Review of Kashmir by Sumantra Bose
Published by sauvik November 24th, 2004 in India, Book ReviewThank heavens for good, honest scholarship. For an Indian libertarian living in India, fighting for freedom from the centralized socialist state, Sumantra Bose’s book Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace presents strong arguments that prove that the free market solution to India’s travails - free trade, sound money, property rights and governance based on the principle of subsidiarity - has to be implemented in both India and Pakistan, and it is this restructuring of these two failed states that will bring peace and prosperity to the entire South Asian region, including the troubled land of Kashmir.
Bose’s riveting account of the origins of the Kashmir problem throws up a few important facts, usually missed by commentators. First, that the Hindu king of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir ran a cruel, repressive regime. Organized opposition to this regime began before the partition of the sub-continent. The Maharaja’s accession to India in 1947 needs to be viewed in this light.
Second, that Sheikh Abdullah, the charismatic leader of the National Conference (whose grandson, Omar, now heads the party) was, like Nehru, an admirer of Soviet-style centralized planning. He renamed Srinagar’s main market Lal Chowk after Moscow’s Red Square! His first act in office was to overthrow property rights and hand over land ownership to tenant farmers without any compensation whatsoever to landlords. This policy of land to the tiller - which is quite like giving curry to the cook! - gave the National Conference mass popularity. However, in combination with centralized planning and state-led industrialization, it failed to yield prosperity. Today, the National Conference is in shambles and, as Bose reports, during the recent ‘elections’ shopkeepers downed shutters in every town that Omar Abdullah visited to address election rallies.
Another clear fact that emerges from this book is that the ‘war’ in Kashmir is not about ‘cross-border terrorism’ as the Indian state would like the world to believe. It is a genuine freedom struggle that is being brutally repressed by New Delhi. The government of India has, during the last 50 years, systematically eroded the ‘autonomy’ Kashmir enjoys as per the Constitution of India, destroyed democratic institutions, and propped up corrupt clients who misruled the land and used military and police might to terrorize the populace. It is vital that this book be widely read in the west, so that the ‘democratic legitimacy’ the Indian state claims in Kashmir is ripped apart.
Indeed, if I may add, the Indian state is not democratic at all: it is a strong, centralized state. Democracy wishes to diffuse power, not concentrate it. And, in India, liberal parties are legally debarred from contesting elections. The socialist Indian state merely apes the rituals of democracy - like elections. When there is no democracy throughout the length and breadth of India, we can quite imagine what will happen in Kashmir, where a mass movement for freedom has given the Indian state the excuse to launch brutal repression.
What I really liked about Bose’s book is that it shows that the common ’solutions’ offered on Kashmir are actually dangerous - like a plebiscite. Bose keeps on showing us how Kashmiri society and politics presents itself as a matryoshka doll and both plebiscite and re-partition can lead to violent conflict and bloodletting - as in Bosnia. (And this happened in India in 1947.) The path to peace that Bose presents in the last chapter is inspired by the peace process in Northern Ireland - and here Bose uses the precise word ‘consocial’: that is, every group has to be included and every position on the issue must be deemed legitimate. Bose also insists that third party mediation as well as immersion of the peace process in a South Asian regional forum (as the Irish conflict was in the EU) are highly desirable. The government of India has always insisted that Kashmir is a bilateral issue - and this position should be disregarded by the international community.
According to Bose, a majority of Kashmiris on both sides of the border want neither India nor Pakistan but azaadi (freedom) and khudmukhtari (self-rule). The consociational approach to peace that Bose advocates will get them peace, but Bose should have also used the word ’subsidiarity’, without which meaningful democratic self-government is impossible. In socialist India, institutions of local self-government have been totally destroyed. The Indian state has harped for long on panchyati raj (institutions of village self-government) but that has just been a lot of hot air. It is far more important to get institutions of urban self-government in place so that citizens can play a meaningful role in the running of their cities and towns: politics for the polis must replace the politics of empire.
The future of India does not lie in millions of ’self sufficient and self governing village republics’ (the Gandhi-Nehru vision); it lies in 600 free trading and self governing cities and towns where governance is based on the principle of subsidiarity so that the central state is irrelevant. While centralized misrule is evident in every Indian city and town (India does not possess a single properly functioning municipality) this trend is even more amplified in Kashmir. During a recent visit to Srinagar, I found citizens complaining that the chief minister of the state had ordered repaving the stones of the city’s central boulevard, and the new stones were uneven. Why was there no Mayor to decide such matters? A group of local youths had collected 12,000 books with which to start a public library: for space, they had to appeal to the state’s finance minister!
Sumantra Bose has made a very important contribution to the debates on India, Pakistan and Kashmir. Here, we have two nuclear states and a territorial conflict that refuses to go away. Ultimately, it must be realised that if we can use the Bose approach to establishing peace in Kashmir, we can solve not only the India-Pakistan problem, but also the Hindu-Muslim problem. Today, jingoistic Hindu chauvinists have come to power in India on a hate Pakistan and hate all Muslims agenda.
Libertarians believe both religions emphasise free markets: the Hindus discovered Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ in just two little words, shubh laabh, which translated to ‘profits are auspicious and good for society’. And as for the Muslims, the Prophet himself said that he who makes money pleases God. The socialists who took over after the partition of the continent hated free markets - Nehru once said ‘profit is a dirty word’ - and they fomented hatred between the two communities. A peaceful and prosperous South Asia requires that followers of both religions embrace free trade. That, along with consociationalism and subsidiarity, will solve every political problem that the region is plagued by.
Along with Fareed Zakaraia’s The Future of Freedom, Sumantra Bose’s Kashmir is a must read for everyone interested in teaching the centralized, socialist Indian state a lesson they will never forget. Every shred of respectability that the regime enjoys must be torn away. I am inspired by this book, which reads like a tight thriller. After shutting the book, one song comes to mind, sung by a man with roots in India: Freddie Mercury.
You got blood on your face,
You big disgrace,
Waving your banner all over the place.
We will, we will rock you!
(This review was first published in the Greater Kashmir newspaper, Srinagar.)
10 Responses to “Review of Kashmir by Sumantra Bose”
- 1 Trackback on Nov 26th, 2004 at 4:35 am
- 2 Trackback on Jul 16th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
It is a mistaken notion that only the “jingoistic Hindu chauvinists” stand in the way of settlement in Kashmir.
As a secular, right-of-center thinker, this writer believes that even if one focuses on the so-called “root cause” of the Kashmir problem, and one sets aside jingoism, one is left with the inescapble conclusion that neither India nor the world can afford yet another political system such as those exist in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
These systems neither promote freedom nor equality. Even if, and this is an absurd hypothetical, all Kashmiris were to decide they want a Pakistan-like State, their wish cannot be granted — no people have the right to choose a system that reduces freedom and equality.
See more at:
http://secular-right.blogspot.com/2004/11/kashmir_21.html
Regards.
Thank you Sauvik, Yazad — and Sumantra Bose — for these thoughts on KAshmir. I visited the state for the first time (!) this year, now three times, and I found many echoes of my experiences just in Sauvik’s review, some of which I’m trying to write about in my own way. So I am going to get the book now.
I also want to say that Kashmir is a tragedy not least because of attitudes like Permanent Red’s (who otherwise I have a deal of respect for): “no people have the right to choose a system that reduces freedom and equality” is absurd. Though in different words, this is more or less what Churchill had to say about Indian independence. What SA had to say about SA and Namibian independence. I could go on.
What SA had to say about SA and Namibian independence
Sorry, this should have been clearer: what I meant of course was, “what SA under apartheid had to say about revoking apartheid and Namibian independence.” You could say that revoking apartheid equates to SA independence, but still, I should have been clearer.
Is Dileep seriously comparing our liberal democracy to apartheid in an attempt to defend the right of jihadists to forge a Pakistan-style quasi-religious dictatorship?
My respect for his eloquence is tremendous but his assumption that all political ideas are equal is a deeply dangerous intellectual construct.
No, jihadis who behead young Kashmiri women for not wearing veils do not have an equal political idea to ours.
No, soldiers who overthrow elected leaders — and sometimes hang them — do not have an equal political idea to ours.
No, States that wrap themselves in particular faiths while diminishing others do not have an equal political idea to ours.
Or do they, Dileep?
Just noticed that I misspelled Dilip’s name. This was inadvertent and I hope Dilip will ignore my lapse.
PR.
i think we should also look at the ECONOMIC COST of kashmir. in british times, the state of jammu & kashmir contributed both men and materials to the govt of india. today, acording to muzaffar beg, finance minister of j&k, whom i met, the state can only meet 10 per cent of its annual budget: the rest comes from the govt of india. add to that the huge costs of the army, bsf, crpf, rashtriya rifles, ladakh scouts and local police. add to that the 3 crore a day spent on siachen (and this is going on for over 20 years. add to that the 24,000 crores manmohan has just gifted away to the j&k govt. my point is: what is the use of holding on to territory at such a huge cost - plus add human lives lost in the battle.
as someone once told me : kashmir is a ‘non-performing asset’. we indians who pay these taxes should refuse to support the government of india’s continued occuption of that territory.
one small error on yazad’s part: this review was first published in the new york sun. it later appeared in greater kashmir.
All the disputes between India and Pakistan is because of Kashmir. There is no rear lines that’s why problem creat on border and both go to war over Kashmir. But the Government now refine the policies for bringing stability in the entire state of J&K.