Kashmir, traditionally known as the ‘paradise on Earth’ has now become a troubled area because of the influence of sectarian politics. Kashmir is a Muslim-majority region in India. Till 2019, it was the state of Jammu and Kashmir that was bifurcated. Its statehood had been diluted to the status of two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The valley became a troubled area in the late 1980s. Insurgency erupted in the region, which was chronologically congruent with the Mujahideen resistance in Afghanistan. During the same timeline, Al Qaeda became a popular Islamic resistance front challenging the West with violent but not unjustifiable measures. (Barkawi, 2004) Resistance in Kashmir garnered support from Pakistan and other Arab ‘synergies.’ I would call it synergy rather than ‘nexus’ because it has a negative connotation. Resistance movements in Kashmir use sophisticated weapons like hand grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in their war against the oppressive state.
Government establishments like the Border Security Force (BSF) and the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF) go against the established laws and cause extrajudicial killings and tortures. (UNHCR) When people of the valley retaliate in the form of protests and movements, their movements are labelled as a source of ‘terror.’ It is of utmost importance to pay attention to language and semantics here. ‘Terror’ is inflicted by the state, whereas the people of Kashmir offer opposition and resistance to the suppression. The actions of security forces in India could be compared with those of the United States of America and its allies. Kashmiris are often exposed to the Indian version of Guantanamo Bay and violation of human rights. (Human Rights Watch Asia) International organizations offer a glimpse of the ground reality but are ineffective and passive.
If Hindu-Muslim rivalry is a Cold War between two superpowers, then Kashmir is a third-world country that does not have agency and has to bear the brunt of the Hot War. Political parties exploit the narrative that Hindus are in danger (who constitute 74% of the population as per 2011 census data) from a minority, Muslims (who are just 14% of the total population, Census 2011). The West operationalized the same narrative to indulge in the war in the East. The Muslim population has been portrayed as a threat object in popular discourse by the state-controlled media in India. Whereas in reality, it is the Muslim community that is in danger from the envisioned ‘Hindu-Rashtra.’ By deploying tactics like tortures, encounters, and violence against women (for example, rape and other types of assault), security forces, in the name of securitizing the nation and the Hindu majority, violate human rights. The whole spectrum of questions like, “Who is the threat? Who do we need to secure? How can security be achieved?” becomes complex because traditional theories of securitization become ineffective after a specific limit. The Muslims’ struggle in Kashmir is trans-regional as Muslims around the fall prey to prejudices because of their resistance to injustice. (Barkawi, 2004)
Suppose the nature of the ongoing tussle is analysed using feminist theories. In that case, a different picture emerges because mainstream knowledge production does not focus (and does not prioritize) gender. (Shephard, 2009) The security forces generally target families of insurgents, opposition members, and sympathizers. It depicts how women’s bodies are objectified and used by the state to hit back at those who propose opposition. (Shephard, 2009) The current regime in the same nations has gone to an extent to demolish places of worship and houses of Muslim protesters. It has to be termed ‘Bulldozer Raj,’ a new form of colonial raj. (Parashar, 2016)
India is a country traditionally known for its cultural richness and diversity. Barkawi also implies that conflict of ideas can lead to war, but it is the responsibility of the state to do justice. (2004) Mistakes made by those in power must be acknowledged and accepted. An inclusive approach to reach solutions must be utilized. Justice should be made to those who suffered violence of different kinds at the hands of various state and non-state actors. Mahatma Gandhi’s quote, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” emphasizes that violence is not a solution. India does not require a Western way to deal with resistance in Kashmir. India needs structural reforms to ensure long-lasting peace in the valley. In India, government agencies have to make sure that existing laws are implemented constitutionally and if need be, the legislature should propose pertinent laws. The state can welcome opposition and give space to conflict of ideas. The inclusion of the people of Kashmir in decision-making could be prioritized. A solution can be reached if the government is open to the suggestions mentioned above, and by following that, India can solve its problems in its way, i.e., the Indian way. The world could be reminded that we are humans and that humanity is the supreme law.
References
Barkawi, Tarak. 2004. ‘On the Pedagogy of “Small Wars”’. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 80 (1): 19–37.
Shepherd, Laura J. 2009. ‘Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies’. Political Studies Review 7 (2): 208–19.
Parashar, Swati. 2016. ‘Feminism and Postcolonialism: The Twain Shall Meet’. Postcolonial Studies 19 (4): 463–77.
India: Repression Persists in Jammu and Kashmir. (2022, August 3). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/02/india-repression-persists-jammu-and-kashmir
Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant Groups Continue. (2024, February 11). Refworld. https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/hrw/1999/en/40634
Census 2011 India. (n.d.). https://www.census2011.co.in/
Comments