Continuing, he added:I just read that post and thought that the following was a rather naive and one sided statement from an outsider's perspective:
"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."
Of course there is external pressure but the second part of this statement is quite debatable if not largely incorrect.
In my opinion India should simply have a fair referendum in Kashmir and Kashmiris should be allowed to choose what they want for themselves. But a referendum will not take place any time soon because they will likely vote in favor of separation and the creation of an independent state.
See Pervez Hoodbhoy's documentary 'Crossing the lines - The battle for Kashmir's freedom' for an excellent overview of the whole issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr2PiD4c5rE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsOKxgicKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ory6Tv1ZvWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNR_qDw76E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYyeLVb08dQ
I would like to respond to the commenter. I was initially going to respond on Id It Is's blog, but my response became rather longer than a comment should be, so I respond here (and will link to it on Id It Is's entry's comment page:ok perhaps naive was the wrong choice of word and I apologize for that but to me the statement did sound like it was coming from an outside perspective.
How can one make a sweeping generalization that 'no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests'?
There's obviously a lot of support for the separatist movement and Kashmiris have obviously been mistreated by India for this support to exist. If no wrongs were committed by India, no amount of outside influence could ever lead to such a widespread separatist movement.
Why can't Kashmir exist as a separate nation? I am sure they will be able to build a bigger airport and sustain themselves without being attached to India :)
I think it's about time that they were given a chance to do so. India and Pakistan should stop acting as their colonizers and let them create their own destiny.
I think cubano makes an interesting point in his comments on your post (thanks, by the way for the responses; I would have preferred them on my blog so that it looked like people read it!). Namely, he feels that, based on empirical evidence, Kashmiris are very much interested in separating from India and either forming their own "more perfect union" or joining their neighbor to the west, Pakistan.
However, I would contend that any empirically-based view of the situation is far from rational. As cubano concedes, there is a lot of external pressure on the valley (primarily due to Pakistan's ISI continued provocations and, consequently, the Indian army's responses to those provocations). That pressure has been present for quite a while (ISI provocation pressure since 1989; Indian army response pressure shortly thereafter). Therefore, for nearly two decades, this external pressure has rendered invisible what I feel is Kashmir's best interest. I really can't imagine that it is "naivete" to think that all people, regardless of their geographic, racial, or religious background, want to prosper and be free. With India, Kashmiris get a readily available, fairly rich, consumption-oriented population, relatively easy access to international funds, an institutionally secular government, and an economy that is growing by leaps and bounds. On their own, Kashmiris will have to set up their own economy (not all that easy, from evidence of the past 60 years from around the world), provide their own government (which will have to face the same external pressures that the Indian Army has been attempting, rather poorly, to repel, as cubano pointed out in his comments), and generally replicate a lot of the Indian government's failures and successes. With Pakistan, Kashmiris get an economy that is not doing as well, a government that is in the throes of revolution and has a history of military dictatorship (which, by definition, limits the personal freedoms of Pakistani citizens), and a nation identified as a non-secular state, which limits its supply of foreign tourism and investment.
Cubano feels that it is naivete to ignore empirical evidence. I would generally agree with that statement. However, if we are trying to ignore the effects of external actors (as he and I both seem to agree that we should), we must discount the effects that external actors have had on the valley in the past 20 years; that is why I chose to ignore the "on the ground" fact that a large segment of Kashmir wants to separate from India. If the state's (many) leaders are acting in the rational self-interest of their constituency (which I concede they currently certainly are not), I believe cubano and I would see them acting quite differently and, likely, in the way that I describe.
I hope that the commenter responds to my response to his response to my blog (hehe). I would really like to see if I have clarified my position.
[via I Me My]
Posts
SR
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier, your position makes sense to me; thanks for providing all those clarifications on your blog.
Cubano
Thanks for bringing about this interesting discussion which has helped me and many others understand this conflict a lot better; may the best solution prevail!
"Namely, he feels that, based on empirical evidence, Kashmiris are very much interested in separating from India and either forming their own "more perfect union" or joining their neighbor to the west, Pakistan."
ReplyDelete- Based on the fact that Kashmiris have been involved in a popular separatist movement for decades makes me think that they want to separate from India. Perhaps not all Kashmiris would like to separate but because of the large scale of the separatist movement, I am assuming they many do want to separate. I don't feel that they are very interested in joining their neighbour to west, Pakistan. I said in my comment "India and Pakistan should stop acting as their colonizers and let them create their own destiny." In the end there's only one way to find out what Kashmiris want and that's through a fair referendum. Who are we to make assumptions about what they want? Why not put the question to them? Regardless of outside or inside influences, the choice should be theirs to make.
"As cubano concedes, there is a lot of external pressure on the valley (primarily due to Pakistan's ISI continued provocations and, consequently, the Indian army's responses to those provocations). That pressure has been present for quite a while (ISI provocation pressure since 1989; Indian army response pressure shortly thereafter). Therefore, for nearly two decades, this external pressure has rendered invisible what I feel is Kashmir's best interest."
- I would like to point out that the Kashmir issue predates the influence from Pakistan and the heavy handed response by the Indians. The issue actually dates back to 1947 (and possibly prior) and the sentiments of separation or sovereignty in Kashmir were present even back then.
"I really can't imagine that it is "naivete" to think that all people, regardless of their geographic, racial, or religious background, want to prosper and be free. With India, Kashmiris get a readily available, fairly rich, consumption-oriented population, relatively easy access to international funds, an institutionally secular government, and an economy that is growing by leaps and bounds."
- I don't disagree that there are obvious advantages for Kashmiris if they stay with India but obviously they don't seem to agree considering the insurrections in the past and present. They were with India before 1989 and obviously a large number of them felt that they were mistreated or felt and perhaps continue to feel that the advantages of staying with India don't outweigh consequences of separation. May be economic advantages aren't always as important as other sentiments for people. The case of Quebec, Canada comes to my mind as a similar situation. Regardless of all this, once again I must say who are we to determine and impose what's right or wrong for them. Hold a referendum and find out!
"On their own, Kashmiris will have to set up their own economy (not all that easy, from evidence of the past 60 years from around the world), provide their own government (which will have to face the same external pressures that the Indian Army has been attempting, rather poorly, to repel, as cubano pointed out in his comments), and generally replicate a lot of the Indian government's failures and successes."
- Every nation and society faces similar pressures but it doesn't usually stop them from aspiring for sovereignty. This is something that they as a nation or people should be ready to face, if they want to separate. The struggles will be there but that's part of the process.
"With Pakistan, Kashmiris get an economy that is not doing as well, a government that is in the throes of revolution and has a history of military dictatorship (which, by definition, limits the personal freedoms of Pakistani citizens), and a nation identified as a non-secular state, which limits its supply of foreign tourism and investment."
- I have never said or implied that Kashmir should become part of Pakistan but again that is up to them. Personally, I hope they don't choose to become a part of Pakistan. That country can barely hold itself together. How will it manage Kashmir :-) Not to mention if they chose to become a part of Pakistan, a full scale war will likely break out between India and Pakistan.
I strongly think that Kashmiris should be given a right to choose their own future through a referendum. This situation should be out of the hands of politicians and politicians shouldn't be allowed to determine the course of the future for the masses. Let the people decide for themselves. The referendum should include the whole of Kashmir. The fact that this referendum has never been held shows that both countries would rather occupy the territory in an oppressive manner for their own interests rather than letting the Kashmiris decide for themselves.
cubano,
ReplyDeletethanks for your comment, seriously. this is the sort of thing that i was hoping would happen if i started blogging again. i am not sure if we'll be able to agree but here are some of the reasons i question your points:
1. first of all, i am in favor of the plebiscite lots of people suggest/mention. as most south asians will remember, it was part of the deal offered to kashmir when the monarchical state joined india. it would be a good way to determine what "kashmiris" want. but, this issue runs into problems anytime it is brought up for a sadly simple reason: what is a kashmiri? there is a large minority of kashmiris (especially hindus) who have left kashmir due to the troubles in the valley and who demand that their votes (and sometimes those of their children too, hehe) be counted in any plebiscite on kashmir's future. their point is not invalid either; were it not for external pressures, they would still be in kashmir and then the violence in kashmir starts looking like an effort to sway the results of any plebiscite (by changing the underlying population).
2. i can't really say much about the presence of separatist thought prior to 1989, but it seems to me that anyone who talks about kashmiri terrorism/violence/separatism always uses that year as the watershed year when everything changed. there may have been separatist undercurrents beforehand, but i don't think they were at the same level of magnitude as they have been since 1989.
3. the example of quebec is a very apt one. the quebec plebiscite that you mention certainly did happen, and almost passed (i think they got 49% of quebecois saying yes to secession). however, there were two other issues that had to be considered as part of the quebec secession case that are of interest here. first, the quebec secession did not depend solely on the plebiscite. the case was discussed in the canadian supreme court to look at whether or not the quebecois right to self-determination outweighed the canadian sovereignty over all canadian territory. ultimately, the canadian supreme court ruled that, because quebecois were sufficiently important and active in society within canada, the quebecois right to self-determination was overruled by canadian territorial sovereignty. another interesting point that applies to the kashmir issue is that when the quebecois demanded their right to self-determination, a small group of native americans living in quebec province filed a case in the canadian legal system demanding that if quebec does secede, the lands on which the native americans reside remain with the rest of canada as they feel that their own interests would be better served by remaining with canada (rather than going with quebec). ultimately, it became a moot point (as quebecois secession failed in all categories), but the point remains that self-determination of a region is not simply based on the whims of the majority of the people in that region; it must take into account the territorial sovereignty of the nation they wish to secede from and the issue of whether all people (and not just a large majority) of the region wishes to secede.
(jakobo, correct me if i'm saying anything wrong)
4. as for concerns such as economy-building and governance limiting the formation of states by nations of people, i think that such concerns very much determine whether or not multi-cultural states together. if that were not the case, all of india would split into tens (if not hundreds) of separate parts; the liberal, coastal united states would split off from the more conservative middle america. however, most such splits do not happen because the separation would not be economically or bureaucratically beneficial (to either group).
i would also like to make a sentimental point here (hehe): i much like multicultural states; i live in one, i like living in it, and i think that splitting off into a hundred different pieces based on cultural/ethnic/religious identity is a sad outcome.
5. i was including joining pakistan as an option to make sure that i was covering all the choices available to kashmiris. while it is a valid option available to them, i agree with your hope that they don't choose it as it would be the cause of lots of international friction (to say the least).
6. as i said before, i do agree with the notion of a plebiscite/referendum (despite everything i wrote above, hehe). i just want to qualify that agreement with all that i just said: 1) it cannot be the only thing that determines the fate of kashmir as a part of india (see quebec case details); and 2) the group of people who can vs. should vs. want to take part in the plebiscite is a sticky situation that does not have a resolution that i can see very easily.
i would love to get your ideas on the referendum population issue, actually. i concede that i would not know how to choose who votes; it seems to me that there are many different ways of defining a kashmiri today...
thanks again for your comments.
"what is a kashmiri? there is a large minority of kashmiris (especially hindus) who have left kashmir due to the troubles in the valley and who demand that their votes (and sometimes those of their children too, hehe) be counted in any plebiscite on kashmir's future. their point is not invalid either; were it not for external pressures, they would still be in kashmir and then the violence in kashmir starts looking like an effort to sway the results of any plebiscite (by changing the underlying population)."
ReplyDelete- This is a difficult situation. There are numerous minorities in Kashmir that include Hindus, Budhists, Gujjar etc. I don't think that there's a simple solution that would satisfy everyone. Perhaps they could give voting rights to those who moved away from Kashmir starting from 1989 to the date of the plebiscite. Their children should be excluded so the situation doesn't become totally ridiculous. I don't necessarily agree with this argument that people who moved away should have the right to vote. My grandparents moved from India to Pakistan in 1947. Should I have the right to vote in Indian elections because my family once lived in India and they were Indian citizens?
Perhaps sizable minorities could also have autonomous regions within an independent Kashmir but that would lead to other problems.
"2. i can't really say much about the presence of separatist thought prior to 1989, but it seems to me that anyone who talks about kashmiri terrorism/violence/separatism always uses that year as the watershed year when everything changed. there may have been separatist undercurrents beforehand, but i don't think they were at the same level of magnitude as they have been since 1989."
- Separatist thought existed prior to 1989 or at least major grievances existed prior to that. External parties cannot simply convince people of something without having a base to stand upon. Unless we assume that Kashmiris are extremely gullible and naive and simply became influenced by external parties without any reason :-)
"as for concerns such as economy-building and governance limiting the formation of states by nations of people, i think that such concerns very much determine whether or not multi-cultural states together. if that were not the case, all of india would split into tens (if not hundreds) of separate parts; the liberal, coastal united states would split off from the more conservative middle america. however, most such splits do not happen because the separation would not be economically or bureaucratically beneficial (to either group).
i would also like to make a sentimental point here (hehe): i much like multicultural states; i live in one, i like living in it, and i think that splitting off into a hundred different pieces based on cultural/ethnic/religious identity is a sad outcome."
- I always thought that India and Pakistan as whole countries should not exist in the way they do. There are so many diverse cultures and ethnicities in various regions of the countries. I wouldn't care if they split into tens or hundreds or thousands of individual states, if that's what people want. This is why I hope that Kashmir doesn't become part of Pakistan either.
Kashmir is a large state and it's about 86000 sq miles. It's larger than a lot of independent European countries. It is already a multicultural state and can remain so afterwards. It just won't be part of the multicultural state of India. If your logic was to be applied everywhere then all of Europe should be one country, all of Americas should be combined as well, the continent of Africa would become one country and so on. In an ideal world we wouldn't even have countries or borders and we could all live in a big harmonious multicultural mega-state but we live in a world that's far from ideal.
A referendum seems to be the most valid solution. A plebiscite obviously doesn't satisfy the needs of all but what's the alternative? The separatist sentiments have been around for decades and don't seem to be disappearing. Either a plebiscite is held or we continue on the same path of oppression and counter-oppression.
A referendum favours the majority and if you are in favour of a referendum then you must also ultimately accept that the majority should have the right of choose for all.
Indeed Cubano makes a lot of sense here - of course his views are not in sync with the officially stated Indian position..
ReplyDeleteIt is time that the Kashmiris were freed from domestic tyranny of 750,000 Indian troops and external intervention - of any kind - by India's neighbour..
cubano, interesting ideas. if you don't mind, i'd like to respond to each.
ReplyDelete1. i agree that everyone who moved away from kashmir starting in 1989 should be counted. i would agree that descendants not born in kashmir should not be counted since they never lived in kashmir. like you said however, autonomous regions within india would likely see a repeat of what is happening in georgia-russia today. lots of problems there.
2. hmmm, it might be that i just saw idiocracy (if you haven't seen it, you really should; it puts the future of humanity in stark perspective), but i certainly do believe that, with the right spin, funding, and leaders, a charismatic group can convince anyone of almost anything (with exceptions i suppose, but you understand what i mean). while there may have been some low-level fomentation within kashmir prior to 1989 (as there is in many border states of india), i do believe it must have been taken to the next level by external forces. but then, i also believe that religious fundamentalists don't arise on their own; it takes years of brainwashing by fundamentalist groups like al qaeda, the rss, and the kkk to drive people to the level of religious fundamentalism that we see on the news these days.
3. i agree with you in that i also don't believe pakistan and india (and bangladesh) should exist as they do. however, i think they would all have been better served had their leaders kept their paranoia and megalomaniacal desires in check for a few more years (hehe); a united south asia would have been a far stronger contender on the world stage.
as for my sentimental point, i really do think that it is of great importance that people grow up in (truly) multi-cultural/multi-religious/multi-ethnic environments; being brought up in such environments makes for much better adjusted people. while i concede that kashmir may be multicultural, at this point, it is just barely bireligious and definitely monoethnic. such a situation simply breeds more hatred for the "other" rather than the acceptance that i would like to think occurs in multi-everything societies.
you bring up the case of europe today as an example of many small independent countries working out pretty well. many historians and political scientists say that, to get to this point, europe had to go through many centuries of strife with tens of rather bloody wars and shed the blood of unnamed millions; i would like for south asia to avoid going through that (as far as that is possible at this point).
also, it is interesting to note that, in order to become more economically significant, europe is finally conglomerating into a larger nation, at a size similar to that of brazil, the us, india, china... i don't think that is a coincidence.
i know this makes me seem like a dopey idealist, but i think it is pragmatism rather than idealism that drives my thinking about living in a multi-cultural/ethnic/religious society; if we want prosperity for the region, we have to have populations that are not estranged from their neighbors but understand the differences inherent within them; the only way to do that is to immerse everyone in a society where they interact with everyone else and not just people that are like themselves.
4. i know a plebiscite seems like an ideal solution to the problem. but a plebiscite may seem democratic in a way that is really only majoritarianism (there is a difference). if the voting public in the american south of the early to mid 20th century could have voted on whether or not to continue the segregation of society, i am fairly sure they would have. however, by acknowledging that a minority (the civil rights groups) were doing what was best and moving the south, democratically, towards the ideal sought out by the civil rights groups, the federal government of the united states brought the south out of social backwardness and today, the south is prospering like no other part of the country (highest growth rates, i believe). the same example could be provided in a thousand other places (south africa (for blacks), 19th century england (for poor people and women), etc.). i think my point is that while i agree that a plebiscite is often part of a larger solution to a problem, i certainly cannot agree that "the majority should have the right to choose for all." by that reasoning, you and i live in two areas where the majority could easily wipe us out for no reason besides their numbers. pushing for a stance like that is a dangerous idea, in my view.
thanks again for your comments, i really appreciate your ideas; they force me to clarify my own. i would love to see your responses.
raza rumi, i agree with you and cubano that the situation in kashmir is far from ideal; the tyranny of the external pressures must be ended. however, we might have different levels at which we think it can be solved. i think cubano has a solution that he thinks will work (with which you maybe agree?) whereas i am not quite sure if i know of a set plan the world can follow to resolve the situation.
ReplyDeleteI think whatever hope that India had of winning over the Kashmiris was obliterated during the last few days. Detaining separatist leaders and killing unarmed protesters is shameful, especially when it's being done by the largest democracy in the world. According to the BBC, 27 people have been shot dead in the last two weeks and about 500 have been injured. The army has started carrying out nightly raids to arrest protesters. The situation is starting to resemble Burma but the uproar from the international community about human rights violations is strangely missing?
ReplyDeleteNasir, who apparently lives in Srinagar, has posted some very insightful comments about the ongoing stand off in Kashmir on my post that you may want to read.
ReplyDelete'D' said...
ReplyDeleteIII...i feel that this post - "Death at a Funeral" is a perfect place to echo my sentiments over the K issue...I don't know if you've met any kashmiris. But all of them want the best of both worlds. I'm not being biased here but that's what i gather even after being neutral.
The Kashniris want freedom and also they want the best of facilities from india. Today, many Kashmiris are studying in colleges in various parts of the country, working in firms and even in the govt services, but yes, ask them why they want 'azadi', they'll take you back to 1947 and tell horror tales that their family or extended family or neigibours suffered.
Can india allow K to be independent or be with Pakistan, the answer is NO. Not because we can't give them the freedom (i don't know what will be that) but more so, because we have separatist in North East, central india and even in the south. One such instance will raise a thousand demands and the concept of India as a nation will cease to exist.
Can we offer a solution? May be yes. Will the politicial masters accept it? NO. Where will it lead us? K will be an "integral pasty of India" as the govt policy says, affulent Kashmiris will span out in the country at good jobs, earning money and talkin of azadi in cafes and parties over wine and meat and the poor kashmiris will either march on streets of srinagar singing slogans or become militants and killed by army bullets.
This is for kashmir to decide what it wants, not for jammu or Ladakh. Till then ..its Death at a Funeral.
9/5/08 8:55 AM