Kashmir and its Politics: A Sense of Deja Vu

Political uncertainty defines Kashmir. It is both a structural and a psychic condition. Notwithstanding the political process that has been instituted in Kashmir, these twin conditions are the determining prongs of Kashmir’s politics. The various convolutions of Kashmir’s political history stand testimony to this. Be it the resistance movement pioneered by Sheikh Muhammad Abdulla against the Maharaja, then against Indian rule, or the insurgency catalyzed by massive disaffection against India in the late eighties or the convolutions and churn of protest movements that go under the nomenclature of Ragda, the catalyst and premise for all these is political uncertainty. The patina of peace and tranquility and the attendant tourist influx is illusory. Kashmir, it can be safely posited, can implode anytime.

The question is: why does this uncertainty of a political nature pervade Kashmir? What accounts for this? And how can this be obviated?

It is easy to answer all the questions except the last one. The all pervasive political uncertainty that defines Kashmir accrues from the fact that Kashmir’s incorporation into the sovereign remit of India has been a top down, elitist affair. It has not had the support of the masses and it would appear that the power structure of India appears to be content with this. This has created a void and a vacuum that is filled by the politics of manipulation and coercion. The various convolutions and cycles of violence besetting Kashmir are then self explanatory. This also creates space for external intervention and subvention. However, the problem lies within and concomitantly the solution probably lies within as well. This is not to suggest that other stakeholders to the dispute over Kashmir, like Pakistan, can or should be ignored. Pakistan has to be factored in and perhaps given its structural and existential angst and problems, the time may be ripe for reaching out to Pakistan and reaching a plausible and durable modus vivendi with it.

So why has the Indian state not bothered to make Kashmir’s incorporation into India an inclusive, bottoms up affair?  Distrust of Kashmiris and fear is perhaps the answer. The Indian political class has never really trusted Kashmiris and it has been paranoid about Kashmir. This is complemented by fear. That is, the Indian state or powers that be in India appear to fear the unknown and the uncertain. This has naturally led to the politics of manipulation and coercion and a politics whose gravamen has been dictated by the Centre. This, in turn, has naturally and inevitably alienated the masses in Kashmir.  The chasm and the gulf despite the lull in violence and the instituting of a political process has only deepened and widened.  The much celebrated and touted , ‘idea of India’ has never really made a debut in Kashmir and given the nature of politics in Kashmir, Kashmiris remain skeptical about democracy in India.

Is this condition remediable? Or is it a spiral in which Kashmiris and the Indian state remain perpetually estranged from each other only to be conjoined by the coercive authority of the state? There are grounds for optimism: there is ample scope for the condition or situation to be remedied.  The Indian state and Kashmiris are not condemned and doomed to a relationship of estrangement. What could potentially redeem the situation/condition is a new politics- a politics informed by trust, amity and disavowal of paranoia. The initiative for this has to and must come from the Indian state. Sincerity , a bold and beautiful approach in turn informed by the primacy of imagination over fact, has to be the gravamen and thrust of this approach.

 What would this mean in practice? This would mean reaching out to Kashmiris and treating them as coeval with Indians. More specifically, this means departing from hackneyed approaches, listening to Kashmiris and then instituting a bottoms up political process wherein Kashmiris are given and accorded real choice(s) in determining their politics. Or in other words, it means granting self rule or autonomy to Kashmiris. If this is underpinned by sincerity and a genuine desire for rapprochement underpins it, it is possible that Kashmiris will reciprocate and give up maximalist claims of freedom and secession.  This would entail bold and beautiful leadership by the Indian political class- something that has been glaringly absent since Kashmir’s incorporation into India. Howeverm , it is the sine qua non and an exigent need if both India and Kashmir are to attain closure and plenitude. Concomitantly, this approach needs to be complemented by a human security approach that improves the life chances of Kashmiris.

Cumulatively and in concert, this approach may give short shrift to the forces of recidivism and irredentism. Sooner or later, this has to happen. Prudence dictates that the nettle be grasped soon and the miseries of a people be alleviated. This is a win win solution and can only redound positively to all parties. It is therefore about time then that an approach that smells of roses be instituted. It is owed to both the people of Kashmir, India and the subcontinent.

The Chimera of Non Western Nationalism and Resistance

Nationalism-the identification by a group of people with a nation (or patrie)- has been a potent and a powerful force in modern history. This reductive definition of nationalism does not capture its essence and its varieties. Defining nationalism means walking onto a definitional minefield and morass. It , however, need not detain us here given that the focus or unit of analysis here is non western nationalism and the resistance it generated against both imperialism and colonialism.(Both even though bearing a resemblance are distinct categories). The nationalist fervor that gripped the erstwhile colonized led to a spate of decolonization and the formation of new states or nation states.

The protagonists of the nationalist drama were paradoxically individuals-in most cases talented and gifted- who were implicated, in one way or the other, in empire. They were, in most cases, beneficiaries of the imperial system. They usually got educated in the imperial metropoles, were steeped in western political theory and methodology and exposed to the societies of the west. Paradoxically, it was these intellectuals or intellectual turned political leaders that offered a critique of the natives’ (colonized peoples) ‘false consciousness’ and catalyzed resistance against various imperiums. It was either racism that they encountered in the metropoles or the humiliations experienced in their own societies that probably made them rebel against empire. While they did, by and large, succeed in changing the perceptions of most of their fellow ‘national’s towards empire, it was not their efforts that made imperial exit possible from their nations/societies. Structural and internal conditions of empires and not non western nationalism were perhaps the main catalysts in the dissolution of empire.

While these questions and issues for historians to debate and discuss, what is pertinent is whether non western nationalism has really been successful? Did it lead to successful and vibrant nation states? Was the ‘rediscovery’ by the native of his/her self and society real? Or was it an illusion- a conjurer’s trick? Decades after decolonization, what judgment can be passed on non western nationalism and the states these created?

The premises of non western nationalism were probably psychic wounds and scars generated by racism and other negative experiences by the nationalism elite of the non western world. In most cases, it could said then this nationalism was vindictive and retributive. (This does not exonerate the harsh and dark side of imperialism). Given that this nationalism was negative and reactionary, it could perhaps never have been a predicate for building successful and vibrant societies. The rediscovery of the native self and society was an illusion and a trick performed by these disaffected intellectuals and leaders upon their peoples.  There really was no self or a past to discover.( Nehru agonized over this in his thick tome,  The Discovery of India’ and succeeded brilliantly in deceiving himself). The non west, except for the Islamic and perhaps Chinese civilization was never a force in world politics and history. The revival of the West or the birth of the West had subsumed all and whatever remnants of civilization existed were overwhelmed by the superior west. The non west could not even muster a rear guard action against the western onslaught-save in some egregious instances of no real significance.

While non western nationalism raised and created problems for empire, these were never insuperable. In the final analysis, the nationalist resistance amounted to pin pricks which could easily be contained and snuffed by imperial authorities. It was, to repeat the internal and structural conditions of the imperial metropoles that ultimately led to the abdication of empire(s) and decolonization. Even Gandhi’s ‘non violent’ struggle and resistance would have come to naught had not Britain’s position and condition within been precarious.

 If non western nationalism had been effective and ‘authentic’, this should have led to the formation and development of effective, efficient and salubrious states or nation states in the non western world. But this is not the case. Be it Africa, the Middle East , Latin America, South Asia or what passes for the Third World, the story of the post colonial state has been dismal.  Poverty , violence(political and social), political and economic uncertainty , torpor and lassitude are the defining features of these states and societies. The condition of some of these have given rise to a peculiar state called the ‘failed state’. So ,essentially,  non western nationalism and the resistance accruing from this has been a farce and a chimera. Does this condemn these states and societies to these abysmal conditions forever?

No. However, non western societies and states need a redeeming principle or philosophy. This will not come from within.( What came from within was crass and crude populism . coup d’etats and violence). It has to come from without. The source for this is and can only be the west against which ironically non western intellectuals and leaders defined themselves against. It is the ideas of the west that have proven to be superior, effective and efficient. Be it economic growth, political and economic organization, social organization and culture, the predicate for/of all these are western ideas. So we come full circle here. Non western nationalism and resistance then was an aberrant interlude and in the final analysis farcical.  A review needs to be carried out now. Non western peoples have been made to suffer for no fault of theirs. The ideas animating this exploitation have been nationalism, authenticity and resistance.  It is about time that pride is swallowed and those ideas embraced that have withstood the test of time. This much is owed to the suffering masses of the non western world. Let the Edward Said’s of the world be paid their due homage and respect and let their ideas be buried as well.

Is Australia Asian or Western?Musings on the Nature of the 'Lucky Country''

The gradual and inexorable mutation of Australia from a penal colony to a confident, outward looking entity is a tribute to human ingenuity. The impetus behind the forging of a habitable milieu out of an inhospitable terrain and environment and then crafting a polity and society that can be said to be the envy of the world is not predicated only on the human propensity towards survival. It is more than that. It stems from the impulse and attributes that define the west. The most salient of this is the desire to attain mastery over nature. This, in turn, is predicated upon the intellectual ferment called the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. This assertion may be surprising and rather counter intuitive to some given that the peoples who were ‘transported’ to Australia were convicts or in other words, the dregs of society. How could the energy accruing from renaissance ideas have been radiated by a bunch of haggard and diseased convicts into a land that was rightly termed as godforsaken?

The colonial project may constitute an answer to this question. The impulse behind colonialism, it could be said, was an admixture of renaissance and enlightenment ideas and the energies that these released. The renaissance and enlightenment ideas were revolutionary in nature. These ideas may or may not have percolated to what came to be known as transportables. However, the managers of the enterprise may have been clued into the colonial enterprise and imbued with the energy and the gumption necessary for forging a new polity in Australia. Whether by default, serendipity or design, these doughty entrepreneurs did succeed in forging a polity that corresponded to Australia being characterized as the western outpost in the Southern Hemisphere. The nature of Australia then is western and its provenance is anglo saxon.

No other community or civilization save the Islamic and the western one has succeeded in implanting itself in distant and alien shores. This then testifies to the resilience of the anglo saxon west. Australia could then rightly be deemed as the neo-west. Primarily a ‘white’ western nation imbued with the ideals and ideas of the west, Australia has been and is undergoing profound changes of a structural nature. These changes accrue from the disavowal of the ‘white Australian policy’ and the embrace of globalization by Australia. This has, among other things, led to massive immigration into the country. Occurring in waves, this immigrant influx, it held, is changing the nature of Australia from a ‘white’ western outpost into a different entity. Given that the recent influx into Australia emanates from Asia, some posit that Australia is becoming more Asian and that this accords with its geography and is good. This alignment of geography and culture will, it is asserted make Australia normal and redound positively to it. The question is: is this alleged re-alignment necessarily good for Australia?

The answer is both a yes and no. Yes, because it gives short shrift to the notion of race and potentially leads to the creation of a polity that is cosmopolitan and open. If this means hybridity and mongrelization being the norm than the exception then it is salubrious and salutary. However, if it means alteration of the cultural and ethnic mosaic of Australia into something wherein different groups vie and compete over the nature and definition of Australia, then this is an insalubrious development. Take, for instance, the assertion of Australia becoming Asian and its implications on Australia. What Asian nation or culture has pioneered liberal conceptions of politics and society and has been open to the outsider? Be it China or Japan or even India, in various permutations and combinations, these nations are colored by traditions and conventions which militate against modernity. Which Asian country is as tolerant and receptive of difference and the outsider like Australia?

These attributes of tolerance and receptiveness towards difference stem from western notions of liberalism, democracy, individualism and human rights. The attendant paradigm of multiculturalism is a mere corollary. Australia then is a western nation. Period. And this is good precisely for the reasons delineated here. The debate in Australia should not be over the nature of Australian identity but rather over how to create and forge a polity that continues to reflect these western principles and philosophies. What does this mean in practice?

It means crystallizing and forging policies that lead to the widespread acceptance of liberal ideas and ideals amongst the different peoples comprising the Australian firmament. This does not mean imposing an assimilative straitjacket on these peoples or the disavowal and giving up of multiculturalism but rather pruning it. That is, peoples comprising the Australian firmament should be allowed to maintain fidelity to their respective cultures but this should not mean according them group rights or taking recourse to identity politics.

The ethos that should inform Australia should be premised on the principles of liberty, freedom and human rights.. Within this broad rubric, there is plenty of space for accommodating difference and the integration of the outsider. There really is no need to alter the ideational and philosophical premise of Australia. It is these premises that make Australia what it is. These values are the grist and mill of Australia’s soft power and let’s face it, these are western. Let Australia then not experiment with alternate paradigms. Its contemporary identity informed by its history and philosophy has served it well. Let the country continue on the path it is on. This is good for Australia, the world and its region

Globalization and Hybridity: Where Thomas Paine Meets Jalaluddin Rumi

It has been asserted that globalization is a homogenizing phenomenon. In the words of an eminent historian, it is ‘willed homogeneity’. The implication here is that power is implicated in both the phenomenon and processes of globalization and that homogeneity allegedly ‘inherent in globalization redounds to the power structures catalyzing globalization. This homogeneity allegedly is ‘bad’ for the cultural diversity that defines the world and militates against ‘authenticity’.Even the gory saga of September II is explained by some by this: it is alleged that September II constituted a reaction against the allegedly homogenizing effects of globalization. Cultural conflicts, separatism in some instances, tribal reaction to homogenizing processes also fall under this explanatory rubric.

Best encapsulated by the eminent Benjamin Barber’s work, ‘Jihad Versus McWorld’ , this thesis asserts that the globe is increasingly divided into two spheres: one wherein the forces of economic globalization underpinned by capitalism lead to a consumerist culture dissolving the atavistic forces that come in its way; and the other wherein forces of tribalism react and assert themselves against this onslaught. This, in the Barberian schema and formulation, has a negative impact on democracy and democratization. Barber concludes by positing that it is McWorld that may emerge as the winner out of this dialectic?

This raises a set of questions: Are the homogenizing effects of globalization really as powerful as the thesis purports? Is globalization leading to ‘One World wherein cultural and tribal differences are melting away? Are the forces of globalization dissolving culture, diversity and that anthropological unit, the tribe? Or is the phenomenon termed ‘hybridity’ in post colonial literature emerging albeit in a different permutation and combination? And can hybridity be a more enduring and salubrious phenomenon than tribalism inherent in the nation state and diversity that multiculturalism entails?

Globalization apparently does lead to homogenization to the untrained eye. The food courts in shopping malls across the world, the ubiquity and sameness of airports, the western dress supplanting traditional clothing globally perhaps best encapsulated by the ubiquitous blue jeans and the Coco colonization of taste lends credence to this. The reality, however, is more complex. The Indian techie, for instance, benefiting from globalization and living in the Silicon Valley starts his day seeking a blessing from the money goddess and sends off donations to back home to the fanatical Hindu nationalist party. Or for that matter, the allegedly ‘modern’Muslim wearing jeans and T-shirts emblazoned with a Michael Jackson insignia and a baseball cap is in reality, a devout Muslim who twists his cap while turning to the Mecca and offering prayers. The point here is that culture and religious impulses that move people and anchor their identities are rather existential matters. It is these cultural wellsprings that give meaning to people’s lives. While the forces of globalization may or may not lead to superficial change in demeanor, it is the forces of culture and religion that are deep and enduring. What meets the eye can be deceptive. The so called homogeneity implied and inherent in the globalization is then only skin deep. The primeval forces of culture, religion and tribalism, to the contrary are more enduring.

What then is happening? Is the churn and massive movements of people made possible by globalization static and not affecting people? The answer is a clear cut no. Globalization is indeed altering some of the psychical dimension of people’s lives. This is more salient and pronounced in the domain of identities. People’s primary, secondary and tertiary identities are naturally being altered by the forces and logic of globalization. This entails a mutation that can perhaps best be encapsulated and caught by the term ‘hybridization’ or mongelization. Roughly speaking, a person can , for instance ,be a Kashmiri , Indian and an Australian at the same time. The tension that the co-existence of identities entails can be positive. It can unchain the spirit and lead to a fruitful synthesis. This hybridity can potentially be benign given that the obsession with ‘roots’ and the attendant socio cultural and political problems can be given short shrift. It can also lead to societies and polities wherein the best ideas get implanted in hybrids on a give and take basis. In this sense, it is then better than multiculturalism which emphasizes ‘the narcissism of small difference’, and leads to fragmented and ghettoized societies and polities. Who would , for instance ,argue against the spread of human rights into non western cultures or for that matter the spiritual ethos imbued in Sufism to western societies? Or in prosaic words, who would argue against the marriage of Thomas Paine with Rumi and Sadi? Who would want to forsake this choice?

Globalization is here to stay. It has staying power and a momentum that can only be derailed by cataclysmic events like wars and pestilence. The logic of choice is inherent in globalization as is freedom and liberty. If this is catalyzed by the multinational corporations in pursuit of profits or by a powerful state like the United States for ends that serve its interests, what is the harm? It is the end result which matters. This end result is the expansion of choice(s)- economic, cultural and political-, freedom and liberty. Hybridity and fluidity are the name of the game. It therefore behooves on all to nurture globalization and turn the potential pregnant in it to the benefit of the world. Let the golden arches of McDonald’s grace every nook and corner of the world and let the music emanating from the rabab- a sufi musical instrument- and the melodious wail of the Muezzin co exist with the smiling visage of Ronald McDonald.. The fruits of this synthesis can only be fruitful and salubrious. Let haste be made slowly and a world that corresponds to this vision be built from scratch. We , to repeat the Marxist dictum, have nothing to lose but our chains.

Allowing Pak FDI in India: Is the subcontinent drifting into a Complex Interdependence Paradigm?

It’s official now. India is allowing foreign direct investment (FDI) from Pakistan in all sectors except defense, space and atomic energy. Richard Rosecrance’s- the distinguished Harvard political scientist’s prescient prophesies and prognostications seem to be finally making their debut in the region held to be in thrall of politico-military , ideological and territorial conflict: the Indian subcontinent. The subcontinent is apparently on the cusp of enmeshing itself in the ‘complex interdependence’ paradigm enunciated and propounded by the brilliant duo of Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane.

Nye and Keohane propounded the concept of complex interdependence in the late seventies during the waxing and waning years of the Cold war. The concept was a challenge to the dominant theory of realism which posited a zero sum relation between states with power as the ultima ratio of/for states. The corollaries to realism were balance of power, conflict, and war. Nye and Keohane held that subtle changes were occurring in international relations and world politics and that military power and might or hard power was no longer the sine qua non of world politics.

Nations and states were enmeshed into ‘thick globalism’ or complex interdependence which rendered the traditional reliance on hard power, balance of power and military conflict rather passé. Similarly, the eminent Professor Rosecrance, a few years later, held that trade was replacing territorial expansion and military might as the key to international position, wealth and power. The politico-territorial-military state was giving way to what the good Professor called the ‘trading state’.  Post war Japan was held to epitomize the trading state. While Nye in his latest book ,’Power in the 21^st Century’ elaborated upon complex interdependence in the 21^st century, he qualified this by positing a theoretical paradigm or synthesis called which he called liberal realism. That is, a synthesis of liberalism (which informed complex interdependence) and political realism and whether Professor Rosecrance was a bit too enthusiastic with his ‘trading state’ formulation is besides the point here.

What is pertinent is that a new dynamic and paradigm between nuclear armed rivals, India and Pakistan is emerging. And this is corresponding to both the complex interdependence and the trading state paradigm. This is not to say that complex interdependence is the determining relationship between both states or they are morphing into trading states, but the drift of the relationship is gradually moving towards these paradigms.  Skepticism notwithstanding over/about  the durability of the process that has been initiated, it is nothing but unalloyed good and salubrious news and is to be welcomed.  The reasons for this are axiomatic: mutating and morphing into potential trading states and enmeshing themselves into a complex interdependence paradigm will redound positively to the peoples of the two countries and will sublimate their energies towards salubrious ends. The result will be peace and prosperity in the subcontinent. The question is how to sustain this process and set it in stone? The answer to this question lies in deepening the process of complex interdependence.

Complex interdependence is contingent and is informed by three salient features:

(a)     the employment of multiple channels of contact and action between societies in interstate,  transgovernmental and transnational relations;

(b)    Issue linkages and changing agendas;

(c)     Decline in the saliency and use of military force and coercion in interstate relations.

What does this mean in the Indo Pak relationship dynamic? This means and implies vigorous and intense people to people contact, development of official channels for dialogue between the respective governments and deepening the volume and density of these contacts. It also means changing the mix of issues and linkages that define these into ones that lend themselves amenable to resolution and finally obviating the security dilemmas inherent in a zero sum conflict dynamic that permeates the relationship between the two countries. In practice, this may mean changing the military posture of the two countries into a non offensive defense paradigm and working out a nuclear doctrine that corresponds to this new strategic doctrine.

A concerted focus on these elements may lead to complex interdependence becoming real in the subcontinent. Whilst it may be surreal to expect the military political dimension to disappear, it would not be a far fetched expectation to believe that gradually the conflictual dynamic between India and Pakistan will give way to a more co-operative one. This , incidentally, is in accord with the drift of world politics and international relations of the past few decades. And it means that the subcontinent is aligning itself with these rather irreversible trends and dynamics. Enough is enough: the peoples of the subcontinent should built bottoms up pressure to support and sustain this process and their governments should respond to this. It is perhaps complex interdependence that will give short shrift to decadal animus and hostility between the traditional adversaries. Let cynicism and skepticism give way to warm hope.