Noble prize winner's shame

IN HER 2012 Nobel lecture, Myanmar’s de-facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, made an impassioned appeal to the world not to forget those who are suffering “hunger, disease, displacement, joblessness, poverty, injustice, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry” and war. Aung San Suu Kyi declared, “Wherever suffering is ignored, there will be the seeds of conflict, for suffering degrades and embitters and enrages.” This is not the world of the Rohingya in today’s Myanmar.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the same beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner, is presiding over an ethnic cleansing in which villages are burned, women raped and children butchered. Aung San Suu Kyi, the widow who defied Myanmar’s dictators, endured a total of 15 years of house arrest and led a campaign for democracy, was a hero of modern times. Yet today Suu Kyi, as the effective leader of Myanmar, is chief apologist for this ethnic cleansing, as the country oppresses the darker-skinned Rohingya and denounces them as terrorists and illegal immigrants. For shame, Suu Kyi was honored for fighting for freedom and now She uses that freedom to condone the butchery of their own people?

• On Aug. 25, fighters from a small militant group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, staged surprise raids on 30 police stations and an army base in Rakhine State, where many Rohingya live. The attacks, in which 110 people died, including 10 policemen and many of the militants, triggered a crackdown by Myanmar’s military.
• Since then Buddhist-majority Myanmar has systematically slaughtered civilians belonging to the Rohingya Muslim minority, forcing over 400,000 to flee to neighboring Bangladesh, with Myanmar soldiers shooting at them even as they cross the border.
• And “ethnic cleansing” may be an understatement. Even before the latest wave of terror, the brutality toward the Rohingya might qualify as genocide.
• But Myanmar denies carrying out atrocities against the Muslim minority, consisting of around 1.2 million people in the northern Rakhine state who have been refused citizenship of any country.
• They are raping women, looting homes, burning houses, shooting people, killing children, infants thrown into river, decapitating veterans etc. 
• A reporter covering this described “I’ve covered refugee crises before, and this was by far the worst thing that I’ve ever seen.”
• Suu Kyi genuinely believes that Rohingya are outsiders and troublemakers. But she knows that any sympathy for the Rohingya would be disastrous politically for her party in a country deeply hostile to its Muslim minority.
• Aung San Suu Kyi was applauded when she received her Nobel Prize because she symbolized courage in the face of tyranny. Now that she’s in power, she symbolizes cowardly complicity in the deadly tyranny being visited on the Rohingya.
• “My dear sister: If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence, the price is surely too steep” -- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote a pained letter to her. 
• Rohingya were confined to concentration camps or to remote villages. Many were systematically denied medical care, and children were barred from public schools. It’s a 21st-century apartheid.
• Suu Kyi and other Myanmar officials refuse to use the word “Rohingya,” seeing them as just illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, but that’s absurd. Evidence exits to prove that Rohingya population was well established even before 1799.
• At the end Myanmar government will respond to pressure, because that’s what won Suu Kyi her freedom. Yet there has been far too little outcry for the Rohingya. Pope Francis being an exception among world leaders and speaking up for them. He said "Strong political leverages need to be exercised to stop this egregious assault on a stateless people." 
• UN has previously dubbed the Rohingyas, who are also denied access to university education and in 2013 were hit with a two-child policy, as “the most oppressed people on Earth”.
• There are petitions online calling for Suu Kyi to be stripped of her Nobel, but there is no mechanism to take away the prize.

Ignoring a possible genocide only encourages the persecutors.

Aung San Suu Kyi presiding over 'ethnic cleansing' and killing and/or driving out ethnic Rohingya doesn't befit her Nobel Prize winner status. Unfortunately Rohingya are without any kind of citizenship and a friendless community and are destined to suffer like Tamils in Sri Lanka. No one in the world is really bothered about them. Bangladesh was kind enough to accommodate them as illegal immigrants and provide shelter, at least for the time being. Modi is attempting to deport 40,000 Rohingya in India just because they are Muslims, labeling them as possible terrorists, despite no crime records against them, ignoring India has accommodated refugees from Tibet, East Pakistan (Bangladesh), Sri Lanka etc in the past who are largely Hindus. UNO and the champions of humanity are silent? Why?

Rohingyas deportation: How?

• Rohingyas are disowned by Myanmar. They were not even listed in the 135 ethnic groups.
• In his recent visit on Sept 5, 2017, Modi expressed concern over “extremist violence” in Rakhine, but didn’t mention the alleged persecution of the minority Rohingya Muslim community, which the United Nations says could turn into a humanitarian catastrophe.
• Modi and Suu Kyi's joint statement talks about range of issues and back patting each other but conspicously silent of Rohingyas persecution and fleeing away from Myanmar.
• Aung San Suu Kyi's strategic silence on Rohingyas persecution matters indicate that she has no control over Military and majority Buddhist population is anti-Rohingyas. 
• There is very little chance of Myanmar accepting Rohingyas back into Myanmar and in the absence of any citizenship of Rohingyas, deporting them back to Myanmar wouldn't be easy and is impossible in near future.
• While Rohingyas revolt groups in Myanmar do have links with Al-Qaeda and ISIS etc, there is no evidence of any link between Rohingya Muslim refugees in India numbering about 40,000. No case was registered on Rohingyas living in India so far.
• In the past India had opened its doors to Tibetan refugees, Hindus migrating from Muslim-dominated Pakistan, and Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka during armed conflict between the Sri Lankan army and Tamil separatists. But all those are Hindus but Rohingyas are Muslims.
• This deportation statement of Rajnath Singh only indicates their (BJP) antipathy towards Muslims.

Humanitarian action should be about saving lives and alleviating suffering 

and must be placed above politics and political interests.

If only UNO steps in to solve the Myanmar crisis, Rohingyas  will be able to return to their homes in Myanmar. But no one in the world seems to be interested in Rohingyas. Bangladesh and India are worried about managing over half million refugees in Bangladesh and about 40,000 in India. For Rohingya refugees they may have to live with the problem indefinitely. Modi by declaring Rohingyas as 'terrorists', just because they are Muslims and without any evidence as a sufficient reason for deciding to deport them, has not only abdicated from his moral duty of providing shelter to refugees and taking care of them but also supported inhuman acts of state sponsored genocide in Myanmar has instantly shot in his foot degrading India as a nation. Unfit to be leader of this great country.

Jammu & Kashmir: Instrument of Accession & Article 370

Jammu and Kashmir had a 77% Muslim population in 1947 and many people in Pakistan expected that Kashmir would join Pakistan. But J&K National Conference was secular and was allied with the Congress since the 1930s. So India too had expectations that Kashmir would join India. The Maharaja Hari Singh was faced with indecision. On Oct 22, 1947, rebellious citizens from the western districts of the State and Pushtoon tribesmen from the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan invaded the State, backed by Pakistan. The Maharaja initially fought back but appealed for assistance to the India, who agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on Oct 26, 1947 in return for military aid and assistance, which was accepted by the Governor General the next day with a gratuitous condition that after peace returned to the state, the people’s wish would be ascertained on the issue of accession. This was just a wish in view of the belated accession, not a precondition for accession.

• Maharaja Hari Singh sought urgent military aid on Oct 24, 1947, the cabinet had refused to send troops unless the Maharaja acceded. This was the idea of Governor-General Mountbatten, who chaired the Defence Committee of the Cabinet.
• At the Cabinet meeting on Oct 26, 1947, Nehru insisted that the accession must have the people’s backing. So, Sheikh Adbullah sent in a quickly scribbled note on behalf of the National Conference. He was sitting in the next room, having brought his family down to Delhi.
  Sheikh Abdullah was an Indian politician who played a central role in the politics of Jammu and Kashmir. The self-styled "Sher-e-Kashmir" (Lion of Kashmir), Abdullah was the founding leader of the National Conference. He agitated against the rule of the Maharaja Hari Singh and urged self-rule for Kashmir.
• On the morning of Oct 27, 1947, Dakotas flew the Sikh regiment to Srinagar. The place was in limbo, the Maharaja having left Srinagar for Jammu in a long convoy at 2 am on the night of Oct 25,1947, a few hours after signing the Instrument of Accession (IoA).
• The Instruments of Accession were cyclostyled documents — the one signed by Raja Hari Singh was no different from the one signed by other princes. So the document executed by Raja Hari Singh was just another Instrument of Accession with no special concessions or reservations.
• The dramatic events of that day have left a legacy of divergent narratives. Each seems unreasonable to the other. That of course is a recipe for deadlock and increased resentment. A common impression among many Kashmiris is that the army’s arrival on this day that year was a temporary measure, meant only to save Kashmiris from the tribesmen.
• The real differences are that this one was conditional (only for defence, external relations and communication), and this Maharaja did not follow up with an instrument of merger. That means that the state of Jammu and Kashmir continues to have a legal standing. 
  On the eve of India and Pakistan becoming separate dominions, rajas and maharajas of British India were given three options: become part of India, become a part of Pakistan or remain independent states. Within the specified period — between August 15 and October 6, 1947 — 560-plus erstwhile rulers signed documents with the title “Instrument of Accession”, and thereby agreed to become part of the dominion of India. This was to be followed by instruments of merger, thereby becoming part of India and ending the original identity of the princely state — many princes executed both the documents one after the other, while some had hesitation to sign the merger treaty.
• The merger of J&K with India should have taken place before October end. But Nehru's complaint to the UNO and its intervention, prevented it. The merger had to be postponed until the dispute was settled — and that dispute is still pending.
• At the insistence of Nehru, Article 370, according special status to J&K, was added at the fag end of the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly. While B.R. Ambedkar opposed the idea and refused to take part in drafting Article 370, the other members of the Constituent Assembly condescended to this “gift from Nehru to his friend Sheikh Abdullah” in the firm belief that this was a temporary measure.
• Regarding Article 370, most Kashmiris insist that 370 is a permanent part of India’s constitution, the hinge upon which the state’s relationship with the Union is based.
• The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir establishes the framework of government at state level in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The present constitution was adopted on Nov 17, 1956, and came into effect on Jan 26, 1957. 
• The state’s constitution clearly states that it is an integral part of India. Union Home Minister GB Pant used that term for the first time in Parliament in 1958, soon after the state’s constitution took effect on 26 January that year. Once the state’s constitution was in place, it dictated how much control the Union would have.
• Sheikh Abdullah was the Prime Minister of the state of Jammu and Kashmir after its accession to India in 1947 and was later jailed and exiled. He was dismissed from the position of Prime Ministership on Aug 8, 1953 and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed as the new Prime Minister. The expressions ‘Sadar-i-Riyasat’ and ‘Prime Minister’ were replaced with the terms ‘Governor’ and ‘Chief Minister’ in 1965. Sheikh Abdullah again became the Chief Minister of the state following the 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord.
• RSS activists tend to confuse it with Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerji’s ek nishan, ek vidhan, ek pradhan campaign of 1952-53. Mookerji’s campaign was specifically against the New Delhi agreement of 1952, negotiated by committees headed by Maulana Azad on behalf of the Union and Sheikh Abdullah on behalf of the state. And that agreement was in the same bracket as Article 370. It was meant to determine this particularly prickly Centre-state relationship until the state’s constitution was ready.
  Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerji was Nehru's cabinet minister which finalized Article 370.
• As long as the fundamental difference in perspective exits, one can go round and round in circles arguing about each of the above points whether one wants to interpret all that happened as meant to pave the way for Kashmir’s inclusion in India, or as meant to open doors that might lead to its independence is a matter of time.

J&K part of India ... Dr. Karan Singh

The state had acceded to India and not merged with it and that it why it has its 
own separate constitution and special status ... Dr. Karan Singh S/o Maharaja Hari Singh

Long after Modi government is a distant memory, either J&K won’t be part of India 

or Article 370 will still exist ... Omar Abdullah, ex CM, J&K 

(Even though it is height of ignorance & audacity, undercurrents are real)

Today Kashmir valley has over 96% Muslims. Post 1947 events have diluted the natural order of Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan mainly due to its incursions. Even Muslim people of Kashmir valley face dilemma - while they feel alienated and want to secede from India, they are not sure to get better treatment in Pakistan and being a land locked hill state with population of less than 10 million can't survive as an independent nation. In the meantime, Kashimris are suffering with militancy and terrorism and is deprived of development which the whole world is enjoying. What India should do is to try to win the co-operation of the Kashmiri people and politicians and MPs from the rest of India to suitably amend and attenuate Article 370 instead of repealing it. Hopefully, Kashmiri people would forgot Article 370 with political engagement and development, in due course of time.