Kashmir As It Is
Aarti Tikoo Singh
Once again! The conflict in Kashmir is permitting hyper-nationalists and political elites to constantly mobilize rhetoric and harden the ethnic identities revolving around it. So much so that if the Right to Self-determination entails division of the state along religious lines it is acceptable to political elites regardless of the “personal hurt” it may cause to them. Farsighted as they are, the magnitude of the partition would be at the most “not good” for South Asian politics. Just that it is the same prescience with which they initiated the armed struggle and let 50,000 people get slain and 300,000 become homeless.
‘Independent Kashmir’ is the resuscitated stipulation in the valley. Outside Kashmir, Kashmiri Pandits are breathing new life into the idea of their ‘Own Kashmir’ sliced out of the valley. Jammu that recently gained the confidence to speak for itself, discerns that it now has a formidable position to seek statehood. Political elites and hyper-nationalists from all the ethnic, regional and religious groups in Jammu & Kashmir are willing to witness the incision of the land if that’s the cost they need to pay for attaining their ends.
The question however is whether these ends are political or ethnic? Or both? At the first place, does it matter what the nature of the ends is? Or is it incumbent upon a state to fulfill the aspirations of a people, no matter what the aspirations are?
Kashmiri nationalists would be quick to rubbish the theory that Kashmir is an ethnic discord. The argument used by Kashmiri nationalists is simple -Kashmir is a story of relentless political oppression by the Indian state. Kashmir deserves independence because it is demographically, culturally, socially and ethnically a distinct national entity that has nothing in common with India.
The Indian nationalists would insist that it is indeed what Kashmiri separatists deny. Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley is a point in case often used by Indian nationalists to project Kashmir as an ethnic conflict. They also tend not to acknowledge the political dimension of the problem.
Regardless of this negation by the Indian hyper-nationalists, the debate has arrived to a stage where the policy makers in New Delhi recognize the errors committed by it on the political canvass of Jammu & Kashmir. Instead of addressing the concerns of democratically elected leaders, the Indian state’s approach in Jammu & Kashmir through out its history beginning 1953, remained that of being a plotter and an intriguer. The political opportunists in Kashmir made it convenient for New Delhi to consistently use graft for maneuvering as against dialogue and negotiations with the estranged groups or individuals in the state.
As deductive reasoning goes, if there is recognition that Kashmir is a political problem, then it demands a political resolution. If the struggle in Kashmir is about rightful seeking of political rights and establishment of strong political institutions, then New Delhi needs to review its federal relations with Jammu and Kashmir. There is a huge room for negotiations, cordial diplomacy, decentralization and power sharing approach. In such a framework, independence for Kashmir becomes indefensible. The political discontent that could be obliterated through dialogue and through the process of ‘give and take’ on the negotiating table does not require the mantle of independence.
Hold on! Perhaps we are oversimplifying the problem. The nature of the ends is not merely political. The genesis of the demand for right to self-determination and the plea for freedom are ethno-political rather than solely political or purely ethnic. Jammu and Kashmir is a heterogeneous state as much as India is. The dynamic is unique in the sense that India a Hindu majority state with Muslims in a minority and Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim majority with Hindus in minority.
In intermingled population settlement patterns, the security dilemma is a reality especially in the absence of strong political institutions and presence of a theocratic homogeneous neighbor next door. The insecurity experienced by the minorities leads to probability of violence. The risks associated with these conflicts – like mutual fear and competition are quite high. In such states, nationalism is an ideology with tremendous appeal for political elites whose privileges are threatened and hyper-nationalists who are constantly struggling to compete for power.
Ethnic conflicts also narrow the scope for individual identity choice. Even those who have very little consideration about their ethnic identity are pressurized towards embracing an identity. Extremists within each community impose sanctions on those who do not contribute to the cause. Assassination of Kashmiri moderate and mainstream leaders is often cited as examples that led to the prevention of rising voice against the violence in Kashmir.
Identity is often imposed by the rebel group, specifically by its most murderous members. Once the non-state actors and the state actors engage in a confrontation, narrative of atrocities – real or fabricated- becomes a tool to mobilize hyper-nationalist rhetoric by the hardliners on both sides.
But are ethnic identities really primordial and so rigid that they are entitled to have separate homogeneous states? The answer to the question is ‘No’. Ethnic identities are fluid – they are continually being made or remade in social discourse. These identities are manipulable by political entrepreneurs.
The hyper-nationalist idea of a separate homeland of Kashmiri Pandits within Kashmir gained roots only after the majority in Kashmir raised the pitch for independence and hounded Pandits out of the valley. Kashmiris live comfortably in multicultural societies abroad but the rhetoric around their ethnicity in Kashmir prevents them from living the same way at home. If an American visa and citizenship in the USA, Canada or Europe is an expected right for the global Kashmiri citizen should he deny to others it within his own state?
Kashmir is as unique or as distinct as any other state of India. Bengal, Punjab, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh are as different culturally and socially as the state of Jammu and Kashmir is. The fragmentation and breakup of nations is not an end to be devoutly desired, as Kashmiri nationalists seem to think. It is odd to hear separatists living abroad in tolerant open societies advocating an aggressive monoculture at home. None of the religious tolerance of the societies they live in seems to have rubbed off on them.
We saw the horrors of the break up of Yugoslavia. When India was partitioned 12 million people lost their homes and over a million their lives in the space of just two months. And yet nothing was solved. We are scarcely better off over the communal question with the creation of Pakistan than we were without it. In a world, where alternatives to pluralism have shrunk for good, it is a moral obligation for the majority in India to address the fears and alienation of Muslims including those of Kashmir. At the same time Kashmiri Muslims should not hesitate to apologize and comfort the minorities in Jammu and Kashmir.
Aarti Tikoo Singh is a journalist and a student of Masters in International Affairs at Columbia University, New York. She can be reached at aarti.tikoo@gmail.com