The historic division of British India into two countries in 1947 was assumed to finally bring an end to the social hostilities and friction that had plagued the communities in sub-continent for centuries. After all, that was what the major Muslim party; the All India Muslim League strived for – an autonomous, independent state underpinned by the values of freedom and self-rule for the Muslims. The two – nations theory proved to be the cardinal tenet here, for it underpinned the structures of diplomacy and the overall relations of the subcontinent. As cogent as it might seem then, time turned its tables on standard political theory, showing that merely circumscribing communities geographically has little if any effect on ameliorating the societal disorder. Kashmir illustrates an apt and powerful example of this, being an interminable source of rivalry between India and Pakistan ever since the dawn of independence.
Having fought three major wars in the region (last one being in 1999), both Pakistan and India have come to find Kashmir as a major impediment on the long road to regional peace. Over time, the Kashmir issue has evolved more than a question of which state deserves the province – questions over the legitimacy and moral obligation of both sides over state-sponsored violence is becoming an emerging concern for locals and the international community as a whole. Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir has grappled with violent insurgency since the 1980s, with pro-Pakistani and separatist forces trying to break free from the chains of what they see as an illegal occupation by New Delhi.
Tensions have severely escalated recently, with the death of Burhan Wani, the commander of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, a Kashmiri separatist movement who was killed by Indian security forces on the 8th of July. Wani’s killing drew thousands to rise and renew demands for freedom from Indian rule, despite a curfew being imposed. The violence that followed resulted in up to 50 casualties, with around 5000 injured. India’s rampant use of pellet guns have left dozens of protesters with eye injuries and even being blinded.
The matter is clearly complex – whereas, on one hand, Pakistan has condemned the use of Indian violence and officially hailed Burhan Wani as a martyred freedom fighter, India has classified Burhan as a terrorist and asked Pakistan not to interfere in its internal affairs. While propaganda thrives amid this tug of war, it seems unfortunate that the opinions of the Kashmiris themselves have entirely evaporated from the contemporary discourse. Whilst the promise of Kashmir becoming Pakistan echoes in election speeches on one side, rampant violence by Indian security forces continues on another. It seems quite startling of how the death of a single person could nearly unite all Kashmir against the oppressors. Numerous attempts by Pakistan to somehow reach a long-lasting solution to the Kashmir issue through the United Nations have thus so far failed – even the future seems gloomy and blunt. The question reverberates from time and time again – how many more will have to die before a more permanent solution is reached.
Divorcing ourselves from the more pathos perspective for future discourse and policy, let’s try and comprehend the deeper dynamics at play in the region. Both countries are and will be ultimately dragged to a more intricate reality – at the end of the day, do they care about the fate of the Kashmiri people to such an extent that they would risk everything to officially make the entire region a part of their country? Or are their greater reasons at stake here – more precisely does the geostrategic importance of the area plays any part? One must inquire and reason, why does India devote considerable military resources in the region when the locals just have not and would not acquiesce to live under their rule? Why keep hanging onto a region that has given them so much hostility and resistance ever since its inception? India keeps maintaining that Kashmir in an integral part of its nation, but from what we can deduce from the current scenario; over how it would not even spare thousands of lives just to keep the territory shows just how important the region is for both countries. The sanctity of life is an entirely different issue when the source of some of the region’s most important rivers originates in an already water-scarce country, and it will do whatever it takes to acquire the source, no matter the cost. It’s becoming more of a game of resources, than human rights. For what is life without resources, water being the most imperative source of them all?
Obviously, there are significant costs every side has to bear when the dynamics evolve into a game of resources. Human freedom must be sacrificed, fundamental rights suspended. However, this in no way implies or justifies that life itself should be terminated for acquiring essential resources. It so happens that due to this inexorable truth, the claim to this particular piece of land would remain contested. This can be aptly corroborated through the utter failure of the prodigious efforts by the United Nations and other institutions to find a long-lasting solution to the issue.
History has its flaws, for the present and the future inspires to learn from it or at least pretends to. Which parent in the right mind would risk sending his child to pelt stones at security forces, knowing that the consequences would be dire? The sentiment of the Kashmiris has been long betrayed over and over again by each side. It’s no longer a matter of the legitimacy of a distinct nation’s claim to the area. It has to ultimately boil down to the question: WHAT DO THE KASHMIRIS WANT? Unless Kashmiris themselves decide what is better for them, without any external manipulation, we would forever be locked in a state of war.
