Kashmir is known as Land of syncretism. Often portrayed as Paradise on earth, though this popular imagination is relentlessly used to subvert the cause of political violence on Kashmiris . Paradoxically, this paradise is subjected to unimaginable securitisation .Kashmir represents an ideal case of thought crimes and bio politics. It is less admired & more envied today whether on the streets or in the deliberations of civil society, in media galleries or in policy circles. Dialogues and deliberations pertinent to Kashmir issue seem elusive. Is Kashmir a Frankenstein’s monster, so intimidating or a pseudo paradise where deaths and killings are legitimised? For the agency of a suppressed self to speak for itself needs both courage and space. The language of silence exhibits how structures of power are ruthlessly regulative. Both the language and the discourses on Kashmir are highly securitised, impervious to critical refutation. In the theatrics of securitisation in Kashmir, the current state of affairs warrants deep analyses. Applying three levels of analyses i.e., man, the state and war, aptly describes the current dynamics of Kashmir.
Citing security issues as a rationale for invoking clampdown is mundane to Kashmir. This rationale appeared more convincing to the ruling dispensation at the centre when it abrogated article 370 & 35A on August 5, 2019 and subsequently bifurcated the state into two Union territories—Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and Ladakh. Well this was celebrated across political spectrum, while some political parties expressed reservations over the modus operandi of its execution. The abrogation followed a communication blackout in Jammu and Kashmir earning for India the famously infamous title of the country with maximum number of blackouts in a year. Pakistan diplomatically manoeuvred Beijing to raise scrapping of autonomy at UNSC. However, amid this unabated clampdown and international condemnation, New Delhi has been largely unresponsive, failing to show any resolve to initiate any negotiation. Kashmir is sandwiched between India and Pakistan, two nuclear arch rival states. The ongoing escalated tensions have high probability of culminating into another war. The unresolved Kashmir issue provides enough payoff structure to both India and Pakistan to behave aggressively against each other. The recent move has escalated the hostility to a new peak between the two antagonist states. The brunt of excessive securitisation is deeply experienced on ground by common people in valley where threat to life is an imminent reality
People amid Conundrum
From its embryonic stage of formation to its absolute mandate in electoral politics in 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections, BJP has traversed a long way. Domesticating its core electoral manifesto of abrogating article 370 from it being a populist electoral rhetoric to its pragmatic dilution, BJP has fundamentally altered the political imagination and the matrices of statecraft. Strangulating democratic edifice & silencing public articulation. Hindutva is a becoming a buzz word while media’s traction of the situation feigns optical illusion for masses. Narender Modi’s era will be characterized by his blitzkrieg policies from demonetisation to fiddling with federal structure.
Spatial brutalism in Kashmir is not a new discourse. Since 5 August, 2019 unarmed 8 million Kashmiri’s were excommunicated & put under siege by a million soldiers. By abrogating article 370 & 35A, the only constitutional link between Jammu & Kashmir with the union of India, history was twisted conveniently to justify this blatant act. Children of conflict are traumatized; normalization of travesty of justice, legitimacy crises is rampant and deep here. Structural violence is germane to conflict-ridden Kashmir and the docility is manufactured by repression, serving as instrumental rationality for state apparatus. State perpetuates masculinisation of war and feminization of violence since sovereign commands the absolute authority. From women to children, everyone is affected by this enduring conflict. Post February 14, 2019, Pulwama attack, the way Kashmiris were treated in different parts of country was both shocking and reprehensible. They were manhandled by mobs, threatened and intimated, ambushed in school and college premises. In fact, many colleges issued circulars and orders not to admit Kashmiri’s in their colleges. This multiplied their distress & alienated them further.
Cutting the umbilical cord of article 370 has opened up Pandora’s Box for the safety and stability of South Asian region in general & Kashmir in particular. At this moment life in Kashmir has been thrown into complete mess with no signs of recovery. Sudden deployment of security forces has paralysed normal life. Communication has been cut off. Rights are repressed, freedom curtailed, censorships privileged & democratically elected leaders are right now sparing in jails, preventive detention is a means used, abused and justified in the name of national security. Spaces of deliberations have been squeezed and dissenting voices are muzzled. What has transpired since August 5, 2019 is both reprehensible and warrants deep analysis .In West-Phalian order, state has come to occupy centre-stage in international politics.
State producing Statelessness
In his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. State derives its legitimacy from people but when state abuses its authority and perpetrates violence against its own people then state loses moral credibility. Consent of the governed is quintessential in democracy. However, the current crisis is resultant of the Indian states apathy towards Jammu & Kashmir and its crude stance with Pakistan on this issue. India is reluctant to talk with Pakistan on Kashmir because of infiltration by the latter. India blamed Pakistan for spreading terror in the region by backing and funding the militants in Kashmir against Indian rule. On the other side, Pakistan conventionally argues that until India will not convene a meeting for meaningful dialogue on Kashmir issue with Pakistan, sub-conventional conflicts and funding to militants in Kashmir will continue. Pakistan wants UN resolution through plebiscite to settle the dispute; however, India is worried about the majority of Muslim population in the state that is why India has rejected the UN resolution on Kashmir by claiming that India and Pakistan in the historical Shimla agreement have affirmed to settle the Kashmir issue bilaterally. However, by scrapping the state autonomy on 05 August 2019, India had violated the Shimla agreement too.
The lack of space for dialogue is generated by the hard stance advocated by New Delhi and its coercive policies towards Kashmir. There has been a complete failure in the resumption of track-two diplomacy. Rather than applying the policies of engagement and resolving the Kashmir issue both states are busy in managing it. In the high and low politics, it is the common Kashmiris who are killed and silenced. The situation in valley can be gauged by the fact that public good like internet is blocked for the longest time in the history. Civil resistance movement has picked up in valley because of the flawed policies of New Delhi in valley. Instead of reaching out to them state has shown complete recklessness .Therefore, it won’t be wrong to argue that state has been chief architect in producing restlessness in valley. In the language of neo-classical realists, leaders and institutions have important role to play in shaping its domestic and foreign policy. Modi’s blitzkrieg policies in Kashmir since august 5, proves this hypothesis right. In fact, Policy of command and control from New Delhi has led to disillusionment of Kashmiris and accentuating alienation. So both the people of valley as well as Islamabad have been sidelined by New Delhi, escalating volatility has potential to transcend into a war.
War as Imminent Possibility
To quote Leon Trotsky, “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”. Deadlocks and stalemates are recurrent feature between New Delhi and Islamabad on Kashmir. Had it not been the case the enduring Kashmir issue would not have lurked between New Delhi and Islamabad for so long. Already Islamabad and New Delhi have fought four wars (in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1991) against each other. Therefore, unless and until both states show maturity and political willingness to resolve Kashmir issue, the possibility of another war looms large given the deteriorated relations between India and Pakistan. The high politics of conventional war beneath a nuclear umbrella by military and civilian leaders in both countries highlights the shifting dynamics. Imperfect people in imperfect organisations can lead to miscalculations. Both states did not trust each other’s nuclear doctrines. The first-use and no-first-use policy of nuclear weapons between New Delhi and Islamabad are blurry and that is precisely the reason why the theory of “rational” state action is seriously problematic in the context of these two states. Islamabad is aware of New Delhi’s missile defence system preparations and the BJP government’s scrapping of autonomy in Kashmir might provide incentives to the Pakistani military to feel that “war now is better than war later”. In the Peloponnesian war, the weak Sparta launched a preventive war to stop Athens from becoming too powerful. Similarly, Bismarck, who once called preventive war “committing suicide from fear of death,” said that “no government, if it regards war as inevitable even if it does not want it, would be so foolish as to leave to the enemy the choice of time and occasion and to wait for the moment which is most convenient for the enemy”.[1]
Since 1947, Pakistan has behaved belligerently against India due to unresolved Kashmir dispute. Pakistani military disregarded crystal ball effect while conducting war. Nuclear deterrence failed and the Kargil War became a new piece of history between India and Pakistan in 1999. Also the situation is aggravated further with nuclear arms race between the two states. New Delhi’s emerging defence system leaves limited options for Islamabad to save its nuclear/deterrent force from a possible India’s preventive strike. The Balakot incident in February 2019 happened due to military biases from the Indian side that Pakistan might not trigger the nuclear button in response to India’s limited airstrikes on the Pakistani soil.
Pakistan will feel greater incentives to use increased missile alerts fearing that an Indian attack might destroy its forces. Expectedly, both states were ready to fire missiles against each other during the Balakot crisis. In fact, the Balakot incident was politically motivated; otherwise, a possible nuclear attack might have been witnessed. In such a dangerous situation, deterrence might fail because adversary’s decision-makers might doubt the credibility of deterrence.
To conclude, neither the history nor geography should be ignored .Blatantly
twisting the history and fiddling with the federal character will exacerbate
the already existing complexities in the region. Securitisation of Kashmir should
give way to de-securitisation, as conflict transformation mandates peace
building approach not hard-line militaristic postures. However, an enforced
silence must not be interpreted as normalcy & more importantly peace.
Procrastination should neither become a standard template nor a norm to guide
the policies of New Delhi and Islamabad towards Kashmir. Mobilisation of
domestic politics to intensify and fuel hatred for Kashmiris or Kashmir either for
electoral gains or national security needs to be eschewed. Otherwise, incidents
like Balakot will serve as precedent for many more such incidents to recur as
deterrence has failed under nuclear shadow.
[1] Robert Jervis, ‘Offense, Defense, and the Security Dilemma,’ in Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, ed., International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, Thirteen Edition, (New York: Pearson, 2017), p. 105.
