2008-08-14

Jammu and Kashmir conflict heating up again

As Russian army (and many irregulars) roll through central Georgia untrammeled, another conflict seems to be coming to a boil as well: the imbroglio between India and Muslim separatists in Kashmir. I don't know if people have been following this situation, but, recently, the Indian central government (the "Centre" as they call it) considered giving over some forest land to a development group with the intent of improving facilities for the thousands (possibly even millions) of Hindus who make the trek to Amarnath temple (located in Kashmir) annually. Some of the Muslim separatist factions in Kashmir decided to raise a ruckus about this, claiming that the development group was a front set up by the Hindu nationalist party, BJP, to alter the demography of Kashmir (ie, resettle Kashmir valley with Hindus to sway political decision-making in the valley).
Now, to be honest, at first, I just thought this was another of the many pathetic posturing exercises that the seemingly endless political factions indulge in on a regular basis. But, it turned out to be quite a bit more. Apparently, the level of protests, both in Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu, has risen to levels that have not been seen since the early 1990s. Reuters had this to say about the newly-brewing conflict:

Indeed, some fear Kashmir will become a diplomatic football once again between the two nuclear rivals, with New Delhi unsure of a new civilian government in Islamabad that it perceives is in a dangerous vacuum.

Clearly, this is no longer just posturing.
However, I find the situation rather frustrating. Do the separatists actually think their lives will be "better" once they separate from India and, maybe, join Pakistan? Even putting aside the large sums of money India pours into Kashmir on an annual basis for development and what not (seemingly to no effect), separating from India would be economic suicide for the region. If they could get their act together, Kashmir, as part of India, would be a huge tourist attraction (as it used to be prior to the terrorism that began in 1989). As part of Pakistan, an Islamic Republic, the prospect for tourism/trade/etc. fall dramatically (simply because foreigners feel less comfortable dealing with a religious nation than with a secular one). As an independent state, Kashmir's prospects are even worse; how likely is it that Srinagar airport (the only viable international airport in the valley) will be able to provide as easy access to Kashmir for tourists as ... all of the transportation access points to India available to foreign tourists? Thinking simply about their own best interests would convince most "separatists" to accept India with open arms.
This is the reason that I find the notion that the separatists in Kashmir are entirely home-grown to be a total hogwash. There has to be external pressure for separatism in Kashmir; no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests. Therefore, there are external actors that are stoking the fire. And I am not simply talking about the ISI of Pakistan (CIA/FBI equivalent), who have been accused recently of fabricating the whole notion of an economic blockade by Jammu Hindus of the only access route via truck to Kashmir. No, several Indian political parties stand to benefit from making Kashmir a conflict zone, notably the BJP. The BJP is fuelled by radicalization of Indian politics and so, it is no surprise that the BJP (and its close friend, the RSS) took up the "Hindu" cause of the Amarnath land transfer (aside: this is where one sees how important language is; BJP/RSS very consciously made something that could easily have been a development-related issue into a Hindu/Muslim conflict to foment religious radicalism on both sides) as soon as they sensed that Hurriyat and PDP (Muslim-majority political parties in Kashmir) were trying to polarize the issue in religious terms (I guess Hurriyat and PDP also know how to play the language game).
If all these external actors had never meddled with the extremely complex religious relations extant within Kashmir, not only would there no longer be a problem in that Indian state, but the whole notion of a Kashmir problem would probably not exist.

[2008-08-14] Update: I was wrong when I said that the Amarnath project was spearheaded by the central government of India; the state government was the one that started the land development project.

[2008-08-21] Update: A commenter on I Me My had some interesting comments that I chose to respond to here. Please read that, as I feel it is an interesting extension on what was written here.

[via Reuters]

12 comments:

  1. This comes across as a very fair assessment of the conflict where both parties seem to share blame for the situation that exists! You're right; these separatists cannot be 'home-grown' because who wants to see his homeland in the condition that Kashmir is in today: completely isolated from the world and living under the constant threat of impending violence!

    In fact the "kashmiriyat' (of Muslims and Hindus) that is so often talked about needs to surface here and save this beautiful land that has in the past been called 'a paradise on earth'.

    SR I am going to put a link to this on my blog with your permission.

    ReplyDelete
  2. iditis, thanks. i don't mind the link at all (your blog gets a lot more traffic than mine, so it will expose me to a lot more viewpoints as your readers comment here)

    ReplyDelete
  3. SR,

    Personal electoral gains seem to be the driving force for all these leaders/politicians/players you mention. Your analysis is on the money when you say that rational kashmiris should see that this definitely is not in their best interest. Either rationality is in short supply or religious fervour has buried rationality deep into the ground. The so called 'kashmiriyat' has also been laid to rest somewhere besides rationality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous,
    i would like to hope that kashmiris will realize soon that their interests are not served by listening to any of the external groups trying to gain favor with them; ultimately, kashmiris will be best served if they do what they feel is in their best interests. i think this had started happening recently, but it has all been wasted thanks to the amarnath incident.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have started to believe, much to my chagrin, the old adage, 'you get the government you deserve'. In other words, you get the kind of leaders you deserve. If the people cant see through the devious ways of these politicians, who under the garb of religion drive divisions among the population that that they are supposed to be serving, then maybe, they deserve to be in the situation they are in. In this context, the other thought that comes to mind is that democratic goverance and religion certainly should not be allowed to mix. There should be serious consequences if any one tries to mix the two. The separation, to me, now looks even more important, else the democratic form of governing is certainly not the best one. We might as well go back to be geverned by the church/temple/mosque.......

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maeheehoon,
    I agree that it is very easy to get discouraged about democracy when looking at situations like Kashmir. This brings up the question of whether a democratic government should take on every characteristic of its people or only their best traits... I would like to think that it should be the latter, but that might be my underlying elitism showing through.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You have an 'outsiders' perspective. The solution cannot be 'a one time one'. It will evolve after we go through a range of emotional measures many of which may appear to you as reactions.

    You favor a side?

    ReplyDelete
  8. anonymous,
    thanks for your interesting comment. you are right; i do have an outsider's perspective. but, regardless of my perspective, i feel uncomfortable writing off large-scale mob violence situations as "emotional measures". i would like to think that human beings are rational enough to avoid those steps in the move towards resolution. of course, i am almost always proven wrong in this regard, but it is still a hope...
    as to whether i favor one side or another... i would like not to be biased at all. however, i do think that it is in the regular Kashmiri's best interest to side with India, so maybe i AM biased (and am just rationalizing my bias by trying to seem objective)... i guess what i mean is that i would avow that i am entirely unbiased but i am sure i could find people who would disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  9. anonymous,
    i just re-read your comment; do you have an insider's perspective? if so, it would be really interesting to hear what you think is in your (presumably you are a Kashmiri) best interest in the long-run...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's an interesting post on this conflict:
    http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/breaking-the-taboo-indian-op-eds-suggest-kashmir-plebiscite/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Arundhati Roy says: “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India.”

    ReplyDelete
  12. iditis,
    interesting article... i am not sure what i think of the plebiscite. a lot of Kashmiri Hindus who have left Kashmir will demand their vote and this simple vote will become a quagmire much like the rest of the Kashmir situation... i am not saying that the Kashmiri Hindus are right or wrong to demand their votes; all i'm saying is that the concept of a plebiscite is much more attractive than the reality.
    as for arundhati roy, i am slightly wary of commenting on what she says; either i don't understand her (ever) or she is always a polarizing influence on issues she touches...

    ReplyDelete