Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. Xinjiang is controlled by China (it might be worth noting that India also claims ownership, but has no power there).

Kashmiris want independence from India.
Some people in Xinjian want independence from China.

Aren't the two situations very similar?

If they are, Why is the USA so much concerned about the human rights violations in Xinjiang, but less so about Kashmir?

Note: a couple of major differences, between Kashmir and Xinjiang is that Kashmir is a disputed territory nearly to the point of war between countries, and Xinjiang is not heavily disputed. Also, the US has a much better relationship with India than the USA has with China. Finally, India controls only part of Kashmir, while China controls all of Xinjian.

  • Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to debate the question matter or answer the question. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer if and when the question is reopened. Please try to limit these comments to suggesting improvements to the question.
    – JJJ
    Apr 15 '21 at 3:02
  • India seems to claim (what China calls) Aksai Chin, but India does not seem to claim the whole of Xinjiang. So the final sentence in the 1st para of the Q is at least misleading. Also, human rights violations generally concern "who'd done them", not who claims some territory, so a lot of the context provided seems extraneous.
    – Fizz
    Apr 15 '21 at 4:35
  • This question is being discussed on meta.
    – JJJ
    Apr 15 '21 at 16:38
  • You can't expect exact same response from the US or any other country in the world just because two situations seem similar to you. The question is what do you expect from the US to do about Kashmir? Have you thought about what has been done for Xinjiang? I understand that supporting a movement from a super power gives a lot of legitimacy and prestige to it, but you might think what would happen at end? The answer is nothing. Also, I don't think the US has a much better relation with India in comparison to China. Are you judging based on what media says?! There are lots of bias in here... Aug 23 '21 at 18:41

Your question starts with the assumption that the two situations are "approximately the same."

  • There is an independence movement in Xinjiang.
  • There is no significant independence movement in Kashmir.
  • There is a dispute between two widely recognized countries about the ownership of parts of Kashmir, resulting from the partition of British India.
  • There is no significant foreign claim on Xinjiang.
  • In addition to domestic sources, there has been significant foreign-fueled unrest in Kashmir.
  • Both Chinese forces in Xinjiang and Indian forces in Kashmir have been accused of human rights violations.
  • China has been accused of putting a significantly larger percentage of the population into internment camps.

So there are serious problems in both regions, but they appear quite different to me. Also, the United States is not required to fight all injustices in the world, and they are not required to stop fighting any injustices at all if they cannot fight all injustices at the same time.

  • 1
    Also, the United States is not required to fight all injustices in the world, and they are not required to stop fighting any injustices at all if they cannot fight all injustices at the same time. --- Thanks for this comment. But, the USA is not fighting injustices. It is just targeting China for being an aspirant superpower and giving a hall pass to India.
    – user366312
    Apr 11 '21 at 12:31
  • In addition to that, the USA has no moral authority to fight injustice when the USA has the BLF movement, organized hate crimes against Asians, and a history of ethnic cleansing of Red Indians, the Chinese exclusion act, the Chinese massacre of 1871, the direct and indirect killing of 8 million people in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, using the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, using napalm bomb and Agent Orange in Vietnam.
    – user366312
    Apr 11 '21 at 12:31
  • 7
    @user366312, it appears that you already have an answer to the question in your mind, which makes me wonder why you asked. Note also the number of downvotes and the close ...
    – o.m.
    Apr 11 '21 at 13:31
  • it appears that you already have an answer to the question in your mind --- Really? Just because I annulled your argument, doesn't mean that I already know the answer. Regarding downvotes, it's an open secret that most users of this website are from the USA or India or the UK, and they don't like questions against their own countries. So, no wonder why my question is downvoted.
    – user366312
    Apr 11 '21 at 14:43
  • 1
    @o.m. to answer your first question no. And to answer your second question, probably not. But I still believe you shouldn’t say there is no independence movement in Kashmir, or that Xinjiang isn’t a disputed territory. Maybe some rewording would fix the problem Apr 14 '21 at 13:13

Well, the US is surely more likely to see China (rather than India) as a main global competitor or adversary (depending exactly how you want to phrase this) as you point out in some of your comments. But I'll suggest that is not a sufficient explanation for the difference in US foreign policy.

Simply put it, from the US/Western perspective, China has put vast swaths of the Uighur population in forced labor camps from which their produce is exported to the USA (and elsewhere). Be it cotton or hair or even solar-panel-grade polysilicon. So that's a very tangible thing that affects US politics locally. (Yes, I'm arguing this has a tint of "all politics is local".) Can you pick up some product in a US store and claim "made with slave labor in Kashmir"? Probably nowhere near as easily...

Sure the West reacted with disapproval to the events in Kashmir in the past couple of years, from the revocation of statehood to the Citizenship Amendment Act, the lockdown that followed etc. But there's the thing that springing of well-organized Xinjiang-style camps are a thing you can see from a satellite, while some riots/clashes in some neighborhood in Kashmir isn't something that gives the same impression of permanent apparatus of oppression. (Simply search the web for "Xinjiang gulag" vs "Kashmir gulag" to appreciate this difference.)

  • I read through the article linking the satellite imagery of the camps, but I didn’t see anything that proves with hard evidence that there are Muslims in those camps. This means that it is possible that those camps are empty and meant as a backup plan, or for criminals. Apr 14 '21 at 13:18
  • @Yay: that you don't believe those articles is irrelevant for this question. It's enough that other people do believe them and they are prepared to act on that, politically.
    – Fizz
    Apr 14 '21 at 13:41
  • sorry, I misunderstood the post. Apr 14 '21 at 13:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .