10 Things the Media Won’t Tell You About Kashmir

Wednesday 14th August 2019 10:35 EDT
 

Not one mainstream media article from a non-Indian in favour of India’s decision on Kashmir? So let me educate my fellow journalists. And I will keep to facts, away from opinion and emotion.

 1. It is democratic for an elected Government to implement its manifesto. Our friends keep quiet that the BJP manifesto made totally clear it is their policy in Government to revoke article 370 giving Kashmir special status.

2. More people live under the Indian constitution than any other democratic constitution in the world. It’s good enough for a billion Indians. To deny Kashmir coverage by it, when Pakistan does not have parallel measures over Pakistan occupied Kashmir, shows the overwhelming back-bending India has done to accommodate the territory and it has led to resentment from the majority, and not helped the territory or its inhabitants.

3. The UN resolution Pakistan refers to calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir actually states that as a precondition of India, yes India, for the UN recognised Kashmir ceded to India, granting such a plebiscite, would only be possible if Pakistani troops remove themselves from Kashmir. Pakistan has ignored the UN’s pre-condition to plebiscite.

4. Indians and foreign nationals, such as myself freely move around Kashmir. It is only when terrorists threaten the State's security that our movements are restricted.

5. Over 80% of stone pelters, paid to pelt stones often times, turn soon into terrorists – ie using explosives or guns to attack security forces. The statistics are easy to confirm from co-relating images of those pelting stones, with those caught with guns and explosives and are shared by the Indian Army with photos and corroborating evidence needed to bring prosecutions.

6. An internet blackout to protect lives and ensure security is not unusual in times of potential terror attacks. Think free speech trumps threats to life – go shout ‘fire’ in a cinema tonight and see what happens. Don’t think there was threat to life? Wake up.

7. Hindu Pandits were massacred in the 1990s and forced to leave Kashmir. That was the original attempt to change the demographics of the region.

8. The BJP seeks overtly and tacitly not to give special status to Muslims in law (and not to Hindus either for that matter). Special status granting to any religious grouping is usually considered undemocratic. Hence why the BJP removed the Muslim divorce rules. Of course not all BJP members do this for reasons of religious or gender equality. Some do it because they do not like Muslims, any more than some Muslims do not like Hindus. That should not cloud the issues here – that special statuses should not be the blanket norm in a liberal democracy.

9. An instrument of accession to India was signed by Kashmir. That legal instrument cannot be denied on the basis it was done under duress by Pakistan, as the duress was the invasion of Pakistani troops, because Kashmir would not accede to Pakistan. They cannot be the beneficiary to their own wrong-doing in law, and their invasion, as noted by the UN, was proof there was not a voluntary accession to Pakistan of the territory. That Pakistan wants the border with India to be at Punjab (actually, at Gujarat and Rajasthan, as they want a Khalistan too), is to do with its military who call political shots. The American President in 2018 made clear Pakistan supports terrorists. India cannot on security grounds alone allow the border to be closer.

10. Hyderabad refused to clearly accede to India in 1947, until Sardar Patel made clear Indian troops would march into Hyderabad. Any argument that Kashmir is not a part of India would have to state, and Pakistan never has, that Hyderabad is not either a legitimate Indian territory. Indeed, the case for invalidating the Hyderabad instrument of accession is stronger because it was under Indian duress, unlike Kashmir’s accession. By the way, no other Indian territory had a plebiscite to decide accession in 1947. To this day, the United Kingdom has never had one for Wales. And in 300 years, only had one for Scotland. It’s not how territories are decided. Not because of lack of democracy, but because territorial integrity and national security trump such votes.

(Opinion expressed by the author is his personal)


comments powered by Disqus



to the free, weekly Asian Voice email newsletter