Who Speaks for Kashmir? — The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs

Oct 22

Oct 22 Who Speaks for Kashmir?

By Sabah Hamid

On August 5, the Indian government unilaterally changed the semiautonomous status of Kashmir. As a lead up to the announcement, non-Kashmiris were asked to evacuate the valley, a military siege was imposed, and eight million people in Indian occupied Kashmir were put under virtual incarceration.

More than two and a half months on, only partial telephone services have been restored, while internet connections remain cut off, except for very few supervised connections. There are reports of illegal detention and torture of teenagers, of night raids terrorizing families, of people dying because they could not access emergency medical services, of businesses and livelihoods collapsing. The world, however, has not been moved.

Imagine if all of Denmark, Finland or Norway were put under a clampdown like the one in Kashmir. Each of these countries has a population that is smaller than that of Kashmir. It is a little difficult to imagine a European country behaving like this, much less getting away with it. We need to ask ourselves why the “world’s largest democracy” is allowed to.

Part of it is obviously the economic promise of the Indian market. The country is, to cite two examples for context, the second largest importer of arms and the third largest consumer of crude oil in the world. It has recently placed a large order for military aircraft from France – a deal that has been mired in controversy and one, which it seems, has also bought the silence of the French government.

The other part of why India seems to get a free pass is perhaps a sense of moral exhaustion in the world. While life expectancy may be going up and health indicators improving, the world is not in a good place when it comes to human rights. The persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar, the horrifying internment camps for the Uyghur in China, the wars in Yemen and in Syria - it is almost impossible to include in any summation every place where people are being killed, where human rights are being violated.

The last time the world felt a similar sense of moral exhaustion was probably just before the Second World War. One of the reasons the Axis states – Germany, Italy and Japan – were emboldened was the demonstrated ineffectiveness of the League of Nations, especially in preventing Japan from invading Manchuria between (1931-1932) and Italy from subjugating Ethiopia (1935-1936). The League condemned both invasions, but this did not have any real effect. In the case of Japan, the country simply withdrew from the League, leaving it with no authority to enforce its will. In the case of Italy a few years later, the League tried to impose economic sanctions. Apart from Britain, which had a colonial stake in East Africa, the other major powers had no real interest in opposing Italy, making any sanctions ineffective.

Unfortunately, we seem to be in a similar position now. The United Nations is the most powerful intergovernmental organisation of our times, but in reality, it is only as powerful as it members want it to be. China, Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia have brought up Kashmir at the UN. China was instrumental in the UN Security Council holding an informal, closed-door meeting on Kashmir in mid-August, the first time this has happened since the 1971 India-Pakistan war. Pakistan premier Imran Khan addressed the UN General Assembly in September, suggesting a plebiscite for all of Kashmir, including the part Pakistan holds. Turkey and Malaysia both mentioned Kashmir at the UN General Assembly.

The support has been welcomed by Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control (despite limited access to news), as well as the significant Kashmiri Muslim diaspora across the world. It is not, as Indian nationalists have been quick to point out, that they are unaware of the human rights records of these countries, but nobody else even seems to care. It is unfair to expect the oppressed to refuse any ally, a voice to speak for them when they have been rendered voiceless.

The silence of developed countries, many of whom have strong human rights laws domestically, is all the more striking in this context. Hannah Arendt observed in The Origins of Totalitarianism, that the idea of human rights is an illusion without a political community that can make it good through robust institutions and practices. This responsibility may, in today’s world, rest disproportionately with the United States and the European Union.

Nor is this a matter that will leave the larger world untouched. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, as is China, on the sidelines of the issue. Pakistan’s avowal of the right of Kashmiris to self-determination has put the country on higher moral ground for now. India’s constant public assertion that all in “normal” in Kashmir – despite evidence to the contrary – also means it is backed itself into a corner. There is a real chance of hostilities breaking out.

In the meantime, Kashmir faces a humanitarian crisis that has exacerbated decades of occupation. The Indian state has already cleared protected forest land for “development” projects with unprecedented haste – giving credence to the fear that they are following an Israel model of changing the demography of the region.

The two Indian institutions that Kashmiris could have looked to within India for some justice both seem to have capitulated without a fight. The Supreme Court has delayed the hearings on issues dealing with the crisis, showing neither a sense of urgency nor empathy. The majority of the Indian media, with notable exceptions, is vociferously endorsing rather than questioning every statement the government makes. It is clear that justice will not be delivered by the Indian state or its institutions.

The world will have to speak, and the world will have to get Kashmiris to be heard.