A response to comments on "Jammu and Kashmir conflict heating up again"

Id It Is linked to the Jammu and Kashmir entry on his/her blog recently and got several interesting comments. In particular, one commenter had some rather interesting takes on what I had written:

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

8/20/08 6:40 AM

Continuing, he added:

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.

8/21/08 5:30 AM

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:

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]

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]