Kashmir: Forgotten Conflict Between Two countries so Alike Yet so Different
In the heart of Asia, lies a mostly forgotten region of the world one that is a representation of the region’s decades of mistrust and violence, that area is known as Kashmir. The story of this place is a reflection of the bitter and deep seated rivalry between India and Pakistan, two countries who are the victims of extremist violence and ideology and their colonial leaders’ disregard for their well being. This paper looks at how religious identity, geography, and history caused one of the most violent and long lasting scenes of international failure in the wake of World War Two.
Written 7th of December, 2018
Boom -- a car bomb explodes -- bang bang -- the machine gun fire follows the sounds of blood-curdling screams and the sight of smashed glass and stained sidewalks of blood. This is not a battlefield like Syria or Yemen, nor the violent streets of Venezuela. No, this an “85,800 square mile (222,200 square km)” area sandwiched among India, Pakistan and China, with a little known and mostly forgotten conflict known as the Kashmir Conflict. The conflict, which has been going on for the last fifty-plus years and named after the Kashmir province, has been predominantly between the Muslim and Hindu populations but also involves Sikhs and Christians in the province that borders Pakistan and India. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and many more wounded for a seemingly endless war wedged deep in both Pakistani and Indian history. Yet the Kashmir Conflict has its roots and bears its poisons fruit from British Colonialism, centuries-old tribal-ethnic tensions, and a lack of international assistance.
Kashmir was not created out of nowhere; the area was once a part of Alexander the Great’s empire; after that, several different rulers of different religions dominated; “From the 9th to the 12th century CE the region appears to have achieved considerable prominence as a center of Hindu culture. A succession of Hindu dynasties ruled Kashmir until 1346, when it came under Muslim rule. The Muslim period lasted nearly five centuries ending when Kashmir was annexed to the Sikh kingdom in 1819.” However, the Kashmir region was impartially created as a buffer between the empires of Russia and China to avoid potential conflict.
Fast forward to post-World War II. Partition was underway and the violence reportedly left over 2 million dead and 14 million refugees, most of whom were civilians. Out of all that violence came the separate region known as Kashmir, which neither the Indian nor the Pakistani governments controlled. However, due to already-hostile tensions mixed in with some bad treaties, the Kashmir conflict was born and continues to this day as a largely forgotten area of the world.
That was until 2008, when the conflict blasted and shot its way back to the international spotlight with the Mumbai Terror attacks, “which left around 101 people killed and 250 wounded.” Those attacks brought the conflict a brief glimmer of international attention; however, with the war in Iraq, the global recession, and international terrorist activities, the conflict once again receded into the shadows. However, new light has been shined on the conflict with the possibility of talks over Kashmir, brought on by the newly elected government of Pakistan headed by former cricket star, Khan. With all that said, the Kashmir conflict seems pretty simple: just divide the area and be done. But it’s not that simple. This conflict has not only deep roots in modern Indian and Pakistani history but in its colonial history under the boot of the British Empire.
The British Empire stretched as far west as British Columbia and the Falklands to as far east as New Zealand. The sheer territory was enormous. Even after the American Revolution, the Irish Civil War, and eventually the Partition of India, “The Britain still had a real empire, with more than 70 overseas territories.” However, one-by-one, just like the United States, Ireland, and Canada departed, several rebellions crumbled the once-mighty empire, where the sun “never set.” Eventually, the British decided to give their colonies their independence but never willingly, only when they realized that it was impossible for them to continue their occupation of these colonies. The cost of blood and treasure were too high.
The British colonialization of India started in the 1750s at first as trading partners; then the British began to wage war on land in the eastern and southeastern parts of India. The campaign was huge victory for the British, who took over the rich province of Bengal militarily and politically. The British didn’t stop there; “By the end of the century British rule had been consolidated over the first conquests and it was being extended up the Ganges Valley to Delhi and over most of the peninsula of southern India.”
Throughout the next fifty-plus years, the British had full control of what is known as Pakistan, Burma and India, politically and economically. It is important to also point out that although the British did control India, that did not mean that the people were happy being colonized, evidenced by the case of Sepoy mutiny and the Indian Rebellion of 1857-58, which failed. However, those dreams of overthrow and self-rule would never go away; independence was declared in 1947 after Gandhi’s mass revolution of nonviolent protesters that tapped into age-old resentments.
Although some have been wise to point out that, “Taken together, the moral of these studies could be that colonialism isn't great for a country's future political and economic wellbeing, but if a country is going to be colonized, they're better off with the British than the French. It's also very possible that the legacy of colonialism -- whether positive or negative -- manifests differently in national rather than local governance," India still had a hard time and that view is a revisionist version of India’s colonial history under British Rule. It is observed, “The rule of the British in India is possibly the most controversial and the most hotly debated aspect of the history of the British Empire. Admirers of British rule point to the economic developments, the legal and administrative system, the fact that India became the center of world politics. Critics of British rule generally point out that all of these benefits went to a tiny British ruling class and the majority of Indians gained little.”
There were also several times where the needs of the British superseded the needs and/or rights of the Indian people. This was a tactic used by the British on the American colonies after the French and Indian War (The Seven Years War) by making them pay for the war, which inadvertently led to the American Revolution. It was also used on the Irish during the potato famine, which led to the deaths of thousands of Irish people. Again, “It should also be noted that the Indian economy, which contributed 23% of the world economy during the 17th-18th centuries was down to around 4% in 1947.” The fighting between India and Pakistan, who have a long-standing hatred fueled by British Colonization, caused this during Partition.
Overall, Muslims and Hindus don’t get along; that’s a given. Even before the British showed up, the Muslims and Hindus fought each other; however, that fighting between “Hindu and Muslim kings was not about religion – it was only about land, gold, or politics,” such as the case of Babur the first Mughal Emperor, a descendent of Genghis Khan and Tamerlaine: “The Empire he founded was a sophisticated civilization based on religious toleration. It was a mixture of Persian, Mongol and Indian culture.” This was repeated by other rulers in the Mughal Empire. The British were the ones who formed it into a religious-fueled hatred, which began when, “The first census of 1871 ‘constructed’ modern Hindu and Muslim communities, turning fluid groups into rigid identities. The Partition of Bengal in 1905 and the creation of separate religious electorates in 1909 generated new animosity.”
The British had a vested interest in keeping Muslims and Hindus divided. This was done out of fear of one outcome: independence. The British had been horrified during the Revolt of 1857 to see Hindus and Muslims fighting side by side and under each other’s command against the foreign oppressor. They vowed this would not happen again.” Divide et impera was an old Roman maxim, and it shall be ours,” wrote Lord Elphinstone.” A systematic policy of fomenting separate consciousness among the two communities was launched, with overt British sponsorship. When restricted franchise was grudgingly granted to Indians, according to Shashi Tharoor, the British created “separate communal electorates so that Muslim voters could vote for Muslim candidates for Muslim seats.” The seeds of division were sown to prevent a unified nationalist movement that could overthrow the British, and it worked for a while, but even divided, the British could not hold on to India like many of their other colonies after World War II.
The true legacy of British rule over India was during Partition, which was the period in which Pakistan and India would be carved up. The result was a massive number of refugees who were not migrant refugees as they were never going to return home. This was so massive that the British had not totally prepared for this, although in some cases, “Refugee trains [would] be run shortly and more Army and civilian transport [was] being made available to complete evacuation within the shortest possible time. Special arrangements [were] being made for the removal of the aged, woman and children.”
These people fled for several reasons. One was that many Muslims’ or Hindus’ homes were in in countries where they were minorities so they moved to other areas where they could be the majority. But another factor was the violence on both sides, nationalistic violence. The violence was not just in one area; it was all over the border areas and even in the cities to a certain extent. The violence was so wide-spread that military and police forces could not deal with it, leaving most areas at the mercy of violent gangs. One soldier said this during the Calcutta riots which took place in 1946: “The riots in Calcutta were also known as Direct Action Day, also known as the Great Calcutta Killings, was a day of widespread communal rioting between Muslims and Hindus in the city of Calcutta in the Bengal province of British India. Our patrols were out but due to the tremendous fights that were going on it was impossible for us to force our way into the areas in which the main killings were taking place.”
So, “The streams of Hindu and Sikh refugees from West Punjab poured through the East Punjab and carried the germs or communal infection to Delhi and the surrounding country . . . Slaughter in one Province led at once to vengeance in the other; but in all the circumstances, whatever the comparative loss of life and destruction of property, as between India and Pakistan, the difficulties on the Indian side were probably the greater.” This was all seen during Partition, which would seal the fate of Muslims and Hindu relations for the foreseeable future.
Partition was neither something the British had planned nor thought of as a realistic response to the Indian independence movement. After World War II, Indians as well as other British colonies got tired of the way they were being treated by the British, and after some nonviolent protests led by Gandhi, the British decided to give up. However, there was one problem: the colony of India had two distinct groups, Hindi and Muslim. Thus came forth the idea of Pakistan and India as two countries made to be majority Muslim or Hindi. But instead of taking a census and drawing lines along established cultural borders, the British decided to do what most colonial powers did and cut the country down the middle like it was a birthday cake. That decision fell to one man --Winston Churchill.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain who led Britain to victory against the Axis forces during World War II issued a bitter prophecy: “’Take India if that was what you want! Take it, by all means!’ the British prime minister raged to a U.S. diplomat in Washington. But, he argued, only British rule kept the subcontinent’s Hindus and Muslims from each other’s throats: ‘I warn you that if I open the door a crack, there will be the greatest bloodbath in all history; yes, bloodbath in all history.’” Churchill hated many of those who lived in the British colonies and India was no exception. It says he took the British divide-and-conquer strategies to an intense and violent level, as “Some say that it was Churchill’s hatred for Indians and Pakistanis as was seen in his mishandling of the 1943 Bengal famine, which led to the deaths of three million Indians died, the majority of the deaths were in Bengal. Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavel on his accounts of meetings with Churchill on the Bengal Famine.
Along with Churchill’s hatred for Indians and Pakistanis, there was another problem with the British method of handing Partition. The main sticking point was the deadline; it did not give the British enough time to sort out the bad blood between the Muslims and Hindus in the Punjab area. It was said, “We realize, of course, that we are running risk that no settlement will be arrived at and that no settlement will be arrived at and that as date for our withdrawal draws near communal situation will deteriorate seriously.” And it did mostly because of the slow pace of refugees moving to and from other countries.
But the underlying resentment showed: “Betray the country and . . . they would now be given their proper place. Again, the bitter attitude of refugees is a constant hindrance to better relations between the communities. In Delhi for example where, as Gandhi recently said ‘There was no love lost between the Hindus and Muslims whose hearts were still estranged.’”
It was relatively easy to send the rich out, as” The well-to-do Sikh and Hindu refugees from the West Punjab who have had to abandon their business and property are vehement in their criticisms of the weak attitude adopted by the Nehru Government and demand that the wealthy Muslims of Delhi should as a corollary be sent to Pakistan.” However, areas like Punjab and Kashmir border areas were still in chaos or at least under tensions, and those tensions continue until today.
This pertains directly to the Kashmir conflict because British Colonialism caused much of the violence and bitter hatred that exists between Muslims and Hindus. As one journalist reflects, “If Britain's greatest accomplishment was the creation of a single political unit called India, fulfilling the aspirations of visionary Indian emperors from Ashoka to Akbar, then its greatest failure must be the shambles of that original Brexit - cutting and running from the land they had claimed to rule for its betterment, leaving behind a million dead, 17 million displaced, billions of rupees of property destroyed, and the flames of communal hatred blazing hotly across the ravaged land. There is no greater indictment of the failures of British rule in India than the tragic manner of its ending.”
The reason British Colonialism is so important in understanding the Kashmir conflict, as said previously, is because the seeds of hatred that were sowed have blossomed into many conflicts bearing the fruits of thousands of deaths and leaving the people of these regions with the bitter sense that this conflict will never end. It really is a poison that has taken a religions shape, maybe for a deeper reason.
Some ignorant individuals would just say that the reason Muslims and Hindus are fighting is because both are all about violence and suppression towards the other. That can’t be farther from the truth. In The Koran, when it comes to tolerance, it says, ““For you is your religion, and for me is my religion” (Quran 109: 6).” And when it comes to forced conversions The Koran says,” “There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256).”
Hinduism says the same thing: “Let all the noble thoughts come from all directions,” and “The truth is one but the sages call it by different names.” Translating that from Enlightened to English, it says just because a people’s religion is different from others’ does not make them wrong or malicious. However, that has not stopped radicals on each side from taking liberties with other passages, especially as to when is it appropriate to use violence. That is where the problem lies. Just like North Ireland, Palestine and Israel, extremism is what brings out the worst in both religions and in most of the fighting.
In Kashmir as well as other contested areas in and near India and Pakistan, many terrorist groups operate; however, Kashmir is the primary focus. The area of Kashmir is divided from what it once was. On one side is Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, which was seized by Pakistan and allied groups in Kashmir in the turmoil from 1947-1949, following Partition. The other side is what the Indian armed forces were also able to seize during the turmoil following Partition. Some would ask them why is there violence; didn’t each side seize what it wanted?
One of the answers to that question is that each side only got what it could obtain yet both claim Kashmir as their own. Kashmir is mostly Muslim and that has not changed even in areas that India controls. This had led to conflict -- “Since 1989 there has been an armed revolt in the Muslim-majority region against rule by India…. High unemployment and complaints of heavy-handed tactics by security forces have aggravated the problem.” This has caused several groups to take a violent approach to independence.
The Muslim group is Lashkar-e-Taiba, now known as Jamaat-ud Dawa. Hafiz Mohammad Saeed formed this Pakistan-based militant group in the early 1990s to put the Kashmir insurgency more firmly into the hands of the Pakistanis. It has been responsible for many attacks in Kashmir as well, such as attacks as the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament and the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
Another group is Hizbul Mujahideen, which is considered to be the first militant group that is comprised of essentially Kashmiri-born soldiers. It is known to be pro- Pakistani, and it is one of a few that maintains a presence in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
Additionally, Harkatul Mujahideen is an Islamic group that is under the leadership of the Haqqani Network, which is based in Pakistan and today is fighting against US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan. Although crippled by infighting, the group is still a threat to regional stability. These groups swing back and forth in popularity yet if tensions boil over again, the groups that have gone by the wayside might pick up again and wreak untold violence on the Kashmir province.
The militant groups that often get the most attention are jihadist and cause the violence predominantly. That has taken shape in the form of jihad as when, “In March 2010, a declaration adopted at the Defence of Pakistan Conference, organized by Kotli, LeT, JeM, and a number of other Kashmiri militant organizations declared, ‘Jihad as the only way to liberate Kashmir from Indian occupation.’” One of the major problems with a long-standing conflict is that the longer it goes on, the harder it is to remember why everyone is fighting.
Another problem is that with the continuous violence and no end in sight, some militants may have turned to others for help, others with less-than-stellar human rights records, such as al Qaeda and, possibly, the Islamic State in Kashmir. It was noted that, “Since June 2014, flags and graffiti of the Islamic State have regularly appeared along with Pakistani flags during anti-India protests organized by the separatist organizations indicating a coalescing of the demand for independence and the urge to become a part of the established caliphate.”
Even though the Indian military and police show force to tamp out this new wave of Jihad that can make the old version look like playground skirmishes, their efforts are seen as “publicity stunts to attract media attention, religious overtone of the over ground separatist struggle headed by the APHC which wants to convert Kashmir into a model Islamic state and the Jihadist movement, which juxtaposes the ‘Muslim’ Kashmir and the ‘Hindu’ India might even have contributed to the new development.” The word Jihad is an interesting word, as most associate it with Daesh, also known as the Islamic State or Al Qaeda.
It actually has different meaning. The original definition of, “The Arabic word ‘jihad’ is often translated as ‘holy war,’ but in a purely linguistic sense, the word ‘jihad’ means struggling or striving,” as defined by most Muslims. With a wide continuum, to one side it can mean struggling with matters of the heart, to another, going to the gym to maintain wellness, to another extreme, fighting an all-out holy war. It is also worth noting that “Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions.” However, as with The Bible, there are passages that can be taken literally or interpreted metaphorically. It is observed, “While the former chose to live as refugees in the hope of returning to their homes and lands once Kashmir was reunited, the latter chose to pick up the mantle of jihad (holy war) and take up arms against the Indian state based on the infringement of their own as well as their loved ones’ rights as persons (huquq-al-ibad). Both drew on the ideas and practices of a lived Islamic tradition, not a universal Islamic ideology, to support their choices.”
There are other factors such as the possibility of education and financial reward that make jihad very enticing. For an unemployed youth with no job prospects or sense of worth, this can entice. But the main fact is that there is no diplomacy or none that actually works. A fair amount is because of the jihadists as well as the locals who are extremely divided on what it is they want, but the blame also resides with extremists on the other side.
There are no Hindi factions involved in the Kashmir conflict other than the Indian military and police forces, and some independent groups are responsible for a good amount of the violence in Kashmir and other parts of India. One of the tactics used by “right-wing Hindu groups is the recycling of old colonial thinking.” Although Indian extremist groups don’t have the name recognition that Muslims do, they are very much active. There have been instance where, “Vigilante mob attacks on people accused of selling or smuggling beef — most often Muslims — have spiked since 2015, with a data journalism organization called India Spend reporting that vigilantes killed at least 28 people since 2015.” This mindset is seen all over India due a new wave of nationalism gripping the country, and not just toward Muslims. Christians and other minorities have received their fair share of harassment and violence.
The problem is that some of these groups, unlike the Muslims in Kashmir, are outside the Kashmir area. These groups are sometimes political parties if organized but some function as mobs. A group commonly thought responsible for the Hindu-caused violence or at least associated with it is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which translates to the “Indian People’s Party”; it is a pro-Hindu political party. It claims no responsibility for the violence; rather it hangs importance on its ideology, which is Hindu Nationalism.
Nationalism takes the form of Saffron terror, which is a term used to describe acts of violence motivated by Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, or “Hinduness” (a term coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, in 1923) usually perpetrated by members, or alleged members, of Hindu nationalist organizations as well as lone wolves. Although this ideology is mainly based in India and Nepal, it pertains to Kashmir as well. The ideology focuses on several issues; chief among them is the “oppression” of Hindus by other groups like the Muslims and the Christians, and their goal is to undo the influence of these faiths which they see as trying to erase the Hindu culture and religion. They also believe the entire Indo-Pak subcontinent is the homeland of the Hindus. This ideology has been linked to several cases of extreme violence that go beyond words and ideas, such as the Bombing of the Samjhauta Express by Abhinav Bharat, the Gujarat pogrom riot against Muslims by a variety of Hindutva activists, and even the murder of Gandhi, one of the most famous Hindus in history, by Nathuram Godse, a former RSS member. The reason for Gandhi’s killing was that he tried to preach compassion and tolerance towards Muslims, an anathema to the RSS.
This ideology is dangerous to Kashmir for several reasons. One is that the Indo-Pak sub-continent, which includes Kashmir, is believed to be a part of the Hindu Territory that ideologically butts heads with the Sikhs and Muslims living in that area.
The second and more imperative reason is that the ruling party of India is the BJP party, which happens to be associated with this ideology. As an example, the Hindu monk, Yogi Adityanath, a member of the BJP party, was appointed as the Chief Minister in 2017; it was said that his supporters, “[Have] called for the digging up Muslim women from their graves and raping them. In 2015, he said that if he was given the chance, he would install idols of Hindu gods in every mosque.” This demagoguery is one of the reasons that there has been no resolution on Kashmir or the Hindu side; at the same time, it foments the Jihadist ideology.
These extremist perspectives contribute to the lack of trust and lack of progress toward any type of deal that could solve the Kashmir Conflict. Although in the past, they have come close, but with extremists on both sides banging the gongs of war, it seems unlikely that the conflict will ever end.
Consequently, the conflict in Kashmir has persisted for seventy-plus years. It seems ludicrous that a conflict that has killed some 47,000 people -- some say that number is much higher -- could last that long. The Pakistani government says that, “The non-implementation of United Nations (UN) resolutions on Kashmir remains the world body’s ‘most persistent failure.’” Yet the conflict drags on. International assistance to end the conflict has been little to none; even media coverage has been slim.
But that all changed after the Mumbai Terror attacks in 2008, which left 164 people dead and wounded at least 308. Nine of the ten gunmen who specifically targeted tourists and innocent bystanders with machine-gun and grenade assaults died in Mumbai. According to a Time magazine article, “The fearsome technique used in Mumbai — a combination of machine-gun-firing and grenade-throwing — is familiar in Kashmir, and known here as a ‘fidayeen’ attack.” The attacks targeted two five-star hotels, the city’s largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital. This horrendous attack was later found out to be orchestrated and carried out by ten Pakistani men associated with the terror group, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, one of several terror groups that operate in the Kashmir Valley. This attack brought the Kashmir conflict back into the light but was overshadowed by Pakistan and India nearly killing each other. Thankfully, war was averted temporarily because of U.S. and European diplomacy.
Although there were arrests in the US and Canada as well as Pakistan, the only ones who were charged in the US and Canada and India received any punishment; the suspects in Pakistan, including its leader, were released from house arrest, and afterward, “The United States, which labels Saeed as the leader of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, said it was ‘deeply concerned’ about his release.” Even if Pakistan did not partake in this attack, its actions only confirmed its guilt in the eyes of the world and further enraged India and others, chief among them, the United States. This terror attack would eventually fall to the wayside in the eyes of the world. However, the Kashmir Conflict would continue with it erupting in violence during the 2016–17 unrest in Kashmir, also known as the Burhan aftermath. One of things to keep in mind about the Kashmir conflict is that it seems to follow a certain trend -- one side does something to anger the other and results in everything from words to rocks to bullets and missiles being thrown at each other and ends with either a ceasefire but never really accomplishes anything for both sides.
Diplomacy, on the other hand, has not had much luck in the past. Partly because of Pakistan’s and India’s bitter hatred of each other that has come from the several wars they have fought (two out of the three were over Kashmir with both sides blaming each other for violating the ceasefires as well as committing human rights violations). On the UN’s part, Kashmir seems to fall to the bottom of the list when it come to conflicts that need to be solved, behind Bosnia, ISIS, Russian aggression, refugee crises, North Korea’s Nuclear Program… ad nauseum.
Another important factor is that the Kashmir conflict is more like a (very violent) sports rivalry than a war; it kicks up then dies back down. The UN historically has been the most active in the Kashmir Conflict. Not long after gaining independence, the fledgling nations of India and Pakistan went to war. In response to the fighting, “The UN Security Council passed resolutions calling for a cease-fire, a withdrawal of security forces, and an internationally supervised plebiscite for Kashmiris to decide whether they join India or Pakistan.” The problem is that Kashmir is carved up like a pie, one side Pakistani-controlled, the other Indian-controlled with neither wanting the whole thing. It is noted that, “Ever since, the UN has not done very much at all on the Kashmir issue, other than at times urging the two sides to come to the negotiating table.”
In all else, though, the two groups that should focus on resolving this conflict are the two countries involved in it. However, Pakistan and India hate each other so much that it would not hurt to have a third party or parties helping ease the tensions, such The United States, the EU, Muslim countries like Qatar, and even Great Brittan.
Ending the conflict is not going to be easy, but there are plenty of ways to end it. There are several options; one is to redraw the lines of Kashmir and just break it in two, along religious lines. The Hindu side goes to India; the Muslim side goes to Pakistan. However, since most of the population of Kashmir live so close to one another, that may cause more problems since both sides claim Kashmir to be theirs and totally theirs, hence the fighting between the two countries.
The better way of ending the Kashmir conflict is to give the place the autonomy as it was originally designed to be. With neither India or Pakistan controlling half of it or any of it, this is actually backed up by a Kashmiri nationalism which has come close to blossoming but has fallen apart due to internal and external fighting. Yet it still remains: “Given this situation, autonomy is once again the best option for Kashmir, provided it is seen as an open-ended formula. The actual provisions of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which conferred autonomy on Kashmir, were quite far-reaching. The only portfolios under central government control were defense, foreign affairs, and currency. If these were further substantiated by genuine guarantees of inviolability, demilitarization, and free and fair elections, they might go a long way toward satisfying Kashmiri aspirations but will not necessarily resolve the dispute with Pakistan or settle the Kashmir partition. However, an adaptation of Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement formula, embedding autonomy in a trilateral and wider regional framework, might provide the solution.”
It has a precedent. Utilizing the template of the Good Friday agreement (that holds
today) has actually helped ease tensions between the Irish Catholics and the Irish
Protestants, who have hated each other pretty much for centuries. It shows that the idea of autonomy can work; however, given the certain level of distrust among the Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris, the UN could step in to help ease the tensions while the Kashmiris as well as Pakistanis and Indians have discussions. But “only a truly grassroots initiative can help disentangle the historical and ideological baggage and de-link Kashmir from carrying the burden of India and Pakistan’s national identities. It will also create new social and political spaces for creative ideas exploring, for example, the meaning, form, content, and viability of a ‘soft border’ across the dividing Line of Control in Kashmir. The key lies in shifting the focus from India and Pakistan to Kashmir, and from territorial disputes to addressing the political needs of the people.”
Recently a breath of fresh hope has come into the Kashmir conflict. It is that from Imran Khan the former cricket star turned anti-corruption politician turned newly elected Prime minister of Pakistan. In August of 2018, Prime Minister Khan announced new efforts to end the conflict the people of Kashmir and India welcomed the gesture. One of them was Rafi Mir, the spokesperson for PDP, a left leaning Muslim political party in India, who argues, “There must be talk between all the stake holders whatever is their blueprint we don’t know…. There are certain things that can be modified there are certain things that can be accepted it will only depend on what the things are but in any case, is a welcome step that something has been said and if things move, we must reciprocate equally.”
Although violence has flared again, the fact that Pakistan would make this gesture was met with delight by many in India and Kashmir but not to some in the Hindu community who have severe reservations about Pakistan’s desire to rein in insurgent elements in Kashmir. Yet Pakistan, India and most of all Kashmir, want to see the conflict finally brought to a peaceful end.
The Kashmir Conflict has been going since 1947, out of the ashes of World War II and British Colonialism. It has risen to be one of the most violent but forgotten conflicts in world history as two nuclear powers continue to trade blows with each other and almost start a full- blown war. For many outsiders, the conflict seems to one of those where no one really knows what the cause is or what the solution is. Yet upon an in-depth examination, the Kashmir Conflict has its roots and bears its poisons fruits from British Colonialism, centuries-old tribal-ethnic tensions, and a lack of international assistance. By understanding these causes, however, the solution can be reached. It is about patience and realizing that extremists on both sides -- although they make the most noise – do not represent the aspirations and common decency of the majorities.
Works Cited
Administrator. "ISCA." An Explanation of Islam and Sufism. Accessed November 8, 2018. http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9.
Behera, Navnita Chadha. "Kashmir: Redefining the U.S. Role." Brookings.edu. July 28, 2016. Accessed October 03, 2018. https://www.brookings.edu/research/kashmir-redefining-the-u-s-role/.
Bhowmick, Nilanjana. "Meet the Militant Monk Spreading Islamophobia in India." Washington Post, March 24, 2017. Accessed November 8, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/03/24/meet-the-militant-monk-spreading-islamophobia-in-india/?utm_term=.dd9472457692
“Colonial Ideas about Religion." The Washington Post. January 29, 2018. Accessed November 1, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/01/29/in-india-right-wing-hindu-groups-are-recycling-britains-colonial-ideas-about-religion/
Deutsche Welle. "How Could the UN Help Resolve the Kashmir Dispute?” | DW | 10.12.2014. DW.COM. December 10, 2014. Accessed December 03, 2018. https://www.dw.com/en/how-could-the-un-help-resolve-the-kashmir-dispute/a-18120254.
D’Souza, Shanthie Mariet, and Bibhu Prasad Routray. 2016. “Jihad in Jammu and Kashmir: Actors, Agendas and Expanding Benchmarks.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 27 (4): 557–77. doi:10.1080/09592318.2016.1189485. https://web-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.uccs.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9d3fe2e9-d595-4da2-b5e3-2407f32d467f%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=116268677&db=30h
Falak, Jawad. "Saffron Terror: The Rising Tide of Militant Hindutva." Stratagem. October 17, 2015. Accessed November 28, 2018. http://www.stratagem.pk/setting-the-record-straight/saffron-terror-the-rising-tide-of-militant-hindutva/.
Fisher, Max. "Was British Colonialism Good or Bad for India?" The Atlantic. October 26, 2013. Accessed October, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/was-british-colonialism-good-or-bad-for-india/343366/.
Hajari, Nisid. "The Tragedy of India's Partition, 70 Years Later." Bloomberg.com. April 14, 2015. Accessed November 28, 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-14/the-tragedy-of-india-s-partition-70-years-later.
Indian Military. “Calcutta Riots.”. August 24, 1946 Accessed October 7, 2018. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-partition/calcutta-riots/
India’s Ministry of Information, “Movement of Refugees.”. November 2, 1947, 2018. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-partition/movement-refugees/
"Kashmir Region, Indian Subcontinent, Asia." Encyclopedia Britannica. September 14, 2018. Accessed September 21, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/place/Kashmir-region-Indian-subcontinent
Kumar, Radha. 2002. “Untying the Kashmir Knot.” World Policy Journal 19 (1): 11.p21. https://libproxy.uccs.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=30h&AN=6703484&site=ehost-live. https://web-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.uccs.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=0210d72a-5d12-4ed7-897b-0c192dad5a7e%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=6703484&db=30h
"Learning Curve British Empire." The National Archives. Accessed November 3, 2018. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/g2/cs4/background.htm.
Marshall, Peter. "The British Presence in India in the 18th Century." BBC. February 17, 2017. Accessed Summer, 2018. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/east_india_01.shtml.
"Religions - Islam: Mughal Empire (1500s, 1600s)." BBC. September 07, 2009. Accessed November 28, 2018. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/mughalempire_1.shtml
Sengupta, Somini. "At Least 100 Dead in India Terror Attacks." The New York Times, November 26, 2008. Accessed September 20, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/world/asia/27mumbai.html.
Srinagar, Jyoti Thottam. "What Did Kashmir Have to Do with the Mumbai Attacks?" December 7, 2008. Accessed November 2, 2018. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1864880,00.html
Swami Chidanand Saraswati. "At Its Core, Hinduism Is about Tolerance and Acceptance - Times of India." The Times of India. November 08, 2015. Accessed November 28, 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/deep-focus/At-its-core-Hinduism-is-about-tolerance-and-acceptance/articleshow/49705526.cms.
Taylor, Adam. "Map: The Rise and Fall of the British Empire." The Washington Post. September 08, 2015. Accessed October 03, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/08/map-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-british-empire/.
Tharoor, Ishaan. "The Dark Side of Winston Churchill's Legacy No One Should Forget." The Washington Post. February 03, 2015. Accessed November 28, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/03/the-dark-side-of-winston-churchills-legacy-no-one-should-forget/.
Tharoor, Shashi. "The Partition: The British Game of 'divide and Rule'." Al Jazeer. August 10, 2017. Accessed October 10, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/08/partition-british-game-divide-rule-170808101655163.html
“The State of Indian-Pakistan Relations.” India’s High Commissioner to Brtish Government October 20, 1947. London. Accessed October 10 5, 2018. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-partition/india-pakistan-relations/
"Tolerance in Islam | Quranic Verses and Ahadith on Tolerance." Islamic Articles. January 12, 2018. Accessed October 28, 2018. http://www.quranreading.com/blog/tolerance-in-islam-quranic-verses-and-ahadith-on-tolerance/.
Verghese, Ajay. "Did Hindu-Muslim Conflicts in India Really Start with British Rule?" Scroll.in June 05, 2018. Accessed November 28, 2018. https://scroll.in/article/880832/did-hindu-muslim-conflicts-in-india-really-start-with-british-rule.
UK High Commissioner Terence Shone, “Evaluating Partition” October 14, 1947 Acessed October 2, 2018. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-partition/evaluating-partition/
"Viewpoint: Why the Kashmir Government Fall Is a Tragedy." BBC News. June 22, 2018. Accessed October 17, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44558098.
Zutshi, Chitralekha. “An Ongoing Partition: Histories, Borders, and the Politics of Vivisection in Jammu and Kashmir.” Contemporary South Asia 23, no. 3 (September 2015): 273. doi:10.1080/09584935.2015.1040734.
Radhakrishnan, Shivani. "In India, Right-wing Hindu Groups Are Recycling Britain's