India-Pakistan Relations Had Damaged by Politicised Religion Long Before the Kashmir Conflict

More than seven decades have passed since Pakistan was separated from India, yet the problems of the two neighbouring countries remain unresolved. One of the major issues that has affected the relationship between the two countries is the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan and India have long disputed over Kashmir governance; this continues to affect the relationship between the two countries. Despite the frequent efforts of mediation by the United Nations from 1948 to 1953 (Brecher,1953, p. 195) and signing bilateral agreements by both countries (Blank, 1999, p. 40), at least, “three wars over the region [of Kashmir]” (Zutshi, 2019, para. 3) have been waged between India and Pakistan. Since the separation of Indian and Pakistan, the Kashmir conflict has strained the relations between the two nations. However, the very historical factor and fundamental motive that led to the partition of these two countries was not Kashmir but religion. Therefore, the improvement of their relationships depends on various factors and cannot be limited to merely the resolution of the Kashmir conflict.

The intrinsic cause of conflicts between Pakistan and India can be traced to the dominant ideologies in the history of the formation of both nations. This essay explains that the Kashmir conflict is driven by various factors, more importantly by the ideology that has been divisive throughout the history and led to, “partition of India and Pakistan in August 1947,” (Harsh et al., 2018, p. 12). Therefore, the relationship between India and Pakistan is far more complex than to be summarised merely to the Kashmir conflict. This essay posits that the relationship between India and Pakistan cannot be improved unless the fundamental deterrents of the resolution of the Kashmir conflict are being addressed properly. Encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, utilising religious motivations, and manipulating state policy by Pakistan Army; the recklessness of India to foreign mediation and disregard the Human Rights in Kashmir by the Indian Army are the key hindrances for the resolution of the Kashmir conflict. 

Located at the foothills of the Himalayas, the region of Kashmir is divided between three different countries of India, Pakistan, and China. Jammu and Kashmir, mostly known as the Valley of Kashmir, controlled by India, while Azad Kashmir consisting of Gilgit and Baltistan is administered by Pakistan, and the area of Aksai Chin is governed by China. The majority of Kashmir is under the control of India, with Srinagar as the capital of Jammu and Kashmir and the most important city.  

Compared to its significance throughout history, Kashmir is a less developed area in the region. Kashmir is strategically located; British colonialism considered Kashmir as the place, “where three empires met” (Ankit, 2014, p. 3). Given this strategic importance, it has been considered that whoever rules Kashmir will be the dominant power of the whole region because it can control the border areas of the three countries China, India, and Pakistan. Apart from its strategic position, the region of Kashmir is important for the natural capacity in providing water resources as the six rivers of Indus basin either cross through Kashmir or originate from the Kashmir region (Tabbasum, 2012, p. 186). However, despite the geopolitical importance and natural resources until recent years, no major economic project has been built in Kashmir. The only mega project which, “envisaged to improve infrastructure connectivity” (Jalil, 2019, p. 52) is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Passing through Gilgit, CPEC will connect the area of Azad Kashmir with the rest of Pakistan and China. There is no intra-countries mega project in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Indian Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF, April 2019, para. 4) had expected that the GSDP of Jammu and Kashmir to achieve 11.71 percent growth by 2018-19 and reach US$ 24.42 billion. It can easily be understood that the army presence and forceful sovereignty over Kashmir have been the main concerns of India and Pakistan rather than developing this region.

With the withdrawal of colonial Britain, the partition of the subcontinent was founded based on religion, which led to the formation of three different countries, Pakistan, India and later Bangladesh. India and Pakistan were officially formed in the summer of 1947 (Roy, 2014, p. 77), while Bangladesh gained its independence with the support of India as East Pakistan in 1971 (Blank, 1999, p. 50). In fact, the partition was based on Muslims and non-Muslims population as Blank notes that “Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founder, argued that Muslims could not be secure in a Hindu-dominated India, that two communities defined by religion could not share one stretch of land” (Blank, 1999, p. 50).  Prior to the founding of Pakistan, Jinnah was the leader of All India Muslim League (AIML) by which he was claiming the representation of all Muslims in the subcontinent. However, Roy argues that “[c]ontrary to AIML’s call, the Muslims of India did not constitute one single nation” (2014, p. 78). Roy’s argument can be easily proved by considering the uprising of Muslims against the very Muslim state that had been founded by Jinnah. Ludden notes that the renowned Muslim scholar, Maulana Bhashani, triggered the revolt in East Pakistan against West Pakistan and publicly announced Pakistan as an “anachronistic” and called for the independence of Bangladesh (2011, p. 82). Upon the withdrawal of colonial Britain, religion as a criterion for partition led to enormous divisive problems in the subcontinent among which the Kashmir conflict is one instance.

The Kashmir conflict started from the very first year of the partition of India. The partition based on religion led the local princes throughout India to make a decision on joining either of the newly formed countries.  According to Blank, “more than 560 princely states had to join one of the two new nations” (1999, p. 39). Kashmir was one of those princely states with a majority Muslim population run by a Hindu ruler Hari Singh (Ankit, 2014, p. 14). Ankit explains that the domestic opposition to Hari Sing by Muslim politician, Sheikh Abdullah, and the Pashtun tribes’ invasion from North-West of Pakistan had forced the situation of Kashmir towards a war (2014, p. 14). On the contrary, there is a claim that a total depopulation of Muslims from 123 villages was carried out which decreased the Muslims’ population in Jammu district by over 100,000 (Chatta, 2009, p. 184). Quoting from The Times (London) dated on August 10^th, 1948, Chatta claims the incidents of genocide by Maharaja and notes that, “Out of a total of 800,000 who tried to migrate, more than 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated by all the forces of the Dogra State, headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs” (2009, p. 184). Against the background in which religion was set as the criterion for the separation of the two countries, the utilisation of religious beliefs intensified the Kashmir conflict.

The Pakistan Army has had a significant influence on the economy and the overall policy of the nation. Winchell notes that no political body in the history of Pakistan has had been involved in determining the internal and external policy as much as has had done by its Army and in particular the Inter-Service Intelligence, in short ISI (2003, p. 374). The influences of the Pakistan Army have been made possible by perpetuating intimidation through hostility towards India and arms rivalry with the Indian Army. The economic initiatives of the Pakistan Army began a few years after the formation of Pakistan but gradually expanded. The book Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Econ (2007) by Pakistani military scientist, Ayesha Siddiqa reveals the facts of the Pakistan Army's dominance in the economy. In his review, Hathaway states about Siddiqa’s book that since the late 1950s, “the military began a systemic penetration of the Pakistani economy, [Siddiqa is] arguing that giving its indispensable role as the state’s guarantor against Indian aggression, it needed the resources” (2007, p. 92). To maintain the high position of ‘guarantor of protection of the nation’ Pakistan Army always needs the potential threat of Indian aggression in the Kashmir conflict.

Instead of supporting the local Kashmiri leaders in resolving the Kashmir conflict, Pakistan has relied heavily on keeping aggressive pressure to India. Pakistan has always had to utilise the religious fundamentalism and political Islam in confronting India. According to Winchell, ISI embraced radical Islam in order to adopt terror against India in Kashmir (2003, p. 374). Furthermore, from the earliest time, Pakistan's policy had not been welcomed by some prominent local leaders in Kashmir. Chowdhary records that, “Sheikh Abdullah, the charismatic and popular leader of Kashmir […] had unequivocally dismissed the idea of Pakistan as the Muslim homeland for Kashmiris (2019, p. 11). In spite of the reluctance of Kashmiri leaders to embrace Pakistan's policy, Pakistan had intervened Kashmir. According to Pant and Shah in October 1947, “Pakistan’s Pashtun tribal militants, with the help of Pakistani forces, crossed the border” (2019, p. 12) to forcefully capture the entire of Kashmir. The Indian politician once claimed that, “the fundamental problem in India and Pakistan relationship is not Kashmir, it is the nature of Pakistani state” (Tharoor, 2017, February 7). These all suggest that any resolution of Kashmir conflict is subordinated to maintaining the superior position of the Pakistan Army.

The lack of adherence to Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir by the Indian Army imply that Indian Government is more interested in controlling the region than resolving the Kashmir conflict. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) provides Indian soldiers with impunity in Kashmir. Mansoor claims that more than 3,500 people have been killed during the past 25 years, but no one has been brought to justice (2015, p.1). More recently, following India's revocation of special constitution status of Kashmir and deployment of tens of thousands of additional troops, Human Rights Watch [HRW] raised serious concerns about human rights abuses by the Indian Army in the region. HRW warns about using excessive force against the mass protests and reports the past incidents where Indian were, “using pellet-firing shotguns as a crowd-control weapon, even though they have caused a large number of protester deaths and injuries” (August 6, 2019, para. 7). Prior resolving the Kashmir conflict and to improve the relationship with Pakistan, for India, the adherence to internationally accepted norms such as Human Rights in Kashmir is inevitable.

Furthermore, India has repeatedly shown unwillingness for foreign or third party mediation over the Kashmir conflict. Various cases of mediation by concerned countries or the United Nations [UN] have been rejected by India. Rejecting China’s offer to mediation in mid-2017 is one instance (Al Jazeera America, July 13, 2017, para. 3) or opposing the mediation by the UN in 2018 is another example (Pakistan Observer, April 7, 2018, para. 4). Pakistan welcomes solutions through mediation of a third party, while India resists mediation and insists on bilateral approach with Pakistan. This has led to long lasting speculation about India's fear of any mediation that could lead to a plebiscite in Kashmir. Given that Muslims constitute the majority of the Valley of Kashmir, a referendum would undermine Indian sovereignty in the region.

In conclusion, improving the relationship between India and Pakistan is relevant to the resolution of Kashmir conflict. However, the conflict in Kashmir itself is a manifestation of the systematic abuse of religious differences for the sake of dominance in the region. The fundamental problem of politicising religious identity which was underlying the separation of Pakistan from India preceded the Kashmir conflict. The manipulation of external and domestic politics, excessive economic greed, and relying on the Islamic fundamentalism by the Pakistan Army; and disregard of third party mediation, and lack of adherence to human rights by the Indian Army have led the Kashmir conflict to remain unresolved. Therefore, a complete refrain of using religion for political purposes by the Pakistan Army, a fully adherence to Human Rights by the Indian Army are the essential requirements for resolving the Kashmir conflict and subsequently improving the relationship between India and Pakistan.

References:

Al Jazeera America. (2017, July 13). India rejects China's mediation offer on Kashmir. Al Jazeera America. Retrieved on September 20, 2019 from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/india-rejects-china-mediation-offer-kashmir-170713205330786.html

Ankit, R. (2014). Kashmir, 1945-66: From empire to the Cold War, Published PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Humanities. Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370019/  

Blank, J. (1999). Kashmir: Fundamentalism takes root. Foreign Affairs, 78, 36-53. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.2307/20049531

Brecher, M. (1953). Kashmir: A case study in United Nations mediation. Pacific Affairs, 26(3), 195-207.

Chatta, I. (2009). Partition and Its Aftermath: Violence, migration and the role of refugees in the Socio-economic development of Gujranwala and Sialkot Cities, 1947-1961, PQDT - UK & Ireland.

Chowdhary, R. (2019). Jammu and Kashmir: 1990 and beyond: Competitive politics in the shadow of separatism. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Gyan, D. (2017, February 7). Dr. Shashi Tharoor's awesome reply to Pro-Arab journalist on Kashmir! [Video file]. Aljazeera TV. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=125&v=D3Q9B2X88zM

Hathaway, R., & Siddiqa, Ayesha. (2007). Military Inc: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy. World Policy Journal, 24(1), 89-96.

Human Rights Watch. (2019, August 6). India: Basic freedoms at risk in Kashmir: Free political leaders, restore communications, exercise restraint. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/06/india-basic-freedoms-risk-kashmir

India Brand Equity Foundation. (2019, April). About Jammu and Kashmir: Information on tourism, industries, economy & geography. IBEF. Retrieved from https://www.ibef.org/states/jammu-kashmir.aspx#targetText=Jammu%20and%20Kashmir%20(J%26K)%20is,the%20Kashmir%20valley%20and%20Ladakh.

Jalil, G. Y. (2019). China’s rise: Offensive or defensive realism. Strategic Studies, 39(1), 41-58.

Ludden, D. (2011). The Politics of Independence in Bangladesh. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(35), 79-85.

Mansoor, S. (2015, August 5). Kashmir: Under special law, Indian Army acts with deadly impunity. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2015/0805/Kashmir-Under-special-law-Indian-Army-acts-with-deadly-impunity

Pakistan Observer. (2018, April 7). India opposes UN mediation in Kashmir: Guterres. Pakistan Observer (Islamabad, Pakistan) 29(97).

Pant, & Shah. (2019). South Asia's changing geopolitical landscape. Orbis, 63(1), 11-26.

Roy, K. (2014). Partition of British India: Causes and consequences revisited. India Review, 13(1), 78-86.

Tabbasum, S. (2012). Water adds to the importance of Kashmir. Strategic Studies, 32(4-33:1), 186-199.

Winchell, S. (2003). Pakistan's ISI: The invisible government. International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence, 16(3), 374-388.

Zutshi, C. (2019, March 5). Kashmir conflict is not just a border dispute between India and Pakistan. The Conversation. Retrieved from  https://theconversation.com/kashmir-conflict-is-not-just-a-border-dispute-between-india-and-pakistan-112824

The Freedom of Childhood Versus Adults’ Ideology

In the Phantom Tollbooth

1

The Phantom Tollbooth (Juster, 1961) is a children's fantasy quest story that substitutes the “daunting and unsettling”[1] real world of rationality with the imaginary world of a child. While rationality and power are inextricably linked, fantasy does not require rationality. To find a settled world, Milo’s pursuits go beyond rationality into imagination and oppose rationality as a tool of adults’ power in favour of childhood freedom.

The imagery scene of driving the toy car from the real house to “LANDS BEYOND”[2] represents Milo’s effort to confront the adults’ world. Milo is bored and has no idea “what to do with himself.”[3] The story implies that Milo is confined to reality, nevertheless, his imagination releases him from this confinement. Milo’s ventures into imagination and achieving satisfaction validates Rudd’s argument that children “also have subject position [to] resist [being] powerless objects of adult discourse.”[4] The Phantom Tollbooth represents the role of children in shaping the concept of childhood, and thus, the story demonstrates the historical tension between adults’ power and childhood.

Milo does not merely drive to the “unfamiliar country”[5] he also visits men some of whom are not much like adults as they encourage childhood. Unlike many adults, Whether Man exclaims child’s “questions”[6], encourages “beyond Expectations”[7], and has no idea about “any wrong roads.”[8] Whether Man behaves more like a child than an adult. This represents the tension between adults’ power and childhood freedom, in the way that their binary oppositions are subverted in fantasy to criticise the supremacy of adults in reality.

The story exerts the idea of resistance against the tools that tend to control what children should learn. Milo satirises pedagogy: “subtracting turnips from turnips, or knowing where Ethiopia is or how to spell February”[9]. This is an evidence of tension between childhood freedom and adults’ mainstream ideology which imposes power through certain values in education.

2

The Phantom Tollbooth demonstrates the cultural meaning of childhood and adulthood, with respect to one another, by using a language device that Lakoff and Johnson call “orientational metaphors.”[10] In chapter 9, Milo meets Alec who floats three feet the ground. The story employs metaphorical meaning of ‘up’ and ‘down’ in which ‘up’ implies the higher perspective of adults, while ‘down’ refers to the lower viewpoint of children. Milo’s wish to get Alec’s height is subject “to look at things as an adult does.”[11] The failure of Milo in his experiment to float, convinces him to “continue to see things as a child.”[12] This story represents a cultural meaning of childhood in which the child is recognised by having a different perspective than the adult.

The story highlights the importance of childhood in shaping the basis for maturity. For this purpose, the story uses some different aspects of ‘looking’ in metaphorical meaning to indicate childhood as the process of acquisition of knowledge. Although Alec leads Milo to admit the inevitability of childhood, he has to look at things from the same perspective for his entire life. Alec says, “[w]e always see things from the same angle,”[13] while Milo’s viewpoint changes as he grows up. Furthermore, the story implicitly states that Alec and all his family lack comprehensive vision because each of them is limited to a particular angle, but Alec praises their life as “much less trouble.”[14] The story reminds difficulties of Milo’s journey, who has to learn to look from different angles and gain further experience for adulthood. According to Buckingham, childhood is “precious and […] problematic”[15] and chapter 9 of The Phantom Tollbooth applies the metaphor to explain the concept of childhood as a demanding, distinctive, and crucial social construction.

3

By the end of his imaginative journey, Milo perceives the real world to a greater extent, which signifies that The Phantom Tollbooth represents the importance of fantasy for the realisation of reality. Additionally, Milo intends to have more fantasy, suggesting that the novel urges children not to grow out of fantasy but into it. 

Following the completion of Milo’s journey, the tollbooth is replaced by a letter that advises Milo to take trips himself as he “NOW KNOWS THE WAY.”[16] The letter mentions many unknown things that are yet to be revealed “many lands you've still to visit […] and wonderful things to see”[17] suggesting that Milo’s imaginative trip was just an initial run. Although the letter persuades him to take further journeys, the headline includes the word ‘way’ which signifies that all journeys necessarily involve imagination because imagination is the way that Milo knows so far. 

The shifting between fantasy and reality is brought to expand Milo’s perception of his surrounding world and makes him more capable to encounter further realities. This way, the story may refer to Milo’s growth; nevertheless, in adolescence, confronting a vast and more complex world is inevitable. Finding a way within such a complex world requires fantasy, as Pierce argues children need fantasy as “fuel to spark” [18] new ideas. The story urges Milo to have the imagination for further speculation.

Although the overall sequence of Milo's trip based on home/away/home implies the trip to be ended in reality, it equally values reality and fantasy. In spite of being restrained by “so much to do”[19] in his real life, Milo is still longing for fantasy: “[w]ell, I would like to make another trip.”[20]  But as Milo grows up, he should endeavour to take more serious journeys. The Phantom Tollbooth ends with the admiration of the sky by Milo, and thus new motives open up for unlimited journeys of fantasy and reality. 

References:

Buckingham, David. After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media, Polity Press, Oxford, 2000.

Gleitzman, M. “Morris Gleitzman on Why Kids Need Books in a 'Dark and Uncertain World.” ABC News Breakfast, September 9, 2018. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-12/morris-gleitzman-on-why-kids-need-books-author/9421494

Juster, Norton, and Feiffer, Jules, Illustrator. The Phantom Tollbooth. 50th Anniversary ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011.

Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Pierce, Tamora. “Fantasy: Why Kids Read It, Why Kids Need It.” School Library Journal 39, no. 10 (10, 1993): 50-51. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1970118671?accountid=36155.

Rudd, David. “Theorising and theories: how does children’s literature exist?” in Understanding Children's Literature, edited by Peter Hunt, 2^nd Edition, 15-29. New York: Routledge, 2005.

---

[1] Gleitzman, “Why Kids Need Books”.

[2] Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth, 16.

[3] Ibid., 13.

[4] Rudd, “Theorising and theories”, 17.

[5] Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth 20.

[6] Ibid., 23.

[7] Ibid., 23.

[8] Ibid., 22.

[9] Ibid., 13.

[10]Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 14.

[11] Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth, 109.

[12] Ibid., 109.

^[13] Ibid., 108.

^[14] Ibid., 108.

^[15] Buckingham, In Search of the Child, 10.

^[16] Juster, Phantom Tollbooth, 254.

^[17] Ibid., 254.

^[18] Pierce, “Fantasy: Why Kids Read It”, 50-51.

^[19] Juster, Phantom Tollbooth, 256.

^[20] Ibid., 256.