Should History Determine the Fate of Kashmiris?

Should History Determine the Fate of Kashmiris?

The dispute over Kashmir has now morphed into a conflict in Kashmir.  The tourist influx and the buzz that defines Kashmir contemporarily obscure the latent dimension of the conflict.  The morphing of the problem from a dispute over Kashmir to a conflict in Kashmir accrues from the structural forces of attrition, containment of insurgency and the structural morass that is Pakistan and other related factors. Deeming the current lull as an indication of the resolution of the conflict and passable for enduring peace reflects short termism and historical myopia. This is a fluid situation and not set in stone. Kashmir can erupt and implode-spontaneously. The question is how can ‘permanent peace obtain in Kashmir? What would it take to render this condition immutable? And who or which entity can crystallize this?

These questions, by their very nature, are brain teasers and defy clear cut answers and solutions. However, given their importance to peace within and without and their potential impact on millions of people, it is exigent to tease out answers to these. Hackneyed, worn out and clichéd solutions employed hitherto merely constitute academic exercises  or are in the nature of anodyne ‘solutions’ that put a balm on the surface wound. The need of the hour is to take recourse to creativity and trod not the well worn path but a different, salubrious one. This means according primacy to imagination over fact. What does this mean?

This means jettisoning paradigms that have imprisoned all stakeholders to the dispute/conflict. Yes, Kashmir should have become part of Pakistan in accord with the flawed two nation theory. Yes, Kashmiri’s were hard done by being denied a choice in determining their future. Yes, wheeling and dealing informed the context and circumstances that led to Kashmir’s incorporation into the Indian federation. But then what? These sets of circumstances and conditions should not determine the future of a collectivity.

The past (or history), it is said, determines the present. This phrase eloquently speaks to the Kashmiri condition. Confident entities and societies that have acquired closure are not imprisoned by history. They move beyond it and create their own history. The history of successful nations is that of churn, review and renewal. It’s a choice that nations and peoples constituting them make. Redundant and failed nations, au contraire, remain stuck in a time warp, latching onto dated paradigms and history.  This may sound rhetorical but it is not. A cursory look around reveals eloquently that successful nations and societies re-emerged and rose Phoenix like fro the detritus and debris of history.  Be it Japan or modern day China or even the now impugned European Union, the theme that undergirds their successful efflorescence is disavowing history and historical memory and rebuilding their societies on new foundations. This is creative destruction at its eloquent best.

The stakeholders to the dispute over Kashmir –India, Pakistan and Kashmir’s too should/must get rid of the accretions and encrustations that history has overlain their respective trajectories. They should introspect, review and course correct. What would this mean in practice for each of the stakeholders?

First and foremost, they should get over their obsession with sovereignty. A concept dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia and a condition of modernity and statehood, it is now under assault from the forces of globalization. The state and the attendant sovereignty paradigm is not withering away but is getting diluted by the processes and forces of globalization. In this world where capital flows crisscross the world in a fraction of a second and determine the trajectories and health of economies and where both time and space- the conceptual underpinnings of sovereignty- have been compressed, how rational and what sense does it make to jealously fight over sovereignty and borders? All stakeholders should then reassess the concept of sovereignty and then view the dispute over Kashmir in a new light.

This starting point should be followed by a jettisoning prisons and straitjackets imposed by history. This means an individual, case by case reassessment by each stakeholder. For India, it should mean taking a ‘big brother’ approach and attitude in the subcontinent. In accord with its regional hegemonic status and super power aspirations, the Indian state should be magnanimous and generous. It should drop its obstructive stance, reach out to Pakistan and offer the country a face saving exit from Kashmir. The Indian state should follow this up by reviewing its traditional approach to Kashmir, stop viewing it from a national security prism and accord bottoms up political forces latitude and leeway. The national security obsession should give way to the human security approach wherein the focus should be upon improving the life chances of Kashmiris.

Pakistan, on its part, must review its foundational premise and focus on consolidating its sovereign remit on its extant territory. This would release the energy locked up and devoured by focusing on Sisyphean endeavors like wresting Kashmir from India. This may even be important for Pakistan’s longevity and survival as coherent nation state. It could then obviate the profound structural and existential problems that Pakistan is in the grips of. The ancillary benefits would percolate to Kashmir and redound positively for peace within and without in the subcontinent. Again, history is the culprit here and should be jettisoned.

Last but not the least, the most important stakeholder to the dispute, Kashmiris , should soul search and opt for a comprehensive review. Focusing on the past and the traumas induced by the insurgency and the state’s response to it is a non starter.

 A forward looking approach instead of a back looking one needs to be adopted. This means a little bit of historical amnesia, disavowing of historical memory and crafting a future oriented society.  It also means taking recourse to an expansive definition of freedom and self determination. Both are rather subjective concepts and can be sated reasonably well within an extant sovereign framework. Secession is not the necessary condition for obtaining either. In a world where co-existence, pluralism and multi culturalism are buzz words and the operating assumptions of successful polities and societies, it stretches reason to latch onto dated conceptions of freedom and liberty. This review does mean the end of the ‘fight’ for Kashmiris. The fight has to be expanded and taken on the domain of rights-cultural, political and social. The good news is that these are eminently attainable. The missing ingredient is bold and beautiful Kashmiri leadership.

History and historical memory, in the final analysis, is imprisoning and stultifying. Both lead to misery, strife, murder and rapine. Taking history head on and jettisoning is liberating and empowering and leads to efflorescence. It  is then incumbent upon all stakeholders to the dispute over Kashmir to introspect and review. It falls eminently in the domain of the possible. What is needed is will, resolve and  leadership and statesmanship. Let the powers that be in the subcontinent take recourse to bold and beautiful leadership. They owe it to their people.