Kashmir should become independent from India

I will now address my opponents arguments: 1: If Kashmir becomes independent, Terrorist cells will operate from there Most of the militias in Kashmir are kashmiri people fighting to be free. After independence, most of them will return to their farms, family businesses,etc. I do not deny that Al qaeda supports these militias. BUT, the average kashmiri is tired of war, close to nil will support terrorist training camps and cells. Al qaeda isn't as powerful as it was. Their main targets are Britain, America and Afghanistan. The terrorist groups that attack India and Pakistan are based in India and Pakistan, which is where most of their funding and almost all of their personnel are coming from. It is also not really strategic for al qaeda to have cells and camps in Kashmir. Anything coming in or out of Kashmir is scrutinized over and over and over again. Even more so on India's border. Al Qaeda would much prefer their camps on the lawless Pak-Afghan border. Any Kashmiris who still wanted to fight would just go to the pak-afghan border. 2. Kashmir will simply be invaded by one of the Surrounding countries. First, lets look at another small country, sandwiched between two superpowers. Bhutan. Bhutan has reason to be swallowed up by China or India. China's reasoning could be that Since Bhutanese culture is so close to Tibet's, it is actually apart of Tibet and so, since Tibet is part of China, so is Bhutan. India's reasoning could be that, since the Bhutanese Ngultrum and Indian rupee are pegged together, and that India's and Bhutan's military work together to protect it, it might as well become part of India. But still, do this day, Bhutan is independent and has its own king. In Kashmir's case, China will not be a likely candidate because it has a strong relationship with Pakistan and wouldn't want to waste that relationship on a small piece of land. Also, China is trying to create a better relationship with India, another booming economic power. The point is, why would China waste either of these strategic relationships for Kashmir? Now to Pakistan. Pakistan is too weak economically to take Kashmir. The majority of Kashmiris don't want to be apart of Pakistan and so if Pakistan were to invade, They'd have a guerrilla movement to put down. Pakistan has followed America's advice in Kashmir over the years, i. e. , getting Nawaz Sharif to surrender at Kargil after Bill Clinton talked with him. If America tells Pakistan to stand down, under the current government, Pakistan will stand down. India is a rising economic star and wouldn't like the bad publicity of invading a small country that finally broke free of them. 3. About stability, I didn't mean Economic stability but that Kashmiris wouldn't have to worry about saying the wrong thing, being at the wrong place, getting abused by the Indian Army or police, or getting caught in the crossfire in a gun battle. About economic stability, my opponent is right. Not many people invest in a new country, regardless of where it is, what is the main religion its people follow,etc. Also, Nepal was a 3rd world country before the government change. The only reason the government changed was to bring peace between the monarchists and the Maoist rebels. It is getting better though. Although the Kashmiri economy is mainly Agricultural, there is many other fields in which Kashmir can excel. The mountains, rivers and Valleys of Kashmir are picturesque, and tourism there has been flourishing. If there is even more stability, The number of tourists will likely increase. Kashmir is known for Cashmere wool and knitting. Crafts could be exported or sold to tourists. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Independence will not stop human right violations. Almost all Human Rights Violations in Kashmir are committed by police or the Indian army. The militias do kill informants, but so does every other armed group in the world. The chances of a democratically elected government violating the human rights of their own people, who have just broken free of a power who abused them for six decades is extremely low. The point that my opponent makes seems to be that, because it's not guaranteed that the human rights violations will stop, its better for Kashmiris to just take it instead of trying to gain freedom. If you follow that logic, Americans should have just kept dealing with unfair taxes and abuses dealt to them by the British because it wasn't certain that this new government would tax fairly and not just do what the British did to them. 5. Kashmir might become a Sharia state There is two parts to my counter argument on this topic 1. Full blown Sharia will most likely not be enforced due to Kashmiri culture. The kashmiris have their own style of music, which is forbidden in some interpretations of Sharia. They also have art which show faces of people, which again is forbidden in some interpretations of Sharia. No doubt, that since Kashmir has a Muslim Majority, there might be Islamic laws introduced, or they may follow parts of Sharia, like most gulf states do. 2. It's their choice. We can all scream about how bad Sharia is until we're blue in the face, but if it was a choice, given to the Kashmiri people, and they vote to become a Sharia state, it's their country, not ours. 6. Muslims live perfectly happy in India This isn't very true at all. Muslims are on the average, more poor than their Hindu counterparts. In the early 2000's the Hindu fanatic group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, was involved in the Genocide of Muslims and Christians in the state of Gujarat. They also destroyed Babri Masjid, an old mosque ordered by Babur, the first Mughal Emperor. The RSS isn't just a fringe group, It has 5 to 6 million registered members. . http://articles.latimes.com... . http://www.youtube.com...