By : Chandra Muzaffar
It is a pity that some groups and
individuals are urging palm oil importers in India to refrain from buying the
commodity from Malaysia. The Solvent Extractors Association of India, India’s
top vegetable oil trade body is one such outfit. Apparently, this boycott is a
sort of “punishment” for Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s remarks on Kashmir at the United Nations
General Assembly on 27th September 2019.
The Indian government has reportedly
protested against Dr Mahathir’s criticism of Indian action in Kashmir. However
so far it has not voiced support for the call to boycott Malaysian palm oil.
There are also groups such as the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee that have come
out against the reduction of Malaysian
palm oil imports by India because of the possibility of retaliatory measures
that could impact adversely upon workers from Tamil Nadu employed in the
information technology sector and
restaurant business in Malaysia.
This is one of the dangers of trade
boycotts and the like in bilateral relations. They escalate quite easily doing
irreparable damage to ties that have been cultivated over a long period of
time. It is commendable that the two governments have displayed a degree of
restraint. Vested interests, political parties and civil society groups in
India and Malaysia should also demonstrate their maturity and approach the
issue at hand in a balanced manner.
Since both countries are practising
democracies, criticisms of certain aspects of the policies and practices of one
another should be viewed as integral to their underlying value system. A
democracy does not overact to a critical comment about its policy or practice.
This is especially so if the state in question is also the world’s largest
democracy.
Besides, one should examine the view
expressed by Mahathir without any blinkers. Its main thrust was that the
longstanding Kashmir conflict should be resolved “by peaceful means.” UN resolutions on Kashmir should not be
disregarded. This is a position that a number of other governments have also
expressed from various platforms.
At the crux and core of the UN’s stand on
Kashmir is the solemn recognition that the wishes of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir should be accorded primacy. This is why right from the outset the UN
had urged all sides involved in the conflict to allow for a UN supervised
plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir which would decide the destiny of the people of
that region. In other words, the people of Jammu and Kashmir should exercise
their sacred right of self-determination.
In the early decades, self-determination
was understood as the people of Jammu and Kashmir joining either India or
Pakistan. In recent years, a new dimension has emerged. Self-determination in the real sense must
also mean the people’s right to establish their own independent, sovereign
state of Jammu and Kashmir which is part of neither Pakistan nor India.
Whatever the eventual goal,
self-determination as a principle has not only been ignored but often
suppressed. Uprisings by the people have been mercilessly crushed, the most
infamous of which was the Jammu Massacre of 6th November 1947. It is
alleged that Indian occupation forces alongside Dogra forces and RSS militants killed
around half a million Kashmiri Muslims. Killings have continued in the last
seven decades. It was this that Mahathir alluded to in his UN speech.
It is important to emphasise that these
massacres have spawned the rise of militants and militancy in Kashmir. While
militancy in Kashmir is largely home-grown and is intimately interwoven with
the legitimate struggle for self-determination, it is quite conceivable that it
receives material and moral support from elements in the Pakistani power
stratum. This support and the militancy itself have now complicated the quest
for a just solution to the conflict.
Sometimes political decisions made by New
Delhi intensify --- perhaps unwittingly --- militancy among Kashmiris. The
recent revocation of Kashmir’s special status through the abrogation of Article
370 in the Indian Constitution on the 5th of August 2019 is a case
in point. A portion of Kashmiris will
interpret the revocation and all that it implies in terms of ownership of land,
the right of settlement and the alteration of ethnic and religious demographics
as the wilful annexation of Indian occupied Kashmir into the Indian Union and
therefore a clear repudiation of the desire of the Kashmiri people to determine
their own future.
It appears that the abrogation of Article
370 will only perpetuate the violence and the bloodshed associated with one of
the longest political conflicts in modern times.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of
the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).
Malaysia.
26th October 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment