Dear Editor:

It was with utter dismay that I read the Times Union editorial on the conflict in Kashmir (October 27, 2004). The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been the epicenter of some of the worst Islamist terrorism in Southeast Asia; the Times Union’s simplistic examination of this explosive situation was marred by factual inaccuracy, absent historical perspective and misguided endorsement of a military dictator.

Jammu and Kashmir was one of nearly 565 princely states whose rulers were given the option of joining India or Pakistan when the British rule of India ended in 1947. Kashmir’s Hindu ruler was still considering his options when Pakistan decided to invade the region in a bid to shortcut the political process. Kashmir quickly became an integral part of India soon after and the first of four separate wars that Pakistan lost against India ensued. It is an unfortunate reality that Pakistan held on to one-third of Kashmir disregarding U.N. Security Council resolutions and even illegally ceded a portion of that territory to China. While Kashmiris in Pakistan have suffered under the autocracy of their leaders, and increasing regressive Islamic fundamentalism for over 55 years, Kashmiris in India have been citizens in the world’s largest democracy. Indeed, India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was Kashmiri.

Given the strong stand the editorial pages of this paper have taken against terrorism and al-Qaeda, I expected the Times Union to empathize with Indians for the unabated Pakistan and al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism they have faced since Pakistan initiated a low-intensity war to wrest away Kashmir in 1990. In one of the most appalling examples of religious cleansing and human rights abuses, al-Qaeda trained and Pakistan supported Islamist terrorists killed thousands of Kashmiri Hindus, and according to the United States Committee for Refugees, rendered over 350,000 Hindus as refugees in their own nation.

The B.B.C. is misleading in any report that the talks between India and Pakistan are going nowhere because India rejects Pakistan’s call for a referendum. In reality, India has categorically repeated its willingness to dialogue broadly with Pakistan on all issues, once the cross-border terrorism ceases in the valley. To date, General Musharraf has failed to stop that infiltration. Furthermore, India legally holds the Instrument of Accession that made Jammu and Kashmir a part of its nation—just as the Treaty of Amity with Spain made Florida a part of the United States—and no country should ever be under any obligation to negotiate away its people or lands.

And while the opportunistic General Musharraf is an ally of convenience in a war against terrorism—an ally only because the Taliban Frankenstein that he created now threatens his own illegitimate existence as a ruthless military dictator—we should not forget that he shares in none of the values of freedom, democracy, human rights, tolerance and pluralism that we as Americans, or India, holds dear.

Sincerely,

Aseem R. Shukla, M.D.
Member, Board of Directors
Hindu American Foundation