-- Nasir Khan, August 9, 2019
A young man, Asif Janjua, whose family sought refuge in Azad Kashmir/Pakistan from the Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, has raised a few points in his comments about the ongoing turmoil in Kashmir. In his anger, he has suggested that Pakistan should think of fighting India or even use its nuclear weapons to deter India from annexing Kashmir into India. I understand the pain and anguish of Asif Janjua and many other people about the actions of the Hindu extremists and nationalists led by the Indian prime minster Narendra Modi. All such reactions of anger, frustration and disgust we experience are natural, and are caused by the Indian rulers' callous disregard of Kashmiri people's political, social, cultural and legal rights under their occupation.
But as a political activist and writer, I have to see things
rationally as much as I can, without becoming a prey to strong
emotional outpourings. In brief, I am trying to clarify only two,
three points about the Kashmir situation under India's brutal power.
Some readers may find my views helpful to understand the Indian
violations of basic political, social and legal rights of a subjugated
people who, since 1947, have suffered enough under India's colonial
oppression but who have never surrendered their national aspirations and
struggle against this powerful usurper.
First of all, it is natural for some of us to think of war as the only means to repel India from its barbarous military occupation and brutalization of the 12 million Kashmiris. However, things are not so easy. For instance, if Pakistan wages a war on behalf of the beleaguered Kashmiris, India will respond with a bigger force; India is a big military power, and has a very large army. That will not give Pakistani army any advantage over Indian forces. In such a weakened position, if Pakistan uses nuclear weapons as a 'deterrent', then what will India do? Maybe India had already put its armed forces on alert and also put its nuclear arsenal in readiness to use on its selected targets in Pakistan before declaring its annexation of Kashmir and expecting any military reaction from Pakistan. So, things are quite complicated and fraught with danger.
Yes, over the last seven decades the world should have done more to help resolve the Kashmir conflict. I agree with this view. But in reality, things do not happen in such way in the world. We should keep in mind that powerful states do not follow any moral principles in world politics. They follow their own geopolitical interests, and act when they want to protect these interests or deter any threat to such interests.
The only major international forum is the United Nations. It is only through the United Nations that the world at large discusses any major political conflicts such as the Kashmir issue. Here again, only the five permanent member states have veto power; they may all support any resolution or any one permanent member state veto a resolution.
If a party to conflict, refuses to follow any UN resolution, there is no credible mechanism to force it to comply with the UN demands. One glaring example is the Zionist colonial-settler state of Israel, which has rejected numerous UN resolutions against its policies in Occupied Palestine and its treatment of the Palestinians. India has played a deceptive game in dealing with the Kashmiris since 1947; India had no intention to let the Kashmiris decide their future status. Over the seven decades, India used all sorts of pretexts to avoid the Kashmiri demand of plebiscite in Kashmir. And now it has found the Final Solution in the illegal and treacherous annexation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
It is a fact that India wanted to keep Kashmir under its rule at every cost, but it allowed J&K a special status to run its own affairs with a large measure of internal autonomy. Now, it has abrogated that constitutional provision and put the whole state under its direct rule because the Hindutva nationalist parties led by Modi wanted to do so and end the Muslim majority in Kashmir with measures that will reduce and negate the identity of Kashmir and Kashmiris in a profound way.
What India has done is a demonstration of power politics. In such a misuse of power, the rights and voice of the people of Kashmir have been mercilessly discarded. But it does not mean that the struggle of the people of Kashmir will also come to an end. When the people know how they have been deceived by the Hidutva fascists led by PM Modi, they will resist the occupation and annexation of their country into India, which is fast becoming a Hindu Rashtra, a puritan Hindu state.
------
First of all, it is natural for some of us to think of war as the only means to repel India from its barbarous military occupation and brutalization of the 12 million Kashmiris. However, things are not so easy. For instance, if Pakistan wages a war on behalf of the beleaguered Kashmiris, India will respond with a bigger force; India is a big military power, and has a very large army. That will not give Pakistani army any advantage over Indian forces. In such a weakened position, if Pakistan uses nuclear weapons as a 'deterrent', then what will India do? Maybe India had already put its armed forces on alert and also put its nuclear arsenal in readiness to use on its selected targets in Pakistan before declaring its annexation of Kashmir and expecting any military reaction from Pakistan. So, things are quite complicated and fraught with danger.
Yes, over the last seven decades the world should have done more to help resolve the Kashmir conflict. I agree with this view. But in reality, things do not happen in such way in the world. We should keep in mind that powerful states do not follow any moral principles in world politics. They follow their own geopolitical interests, and act when they want to protect these interests or deter any threat to such interests.
The only major international forum is the United Nations. It is only through the United Nations that the world at large discusses any major political conflicts such as the Kashmir issue. Here again, only the five permanent member states have veto power; they may all support any resolution or any one permanent member state veto a resolution.
If a party to conflict, refuses to follow any UN resolution, there is no credible mechanism to force it to comply with the UN demands. One glaring example is the Zionist colonial-settler state of Israel, which has rejected numerous UN resolutions against its policies in Occupied Palestine and its treatment of the Palestinians. India has played a deceptive game in dealing with the Kashmiris since 1947; India had no intention to let the Kashmiris decide their future status. Over the seven decades, India used all sorts of pretexts to avoid the Kashmiri demand of plebiscite in Kashmir. And now it has found the Final Solution in the illegal and treacherous annexation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
It is a fact that India wanted to keep Kashmir under its rule at every cost, but it allowed J&K a special status to run its own affairs with a large measure of internal autonomy. Now, it has abrogated that constitutional provision and put the whole state under its direct rule because the Hindutva nationalist parties led by Modi wanted to do so and end the Muslim majority in Kashmir with measures that will reduce and negate the identity of Kashmir and Kashmiris in a profound way.
What India has done is a demonstration of power politics. In such a misuse of power, the rights and voice of the people of Kashmir have been mercilessly discarded. But it does not mean that the struggle of the people of Kashmir will also come to an end. When the people know how they have been deceived by the Hidutva fascists led by PM Modi, they will resist the occupation and annexation of their country into India, which is fast becoming a Hindu Rashtra, a puritan Hindu state.
------
No comments:
Post a Comment