Sunday, August 25, 2019

Jerusalem Post: Indian-occupied Kashmir: A new American dilemma

 What an interesting oped JP published... I'm going to share most of the piece with a link back to original source, including the author's name and credentials. The use of the word occupied is somewhat of a stretch and you will note the author contradicts herself a couple of times in the following piece- Interesting that she's a "fellow" at the Independent Women's Forum.  Being a fellow on a women's forum is  some sort of cognitive dissonance all of it 's own.
As well as a Council on Foreign Relations member

Indian occupied Kashmir- A new American dilemma - The author is QANTA AHMED- A fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of In the Land of Invisible Women: A Female Doctor’s Journey in the Saudi Kingdom
 "With the recent dismantling of Article 370, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s actions are more consistent with imperial dictatorship than with democracy. This is a shameful tragedy for the world’s most diverse and biggest democracy.
The United Nations Security Council met recently in an emergency closed session to discuss Indian-occupied Kashmir for the first time since 1965.
Dismantling Article 370 upends long agreed-upon UN resolutions. The UN Security Council Resolution 47 adopted on April 21, 1948, asked India and Pakistan to resolve the contested Kashmiri territory in a stepwise approach."
The UN encouraged India and Pakistan to work this out diplomatically.  Keeping in mind that this area has been administered or overseen by India for decades now.

History:
"The freely elected popular socialist Sheikh Abdullah, as a Muslim Kashmiri, championed Kashmir’s accession to India, choosing to align with what was in 1951 a secular democracy over what he saw in Pakistan as a nascent theocratic state.
Pakistan was asked to withdraw its nationals from the territory under its control. India was asked to reduce its forces in its part of the territory with an independent plebiscite to follow. Instead, India committed to respecting absolute autonomy for Kashmir with its own regional government, parliament and elections.
Jammu and Kashmir are unique among Indian states as an amalgam of three cultural regions. Jammu apparently backed closer integration with secular India, and Kashmir advocated for greater autonomy by seeking freedom from theocratic oppression.
Both were seeking to safeguard statehood. Article 370 sought to defuse and find compromise among these competing and conflicting tensions. Yet today it is one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world"
Acknowledging Jammu and Kashmir unique among Indian states... but saying they aren't?
Sadly, these differences have all too readily communalized and exploited regions. Tragically, on this altar Jammu and Kashmir are to be sacrificed by the rest of India, which itself is at best a quasi-union or a federation of states.
India is at best a quasi union or federation of states? Interesting and highly, highly suggestive that India can be broken up. Balkanized.  Slights can turn into festering open sores. Divide to conquer can be employed. 

Go back to this post: Kashmir: Article 370, Regional Developments, Crimean Similarities & Washington’s Intervention Desired? You'll notice this is the 3rd time that American intervention is being mentioned- Right in the headline of the Jerusalem Post oped.
"The outcome of Modi’s occupation of Kashmir will have grave ramifications for the rest of the nation. If occupation can happen here, it can happen in any other state in the union."
That's a not so subtle threat. If occupation can happen in Jammu and Kashmir, which is not really correct- then other parts of India can be occupied. Who would do that?
"Back in New Delhi, in parliament, there are only a few representatives from Jammu and Kashmir. Most of them were not present and only one spoke during the dismantling of Article 370"
But some reps were present- Why didn't they speak? Perhaps they were on board with the decision?
"Modi feigned legitimacy asserting that the majority of parliamentarians voted to dissolve Article 370, even as that majority came from only six of India’s 29 federated states and seven union territories.

Certainly, a handful of states may form a voting majority. But astute critics correctly expose this as not democracy but majoritarianism, or the tyranny of a brute majority quashing the rights of vulnerable minorities"
Colourful Spin
 Wow, that's some serious perception management directly above! Not democracy but majoritarianism??? Wow- I'm giving that the Spin claim of the day award!

Democracy, as we know it, is rule by the majority. Majority Rule
Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including all the legislatures of democratic nations.
"In the background is China, watching the affairs astutely and supporting Pakistan at the UN Security Council emergency consultation recently in New York.

Over recent decades, China has heavily invested in Pakistan, building both the warm water port of Gwadar on the Indian Ocean and engaging Pakistan in the Belt Road Initiative. Both bring Pakistan economic opportunity and stabilization.

Note that not even authoritarian China has dared do this in Hong Kong, nor has Israel, despite almost 70 years of lethal regional conflict which threatened her existence."
Israel hasn't annexed territory? And by that I mean outright annex and ethnically cleanse vast swathes of land?
"THE US needs Pakistan for an exit strategy from Afghanistan, where Afghanis are realizing that the troops will be leaving, even as violence has escalated to intense levels recently. Perhaps this is a prelude of what is to come.

This is particularly worrying as the little recognized Islamic State-Khorasan (ISIS Central Asian offshoot) begins to unfold its ambitions in the Central Asian region."
Khorasan was written about long ago here at PFYT's- I knew that name would come back to haunt us all. And there it is.
"It is conceivable that India is emboldened by witnessing Israeli settlement efforts on disputed territories. Though deeply criticized – including by Israelis and counter to international law – Israel has been able to pursue that without significant sanction."
Wait just a minute, didn't the author of this oped tell us all just a few sentences back that Israel has never done anything like India has done? "nor has Israel, despite almost 70 years of lethal regional conflict which threatened her existence."" Only to contradict herself in her own oped?
"Looking ahead there is no doubt this crisis will draw in regional powers into an international geopolitical crisis. India has taken a grave risk. While Pakistan’s military may be smaller than India’s, its capabilities are far greater.
Pakistan is battle-hardened from decades of jihadist guerrilla warfare, first with the Afghani Taliban, later with its own Pakistani Taliban, and since then with countless numerous violent Islamist groups domestically. Perhaps only the Israeli military has had as much experience combating radical fundamentalism.
Pakistan demonstrated its military prowess and readiness for battle by retaliating at India in February after India struck Pakistan in reprisals for a jihadist attack that claimed the lives of 40 Indian soldiers.

In swift response, Pakistan shot down two Indian Air Force jets, capturing one pilot and humanely releasing him back to Indian custody shortly thereafter. The incident shook India, whose military has not been engaged in widespread warfare of any scale for decades.
Pakistan also has assessed the sober reality. It has few allies in the world. The Americans have long proven exploitative and fair-weather friends. Pakistan has been looking beyond an American allegiance since the Bin Laden raid revealed America’s profound distress of Pakistan.
A friendless nation with a deeply martial spirit, a highly trained and enormously powerful military and a deep sense of pride, Pakistan will not allow Kashmir to be extinguished by Modi’s ambition"
Pakistan is not without friends or funds, that's just rubbish.
SCO Members as Despots? (Globe & Mail)
"India may be unprepared for what will follow. While Western commentators fear Pakistan’s nuclear capability, neither Pakistan nor India is ready to trigger a nuclear apocalypse that will enshroud millions in South East Asia. India has poked an enormous tiger, and she is ill-equipped for the consequences"
 This is an oped that is aggressive in it's tone, while selling  or promoting aggression on the part of Pakistan. It's interesting also that it was published by Jerusalem Post.

 My conclusion remains the same "... all is not as it seems to be. Or as it is presented"
 Readers were warned about the possibility that Khan was selected to up the ante against India in a 2018 report
"Imran Khan has not been empowered to unify the country or to have friendly relations with India. "

11 comments:

  1. When I saw the signs of August 5 for Kashmir
    My mind went back to....April 6 for Egypt

    Similacrum- having a likeness or similarity

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought Pakistan and Israel had a long history of conflict. I wonder what the Jerusalem Post is on to.
    There are so many opinions on Kashmir, wouldn't it be easier to designate the Hindu-majority territory an Indian protectatorate, the Muslim- majority a jurisdiction of Pakistan, and the Buddhist part under China? Compromise, people! The religious leaders should make an earnest effort at hearing each other's case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Martin,

    I thought Pakistan and Israel were at odds as well, but, perhaps not as much as we've all been led to believe?

    After all they are both big, big beneficiaries of American military largesse?

    There are a lot of opinions on Kashmir for sure.

    What I find interesting in all this? This bit of Kashmir that India repatriated? Redesignated? Was under India's wing anyway. The oped author acknowledges that. I've addressed this in previous posts.
    Pakistan has the part it administers still. China as well. Nothing changed in that regard. Yet... so much has changed that this is the third time I've read talk of America intervening. That's unnerving just on it's own.

    Both Russia and China have been clear with both India and Pakistan that this has to be resolved diplomatically.

    So you're right they should just get to it and compromise!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Penny,


    I think you may have got this one wrong. There is a lot of misunderstanding on this issue. The real victims are the kashmir people. Some history is important here. Do have a read if possible.


    https://wannaknowthetruthblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/691/


    I would have commented before in your post except i dont get too much time and i felt Laika put forward a degree of my perspective.


    India is on an aggressive path. Not just with its neighbours who they refuse to talk too, but with its own population and
    minorites. Essentially, the ultra nationallist gang in power has been bankrolled by the neoliberal capitalist class who are in league with the globalist class to further their agenda. Striking fear into minorities and hijacking the hindu faith (which in actuality is rooted in noble principles)) to galvanise a population towards their goals. Pakistan is a useful card to employ because of the sensitivity of the kashmir region. With Israel closely affiliated with India i sense the goal is to attack pakistan (who's population is very anti Israel) to weaken it and potentially disrupt the flagship of OBOR, the CPEC corridor which runs through pak administered kashmir. pakistan is in dire economic woe and india is thus bolstered in its goals, It is also openly supporting Balochistan seperatism to help weaken pak further and Gwadar port under chinese lease is based in Balochistan. This is being spearheaded by Hindutva/rss idelogy. The similitudes with Nazism cannot be discounted. Not that i like Haaretz as a source but thuey do print what others dont. It at least gives an idea of this ideology


    https://www.haaretz.com/amp/opinion/hitlers-hindus-indias-nazi-loving-nationalists-on-the-rise-1.5628532?__twitter_impression=true


    To be fair to Khan he has tried to communicate with his counterparts but to no avail to resolve the Kashmir issue. Once in power he famously said if India takes one step we will take two. He didnt find earnestness at the SCO meeting with Modi. He now sees their reluctance suspiciously and with the current developments and rhetoric you can't blame him.


    Some views on kasmir


    M.k.badrakumar
    https://indianpunchline.com/indias-narrative-on-jk-is-hyperbolic/


    Arundhati roy
    http://www.insafbulletin.net/archives/859

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Abdullah.

    I could be wrong that 's for sure.

    And I did read the Badrakumar piece that you left the link to- last week. (his site is in my sidebar so I can check regularly)

    I would expect hyperbole all around- from Pakistan and India- Which I attempt to stay away from.

    Did you read the Jerusalem Post oped?
    What did you think about it?
    The language? The aggressive tone taken?
    That bothered me.

    It struck me as odd because as Martin said.. we've been told that Israel and Pakistan were at odds- Yet here is the Jerusalem post publishing a very Pakistan friendly op ed?
    How does that sit with you?

    And these repeated calls for American intervention?

    Which I asked Laika about but got no response.

    American intervention can't be a positive and Pakistan calling for them to intervene can work very badly against China and it's Belt and Road inititiative

    Neither China, Russia or Iran would desire an expanded American presence in the region.

    Yet here's Pakistan pushing this latest as a pretext for this to happen.

    Diplomacy is in order here and I don't see it taking place either way.

    When you say "Khan he has tried to communicate with his counterparts but to no avail to resolve the Kashmir issue"

    How has he tried?

    From my reading. I don't come away with the impression either side is trying for a compromise. That means neither India or Pakistan.

    And I'm trying to see this in the broader context as well as how this all plays out between Pakistan and India

    I will read the Arundhati article and thanks for leaving it- :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that US intervention is not wise at all except to diffuse the situation. This couled also be part of an agenda which you are pointing to. Pakistan need to be careful here. They may be desperate for outside help and can fall into a trap. Thats where i see the oped potentially.

      IK to me seems to be talking to the wrong people. However, he seems to be reaching out far and wide to highllight the dangerous situation. I think this sholud be brought up as an SCO issue as both are members and russia can certainly mediate with trust.

      The problem ie that Kashmiris have never wanted to be a part of India who havent won over hearts and minds here and for a long time have not had their voice heard. Their frustration is boiling over not to mention the decades long brutal repression. Their plight should have been resolved between pak and india but now the forced hand without consultation under lockdown has exaserpated this situation. Pakistan has made its mistakes but the kashmiris are looking in their direction. Hence, the calls for help by pak.

      Delete
  6. Thanks for clarifying Abdullah :)

    "Pakistan need to be careful here. They may be desperate for outside help and can fall into a trap. Thats where i see the oped potentially"

    I agree with that for sure.

    " I think this sholud be brought up as an SCO issue as both are members and russia can certainly mediate with trust"

    I can also agree with that

    Not so sure that the American's would diffuse the situation. Rather I'd see them tending to or desiring to inflame the situation.

    I hope cooler heads prevail, but, am not optimistic right now- This could go bad if not tended to carefully. By all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Not so sure that the American's would diffuse the situation. Rather I'd see them tending to or desiring to inflame the situation."

      Yes precisely!

      Delete
    2. Hi Abdullah:

      Read both links...

      This was definitely an interesting read.

      Arundhati roy
      http://www.insafbulletin.net/archives/859

      Delete
  7. Hi Penny, I thought this article was quite interesting as a revelation of the foreign antagonists on this issue. I think it would be in the Zionist entity's benefit to convince everyone the Pakistan is ready for a ground war since they could benefit from the chaos. I will point out, however, that any ding this one, that refers to Afghans as 'Afghanis' is one written by someone with an agenda to broadcast rather than an objective observer sharing their expertise.

    More on calling Afghans 'Afghani': https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/10/more-on-afghani.html

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS