ISLAMABAD – On May 18, the New York Times published an editorial entitled “Along shot in Kashmirlink>”.The editorial completely misrepresents the nature of the Kashmir issue andreinforces the false notion of it being a “territorial dispute” betweenIndia and Pakistan.
In addition, it raises the bogey of “Islamism” to further undermine genuinemass aspirations for self-determination and freedom from India amongKashmiris. As scholars of Kashmir, we believe it is important to providecorrectives to these misconceptions.
One of the primary misfortunes of the Kashmiri people has been that theirstruggle for self-determination continues to be framed simply as aninterstate conflict, with much more importance given to Indian andPakistani nationalist narratives onKashmirlink>thanKashmiri viewpoints.
For the issue to be resolved, the international community, and the media,need to move beyond these statist perspectives and foreground Kashmiriperspectives and agency. Kashmiris are not only the main victims of theconflict in the region but remain the key drivers of the long-standingself-determination movement.
Advertisement
As recent scholarship link> onKashmir has showcased, we need to move beyond the framing of the conflictas only beginning in 1947. Despite popular perceptions in the West andelsewhere, the region was far from internally politically passive whileIndialink> and Pakistan foughtthree wars to control it.
Instead, we need to look into Kashmiri political aspirations in the latecolonial period. In 1931, Kashmiris launched their first mass agitationagainst the Dogras, a Hindu monarchy that ruled over the Muslim-majorityregion. While this historic movement became embroiled in the politics ofBritish India’s partition in 1947, as the region was split between Indiaand Pakistan link>, theKashmiri aspiration to determine their own future not only continued butintensified.
Simplistic references to “Islamist insurgency”, and its sponsorship byPakistan, play easily into Indian conspiracy theories that dehumaniseKashmiris and deny them any political agency and ability to rulethemselves. These theories do not explain the existence of a decades-oldKashmiri self-determination movement before the 1990s, nor do they coverthe entire gamut of Kashmiri opinions on the matter.Indeed, focusingprimarily on India and Pakistan, the New York Times editorial makes noreference to why Kashmiris are protesting and why they have continued todemand their political rights.
Furthermore, while Pakistan remains a party to the dispute, its role since9/11, and especially since 2008, has been minimal. The large crowdsdemanding freedom in Kashmir are not instigated by Pakistan; this is anindigenous resurgence.
The editorial does not highlight the intense repression and politicalsurveillance that Kashmiris are subject to on a daily basis. The “Islamistinsurgency” is only one facet of the Kashmiri response to the occupationand is itself a result of Indian repression and curbing of dissent.
Indeed, presenting Kashmir’s historical struggle for self-determination asan “Islamist insurgency” helps India present itself as a victim ofterrorism rather than as a perpetrator of state violence.
As new scholarshiplink>, aswell as Kashmiri intellectuals on the ground, has made clear, Kashmiris aredemanding an end to the Indian military occupation of their land and theright to determine their own future. Self-determination was promised tothem by the government of India itself at the time of Partition andrecognised by the international community in several UN SecurityCouncil resolutions,including UNSC Resolution 47 (1948).
Shockingly, there is no mention of the fact that Kashmir remains thelargest militarily occupied territory in the world. Over 700,000 Indiansoldiers forcefully control and surveil a population of eight million.
There is also no mention in the editorial of the emergency laws, like ArmedForces Special Powers Act, that give overarching powers to the Indianmilitary to kill and arrest individuals and destroy personal property. Tensof thousands of Kashmiris have been killed, thousands remain in jails, andthousands more have been forcibly disappeared. As the New York Times itselfreportedlink>twoyears ago, Indian soldiers had fully or partially blinded hundreds ofKashmiri youth, who had demonstrated the Indian state’s highlydisproportionate response to protests.
It should be known by now that the intractability of the conflict is not aresult of Kashmiri resistance to the occupation; rather, it is the resultof the occupation itself.
It is in this larger context that the editorial extolling India’sostensible “ceasefire” comes as a shock. The ceasefire simply is supposedto put a temporary halt to military operations against armed rebels, but itdoes nothing to ease the extraordinary burden of the occupation on thedaily lives of Kashmiris.
The repression against political dissent, and everyday threats to thesafety and security of Kashmiri lives, continues. The Indian government hasrefused to acknowledge the basic demands of Kashmiris, includingdemilitarisation of public spaces, the release of political prisoners, orbringing violators of human rightslink> to justice.
Most fundamentally, Indian leaders refuse to recognise the right toself-determination of Kashmiris. Instead, Indian nationalist parties usethe Kashmiri issue to rouse nationalist sentiment in India and to gainelectoral advantage.
The overwhelming sentiment in Kashmir has been that there should be peacebetween India and Pakistan. Any effort on the two sides towards dialogue iswelcomed.
But despite the long history of interstate and Track II dialogues,Kashmiris are painfully aware that often such efforts yield little relieffrom the military occupation in Kashmir. It is time to move beyond seeingthe solution to the Kashmiri question as a factor of India-Pakistandialogue and instead recognise the primacy of Kashmiris in solving it. – AlJazeera