The Most Intriguing Fact in “Kashmir Narratives” by Colonel Ajay Raina

I recently bought a book titled Kashmir Narratives. It is authored by Colonel Ajay Raina, a retired Indian Army officer. To quote his bio on Amazon, “I am the only son of refugee parents who were young kids when the 1947 bloodied partition saw the creation of two new States of India and Pakistan and when the biggest ever migration of humans took place on this earth. Post my education, I got commissioned into the Indian Army as an officer in 1990 and served till the end of 2017.“

I happened to see his interview somewhere and decided to buy the book. It has a lot of information on Kashmir, focusing on its history, but what I found particularly interesting was the information on the condition of the plebiscite in Kashmir. Before we get to that, let’s understand what a plebiscite is.

What is a plebiscite?

A plebiscite is a direct vote by the people of a region (in this case, Kashmir) on an important public issue. In simpler words, in relation to Kashmir, a plebiscite allows Kashmiris to vote for its future – specifically, whether the region would join India or Pakistan. Interestingly, only these two options were presented, with no option explicitly listed of allowing Kashmir to function as an independent state.

How did the idea of a plebiscite in Kashmir emerge?

The idea of a plebiscite came into effect following the partition of British India in 1947 when the princely states were given the option to join either India or Pakistan.

Jammu and Kashmir initially chose to remain independent. However, after an invasion by tribal forces from Pakistan, Maharaja Hari Singh sought military assistance from India and signed the Instrument of Accession, formally acceding to India. This led to the first Indo-Pakistani war in 1947-48.

To resolve the conflict, the UN intervened, and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 47 in 1948. This resolution called for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the region, and a significant reduction of Indian army officers. This was to allow for a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision without any sort of intimidation. The plebiscite was supposed to let the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide their allegiance to either India or Pakistan. The result of the plebiscite would have depended on the majority vote.

However, the plebiscite was never conducted due to several reasons, including disagreements between India and Pakistan over the conditions set by the UN.

Clause (a) in Resolution 47

Most of us aren’t aware of Clause (a) in Resolution 47 passed by the UNSC. It states the condition of a plebiscite in Kashmir. Refer to UN Digital Library – Resolution 47 (1948) – Page 4:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.

The clause requires the complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the region. However, this condition remains unfulfilled as militants keep infiltrating the area.

Interestingly, India keeps getting the majority of the blame for not allowing a plebiscite, while it’s clear that Pakistan hasn’t fulfilled its part of the resolution. The resolution placed initial responsibility on Pakistan to withdraw its forces from the region. Only after this withdrawal was India supposed to reduce its military presence. This was then to be followed by a plebiscite. Because neither side fully complied with the conditions set out in the resolution, the situation has remained unresolved.

Final thoughts

I can’t help but wonder, had the “freedom seekers” in Kashmir known about this condition for a plebiscite, would they have applied more force on Pakistani militants to move out of the region? As stated, the first step toward a plebiscite is to ensure the Pakistani militants have withdrawn completely.

The UN has not formally retracted Resolution 47. It is currently in a dormant state. However, there is a possibility of Resolution 47 being re-invoked if the UNSC decides to revisit it.

An Ode to Seeking Justice By Exercising Your Power to Vote

In Kerala, recently, CPM faced a sharp setback. A state known to be deeply faithful to its comrades turned its back on the communist party in the Lok Sabha Elections. CPM could secure only one seat. This was a big shocker for the party when the results were announced. It wasn’t for the people, however. The grievances were such.

What went wrong? Plenty. Fund mismanagement, corruption, hooliganism, dictatorial tendencies, lack of acknowledgment of mistakes, farmer deaths, pension delays, etc. The list seems endless. A sort of arrogance had crept in after CPM’s second consecutive term. It was reflected in their attitude towards commoners and overall leadership. People started catching on to their lies and false promises.

How did Malayalees react? Through their votes. CPM could secure only one seat in Kerala in the recent Lok Sabha Elections 2024, facing an overall 2-4% dip in vote share. They suffered a severe blow even in their strongholds like Kasaragod, Kannur, Vadakara, and Palakkad.

Kerala is a prime example of how to get your revenge against political parties if they fail to meet your standards. No freebies were promised in the state, so the votes were cast purely on the basis of the political party’s performance.

The only way a common man in India can express his disappointment towards political parties is through his votes. Yet, Indians do not show up when the time comes. Excuses pop up, “We have work,” “We don’t want to travel,” “What’s going to happen, anyway?” Due to this, the parties that were a disappointment continue to be in power.

The point I am trying to make is concerning West Bengal. The government had already shown its true colors before the election. They tried to cover up the Sandeshkali rapes and protected the party member from arrest. Police officers were attacked when they went to arrest the party member. Hooliganism was its max. Everyone witnessed it. Yet, the party won again.

Someone said if an election were to be held tomorrow in West Bengal, TMC would again win. This is unfortunate. In such cases, is the government alone to blame? Aren’t we the citizens enabling such a behavior, too? TMC’s supporters turned up en masse to save and vote for the party while the others relaxed at home in the sweltering heat. There was post-poll violence in the state because TMC members were furious they did not secure enough votes as before. Yet, somehow, we refused to acknowledge what we saw. We continued to believe the words of the party who was placing the blame on everyone else except itself. We celebrated the “saving” of democracy, unaware that the party we voted for was no better.

Indians are expressing their anger on social media and the streets now, but they forget they can do it the Kerala way too. When the time comes, hit where it hurts – through your votes. This is the only way to get a political party to introspect and correct themselves. It is a powerful tool. Use it.

***

Photo Courtesy: PTI Photo/Swapan Mahapatra

An Ode to Intermingling With Other Faiths

Yesterday, a Muslim friend visited, and we ended up discussing religion. She’s a practicing Muslim but not overly devout; for instance, she only wears a hijab when her mother-in-law visits.

During our conversation, she shared something beautiful:

People do things in the hope of reaching paradise. There’s so much fear surrounding it. But no one has ever returned from death to confirm if paradise truly exists. What we have now is paradise, isn’t it? You and I, of different faiths, sitting here together, conversing, laughing, and enjoying each other’s company—what better paradise could there be?

I asked her how she developed this perspective when everyone around her follows religious rules so strictly. She said it might be because she attended a non-religious school instead of an Islamic one. She emphasized how important it is to interact with other communities rather than only associating with people from our own. Her husband shares the same outlook. While he offers Namaz five times a day, he hasn’t imposed any religious restrictions on his wife or children. They are the only ones in their family who approach religion this way.

This principle is applicable to all communities. The more we engage with people from different backgrounds, the more open-minded and accepting we become of diverse ideas and perspectives. Conversely, isolating ourselves can lead to more rigid and extreme viewpoints.

I believe this may be why Indians tend to integrate more easily in foreign countries. Growing up in a society where different faiths coexist has shaped our ability to adapt. This is why I feel we should be sharing our culture with the world rather than adopting foreign ones. India’s inclusive culture, which embraces all faiths, is truly beautiful. I hope we continue to honor and preserve it.

***

Photo by Markus Spiske

An Indian’s Concern for Bangladeshi Hindus

It is with utter dismay I am reading the news about the attack on Hindus in Bangladesh. Secular Muslims in the country are trying to protect the Hindus. This is positive news, and you can’t help but feel grateful for such people in the community. However, radicals are still deliberately targeting the houses and religious places of Hindus. How can they be stopped?

Often, we have seen that in the struggle between radicals and seculars, the radicals emerge victorious. This has happened previously in Iran. A student uprising in Iran in 1979 played a significant role in the downfall of secularism and the emergence of the Islamic regime.

Student Protestors in Iran 1979 — Student protestors climbing the gate of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 / Wikimedia Commons

The reasons for the uprising back then were quite similar:

Widespread discontent with the Shah’s authoritarian rule, political repression, and economic issues.
Iranian students, both domestically and abroad, were active in organizing protests, disseminating anti-Shah literature, and galvanizing public opinion against the regime. They played a crucial role in spreading revolutionary ideas and mobilizing the masses.

A simple act of protesting an “authoritarian” rule in Iran brought in a more religious regime that was dictatorial in its tendencies. So how successful would one consider this student uprising, unless the original intention of the riots was not social justice, but a religious takeover? Shah, considered secular in nature, fled the country never to return, which in all probability will be Sheikh Hasina’s trajectory too. Comparisons are inevitable. Iran is still struggling to bring back its golden days of secularism. Will Bangladesh end up being the same? Only time will tell.

I saw Bangladeshi residents expressing their joy over Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, which is valid, as she was unnecessarily brutal in her approach. But I also saw them in private groups worrying about the future of the country and whether they will fall into the hands of radical Islamists. Some even said they would leave the country if it came to that.

What does this mean for India? Sheikh Hasina was considered pro-India in her approach. She kept the fundamentalists like the Jamaat-e-Islami and anti-India elements under check. This is of significance as India shares a long border with Bangladesh and any sort of instability has the potential to spill over to neighboring regions.

The new leader, Muhammad Yunus, is a Nobel Laureate. He has proven himself an intellectual, but how effective would he be as a politician and a peace-keeper? Will he be pro-India and continue to maintain peaceful relations with our country, promising to secure the borders and protect the minority community in Bangladesh? Or will he be a puppet for the radicals? Questions only time can answer.

As usual, the leftist ecosystem in India is working overtime to convince us that the Hindus in Bangladesh are not in trouble. This is not surprising. It is a standard approach when minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even within India (Kashmiri Pandits) are attacked. The events are quickly negated or justified and brushed under the carpet. A close observation of their responses provides enough proof of their bias. In my 40+ years, I have never seen them acknowledge attacks against Hindus. There is always a “reason” for it.

If by chance you point out the attacks, you are labeled a right-wing communal Sanghi (a BJP supporter). However, if you support any other community, you are a social justice warrior, an activist, and a secular. This double standard is difficult to fathom, and I have seen many becoming BJP supporters because of this hypocrisy.

In India, I am witnessing more secular Muslims openly supporting Bangladeshi Hindus than the so-called secular Hindus. Due to the indifference of left-leaning Indian Hindus, the community will continue to suffer persecution at the hands of radicals. There is not enough support. For the support to pour in, people need to first acknowledge the fact that there is an issue.

It is with some relief I read that all political parties in India are on the same page regarding the Bangladesh issue. The opposition hasn’t yet negated the Bangladeshi Hindu’s plight. They voiced concern for the minorities in Bangladesh and said they would work in unity with the central government. A nuanced approach their supporters need to learn.

Hopefully, peace will soon be restored in Bangladesh, rendering my concerns unnecessary. Until that day arrives, my worries persist.

Quick Bytes: Different Perspectives on the Abrogation of Section 370

It’s the fifth anniversary of the Abrogation of Section 370. I couldn’t help but reflect on differing opinions about this watershed moment in the nation’s history. There are politicians like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti who consider it a disaster. Then, there are BJP supporters who think it’s the best thing that happened to Kashmir.

How do you know who is right?

It’s a given that our biases influence the sides we choose. When we believe something is unjust, we tend to seek out information that aligns with that perspective. Conversely, when we aim to be more optimistic, we focus on positive news.

In the context of Kashmir, you see different types of YouTube videos. If a vlogger or YouTuber seeks to demonstrate that the Abrogation of Article 370 was misguided, they will seek out discontented Kashmiri locals who share that viewpoint. On the other hand, those looking to justify the decision would seek out locals who support it. No matter one’s perspective, there will always be individuals who support each side of the story. Both sides are also convinced that only their version is the correct one.

However, it’s important to consider the facts.

As per Firstpost’s new article, “The incidents of organized stone pelting, connected with terrorist-separatist agendas, went from a staggering 1,767 in 2018 to zero in 2023“. More facts are provided in the article, which is worth a read.

The writer poses a valid question to Omar Abdullah, who keeps talking about how nothing has changed in Kashmir:

The question arises now that, for the first time in two decades, since four years, which is 1460 days and counting, not one youth has died, but you are saying that the situation overall is terrible. Are we then to assume that normalcy is stone-pelting and youngsters dying every week? The end of stone-pelting and no civilians dying is actually a terrible development for your politics.

Ultimately, your perception of a situation is influenced by your bias. But I can’t help but wonder with all the discontent over the Abrogation of 370: Is the prevention of youth fatalities from stone-pelting incidents of less importance than advocating a political agenda?

***

Photo by Imad Clicks

How to Know if the Unmarried Life is Right for You

As a woman in my 40s, I am living an unconventional life in India, a conservative country that believes a woman’s life is incomplete if unmarried. I have experienced the ups and downs of living this kind of life while exploring new territories and learning from my experiences along the way. None of my family members or friends have chosen to live this way, so I don’t have anyone to look to for guidance. Is it daunting? Of course. But would I have it any different? Definitely not.

It’s amusing that many people who warn about the drawbacks of being single are usually married. They haven’t experienced living alone for a significant amount of time, so they may not be the best advisors on “the other side” of the single life. These wellwishers often point to that one person they know who is feeling lonely in their 40s to push you to get married. Is it a genuine concern for your well-being, or is it a way for them to reaffirm their own choices? It’s hard to say for sure. In my view, only someone who has lived alone for 10+ years is truly qualified to answer whether the single life is as daunting as it’s made out to be.

Some advocates of marriage believe it to be the solution to all problems, especially for women in India. Feeling bored? Get married. Want to travel to foreign countries? Get married. Want to party at a club? Get married. Getting married is an all-in-one solution.

I got married in my 20s due to pressure. It was an arranged marriage. Unfortunately, it did not end well, as we were incompatible. Our culture and beliefs clashed from day one. We knew we were poles apart before we got married, but we fell for the usual narrative that marriage is the solution to all problems, even compatibility issues. No one was sensible enough to advise us that basic compatibility is required for a marriage to work. In fact, both sides of the family were desperate for us to get married as we were quickly crossing the ideal age for marriage.

My marriage eventually ended. It’s been 15+ years since my divorce, and I haven’t still tied the knot. I have no plan to. A year after my divorce, relatives started telling me how marriage is important and that I should consider getting married again. They told me to think of how my life would be in my 40s without a husband. In their eyes, it would be torture. But now that I am in my 40s and still unmarried, I will tell you a little secret. I have never felt freer and happier.

Someone now might say, “Wait till you are in your 50s“. I am ready to accept that challenge too. No one knows me better than I do. And I am sure it’s the case with you too. However, if you are in your early 20s and wondering if marriage is for you, here are some points to consider.

Get married if you are a social butterfly

If you are naturally extroverted and love being around people, chances are you would crave companionship at some point in your life. I am an introvert, bordering on being a loner. For me, solitude is a way of life.

As you age, you will find yourself spending a lot of time by yourself because everyone in your age group will be busy with life. You might get together once in a while, but meeting up every day would be unfeasible. Picture yourself in such a scenario. Would you crave constant companionship? Or would you be fine without it? As per my experience, most extroverts are not comfortable with stillness, silence, and calm. They need some human presence around them to feel energetic.

Find out the actual reason for your disinterest in marriage

I have seen that those who wish to get married but cannot find a partner end up choosing to live alone out of frustration or tiredness that emanates from constant disappointment. There is a chance such people might end up feeling lonely in their 40s. They have that “if only” in the back of their minds. Genuinely ask yourself if you are choosing to stay unmarried because it’s the best lifestyle for you or because you are unable to find a partner. If it’s the latter, you should not give up on the idea of marriage.

Living alone can be expensive

If you plan to stay single, you will need to save more. A pro of being married is that both of you can contribute to your daily expenses, whereas if you stay single, the onus falls on you alone – to earn well, invest wisely, and save efficiently. Of course, you shouldn’t get married thinking it will be costly to stay alone. Marriage is for companionship. However, this is a point that I found worth mentioning.

Living alone can be frustrating at times

I have been living alone for ages now, but there are times when I feel, “If only I could share this chore with someone.” But wanting a person to delegate my chores to isn’t a good enough reason for me to get married. I know for a fact that this need would be fulfilled if I hired some help. Alas, I am someone who wants to do it all by myself. This often leads to me being overwhelmed. But I take each experience as a lesson. If I were married, I wouldn’t have learned many things I know today. I would have been overly dependent on my husband to handle everything – from finances to decision-making. But yes, be prepared to be overwhelmed while you navigate through stressful times on your own.

Staying unmarried doesn’t mean saying no to love

You can be in love and still choose to remain unmarried. This is not widely understood. Many people assume that being unmarried means rejecting love. I have been in a committed relationship for many years, and I have no plans to marry because the traditional Indian married life is not what either of us wants.

What about the future?

Many people in favor of marriage often pose the question, “What about the future? What will happen when you’re 70 or 80?” It’s a valid question but not a compelling reason to get married. Your spouse may pass away, and if you don’t have children, you may find yourself alone. In Indian culture, parents often view their children as a safety net for their old age. However, many elderly parents in India find themselves alone as their children are settled abroad and only visit occasionally.

I have a few options to consider for my future living arrangements. I could stay in a good retirement home or move in with a friend or relative who is living alone and could use some companionship. It’s important to me that I don’t become a burden to the people I care about because of my health issues. There are many potential paths to choose from, and the decisions I make will depend on the trajectory of my life. I simply want to be financially independent and not rely on anyone else.

Having the confidence that I can thrive regardless of what life brings my way means I don’t have to fear being unmarried.

***
Photo by Mihman Duu011fanlu0131