Resolution of Kashmir will guarantee peace in South Asia
REASONS for the conflict over Kashmir are argued among contenders on several points, more often than not to serve globalist interests rather than the fundamental needs or desires of the Kashmiris themselves.
Why, after 74 years, the problem continues to fester is the challenge for those who talk of peace, stability and democratic rights in the region of South Asia.
The most pertinent evidence of that conflict is that India has in recent years had as many as 900,000 military and paramilitary forces stationed on a piece of land no larger than the state of Tennessee (USA).
By comparison, during the height of the Iraq war, in October 2007, U.S. troop strength was only a little over 166,000.
Iraq compares in size to the state of California. Obviously, the number of troops stationed in Kashmir is highly significant. There is no war taking place there. There is no imminent external threat of a foreign invader, with troops amassed at its border. Why so many troops?
India frequently justifies its military presence, first, by asserting that Kashmir is an ‘integral part’ of India, and, second, that Pakistan, just across the border, is a threat.
Both are nuclear-armed, and cross-border skirmishes occur periodically among a handful of troops stationed along the UN-established Cease-fire Line. However, to whatever extent such a threat exists, such an enormous volume of troops is well beyond whatever need there might be to resist such incursions.
The best way to make sure that there is no such infiltration is to let the United Nations be allowed to monitor the Cease-fire Line.
The truth is that the people of Kashmir themselves have always been hostile to the presence of India’s troops on their soil and have resisted to such oppression, and over hundred thousand Kashmiris have died within the past 30 years alone.
Long standing agreements at the United Nations in place have in fact afforded the Kashmiri people the right to determine their own destiny.
What we have, then, is a case of a large country bullying a small nation into submission in violation of not only their right to sovereignty but international agreements and two dozen UN resolutions giving them the right to determine their own political fate.
The purpose of so many troops stationed in this small country is for no other purpose but blatant oppression. Their presence makes Kashmir the largest army concentration anywhere in the world.
You would think that the international community would be up in arms over such abuse, particularly in view of the fact that the Kashmiris have shown an iron determination to resist tens of thousands of killings, and thousands of rapes, disappearances and torture inflicted upon the population at the hands of these foreign occupiers.
In a more idealistic mood President Joe Biden said on February 4, 2021, “We must start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”
And again on September 13, 2021, “I’ve been clear that human rights will be the centre of our foreign policy.”
Given such platitudes, while American foreign policy is supposed to be grounded on moral values, democratic ideals and universal principles, it would appear that wherever the crowd of commercial interests get VIP status, such ideals and principles are easily set aside, relegated to the back of the room, where it’s standing room only. Money talks: ideals walk. Situation ethics is the name of the play.
It is quite conspicuous that the world powers feel awkward and unequipped to intervene in any international conflict because the country concerned is too powerful and does not listen to morals and ethics when everyone has his wallet on the table.
In addition, India’s refusal to accept international mediation or facilitation seems to shut the door on any kind of international dialogue regarding Kashmir. The Kashmiris are shut in, and the outside world out.
Doesn’t the world community recognize such double standards? How is international credibility and trust engendered by such behaviour? So, while the U.S. imposes sanctions on Russia for interfering in stability and peace in a country more than 5,000 miles away which is of no strategic pertinence to American safety or freedoms, it engages in trade with India and says nothing about India’s failure to enforce “international norms” where it is apparently inconvenient to do so.
India’s transgressions in Kashmir are clearly far more relevant to the issue of international norms, given their history, than anything now occurring in Eastern Europe.
—The writer is the Secretary General of World Kashmir Awareness Forum.
