As the Indian Government drools over the increasedtradeprospects created byBrexit, the real message from the historic event has fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps it is justice that moves most slowly in the third world along with its red-tape beurocracy, sluggish internet and long queues for utility bills.

Another bloodbath in Kashmir

Once again, Indian Occupied Kashmir is burning. According toGreater Kashmir, inthe last week, 40 people including children have already been killed and thousands injured in clashes with security forces following the killing of a popular militant commander.

In a well orchestrated killing timed right after Eid celebrations, India playsMachiavellian politics in a mostundemocratic manner.

Over the decades, the vale of Kashmir that Sir Walter Lawrence so loved, has been reduced to a thorn in India's foot, which must either be plucked outor stamped out into oblivion.Brute force and not democracy is the path India chooses to tread in Kashmir. The indiscriminate use of pellet guns to fire at protestors has gone unchecked by authorities, with dozens of civiliansleft with serious eye injuries caused thepellets, forcing a team of Indian doctors to describe it as a war-like situation.

India's refusal to carry out a referendum in Kashmir

India, Britain's old time friend and child of its colonial machinations, continuesto swell with pride at how Indians forced the British to leave, however,refusing to grant the people of Kashmir the promised right to exit the Union of India by plebiscite.Having become one of those "problems" which props up every summer and dies down every winter only to be forgotten until the next fake encounter, mass killing, rape by security forces the"happy valley" is today a living hell thanks to five decades of Indian occupation.

Recent events in the Western and Eastern parts of the globe portray starkly divergent images of the world we live in. On one hand we have the United Kingdom voting in favor of Brexit and with one stroke of the public's wand the nation exits the European Union. Neither queen nor minister may question the voters' choice, let alone deny them their choice.

On the other hand we have the world's greatest democracy, thumping its bare chest and showing off its military might as the people in its northern most state are deprived of the one right they were promised by their occupiers;self determination.

Not very long ago Northern Ireland voted to remain with the United Kingdom. Had it decided otherwise who would stop them?However, substituting Ireland with Kashmir or any other disturbed part of India, would a similar vote ever be allowed to be carried out in the Indian Union?

Role of the UN and World leaders

In 2016, while Kashmir faces the tragedy of civilian deaths, life-crippling pellet gun injuries, crack downs and curfews, the UN Secretary General instead of taking India to task, merely expresses the willingness to mediate talks between India and Pakistan. Why must the two countries decide the fate of Kashmir? And any talks that be carried out should involve the representatives of the Kashmiri people and Indian policymakers.

Despite theUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 47 of1948, which clearly demanded a plebiscite in Kashmir, the voting has never been carried out. What has been carried out is a gradual and calculated compromise on the state's sovereignty.

From being an independent princely state, it was cleverly annexed, reduced from having its own Prime Minister to having merely a chief minister. It also lost its indigenous flag, currency, postal system and even residence laws where Indians were required to carry a travel permit.

Unfortunately, the UN in 2010 removed Kashmir from its list of disputed territories. This decision has clearly only encouraged India's head strong attitude with regards to its claims to Kashmir.Ironically, in depriving Kashmiris the right to plebiscite, the biggest democracy in the world shows a fear of democracy itself.