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.
"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"
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.Israel hasn't annexed territory? And by that I mean outright annex and ethnically cleanse vast swathes of land?
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."
"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.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.
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."
"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. "
From earlier today: