Saquib Salim

Recently, US President Donald Trump claimed that Kashmir was the core issue behind Operation Sindoor by the Indian Army against the terrorist bases in Pakistan and is at least “a thousand years” old. Either the advisors of the President are misinforming him, or he is too ignorant about the history and geography of the Indian subcontinent. Whatever it is, the Western Powers have been repeating the same narrative for the last 8 decades.

President Trump and the World should understand that the reason for targeting terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Pakistan is not the ‘dispute’ on Kashmir. The Indian Government had to take this step to counter terrorism against its citizens. In Pahalgam, terrorists killed 26 Indians, mostly Hindu males, which triggered this kind of response. India did not bomb these terrorist hideouts to ‘solve’ the Kashmir issue.

These terrorists could have attacked anywhere on Indian soil. In the past, they had struck the Indian Parliament, Indian railways, markets in Delhi, Mumbai, and several other places, killing hundreds of Indians. The core issue was to defend India against such attacks in the future.

When it comes to terrorism and war against it, the attitude of the USA has always been, as George Orwell states, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” While their actions against the terrorists are called “the war against terrorism,” any Indian counter terrorism operation becomes a conflict for territorial dispute.

The West has been mixing sponsored terrorism with the Kashmir issue ever since the birth of Pakistan, 78 years ago.

Pakistan sent ‘tribal raiders’ (in modern terminology, they were the terrorists) to Kashmir in October 1947 to capture the state by force. On 31 December 1947, after repeatedly asking Pakistan to stop helping the raiders, India submitted a memorandum to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The memorandum clearly stated, “(a) that the invaders are allowed transit across Pakistan territory; (b) that they are allowed to use Pakistan territory as a base of operations; (c) that they include Pakistan nationals; (d) that they draw much of their military equipment, transport and supplies (including petrol) from Pakistan; (e) and that Pakistan officers are training, guiding and otherwise actively helping them.”

Goapalaswami Ayyangar, leader of the Indian delegation, told the UNSC, “We have referred to the Council a simple and straightforward issue. The withdrawal and expulsion of the raiders from the soil of Kashmir and immediate stoppage of the fight are the first and only tasks to which we have to address ourselves.” 

India provided evidence of the involvement of the Pakistan Army in the raiders’ invasion of Kashmir. But, as is the custom since being followed, Mohammad Zafrullah, leader of Pakistan’s delegation, said, “The Pakistan Government emphatically denies that they have given aid and assistance to the so-called invaders.”

What did the West-led UNSC do? It concentrated on a plebiscite in Kashmir rather than stopping violence, which was causing deaths of civilians, as its primary objective. Kashmir in the Security Council, a book published in 1953, noted, “The Indian representative again insisted on the extreme urgency of calling upon Pakistan to withdraw the invading tribesmen from Kashmir and bring the hostilities to an end. But this real issue was being clouded by the Security Council. Some great powers, notably Britain and America, refused to "face the straight issue" put to the Council, and the Kashmir case was considered not on its merits, but subordinated to the use of power politics.”

The book also pointed out, “But raising the issue of plebiscite while fighting was going on in Kashmir was putting the cart before the horse. The primary task facing the Seсurity Council, therefore, was to bring the fighting to a close. But this straight and clear issue was being shelved and obscured by the Council.”

The UNSC concentrated rather on replacing Sheikh Abdullah’s government with a ‘neutral’ government and getting rid of the Indian troops from Kashmir. “The strange attitude shown by the Imperialist Powers convinced him (Sheikh Adullah) that nothing could come out of the talks, and he had accordingly asked Mr. Ayyangar to withdraw the case altogether. Mr. Noel-Baker flatly denied the complicity of Pakistan in the raids, which, he said, were local. Mr. Warren Austin insisted on a 'neutral administration' for Kashmir, which, he frankly said, would include a few members of the Security Council. Most of the members saw Kashmir only as a neighbour of Russia and therefore an essential base in the encirclement of Russia for future aggression.”

India went to the UNSC with the hope that it would stop cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. India, a newly independent nation that, after the horrors of World War II, did not want to engage in a war by attacking a terrorist base in Pakistan. Instead of stopping the violence, the UNSC tried to make Kashmir an issue between India and Pakistan.

This was a simple case of a terrorist attack on civilians in Kashmir. The National Conference, led by Sheikh Abdullah, was as much a representative of the Kashmiri people as the Indian National Congress was of Indians. The party decided to join India. In the words of Abdullah, “When the raiders were fast approaching Srinagar, we could think of only one Way to save the State from total annihilation, by asking for help from a friendly neighbour. The representatives of the National Conference, therefore, flew to Delhi to seek help from the Government of India, but the absence of any constitutional ties between our State and India made it impossible for her to tender any effective assistance in meeting the aggressor... .. Since the people’s representatives themselves sought an alliance, the Government of India showed readiness to accept it. Legally, the Instrument of Accession had to be signed by the Ruler of the State. This is what the Maharaja did.”

Yet, the Western powers made the case of a terrorist attack on Kashmir as a dispute over territory. In 2025, 78 years later, they are trying to do the same.

For President Trump's information, Pakistan was born on 14 August 1947. The name 'Pakistan' was first heard in 1940 with the Muslim League demanding India's partition and creation of a land for Muslims. Nobody had even heard of this name before. If one time-travels to Karachi of 1920 and speaks about a country called Pakistan, he might be labelled as labelled a lunatic.

Mr President, we do not have a dispute over Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir, which has been claimed by Pakistan with the help of Western powers for eight decades, is an integral part of India. Kashmiri people under Sheikh Abdullah's leadership had accepted India as their country in 1947.

READ MORE: Ops Sindoor: India establishes decisive strategic edge over Pakistan

Trump and his advisors should learn that the present conflict arose because the Pakistani Army came out in support of terrorists when the Indian Army struck them. India was not attempting to change the Line of Control in Kashmir to liberate PoK, which it can morally.