Snowy white mountains, lush green hills, endless rivers and streams- a scenic depiction of a so called heaven on earth. But the dark clouds and shadows which emerge over the valleys of Kashmir are little less than of bloodshed, rape, and mass murder. With independence and freedom on the minds of the Kashmiri people, the question is simple; is there a ‘reasonable’ case for independence of the former Princely State of Kashmir?
Split between three major nuclear powers, Kashmir has been at the forefront of international discussions and outcry since the India-Pakistan partition in 1947. The lengthy timescale makes the conflict the oldest unresolved disputes at the United Nations to the current day, with no visible light at the end of the tunnel. Hugely important to regional politics, what can be achieved or cannot be achieved in solving the Kashmir dispute? Can independence cripple the regions resources? No answers seem to be within reach.
The calls for free and fair elections to determine Kashmir’s official legal status- free from the influence of Pakistan and India- has yet to be seen, with the international community failing to support either side in their route to a free and independent state. The United Nations has made claims that fair elections have taken place both sides of the LOC, though in actual terms this is far from the truth, following increased vote rigging and corruption from both Pakistan and India. Surely independence can only be sought if consensus can be reached; and consensus can only be reached if a fair election takes place. Kashmir seems to follow its geographic image and is literally stuck in the middle unable to manoeuvre.
Citizens of Jammu Kashmir (Indian occupied) have made further attempts to raise awareness of the dispute through calls at the international arena (UN, EU) for investigations into alleged mass murder, rape and war crimes by the Indian State- a further reason as to why independence is sought. Though these voices of so called ‘dissent’ have been crippled and silenced by officials, as means to diminish the cause of independence. Public demonstrations and protests have also been silenced, to which the question is; where is the universal freedom which is projected through the Human Rights Act? If Kashmir is continually silenced, how is possible for citizens to voice their concerns and most importantly voice their opinions on the call for independence?
With India controlling 43% of Kashmiri land mass, Pakistan at 37%, and the remainder 20% “gifted” to China by India, it is by little luck that the people of Kashmir have remained determined towards the cause of freedom, surrounded by such “harsh” and politically crude powers. With the land so unevenly split, with LOC cutting mountains, villages and lakes in half, can a new Kashmir be formed on its 1949 original borders? The simple answer is, No.
Kashmir does however fulfils the characteristics of a State, not least because it had been an “official” state prior to 1947, but it also holds devolved governments both sides of the LOC, public institutions, a “people’s” and a number of recorded languages. But the question is who will make that call for independence? It is a little known fact the United Nations cannot legally call for independence or partition of a State whereby the institution can only “guide the citizens of a land”. So, again, Kashmir is left fatherless with no light at the end of any tunnel, and with no help at sight.
Following the 2010 Kashmir uprising, Chatham House UK conducted a survey to determine whether there was an official consensus for the independence of Kashmir both sides of the Line of Control. Over 50% of the 3,700 individuals interviewed agreed independence should be sought from all three regional powers, with some suggesting that: “three’s a crowd”. Figures further stated 44% of Pakistani Kashmiri’s favoured independence, whilst 43% of Indian Kashmiri’s favoured independence, the remainder of whom refrained from answering. Whilst it is notable from these figures that independence is the most popular notion both sides of the LOC, the figures fail to reach an outright majority, and hence a clear call for independence cannot be made. What is most striking about the figures is that the Muslim dominated areas of Kashmir are the ones calling for independence, with the figures of the Kashmir valley at 74% to 95% in favour of independence. Do these similarities not parallel with that of the India-Pakistan partition, where religion was a clear factor in the formation of the new States. Can this notion be applied again?
However, concerns also arise on the notion that either India or Pakistan will take full control of the Kashmir region, leading to a greater risk of Human Rights abuse and possibly ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri race.
The future for Kashmir as an independent state is fairly bleak, and it is of course highly unlikely that Kashmir could become independent on the 1948-149 boundaries. So what is the solution? The solution is for a new independent Kashmir to be formed with shorter and tighter boundaries, which will see China, Pakistan and India giving up lands currently under occupation. I guess that is too optimistic a solution, which takes us back to the question of, then what?
[twitter style=”horizontal” source=”@intlpolitical” float=”left”][fbshare type=”button”]
Kashmir is Kashmir regardless of its Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu roots, with the final solution only being a form of independence. Plans A and B have passed and failed, it is now time for C to be implemented, I leave it for you to decide what that ‘C’ is.
For further information on the Kashmiri struggle, be sure to tune into tonight’s documentary: ‘Kashmir’s Torture Trail’ on Ch4 at 11:10pm BST
About the Author
