The lost narrative

We need to call it the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) dispute because it has political implications for all five regions of the former state of J&K, including the Indian-controlled Jammu region, Kashmir valley and Ladakh region, and on the Pakistan side AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan.

For the last 73 years, the dispute has continued to shape relations between India and Pakistan on the basis of jingoism and brinkmanship beyond the norms of international relations. For most of us, it looks like a normal non-conciliatory conflict between two rival neighbours but the real story of the J&K dispute has been buried in the graveyard of communalism.

A lot has been written on this dispute and it seems as if any new writing will only be a repetition of what has already been said about it by people in India and Pakistan. What makes one to write again on this oft-repeated story? Why should someone bother to read yet another story on the Kashmir dispute? What is the rationale of restating historical events if they cannot lead to a viable and sensible way forward?

New writing on the J&K dispute will always invite these frequently asked questions from many readers who may prefer to skip this piece as a mundane draft. But I am going to discuss some new dimensions rooted in the history of this unending conflict. How to read and write history is an important question not only in the case of the J&K issue but generally too. Alternate perspectives of reading and writing history become more important when your national curriculum and mainstream education system does not provide an objective and critical framework of understanding history. For a critical reader of history it is not only a sum of events and causal continuum, but about relationships which exhibit through a complex interplay of institutions, systems and individual actions in the process of the socioeconomic and political transition of societies.

Political history taught in the educational institutions of Pakistan is predefined by the ideological necessity to establish the Two-Nations Theory. The recent official political history being written in India is about attributing supernatural powers to ancient and medieval heroes. In Pakistan, we have heroes like Mahmud of Ghazni in our official history books; in India one can find fabricated stories about the bravery of Shivaji. For an independent reader of history neither Mahmud of Ghazni nor Shivaji can be extracted out of a complex interplay of historical forces for special treatment. Even if one takes them out of historical context to understand their individual roles he/she will end up finding in them more skilled warriors than symbols of religious piety.

Something similar has happened to the political history of the Kashmir dispute too. The political history of J&K has been rewritten to justify control over it. In this re-writing of ideologically induced political history the real substance has been lost to a jingoistic narrative. It is, therefore, crucial to discuss those lost narratives to revive them as a service to the objective history of Kashmir dispute and its critical reader. How can one ignore the role of colonialism, collusion of local feudal class, cold war and interplay of processes of modernization and decaying traditional institutions?

The reason I decided to take up this issue here is to trigger a debate on an inclusive perspective towards the resolution of the J&K conflict. The untold story of J&K dispute is rooted in its history, which for the most part was reinterpreted to validate claims over this strategically important region.

Someone has to tell the insiders’ perspectives on the J&K dispute to the world which sees this conflict from the lens of outsiders under the obligations outlined in the UN resolutions of bilateralism, which leads to the people of the fragmented former J&K state not being heard. This article is by no means an attempt to offer the readers some concocted stories of the golden age of the former J&K state but to initiate a debate about laying bare the hidden historical facts which must be known. I hope someone narrates the historical facts for public consumption and for an informed alternate debate so that the nature of this dispute and its historical factors are fully comprehended. A political roadmap for the peaceful solution of the J&K dispute cannot be envisaged without knowing what has gone wrong.

As a native of Gilgit-Baltistan, part of the onus rests with me too to tell the story of a people who continue to be affected by this dispute for more than seven decades. Like the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, the natives of the other four regions of the former J&K state have their own stories to share and I hope people will keep narrating these stories to upend the exotic unilateral perspectives of the history and politics of the J&K dispute. It is important to disentangle the complex web of mainstream narratives that shape our understanding of this protracted conflict today.

What makes the case of the state of J&K unique as compared to other 564 princely states at the time of Partition is also an interesting reading of history which remains unknown to many of us today. The people of this former princely state cannot be relegated to mere objects of political ambitions. For the last 73 years, both India and Pakistan failed to settle the dispute amicably and also failed to honour their commitments towards the people of this dispute.

They failed partly because the people of the region were never consulted while determining their political future. It, therefore, becomes a timely call to revisit the political, historical and humanitarian dimensions of this dispute for a viable solution with a workable and an inclusive political roadmap. This calls for redefining the rules of engagement between all stakeholders.

The writer is a social development and policy adviser, and a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.

Email: ahnihal@yahoo.com

Twitter: @AmirHussain76