Beautiful and Disputed Kashmir
The concept of autonomy was accepted universally at the beginning of the 20th century; however it does not correspond or respond to the current ideas about political nations or equality. If the doing away of Kashmir’s autonomy pans out well, then it would behove Russia and China to take note of it.
By Israel Shamir
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided on a bold and risky measure. With a presidential ordinance he has revoked the autonomy of Kashmir and has integrated it – for now as union territory – with India. Till now Indian Kashmir had enjoyed significant autonomy – it elected its own representatives, Indian citizens (from other states) could not settle down in Kashmir, and neither could they buy houses or land there. The main territory of Indian Kashmir is the Kashmir valley with its capital in Srinagar and the magnificent Dal Lake; it has remained overwhelmingly Muslim, and from time to time has seen uprisings. Non-Muslim Kashmiris have had to flee the valley and migrate to the southern regions of the state to Jammu and its suburbs.
It is difficult to foresee what the consequences will be of this act. There may be trouble both inside and outside Kashmir. We have no inkling of how the people of Kashmir will respond – will they express their dissatisfaction through non-violent means, or will we see yet another fierce rebellion, or would they just resign themselves quietly to changed circumstances. It is also not clear how neighbouring Pakistan will respond – whether it will opt for diplomatic protests or for military action.
The Pakistani authorities do not want war. Cash-strapped Pakistan is in a difficult economic situation, and war requires money. Yet, it cannot neglect Kashmir; for far too long Pakistan’s people have been hearing about the holy act of liberating Muslim Kashmir.
Supporters of Modi say that autonomy itself was conceived as a temporary measure, and was not meant to be in perpetuity. And now the time had come for it to be done away with. This argument has its own logic. In Western Europe there is practically no autonomy, though there does exist a basis for it. Brittany would be written off as autonomous, and even other French provinces south of the Loire differ from the north far more than say Ukraine from Russia. But they have no autonomy there. And the last biggest movement for autonomy was eliminated after 1945, as it compromised itself by cooperating with the Nazis.
The concept of autonomy was a good one, accepted universally at the beginning of the 20th century; however it does not correspond or respond to the current ideas about political nations or equality. If the doing away of Kashmir’s autonomy pans out well, then it would behove Russia and China to take note of it. The populaces of Chechnya and Tatarstan, Xinjiang and Tibet, possibly would prefer to live normal lives in common territories, like the other citizens of their countries, rather than enjoy autonomy. The rule of tribal leaders is an outdated norm, one fraught with separatism and the suppression of human rights.
Of course, such processes cannot simply be copied and pasted from those of other countries; each country has its own unique path to development. It is quite possible that time will come when autonomy will be done away with in Russia – in agreement with the people concerned. The process underway in Kashmir currently will tell us whether society is prepared for such changes.
The author is a Russian Israeli strategic thinker. This article has been translated from the original Russian by Aditi Bhaduri
The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect those of International Affairs Review
