Independent Kashmir An Incomplete Aspiration
Independent Kashmir An Incomplete Aspiration
Kashmir is one of the most unresolved and painful issues in the world. The uncertainties, wars and the lack of fulfilment of promises that have reigned over its people more than 70 decades ago are very thick. The book by Christopher Snedden, Independent Kashmir: An Incomplete Aspiration confronts the complexity of this nature. It examines how even though it has never been close to being achieved, the concept that Kashmir can stand on its own has never died. The book makes a valid point how Kashmir can ever become independent. In my view independence is highly unlikely, and the aspirational need is of extreme significance to the people of the Valley.
The causes of the problem can be traced back to 1947 when British India was fragmented into India and Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh who ruled Jammu and Kashmir was not quite sure which of the two dominions he could join. Seventy-two days passed and Kashmir was in a bizarre limbo. It was neither a part of India nor part of Pakistan. Singh appeared to like independence. Singh finally accepted Indian military assistance at a price of signing the Instrument of Accession. That point in time marked the direction the Kashmir conflict would take. Independence was not killed, but on paper.
The dream carried on in personages such as Sheikh Abdullah. He was the central leader of the Kashmiris of this time. At other times he adopted India. In some other instances, he was inclined to autonomy and even independence. His erraticism reflected the ambivalence in the politics of Kashmiris. He did not provide any clarity, but his politics helped to define the Kashmiri dilemma: being in the middle of two nations, but never fully belonging to one.
A new chapter was opened by the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir that broke out in 1989. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front advocated independence of the whole former princely state. Its motto of Azadi impressed masses of young Kashmiris. To quite a few, liberty appeared to be in reach. However, there was no unity of the movement. So, India retorted with heavy power. The biggest cost was paid by the ordinary Kashmiris and in this case was the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. The insurgency proved the power of the dream of independence, yet how frail it was.
Today, the dream is still going round in Kashmiri society. Most in the Valley perceive independence to be the only solution. However, there is a geopolitical bang that this hope crashes against.
India and China, which occupy Aksai Chin, and the Shaksgam Valley respectively, also have interests. No great power is in favour of independence. Moreover, failure to find external endorsement makes sovereignty nearly impossible.
This was further advocated by Article 370 of the Constitution of India being revoked in 2019. By taking away Kashmir’s autonomy and demoting it to union territory, New Delhi indicated that no special arrangements will be acceptable. Opponents to the reaction believed that this would further attach Kashmir to India.
Critics considered it as another move of central control. To many Kashmiris, it was a final dismantling of their political identity.
Much farther than satisfying grievance, it increased the feeling of estrangement. That is why being independent is no longer a political decision but a rather psychological escape.
But the concept of independence also has weak elements. The Kashmiris are divided themselves, many in Jammu and Ladakh desire to be incorporated into India. In the Pakistan-administered Kashmir areas, people wish to maintain Pakistan. There is no single vision of Azadi even in the Valley. Others see an atheistic, democratic republic. Others identify with the Pakistani identity of being Islamic. Lack of unity also deprives the independence movement of its ability to be perceived as a viable alternative.
Is Kashmir ever to be independent? Realistically, no. The Valley is landlocked, weak and restrained by three nuclear powers.
An autonomous Kashmir would have a tough time sustaining itself in terms of monetary terms and foreign relations. Its boundaries would be imperilled. Likewise, it would be often interfered with by its neighbours. These are the hurdles that no movement can jump over without an exceptional international pressure and help. And they show no support.
Nevertheless, the desire to do so is to be discounted. To numerous Kashmiris Azadi is more than politics. It is an effort to protest dignity against domination and compulsion. It is reaction to years of promises not fulfilled and military presence. The aspiration to have independence in any way, even when it is never to be achieved, represents an underlying need of receiving recognition, getting respect and exercising self-determination. Averting this feeling can only augment ill feelings.
The tricky part is, then, to devise a set of political arrangements which respond to Kashmiri identity claims and demands without making commitments it cannot deliver. Increased independence, authentic local administration and support of cultural liberties would offer a breathing space towards freedom of expression. India should also cease to use Kashmir like the chess field. Until it places the lives of Kashmiris above national speedy ambitions, peace shall not be achieved.
The idea of Kashmir independence is a partial dream and is probably going to stay that way. But even the aspiration counts. It displays the human desire of being free, just as well as respectable. However unrealistic they are, they cannot be swept away by brute means or edict. It is not to annihilate it, but to direct it into viable solutions that may grant Kashmiris the dignity that they need.
For more in depth coverage, expert analysis, and exclusive visuals, visit One Nation Voice . Join the conversation, explore our archives, and be part of a global community shaping tomorrow’s headlines.
For More Upcoming Update Stay With Us Onenationvoice.com
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are exclusively those of the author and do not reflect the official stance, policies, or perspectives of the Platform.
