[1]
Since 6th August, several articles/OpEd have been published in New York Times (NYT), Bloomberg and Washington Post on Kashmir Issue. In short, those articles are vitriolic attack against Indian Government (GOI) with misinformed and twisted information by a handful of Journalists. I am citing a few articles published in US media to expose how misinformed journalists are maligning the image of GOI. However, I am also appalled while Pakistani PM Imran Khan Niazi has launched all out media attack against India to sway International opinion about Kashmir issue in favor of Pakistan, there is not much of media push to defend the position of India from Indian embassy in DC. As a result, to a large section of American people, GOI is being portrayed as oppressor, tyrannical and rogue Government. Given the fragile and polarized democracy in United States and a rising left populism in American Congress which for the first time raised the Palestine issue against Israel, there is a serious possibility that a victory of a far left Democratic president like Bernie or Liz Warren may tilt the Kashmir issue in favor of Pakistan in future if Indian mission in DC doesn't throttle the malicious campaign of New York Times and Washington DC against GOI in Kashmir Issue.[2]
Example-1 :
Arundhuti Roy, New York Times, 15th of August
Silence is the loudest sound
My response:
A very archetypal Arundhuti Roy article which is bereft of any factual history. She has built a story out of her quintessential ignorance blessed with a call for humanity against fictional victimization of Kashmir.
We can take a closer look at her claim that by abrogating 370, Indian Government is breaking a sacrosanct contract:
1) Article 370 is due to contractual obligation laid out in Instrumentation of Accession (IOC) of the Princely States as claimed by Roy ?
Following Indian Independence Act, 1947, 560 Princely states of British India signed the instrumentation of accession( IOC) to be part of either India or Pakistan. King of Kashmir Hari Sigh signed the same IOC document that other 560 states have signed before him. There was no separate IOC for Kashmir. It was all the same for all the 560 Princely States.
Does those Princely States have article 370 ? Why they become an integral part of India and Kashmir didn't ? Why Roy's article doesn't speak about that part of the history where all the other 560 states which did sign instrument of accession agreed to abide by Indian Constitution ? I doubt whether she even knows that part of the history.
Truth is, even if IOC proclaimed, all the signatory states will be allowed to have their separate constitution in internal matter of state ( other than Defense, Foreign Policy, Currency and Communication) , they needed to form a state Constituent Assembly to draft their own constitution. Constituent Assembly of India which was entrusted with drafting of constitution had been formed from representatives of all the states and creeds. Except for handful of states, most of the states couldn't form their state constituent assembly to draft their state constitution. Then majority of the members of Constituent Assembly decided that Princely States do not need a separate constitution since Indian Constitution will protect the right and dignity of all the states, religions and castes by separate provision. Based on the universal nature of Indian Constitution all the 560 States abdicated their claim to autonomous statehood and thus the need for a separate state constitution.
Leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah didn't agree to this decision of Constituent Assembly and its Chairman Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Sheikh argued and appealed to Indian Prime Minister Neheru that Indian Constitution needs to provide special provisions for state of Kashmir to show compliance with IOC. Else plebiscite can go against India.
This was in 1949 and India had already moved to UN asking for Plebiscite in Kashmir in 1948
Neheru was about to leave for a long trip in United States and he handed the matter to Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Patel was not enthusiastic but it was agreed with Seikh Abdullah that this will be a temporary provision till Plebiscite. Based on this, GopalSwami Iyenger and Seikh Abdullah drafted article 370 and it was passed in Constituent Assembly by every Indian Politician including the most vocal opponent of the Article and leader of Jana Sangha ( old name of BJP), Shree Shyama Prasad Mukhopadhyay. Reason is simple. Article 370 very clearly stated, President of India can terminate it any time based on advice from Constituent Assembly. of Kashmir and it is a temporary provision.
Everyone then thought, article 370 is a temporary arrangement to appease the people of Kashmir to acquire them into Indian Union. Otherwise, no politician in sane mind would agree to a contract in which people of Kashmir was destined to get four to five times more per capita budget allocation than rest of India. And in return, Indians will have no right to buy any land or invest in any business in Kashmir. An Indian can invest in United States but not in Kashmir while an Indian has to pay for hefty amount to Kashmir each year. How funny is that?
Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was dissolved in 1956. Due to absence of Constituent Assembly, it was solely upon President of India to terminate the Article 370. That's exactly what President of India, Ram Nath Kovind has done. It is a total internal matter of India and no legal violation has been done. Article 370 is a part of Indian Constitution and only people of India have right to terminate which they did since it was a sheer ill conceived appeasement policy.
Now let me cite another example of why IOC was never a binding document in the matter of Partition of British India as Ms Roy has claimed.
2) Nawab of Junagar Mahabat Khabji did sign the instrument of accession (IOC) to Pakistan on 15th August 1947. Pakistan accepted it in September. But since the state was a Hindu majority state in Gujrat, India sent military and annexed the state by Plebiscite in December. Why there is no hue and cry over Junagarh ? Simple. It was a Hindi majority state and it's by a Plebiscite of 99.9% vote, the state decided to remain in India despite its Muslim ruler signed IOC with Pakistan!
3) So from 1 & 2 it is clear IOA was never a contractually obliging document in the matter of assimilation of Princely States to India or Pakistan. Two nation theory which dictated Muslims for Pakistan and Hindus for India was the most abiding principle of partition. So let's ask the question then. Why Muslim majority Kashmir valley is not transferred to Pakistan ? Why it didn't happen that way?
4) What is often and conveniently forgotten by every Pakistani who are sure of their God given right to Kashmir, is the most inconvenient truth that Sheikh Abdullah, leader of National Conference, the only true leader of Kashmiri people decided to join Indian Union. He had supported decision of Hari Singh to join Indian Union. He rejected the idea of Pakistan as theocratic state and wanted Kashmir to boom in secular India where Kashmiri people should be getting a more progressive Government by a progressive leadership. He developed a separate Kashmiri Millitia to fight against Pakistan when frustrated by Sheikh's love for India,Pakistan sent armed tribesmen to capture Kashmir by force. What is also forgotten that Indian military was assisted by militia of Sheikh Abdullah to repel the Pakistani incursion.
4 ) Because Kashmiri leaders were in favor of joining Indian Union, India went to UNSC for a permanent solution through Plebiscite. In 1950, when the Kashmir issue was hot on the agenda of the UN, Sir Owen Dixon, an eminent jurist from Australia, was appointed by the Security Council as the UN Representative to resolve Kashmir issue. From July 20 to 24 [1950], he held a conference of the Prime ministers of India and Pakistan, J Nehru and Liyakat Ali Khan, and formulated three plans for placing the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir under one administration. The single administration would alternatively be composed of a coalition of an Indian-sponsored regime, the "Azad Kashmir Movement" and of "trusted persons outside politics" or of the United Nations representatives. As a second step, demilitarization of Kashmir would begin on both sides of the ceasefire line. And as a third step, a plebiscite would be held to decide whether Kashmir would join India or Pakistan. Pakistan never agreed.
According to Dixon plan Kashmir was divided into 5 part. Buddhist Ladakh, Jammu , Kashmi valley, Gilgit and current Azadi Kashmir area. When Plebiscite looked impossible, he even suggested Ladakh and Jammu to India and rest to Pakistan. Pakistan didn't accept that either. The greedy and failed nation wanted whole of Kashmir.
Whose fault it is then? Neheru went to UN to resolve it . Pakistan didn't want a logical solution based on two nation theory.
Why her article is silent about greed of Pakistan which failed the Muslim of Kashmir ?
I doubt whether she even read history of Kashmir to any reasonable depth.
(5) She also shed her intellectual tears for Pundits of Kashmir Valley who were uprooted by the Jihadist violence in 1990. She wrote BJP Govt failed to resettle Pundits into valley. Why a Govt has to resettle them into their own land ?? Does she understand by that statement she tacitly admitted Muslims of the Kashmir valley are so communal that they are not allowing Pundits to return to their home ?
And if 5 is right, why people of India who are predominantly Hindu would have sympathy for Muslims in Kashmir who showed no mercy to their Hindu neighbors ?
She can only appeal to enemies of India by titillating fictional stories of human right violation.
Is India creating its own West Bank ?
My response is published in India America Today, a DC based Web Journal.
"Abolition of 370 and future of Kashmir"
//A country within a country is never a good idea. Look at what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank. Kashmir was becoming the Gaza Strip of India. With abolition of 370, they are also equal citizens and an integral part of India, and prospering business would take care of them. Young Kashmiris need jobs and not self destructive politics. Neither do they deserve military presence because Indian Tax payers were paying for the indignation!
Why should the International community bother at all? Did India invade a new land? Is it a genocide? Humanitarian crisis? If it is anything, it is for the uplifting the economic status of Kashmir. They would live better.
Questions are being raised by liberals about why Kashmiris are not being consulted. Bengal and Punjab were partitioned as well. They were not consulted nor did they consent. West Bengal was forced upon Bengali Hindus where as Bengali Muslim were forced to East Pakistan. Similarly, Kashmir was also divided between PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) and Indian Kashmir. It’s time to recognize, irrespective of how we get here, process was no different than what Punjabis or Bengalis faced by partition. If they are an integral part of India and prospering within the federation, then what is the issue in Kashmir following the same roadmap?//
[4] Example -3: Speech of Imran Khan on 6th August which was translated and gained widespread views in different US media after translation and explanation notes
I responded to Khan's speech in my Facebook account and Politics India page, a community of 50,00 NRI. However, I couldn't take it to American Media which needs to know nature of vicious campaign by Pakistani premier who is comparing India with Nazi Germany.
My response can be found in this blog post
Imran Khan against abrogation of 370- a vicious speech in Parliament
Therefore, it is my urgent request to Indian mission in Washington DC to counter the malicious media campaign against GOI in Kahmir issue
