Why India gets away in Kashmir?

The question that we should consider is: What does azadi mean? It means freedom, of course. But freedom from what? Kashmir cannot relocate itself geographically. It will stay where it is even if Kashmiris get azadi. What will change are its laws. Azadi means freedom from the Indian constitution. But what is offensive about the Indian constitution? This is not debated by the champions of azadi because it is a tricky one. The Hurriyat Conference is vague about what comes after azadi is achieved, whether through plebiscite or jihad. This is because the Hurriyat doesn’t want to offend those who support the freedom movement out of universal liberal values.

India’s occupation and human rights violations by its army are easier things to rally people against.

We know what the Ali Shah Geelani’s Jamaat-e-Islami wants: It wants shariah in Kashmir. Mirwaiz Omar Faooq also is attracted to Pakistan because of its Islamic laws. But more broadly in the Hurriyat this specially religious demand is cloaked under the universal call of azadi.

This is why there is little sympathy in the world for the movement in Kashmir. This is why India has been able to get away with its oppression and its occupation.

This is why there is no enthusiasm in the international community for enforcing a plebiscite in the valley. India’s position is quite indefensible, it is true, and it really has no case to make except for the accession document signed by a monarch. But the position of the others in this problem is even worse. And they have no solution that is workable.


One Comment

  1. KM
    February 20, 2012 at 5:27 AM


    ~Interesting topic you’ve raised.

    It’s not easy to understand what Kashmiri’s really feel and and what they’ve been though because you haven’t lived under those conditions daily which they are subject to.

    I am an overseas Pakistani but Kashmiri’s who I speak to dislike both countries – India & Pakistan…and desire their own independent state.

    We as Pakistani’s and Indian’s cannot say ‘I know how it is’ …because we don’t.

    If I was Indian I would not want to lose Kashmir because of the hatred against India that has festered there could result in another ‘Afghanistan’ where groups such as Al-Qaeda would prosper.

    Another factor is water…..whoever controls Kashmir…in effect controls the water supply to the subcontinent.

    But I would rather Kashmir is ruled by Kashmiri’s.

    ”This is why there is little sympathy in the world for the movement in Kashmir. This is why India has been able to get away with its oppression and its occupation.”’

    You obviously don’t know the pulse of muslims in Pakistan and India and overseas who deep down are angered and humiliated by the oppression of Kashmiri’s. The only reason the western media doesn’t highlight it as much is because India is a friendly country of the west. If it was anti-American like Iran/Syria, the western media would be heavily biased against it.

Page 1 of 1

Post Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.