Today almost all of us are skeptical about the possibility of K resolution in near future? Why? Because we at least unconsciously do understand that the forces that want conflicts are stronger. That neither India nor Pakistan nor Kashmiris are really free to solve the issue. Let us try to understand the point and many related questions that we need to handle for the purpose.
Kashmir is more an economic than a political issue. There are no political issues which don’t involve mostly economic privileges. Once upon a time many people believed it is a religious issue. Later even the hardliners in religion came to understand that it should be approached as a political issue. But political issues are not very difficult to resolve. More than six decades and three wars would not be needed if it was a mere political issue that a farseeing or smart pacifist prime minister at the Centre could resolve. Tossed among contending Stakeholders such as US, China, Pakistan, India and Capitalist forces of the whole world the poor victims are condemned to languish. Indian politicians are themselves not quite free to solve it. They are dependent on vote bank which is moulded by economic considerations. Politics has, generally speaking, not heeded the language of morality or humanitarianism. We see exploitation of the weaker at the hands of the strong. Colonialism or neocolonialism in different guises has been in one word the history of civilizations. India is still a colonized country. It is enslaved by nationalism and the “threat” from its neighbours. And of course MNCs. War industry is holding it hostage. It has no independent will to think of its betterment. Capitalist or economic forces are dictating its policies. Politicians even if well meaning can’t afford to solve problem in the name of humanity as they are condemned to dance on the fingers of voters who have only their self interest to guide.
Can it be disputed that Kashmir conflict is, among other things, a product of changing dynamics of national and world economy. Why was there partition? Because the British wanted it. Why did they want it? Any satisfactory answer is tied to their long term economic and political interests. Why was nationalism promoted as an ideology? Again nothing explains it better than the thesis that Capitalism required it. Why were two world wars fought and India got independence following the Second World War? Why was there Hitler? Was Nazism simply a political phenomenon or did it have huge economic stakes as well? Why have dozens of small wars been fought after world war second? Around half a dozen are going on currently and if we include countless fights for identity, for human rights, for forest/land rights, for compensations we can see how the world is torn asunder by the warring economic interests?
Capitalism with its armament industry and its currency of blood needs conflicts to go on. Both India and Pakistan are colonies from a larger perspective.
Economic interests of Multinational Corporations, of the military industrial complex that defines the Superpower are hurt by solving regional disputes. Consider one point: Why a nuclear stock pile big enough to destroy the world 100 times over currently exists? How come that weapons are mostly manufactured and sold only but can’t be used till they get obsolete or rusted? In fact disputes are created despite politicians wanting to solve them. There was no need for partition. Nobody desired it. Not the least Jinah or Gandhi. He claimed that he was pushed to the wall? Why can’t the problems of tribals in India fighting for forest rights or their land be tackled? Because development needs displacing them? Why do we need development? Because of infamous Truman agenda that exported the idea of development to the “underdeveloped world to serve to create markets for American goods and long term dependency on their technology across the world. So isn’t it the question of economy? Political slogan of development, vikas, is sponsored by the needs of industry? But don’t we need industry? What industry and for what and costs on environment and human soul are important questions? Can we ignore the point that dehumanization is a product of industrialization? Why was Heidegger, arguably the greatest philosopher of Europe in the 20thcentury against technology? Why such great critics as Gill, Coomaraswamy, Guenon reject modern industrial and technological culture? So questions and questions are there.
Gandhi had dreamt that India would have very small army. He would refuse to live for a single hour in the present day India which has the second largest army in the world. There are enough stores for ammunition but not for food grains in India and rats destroy more food grains in granaries than would suffice feeding all the beggars of India. We have the largest army of beggars.