/**SNAP Code begin **/ /**SNAP Code end **/

Monday, November 24, 2008

The Debate on J&K Needs to be Turned

Few facts of anything significant related to Bharatiya national interest or security are actually take up in the western media. So it's no surprise that following the new US president lead to intervene in Bharatiya border issue in J&K , the US media has taken to his call. NYT's Sri Kristoff has written that US needs to intervene to deliver J&K to the Land of Pure. Nitin's Acorn has something to say about it which are followed by some uninformed comments.

Before we talk about the issue, we first need to put a stop the debate on Sri Kristof's (and his type) terms. We need to put an end to his human rights abuse falsehood. People take it as truth, without question, that J&K people's, meaning apparently only Muslim's, rights are abused by a Hindu majority nation. What could be more absurd than this!

For a start, which group of people were ethnically cleansed, because of their religion, from Kashmir valley? We already Hindus don't count for very much India, and clearly they don't count for much with the NYT types. So even if we ignore Hindus that were forced to flee their homeland, how are Muslims living in this side of J&K border worst off then living in the Pakistani side of the border? I am sure the supposedly democratic human right activist Kristoff can tell us when was the last Muslims in PoJ&K voted for their own government? I am sure he can't tell the voter turnout during the current state elections in J&K. In fact, I am sure he doesn't even know that normal elections are being held in J&K at this very moment.

So even if one takes the bogus notion of human rights as expounded by Kristof types, that Tibetans should not fight for independence from commie China - well because China is a big fast growing economy and that Tibetans are better economically under the Hun commies, even if their freedoms, culture, language and religion are destroyed by the commies and by the mass migration of Huns into the Tibet plateau. Why shouldn't the people of J&K have the access to another big and growing economy? Such as an Infosys or Reliance or a Tata or an IIT. What exactly do the people living in PoJ&K look forward to? A few years in a madrasa?

The dubiousness of these human right groups and their spokespersons in the media is how shall we put it.....


Photonman said...


I quite agree your (and Nitin's) pointing out the danger of Obama getting involved with Kashmir. However, let's wait and see what happens.

Meanwhile, I think the argument you offer with comparisons to Tibet will actually undermine our position if used by any diplomat!

I would go with a strictly legal/geopolitical argument - every country worth its salt does that. Bascially: 'The region of Kashmir is vital to our national interest. We believe its accession to India is legal as per international law. Therefore, we believe Kashmir is an integral part of the country. It is against our constitution (and hence illegal) to consider its separation.'

Except for the first line, what I said has been standard Indian position for the last 60 years - remember we stuck to this even while we were living on food dole outs from the US, and got away with it. I think that you are underestimating our international clout when you make an argument that is a de facto admission of guilt.

Chandra said...


I agree with what you say. In fact, Sri Jaswant Singh gave another reason, in the 90s, as to why we can't part with J&K - because it goes against the secular nature of our government.

The only claim that Pakistan has is that J&K is a Muslim majority state (or former princely kingdom). Surely, this is not legal claim. Our only problem really with legality is with the UN resolution, thanks, of course, to the great chacha Nehru.

My point about Tibet is not so much with regards to diplomatic dialogue but with regards to exchange with the media types like Kristof. In fact, it was pointedly for Kristof because he sides with China, ignoring the human rights issues that apparently concerns him so much, when it comes to Tibet. And the reason he offers for Tibet being better off as part of China is the high growth of economy and access to markets and what not. If there was ever an international legal case for separation, it is Tibet. But none of powers will take up the cause.

Photonman said...


I agree that UN resolutions are a stick to beat us with. But what if we question the legality and the validity of these resolutions? In other words, we counter the 'legal' arguments of the adversary with equally 'legal' sounding arguments. I use quotes because I don't believe sovereign nations (if powerful enough) cannot be governed by laws. Otherwise they no longer remain truly sovereign!

No one takes up the Tibet issue precisely because it's just not worth spoiling relations with China for that. I believe we can use the same tactic for Kashmir.

Your point about Kristof is well taken. I think a fitting reply would be to question the premise of his arguments, and of course, pointing out that from his arguments Tibet should have been free as well, as you rightly point out. If I were the government and think this Kristof is influential enough, I wouldn't mind planting stories that question his motives and background :)