LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES RE KASHMIR

Your op-ed presents a biased picture of history as it recommends the UN get involved. The history is that at the time of independence in 1947, Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu. Under the British administration of the partition, princely states could opt to join India or Pakistan. As the Hindu ruler demurred, forces from Pakistan 'surged into Kashmir', and took by force what is now called POK - Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir. This illegal seizure induced Kashmir's ruler to sign to join India. That obviously included the portion seized by Pakistanis. The Indian Army was capable of repulsing this invasion and reclaiming by force what is now POK. But in view of Gandhi's beliefs on non-violence, and that India and Pakistan were 2 limbs of the same body, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (himself a Kashmiri Pandit) ordered the army to desist. A line of control developed (LOC). Arguably, the Indian army can still take POK, although now the situation is far more calamitous, with nuclear weapons on both sides. Having grabbed a third or more of Kashmir by force, Pakistan never stopped trying to seize the rest by force. Wars in 1967, 1971, and 1999 followed. Pakistan's own massive crimes against what was East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) include the murder of millions using weapons supplied illegally by the US via Iran's SAVAK and Saudi Arabia. This led to Bangladesh's independence as India had no choice but to intervene as millions of East Pakistani refugees flowed into West Bengal. This was a by-product of the 1971 war. Having failed to grab Kashmir though open wars, Pakistan switched to supporting terrorist acts both in India-controlled Kashmir (ICK) and in India. The history of murderous bombings in Indian cities is well established, including with what is called 26/11 in India - the attacks on the Taj and Sheraton hotels and the train station formerly called Victoria terminus, in Mumbai. In all of this of course, there was a direct line to the fanatic jihadists installed in Afghanistan, trained under ISI auspices, by the CIA, to oust the USSR, which (if Zbigniew Breszinski is to be believed) was lured in by an American coup in Kabul (removing a Soviet-friendly government) to 'give the Soviets their own Vietnam'. So this is a more complete history than what you have written. Then there is the case that Pakistan itself has committed human rights abuses in POK. The hysterics of PM Imran Khan ever since India moved to integrate ICK into the Indian federation, show clearly the continued lust for territory of Pakistan. The claim on Kashmir by Pakistan is based on the fact that a majority of ICK residents are Muslim. That does not amount to a legitimate argument, as India has more Muslims than all of Pakistan. And Pakistan's history of treating Muslims who moved there from India during partition is a poor one - they are called 'mohajirs' (refugees) - decades after the partition, and subjected to open discrimination. All things considered, Pakistan does not have any legal rights to the Kashmir that has been part of India since 1947.