If India supports freedom in Crimea, why not in Kashmir?

[BanglaBhoot]

If India supports freedom in Crimea, why not in Kashmir?

By Muhammad Faysal

The Express Tribune - March 29, 2014

Over the past week after the Russian annexation of Crimea, global politics have completely changed. The annexation which took place after a controversial ‘referendum’ shows that the aspirations of people are more powerful than politically drawn borders.
Yet, many political observers see the Russian backing of the referendum as damage control after Moscow lost its ally in former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych after many weeks of protests.

India which is an important and old time ally of Russia, faces a new predicament and a new set of worries after the Crimean annexation, the dilemma being, do they back Russia – their oldest friend – or oppose it? Whichever decision it makes, India will be forced to confront the reality of secessionist movements in the northeast and a Kashmiri movement for independence.
For India, holding on to Kashmir has meant dismissing the calls of referendum by the people of Kashmir, at times even using disproportionate force which resulted in massacres and crackdown on protesters including minors.

Ironically, it was India that brought the case of Kashmir to the United Nations in 1949 after which the UN called for a plebiscite in Kashmir, both in Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir. India’s political stalwart and first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, promised the people of Kashmir a plebiscite in a broadcast from New Delhi in November 1948,

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and more just offer.”

But India backed out after making this promise to the people of Kashmir and signing the UN resolution calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. And now the official line is ‘Kashmir is an integral part of India’.Interestingly, they deny the war crimes committed in Kashmir by the Indian armed forces which sure doesn’t happen in any ‘integral part’. Just like the absolute mockery of justice in open and shut cases of rapes, massacres and enforced-disappearances, this claim of an ‘integral part’ is as hollow as its claim of ‘peace in Kashmir’ – peace which perhaps can be found in the pause between deaths of Kashmiris.

With the US calling for sanctions on Russia, it remains to be seen which side India will choose to be on. Will it choose to side with the west and lose a key ally in Russia – a long-term setback or side with its long-time ally Russia, essentially making it an international hypocrite?
Crimea has quite literally thrown a spanner in geo-politics. It is akin to the cold war where either you are with a country or against them. India chose to be non-aligned during the cold war but with its military progress and the possibility of becoming an economic superpower, this is no longer a choice that India has which further pushes it against the wall.

It is strange that the referendum happened in Crimea without any blood being spilled unlike Kashmir which has bled enough to give legitimacy to the calls of referendum and secession in the international polity. It is also ironic how India voted against Sri Lanka in a UN resolution indicting the island country for war crimes in Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) strongholds while India commits the same war crimes in Kashmir, with rampant impunity and with laws such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act which gives its troops the licence to kill.

Referendum remains a national dream for Kashmiris. They have been waiting for it since the promise made by India and Pakistan and guaranteed by the UN in 1949. In 2008 and 2010, Kashmiris stepped out by the hundreds and thousands in peaceful rallies to call for a referendum. But it was met with brute force. Later, the Indian backed government jailed the freedom leadership, killed over 120 Kashmiri protestors most of whom were teenagers, banned SMS services and local media.

Is India, one of the largest democracies of the world, afraid that its ‘integral part’ will vote to be independent if it holds a referendum? Vladimir Putin thanked India for its position on Crimea in his speech after signing the treaty to accede Crimea into Russia. In his speech, he also questioned the US for supporting freedom but not in Crimea.

I would ask India the same question – if it supports freedom elsewhere, why not in Kashmir?
With the developments in Crimea and the NATO pull-out in Afghanistan, geo-politics may change into another cold war. But it still remains to be seen whether Kashmir will feature in these changes or whether the Kashmiri people will have to wait a little longer for freedom.
If only Kashmir had oil, things would have changed a long time back.

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/21597/if-india-supports-freedom-in-crimea-why-not-in-kashmir/

For more on India's hegemonic and expansionist foreign policy read The India Doctrine -

The India Doctrine (1947-2007) | Mohammad Munshi - Academia.edu

 

[Aka123]

These are diplomatic steps. India will always support Russia as they are our greatest allies.
Whereas Kashmir is a part of India and the question of freedom don't even arise here! Even if Russia comes and tells us we won't do that.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

These are diplomatic steps. India will always support Russia as they are our greatest allies.
Whereas Kashmir is a part of India and the question of freedom don't even arise here! Even if Russia comes and tells us we won't do that.

That is not a relevant answer to a legitimate question. Why is there this discrepancy in Indian foreign policy. Obviously there is nothing moral or high-minded about Indian foreign policy.

 

[Aka123]

That is not a relevant answer to a legitimate question. Why is there this discrepancy in Indian foreign policy. Obviously there is nothing moral or high-minded about Indian foreign policy.

Question - Do Bangladesh support Russia in this case ? (Though support of Bangladesh is insignificant, still asking)

 

[AugenBlick]

Our Guns , Our rules .

 

[manlion]

Our Guns , Our rules .

then don't cry foul when jihadists play by their rules

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Question - Do Bangladesh support Russia in this case ? (Though support of Bangladesh is insignificant, still asking)

The Bangladesh government officially holds no position on the subject abstaining in a general Assembly vote on the subject.

 

[Aka123]

The Bangladesh government officially holds no position on the subject abstaining in a general Assembly vote on the subject.

That's basically more in favor of Russia -


Bangladesh has abstained from voting in the UN General Assembly against the recent Crimean referendum backed by Moscow.


The UN voting, intended to declare the referendum results invaiid, was held on Thursday. However, Bangladesh’s foreign ministry had not announced its position right away.

The abstention came to light on Sunday, when the Russian ambassador in Dhaka, Alexander Nikolaev, at a seminar “thanked” Bangladesh its stance.

He said he was “thankful and grateful” to Bangladesh for abstaining from voting.

 

[IndoUS]

The answer is simple, Kashmir was legitimately handed over to India by its previous ruler(King). We have the signed paperwork to prove it. And after independence the original Kashmiris were forced out of their land by insurgents and terrorists from across the border in an attempt to take the land. So Kashmir is Indian, and people who want the land and cry for freedom and do they senseless killing in the valley can go back to the land they came, from which is across the border.

 

[khujliwal]

If India supports freedom in Crimea, why not in Kashmir?

By Muhammad Faysal

The Express Tribune - March 29, 2014

Over the past week after the Russian annexation of Crimea, global politics have completely changed. The annexation which took place after a controversial ‘referendum’ shows that the aspirations of people are more powerful than politically drawn borders.
Yet, many political observers see the Russian backing of the referendum as damage control after Moscow lost its ally in former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych after many weeks of protests.
India which is an important and old time ally of Russia, faces a new predicament and a new set of worries after the Crimean annexation, the dilemma being, do they back Russia – their oldest friend – or oppose it? Whichever decision it makes, India will be forced to confront the reality of secessionist movements in the northeast and a Kashmiri movement for independence.
For India, holding on to Kashmir has meant dismissing the calls of referendum by the people of Kashmir, at times even using disproportionate force which resulted in massacres and crackdown on protesters including minors. Ironically, it was India that brought the case of Kashmir to the United Nations in 1949 after which the UN called for a plebiscite in Kashmir, both in Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir.
India’s political stalwart and first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, promised the people of Kashmir a plebiscite in a broadcast from New Delhi in November 1948,

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and more just offer.”

But India backed out after making this promise to the people of Kashmir and signing the UN resolution calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. And now the official line is ‘Kashmir is an integral part of India’.Interestingly, they deny the war crimes committed in Kashmir by the Indian armed forces which sure doesn’t happen in any ‘integral part’. Just like the absolute mockery of justice in open and shut cases of rapes, massacres and enforced-disappearances, this claim of an ‘integral part’ is as hollow as its claim of ‘peace in Kashmir’ – peace which perhaps can be found in the pause between deaths of Kashmiris.
With the US calling for sanctions on Russia, it remains to be seen which side India will choose to be on. Will it choose to side with the west and lose a key ally in Russia – a long-term setback or side with its long-time ally Russia, essentially making it an international hypocrite?
Crimea has quite literally thrown a spanner in geo-politics. It is akin to the cold war where either you are with a country or against them. India chose to be non-aligned during the cold war but with its military progress and the possibility of becoming an economic superpower, this is no longer a choice that India has which further pushes it against the wall.
It is strange that the referendum happened in Crimea without any blood being spilled unlike Kashmir which has bled enough to give legitimacy to the calls of referendum and secession in the international polity. It is also ironic how India voted against Sri Lanka in a UN resolution indicting the island country for war crimes in Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) strongholds while India commits the same war crimes in Kashmir, with rampant impunity and with laws such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act which gives its troops the licence to kill.
Referendum remains a national dream for Kashmiris. They have been waiting for it since the promise made by India and Pakistan and guaranteed by the UN in 1949.
In 2008 and 2010, Kashmiris stepped out by the hundreds and thousands in peaceful rallies to call for a referendum. But it was met with brute force. Later, the Indian backed government jailed the freedom leadership, killed over 120 Kashmiri protestors most of whom were teenagers, banned SMS services and local media.
Is India, one of the largest democracies of the world, afraid that its ‘integral part’ will vote to be independent if it holds a referendum?
Vladimir Putin thanked India for its position on Crimea in his speech after signing the treaty to accede Crimea into Russia. In his speech, he also questioned the US for supporting freedom but not in Crimea.
I would ask India the same question – if it supports freedom elsewhere, why not in Kashmir?
With the developments in Crimea and the NATO pull-out in Afghanistan, geo-politics may change into another cold war. But it still remains to be seen whether Kashmir will feature in these changes or whether the Kashmiri people will have to wait a little longer for freedom.
If only Kashmir had oil, things would have changed a long time back.

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/21597/if-india-supports-freedom-in-crimea-why-not-in-kashmir/

For more on India's hegemonic and expansionist foreign policy read The India Doctrine -

The India Doctrine (1947-2007) | Mohammad Munshi - Academia.edu

We support freedom in Kashmir, but are occupied in building the economy. When we achieve the economic goals, Pak occupied Kashmir Will be freed and united to motherland India.

 

[AugenBlick]

then don't cry foul when jihadists play by their rules

You talk as if they are not playing by their "rules".

 

[BanglaBhoot]

The answer is simple, Kashmir was legitimately handed over to India by its previous ruler(King). We have the signed paperwork to prove it. And after independence the original Kashmiris were forced out of their land by insurgents and terrorists from across the border in an attempt to take the land. So Kashmir is Indian, and people who want the land and cry for freedom and do they senseless killing in the valley can go back to the land they came, from which is across the border.

If this was done at gun point then the agreement would be vitiated and null and void ....

 

[third eye]

That is not a relevant answer to a legitimate question. Why is there this discrepancy in Indian foreign policy. Obviously there is nothing moral or high-minded about Indian foreign policy.

Foreign policy of any nation is not meant to moral or high minded. It is a reflection of national interests .

Situations and environment will change and so will the action, the theme of the policy remains.


The ruler of J&k aceeded to India through a written document of accession hence there is no similarity between an Indian state and Crimea .

 

[IndoUS]

If this was done at gun point then the agreement would be vitiated and null and void ....

It was done after the British asked us to accept the King. Who was running for his life in fear of getting killed by Pakistani backed insurgents who wanted to take over the Kashmir region.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

It was done after the British asked us to accept the King. Who was running for his life in fear of getting killed by Pakistani backed insurgents who wanted to take over the Kashmir region.

So there was a conspiracy hatched by the British and India to annex Kashmir ....