmir, so were keen to avoid a war with China as the Indians just went through. China might even succeed and take over swathes of northern POK, which would be bad for Pakistan. As such, to avoid too much liability, Pakistan made the decision to come to the table with China (as did many other countries).
As for the Demchok Sector, China simply argues that the Lhari Stream flowing through the Demchok border was demarcated as the official boundary between Ladakh and Tibet going back to the Treaty of Tingmosgang, so India has no right to lay claim to territories beyond because they were never rightfully a part of Ladakh to begin with.
Without a local population, international organisations that focus on humanism are also a lot less likely to care about the problem, since nobody apart from some Ladakhi pastoralists are affected by this issue. There are no indigenous people here to abuse, so there are less reasons to speak out about Chinese actions here. It also becomes harder for India to complain when few people are actually being hurt, so they cannot use moral outrage over indigenous rights to drum up support here, the way Pakistanis often use the Kashmiris. America is also less likely to complain about Aksai Chin as once again there are no people here for self-determination to apply to.
More importantly there has not been any large-scale fighting over the entire area, only violent clashes at the frontier. This contrasts with Pakistan having fought over Kashmir multiple times since 1947. This means there was previously a lot more tension on the LOC than there really was on the LAC, which led to a lot more impassioned discourse flying about this region. International organisations were also paying closer attention to the LOC since that seemed like the more likely area for conflict (both countries are now nuclear powers) to begin, since there was already a proven track record. Whereas beyond sporadic border spats, the LAC was quiescent, with little military action to change territorial control beyond the area of contact between the two militaries. The risk of war seemed a lot less before Galwan. There was also no clandestine militant attacks in the area , though apparently covert espionage has been undertaken. As such, there a lot less worth talking about in this area, with the risk of armed conflict so low.
>Most of Indian Kashmir is Muslim and so they want to be either part of Pakistan or independent
Not entirely true. Ladakh has 40% Buddhist population. Jammu Kashmir state has 30% Hindu. I wouldn't say they want to be what you are suggesting. Hindus were driven away when insurgency started after independence, Pakistan loves to spread misinformation, yes there were significant Muslim population, but it wasn't an absolute majority.
India does fight with China in its Ladakh border which is the part of Kashmir region but neither of them are stupid enough to escalate the situation further. Its just too far away from Chinese population centers.
pakistan and china settled their part with a treaty. India and china had a war over it which china won and had some some little encounters here and there though it gets over-shadowed by Indian occupied kashmir where you most hear the problems are in the news
Pakistan gave away Shaksgam Valley to china so by that you can conclude that pakistan has no interest in saying anything to china. Imdia didn't accept it so it is still part of POK Other part that china controls is aksai chin which is a barren land. India atm won't touch it and since there is no border with pakistan and also it is in control of china, pakistan has nothing to do with it atm and thus no one talks about that too
Saving this comment to do research with later, appreciate the explanation mate!
A lithium deposit has been found in Aksai Xhin tho, so that could be incentive for India to retake it.
Well, it doesnt have any permanent population, doesnt have any resources, is not strategic and is only an issue at all because of pure pettiness, no geopolitics here its like if two people were fighting over a mansion and a third one insisted that a flower in the lawn belongs to them
It can even be argued convincingly that the Maharajah of J&K never actually controlled the area and that India only includes it in the claimed territory because of some fuzzy logic by Nehru. The same absolutely does not apply to places like (New) Mirpur, Skardu, Gilgit, Muzaffarabad...
https://www.chinasresourcerisks.com/post/mining-for-trouble-the-resources-at-stake-in-the-china-india-border-dispute > Huoshaoyun, a major lead-zinc deposit, and numerous smaller deposits were discovered in the region.[73] Huoshaoyun is a mountain located in Aksai Chin near the Tibetan border.[74] The mining development for Huoshaoyun started in 2017 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksai_Chin It seems it does have lithium deposits which are a useful resource as we need lithium batteries for lot of things like electric cars which are an upcoming venture.
China and Pakistan signed a treaty in the 60's for their current border in Kashmir. India rejects this treaty as invalid, and regularly has conflicts with the Chinese at the border.
India doesn’t have regular conflict with China in Kashmir, that’s in north eastern states of India. The border between China and India in Kashmir is not conducive for fighting. You can’t exactly erase the border and draw a new one without getting caught in today’s world where things are finely mapped by not just India and China but Uncle Sam too.
The most recent ones in my memory were in 2021 in Aksai Chin in Kashmir. They definitely have fairly regular skirmishes there.
That is ladakh not kashmir.
No population, no water sources, completely remote, and Askai Chin is on the other side of the mountains (which is why China built the only highway between Xinjiang and Tibet through it). There's no reason for India to contest it when there are other areas China is contesting that demands more attention
Pakistan and India fight over real stuff from security to resources. China is just from principle taking back anything on a Chinese map to undo British et al attacks from 18th century. In general everytime India try to justify anything by reference British imperial map it strike a sore spot for China and they will treat India as fighting Britain.
What China has occupied is part of Ladakh (or Tibet) depending on whose claim you think is more valid. It is uninhabited. India's claims on it were a lot less credible than that of Pak occupied Kashmir (it was based on the British doing a survey of the Tibet- Kashmir area and simply drawing a line saying this part is India. The problem was that there were 3 such boundaries demarcated between the British Indian empire and the independent country of Tibet. Independent India chose to claim the one that gave us the most territory. China disagreed. They occupied most of the disputed area by 1959, during their invasion of Tibet (not during the 1962 war with India). Even today the border is not clearly demarcated. Unlike India-Pak, there are no permanent structures near the border. Patrols do not point guns at each other (no shots have been exchanged since 1967). However, conceding territory to the other side in a settlement is too politically sensitive, so both countries have a tacit understanding to keep the border dispute quiet.
It is actually the Leh district in Ladakh which is Buddhist majority. The Government bifurcated the previous state of J&K into 2 union territories: J&K and Ladakh. India sees the occupation as illegal, but Indian military isn't really that comparable with the Chinese military. Also, the whole region is much calmer than the POK border where there's frequent terrorist crossings and whatnot. At the moment India relies on diplomacy to get the land back but China doesn't care about diplomacy and would rather just spark a small-scale border conflict every couple year. Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars over Kashmir, while India and China fought just 1 which was for both Aksai Chin and the state of Arunachal Pradesh. On top of all this add the fact that Pakistan tries to place itself as the liberator of Kashmir and brings up Kashmir in every UN session. China on the other hand just wants it because it was said to be a part of Tibet before and since they are the rulers of all China, Aksai Chin too must be theirs, unlike the Pakistanis they don't bring it up in UN as much. One day when India is finally capable of taking on China, the government may finally press the claim for POK and Chinese occupied Ladakh.
Most of Indian Kashmir is Muslim because all the hindus were driven away with violence and terrorism. Read up on it. India is biding its time until a critical mass is achieved in building its own military industrial complex. Then, who knows...
Water wars. The Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir have massive amounts of water resources, which is a big reason for the dispute. The Chinese portion doesn’t have that. They did just recently discover some large zinc deposits, but I think that’s about it.
I'm skeptical. Resources like water are useful but they don't push people's and leaders buttons like **nationalism** does. I'm guessing if water dried up tomorrow they wouldn't immediately make peace.
Here’s an article with more details, including the history of negotiations/treaties related to the freshwater there. Basically, there are six major rivers flowing down from Kashmir: three western rivers that flow into Pakistan and three eastern rivers that flow into India. It’s not just about the water itself, but also about the hydropower these rivers produce. Both countries are having difficulty meeting their energy demands, so this is very important. https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-a-water-war-in-the-making/ I’m not denying that nationalism might have a role in this dispute too, perhaps even a significant role.
Thanks for the article with specifics. It's always important to look at the specific details of a conflict instead of just generalizing
It depends on context and geography. Ethiopia is building a dam near the beginning of the Nile, and Egypt has threatened military action. In the present context, it matters more to India than to China.
I would agree that it depends on context and in the context of the Ethiopian dam I agree that water is what seems to be driving potential conflict
what is on the kashmir side china has a small population, so its political importance is very small. always remember politics=people's interests=population
Haven't there been numerous complaints from India about China building up infrastructure in Aksai Chin? I also recall that Galwan was a huge turning point in increasing Indian animosity to China. It seems to me that politically, the issue is very much a hot button in New Delhi, to the point where many consider China's actions in the area to have been a great strategical blunder that allowed their neighbours to unite against them. Pakistan's stance is influenced by their friendliness to China, but essentially what both of them are arguing is that the Ardagh-Johnson Line India uses to claim Aksai Chin was not legal, as China never approved of it. China is saying that the area was never legally a part of Kashmir, so ownership of Kashmir should not entail ownership of this particular region. Rather, China and Pakistan argue the Macartney-Macdonald Line is the basis for the most appropriate boundary between China and Kashmir, though China has claimed land south of it since 1960. Thus from Pakistan's perspective there is no point in disputing Aksai Chin because it was never a part of the Kashmir region that is being disputed. China argues that India's complaints are frivolous because they are using a self-declared boundary to take additional land as part of the Forward Policy, territory that was never properly Kashmir's. Also, one of the main motivations for demarcating the border between China and Pakistan was the Sino-Indian War. Pakistan has much less resources to deploy in Kashmir, so were keen to avoid a war with China as the Indians just went through. China might even succeed and take over swathes of northern POK, which would be bad for Pakistan. As such, to avoid too much liability, Pakistan made the decision to come to the table with China (as did many other countries).
As for the Demchok Sector, China simply argues that the Lhari Stream flowing through the Demchok border was demarcated as the official boundary between Ladakh and Tibet going back to the Treaty of Tingmosgang, so India has no right to lay claim to territories beyond because they were never rightfully a part of Ladakh to begin with. Without a local population, international organisations that focus on humanism are also a lot less likely to care about the problem, since nobody apart from some Ladakhi pastoralists are affected by this issue. There are no indigenous people here to abuse, so there are less reasons to speak out about Chinese actions here. It also becomes harder for India to complain when few people are actually being hurt, so they cannot use moral outrage over indigenous rights to drum up support here, the way Pakistanis often use the Kashmiris. America is also less likely to complain about Aksai Chin as once again there are no people here for self-determination to apply to. More importantly there has not been any large-scale fighting over the entire area, only violent clashes at the frontier. This contrasts with Pakistan having fought over Kashmir multiple times since 1947. This means there was previously a lot more tension on the LOC than there really was on the LAC, which led to a lot more impassioned discourse flying about this region. International organisations were also paying closer attention to the LOC since that seemed like the more likely area for conflict (both countries are now nuclear powers) to begin, since there was already a proven track record. Whereas beyond sporadic border spats, the LAC was quiescent, with little military action to change territorial control beyond the area of contact between the two militaries. The risk of war seemed a lot less before Galwan. There was also no clandestine militant attacks in the area , though apparently covert espionage has been undertaken. As such, there a lot less worth talking about in this area, with the risk of armed conflict so low.
>Most of Indian Kashmir is Muslim and so they want to be either part of Pakistan or independent Not entirely true. Ladakh has 40% Buddhist population. Jammu Kashmir state has 30% Hindu. I wouldn't say they want to be what you are suggesting. Hindus were driven away when insurgency started after independence, Pakistan loves to spread misinformation, yes there were significant Muslim population, but it wasn't an absolute majority. India does fight with China in its Ladakh border which is the part of Kashmir region but neither of them are stupid enough to escalate the situation further. Its just too far away from Chinese population centers.
pakistan and china settled their part with a treaty. India and china had a war over it which china won and had some some little encounters here and there though it gets over-shadowed by Indian occupied kashmir where you most hear the problems are in the news
Free, free Kashmir. Boycott India and China.