Kashmir: one territorial dispute and several accounts
Sovereignty conflicts like Kashmir (in which several international agents claim sovereign rights for different reasons over the same piece of land) have a particular feature: their solution seems to require a mutually exclusive relation amongst the agents because it is thought that the sovereignty over the third territory can be granted to only one of them. Indeed, sovereignty is often regarded as an absolute concept (that is to say, exclusive, and not shareable).
Kashmir is a clear example of a zero-sum game, with many negative outcomes of different sorts (e.g. social struggle, bad governance, inefficient exploitation of natural resources, tension in international relations, and threat to local and international peace). Thus, while these conflicts are in principle confined to specific areas and start with negative consequences primarily for the local population, they tend quickly to expand to the regional and—even—the international level (e.g. effects on international price of oil, arms trafficking, terrorism, war). There are many issues at stake domestically and internationally.
For “issues at stake” in territorial disputes see this blog: Post 9: Territorial disputes: issues at stake
Today, we include references to articles from the media covering this territorial dispute. In all cases, although this sovereignty conflict has been and is object of study of many sciences (for example, law, political sciences, international relations, only to name a few) these sciences do not share their developments and both different approaches and different languages were applied. Indeed, although multi and inter-disciplinary studies are promoted in speeches everywhere, it is more a nominal aim rather than an actual reality.
The answer was very simple. Some problems are never solved because most look for more problems, problems within a problem, or just simply give up or are so self-centered they think that problem will not affect them and hence, why would they even think about it. Ergo, some problems like Kashmir are never solved because people (or their representatives) do not look for a solution.
The Kashmir Observer published:“[…] Both New Delhi and Kashmir Valley now deal with the stereotypes of each other than the complex realities as they exist on the ground. But this needs to change. And it is incumbent on the media to present a correct picture of the state as for the union government to get serious about the situation in the state […]”
Complete article at: Time for Delhi to get serious about Kashmir
On their territories profile’s section, BBC informs us about Kashmir:“[…] Since India’s partition and the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought two wars over the Muslim-majority territory, which both claim in full but control in part.Today it remains one of the most militarised zones in the world. China administers parts of the territory […]”
Complete article at:Kashmir territories profile
Dr Nitasha Kaul is a Kashmiri novelist and an academic based in London writes “[…] There is a widening chasm between the narratives, especially of Kashmiri Hindus (Kashmiri Pandits) and Kashmiri Muslims, that serve the purpose of Hindutva ideologues in power in India, pro-India Kashmiri politicians in Srinagar, and strategic interests of Pakistan.The tearing apart of any pan-Kashmiri identity along communal lines has been neither natural nor inevitable. It has been engineered over time to serve a whole array of vested interests relating to electoral advantage, weaponry, war, militarisation, tourism and media that gain significantly from the indifference, ignorance, vengeance, resentment and domination of divided Kashmiri communities […]”
“[…]What else, but truths and reconciliations, recognition of the pain and suffering of each other as Kashmiris, solidarity and creation of processes to speak to each other in order to realise a future of peace and freedom, multiplying the representation of voices within a framework of trustworthy mediated dialogue, honouring of principles of human rights and self-determination, move towards alternative media that allows for honest understanding of issues in all their complexity, growing of the voices that speak for justice and humanity, and the writing of many, many stories that can be heard by those who need to empathise […]”
Complete article at: Kashmir: The communalisation of a political dispute
In November 2016 Mirza Waheed writes for The Guardian:India’s crackdown in Kashmir: is this the world’s first mass blinding?“[…]In the past few weeks, the two nuclear states have, between them, killed two dozen civilians and injured scores of others in exchanges of artillery fire across the disputed border – known as the “line of control” – that divides Kashmir into parts controlled by India and Pakistan […]”“[…] Most shocking of all has been the breaking up of demonstrations with “non-lethal” pellet ammunition, which has blinded hundreds of Kashmiri civilians […]”
Complete article at: India’s crackdown in Kashmir: is this the world’s first mass blinding?
More related recent articles (only a very brief sample) and their weblinks below:
A New Season of Turmoil in Kashmir
How the Clash in Kashmir Moved Abroad
Why Kashmir is still ensnared inconflict after 70 years
Why the world no longer cares about Kashmir
NOTE: This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)Previous published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.
NEXT POST: Kashmir and the egalitarian shared sovereignty.
Thursday 03rd October 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez