THE INDIAN STATES BASELESS CLAIMS: HABIB YOUSAFZAI,
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE KASHMIR DIASPORA ALLIANCE
ASSALAM-O-ALAIKUM!
It is obligation of every sovereign nation to look after its citizens, those that reside within its borders. The same applies to Pakistan. Does it make logical sense to state that because Kashmir is not a part of India, then by default, it is also not a part of Pakistan? Let us take for example the relationship of a father and son; a father should claim fatherhood of the child. No other individual has the right to be able to claim that they are his father as well. But because they are not his father, does that mean that no one else is?
It is quite clear that like the above example, Kashmir is an inherent part of Pakistan as just like any other part of Pakistan, it was divided from the subcontinent on the basis of religious similarities. But these similarities do not end there and go far deeper to cultural and common historical belonging. The question remains though, where does the point of contention remain? What arguments are left?
There is no such thing as a single sovereign Kashmiri state; Kashmir was given to Pakistan based on the fact that it is not a part of India; it has no ethnic, religious, cultural ties. The fact remains that the international community is already well aware that India possesses no moral or ethical claim. It forcefully stays within occupied Kashmir as an oppressor and expansionist. Its lack of credibility is firmly rooted in its inability to agree to plebiscite. The facts are clear, yet where is the action?
No comments:
Post a Comment