Assessing the actual situation in the Kashmir Valley and the environment outside the country, India has to face different currents of thought from around the world.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/photos/gsKm1gk5kEU) |
The Indian government has succeeded in convincing other countries that the decision to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and to divide the state into two Union Territories is an "internal matter" of India. However, the Indian government is finding it difficult to justify the violation of fundamental rights and to house political leaders.
Not just a few days after this incident, but a few weeks back; Criticism has started to explode in different directions. These range from United Nations human rights experts to US politicians and the State Department. This is different from the editorial pages of The New York Times, which has been a vocal critic of the Indian government and a partisan supporter of Pakistan.
The most difficult part of the BJP's controversial decision is to better handle the explosive situation in Jammu and Kashmir, prevent violence and address Pakistan's lingering problems while maintaining fundamental freedoms. The international community is expecting the situation in the Kashmir Valley to return to normal as soon as possible.
Strict terms such as ‘basically inappropriate’ and ‘a form of collective punishment’ have been addressed by a group of UN human rights experts. He said that reports of night raids and arrests of youths should be investigated. Such measures could escalate tensions in the region, a concern for officials and human rights activists.
Indian diplomats are trying their best to make it clear that the measures were taken to prevent violence and prevent stone-throwing mobs from gathering. Given Pakistan's clear involvement in inciting violence in Kashmir and its frustration with India's decision to repeal Article 370, New Delhi needs to take every precautionary measure.
Given India's democratic tradition and openness, strict rules are imposed on India, especially by American newspapers, and Pakistan is exempted. Two former Pakistani prime ministers, a former president and several opposition leaders are currently in jail, but no one cares, the media is under pressure. Ahmadis are not officially considered Muslims, Baloch are disappearing every day, protests by Pashtuns are being suppressed, and terrorists are seen marching with official protection, but no one is talking about it.
Pakistan, which has failed miserably as a country that feeds terrorism and harbors Osama bin Laden, is pretending to take care of human rights in Kashmir, and is waiting to see how many nations support it on this issue.
Members of Capitol Hill and senior foreign ministry officials have begun publicly commenting on the ongoing restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as on the Internet and other restrictions imposed on all citizens. Although the number of reactions is less now than it was ten years ago, such statements pose a strategic and public relations challenge for New Delhi.
Demands by senior US State Department officials for the release of detainees and the restoration of fundamental freedoms have intensified over the past week. Stating that the US administration will keep a close eye on the human rights situation in Kashmir in the near future, the officials said that India expects India to take immediate action to restore the status quo in the Kashmir Valley as assured by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
When Prime Minister Modi met US President Donald Trump in France, the issue of human rights must have come up. Because the United States is paying close attention to this question. Although the Jammu and Kashmir issue is an internal issue, the US administration's position is that it could have external repercussions and "regional consequences".
Congressman Adam Smith, a Democrat and chairman of the influential House Armed Services Committee, has raised the issue with the Indian ambassador. Smith said: "The types of traffic closures that are currently taking place, the growing militarization in the region and the curfew imposed are of concern."
Other Democrats, either voluntarily or at the behest of Pakistani-American constituents, or at the behest of Pakistan's newly-appointed lobbying firm, have begun to raise questions. In particular, if the situation in Jammu and Kashmir does not improve, next month, after the recess, the resumption of the US Congress will see a resurgence of "concerns".
Yitz Clerk, a female member of the New York Congress, has already hinted that Kashmir will be at the forefront of the US Congress and that the issue will be considered as a priority in next month's congressional session.
Democrats currently control the House of Representatives, and so what role they play is important. Many members are seen privately talking about the growing monopoly in India and its impact on the future of Indo-US relations.
Some Congress members are tracking the human rights situation in India. It is not difficult to imagine that the future Democratic president will openly dislike Modi or the BJP. Such a public protest would be a warning to New Delhi. This could have a negative impact on Indo-US relations.
Immediately after the Indian government's August 5 decision, two senior Democrats in the House and Senate on foreign affairs - Congressman Elliott Angel and Senator Robert Menendez - issued a joint statement reminding India that transparency and political participation are important cornerstones of representative democracy. He also called on Pakistan to "refrain from any retaliatory attacks" and "take direct action against terrorist infrastructure on Pakistani soil." Pakistan's policies that promote terrorism have certainly caught the attention of both the US Congress and the administration.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), an official, impartial policy source, has published a 15-page report on Kashmir for the first time in 17 years, examining recent developments in the Kashmir Valley for the US Congress. It said the Indian government's decision raises serious constitutional issues, while "New Delhi's steel security action raises concerns about human rights."
The report acknowledges that the August 5 decision by the Indian government "seems to have gained a lot of popularity among Indian citizens and has been supported by most of the major political parties". However, the Modi government's move has been criticized by critics as "anti-democratic" and a "direct attack on India's secular identity".
The troubling part of the CRS report is that it vaguely mentions Pakistan's use of terrorism as a state policy, yet the official US policy clearly shows Islamabad's role in promoting, protecting and nurturing many of the ISI-sponsored terrorist groups.
Does India's decision have a negative impact on regional stability, if so, what will be the benefit to the US and what policies can best deal with potential instability, will this increased instability affect Pakistan's cooperation in the Afghan peace process? The report attracts a lot and series of concerns.
The final question is whether the current political climate in India threatens India's pluralistic traditions and democratic norms. Religious freedom in India is under threat today, and the US government "needs to take action to address such issues." It is an appeal to focus more on human rights.
The CRS report often shapes the policies of the Congress, so the Kashmir report is likely to affect most of the Congress workers - who write issues for Congress members. By assessing the actual situation in the Kashmir Valley and the external environment, India must determine how to cope with the world's different ideologies
Post a Comment