Violence in Kashmir: Why Isn�t It Bigger News in The West?

Kashmir has an agreement for self-determination based on a U.N resolution with India and Pakistan in 1947. It would appear that the Indian government has no intention of honouring this today with what is going on in Kashmir. Military occupation, indefinite curfews, local police burning civilian homes, and the torture and killing of civilians would on the surface be deemed a violation of human rights. The Indian government claim that their occupation in the region is to prevent Pakistani trained Islamic separatists from infiltrating Kashmir, but there would appear to be no evidence that this is the case.

There is also a clampdown on freedom of speech, with no newspapers published locally since September 13th, and local people told by authorities not to communicate with outsiders about their circumstances. This includes a ban on reporting about the troubles in the Kashmir region on social networking sites like Facebook. Those found guilty of this offence risk a 3 year prison sentence and a fine of 10,000 rupees. When this kind of thing happened in China it was all over the western press! If you Google Kashmir news, the first page of search results has no major news channels on it. This is incredible considering their Internet presence.

The west has never been shy about sticking their noses into other people’s business, especially when justified under the banner of democracy or human rights contraventions. The current Kashmir situation isn’t even warranting a top news headline story, let alone interference. The immediate troubles are the worst they have been since 1989. India and Pakistan are two nuclear powers, and an escalation of this issue surely should not be ignored.

President Barack Obama in his pre-election build up stated that the Kashmir state of affairs was a critical priority, but it has not been discussed since then. It begs the question why is this being ignored?  Some commentators in the east have compared what the Indian government is doing in Kashmir to what the Israeli government is doing in Palestine. There are obvious political reasons why the west, the U.S. in particular, cannot be too heavy handed with Israel on the perceived human rights issues. What then are the reasons regarding India?

Firstly, Kashmir is 60% Muslim. How ironic would it be for the U.S to condemn the Indian government for their alleged brutality in the affair? It could be seen by some as embarrassing, considering the purported view of many Americans that Islam is a key driver of terrorist activities. This is a political banana skin for the Obama administration, so probably best kept quiet.  Another possible reason would be one of economics.  With the current problems in western economies, India as one of the largest markets in the east is seen as a possible back-door for western economies to invest in to counter the rising Chinese economy. The west would not be so cynical and selfish would it? It has always been a champion of democracy and civil liberties has it not?

Looking at the criteria involved here: human rights issues; nuclear powers; Muslim activity; communication bans; democracy issues; and failure to implement U.N. resolutions, how can this not be a bigger story in the west? Some may say this is a cynical and calculating question to ask. Others may say it should be asked more.

© Copyright 2010 Freedom Rising