NYT Opinion Piece on Kashmir
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/india-pakistan-kashmir-jammu.html
A New York Times opinion piece by Harsh Shringla talks about the Indian armies invasion of Kashmir. He justifies the invasion through a utilitarian approach. He cites the lack of economic success, regressive laws, and terrorist connections in Kashmir. He believes that an enforced Indian rule over Kashmir would be better for its citizens, therefore it is permissible for India to invade Pakistan. He says "The changes introduced by India have challenged entrenched interests who benefited from the old system at a cost to the people.". He calls it a "introduced change", however it is a military invasion (1). USA today reports the opposite, that "Kashmir is India’s only Muslim-majority state and most people there oppose Indian rule" and "Rebels have been fighting Indian control for decades, and most Kashmiris support the rebels' demand that all of Kashmir be united under Pakistani rule or become independent". 70,000 people have been killed in Indias crackdown of the rebels, and India on August 6th passed legislation for Kashmir to be under direct Indian rule.
I would like to challenge his underlying moral theory. The idea that a supposed benefit for someone is a justification to violate there rights is wrong. This is the same belief that the US has used to justify its wars. "We need to forcibly bring this country democracy and help it's people". Then, the ensuing result are usually power instability, terrorism, and totalitarianism. Regardless of the results, it is morally impermissible to take over a country's citizens right to autonomy. The people of every country should decide there own fate, and be able to declare independence if they choose to. If the US had a severe economic downturn, would it be acceptable for China to invade us and install there government rule for a supposed benefit? Of course not, so why would we use this justification for the fate of another country. Harsh Shringla's piece is thinly vailed propaganda for colonialism. In essence, "we will save these savages from themselves".
(1) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/08/06/indian-troops-invade-kashmir-pakistan-warned-war/1939894001/
A New York Times opinion piece by Harsh Shringla talks about the Indian armies invasion of Kashmir. He justifies the invasion through a utilitarian approach. He cites the lack of economic success, regressive laws, and terrorist connections in Kashmir. He believes that an enforced Indian rule over Kashmir would be better for its citizens, therefore it is permissible for India to invade Pakistan. He says "The changes introduced by India have challenged entrenched interests who benefited from the old system at a cost to the people.". He calls it a "introduced change", however it is a military invasion (1). USA today reports the opposite, that "Kashmir is India’s only Muslim-majority state and most people there oppose Indian rule" and "Rebels have been fighting Indian control for decades, and most Kashmiris support the rebels' demand that all of Kashmir be united under Pakistani rule or become independent". 70,000 people have been killed in Indias crackdown of the rebels, and India on August 6th passed legislation for Kashmir to be under direct Indian rule.
I would like to challenge his underlying moral theory. The idea that a supposed benefit for someone is a justification to violate there rights is wrong. This is the same belief that the US has used to justify its wars. "We need to forcibly bring this country democracy and help it's people". Then, the ensuing result are usually power instability, terrorism, and totalitarianism. Regardless of the results, it is morally impermissible to take over a country's citizens right to autonomy. The people of every country should decide there own fate, and be able to declare independence if they choose to. If the US had a severe economic downturn, would it be acceptable for China to invade us and install there government rule for a supposed benefit? Of course not, so why would we use this justification for the fate of another country. Harsh Shringla's piece is thinly vailed propaganda for colonialism. In essence, "we will save these savages from themselves".
(1) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/08/06/indian-troops-invade-kashmir-pakistan-warned-war/1939894001/
Comments
Post a Comment