Cofounder Citizen Awareness Program
There’s a famous argument quite often resorted to by the pseudo democrats of the world’s self-acclaimed largest secular democracy. According to them, Kashmiri freedom struggle has become irrelevant; it stands subdued to the economic development a forcefully-imposed government in the valley has provided to the people.
It is yet strange that the Indian international diplomatic standing over issues related to other countries undergoing freedom movements contradicts the country’s hypocritical stance on Kashmir, as it was witnessed when the right of self-determination of Crimea as part of Ukraine had been recognized by India last year when a referendum held in the state clearly sided with its union to Russia opposing western interests, apparently a morally-driven stance India has dug mass graves to avoid practicing at the occupied valley. Similarly, it had crossed mountains to muster into domestic feuds, fanning and fuelling it with preposterous game-plans, back in 1970s leading it to annexation of East Pakistan. Whereas, it could swiftly manage the debris fall over the victim country itself, while a similar process of sinister game-plan is underway inside the province of Baluchistan in Pakistan.
Denial to freedom, suppression of voices and then a forceful union would do nothing more than pass down the anger in a trickledown effect as it has been witnessed, decades of incentives, setting up of a puppet government, or economic opportunities have failed to muffle the voices demanding freedom. Not to forget, Mr Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister stated on 25th November, 1947 in the Indian constituent assembly “In order to establish our bona fide, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organization. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people”.
In his statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952, Mr Nehru said “Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir…
However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet”.
Why would the Kashmiri atrocities at the hands of Indian military become a “domestic affair” of India when the occupation of the valley is officially illegal down to the deepest room? – But East Pakistan is not Pakistan’s personal affair? Why the basic opportunities could be used as a cover for murderous militarization of region, why health care facilities, education, or the economic upheaval matter against the arrest of Kashmiri students in the case of sedition supporting the arch rival Pakistani cricket during an Indo-Pakistan match, or against the freedom fighters repeatedly called to be terrorist in the face of violation of the basic human right of self rule and freedom?
There’s a wide international endorsement of discrimination towards issues related to countries economically and politically deemed weaker, such is this endorsement that reality has been twisted to mere illusion. Maybe a less appropriate analogy with “resource curse” theory explains the scenario, as the difference of international opinion between Indian occupation of Kashmir and atrocities on freedom strugglers, and Pakistani character assassination supporting the right of Kashmiri self-determination reminds me of a similar imbalance of power among countries with abundance of natural resources yet a weak economic growth, on the other hand countries with limited natural resources but progressive economic growth, a systematic international discrimination towards these countries remains at work fuelling economic well being of the rest.
We ask India – if it supports freedom elsewhere, why not in Kashmir?
To say that the Indian political success with Kashmiri suppression is entirely an Indian success but not equally Pakistani failure would be out and out lie. Moral standing of the right of Kashmiri self determination is one aspect that cannot be changed, moulded, distorted, twisted or fabricated, it would remain standing for its raw/natural purity just as the day Indian cruelty befell in 1948.