Moments of despair for a person of faith

For a nationalist, the harshest reality lies in the not-easily justifiable inadequacies of your country. Those issues that suggest an underlying conspiracy, a threat to human virtue, an aberration of all that you thought your country stood for, are the worst kind. Sometimes, the harshness stops the nationalist from accepting.

I follow the situation in Kashmir as closely as I can because somehow there is an intrinsic link between my life and the goings-on in the region. I follow the situation in Ladakh, in Nagaland, in Bihar, in Gujarat, in every corner of India that hurts, for exactly the same reason. I feel sad, I feel distraught, I feel hopeful. But my faith in the Indian constitution and establishment is upheld, possibly because my understanding is cloaked in a liberal optimism. It is somewhat difficult for me to fathom that human rights violations, murders and encounter cases are acts sponsored and encouraged by the Centre. In effect, I genuinely believe that the Centre, those head honchos in the political foray are working for the betterment of India not only to make it seem better at the back of the Economist but to really improve the lives of every human that pays allegiance to the Union. Somewhat naively maybe, I think I believe that the Indian government is inherently prone to fighting for the liberation of its citizens. I see goodness even when parts of the country are mired in poverty and crime.

To accept otherwise, to believe that there are hideous conspiracies of mere self-aggrandizement that colour the character of Indian political figures, as is the case in our neighbouring country Pakistan and many other developing ones, feels like a slap in my face, a destruction of my faith, a reason for endless cynicism for every realm in life. In some sense, it is almost a selfish endeavour to believe naively in life.

Is my nationalistic sentiment, rested deeply in a faith in beauty and life, a mere coverup for the land where none dare go?

Why I write here

This summer (yes, summers are hotbeds for growth) I was sitting with Rachel on the terrace of a restaurant in Changspa, Leh talking about life and school and everything in general, as we waited for our Chinese manchurian with rice. Our conversation that touched upon academics and boys and our futures somehow also got into a conversation about accepting people.

I have a hard time accepting. I don't know if it's because of who I grew up around, some karmic baggage, or just simply, my strong-headed independence. I'm trying to get better at it though and while I was sharing with Rachel my moments of intolerance in close relationships, we agreed that it was essential to be able to get along with everybody, regardless of who or what or why. This obviously seems like a bold proposition as well as one that won't be consciously shared by many. Most importantly, getting along with everyone suggests one must be willing to cooperate even if major ideological divides exist. But underlying society's encouragement to be independent and opinionated individuals, cooperation has become the big bad C-word for how can there be a confluence between being strong-headed and cooperating?

But sitting in that rooftop restaurant I think both of us made that realization that who we are is a multitude of identities. I am multifaceted and unique, just like everyone else. The facet that I project is both embedded and affects the environment I'm in and if I was to be judged solely by the amalgamation of a singular facet and environment, I am not being respected or truly understood.
I recognize my multiple identities and rely heavily on them to justify my actions. I think we all do. But recognizing those multiple identities in others is always a task, particularly one that rests deeply also in what identity I choose to display. While my brain can understand this, it seems a mere rationalization since the actual application of this requires a heart and a soul that is much deeper, much more reflective.

We sat pondering this and hoping silently that we could develop the compassion and wisdom needed to recognize a person as a multifaceted individual rather than a singular entity.

A few weeks later, I read Identity and Violence by Amartya Sen. I was filled with utter happiness when I realized that this Nobel-winning economist had converted my thoughts into an academic argument that was available to numerous people around the world. He took it a step further suggesting that identities must be prioritized based on the situation.

Maybe this is where we clashed.

Because how can the projection of an identity be isolated from the environment? It is only natural that both are mutually constitutive, so how can the projection depend upon the context when the latter also depends on the former? More importantly, how can we prioritize identities because isn't it really the prioritization that has led to conflict? I'm not, even subconsciously, suggesting that each one of us doesn't have one or few dominant identities that define the way we behave. In fact, we are most aware of these dominant identities because we often make decisions from those places. But can't a dominant identity be recognized along with a smaller one? Can't we recognize that both of them must coexist in order for each individual to be? So I wonder, is it really the prioritization of identities or the reconciliation of them? Is it really about making my identity as a woman stand out more than mine as an Indian? Can they not coexist?

From where I see it, recognizing where those two identities meet, and where in fact, all my identities meet, is possibly the only way towards conflict resolution. Too many, too many times people have fought and battled over issues of identity. Sikhs, warriors, Muslims, crusaders - this one identity that is absolutely essential towards being is one of the reasons we struggle, we fight, and we believe we are just in skirmishes.

And this is why I write this blog. As a way to unravel my understanding of my own identities and those of this world and everyone in it that ultimately, hopefully, can help me conceptualize a solidified method of peace construction and conflict resolution. To me, this is something crucial to the world in which we live. We've grown smaller and closer together making it easier to notice differences. How do we, as individuals, as communities, as a world function and cooperate in the face of these differences?

Sometimes, it can all start with a small blog that no one ever reads.

Watch out world

I watched a news video today and read information about the much neglected issues in Gilgit-Baltistan, the biggest portion of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

A small percentage of the world is aware of the Kashmir conflict. An even smaller percentage is aware of Pakistan's mismanagement of economic and political issues within Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. More importantly, no one knows the strategic importance of this region to the rest of the world.

Of course, as a political science student, I only speculate. I use theories and ideas to better understand the role of these states in all the reports I hear about in the news. Unfortunately, the analysis and speculation often only leaves me with negative views of states and their motivations. In the case of Gilgit-Baltistan, I'm forced to view the situation from a wary perspective, filled with dread about the self-serving motivations of the leaders of Pakistan and China.

Senge Sering, an advocate for Gilgit-Baltistan's freedom from Pakistan, shed some light on the Pakistani government's inability to fund the area with adequate resources. Situated in the northern-most part of the country, Gilgit-Baltistan was once Indian territory annexed by Pakistan in a war fought in the 1950s (if I'm not mistaken). The area borders the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir, Afghanistan and China. At this absolutely strategic location, Gilgit-Baltistan is crucial to China's economic progress and Pakistan's friendship with China which is why, news reports show that the Chinese have deployed 11000 soldiers to the region.

Now let's not be mistaken. This isn't a repetition of Aksai Chin. This time, China isn't sneakily seizing land belonging to another country like it did in the 1960s. This time, China isn't building a highway in legitimate Indian territory and publishing maps showing it to be part of their own nation. This time, the Pakistanis have invited China to do as they please.

The deployment of 11000 soldiers is yet another strategic move to guarantee China's economic muscle. They have been sent to undertake a building of a route to connect the oil-rich Gulf directly to mainland China promising steady oil supplies to the latter. The advantage to China is of course tangible in terms of economic benefit but it is also a political move to disenfranchise India from becoming too powerful. And this is directly correlated with Pakistan's own benefits from this alliance with China.
One can only speculate and the political scientist within me believes that this is inevitable in a world in which every single entity is struggling for a bigger piece of the economic pie. In a world in which economic power is absolutely crucial to gain any form of political dominance, the Sino-Pak friendship has numerous connotations not only within the sub-continent but also to the balance of power in the world at large. The US fears China's growing power and stake within its own economy. It also admonishes Pakistan, while funding it, for not fighting terrorism as wholly as the US would like it to. In the face of these dynamics, forming stronger bilateral relations with India seems to be in the best interests of the US. For how else can the US make sure of its footing in this highly volatile part of the world?

The Kashmir region has always been crucial in world politics. Ladakh and Gilgit-Baltistan were important parts of the famed Silk Route. Today, the dynamics have changed and while a romantic Silk Route can't be imagined, a greater, mightier trade alliance definitely can, leading to of course, greater power politics. I personally do not know whom to admonish and whether criticizing any state is even an opinion of consequence for the power struggle seems to be the only legitimate way to survive.

There is a load of cynicism in this post but somewhere an optimist lies within me suggesting that no matter the number of wars or the growth of power-hungry officials, there is this lurking human virtue that attempts to avert catastrophe or even hope for a brighter future.

What happens in Kashmir stays in Kashmir

Only a day's drive from Srinagar yet we could not go. Political turmoil, riots, stone-pelting women and murdered young college students - this was what summer brought to the Kashmir Valley. But why should heartland India care when Ladakhis, a few 100 kms away, shake their head and return to work? So newspapers, TV channels and Tweets showed snippets of the violence while the Indians faked concern in the most apathetic way possible, detached from the problem.

We can blame a multitude of factors for this detachment - the Kashmir Valley is geographically isolated from the rest of India, the economic busy-ness of day-to-day life in urban India is growing, communal issues such as these are part of a past history that the youth now don't identify with...the list can go on. But these are excuses for the laziness and ignorance in engaging in an activity that is much needed for the preservation of our democratic nation, our secular identities and our opinions of ourselves as a growing power - the act of participation.

The diversity of India continues to humble me. The fact that we can't grab onto one distinct factor to establish a sense of national identity fascinates me, partly because it is the perfect representation of the postmodern world that we live in and partly, because I continue to feel a sense of national identity without knowing what to attribute it to. Yet, the collective consciousness of the nation believes that the Kashmir conflict is one of religion, that the Kashmiris are fighting for independence because they recognize themselves to be part of the Kashmiriyat culture, the Muslim community, a group of people who require freedom. How can we pay allegiance to the rhetoric of such identity politics when every other part of India denies it solely through existing as a part of the Union?

If each part of India was to claim its own culture and heritage to be reasons for independence, India as a nation would break down. At the end of the day, what India means is what we have imposed on it - me as a liberal teen growing up in Bombay and all over the world, a young man growing up in a village on the border of Bihar and Maharashtra who does not know his home is on 'Indian soil', the Kashmiri jihadist trained in Azad Kashmir. The constant back and forth between all these entities and their environments helps in creating INDIA. But there is one more variable to this equation: the state.

So what if I make this somewhat radical claim that in fact what has caused or rather created the current environment within Kashmir is not necessarily Kashmiris or their beliefs but instead, the political movements that have instigated the projection of certain identities? What if I claim that the Kashmir issue is not a religious, cultural or ethnic one, that in fact, it is the state that has made it into all of these? This may seem alarming, given that common sense does not allow for the belief that the state could voluntarily spark these issues. But the current situation tells a different story.

For Kashmiris to strongly believe that Islam is crucial to their independence and identity is to reiterate to them the history of Partition. It isn't to say that conflicts between Hindus and Muslims didn't exist prior to Partition; instead, I claim that the exacerbation of what may have been the lack of cooperation, which we must admit is common between people regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds, and thematically confining it to better understand it, is what has led to this Kashmir crisis as well as the global one. It is exactly this confining and the dependence on a certain identity that empower political entities. For what rhetoric is easiest to use but that of an extremist opinion, one that can manage to shake the hearts and minds of the people being addressed? Religion, culture, gender - these terms that we can grab onto are prime candidates for this kind of rhetoric. It is what Jinnah used to create a Muslim nation, it is what Nehru used to create a secular one, it is what Geelani uses to empower Kashmiris to vouch for separation from India. It is what drives each one of us to create our own opinions, those that we can be bound to.

Ultimately, India needs Kashmir to preserve its secular identity while Pakistan needs it to secure its Muslim identity, thereby viewing Kashmir solely as a region with a majority Muslim population. How is it then avoidable for the Kashmiris themselves to wake up to the identity that is being imposed upon them by the political entities? A Muslim child views Islam as a practice, as a ritual, as something he must do. But if he grows up in an environment that forces it to become crucial to his identity, how is he to deny it? Shall he then be blamed for fighting to preserve his own identity?

But perhaps the most important tangled issue is then self-determination. How are Kashmir and its citizens to decide their future if the basis of their self-understanding is the result of a political game between the complex states of India and Pakistan?

A summer's story

A week or so ago, I was sitting in a reflection group when we were asked to discuss a question: "what was the most inspiring moment in your summer?"

My brain ran around in a frenzy for a minute. What was I supposed to talk about? How was I supposed to explain just one unilateral moment to describe all the inspiration of this summer? More importantly, in describing what inspired me, I was bound to impart something intrinsic to who it is I am becoming - was I ready to take responsibility for this malleable, vulnerable me? Was I ready to present it to everyone else?

That's what this summer was - a shattering of my world in a gentle, enjoyable, sometimes extremely challenging way because Ladakh would not have it any other way. It stands out from the rest of India (as, one could argue, does the rest of India) yet in a gentle, non-imposing, subtle way and to everyone who visits there must be some lesson to take back.

I hitchhiked with a friend (both of us girls), volunteered at an alternative school, listened to the Dalai Lama speak, helped unearth victims from a flood site, trekked to remote villages and engaged with people, regardless of whether we had a mode of communication. There was a freedom, a flexibility to living life that I had been craving and this fulfillment renewed me and my struggle for life.

An establishment in the wonder of nature, of love, of humanity can alter the way in which we perceive reality. It can make the purpose of life seem worth the struggle.