The Kashmir dispute examined through critical realism

¶ … Realism: Kashmira

L. Jones

The Kashmir Issue:

realist perspective

Whenever one tries to understand a controversial issue of any kind, it is important to consider the core issues at hand. After all, by definition any controversial issue is made up of at least two opposing sides, each with some pretty convincing arguments. If this were not the case, the issue certainly would not fit into the controversial category. However, it is a grave mistake to imagine that one's examination and interpretation of the issue, even if one is solidly outside of the fray and supposedly unbiased on the matter, is free from the possible taint of errors of reasoning or perspective. This is because matters of fact, truth, and right are hardly as simple as many suppose. One excellent example of this truth is represented by the debate over the conflict in Kashmir.

From the dawn of philosophy, many have argued about the precise nature of reality, of right and wrong and propensity of humanity to fall prey to a shadowy and false illusion of real understanding. Perhaps in response to this, the modern thinker and author, Roy Bhaskar came up with a model of examining the truth, especially as it relates to social events called by some "Critical Realism." In simple terms, this method "...came as a critique of Positivism and Hermeneutics, as well as a new philosophical approach to scientific thinking (Kaboub, 2000)," and it entails accepting the belief that a thing is real if it can result in or cause visible and material consequences (Kaboub). Thus, examples of reality may include such things as poverty, an illness, fire, unemployment, warfare, a physical confrontation, etc. Further, and perhaps even more important in the context of the Kashmir conflict, is the notion that not only is reality a "thing" indicated by its ability to cause some effect, but that the individual's understanding or acknowledgement of reality is "...subject to all kinds of historical and other influences. It draws a clear distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality (Basden, 2004)."

In order to explore this, let us consider the "bones" of the conflict in Kashmir.

The Kashmir Dispute:

Background

Perhaps one of the oldest causes of conflict and war is the struggle over land territory. In the case of the region of Kashmir, its "ownership" has been contested even before today's struggle between India and Pakistan. In fact, the issue was such a difficult one that the British (seemingly fond of occupying nations, and then "fixing" them upon departure -- see "Palestine"), left the issue to Kashmir itself, allowing the Kashmiris the "freedom" to attach itself to either India or Pakistan as they saw fit. However, unable, or unwilling to push for a full independent state, the then Maharaja, Hari Singh, decided to "...accede to India, signing over key powers to the Indian Government - in return for military aid and a promised referendum (BBC, 2002)."

Of course, as is often the case, the result of Kashmir's alliance with India was neither clear or simple -- with Pakistan claiming rights to the region, serving as a catalyst for two of the three wars between India and Pakistan. Additionally, within Kashmir itself, many dispute India's claims on the region -- desiring either an alliance with Pakistan, or complete independence from both nations. In simple terms, the key issues are:

Islamabad says Kashmir should have become part of Pakistan in 1947, because Muslims are in the majority in the region.

Pakistan also argues that Kashmiris should be allowed to vote in a referendum on their future, following numerous UN resolutions on the issue.

Delhi, however, does not want international debate on the issue, arguing that the Simla Agreement of 1972 provided for a resolution through bilateral talks.

India points to the Instrument of Accession signed in October 1947 by the Maharaja, Hari Singh.

Both India and Pakistan reject the so-called "third option" of Kashmiri independence. (BBC).

Certainly, on the surface, it seems that the conflict over Kashmir is a simple one -- based on issues of ownership and land. That said, it is easy to imagine that India "owns" Kashmir fair and square. After all, the then ruler, Maharaja Singh "signed it over" back in the 1940's. However, much as in any conflict that boils down to war, the issues that prompt the actual driving controversy -- or the impetus for the resolution of the problem based on "truth" is the human effects of the problem. Indeed, it is this "reality" that prompts the seeking of the facts upon which Bhaskar's theories on critical realism may shed some light.

What Is the Truth?

Given all of the controversy over the Kashmir problem, how can one arrive at any truth? After all, both sides believe that they are in the right, that the suffering is caused by the actions of the other side, and that the solution to the problem lies in the eventual triumph of their respective government over the territory. Does this mean that it is all "relative" and that there is no reality or ultimate right answer?

Perhaps one of the most important contributions of critical realism is its ability to shed light on the possibility of a "truth" or the "truths" of any given situation, including this one. However, first it is important to understand the concept of "reality" as defined in critical. Again, according to Fadhel Kaboub in his 2000 work, "Roy Bhaskar's Critical Realism: A Brief Overview and a Critical Evaluation," "It is important to define reality in the critical realist paradigm. Reality exists independently of us and of our knowledge and/or perception of it. Failure to distinguish between reality and our conception of it is referred to as the epistemic fallacy." This means that we must not only take into account our unique perspective based on our personal circumstances and the effect that may have on our grasp of the reality of any situation, but we must also take into account the effect of each side in the Kashmir struggle as well -- especially when weighing the likelihood of the effectiveness/appropriateness of any proposed solution coming from either camp. Additionally, it is important to note that the perceptual nature of truth, even as it is unexamined does not in itself make truth genuine -- and that all is not relative. Instead:

Bhaskar contrasts a relative and developing ethical naturalism with a rational moral realism. Ethical naturalism is at the level of moral rules designed to guide actions, and these change over time with changes in our ethical concepts (for example, "slave," "person"). Underlying these is a moral realism which grounds our ethics and which can be rationally discovered via analysis of the changing nature of ourselves, our needs and our society. Bhaskar speaks of "ethical alethia, ultimately grounded in conceptions of human nature" (DPF 211). It is moral realism that prevents ethical naturalism from being an arbitrary matter internal to a culture (Irwin, 1997).

If then, there is a way to view the "facts" or events according to this moral realism, then how is it that these facts are constructed as true? For example, of key -- or perhaps, in many eyes outside of the conflict, or of paramount importance in the Kashmir controversy is the fact that people are suffering and dying as a result of the discord there. Further, even more suffering, perhaps globally is likely to result from the continued clashes between India and Pakistan over the issue (remember, both sides have nuclear capabilities). Is this suffering a crucial "fact" that must be taken into account?

Again, according to Lewis Irwin in his interpretation of critical realism, "...Critical realism conceptualizes events and situations in relation to the real mechanisms which generate them, rather than conceiving them as atoms that determine our knowledge of them without any kind of mediation." Thus, the individual observes events, and interprets those events into facts. Further, the degree to which each individual understands the social mechanisms that lead them to their factual conclusions, the more critically "real" they will be. Again, this is the key that guards against "willy-nilly" relativism -- for according to Bhaskar, "...perspectives are real and are parts of totalities in which agents are embedded (Irwin). The challenge here is being able to get some kind of grasp upon that totality.

Critical Realism: The Kashmir Solution

Given the perspectives of each side in the Kashmir conflict, it is clear that the "real events" are war, conflict and violence that "result" in poverty, injury, starvation, economic hardship and death. We know that these are real and they are the issues at hand. Further, we also know that these states are socially undesirable as agreed upon by virtually every societal system on earth. Of course, it is obvious that by removing the dispute from the land of Kashmir these effects can be eliminated, but which side is closer to the answer?

If on a cursory examination one examines the rational explained by both sides above, especially with regard to a willingness to view the human suffering as a fact, one sees that the Pakistanis side seems to be more "in touch" with their perceptual bias in their ability and willingness to "show" the world the results of the conflict on the ground. Of course, this is not to say that they do not share a bias in their unwillingness to relinquish Kashmir to its own sovereignty. However, given India's control over much of the territory, this point may be moot.

India, on the other hand, refuses to even acknowledge the suffering that the conflict as exacted on the people -- with particular emphasis on their unwillingness to acknowledge their specific role in that misery. Instead, they focus on "rule" based thinking, i.e., "legally it's ours, the Maharaja signed it over!" which, according to critical realism is not a "reality" resulting in an effect. Further, they also refuse to allow independent observes into the area, perhaps as a result of their fundamental (if unspoken) cognizance of the falsity of their position.

Conclusion:

According to the realist approach, the Pakistani side seems to be more on track with regard to "reality" in Kashmir. Not only do they recognize the on the ground truths, but they invite others to do so as well -- a definite point in their favor. Although many might argue (and rightly so) that the situation is much more complex than believing the Pakistani position on Kashmir is the correct one, the official perspective of the Pakistani government (as represented by their public concerns and calls for international observers) is certainly more encompassing of the "totality" of the situation than the Indian view. Again, this is not to say that the Kashmir problem would be necessarily solved by a transfer of all land and power to Pakistani control, however, it would certainly (according to a critical realist interpretation), be a vast improvement on the status quo.