Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, August 12, 2019
Good news! It’s not a “conspiracy theory” anymore. The media finally understand that government policies affect demographics and that demography matters.
Analysis: Kashmir’s new status could bring demographic change, drawing comparisons to the West Bank https://t.co/GDcJPx3oPA
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 8, 2019
The Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir, known as Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), is the only majority-Muslim state in Hindu India. When India became independent in 1947, Article 370 of its constitution granted special rights to J&K so that it could maintain a Muslim majority.
On August 5, India revoked Article 370, to the dismay of most American media. Hindus, they warned, might take over!
Vox’s Alex Ward, for example, noted that Article 35A barred people outside the state from buying property, and was written to “prevent India’s majority-Hindu population from moving into Jammu and Kashmir and displacing the Muslims who live there.” Mr. Ward warned there could be “ethnic cleansing.” In another piece, Mr. Ward wrote that some believe “Hindus will flock to the region to push out the Muslims once and for all.”
Suggesting that loss of local population control could lead to “ethnic cleansing” sounds like an unhinged conspiracy theory. Mr. Ward himself, in a piece praising Pete Buttigieg’s plan to combat “white extremism,” said the idea “that white people are being replaced” is a “white nationalist” idea promoted by murderers such as the Christchurch shooter.
What’s wrong with revoking Article 370? Shouldn’t all Indians be able to buy property in their own country? Preventing “outsiders” from buying property sounds like restrictive covenants to me.
Mr. Ward or some “extremism expert” should tell the Muslim Kashmiris that there is no “us” or “them,” and that diversity will soon be their greatest strength.
Mr. Ward warns that Pakistan might intervene to maintain the status quo. Is he implying Muslims in Indian Kashmir might have dual loyalties and want the protection of a foreign country?
Even the New York Times now understands the great replacement:
Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character.
The human rights group American Renaissance has made the same argument about the United States for decades.
The Washington Post also gets it: “Critics” reportedly say the Indian government’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party wants to “dilute the concentration of Muslims there and further its project to enshrine the Hindu identity of the nation.” The author also compared the “ethnic and religious undertones” to those in the West Bank, another area where media outlets mysteriously understand the importance of demographics.
The Atlantic worried that without the rule “dating back to colonial times” barring non-Kashmiris from settling, “the demographic balance of the state could shift—and with it, the idea that a vibrant democracy must take special efforts to protect the status of minority communities.”
Should the “status” of the white minority in South Africa be protected? No, said an Atlantic article in 2018. Worrying about the survival of white farmers is a “thinly veiled white supremacist cause.”
Bloomberg’s editorial board said India had made a “mistake.” It wasn’t making Kashmiris “feel like full citizens, in control of their lives and their destinies.” “Democracies as large and heterogeneous as India cannot escape internal tensions,” it said, “but the way to relieve such pressure is to decentralize power and give citizens a greater stake in their governance, as well as more control over local resources.”
That same day, Bloomberg argued for increased federal power in America. “The U.S. needs better intelligence-gathering and more effective preemptive action against domestic terrorists,” it said. Bloomberg also called for more gun control and an intensified fight against “white supremacy.”
When Kashmiris demonstrated against revocation of Article 370, India sent in troops and declared a curfew. Now the BBC even appears to be sympathetic to terrorism in the name of ethnic identity. In an article called “Inside Kashmir’s lockdown: ‘Even I will pick up a gun.’ ” it quotes without editorializing an angry young man who says of his toddler, “He’s too small now, but I will prepare him to pick up a gun too,” in order to fight what Kashmiris call “dictatorial power.” The article did not call for “gun control” or “tolerance.”
The Associated Press warned that “for many, India’s decision is a breach of trust and an attack on Kashmir’s identity.” Another AP story quoted a local man: “Maybe slowly our identity will disappear.” The AP did not call him “racist,” “far-right,” or “nativist.”
Two weeks ago, Farooq Abdullah, a member of the Indian parliament who represents Jammu and Kashmir, said he would “not allow any changes in the demography of the state.” He swore to resist “any attempt to dilute Jammu and Kashmir’s unique identity.” Imagine an American politician saying such a thing about the United States.
For white people, progressives repeat condescending slogans about the inevitability of population change.
- “Migration is inevitable.”
- “Borders are just arbitrary.”
- “There’s no way but violence and oppression to stop the mixing of different people.”
Yet now we hear warnings about a government trying to “dilute” a native population. Amazing.
Kashmiris are bitter because they thought the Indian constitution guaranteed autonomy. White South Africans thought their land was safe because the constitution said it was. White Americans foolishly think the Constitution will protect their rights. History follows blood, not ink.
Kashmir just got its equivalent of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965. Unless it’s reversed, Kashmir will lose its identity. Still, at least reporters and human rights groups won’t call Kashmir “racist” for resisting.