Samina Mustafa
The recent ruling by the Indian Supreme Court on the abrogation of Article 370 not only validates New Delhi’s controversial actions in August 2019 but also underscores the ongoing challenges faced by the people of held Kashmir. Addressing a series of petitions that contested the constitutional changes made over four years ago, the court asserted that Article 370 was a temporary provision, framing the government’s decision to strip the disputed region of its limited autonomy as the “culmination of the process of integration.”
In a move that adds insult to injury, one of the justices proposed the establishment of a ‘truth and reconciliation commission’ to investigate rights violations in the occupied region. However, skepticism looms large regarding the effectiveness of such a commission when administered by an authority treating Kashmir as conquered terrain.
Noteworthy among the petitioners were groups historically loyal to New Delhi, some of whom reportedly faced repercussions, such as the house arrest of prominent figures like Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah before the court’s verdict was made public. This apparent reward and punishment system further highlight the complex dynamics at play in the region.
The ramifications of this decision extend beyond the courtroom, potentially providing a substantial boost to the BJP’s Hindutva agenda in the upcoming elections. Concurrently, it reflects a concerted effort to reshape historical narratives surrounding the Kashmir conflict, contrary to the prevailing global recognition of Kashmir as a disputed territory.
The revocation of Article 370 has not only altered the political landscape but has also facilitated demographic changes in held Kashmir, leading to the marginalized status of Kashmiris in their ancestral homeland. Recent remarks by Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, blaming historical decisions for the current Kashmir-related challenges, reveal a revisionist perspective. He suggested that, had different choices been made during the 1947-48 Pakistan-India war, Azad Kashmir would now be an integral part of India.
While the court’s decision may tighten India’s grip on Kashmir, it is crucial to acknowledge that it cannot extinguish the unwavering desire of the Kashmiri people for freedom and dignity. Regardless of legal maneuvers or coercive tactics, the resilient voices of the Kashmiris persistently demand their legitimate rights.
Pakistan has unequivocally rejected the Indian court’s decision. However, the global diplomatic stage has yet to witness a sustained and impactful effort from successive administrations to effectively highlight the Kashmir issue. This diplomatic shortfall inadvertently contributes to India’s bold assertiveness.
Regrettably, the international community often displays a selective approach to occupations, with situations in Kashmir and Palestine being downplayed, while the occupation of Ukraine is portrayed as an existential struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. This disparity underscores the complexities of geopolitical narratives and the challenges faced by regions striving for autonomy and self-determination.
Comments are closed.