After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and 9/11 happenings, the world is continuously in process of change. It has not stabilised yet as was witnessed during the bipolar world (1945-1989). However, one thing has become clear that economically strong country may influence the global affairs. Such status must not be at the cost of human rights.
It is said that India having population of more than one billion is heaven for the consumption of goods and items of the developed and developing countries. Their economic interests do not permit them to have any move which may enrage the Indian government and in return they may face the adverse situation. Here question arises whether countries, important for trade, may be permitted to violate human rights and confiscate all possible lifelines from the human beings for their sustenance.
After winning general elections held in 2019 in India, BJP formed government for another term of five years. It withdrew special status of occupied Kashmir extended under article 370 of Indian constitution. Now occupied Kashmir is part of Indian Union which is illegal and in violation of international treaties.
The United Nations passed eleven resolutions on the problem of Kashmir. Holding plebiscite and extending right of self determination to the Kashmiris is the main spirit of the resolutions. One of founding fathers and first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru accepted the resolutions and promised to implement. But these resolutions are yet to be implemented.
Pakistan and India signed Simla Agreement in 1972 and Lahore Declaration in 1999. Both the countries accepted that the dispute of Kashmir exists between them. Thus Indian decision of terminating special status of Kashmir is without force of law and morality.
The prime minister clarified that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. He quoted Tamil suicide attackers and said that no one called them Hindu terrorists
The prime minister of Pakistan, in his speech in the General Assembly of the United Nations, delivered on 27th September 2019, sensitised the world that the Kashmiris were being denied their right of self determination and human rights due to the fact that they are the Muslims. He also said that trade may not be preferred at the cost of human rights.
If the Kashmiris are considered that they are the Muslims then they should suffer but a point to ponder over that whether the world may run its business and relations on the basis of religious discrimination smoothly. The prime minister clarified that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. He quoted Tamil suicide attackers and said that no one called them Hindu terrorists.
It is fact that people loving religions, revealed or non-revealed, neither supports terrorism nor promotes to use terrorism as a weapon to extort their rights. If achieved, then same will be through inhuman approach and wicked attitude towards entire mankind.
Yesterday’s countries under wrath are today’s global actors. This status may be changed at any time as neither life is stationery nor global affairs are static. They are ever changing. If India is not questioned on its attitude towards its minorities, low cost Hindus and the people of occupied Kashmiris etc, breaching of international treaties and violation of human rights due to economic interests then such countries must think before talking and working for the promotion of human rights.
Only economic prosperity, good governance, effective enforcement of principle of reward and punishment, quality education and research and proper health cover etc within a country, protecting interests and extending influence of sphere in nook and corner of the world etc are not sufficient characteristics to be called a civilised part or power of the world. It is necessary to see what is their attitude towards human beings? Whether they discriminate among the mankind on the basis of caste and creed? Whether they run their global business on the exploitation of poor? Whether they have united to support each other’s interests at the cost of human rights? If yes then question is open whether such countries may be considered as a part of advanced and civilised world.
The writer is an author and has a doctorate in Political Science.