Incorrect and objectional

Regarding the article titled “Indian-occupied Kashmir: A new American dilemma,” August 25, it is surprising that a newspaper of repute has given space to such an article, which is full of factual inaccuracies and misleading claims.

For one, UNSCR 47 (1948) predates Jammu & Kashmir’s (J&K) accession to India and operationalization of Article 370 (1950), so the question of its removal “upending long agreed-upon UN resolutions” does not arise.

Secondly, use of the phrase “Modi’s occupation” is not only incorrect but also objectional. Even the title is inaccurate as the entire J&K has been an integral part of India since 1949 and the Shimla Agreement (1972) and Lahore Declaration (1999) provide for resolution of all issues between India and Pakistan bilaterally.

Of course, the assertion that the Pakistani army is battling terrorism is laughable, since Pakistan continues to harbor UN-sanctioned terrorists and terror organizations.

It may be noted that Article 370 of the Indian Constitution was a temporary provision to allow for the gradual integration of J&K with the rest of the country. It was being used by certain vested interests to foster separatism and cross-border terrorism.

Its abrogation, and the accompanying administrative re-organization, is purely an internal matter, carried out under the framework of the Indian Constitution. It has no external ramifications as it does not involve any change to external boundaries. Motivated attempts to convey otherwise need to be firmly rejected. MUANPUII SAIAWI The writer is a counselor at the Embassy of India to Israel.

This column goes against Israeli and international law and blatantly sides with Pakistan!

ADERET GOLAN