Appalling and worrisome situation ongoing in the Indian Occupied Kashmir.Innocents being shot down by oppressive regime to clamp voice of self determination & independence. Wonder where is the @UN & other int bodies & why aren't they making efforts to stop this bloodshed?
— Shahid Afridi (@SAfridiOfficial) April 3, 2018
This was a tweet by Shahid Afridi on April 3, 2018, which triggered a huge controversy. Many big names in the cricket world slammed Afridi for these remarks.
Suresh Raina stated that “Kashmir is an integral part of India, and will remain so always”. While I agree with the latter part, I wish he had bothered to learn about the former part, just as he has learnt his cricketing skills which are admirable. Sachin Tendulkar asserted that “I think it’s obvious that we have capable people to manage our country. No outsider needs to tell us what we need to do.”
Apparently, he simply ignored the fact that the matter of Kashmir involves certain intricacies and Pakistan is a major stakeholder of this issue – and therefore, their involvement is indispensable. If we had enough ‘capable people’ to manage this issue, this would have been resolved much before.
To name just other few of many, Gautam Gambhir and Kapil Dev also ranted against him. He was trolled online, while many people even accused him of keeping grudges against India. As a matter of fact, Pakistani players are not allowed to play in the IPL. This sort of criticism is not unprecedented, and many other Indian public figures also have been abused and trolled for taking a stand on the Kashmir issue. National media turned berserk and this became a topic of debate on prime time.
So, are they saying that there are no human rights violations in Kashmir? Or, do they not bother as long as Kashmir belongs to us? Is it Kashmir which is important to them or the Kashmiri people? Most importantly, what do Kashmiri people want? According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, princely states (Kashmir being one of them) were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or remain independent.
The Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh decided to remain independent fearing that the state’s Muslim population would be unhappy, acceding to India. Pakistan started invading Kashmir, and the Maharaja’s troops were outnumbered which stood no chance withstanding the attack. The Maharaja then signed a ‘provisional accession’ with India in return of their support against Pakistan, with the special reference that after the state was clear of invaders only the people would decide where the Kashmiris wanted to live.
The UN intervention resulted in the ‘military standoff’ of 1950, which stated that the troops from the respective states be immediately withdrawn from Kashmir. Further efforts at a plebiscite also failed which resulted in the three deadly wars in the history of Kashmir, between India and Pakistan since 1947.
As of 2010 approximately 43%, 37% and 20% of Kashmir is administrated by India, Pakistan and China respectively. Therefore, historically, Kashmir was not an integral part of India. It now is. The Indian-administrated Kashmir Valley has seen many conflicts which are persisting. The abuse ranges from mass killing, torture, sexual violence, enforced disappearances to the suppression of freedom of speech. The military forces have been accused and held responsible for committing severe human rights violations by many reputed international organisations including the UN.
Diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks revealed that the International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) had briefed US officials in Delhi about the use of torture from 2002 to 2004 by the security forces, against hundreds of detainees suspected of being connected to or having information about militants. An opinion poll conducted by the Chatham House, an international affairs think tank, found that in the Kashmir Valley – the mainly Muslim area on the Indian side of Kashmir at the centre of the insurgency – support for independence varies between 74% to 95% in its various districts. How is this situation not appalling and worrisome? If Afridi had used “Indian Administrated Kashmir” instead of “Indian Occupied Kashmir”, would he have still received the same criticism?
A few days back, Shahid Afridi won the same hearts that are abusing and trolling him when he promptly told an Indian fan to hold the national flag properly while posing for a picture. This gesture was immediately welcomed by ‘patriots’. Why do these people become so short-sighted when it comes to sensitive issues such as Kashmir conflict?
Superficial reactions (such as this case) coming from the cricketers whom I used to like, are a major concern. A true patriot would not react in such a naive manner. The animosity that Kashmiri people have for India has exponentially increased in the past few years, and there are a considerable number of evidences available. Tweets like these from public figures are only worsening the situation.
A true patriot would always try to create a secure environment for Kashmiri people where they happily want to belong to India. They will try to win them not by force, but by persuasion. If they hate us, rather than hating them, true patriots would always ask why they hate us. The Kashmir conflict can never be resolved without dialogue and negotiations. The prominent step towards this would be to acknowledge that whatever’s happening in Kashmir is a government’s disastrous diplomatic and administrative failure.
The last thing which is beyond my comprehension concerns why the media considers Pakistan an enemy state, while the government still has diplomatic and economic ties with them. Does the media have no accountability for spewing hatred against Pakistan? If the media doesn’t stop the way it is working right now, is it even possible to bring peace between these nations? I leave these questions unanswered for you to ponder upon.
The post Seeing Cricketers Tweet About International Affairs Makes Me Very Afraid appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz and is a copyright of the same. Please do not republish.