Book Review: The Kashmir question
Book Review: The Kashmir question
The author begins with an elaborate account of the Kashmir dispute. He starts from the era of Afghan rule, through the Indo-Pak Partition of 1947, to the post-partition conspiracies that allegedly duped Kashmiris into accession to India and brings to light all misunderstandings related to the dispute.
Syed Ali Geelani’s struggle is compellingly narrated. His life as a student, the hardships experienced through poverty, his inspirations and early attempts to achieve freedom and his first arrest, which prevented him from performing his father’s last rites, are all documented.
Since then, the now 88-year-old Kashmiri separatist leader has often been detained by the Indian authorities on a variety of charges.
Despite his failing health, Geelani continues his struggle. While others have succumbed either to threats or the lure of luxury from India, Geelani has remained steadfast in his loyalty to his cause.
He has maintained a clear stance on the rights of Kashmiri minorities, too, respecting and protecting those whose religious beliefs differ from his own. “We want to live with our Hindu and Buddhist brothers,” he has said. “We have never pressured anyone. Hindu brothers who left Kashmir were never told by us to leave the state. It was the Indian government that asked them to leave Kashmir,” he claimed.
There are numerous tales of the wrongs inflicted on Kashmiris: The shooting at Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq’s funeral procession in May 1990, by forces in Kashmir, the alleged gang rape of Kunan Poshpora in February 1991 and the continuing series of heart-wrenching atrocities committed against Kashmiris.
The ill-treatment detainees are subjected to in the interrogation centers is barbaric. Kashmir is a heavily militarized zone with the highest civilian to soldier ratio in the world. It can be no coincidence that 80 percent of Kasmiris suffer from mild or severe psychiatric disorders.
The formation of militant groups in 1989 was probably the first attempt to get widespread attention for the Kashmiri cause. Tired of the futile non-violent measures Kashmiris had been relying on in their struggle for freedom, their efforts turned violent after the 1987 elections were allegedly rigged. They were forced to choose the bullet rather than the ballot.
India has successfully presented the pro-freedom group led by Geelani as an insignificant minority. However, the magnitude of significance and support that Kashmiri people attach to him is shown by the large following answering his calls for strikes or election boycotts. Kashmiris have consistently boycotted elections held by the Indian government in order to showcase the façade of a peace process to the rest of the world.
Geelani was instrumental in the formation of the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC). However, an ideological split between those who wanted independent statehood and those who wanted a merger with Pakistan destroyed the party.
Kashmir’s strategic location in the middle of the Sino-Indian-Pakistani Arc is seen as pivotal to the potential conflicts that could arise between the three, all of whom wish to control the region’s rich abundance of resources.
Nehru, India’s first prime minister, made a pledge to the people of Kashmir: “If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir say, ‘we do not want to be with India,’ we are committed to accept that. We will accept it though it might pain us.”
What We Are Reading Today: Debating War and Peace by Jonathan Mermin
- Mermin shows that if there is no debate over US policy in Washington, there is no debate in the news
- The author constructs a new framework for thinking about press-government relations
The First Amendment ideal of an independent press allows American journalists to present critical perspectives on government policies and actions; but are the media independent of government in practice? Here Jonathan Mermin demonstrates that when it comes to military intervention, journalists over the past two decades have let the government itself set the terms and boundaries of foreign policy debate in the news.
Analyzing newspaper and television reporting of US intervention in Grenada and Panama, the bombing of Libya, the Gulf War, and US actions in Somalia and Haiti, he shows that if there is no debate over US policy in Washington, there is no debate in the news.
Journalists often criticize the execution of US policy, but fail to offer critical analysis of the policy itself if actors inside the government have not challenged it. Mermin ultimately offers concrete evidence of outside-Washington perspectives that could have been reported in specific cases, and explains how the press could increase its independence of Washington in reporting foreign policy news.
The author constructs a new framework for thinking about press-government relations, based on the observation that bipartisan support for US intervention is often best interpreted as a political phenomenon, not as evidence of the wisdom of US policy. Journalists should remember that domestic political factors often influence foreign policy debate. The media, Mermin argues, should not see a Washington consensus as justification for downplaying critical perspectives.