The Kashmir dispute: origins, context, and contemporary issues

¶ … 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.

The Human Toll

Any war causes immense human suffering. From poverty, destruction of property, war crimes, blight and death -- Kashmir has seen its fill of all. According to the article written by Christine Walsh for the online publication India New England, many people accuse India of committing atrocious human rights violations against the people of Kashmir. However, many on the "Indian side" respond that the real issue is not the suffering of the people, but instead "who started it." For example, Walsh quotes one Mohanram Ramalinkgam, president of an American-Indian anti-defamation association, as saying, "People who know what the Kashmir issue is know who started the war,' he said. 'There were three wars over Kashmir and, all three times, everyone knows Pakistan was the aggressor and started the war (Walsh, 2003)."

However, according to some outside witnesses visiting the territory, the human toll is quite horrific. Again, according to Walsh, Republican state Rep. Robert Giuda said he witnessed evidence of state-sponsored terrorism by the Indian government -- including "...young children missing limbs, adults missing limbs, men whose daughters and wives were gang-raped and shot in front of them, purportedly at the hand of the Indian Army...(Walsh)." He also noted, that although he initially intended to visit Kashmir "as a vacation," he eventually found himself "getting involved in trying to find out what the hell was going on in Kashmir..."

Thus, armed by what he "discovered" to be the truth in Kashmir -- that India should immediately stop its activities there, he returned to the United States to "facilitate a just, peaceful and rapid resolution to the Kashmiri conflict between India and Pakistan."

However, many Indians (some say personifications of their government's position), take offence to his (and many other's) position, that Kashmiri's are suffering under Indian control and must be emancipated (into Pakistani control). In specific, they assert that there are "two sides to the story," citing "cross-boarder terrorism," an inflation of the level of atrocities committed by the Indian army, and that it is ultimately "nobody's business" except the governments of India and Pakistan. Further, some, like the office of the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, assert (much like Israel), that they will "...talk to Pakistan as soon as they stop sponsoring cross-border terrorism," that, "...The Indian Army is one of the finest professional armies in the world...Any kind of charges are investigated promptly (Walsh)."

Additionally, India and her representatives (unlike Pakistan, and again, much like Israel), seem to be strongly opposed to the presence of outside "eyes" on the situation and their activities, stating in response to a call for United Nations human-rights monitors, "We have our own human-rights commissions...This is a national, democratic society. We don't need outside human rights watchers to come (Walsh)." Of course, this kind of calm reasoning seems to give one pause -- especially given the fact that since 1989 somewhere between 33,000 to 80,000 (BBC, 2002) people have been killed, with countless others suffering injury, poverty, and misery as a direct result of the dispute between the two nations.

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.