Skip to main content

Kashmir and introspections

Also published on world focus, The Nation, Pakistan

Also published on Blogs, Kashmir Dispatch

Also published on Counter Currents

Also published on Peace & Collaborative Development Network

Kashmir has been transformed from a beautiful vale to a wretched conflict, like a despondent poet, blossoming in pain, reciting ballads of war and violence. It has been torn to pieces by the many ill facets of ghastly wars. Only failures have made a political history here, awakening the memory of death and suffering every hour amidst the countless helpless victims of the conflict.

Kashmir is a land of failed political conjectures, broken dreams, caged liberation and frenzied mistrust. Words like ‘hope’, ‘agreements’, ‘developments’ have existed here, but only as rich rhetoric, through various political commentators and stillborn leaders. Ever since the conflict intensified, Kashmir has become the literary obsession of various observers, historians and activists, whose dissent has been faced with strong confrontation. The scope for visionary introspection has been weakening, like a senile old man struggling to resist.

Kashmir has been perceived as an independent state, a part of India, a part of Pakistan, as an autonomous region, a region with permanent borders divided through a Line of Control, a demilitarized domain under the control of UN peacekeeping forces, a state emerging through a unitary plebiscite - with or without external mediation; but still, no firm determination or unshakable resolution has ever been witnessed in any debating chamber of Indian and Pakistani diplomats.

The reasons are obvious: India doesn’t want Pakistan to fiddle in what it deems to be its personal affair, and vice versa. This remains the main theme of contention between the two nations whenever they talk terms and try to ensconce the encumbering emotional baggage of discontent Kashmiri people, who expect an unhesitant answer ever since the Indo-Pak partition unleashed misery and violence subverted peace of daily life.

As time passes, India is now attempting to completely move away from calling the Kashmir issue as any dispute at all. In recent years, governance and elections have been taken as a final resolution. Any discourse attempted is taken into consideration only under the ambit of the Indian constitution. Western countries and Indian allies are viewing the problem as silent spectators due to their geo-strategical and economic interests.

Reasoned debate has also started to get eroded. Many Hindu nationalist intellectuals have been rewriting history and projecting India as a Hindu country rather than a secular country. This propaganda has concerned Pakistan about the Muslim brethren across the Line of Control which has also given a political mileage to extremists and radical elements inside Pakistan.

The biggest problem in Indo- Pak resolutions is that they take short term solutions for the Kashmir dispute without any representative participation of the Kashmiri people. It has altered any good faith in evolving a national consensus, which has such deep rooted historic, religious and emotional significations. A clear and coherent public opinion needs to be institutionalised and revolutionised.

The psychological attitude pertaining among Kashmiris is that they feel occupied. There is no substitute for a resolution other than a sincere dialogue and process of self-determination. Kashmiris are frustrated due to lack of political freedom for decades and are saddled in social and economic grievances. It has made the need for a resolute resolution more pressing. Unless someone won’t recognise the depths of these wounds, it will only help in facilitating brinkmanship and belligerence.

© Naveed Qazi, Insights: Kashmir

Popular posts from this blog

Kashmir's Geo-Strategic Position

Also published on viewpoint, Rising Kashmir

Kashmir is gifted with strategic leverages for emerging nations. That’s why, it’s is a vale of caged aspirations. The current geo strategic position for Kashmir is dictated by three emerging nations, which are bred with Secular, Islamic and Communist ideologies.
Kashmir is a mountainous valley and is surrounded by a hilly and mountainous terrain. The land of Jammu, Muzafarabad, Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh constitute an area of highlands. They border Pakistan, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, and some parts of Chinese administered Tibet. Kashmir also has proximity to Central Asian Republics. With the nature of increased arm strengths developed by India, Pakistan and China, the geo strategic position of Jammu and Kashmir continues to get importance.
Throughout history, all the political changes that have occurred outside of Kashmir, have had a direct strategic impact on the territorial integrity. The wars of foreigners throughout centuries intensified th…

Scanning The Dixon Plan

Sir Owen Dixon was a judge from the Australian High Court, whose meticulous report drafted to UN in 1950 received a commendation for the obstinacy of his analysis of the Kashmir resolution from the Security Council. He is regarded as an Australian scholar of impeccable credentials. 

Infact Major William Alan Reid, who was an observer with the U.N Military Observers Group in  Kashmir (UNMOGIP) got inspired by his work for his B.A Honours thesis titled “Sir Owen Dixons Mediation of the Kashmir Dispute” (July 2000) for which the writer is greatly indebted.  Reid is currently working on the doctoral thesis for the same subject. He has even consulted his notes, some of his fifty interviews, his diary and personal correspondence as well as the Australian archives, besides other published works.  To add more facts, there has been a tradition of Australian scholarship on India represented by Professors like Robin J Moore, Ian Coplan and B. Millar to name a few. 
Academia studying Kashmir confl…

Calling Off Kashmir Dispute

There has been no transparency in discussions arising from bilateral talks on Kashmir. From the last few years, calling off the Kashmir dispute has been the favourite argument arising out of Indian media commentators and political leaders. It is because of existing narration of implanting fervent Indian nationalism inside Kashmir valley.
Economic development, financial incentives and being part of India’s GDP growth have been other reasons given to call off Kashmir dispute. But is it fair? Why did India and Pakistan make attempts to reconcile through international agreements in the past at the first place, despite several wars fought on the borders?
British research has also deemed instrument of accession controversial. Importantly, what makes India run away from its moral responsibility when thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in the conflict? When were economic grants more sacrosanct than human lives? Maybe, when it comes to Kashmir, all humanist ideals, which Indian poli…