Looking beyond self-determination for Kashmir

What ever happened to Kashmir—that distant land halfway around the globe? The so-called "Kashmir issue" had retreated into the shadows partly because of America's "war on terrorism" until recently, when political experts in America and the Indian subcontinent proclaimed that Kashmir could be a likely target for Osama bin Laden and his jihad.

NEWSMAKERS

Plagued by political and religious turmoil for more than half a century, Kashmir unquestionably qualifies as the powder keg of the East: it would only take a small spark for the issue to burst out of proportion.

So, what is the resolution to the Kashmir problem? Presently part of India, Kashmir has always been a delicate issue for the Indian government to handle. It is easy to assert that Kashmir should be allowed self-determination and that the U.N. resolutions of 1948 should be honored. However, few people consider the larger implications if Kashmir were indeed allowed to secede from India.

A more fundamental question is whether a state should be allowed to secede if its people so desire. The American Civil War was fought in part to preserve the Union. Keeping the Union together strengthened the power of our central government and reinforced its authority in political affairs.

Within India, there are numerous divisions along the lines of caste, religion, and language, and these tensions could easily lead to future conflict and threaten the stability of a unified India. What message would a seceding Kashmir give to the rest of India, which is bound together by a loose sense of nationalism rather than the power of the central government, which itself is quite weak? The very definition of central control would be shattered, and we could expect to see a whole line of seceding states.

Allowing Kashmir to secede would also spark religious tension in India: the secession of a Muslim-majority province would alienate Indian Muslims and reinforce the idea that India is a Hindu nation. At a time when India is striving to achieve increased political influence in the world, the government cannot afford to show these signs of instability.

The diversity within Kashmir itself also needs to be part of the discussion of self-determination for the state. Contrary to popular belief, Kashmir is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state, and a sizable portion of its inhabitants are non-Muslim. If Kashmir were to secede, what would happen to the non-Muslim portions of Kashmir's population? The support for an independent Kashmir comes mostly from Sunni Muslims—the major political group in the Kashmir—in a concentrated area of the state. This segment of the population is clearly not a neutral representative of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

In a perfect world, giving Kashmir the choice of self-determination would be ideal and exemplary on the part of the Indian government, but given the ensuing violence and unrest that would plague the subcontinent immediately after such a decision makes this step highly undesirable. The key is to work within Kashmir and reach a consensus there, because the secession of one state from India could very easily undermine 50 years of gradual progress in the subcontinent.

Vandana Balakrishnan is a freshman in Berkeley.

Back to Opinion...