Breaking Down Kashmir

As a Pakistani and a noble member of the Southeast Asian Association of Misinformation, there are truly no bounds to the kind of propagandization you grow up with, and inevitably, into. Aziz’s The Murder of History goes into extensive detail about the way state narratives interact with personal gains to feed the masses a consistent string of fairytale endings, especially in the context of Pakistan’s rich militarisation and anti democratic history. This has been the case with almost every conflict in the region, whether the Punjabi supremacy that led to the creation of Bangladesh, or the nuclear proliferation that pushed Pakistan into the gentlemen’s club, regardless of how much we actually wanted to be here. Or the more recent insurgency in Balochistan being framed as an Indian-Iranian conspiracy lovechild. 

What is truly ironic is that for a nation otherwise shrunk deep into every possible conflict imaginable, Kashmir appears to be the Achilles’ heel breaking this otherwise predictable legacy. That is exactly why the recent events in Pahalgam seem to have become the laughing stock of Pakistani headlines, not for the human aspect involved, because (let’s be real) collateral damage is the last thing considered relevant in geopolitics. But to be accused of infiltrating “jihadist terrorist activities” is an honour far too high even for Pakistan, that has historically been a keen proponent of playing the role of the onlooker as jihadist terrorist activities are funded into decentering communism from Afghanistan and potentially establishing American hegemony in the Global South in a more direct way than anticipated.

Kashmir stands as relevant today as it was in 1947, when British colonialism fused with monarchical ambitions to pave the way for one of the most disastrous geographical distributions in the history of the world. Despite being a region governed under an autonomous princely state, even during the British Raj in India, it has transformed into a target at the crossroads of colonial legacies, post-colonial state violence, and irrefutable resistance by the indigenous people, always sidelined by mainstream media and the Indian federation. When Maharaja Hari Singh was given the choice to accede to either Pakistan or India in 1947, the arbitrary decision was made with no consideration of the Kashmiri populace’s preference, and resultantly pushed Kashmir into the confines of a strategically significant yet geopolitically vulnerable region, harbouring decades of conflict.

From a post-colonial perspective, Kashmir’s significance lies in its resources and its critical location at the intersection of Central and South Asia. There is a reason why the region still remains short of any referendums or plebiscites, despite countless UN resolutions. Both Pakistan and India’s imperial borders have constantly fought for control here, without regard to the inhabitants’ own desires.

But the story gets worse. In 2019, India passed Article 370, which stripped Indian Occupied Kashmir of its self-autonomous identity, taking away its flag and constitution, and breaking it into separate regions of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. This is precisely where it is important to comment on the stark contrast between Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Indian Occupied Kashmir, especially why they are labelled the way they are. The difference lies in many factors, particularly in the political, cultural, and governance structures imposed by both countries. Pakistan-administered Kashmir, known better as Azaad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir, while being politically contested, operates under a degree of autonomy not seen in its Indian counterpart. With its own legislative structure, prime minister, president, representation for the locals, and military, this region enjoys a certain level of control, albeit, that cannot be fathomed in Indian occupied territories.

Even before, but especially post 2019, Indian Occupied Kashmir has seen a rapid rise in insurgency, heavy militarisation in the region employing Indian Armed Forces using special Acts to justify their colonial violence against the locals, exacerbating and worsening the religious divide that the Hindutva is infamous for. By operating with this structure of impunity, and targeting human rights activists, regional political leaders, and journalists, subjugating them to incarceration without the presumption of innocence, and commercialising the area as the ideal tourist destination, India has played a sick round of cards, all the while ensuring that any and every toe out of line is promptly blamed on Pakistan, even when obvious evidence points to the long memorised pattern of false flag operations consistently conducted by the BJP government to incite anti-Muslim hate in the country and solidify the cause for another BJP term.

The dangers of colonialism are increasingly normalised in modern-day Kashmir, not through blatant imperialist actions, but through the more insidious, disguised forms of governance and narrative management employed by India. Having not only militarised the entire region (a security breach of which is another question on the accuracy of the state of events and swift diversion to finger-pointing at its neighbours), but also radically shifting the cultural fabric and political identity of Kashmir is the Indian way of presenting occupation as a developmental endeavour. By conveniently framing its colonial tactics, the world sees India through rose-coloured glasses, as a symbol of infrastructural development and cultural tourism, built on the carcass of the historical rejection of Kashmiri identity and dehumanisation of its associations. The Indian government has not only systemically erased the lived experiences of Kashmiri Muslims but also sanitised its bloodshed through sensationalist marketing of the region as “Southeast Asia’s Switzerland,” allowing for a state-approved narrative to serve its international image and provide a picture-perfect view.

It is important to realise that these very tactics are reminiscent of every colonial movement in history, with the covert violence of quietly distorting the truth and hijacking Kashmiri narratives. This totalitarianism extends to the portrayal of Kashmiris in both Pakistani and Indian media, with the former showing them as victims of occupation, and the latter labelling them as terrorists, inevitably shaping how the world, particularly the West, views the region and its conflict littered by outdated British divide and rule tactics that still manage to culturally homogenise an otherwise key area.

Kashmir was never a regional issue, but today, more than ever, it invites the world to show solidarity with its post-colonial struggles, not unlike that of the Palestinians or the Kurds. It demands intersectionality in its highest form because of the explosive labels otherwise attached to it: Muslim, jihadist, brown.

It is important to note that while this author reports from Pakistan, she does not believe in Kashmir being used as a convenient asset between either of the countries. Instead, it is time the world gives Kashmiris the platform to voice their choices, whatever they entail, and embrace them if the faux liberation movement and human rights glorification ever leave the hallways of Geneva. Pakistan has made no concrete effort in representing the voices directly from grassroots movements, and Indian occupation leaves little room for how much control “should” be granted in the affairs of the Kashmiri people, if there is any debate left.

Ultimately, Kashmir’s future cannot be decided by geopolitical interests or historical grudges, but by a commitment to listening and acting on the voices of those who have borne the weight of the occupation for far too long. Until the world acknowledges this, the cycle of injustice will continue, much the same way it has for over seventy years.

[Header]: Adnan Abidi | Reuters