"Beyond Borders: Redefining Security in the Kashmir Conflict."

Traditional emphasis of security studies on state defense against external military threats have reinforced a hindered understanding of security. Ole Weaver delves into how certain issues like military threats and territorial integrity presented by political actors as existential threats in the face of referent objects leading to their securitization. In the case of Kashmir, this focus has resulted in a disregard for other aspects of security, such as human security and societal wellbeing, notably the security of individual citizens in the midst of conflict. It has failed to address the varied nature of insecurity faced by Kashmiri women and marginalized communities, hence perpetuating systemic violence and marginalization. This stems from colonial legacies in which the state's power and administrative control were prioritized over territorial security against perceived threats.

The Kashmir conflict may be traced back to colonial times, when British divide-and-rule policies intensified religious and ethnic tensions, laying the groundwork for the subsequent IndiaPakistan struggle over Kashmir. Kashmir has had various skirmishes, including war between India and Pakistan. The conflict began with the partition of British India in 1947, which resulted in the establishment of India and Pakistan as separate nations. Jammu and Kashmir, a princely state with a predominantly Muslim population but ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, became a source of friction between India and Pakistan. A conflict erupted between the two countries, dividing Kashmir into regions controlled by India (Jammu and Kashmir) and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir) and Gilgit-Baltistan), separated by the Line of Control (LoC). Michel Foucault's idea of "governmentality" can be used to analyze how colonial and postcolonial power systems shape Kashmir's governance, influencing the subjectivity and autonomy of its people. Highlighting India's imposition of direct authority in Kashmir, as well as its suppression of opposition, can be interpreted as neocolonial techniques for keeping control over the region. Similarly, Pakistan's assistance for militant groups in Kashmir reflect its desire to assert influence and undermine Indian dominance. In the framework of colonial and postcolonial power dynamics, narratives of nationalism, identity, and affiliation have been formed and challenged in Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan describe their claims to Kashmir in terms of national identity and geographical integrity. Kashmiri nationalists urge for self-determination and autonomy, opposing the imposition of external entities. International actors, particularly major countries such as the US, China, and Russia, have contributed significantly to the perpetuation or escalation of the Kashmir conflict by their strategically important interests and operations. These parties frequently prioritize their strategic alliances with India or Pakistan over addressing the legitimate grievances of the Kashmiri people, resulting in a lack of meaningful international action or resolution to the conflict. As a result, actions of government oppression, unlawful internet bans and actions that would be considered off bounds with respect to normal political governance have become legitimized.

The securitization of the Kashmir dispute upholds a security strategy that is state-centric and puts state authority and control ahead of the welfare of individual citizens. Broadening the concept of security using Weaver’s securitization theory beyond traditional military concerns, allowing for a more nuanced analysis of the Kashmir conflict, taking into account factors such as restrictions, displacement, peacebuilding challenges, human rights violations, and gender violence, environmental degradation is required. The war has resulted in human rights violations, including charges of violence, oppression, and persecution against the Kashmiri people, as well as the militarization of the region. The situation in Kashmir is complicated and multidimensional, with concerns over territorial sovereignty, religious identity, ethnic diversity, and geopolitical aspirations. Efforts to resolve the problem diplomatically, such as conversation and mediation, have continued but have failed to generate a long-term solution. Women in Kashmir are frequently subjected to sexual violence by security personnel, militants, and other conflict players. This violence is not just a direct assault on women's bodies, but it is also used to intimidate and control them. The forced absence of family members, particularly men, exposes women to economic hardship, social humiliation, and psychological pain, aggravating their marginalization and instability. The traditional security framework overlooks women and fails to address the hardships they go through; this is brought into light by Hansen, who urges for the inclusion of gendered perspectives in security and policy formation. The feminist critique by Hansen highlights the gendered aspects of security in Kashmir, contributing another dimension of examination. The militarization and fighting in Kashmir have resulted in significant displacement, with women disproportionately affected. Displacement interrupts women's lives by compelling them to flee their homes and communities, frequently with few resources and assistance. Women endure the burden of looking after their families and maintaining their livelihoods in difficult circumstances, with increased risks of poverty, exploitation, and violence. Despite their significant contribution to peacebuilding and resilience in Kashmir, women are largely excluded from formal peace talks. The patriarchal institutions of decision-making and power dynamics marginalize women's views and perspectives, impeding efforts to address the core causes of conflict and establish long-term peace. Women are disproportionately affected by restrictions on mobility, freedom of expression, and access to education and healthcare, which limit their prospects for empowerment and self-determination. This demonstrates how state authority and surveillance are expanded in the name of security, often at the expense of individual liberty and human rights. Women's agency is limited by patriarchal norms and state persecution, which impedes their ability to express their rights and fight for change. As rooted by Ole Weaver and Michel Foucault, securitization of the state aimed at managing and controlling those seen as threats has led to the use of surveillance technologies, militarized policing and emergency laws that in the name of “security” are legitimized. Despite institutional oppression and brutality, women in Kashmir show tremendous resilience and agency in every aspect of their lives. They actively participate in grassroots initiatives, community organizing, and advocacy campaigns to address the conflict's impact on their lives and communities. Recognizing and amplifying women's voices and agency is critical for achieving gender equality and establishing long-term peace in Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict entails challenging hegemonic narratives, amplifying marginalized perspectives, and investigating the underlying reasons of insecurity, such as colonial legacies, sexism, and neocolonial interventions, and the pressing need for broadening of the security framework so that the administration is able to venture into more holistic and effectives ways for addressing the issue.

In the Kashmir conflict, the abstraction of sovereignty and framing of conflict as purely between sovereign states can hide the historical and continuing violence suffered by Kashmiri people, particularly women, who bore the brunt of militarization and war-related displacement. The Kashmir dispute is frequently understood within the context of peacebuilding and conflict resolution. The promise of ultimate peace or resolution can be used to justify the continued violence and persecution experienced by Kashmiri people, as their problems are dismissed in favor of sustaining the status quo. To summarize, the Kashmir conflict involves a complex combination of historical legacies, colonial dynamics, and modern power conflicts, all of which have had a significant impact on the lives of Kashmiris, particularly women. Traditional security paradigms have failed to appropriately address the region's complex insecurity, with an emphasis on state-centric issues that ignores human security and social well-being. The militarization of Kashmir has led to extensive human rights violations, including gender-based violence and displacement, aggravating women's marginalization and instability. Furthermore, international actors have frequently prioritized strategic interests over resolving the legitimate issues of the Kashmiri people, impeding meaningful progress towards peace and perpetuating the cycle of violence. It is critical to widen our definition of security beyond military components, including human rights, gender equality, and social justice. Recognizing and amplifying the voices and participation of women in Kashmir is critical for attaining long-term peace and tackling the underlying causes of the war. Critical theory provides a framework through which to dissect power dynamics and advocate for inclusive and long-term peacebuilding efforts by challenging hegemonic narratives and interrogating the underlying oppressive institutions. Finally, a comprehensive strategy that focuses on the experiences and demands of all Kashmiris, particularly marginalized communities, is critical for achieving a more just and equitable future in the area. The PARIS School of securitization sheds light on the use of (AFSPA) the Armed Forces Special Powers Act on perceived threats and influencing the Indian masses through propaganda instead of dealing with the Kashiri population directly.

References –

1. Krishna, Sankaran. 2001. ‘Race, Amnesia, and the Education of InternationalRelations’,Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 26 (4) (2001), 401–24.

2. Robert Cox. 2010. Robert Cox on World Orders, Historical Change and Purpose of Theory in International Relations. Theory Talks #37. E-IR. http://www.theorytalks.org/2010/03/theory-talk-37.html

3. Ole, Wæver. 1995. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” InOn Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University Press.https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/assets/pdf/Waever-Securitization.pdf

4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

5. 378154037_Kashmiri_women_in_conflict_a_feminist_perspective

6. 5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 331708454_Colonial_legacies_armed_revolts_and_state_violence_the_Maoist_move_ment_in_India

7. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/kashmir-the-roads-ahead/

8. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=psilr