My visit to Kashmir last week was overshadowed by that of a rather more illustrious visitor, the Indian president. During what was supposed to be a routine trip, President Pratibha Patil was greeted with a general strike, as well as clashes with troops in the state capital, Srinagar.
"We want to convey to the Indian president that the Kashmiri people are against the Indian occupation of Kashmir," said Syed Ali Shah Geelani, chief of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. While relatively low-key, these protests should serve as another warning to India not to ignore the will of the Kashmiri people, who have for too long found themselves caught in the crossfire of the two regional powers, India and Pakistan.
In 1947, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) had a Muslim majority, which - according to the standards of partition - meant it should have become part of Pakistan. However, the Hindu Maharaja decided - in the face of a potential Pakistani onslaught - to choose India. As a result, J&K became the only Indian state with a Muslim majority. In 1989, an insurgency began, following allegations of vote-rigging on behalf of Delhi. Estimates suggest that between 31,000 and 84,000 civilians have lost their lives in the conflict, which has also been accompanied by massive human rights violations by the Indian army. In the last few years, however, the violence has been reduced, primarily as a result of tremendous efforts by the J&K government to convince the combatants that the main priorities for Kashmir lies in development and education, and not in confronting the Indian army.
Kashmir has always relied heavily on tourism, and the reduction in violence has meant that travellers, both Indian (Kashmir contains some major Hindu holy sites) and foreign, have begun to return. The valley itself is an Alpine paradise, full of warm-hearted people, jaw-dropping views, and exciting outdoor adventures, all of which makes it a seductive spot for any traveller.
What's obvious to any visitor to the valley, though, is that its population is not Indian. Ethnically more similar to their Muslim compatriots in the north of Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Kashmiris are singularly proud about their identity. Had Kashmir become part of Pakistan in 1947, maybe they would have become assimilated into that new nation. Rule from Delhi, however, has left the Kashmiris - almost to a man - singularly determined to achieve independence.
A particular source of tension is the massive Indian military presence in Kashmir, which at times makes the West Bank look like Butlins. While no formal figure has been given, estimates suggest that there are around 400,000 troops stationed in the state; one journalist I spoke to suggested it could be as high as 800,000, all this in an area with a civilian population of over ten million!
Arundhati Roy suggests that there is around one soldier for every 15 civilians. Whether this is true or not, the army is certainly ubiquitous. I saw soldiers standing disinterestedly on street-corners, hill-tops, by rivers, trees and hotels. In short, everywhere. As Roy puts it, "Every day, ordinary Kashmiris are being subjected to humiliation ... During my recent visit to the state, I found numerous cases of repression, but the government is not ready to accept it."
Because of India's tremendous soft power in the world, the Kashmiri question (beyond the nuclear implications of the India-Pakistan stand-off) is unlikely to enter the world's consciousness in the same way as Tibet or Palestine. This potentially makes it even more dangerous. The Indian government is making a mistake if it believes that the relative recent calm and increased prosperity in the state means that a status quo is setting in. All it takes is a cursory look to see that the vast majority of the people want independence, or at least hugely increased autonomy, not to mention a withdrawal of troops.
People often forget that, before the first intifada, the West Bank & Gaza experienced a greater growth in GDP than Singapore. Despite expectations to the contrary, prosperity did not dampen nationalist fervour, and it only took an accident involving a military vehicle to start the uprising. The same goes for Kashmir, which could once again prove to be India's Palestine. With so many soldiers in the state, people's patience will only hold out for so long. An autonomous Kashmir, at least in the valley (the southern area - Jammu - is majority Hindu, the eastern area - Ladakh - is almost entirely Buddhist), could be in everyone's interest, if it could be constructed as an adequate buffer between India and Pakistan. The question is whether India has the foresight to make this happen.
"We want to convey to the Indian president that the Kashmiri people are against the Indian occupation of Kashmir," said Syed Ali Shah Geelani, chief of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. While relatively low-key, these protests should serve as another warning to India not to ignore the will of the Kashmiri people, who have for too long found themselves caught in the crossfire of the two regional powers, India and Pakistan.
In 1947, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) had a Muslim majority, which - according to the standards of partition - meant it should have become part of Pakistan. However, the Hindu Maharaja decided - in the face of a potential Pakistani onslaught - to choose India. As a result, J&K became the only Indian state with a Muslim majority. In 1989, an insurgency began, following allegations of vote-rigging on behalf of Delhi. Estimates suggest that between 31,000 and 84,000 civilians have lost their lives in the conflict, which has also been accompanied by massive human rights violations by the Indian army. In the last few years, however, the violence has been reduced, primarily as a result of tremendous efforts by the J&K government to convince the combatants that the main priorities for Kashmir lies in development and education, and not in confronting the Indian army.
Kashmir has always relied heavily on tourism, and the reduction in violence has meant that travellers, both Indian (Kashmir contains some major Hindu holy sites) and foreign, have begun to return. The valley itself is an Alpine paradise, full of warm-hearted people, jaw-dropping views, and exciting outdoor adventures, all of which makes it a seductive spot for any traveller.
What's obvious to any visitor to the valley, though, is that its population is not Indian. Ethnically more similar to their Muslim compatriots in the north of Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Kashmiris are singularly proud about their identity. Had Kashmir become part of Pakistan in 1947, maybe they would have become assimilated into that new nation. Rule from Delhi, however, has left the Kashmiris - almost to a man - singularly determined to achieve independence.
A particular source of tension is the massive Indian military presence in Kashmir, which at times makes the West Bank look like Butlins. While no formal figure has been given, estimates suggest that there are around 400,000 troops stationed in the state; one journalist I spoke to suggested it could be as high as 800,000, all this in an area with a civilian population of over ten million!
Arundhati Roy suggests that there is around one soldier for every 15 civilians. Whether this is true or not, the army is certainly ubiquitous. I saw soldiers standing disinterestedly on street-corners, hill-tops, by rivers, trees and hotels. In short, everywhere. As Roy puts it, "Every day, ordinary Kashmiris are being subjected to humiliation ... During my recent visit to the state, I found numerous cases of repression, but the government is not ready to accept it."
Because of India's tremendous soft power in the world, the Kashmiri question (beyond the nuclear implications of the India-Pakistan stand-off) is unlikely to enter the world's consciousness in the same way as Tibet or Palestine. This potentially makes it even more dangerous. The Indian government is making a mistake if it believes that the relative recent calm and increased prosperity in the state means that a status quo is setting in. All it takes is a cursory look to see that the vast majority of the people want independence, or at least hugely increased autonomy, not to mention a withdrawal of troops.
People often forget that, before the first intifada, the West Bank & Gaza experienced a greater growth in GDP than Singapore. Despite expectations to the contrary, prosperity did not dampen nationalist fervour, and it only took an accident involving a military vehicle to start the uprising. The same goes for Kashmir, which could once again prove to be India's Palestine. With so many soldiers in the state, people's patience will only hold out for so long. An autonomous Kashmir, at least in the valley (the southern area - Jammu - is majority Hindu, the eastern area - Ladakh - is almost entirely Buddhist), could be in everyone's interest, if it could be constructed as an adequate buffer between India and Pakistan. The question is whether India has the foresight to make this happen.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving comments. You are making this discussion richer and more beneficial to everyone. Do not hold back.