The Archives of Leh

My article The Archives of Leh appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

It is perhaps not too late to put the history of India in its proper perspective and undo the blunders committed in the 1950s and 1960s

As an aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the former State of Jammu & Kashmir has been reorganised into the new Union Territories (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The latter consists of two districts: Kargil and Leh. Subsequently, new maps have been prepared by the Surveyor-General of India showing the geographical outline of the new UTs; it is a welcome move by the Government to educate the people of India and the media (and hopefully, the biased foreign Press).
Interestingly, the Leh district of Ladakh includes the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, in addition to the known areas of Leh and, of course, the Aksai Chin, illegally occupied by China since the mid-1950s.
For several reasons, it is important that these maps have been updated. First there was often a discrepancy in the length of the Indo-China border on some Indian websites. Was the length 4,056 or 3,488 km?  The first figure is the only valid one as Gilgit-Baltistan (formerly the Gilgit agency) is legally a part of India. The Indo-China boundary starts at the trijunction of Afghanistan, Gilgit-Baltistan and Xinjiang to reach the Karakoram Pass and further runs through the Karakoram and Karatagh passes and along the Kunlun in the north, and through Lanak La and across the western part of the Pangong Lake and then along the ridge parallel to the Indus, before crossing the Indus south-east of Demchok. Hopefully the wrong figures will now be rectified.
The fact that large parts of Ladakh are today occupied by China explain Beijing’s aggressive stance. Speaking of the creation of the two UTs, Geng Shuang, a spokesman of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the media: “China deplores and firmly opposes this. This is unlawful and void and this is not effective in any way and will not change the fact that the area is under Chinese actual control.” He urged India to “earnestly respect Chinese territorial sovereignty and uphold peace and tranquility in the border areas.”
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs did not leave the unwarranted attack unanswered: “We do not expect other countries, including China, to comment on matters that are internal to India, just as India refrains from commenting on the internal issues of other countries,” declared India’s Ministry for External Affairs spokesman. Referring to the Shaksgam Valley, he pointed out that China “illegally” acquired Indian territories from Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir through the 1963 China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement. That infamous pact was signed by Pakistan’s Minister of External Affairs and his Chinese counterpart. The new maps will irritate China no end, as it virtually opens another sector along the Indo-Chinese disputed boundary.

Map of the 1987 Survey of the areas 'donated' to China

A secret note prepared by the historical division of the Ministry of External Affairs mentioned that “any such agreement will be ab initio illegal and invalid and will not bind India in any respect.” The note observed that the preamble states that the parties have agreed to formally delimit and demarcate the boundary between Xinjiang and the contiguous areas of Pakistan, the defence of which was under  the actual control of Karachi; Pakistan based its right on the fact that these areas were under her “actual control.” However,  the Indian note explained: “Under international law, the right of entering into treaties and agreements is an attribute of sovereignty. Furthermore, a sovereign cannot presume to exercise sovereign functions in respect of territory other than its own. Having regard to the UN resolutions of January 17, 1948, August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949 (UNCIP Resolutions) it is clear that Pakistan cannot (and does not) claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of Jammu and Kashmir.”
Very few, even in India, realise the importance of this point. On March 5, 1963, speaking about China during a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha, the Prime Minister said: “In spite of its professions that it has never involved itself in the dispute over Kashmir or its absurd claim that the boundary negotiations have promoted friendship between the Chinese and Pakistani people and are in the interests of Asia and world peace, it is directly interfering in Indo-Pakistan relations. By doing this, China is seeking to exploit differences between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir question to further its own expansionist policy.”
Of course, since then, China has become Pakistan’s Iron brother, but the motivations have remained the same. Today’s publication of proper maps should only be a first step.
The logical follow-up should be to repatriate all the archives pertaining to Ladakh and the Gilgit Wazarat, to Leh, where a place should be dedicated to their preservation; it is crucial as the history of large chunks of the border with China lies in these records.
During the negotiations of “the Officials of India and China” in 1960, the Indian side noted: “A systematic settlement of revenue for the whole of Ladakh up to the traditional alignment was made during the time of Mehta Mangal who was Wazir or Governor between 1860 and 1865; and this settlement was revised during the period of his successor Johnson (1870-1881) and Radha Kishen Kaul (1882). The lists of villages in both the Revenue Assessment Report of 1902 and the Settlement Report of 1908 mentioned 108 villages, including Tanktse, Demchok, Chushul and Minsar... The Preliminary Report of Ladakh Settlement of 1908 made clear that these areas were part of Ladakh.”
The Indian side submitted a large quantity of such documents. These records will show that India exercised control over the various frontier areas and collected revenues from the border villages till Independence.
These records should be kept in Leh; it should also include the history of the Gilgit Wazarat and other territories now shown under the Ladakh district and how Shaksgam Valley was illegally offered to Communist China.
This would greatly help the project of the Ministry of Defence to write the history of India’s borders, the project for which was recently announced: “The work will cover various aspects of borders, including tracing its making; making and unmaking and shifting of borders; role of security forces; role of borderland people encompassing their ethnicity, culture and socio-economic aspects of their lives.”
It is perhaps not too late to put the history of India in its proper perspective and undo the blunders committed in the 1950s and 1960s.

Why India's northern borders are threatened

My article Why India's northern borders are threatened appeared in Mail Today/Daily O

Here is the link... 

While the world speaks of artificial intelligence and facial recognition, India can't find better ways to monitor unwanted elements on the borders.

In the months to come, the 4056-kilometrre long India-China border will be in the news; probably for wrong reasons.
Despite last month’s ‘Chennai Connect’ between Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping at Mamallapuram, Beijing continues its aggressive stance on Ladakh; the formation of two separate Union Territories for J&K and Ladakh seems to have irritated Beijing no end.

A sore point for China
Geng Shuang, a spokesman of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the media that "China deplores and firmly opposes this. This is unlawful and void and this is not effective in any way and will not change the fact that the area is under Chinese actual control;" he further urged India to "earnestly respect Chinese territorial sovereignty and uphold peace and tranquillity in the border areas.”
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs did not leave the unwarranted attack unanswered: “We do not expect other countries, including China, to comment on matters that are internal to India, just as India refrains from commenting on the internal issues of other countries," said the Indian spokesman. He requested China to stick to the ‘Political Parameters and Guiding Principles’ jointly agreed by the two sides to proceed on the border issue in 2005; the Indian official also pointed out that China ‘illegally’ acquired Indian territories from Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) through a China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963; he was referring to the Shaksgam Valley.
If China decides to play this game, India could easily point out (with solid historical proofs) that Eastern Turkestan (now Xinjiang) was militarily annexed by the Peoples’ Republic of China in October-December 1949 and Tibet was occupied a year later.
In the present context, it is vital for India to develop its Northern borders, to open new roads, provide better telecom facilities, decent health services and education infrastructure for the local populations, who have already started migrating in large numbers. One solution to stop the hemorrhage is sustainable tourism.
Pema Khundu, the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh created a stir on Twitter; he was seen riding a buggy, near the Tibet border, north of Tawang; the purpose of the adventurous drive over the hilly terrains, was to promote tourism; Kiren Rijiju, the Union Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs accompanied Khandu; they rode an ATV Polaris for a distance of 107 km from PT Tso (also known as Madhuri lake) to the remote village of Mago. In a tweet, Rijiju mentioned the scenic beauty: “The state, mostly habituated over high altitudes of mountain ranges, is replete with stunning natural delights. The hilly areas also pose a good scope for adventure sports over snow laden valleys and glistening scenic beauties of natural lakes.”
Though roads are slowly coming up, the development infrastructure still remains far slower than in Tibet, although from Ladakh to Arunachal, the government is finally taking measures to tackle the problem. But thanks to a ‘dual use’ approach, China has done remarkably well to develop its side of the borders; every piece of infrastructure can be used by the civil administration, for example to accommodate tourists (last year, some seven million visited Nyingchi, the prefecture bordering Arunachal Pradesh) or by the People’s Liberation Army, when required.

Boost border growth
Last week, China Daily announced that 133 villagers from 29 households had been resettled at Puma Changthang, a village north of Bhutan: “Sharing a 25-km border with Bhutan where the average altitude tops 5,300 meters above sea level, the Puma Changthang township is renowned as the world's highest township.” The article noted that China’s objective was to make these border areas prosper; some 200 such model villages are said to have been built close to India’s border over the past three years.
In India, everything goes slowly, though efforts are made. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently inaugurated the strategically located ‘Col Chewang Rinchen Setu’, a bridge built over River Shyok, connecting Durbuk and Daulat Beg Oldie in Eastern Ladakh. The Minister reiterated “the Government’s unwavering commitment to bolster border infrastructure to effectively deal with any threats that undermine the peace and tranquillity in the country.” At the same time, he announced that the Siachen glacier base-camp will be opened to tourism.
Both strategic and economic development need to go hand in hand.
Another example, the government has recently approved the construction of 18 border tracks along the border. Minister of State for Home Affairs, Kishan Reddy called it a critical infrastructure to enhance the capability of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

Spruce up Arunachal
Unfortunately, it is far from enough.
While being firm with China and getting ready for the worse, new ways to diffuse the tensions are tried, for example India and China will have 'coordinated patrols' in disputed areas along LAC, such as the Fish-Tail 1 & 2 in Arunachal Pradesh. According to The Hindustan Times: “India made the proposal for coordinated patrolling at a high-level meeting between the Indian Army and the PLA in June.”
Another factor is: looking after the border populations; a gesture shows how keen the locals are to be integrated: the residents of 10 villages of Upper Siang (Arunachal Pradesh) have recently decided not to claim compensation for their land for the construction of a road to improve the connectivity to the border; this will greatly help the construction of a proposed 150km-long Yingkiong-Bishing two-lane highway; Bishing, the last Indian village near the McMahon Line, is home to around 100 people from the Memba tribe.
But in many other ways, India still lives under the British Raj, the most blatant example is the Inner Line system which still hampers the development of the State. It is difficult to understand that while the world speaks of Artificial Intelligence or facial recognition, the Indian State can’t find a better way to monitor unwanted elements on the borders.
In the meantime, China will continue to put pressure.

The Real Consequence

My article The Real Consequence appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

The abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution has triggered a lot of typing on the keyboards of the Indian as well as the foreign journalists. Most of the scribes were ill-informed about the legality of the issue, but generally the Indian press dealt with the subject more decently, taking into consideration the situation on the ground, including Ladakh where the ‘liberation’ of the mountainous division was celebrated as in Jammu too; it also mentioned the tragic fate of the Kashmiri Pandits, how the Article fuelled terrorist acts, which for decades have plagued the Valley. Even the Supreme Court, who sometime does not mind stepping in the role of the executive, has handled the issue with restrain and care in the higher interests of the population concerned.
It has not been the case of the foreign press, which has once more shown not only its partisanship, its often-violently ‘anti-Modi’ bias (they hate the ‘Modi’ phenomenon which eludes their understanding), but also its abysmal ignorance of the historical background of the Kashmir issue.
Take the example of the French press: following the August 5 decision, it is difficult to say that it was the worst, because the British and the American were really bad too (particularly the BBC). In their offices beyond the seas, editorialists are stuck in their old clichés, they love to portray Modi’s India as having only one objective: to massacre as many Muslims as possible. Due to sheer ‘white’ arrogance, most of these ‘grand reporters’ do not need to study the issue before writing on it, as ‘they know’.
After the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to UAE, one French publication even wrote: “Modi has managed to escape the Muslim ire …for now”.
The Chinese factor and their indecent claims over Ladakh have also been brushed aside; the Buddhists of Ladakh and the Pandits are not worth a word. It is ironic that at the same time, the Indo-French bilateral relations have been blossoming (but journalists will probably say, “Modi has bought Macron on his side by promising to buy a few Rafales more”).
Who is responsible for this constant misinformation or disinformation?
As I said, it is not possible to change the ideological slant of the press (foreign or French), so one should let it be.
Where the Government of India failed is that it should have ‘educated’ the press by giving a full historical briefing on all the facets of the issue.
One problem is that the Ministry of External affairs functions today without a Historical Division, (in the 1990s, some smart mandarins thought they knew everything and that a division was not required); before the announcement, South Block should have prepared a “background note on the Kashmir issue and the history of the temporary Article 370 of Indian Constitution”, but nobody had probably time for such niceties.
Foreign embassies could have given this note and in turn informed their ‘all-knowing’ press; it is part of the bilateral relations, no?
The foreign press could have been told: “you are free to use the briefing, and check the facts, if you want.” One of the problems is the sacrosanct ‘freedom of the press’ which allows anybody to write anything!
These who object to this are ‘fascists’.
Now what are the facts?
A few years ago, I came across a Top Secret note entitled “Background to the Kashmir Issue: Facts of the case”, written in the early 1950s, in the Nehru Papers (the JN Collections at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library). It makes fascinating reading. It starts by a historical dateline: “Invasion of the State by tribesmen and Pakistan nationals through or from Pakistan territory on October 20, 1947; ruler’s offer of accession of the State to India supported by the National Conference, a predominantly Muslim though non-communal political organization, on October 26, 1947; acceptance of accession by the British Governor-General of India on October 27, 1947, under this accession, the State became an integral part of India; expression of a wish by Lord Mountbatten in a separate letter to the Ruler the fulfillment of which was to take place at a future date when law and order had been restored and the soil of the State cleared of the invader, the people of the State were given the right to decide whether they should remain in India or not.”
Then the note mentioned “[the] invasion of the State by Pakistan Regular Forces on May 8, 1948, in contravention of international law. One of the grounds for this military operation, as disclosed by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister himself, was a recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan that an easy victory for the Indian Army was almost certain to arouse the anger of the invading tribesmen against Pakistan.”
Pakistan was not interested in the plebiscite, further they wanted to grab …Buddhist Ladakh too. At some other point, the note observed “Pakistan, not content with assisting the invader, has itself become an invader and its army is still occupying a large part of the soil of Kashmir, thus committing a continuing breach of international law.”
This was noticed by Sir Owen Dixon, the UN Representative.
Pakistani politicians (and others) often quote the UN Resolutions; very few have read them. Has Imran Khan ever looked at them? I bet not.
Following the ceasefire of January 1, 1949, the military representatives of India and Pakistan met in Karachi between July 18 and 27, 1949, under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. Before leaving for Karachi, the delegates had a briefing from Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, the Secretary General of the MEA, who explained the legal position in detail to the delegates. He told them that the resolution of August 13, 1948 "had conceded the legality of Kashmir's accession to India and as such no man's land, if any, should be controlled by India during the period of ceasefire and truce.” Thus, the Line of Cease Fire (now LOC) was drawn and accepted by Pakistan on this principle.
Who remembers the August 1948 Resolution today?
Similarly for Article 370, the temporary background should have been explained, particularly how it deprived Jammu and Ladakh of their administrative freedom, how it helped fuel terrorism from across the LOC; how gender-biased it was. This should be been done. It would not have removed the bias of the foreign ‘secular’ press, but they could not have said they did not know.

The Historical Note mentioned in the article. can be downloaded here.

Kashmir is Indian. Is Tibet really Chinese?

Let the Tibetan and Chinese flags fly over Lhasa

My article Kashmir is Indian. Is Tibet really Chinese? appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...
 
Comrades in the Middle Kingdom must learn from their history and be prepared. New Delhi can be ‘neutral' but also side with the Tibetans, especially if Beijing continues to side with Pakistan’s terrorist activities
In April 2015, President Xi Jinping paid his first State visit to Pakistan.
The friendship between the two nations was ‘higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel,” said the billboards in Chinese and English in Islamabad.
The Washington Post remarked: “Xi arrived in Islamabad bearing real gifts: an eye-popping $46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to boost Pakistan's flagging economy.”
It sounded like a Chinese Dream for Islamabad!
Beijing had decided to open a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which would link up Xi’s pet project, the two New Silks Roads (also known as ‘One Belt, One Road’); through the Karakoram Highway, the Chinese-sponsored port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea would connect to the Xinjiang province in China’s Far West and Central Asia …and later Middle East, Africa and Europe.
The ‘corridor’ would have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams (to produce the necessary electricity), pipelines!
Pakistan was China’s perfect docile ‘partner’; it was geographically ideally positioned with an access to the sea in the South and to Central Asia in the North.
It was of course before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s August 15 speech. From the ramparts of the Red Fort, he asserted: “The people of Balochistan, the people of Gilgit, the people of POK have thanked me in such a manner, from places that I have never been and never had a chance to meet, they have sent wishes to the people of India and thanked us... I am grateful to them.”
During the previous weeks, Pakistan had been trying hard to bring the Kashmir issue on the world scene, by sponsoring an uprising in the Valley.
Now China realizes that their CPEC project might not go as smoothly as planned.
In less than a week, Beijing had twice to deny Islamabad’s claim that it backed Pakistan’s views on Kashmir. Beijing even asked India and Pakistan “to engage in dialogue to properly resolve disputes, including the Kashmir left over from history.”
The Pakistani press had earlier reported that Yu Boren, the Chinese Consul General in Lahore had said: “In case of any [foreign] aggression our country will extend its full support to Pakistan.” Yu had apparently stated that “the aspirations of the Kashmiris’ should be taken into account in resolving the Kashmir issue”.
Clearly, Beijing does not know how to react to the new situation.
Several Chinese experts claimed there was "no evidence to prove Pakistan is behind the Uri attack" and that “irrational decisions [from Delhi’s side] would complicate India's relations with Pakistan.”
When Home Minister Rajnath Singh announced that the 3,323 km Indo-Pakistan border would be completely sealed by December 2018, Hu Zhiyong, a scholar at the Institute of International Relations of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences told India Today: “[India’s] decision reflects its Cold War mentality, and would only cause deeper hatred among residents living in Indian and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.”
In the meantime, Beijing remains opposed to India’s entry in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) and is not moving an inch towards supporting Delhi on the listing of Masood Azhar, the Jaish-e-Mohammed chief as a ‘terrorist’ in the UN.
In these circumstances, it would be good to remind China of the case of Tibet. While Beijing regularly threatens Delhi that if the activities of the Tibetan refugees are not roped in by Delhi, despite its declared ‘neutral’ stance, China itself fully sides with Pakistan on Kashmir.
Delhi could also be ‘neutral’ but side with the Tibetans.
In 2012, when Beijing began issuing stapled visas for Kashmir residents, China wanted to make a point: Beijing does not recognize J&K as an integral part of India. A visa was denied to Lt Gen BS Jaswal, Northern Command boss, to attend a preplanned defense meeting in Beijing. The Chinese Embassy stated that the General was serving in the ‘sensitive location of Jammu and Kashmir’ and ‘people from this part of the world come with a different kind of visa’.
If Beijing continues to play with the ‘Kashmir’ issue, Delhi could easily play the Tibet card.
Four years ago, BJP leader Yashwant Sinha stated during the Zero Hour in the Lok Sabha that China has been carrying out the 'grossest' violations of human rights in Tibet over the last 60 years. The former External Affairs Minister said that Tibetans were disturbed by "excessive use of military force, religious restrictions, disappearances and detentions, removal of nomads and degradation of ecological system in the region under Chinese rule."
Take Article 370 of the Indian Constitution; India could ask for a similar clause to be applied to Tibet; the Tibetan issue, according to the aspiration of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people, would be solved.
Article 370 mentions that except for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communications, the Indian Parliament needs the State Government's concurrence for applying most of the other laws.
Today a citizen of J&K lives under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights.
When the Dalai Lama asks for 'genuine' autonomy for Tibet, he does not ask for more than that. Can you imagine Tibet with its own Constitution?
J&K has its own flag, Tibet had its own flag too.
Dharamsala would be delighted.
Further in J&K, Indian citizens from other States cannot purchase land or property, can you imagine the consequences of a similar clause for Tibet?
If people from Han nationality were not allowed to acquire properties on the Roof of the World or start business ventures in Lhasa or other large cities (in Nyingchi prefecture, north of the McMahon Line in particular), tensions and resentment would immediately diminish greatly.
People of J&K have their own 'citizenship' in the form of a State-subjectship with its own privileges; for example, a non-State-subject can't study in a university in Kashmir.
Imagine Tibet with its own Legislative Assembly or local Parliament (not a fake one as today in Tibet, but an elected one) …and federal laws from Beijing would have to be ratified by elected legislators in Lhasa!
One need to remember however that there are basic differences between Tibet and Kashmir. Tibet has for centuries managed its own affairs, Tibet was an independent State before 1950 with Representatives of India, Nepal, Bhutan and China operating from Lhasa.
Kashmir has always been part of the Indian subcontinent and Kashmiriyat remains an important aspect of Indian civilization. It is not the case of Tibet, where the language, script, religion and culture have their own identity, entirely different from the Chinese.
The comrades in Beijing should learn their history and be prepared for Delhi raising sooner or later the Tibetan issue, especially if Beijing continues to side with the terrorist activities of its ‘all-weather friend’.

Tibet Genuine Autonomy and Article 370

Every December 10, the world celebrates the International Human Rights Day. 
The date was chosen by the United Nations' General Assembly to celebrate the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948.
The formal establishment of Human Rights Day was decided by the General Assembly on 4 December 1950; it invited all member states and any other interested organizations to celebrate the day as they saw fit.
This year, on that day, the BJP leader Yashwant Sinha spoke in the Lok Sabha to say that China has been carrying out the 'grossest' violations of human rights in Tibet over the last 60 years, as a result of which 81 [now 95] Tibetans self-immolated. 
Nobody (except the Communists, of course) can deny that human rights have been flouted in Tibet; already in 1959, the UN International Commission of Jurists reported widespread violations. 
During the Zero Hour, the former External Affairs Minister rightly said that Tibetans were disturbed by "excessive use of military force, religious restrictions, disappearances and detentions, removal of nomads and degradation of ecological system in the region under Chinese rule."
A CPI (M) member, Basudeb Acharia immediately rose to link the situation in Tibet to the one in Kashmir. He alleged 'blatant' human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir (J & K) by Indian security forces.
Without going into the intricacies of the situation of the State of J & K (and the Communist views on the subject), it is worth noticing that if the famous (or infamous) Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was applied to Tibet, the Tibetan issue would be solved according to the aspiration of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people.
Article 370 mentions that except for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communications, (which are matters specified in the Instrument of Accession) the Indian Parliament needs the State Government's concurrence for applying all other laws. 
It practically means that J & K citizens lived under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights.
The 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord mentioned: "The State of Jammu and Kashmir which is a constituent unit of the Union of India, shall, in its relation with the Union, continue to be governed by Article 370 of the Constitution of India."
When the Dalai Lama asks for 'genuine' autonomy for Tibet, he does not ask for more than that.
Can you imagine Tibet with its own Constitution?
It is the case for J & K.
The State of J & K also has its own flag.
I have often written about the Tibetan flag which is today banned in the People's Republic of China.
Further in J & K, Indian citizens from other States cannot purchase land or property, can you imagine the consequences of a similar clause for Tibet?
If people from Han nationality were not allowed to acquire properties on the Roof of the World or start business ventures in Lhasa or other large cities (in Nyingtri prefecture, north of the McMahon Line in particular), most of the tensions and resentment would disappear.
People of J & K have their own 'citizenship'; they are known as 'State-subjects' with their own privileges, for example, a non-State-subject can't study in a university in Kashmir.
Article 370 is so drastic that Kashmiri women marrying non-State-subjects loose their rights, particularly on properties. 
This is of course questionable, but those who make a parallel between Tibet and Kashmir should think twice before comparing the situations.
Further, the violence in Kashmir has always been triggered by a neighbouring State, while the unrest in Tibet is due to the resentment of the local population against outside migrants and a 'foreign' Administration. 
For the past 60 years, this resentment has manifested itself in a non-violent manner, which is not the case in Kashmir.
J & K has its own Parliament (Legislative Assembly).
Article 370 says: "The power of [Central] Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to:

those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of State to the Dominion of India...

Can you imagine, Tibet with its own Legislative Assembly or local Parliament? Federal laws from Beijing would have to be ratified by elected legislators in Lhasa!
In November 2008, the Dalai Lama's Envoys presented a Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People to the United Front Vice Chairman,  Du Qinglin. The Summary says:

The Constitution of the PRC contains fundamental principles on autonomy and self-government whose objectives are compatible with the needs and aspirations of the Tibetans. Regional national autonomy is aimed at opposing both the oppression and the separation of nationalities by rejecting both Han chauvinism and local nationalism. It is intended to ensure the protection of the culture and the identity of minority nationalities by empowering them to become masters of their own affairs.
To a very considerable extent Tibetan needs can be met within the constitutional principles on autonomy. On several points, the Constitution gives significant discretionary powers to state organs in decision-making and on the operation of the system of autonomy. These discretionary powers can be exercised to facilitate genuine autonomy for Tibetans in ways that would respond to the uniqueness of the Tibetan situation. Given good will on both sides, outstanding problems can be resolved within the constitutional principles on autonomy. In this way national unity and stability and harmonious relations between the Tibetan and other nationalities will be established

Here again, Article 370 goes so much further. 
It is however true that in India, Article 370 has been the biggest impediment to integration of J & K State into the Indian Union. 
Here again there is a basic difference between Tibet and Kashmir. 
Tibet has for centuries managed its own affairs, Tibet was an independent State before 1950 with Representatives of India, Nepal, Bhutan and China seating in Lhasa.
Kashmir has always been part of the Indian subcontinent and Kashmiriyat remains an important aspect of Indian civilization. 
It is not the case of Tibet, where the language, script, religion and culture had their own identity, entirely different from the Chinese.
The comrades should learn their history before making this type of parallel. But History tells us that the comrades have always been prisoner from own Marxist history.

Issue of rights violations in Tibet raised in LS
Press Trust of India
New Delhi
December 10, 2012
On the occasion of International Human Rights Day, BJP today raised in the Lok Sabha the issue of rights violations in Tibet, while CPI(M) alleged that similar problem exists in Jammu and Kashmir.
BJP leader Yashwant Sinha said the Chinese have been carrying out the "grossest" violations of human rights in Tibet over last 60 years because of which 81 Tibetans have committed suicide during this period.
66 Tibetans have committed self-immolation since January this year and "worse, the response of the Chinese is more repression", Sinha, former External Affairs Minister, said in Special Mentions during the Zero Hour.
He said Tibetans were troubled because of "excessive use of military force", religious restrictions, disappearances and detentions, removal of nomads and degradation of ecological system in the region under Chinese rule.
Sinha wanted the House to express "deepest heartfelt condolences" over Tibetans' plight and call upon the Chinese to "listen to the anguish" and "ensure people (in Tibet) get their rights".
"I call upon Parliament to speak up," he appealed.
Immediately after, CPI(M) leader Basudeb Acharia rose to allege "blatant" human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir by security forces.
He alleged that youth were being picked up by security forces and their families were not informed.
"They are put in jail, they remain in jail for five-six years as undertrials. After that they are acquitted," Acharia said.
He referred to the demand for withdrawal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from Jammu and Kashmir and said the central government had not taken any decision even after recommendation from the state government.