I don’t usually discuss Kashmir. I’ve always known there were problems, but one can’t focus on everything. The recent spate of riots made me sit up and take notice though. So what I’ve understood so far is this:
There are people in Kashmir who want Azadi, or Freedom. So I have to ask, freedom from what? I did some research and found Kashmir has an elected government. The voter turn out was 61% – a very high number compared to other states. Kashmiris are clearly making use of their right to vote. So they’re not protesting against oppression – or at least no more than any other Indian state can complain :D
Are they demanding freedom of religion? From what I understand, there are no restrictions placed on that aspect of their lives. Are they being censored? On the contrary, it’s because of the media that I know about it and many videos are coming through. The Internet is uncensored and lots of people have made their own clips which they uploaded to Youtube. So it can’t be that.
They have the freedom to travel to any part of the country they want, settle down there and work. They can marry whomever they please, be bound by the same liberal laws that govern the rest of India…so what on earth are they asking for?
Yes – Kashmir is militarized, and for good reason. Our neighbors are hardly the most peace loving and trustworthy in the world. There’s no choice on that score. Kashmir’s geographic position necessitates the presence of armed forces.
The New York Times had a video of protesters throwing stones all over the place. This video was made by the agitators themselves and is supposed to show how they’re fighting without weapons. Bollocks. Throwing stones is damned dangerous and one can see the hapless security personnel barely defending themselves and acting with great restraint. The video made by the protesters harms their own cause.
Indeed most of the comments on the NYTimes article said that the protesters had no business being violent. If they put the same energy into forming their own party, and if they claim to represent the will of the people, they shouldn’t have any problem getting themselves elected and taking charge. Why aren’t they doing that instead of wasting huge amounts of time? What do they want?
You can’t expect the government to sit quietly when mobs are rampaging all over the place. Even if we agree in the abstract that they want “Freedom” from India, let them do it the same way we got ours. Peaceful protests, civil disobedience and the like. Not by throwing stones. Why do I get the feeling Gandhi would not approve? And what does it mean to be free? In tangible terms?
I may be missing something out here. Perhaps I’m being ignorant and judgmental. In which case, I gladly take the opportunity to learn. Someone please tell me – what do the separatists in Kashmir want?
Hmmm… I wish we all knew. Infact methinks all the unrest is politically motivated (from outside), and probably Kashmiris are equally confused as to what they NEED!
Hi
Throughout south asia authorities violate Human Rights.
Police kill innocents and commit other forms of atrocities.
Unemployment is a problem.
Rigged elections happen. In India . Pakistan . Bangladesh.
Murders of politicians happen.
Rapes happen.
Just LIKE in Kashmir.
But in Kashmir , whenever these things happen they shout "Azadi".
As if "Azadi" will solve their problems. Did it solve in Pak and B.desh? Nope.
I think there is enough human rights violation happening through the army there that one can understand their anger. And if a majority of them want to be independent from either puppet master, India or Pakistan, we in the mainland can't just say 'you have an elected government, what the heck can you want?' We all know that elected governments in India have delivered precious little.
I feel for those people who have been cornered enough to think that stone throwing can solve a problem. I mean, supposedly intelligent politicians (the Abdullahs and died in the wool Kashmiris) have not been able to do jack shit for them…what do they think stone throwing can solve besides take out some frustration, kill some army jawans and set off that retribution cycle once again?!
In reply to Sangitha
Yes – you're right. Human rights violations are enough cause to make anyone angry. So I don't blame them at all for fighting against atrocities. In fact, I commend them for it.
My only question is the means. As far as freedom from India or Pakistan goes, what's the alternative? I don't know much about politics or military strategy. But even I can see that if Kashmir were to ever become totally free, it would be a focus point for India, China, and Pakistan – each jostling to get the best vantage point. Adding a new country into this mess would be a nightmare.
Moreover, giving into secessionist movements leads to a cascading effect. There are already elements in various Indian sates who say they want freedom too. Allowing one state to secede will only encourage the others. Look at how when the Telengana issue was discussed, dozens of other movements came crawling out of the woodwork demanding that they too get their own state.
I don't see how anything except a democratic solution will solve anything. If the separatists are not happy with any of their choices, they can form their own party! That's the beauty of democracy. The only catch is that people have to help themselves. No one is going to do it for them.
Hi Bhagwad
As you rightly pointed out, the Kashmiris themselves don't know what aazadi means to them. They are as confused about it as we are. And it's a myth that most of Kashmir wants freedom anyway.
I my opinion, what we got to do is to give those who are happy to be a part of India reasons to stay with India. The more reasons we give them, the faster the minority voices of aazadi will quieten down.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
I really don't know Ashish. I mean there is of course something in what you say, but what about the responsibility of the people themselves? Their fate is in their own hands. States like Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are all very different, but none of them is asking the rest of India to give them reasons to stay. Their developments is their responsibility.
This is like the Naxals blaming all the problems of the area on the government. If they had invested one quarter of all the effort they're currently expending in violence into building a democratic party, formulating good policies and getting elected, imagine how different things would be!
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
@Bhagwad
I think you took my "reasons to stay" point too literally. The reason to stay in a union with India, for all states concerned, is a collective force that they alone could not muster. This is both economic and military force. Moreover, the big difference between the Kashmiri separatists and other states is that the former want to either join Pakistan or impose an Islamic system of governance on the populace.
Now granted that some of these people will want to do so irrespective of all the benefits they see in staying with India, but many would also see the logical side and consider remaining with the union (which I guess they do anyway!).
Btw, I must mention here that "economic reasons to stay" doesn't mean paying them to stay with India. That's not sustainable. I am opposed to all the money center spends on Kashmir. Yes the government could and should encourage investment there but not offer easy money.
You could ask the same question about India and our independence from Britain. What did we want, exactly, in 1940? We already had representation, we had every right to travel in the country and marry and whatever else you've mentioned up in the post. What did we want, then?
Or is 'independence' a fair demand by itself? I think it is. The fact that Kashmir is in no-man's land between India, Pakistan and China is a result of our own actions in the last century. And it can't be reason enough to not give the people of Kashmir their right to self-determination. Or at least it shouldn't be.
You say you are open to opinion that doesn't always agree with yours. I can respect that. I agree with quite a bit of the rest of your blog, by the way.
In reply to croor
Thanks for dropping in Croor. But Independence from Britain was very different. Indians didn't have the same rights that Britishers had, we were treated as second class citizens, Non Britishers couldn't run the country, command the armed forces, make policy decisions and what not…
For Kashmiris, there are no such barriers. Any Kashmiri has all the rights and privileges of an Indian citizen. They can run for prime minister or achieve any of their dreams with the same effort that anyone else would put in. They're not deprived in any meaningful way.
But you are forgetting that Kashmir was an autonomous region that came under Indian control via a pact.and this pact guaranteed independence to Kashmir once peace is achieved there. these vague terms of the pact, have ended up being the source of the present indo-pak-kash issue. Kashmiris want a right to self determination, to an independent, autonomous valley. and frankly, they are quite clear of that.from the entire ‘Kashmir is ours’ stand that the state is taking, its as if it wants kashmiri even without the kashmiris.
and no, kashmiris living in Kashmir do not have the same rights as another living anywhere else in the country.there is an invisible military rule there. army has been given too much power, and power corrupts all. people there are crying because there houses are burnt down, their relatives are murdered.
i’m not a kashmiri.i’m just someone who took the trouble of finding out the truth.
I agree that any area where the army has a lot of power is bound to have issues. In fact, the Kashmiri people’s efforts to get AFSPA revoked have already led to many a public discussion and the issue is being addressed, albeit slowly. The democratic process does work.
The way to address grievances such as abuse of power etc. is to do it democratically…not by throwing stones. Of course, the area is such that having a huge army presence is almost automatic.