Imagining Kashmir From India
By Rahul Pathak
16 August, 2010
Countercurrents.org
This is the week of Independence for us and as we revel in the sixty-three years of ‘uninterrupted freedom’ of the nation we are facing several challenges to the idea of India. There are a huge number of people whom our imagination considers to be ‘our people’ but they don’t believe in the idea of India. The long cherished freedom or Azaadi came sixty three years back to this land but these sixty three years have not resolved the issue that has been a byproduct of this freedom. Kashmir still burns and continues to be the ground zero of the Indian independence. The word so sacrosanct in the history books and public discourse of India called ‘Azaadi’ has become an anti-national word in the context of Kashmir which attracts unsolicited nationalistic fervours from many quarters of our society. Our nationalist arrogance has failed to admit the truth of Kashmir and many experts still sit on television prime time discussing how Omar Abdullah has failed in his governance and how the deaths of children (as young as nine years) in Kashmir are fuelled by fringe elements across the border. This misplaced nationalism comes from the television sets to the living rooms and on the dinner tables where the elders explain at length the historicity of the problem. We hear the story of Hari Singh, his accession to India, the story of the nuns, Nehru, Patel and then the discussion wanders into blame-game for who was responsible for partition, Gandhi comes in, Jinnah comes in and then without any conclusion there are three wars. The role of elder’s now is almost over as the youth knows the rest, they understand very less about the rise of militancy in Kashmir, so 1988-89 is not discussed. Kargil was a recent event so even younger kids remember it. The television channels had organized shows for jawans killed in Kargil in partnership with multinationals. It was the peak of nationalist jingoism, our beloved party was at the centre, India was an ‘emerging superpower’, consumerism was on the rise, the 24*7 news had made inroads to the small cities and Godhra was still two years away. On the dinner table the extended discussion on Kashmir leads someone who is least interested in political developments to bring in the beauty of Kashmir. The discussion goes into the ‘another notion’ of Kashmir and we discuss at length about the beauty of the shawls, pure wool, handicrafts, snow-capped mountains, lakes, houseboats, tourism, cheap dry-fruits and Kashmir ki kali. The debate on television has ended, the particular channel is declared to be a channel which promotes healthy debate and the discussion ends. We all go to sleep only to discuss Kashmir next day on the dining table. This is what we have done since past sixty three years, the Indian discourse of Kashmir has been the living room discourse of war and beauty.
Why do we discuss Kashmir without understanding it and what do we discuss about Kashmir without living it. Kashmir is an hour by hour lived experience said one of my Kashmiri friends once; however Indian living room experience of Kashmir is about verbose discussions grounded in the nationalist discourse of uncompromising sovereignty and Kashmir as an Indo-Pak problem with Pakistani interests represented by ‘some fringe elements’. The Indian nationalism is an invincible juggernaut which has successfully trampled everything that has come in its way in the great democratic experiment for the past sixty three years, but a few stones were always unfurled here and there. Now, it is difficult to ignore those stones, the Indian nationhood should re-invent itself to accommodate Kashmir in a different way from what has been done till now.
In 1983, Benedict Anderson's book "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism" provided a new perspective on nationalism. He said that there were cultural roots of nationalism and which were grounded in the idea of ‘imagined communities’. He proposed that the nation is a socially constructed community which is imagined by people who perceive themselves as part of the group. Thus, “imagination” is central to the idea of nationhood and it is the absence of this imagination which has failed the relationship between India and Kashmir for the past sixty-three years and continues to do so till date.
The Indian perception of Kashmir is a confused imagination in which the nationalist history of Indian past has made it very much difficult for an average Indian mind to imagine Kashmir valley not to be a part of India and at the same time the history of turmoil has failed the Indian imagination to consider Kashmir as a ‘normal’ part of India. The discourse of ‘we’ and ‘they’ has dominated the street level Indian perception of Kashmir primarily on the grounds of nationalism as well as on the basis of religion. Kashmir has always been looked from the ‘370 angle’ but we have always failed to look it from a ‘360 degree approach’. If we want to seek a solution for Kashmir we will have to make this shift from 370 to 360 where the movement of Kashmiris for self-determination will have to be recognized as a real people’s movement rather than labeling it with development deficit/unemployment uproar/fringe elements/beyond the border approach which we have demonstrated till now. The dialogue with “ALL” the stakeholders is the essential to seek any solution to Kashmir and leaving anyone outside will lead to similar talks that have been happening since past sixty three years.
In the last sixty three years the Kashmiri has not been a part of Indian body-politic in the same measure as that of a Bengali or Maharashtrian so it is unjustified to expect Kashmir to be a part in the same measure. A majority of opinions that dominate the television and media space can’t delink the idea of Kashmir with the idea of India since the idea of India is too strong and powerful than its counterpart. If our arrogance in idea of India is not compromised than we should also face the fact that a large section of alienated Kashmiris refer to this dominance of the idea of India as imperialism. Those of us who are obsessed with prime-time debates should also try to understand the view-points of those who are protesting on streets by having a look at the cyber-space and how Kashmiri struggle has stormed the cyber-space in addition to the streets for the past two months.
Anderson, in his thesis also says that “the nation is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may exist, it is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship and it is this fraternity that makes it possible for so many millions of people, not so much to kill as willing to die for such limited imaginings”. The Kashmiri youth certainly have some imaginations about the idea of Kashmir which has given them this willingness to die for their imaginations. It is necessary that we should understand this Kashmiri imagination and then progress with the healing process. Only lamenting the deaths of children is not the healing that can be provided to Kashmir. Kashmir needs a serious dialogue amongst all the stakeholders and a dialogue which will not betray the deaths of these children who had their imaginations about Kashmir and which we are unable to see because of our Indian sunglasses.
(The author is with Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The views expressed are personal.)
