Mixed affinities in contested borderlands Antía Mato Bouzas Introduction The borderland dividing the former Kashmir related territories can be considered as one of the most conflictive nodal points in the expanse covered under the Crossroads Asia research framework. The LOC represents the most contested (symbolic and material) element in this dispute because it divides the territories that were part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (1846‐1947), and that now have become the peripheries of the large states of India and Pakistan. Despite being a de facto and not de iure boundary, the LOC functions as an international boundary and in that way produces institutionalisation and spatial socialization. It discourages formal mobility and contact across it, but ties between people on both sides of the boundary still exist. The recent establishment in 2005 of bus services and trade relations between some specific towns on both sides of Kashmir has created new expectations for further mobility and exchange. Conflict in the Kashmir related territories is manifested in multiple ways and involves many issues and aspirations. Thus it cannot only be understood in relation to political claims of specific groups (Kashmiri, Indian or Pakistani nationalism) and to the product of competing identities. The sub‐project focuses on forms of self‐identification of social groups living in concrete locations on both sides of the LOC. In this sense, the use of the concept of ‘identity’ is largely regarded as “membership”, that is, as shared (secured) affinities related to a place (Taylor 1993, Habermas 1998) but it does not necessary entail a bounded sense (Bauman 2006). Forms of self‐identification are studied in relation to border people’s experiences of the past (the Kashmir dispute) and to current developments that point at important transformations in the region: incipient mobility, building of great infrastructures, economic and social transformations, etc. The Kashmir related territories are here examined from a borderland perspective, historically constructed through different territorialisation processes that have affected the ways local groups conceive the space they inhabit. 1 Objectives of the research In line with the focus of the Crossroads Asia programme, the main objective of the proposed research is to expose interrelations and forms‐of self‐identification created around the LOC that influence neighbouring areas and shape alternative forms of spatial socialization. The project aims also at putting forward theoretical reflection on how social territory is politically defined (as rather static) and how is actually experienced by social groups in these areas (as rather dynamic). Moreover, the research study intends to address the problematic of the entity called ‘Kashmir’ ‐
usually understood as an Indian‐Pakistani affair, as a separatist conflict in India, as a reivindication of the boundaries of the former “Dogra state”‐ and therefore to question the centrality of the homonymous Valley against a heterogenic periphery, etc. The outcome of this research pretends to contribute, on the one hand, to ongoing theoretical debates on bordering and territorialisation mainly in the field of political geography and political science and, on the other hand, to the empirical research on the Kashmir region by questioning one of the central categories linked to the dispute, that is, identity. Background of research The research draws on previous research conducted in four towns on both sides of the Kashmir borderland affected in different ways by the dispute. Manifestations of conflict in Kashmir are multilayered and not all are necessarily disruptive. Views by local groups on the dispute or on what is contested do not always coincide with how the Kashmir conflict is generally framed, usually from a predominant state perspective. Even scholars who have tried to examine the question of identity formation in the Indian Kashmir in relation to political claims, such as Navnita Chadha Behera or Sumantra Bose (Behera 2006, Bose 2003), they have done it largely by taking the state (and state identity in particular) as a reference point and as a largely neutral category. Recent works on the border areas in Indian Kashmir continue to reproduce similar views (Mahapatra/Shekhawat 2008). 2 While much attention has been paid to identity formation in Kashmir as a result of relevant historical and political events –the Partition of the Indian subcontinent, the territorial aspirations of the Kashmir maharaja, the subsequent development of the India‐Pakistan conflict on Kashmir, etc.–, there has been less reflection on how identity relates to contested notions of territory or place. Few works have addressed the issues of territorialisation related to the establishment of international boundaries and the formation of sovereign states (that is, following the Westphalian model) in India and Pakistan and their impact on the Kashmir problem. An exception is the political scientist Sankaran Khrisna, who has claimed that nation building and state formation in India is largely a result of a ‘cartographic anxiety’ (Khrisna 1996). Other works in the discipline of anthropology have also studied the border politics by focussing on groups living near the LOC and underlying their multicultural character and influences (a crossroads) against “those monsters, those frictions, and those movements that are already separating citizens within the nation on the bases of ethnicity, religion, region, gender, caste, and class” (Aggarwal 2004: 234). The way territory is conceived and its relation to location are crucial aspects to examine issues of belonging and identity formation in Kashmir. General (state perspective) accounts of the Kashmir dispute describe how the princely state was torn apart between India and Pakistan after the 1947‐1948 conflict, hence privileging state actors over other regional forces. These accounts tend to relate the conflict to nation building around the idea of opposing identities in both countries. Within this point of view, Kashmir is located as a periphery, though claimed central to state formation. A perspective from Kashmir, centred around the historical and political developments that led to the emergence of the Kashmiri nationalism of the valley (now in India), focuses on the territorial existing unit before Partition and its preservation as a single entity with some degree of autonomy, or eventually, independent (Zutshi 2003). However, other historical interpretations of events, particularly those arising from some leading regional figures in Gilgit‐Baltistan – a marginal area of the former princely state‐, underline the very problematic of the construction of this spatial references /hegemonic narratives (Sökefeld 2005). 3 Having this in mind, the use of a border approach to study the interrelations established around the LOC seems to be appropriate to grasp the heterogeneity and the transformative character in this particular location. The LOC is both symbolic –“in the end the Indians and Pakistanis are fighting for an invisible line somewhere in the mountains”, as a pahari interlocutor from the border site once expressed to me– and material, because it has prevented formal movement and contact across it. In fact, the immobility that the LOC has caused can be observed in the conflictive phenomena of divided families, forced displacement because of fear and violence in concrete areas, loss of property and the militarization of the border areas. The boundary has stopped direct forms of relationship and exchange but it has not prevented others to emerge: through possibilities provided by new technologies, by revisiting the past, etc. Indeed, one of the main consequences of this forced separation is that of giving rise to alternative imaginaries of self‐identification that trespass existing national confines and influence upon another. The research pretends to study issues of self‐identification and belonging from a cross‐
border perspective, but also without taking for granted elements pertaining to the realm of the “state” or “national” such as “citizenship” and “sovereignty” that are critical in contested borderlands. The study takes into account territorialisation processes as dynamic and thus affecting border people’s affiliations. One of its most innovative aspects is that it is being conducted on both sides (Indian and Pakistani) of the Line of Control and in multiple locations of the Kashmir related territories. Therefore, the relevance of this study for the Crossroads Asia programme lies in the investigation of the dynamic character of borderlands as causing and influencing alternative regional imaginaries and relations. 4 Theoretical framework The sub‐project traces issues of territorialisation and forms of self‐identification in the Kashmir related territories – that is, the Indian Kashmir and the Pakistani areas of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit‐Baltistan‐ by examining the network of interrelations established around the LOC. The LOC can be described as an “ambivalent boundary” (it is a de facto boundary but not de iure) because it establishes causal relations among social groups and builds institutionalisation. Therefore, the LOC causes a figuration into being (Elias 1978) through which local groups define their past affinities and re‐shape them in the present context. The adoption of a borderland’s perspective draws from the vast literature on borders, mostly in the disciplines of political geography and anthropology but also from recent significant contributions of political science and international relations. What does it mean to consider the Kashmir related territories as a borderland? First of all, it helps to understand territorialisation issues that took place in that area in the colonial period (Zutshi 2010) and after, as part of the nation building processes in the post‐colonial states of India (Kazi 2009) and Pakistan (Kreutzmann 2007, 2008; Sökefeld 2005). Besides, it serves to better address for the present time what is understood by “Kashmir” as a political problem in Gilgit‐Baltistan, the Valley of Kashmir or Ladakh, among other. And thirdly, considering Kashmir as a borderland implies to acknowledge the existence of an uncertainty and ambivalence, but also plurality that characterise border life and that have implications for eventual transformation of this landscape. As a territory marked by ambiguity and uncertainty, the borderland entails also a rather transformative character. Nonetheless, the Kashmir borderland lies at the crossroads of many influences (Aggarwal 2004). These are reshaped and appropriated by people living the area and other social and political actors in their spatial representations and practices (Lefebvre[1991] 2001) in a dynamic manner. The understanding of the Kashmiri related territories as a borderland implies to study the interconnections of social groups living in this particular territory characterised by the presence of the LOC that stops formal mobility. In addition, the contested and ‘provisional’ condition of the LOC expressed rules and practices that denote 5 “exception” (the overwhelming presence of the military, restrictions of movement, limitations in political participation, etc.) pervades people’s consciousness in various ways. The peripheral condition of these territories in relation to two large nation states also plays an important role. In this sense, the state as the most powerful agent of territorialisation has to be taken into account (Mann, 1994). Hence, this research examines the “bordering process” and discusses it under a current scenario in which ideas and material practises of border transformation are taking place. An important reference for this project is Anssi Paasi’s study on the Finnish‐Russian borderland (Paasi 1996) but also theoretical approaches on issues of territorialisation posed by David Newman (Newman 2001) based on his work on the Israel‐Palestine case need to be included. Besides, this project makes claims to be placed within the discipline of political science and more concretely in the field of international relations because it engages with current debates on sovereignty and citizenship in relation to borders and globalisation. Some studies have questioned sovereignty as being historically the exclusive attribute of the state and assume the increasing non‐territorial dimension in the exercise of sovereignty (Agnew 2009; Vaughan‐Williams 2009). Other studies emphasise the relevance of territory and re‐territorialisation processes and the persistence of borders and forms of political authority over a territory, be in the form of the state or other form of political aggregation (Brown 2002; Newman 2006; Elden 2009). I argue that Kashmir (in wider sense) can be more contextualised in the latter, even though the relationship between sovereignty, territory and belonging remains problematic. The research will attempt to conceptualise the “exclusivity” and “ambiguity” of political life in borderlands in relation to the specific forms of political authority regulating these territories (at the edge of large states) over time that has an impact on people’s consciousness. The military occupation of the Kashmir valley for more than twenty years, the special rules applied there as well as the distinct status of Gilgit‐
Baltistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir in relation to the Pakistani state show specific dynamics of inclusion and exclusion within the state. In these contexts, border people are also ruled in different ways as compared to “mainlanders” and this exceptionality 6 has implications in their “citizenship status”. However, the recognition of the transformative character of borderlands hints at the emergence of new constellations as a result of spatial transformations (incipient cross‐border mobility along the LOC, the building of big infrastructures in the region, etc.) that might ultimately imply changes in the figuration caused by the LOC and that are the subject of investigation in the Crossroads Asia programme. Problem definition The Line of Control remains the main bone of contention for the different actors who have claims and counterclaims in the so‐called Kashmir dispute. The main characteristic of the LOC is that prevents mobility and contact – although recently cross‐LOC initiatives have been established‐ and, in doing so, it impacts on processes of nation building and identity formation. However, this rather static and inward dimension –what the LOC produces by separation and division‐ does not correspond with its dynamic and plural expressions on the ground, particularly in border areas. Networks of interrelations underline the figurational character LOC ‐marriages, contacts among divided families, cultural exchanges, symbolic representations, etc.‐ but also, because of its condition of a barrier, new ties are being renegotiated and new forms of self‐identification are imagined by social groups inhabiting the border territories. Concretely, different layers of imagination are manifest. The latter can be observed in symbolic and material forms of revisiting the past as well as in understandings of the current context, in which new opportunities and aspirations can be articulated. In order to address these two‐fold immobile and mobile dimensions, the understanding of belonging by border people needs to be examined. Main research questions (and sub‐questions) This sub‐project pretends to address the following main questions: 7 ‐ How do the border social groups on both sides of the Kashmir related territories perceive their “being part” of the Kashmir dispute? How do these views coincide/diverge from their general adscription to the conflict? ‐ How can the situation of these border groups be defined in relation to the state? (majority/minority, exception, integration, etc.) ‐ What is the scope of recent established cross‐border initiatives? Is it possible to discern a transformation of this borderland in which new interconnections are emerging? ‐ Are patterns of mobility/immobility in the Kashmir borderland (cross‐Line of Control related) impacting the neighbouring areas? If so, in which ways and which groups are involved? Parallel to these main questions are other issues raised by the categories employed and that can be formulated in the following way: ‐ How do we conceptualise Kashmir as a borderland (and not frontier, periphery, etc.)? How does it relate to the notion of crossroads? ‐ In which ways the focus on forms of self‐identification can help to better grasp the social dynamism of societal formation near the Line of Control? ‐ To what extent the empirical case of the Kashmir borderland can contribute to general theoretical debates on territorialisation and bordering? ‐ How does the Kashmir case relate to other studies on borderlands in the area examined by the Crossroads Asia research framework? Methodology The sub‐project examines forms of self‐identification in relation to issues of territorialisation and border transformation in the Kashmir borderland. It does so by 8 focussing of social groups inhabiting both sides of divided Kashmir. Therefore, it involves a theoretical and empirical part. The theoretical component of the project entails a conceptualisation work. This is defined through the use of secondary sources, mainly relevant literature on border studies (territorialisation, spatial socialization), political science (issues of sovereignty and security) and political philosophy (the works of G. Agamben and Kymlicka). For the empirical part, the study draws from the relevant material (both secondary and primary sources) referring to the disputed character of the Kashmir region and the contested nature of state boundaries that has direct implications for the citizenship rights of those living in these areas. Besides, fieldwork will be conducted in the region in some four specific locations relevant to the topic, though not limited to them. The object of the fieldwork is to understand the Kashmiri border social landscape, to address the legal‐constitutional status of these territories, to describe major political developments there, as well as to point at issues regarding the possible transformation of this borderland. This will be done through: ‐ interviews to target groups, mainly divided families and traders but also other actors participating in cross‐border movements ‐ collecting official data of cross‐border ties/relevant documentation ‐ analysing the possible social and economic impact of major infrastructures that are being built (notably dams and major roads) in shaping the transformation of the borderland. ‐ use of newspapers and regional blogs ‐ some archival work will be conducted regarding the area of Gilgit‐Baltistan (mainly on Baltistan) to compare with some oral narratives provided by elders that might be relevant for this work ‐ participant observation 9 Regional focus: Fieldwork will be conducted primary in the towns of Muzaffarabad (Azad Kashmir), Skardu (Gilgit‐Baltistan), Srinagar (State of Jammu and Kashmir), Kargil (Ladakh) but visits will be arranged on the Indian side to visit Baramulla and Uri (more affected by divided families) and the villages of Turtuk and Chulunka. Some preliminary fieldwork in the area has already been conducted. However, cross‐border ties in the northern part of Gilgit‐Baltistan and neighbouring areas will be also explored in order to address issues of similarities/differences with respect to the Kashmiri borderland. Work Plan The first year is devoted to the conceptualisation of the project and review of literature. Besides a fieldtrip to the Indian Kashmir is planned with a view of doing preliminary work to identify target groups and explore the feasibility to visit border (restricted) areas. During the second year, a first outline of the book proposal is developed. Extensive fieldwork is conducted both in Indian Kashmir and Pakistan Kashmir related areas (including Gilgit‐Baltistan), with the possibility of visiting neighbouring regions of China (Xingiang). Some archival work will be also conducted. The material resulting from these will be revised. The third year of the project is planned to work on the manuscript. An additional fieldtrip to Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan (Pakistan) is designed because of the vast expanse of this territory, in order to complete the projected fieldwork. In the fourth year, the manuscript is finished and handed for publication. Accordingly, the outcome of this sub‐project will be a monograph in English language. This academic work will be addressed to a wider academic public interested in 10 theoretical issues pertaining to borders and security issues as well as scholars focusing on the Kashmir related territories. Jan‐Febr. 2011 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Conceptualisation of the project/Review of literature‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1st fieldtrip to Kashmir (India) 2012 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Analysis of the material Draft of outline for book proposal‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐2nd fieldtrip to Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan (Pakistan) Mar.‐Apr.
May‐Jun.
Jul.‐Aug.
Sept.‐Oct. Nov.‐Dec.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Fieldtrip to Kashmir (India) 2013 ‐‐‐‐Review of the material ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Writing‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Fieldtrip to Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit‐Baltistan (Pakistan) 2014 ‐‐‐‐‐Review of the material ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Finishing the manuscript‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Bibliography Agamben, Giorgio 2005. Homo sacer: Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita. Torino: Enaudi. Aggarwal, Ravina 2004. Beyond the Lines of Control: Performance and Politics on the Disputed Borders of Ladakh, India. Durham, London: Duke University Press. Agnew, John 2009. Globalization and Sovereignty. Plymouth (UK): Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bauman, Zigmunt; Vecchi, Benedetto 2006. Intervista sull’identità. Roma: GLF Ed. Laterza. Behera, Navnita Chadha 2006. Demystifying Kashmir. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. 11 Bose, Sumantra 2003. Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications. Brown, Chris 2001. “Borders and Identity in International Political Theory.”In: Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, Yosef Lapid (eds.). Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Elias, Norbert 1978. What is sociology? London: Hutchinson. Elden, Stuart 2009. Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kazi, Seema 2009. Between Democracy and the Nation: Gender and Militarization in Kashmir. New Delhi: Women Unlimited. Krishna, Sankaran 1996. “Cartographic Anxiety: Mapping the Body Politic in India”. Alternatives, 19 (4), pp. 507‐521. Kreutzmann, Hermann 2008. “Kashmir and the Northern Areas of Pakistan: Boundary‐
making along contested frontiers”. Erdkunde, 62 (3), pp. 201‐219. — 2007. “The Karakoram Landscape and the Recent History of the Northern Areas”, in: Bianca, S. (ed.), Karakoram: Hidden Treasures in the Northern Areas of Pakistan, Turin: Umberto Allemandi & Co, pp. 41‐ 7. Kymlicka, Will 2002. ‘Multiculturalism and Minority Rights: East and West”. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, Issue 4. Lefebvre, Henri [1991] 2001. The Production of Space (Transl. Donald Nicholson‐Smith). Oxford, Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Newman, David 2006. “The resilience of territorial conflict in an era of globalization”. In: Miles Khaler and Barbara F. Walter, Territoriality and Conflict in an Era of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, I. Kenneth 2006. “Memories of Tibet: Transnationalism, Transculturation and the Production of Cultural Identity in Northern Pakistan”. India Review 5 (2), pp. 190‐222. Mahapatra, Debidata; Shekhawat, Seema 2008. Across the Line of Control. New Delhi: Gyan Publisher House. Mann, Michael 1984. “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms, and Results.” Archives Européenes de Sociologie. Vol. 25, 1984, pp. 185‐213. 12 Paasi, Anssi 1996. Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness: The changing geographies of the Finnish Russian Border. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Sökefeld, Martin, 2005. “From colonialism to Postcolonial Colonialism: Changing Modes of Domination in the Northern Areas of Pakistan”. Journal of Asian Studies, 64 (4), pp. 939‐973. Vaughan‐Williams, Nick 2009. Border politics: The limits of Sovereign Power. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U. Press. Zutshi, Chitraleka 2003. Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity and the Making of Kashmir. New Delhi: Permanent Black. ‐‐‐2010. “Rethinking Kashmir’s History from a Borderlands Perspective”. History Compass 8/7, pp. 594‐608. 13