What does Kashmir need to do to make it plain to the world that it's own ethos is based on tolerance and plurality, in absolute consonance with it's tranquil environment. It could even be argued to be an antecedent of Indian secularism.
The idea for the title of this week's
column comes from the title of a piece written in the Wall Street Journal by
Sadanand Dhume on Monday the 20th of December entitled, "What Terrorizes
India?" A somewhat provocative piece analysing the relative de-merits and
threat posed to India by extreme right-wing/fundamentalist Muslim and Hindu
groups, clearly incensed by Rahul Gandhi's comment that the latter posed a much
bigger threat to India than the former.
It could well be that India has or will
develop the capacity to contain radicalism (whatever be it's origin): what is
absolutely unclear is how Kashmiri society will put a stop to the haemorrhage
that it has endured for the past sixty-three years on account of India and
Pakistan's competing national identities?
What does Kashmir need to do to make it
plain to the world that it's own ethos is based on tolerance and plurality, in
absolute consonance with it's tranquil environment. It could even be argued to
be an antecedent of Indian secularism. Thus, integrating into an Indian
national identity that holds itself out as an appealing alternative to
Pakistan's uncouth Islamic radicalism holds little water. Indeed. The growth of
Islam in Kashmir has been markedly
different from how it has developed in the Indian sub-continent. A healthy
spiritual undercurrent in the shape of sufism found absolute harmony with
Kashmir's cultural ethos. It is terrorising for Kashmir to be mired in a binary
conflict with incessant push and pull tactics devised by India and Pakistan.
What exacerbates this onslaught of
terror is how the 'international community' perceives the Kashmir problem. The
U.S. and it's junior partner Britain, can not see Kashmir out of the context of
their presence in Afghanistan, their reliance on Pakistan and their commmercial
and strategic interests that depend on Indian favour. It is terrorising for a
people who want to be immune from the conflict of their neighbours, to be faced
with such heavy odds to attain the rights enshrined in the UN Charter. What is
suffocation of civil space and repression of freedom for Kashmir, is the wrong
end of a mere strategic calculation for the international community.
One is horrified to read America's
reservations about an independent Kashmir: That it will become a bastion of
'Islamic terror'. It has made little effort to understand that all mechanisms
of 'terror' have been imported or thrusted upon the people of Kashmir, they are
certainly not indigenous or intrinsic. A neutral Kashmir would seek guarantees
from the 'international community' that it's neighbours refrain from exporting
conflict and it's associated ills to Kashmir.
Taking into account the limited change
evoked by the India-Pakistan peace process and the international community's
apathy, the consequent lack of incentive to 'shun the gun' is a terrorising
thought. Further, that the 'international community' and global media give a
celebrity status to activism for Tibet ( a la Richard Gere), give sustained
focus to Tianenmen Square and find it expedient to devote personal attention to
conflict in the oil rich gulf states. It is terrorising to think that oil
(which is essentially replace-able) is given far more global attention than
water (whch is essentially irreplace-able) and which can be easily foreseen to
be the major source of future global conflict. Again, a neutral and responsible
Kashmir could forestall such a scenario and save the world from un-ending
strife.
Closer to home, our neighbours India
and Pakistan are increasingly being accused by their respective civil societies
of not working for
their national interest. The presence of Indian, Pakistani and Chinese military
on our soil is not just terrifying in terms of their presence, it is terrifying
for their populations who make a direct connection of this phenomena with the
paucity of resources left over - year on year - for their development. There
are ample examples of Indian and Pakistani politicians grandstanding on the
Kashmir issue in order to present a faux patriotic stance to their public.
Misappropriation of funds earmarked by New Delhi and Islamabad for Kashmir's
development by these very politicians (in conjunction with local lackeys) is a
terrifying thought.
This stack of terror has a local
dimension too. Realising that the attitude of many people (of the erstwhile
Dogra State) hasn't changed an iota since the anarchy of October 1947 is
foremost in one's mind. Debating on the relative 'merits' of Hindu or Muslim
rule in Kashmir not only shows how much baggage we continue to carry from 1947,
it highlights how little we understand what is needed for fulfilling our
aspirations and potential for progress. The perennial 'religious identity'
argument mires us deeper into an abyss.
Further fractures have been evolved by
politicians, certainly on this side of the divide (viz. Pakistani-administered
Kashmir) in the shape of caste (biraderi) based politics. It shouldn't be
surprising that no party has ever proposed a political manifesto, let alone
economic policy here. Those members of the public who resisted this superficial
approach have been politically, economcally and socially ostracised, adding a
direct layer of suppression and terror.
Yet another terrorising thought is the
absence of a clear, unified and representative voice that could speak on behalf
of all regions of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. India and Pakistan
have of course played their part in dividing opinion and their prevention of movement
between the various regions from around 1948 to 2005 - despite no such
prohibition imposed by UNCIP resolutions - is a glaring testimony to this
view.
A recent study by Robert Bradnock for
Chatham House, not only confirmed a burning aspiration for independence (figure
given was 43% overall but for some inexplicable reason ommitted various areas
that are perceived to strongly support the notion of an independent Kashmir i.e
The Neelam Valley), it also highlighted unemployment and corruption as the
major concerns of the population on either side of the divide. It is
terrorising to know that the public sector on both sides is heavily bloated, in
an attempt to de-politicise the masses. Furthermore, minsicule support for
Pakistani presence in Kashmir confirms the international community's blinkered
supposition that India and Pakistan need to work together to resolve the
'Kashmir Issue'. Another terrorising thought.
One is of the opinion that Kashmir
needs to be discussed and resolved by the respective countries that control
each part under their administration. For example, Pakistan needs to discuss
Kashmir with stakeholders that reside in the part of Kashmir that they control
and vice versa for India. One would further contend that India and Pakistan talks
on Kashmir would never lead to a resolution; certainly not a resolution that
would satisfy all the diverse ethnic, regional and political thought that
aggregates the 'disputed territory'.
It is important to remember that
Kashmir was a profitable State in 1846 (hence, Ghulab Singh's payment to the
British) and 164 years on, it has been relegated to an economic basket case,
supposedly dependent on Islamabad and New Delhi's magnanimity. The fact that
Kashmir's economy has not only been prevented from growing organically, it is
clear to see that India, Pakistan and China's presence here is an on-going
ordeal of terror.
...
The writer is a writer, broadcaster and activist working for civil society development in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and can be mailed at sahaafi@gmail.com
This article was first published in Rising Kashmir (a Srinagar-based English daily) on the 29th of December 2010