The street protests in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) are de javu for many locals. It is claimed that a new generation of youth in the state are turning to confrontational tactics as the state continues to define security in strictly militaristic terms. For the Indian side peace in J&K implies ensuring that separatists and militants supported by Pakistan are reined in and ‘democratic’ elections held every five years. The slogans of ‘aazadi’ echoing through the Kashmir Valley are dismissed as the voice of few misguided youth and miscreants supported by ‘foreign’ forces.
Limitations of the vocabulary of western political theory for post-colonial societies have created a dilemma for India and Pakistan. ‘Aazadi’ is interpreted as territorial sovereignty and arguments highlighting the improbability of it for J&K are promptly presented by the Indian side. Pakistan likewise claims to be supporting the Kashmiris in their struggle for self-determination. Looking at the concept of ‘aazadi’ from the perspective of J&K can connote a variety of political arrangements ranging from responsive governance and responsible administration to different degrees of devolution of political authority. The relation between the Indian Federation and its constituent units continues to remain problematic in other areas of the country as well. In the case of J&K, the struggle between the Federation and the units is subsumed in the master narrative constructed in 1947.
Some less discussed dimensions of the J&K problem were highlighted during a panel discussion hosted by Open Society Institute on June 30th, 2010. Steve Coll, Pankaj Mishra, Basharat Peer and Mridu Rai were the discussants. Impressions from the discussion raise an important question. Why is the global resonance of the J&K dispute limited? Whether it was the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan or the wave of self-determination movements sweeping across Central Asia or more recently the global war on terrorism, why has the J&K struggle not become a part of the wider trends in international politics? Is it because the language of international politics lacks the ability to represent the true dimensions of the J&K struggle? Is it because independence, terrorism and security as explained by the international relations theory are not fully applicable in the case of J&K?
