Skip to main content

NYT seeks UN intervention, says: Modi turning autocratic, talks absurd on Kashmir

By Our Representative
In what appears to be a scathing reply to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s much-publicized “New York Times” (NYT) article on Mahatma Gandhi titled “Why India and the World need Gandhi”, NYT’s powerful editorial board has said, Modi “didn’t address” the Kashmir issue in his United Nations (UN) speech, calling his assertion at the Houston rally a few days – that revoking the constitutional clause on Kashmiri autonomy meant “people there have got equal rights” with other Indians – “absurd”.
Insisting that Kashmir currently is “essentially under martial law”, the NYT editorial, dated October 2, the same day Modi’s Opinion piece appeared in the paper, said that the UN “can’t ignore Kashmir anymore”, though regretting, UN’s “lack of resolve is a sad sign of the dysfunction in international diplomacy”.
Describing Modi as “increasingly autocratic”, the editorial, which is a collective opinion of the daily’s editorial board, the editor and publisher, says, “President Trump has offered to mediate, but his warm relations with the increasingly autocratic Modi —Trump attended the Houston fan fest — hardly make him an honest broker”, adding, what is forgotten is that India has cracked down “on a long-disputed region”, leading to a situation where “two nuclear powers face off.”
Even as giving space to Modi, NYT, ironically, praises Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, calling him “a man on a mission” at the UN, “imploring members” to persuade India to “lift its siege of Kashmir, a longtime flash point between the two nations, which both have nuclear weapons.”
Calling Modi, on the other hand, “a Hindu nationalist prime minister”, the editorial recalls how the “semiautonomous status of the Muslim-majority state, Jammu and Kashmir, was revoked on August 5 by imposing “a curfew” and detaining “nearly 4,000 people, including lawyers and journalists”, pointing towards “serious allegations of torture and beatings.”
Lamenting that Khan resting any hopes on UN “seems futile, given the approach it has taken to the dispute in recent decades”, the editorial also recalls how UN “made an effort to play peacekeeper in Kashmir”, with the Security Council trying to “mediate tensions between India and Pakistan within months of their independence and partition in 1947.”
The editorial notes that ever since 1970s, after the two nations went to war, “pressure from India helped keep Kashmir off the Security Council’s agenda”, though it may come up for discussion in August, when China-backed Pakistan’s request for a discussion of Modi’s “power grab.”
New York Times, ironically, praises Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, calling him a man on a mission at the United Nations
The editorial believes, “Countries are unwilling to risk crossing Modi and losing access to India’s huge market. Pakistan is economically weak.” It adds, Pakistan “also damaged its standing, and its position on Kashmir, by supporting militant groups that have attacked Indian troops, stirring a conflict that has torn Kashmir apart for decades.”
Disagreeing with Modi that his clampdown would resolve the Kashmir conflict and bring normality and development to Kashmir, the editorial says, “It seems more likely that it will only heighten tensions and make life more miserable for Kashmiris.”
The editorial concludes by asking the Security Council to “make clear that it opposes Modi’s brutal tightening of India’s control on Kashmir.”
Modi’s NYT article talks of how Gandhi gave and continues to give “courage to millions globally” through his “methods of resistance”, even as envisioning “Indian nationalism” not as “narrow or exclusive but one that worked for the service of humanity.”
Asserting that Gandhi “epitomized trust among all sections of society”, Modi cites the instance of his intervention in the huge textile strike in Ahmedabad, saying, “When the conflict between the mill workers and owners escalated to a point of no return, it was Gandhi who mediated an equitable settlement”, giving the concept of “trusteeship.”
Ironically, the article does not say a word about how Gandhi tried to usher in a secular ethos in the country by seeking Hindu-Muslim unity.

Comments

onkar chadha said…
Nothing wrong with the very mindful writing of the editorial board of the NYT and which to my mind stooped beyond calling an 'autocratic PM'- but tone and tenor goes far beyond to fringe with the deeds of the North Korean President
Unknown said…
If PM Modi is a "Hindu Nationalist", Imran Khan is the president of an Islamic fundamentalist nation that is the hub of all Islamic terrorist activitiees, which is dangerous not only to India, but to the whole world.
Unknown said…
The so called Hindu Nationalism is not as dangerous to the world peace as the Islamic Terrorist Fundamentalism of which Pakistan is the hub.

TRENDING

Congress 'promises' cancellation of Adani power project: Jharkhand elections

Counterview Desk
Pointing out that people's issues take a backseat in Jharkhand's 2019 assembly elections, the state's civil rights organization, the Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, a coalition of activists and people’s organisations, has said that political parties have largely ignored in their electoral manifestos the need to implement the fifth schedule of the Constitution in a predominantly tribal district.

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

Hindutva founders 'borrowed' Nazi, fascist idea of one flag, one leader, one ideology

By Shamsul Islam*
With the unleashing of the reign of terror by the RSS/BJP rulers against working-class, peasant organizations, women organizations, student movements, intellectuals, writers, poets and progressive social/political activists, India also witnessed a series of resistance programmes organized by the pro-people cultural organizations in different parts of the country. My address in some of these programmes is reproduced here... 
***  Before sharing my views on the tasks of artists-writers-intellectuals in the times of fascism, let me briefly define fascism and how it is different from totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is political concept, a dictatorship of an individual, family or group which prohibits opposition in any form, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is also described as authoritarianism.
Whereas fascism, while retaining all these repressive characteristics, also believes in god-ordained superiority of race, cultur…

Ex-World Bank chief economist doubts spurt in India's ease of doing business rank

By Rajiv Shah
This is in continuation of my previous blog where I had quoted from a commentary which top economist Prof Kaushik Basu had written in the New York Times (NYT) a little less than a month ago, on November 6, to be exact. He recalled this article through a tweet on November 29, soon after it was made known that India's growth rate had slumped (officially!) to 4.5%.

With RSS around, does India need foreign enemy to undo its democratic-secular fabric?

By Shamsul Islam*
Many well-meaning liberal and secular political analysts are highly perturbed by sectarian policy decisions of RSS/BJP rulers led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, especially after starting his second inning. They are vocal in red-flagging lynching incidents, policies of the Modi government on Kashmir, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the demand for 'Bharat Ratna' to Savarkar who submitted 6-7 mercy petitions to the British masters (getting remission of 40 years out of 50 years' sentence), and the murder of constitutional norms in Goa, Karnataka and now in Maharashtra.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Girl child education: 20 major states 'score' better than Gujarat, says GoI report

By Rajiv Shah
A Government of India report, released last month, has suggested that “model” Gujarat has failed to make any progress vis-à-vis other states in ensuring that girls continue to remain enrolled after they leave primary schools. The report finds that, in the age group 14-17, Gujarat’s 71% girls are enrolled at the secondary and higher secondary level, which is worse than 20 out of 22 major states for which data have been made available.

Worrying signs in BJP: Modi, Shah begin 'cold-shouldering' Gujarat CM, party chief

By RK Misra*
The political developments in neighbouring Maharashtra where a Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress government assumed office has had a trickle down effect in Gujarat with both the ruling BJP and the Congress opposition going into revamp mode.

Post-Balakot, danger that events might spiral out of control is 'greater, not less'

By Tapan Bose*
The fear of war in South Asia is increasing. Tensions are escalating between India and Pakistan after the Indian defence minister's announcement in August this year that India may revoke its current commitment to only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack, known as ‘no first use’. According to some experts who are watching the situation the risk of a conflict between the two countries has never been greater since they both tested nuclear weapons in 1998.

'Favouring' tribals and ignoring Adivasis? Behind coercion of India's aborigines

By Mohan Guruswamy*
Tribal people account for 8.2% of India’s population. They are spread over all of India’s States and Union Territories. Even so they can be broadly classified into three groupings. The first grouping consists of populations who predate the Indo-Aryan migrations. These are termed by many anthropologists as the Austro-Asiatic-speaking Australoid people.