The United Nations must defuse the incendiary situation in Kashmir

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The decision by the Indian government to revoke Indian-administered Kashmir’s autonomy and put it under its direct control is deeply concerning.

The Himalayan region of Kashmir is claimed in its entirety by both India and Pakistan, but each country controls only part of it.

The abrupt and ruthless manner in which its autonomy has been revoked, fulfilling a Hindu nationalist agenda will undoubtedly lead to protests and inflame the resentment which has underpinned an insurgency which has cost tens of thousands of lives.

The broader reverberations in an unstable region are as worrying. Pakistan has already condemned New Delhi’s move and said it will “go to any extent” to protect Kashmiris. The two nuclear-armed neighbours have long been at odds – and at times at war – over the disputed Himalayan region.

Bill Clinton once described the ceasefire line as the most dangerous place in the world. China, which also has a territorial dispute, declared India’s actions unacceptable and void.

The consequences of revoking Kashmir’s special status is likely to be grave, extending well beyond the region, and the United Nations and other major global powers must urgently step in to defuse this incendiary situation.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

Kashmir is a political conundrum. It remains at the forefront of the struggle for liberation, self-determination, sovereignty and independence. Kashmir also remains the oldest disputed and unresolved conflict in the world today. Like the Israel-Palestine imbroglio and the tragedies in Syria, Libya, Yemen, the international community continues to just pay lip-service, unable to compel major powers to admit even grudgingly the intolerable impacts of their meddling in foreign lands and the subjugation of their peoples.

Also, the Muslim world has been mute, unwilling or unable to use its political, economic and religious leverage to mitigate peoples’ suffering and end the conflicts. Time to put the blame where it truly belongs and stop blaming others for our ineptitude.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob​
London NW2

Tesco’s doublespeak

I love how the management within big companies use such terms as “restructuring, and simplifying and reducing administration tasks” when what they really mean is sacking a load of people to get our profits up, and flog the remaining staff to work twice as hard to compensate, in fear of losing their jobs. To be fair all big companies do this to enable the people at the top to get a bigger bonus.

The sad thing is that we all know what they mean and allow it.

Ken Twiss
Cleveland

Why so keen for a no-deal Brexit?

It has been reported that Crispin Odey, a major sponsor of Boris Johnson, has bet £300m against British business failures post-Brexit (the so-called “shorting” of the economy). One wonders if this gambling on the country’s failure and making huge fortunes is driving the manic pursuit of a no-deal Brexit by Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and the ERG?

Kate Hall
Leeds

Where has Michael Gove been?

Mr Gove has proclaimed that the EU has to accept that a new approach is essential since Mrs May’s agreement has been rejected three times by parliament. He reportedly told reporters: “They are simply saying ‘No, we don’t want to talk’. I think that is wrong and sad. It is not in Europe’s interests.”

I am certain that the EU has always been clear that there was only one deal on the table. I am also certain that Europe has a much clearer vision of where its interests lie than does the UK about its own best interests. “Wrong” and “sad” simply do not cut it – unless one were to be talking about the UK.

By the way, did anyone else hear Mr Gove speaking in a weird “Boris” style yesterday?

Beryl Wall
London W4

Where has Michael Gove been over the last few years, down the pub? Is that how he managed to miss the years of negotiations this country had with the EU that resulted in an agreement between the British government and the European Union. The fact that the British government was unwilling or unable to honour the agreement that they had freely entered into it is nothing to do with the EU.

Both Gove and the EU are aware of this so Gove’s soundbite is aimed squarely at UK voters. Are the voters that naive? Is Johnson prepared to gamble on voters being so ignorant that they too missed the years of negotiations, and that our prime minister had signed an agreement in their name, and can therefore be treated with contempt?

John Simpson

Ross on Wye