Those who argue that ‘Kashmir’ is really the Valley of Kashmir and that ‘Kashmiris’ are really the ethnic Kashmiris of the Valley are engaged in deliberate disinformation. They want you to think that they are making ethno-linguistic claims about the people we call “Kashmiris” but they are actually making political claims about the territory we call “Kashmir”. Historically, Kashmir has always been much larger than the Valley of Kashmir. The actual Mughal Province of Kashmir included many areas of the ancient ‘Kashmir’ region that transcended the natural borders of Kashmir Valley, a geological landmass. Rajouri in Indian Jammu, Kotli in ‘Azad’ Kashmir, ‘Chibhal’ (between the rivers Jhelum and Chenab), Uri, Karna, Muzaffarabad and many other areas, were all historically part of Kashmir Subah.

As Kashmir passed into the hands of the Mughals post-1500s, they reconfigured its borders and the borders of their “Hindustani” Provinces to maximise revenue collection and improve administration. The areas traditionally associated with Kashmir remained nominally independent under tribal feudatories. Centuries later, Kashmir passed into the hands of the Durrani Afghans, Sikhs, the British and the Dogras, who expanded the borders of their own tribal holdings to include areas traditionally associated with the Kashmir of antiquity; thus emerged the expansive Province of Jammu, a geo-administrative construct like the Province of Kashmir. In 1846, the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir emerged in the shape and form we take for granted today. It is this territorial polity that India and Pakistan call Kashmir, which both countries occupy in part militarily, whilst claiming all of it.

The landed and non-landed groups of Jammu and Kashmir had always belonged to diverse ethnic communities, and would not have been considered ethnic Kashmiris by the standards of modern priorities of conflating regions with ethnic peoples. Kashmir, for the greater part of its recorded history, had been region and territory, but not ethnicity or religion. Kashmir is thousands of years old, but the modern Kashmiri language only emerged 700 years ago from an Indo-Aryan dialect closely related to neighbouring dialects. The further back you go into history, sibling languages merge into the parent language. The official courtly language of Kashmiri Rulers had never been Kashmiri to appreciate this history.

Numerous geographical regions across the world are similarly ethnically and linguistically diverse. The modern Republic of India is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries on earth and this diversity intersperses its States and Districts. Just because Rulers have used particular ethnic labels to describe enormously diverse territories, states or provinces, does not mean that all the non-ethnically ascribed communities are ‘imposters, ‘alien’ or not ‘native’ to the identities being contested. More absurd is the claim that separate ethnic communities belong to different ancestral groups or breeding populations, a breathtakingly ignorant and illiterate position debunked by modern science, genetics and modern forms of communication. Neighbouring peoples are related genetically and belong to the same genetic clusters; the further you move from a particular geography, the more distantly related people become. Pakistanis and Afghans are closely related; Swedes and Japanese are more distantly related. For obvious reasons, Kashmiris cluster genetically with South Asian populations that include Pashtuns, Sindhis, Punjabis and others. Those who argue against these claims politically are peddling ethno-nationalistic agendas that have no historical basis or tangible evidence to back their reductionist claims; they are political propagandists and not experts in the “non-facts” they espouse.

There is a whole body of knowledge that dismantles such nationalistic claims across the world. In the case of the Kashmir Conflict this information is readily accessible through the official pronouncements of both India and Pakistan, the international community, political actors, activists and academics from the region. It is therefore patently absurd to reduce decades of conflict over territory to politically-motivated “ethnic arguments” in the attempt to reconfigure the conflict through a revised ‘ethnic’ agenda that connects “Kashmir” with “ethnic Kashmiris” whilst denying “non-ethnic Kashmiris” their stake in the same “territory”. Ironically, every bit of Kashmir State territory is claimed by both India and Pakistan; legally speaking, the nationals of Kashmir are said to be “state subjects” and they are the only lawful residents of the disputed state. Their voices are however drowned out from the Conflict.

In this respect, languages and cultures have evolved from other languages and cultures. Ancient peoples similarly lived in diverse ethnic regions and had common ancestors, and they did not lay claim to their ‘territories’ because of origin-myths. To say ‘X’, ‘Y’, and ‘Z’ [‘ethnic group’] has always lived in ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ [region] to the exclusion of all others for thousands of years is to engage in a sordid form of sophistry politically. Such claims have been rejected by cultural anthropologists, linguists, historians, population geographers, and most importantly genuine democrats. This holds even more true for the erroneous claim that the only ‘true’ and ‘authentic’ Kashmiris are those in, or from, the Valley of Kashmir.

In light of the Kashmir Conflict and the competing claims of India and Pakistan, this claim is not ethno-linguistic but entirely political.

It constitutes a form of political propaganda and disinformation which can be easily debunked by studying the history of ethnic identities and the history of territorial conflicts.

To re-state the obvious

For the purposes of the Kashmir Conflict and the 3 stakeholders in this conflict, the 1) Government of India, 2) the Government of Pakistan and 3) the “Kashmiris” – (state subjects of Kashmir “State”), “Kashmir” has always meant ‘territory of the erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir State‘, otherwise known as the Dogra Raj or the Jammu Kingdom. These two alternative labels should make this point even more salient as we are speaking about territorial realities using the nomenclature of the colonial British. It was colonial officers who started the practise of calling the territories and subjects of the Dogra ‘Rajput’ Rulers collectively “Kashmir” and “Kashmiris”. This does not in way undermine my previous claim that lots of areas outside the Valley of Kashmir were part of the historical ‘Kashmir’ region we take for granted today, and no one thought to argue otherwise. The colonial convention of calling the vast territories of the Dogra Rulers ‘Kashmir‘ that included Ladakh and Gilgit, incidentally areas that had not formed part of the old Mughal Subah of Kashmir, is today an uncontroversial international convention.

This convention has been accepted by not only the governments of India and Pakistan, the United Nations, but the actual peoples of Kashmir State, who understand the territorial connotations of the label when the Kashmir Conflict is mentioned. The only people who have a problem with this convention, it seems from their online footfall, are the political representatives of some Hindu Pandit groups and their Hindu ‘nationalist’ supporters in India who want to own the “Kashmir” label for themselves, as a sacred Hindu space, even when they’ve never had any agency in how the ‘Kashmir’ label was deployed. The overwhelming majority of Hindu Pandits recognise that Kashmir is contested territory and they are state subjects of this territory – a separate space from India and Pakistan because of conflict. They want peace for their collective State for the betterment of all of divided Kashmir’s indigenous peoples. This population is reconciled with India.

It is, however, interest groups and political lobbies that are actively spreading myths about the true and false “Kashmiris”, ironically supporting India’s position on Jammu & Kashmir State being an integral and indivisible part of India, a multiethnic State. According to this definition, the people of Pakistan-administered-Kashmir are an occupied people whose lands are unjustly and illegally occupied by Pakistan.

Suffice to say, the political representatives of Hindu Pandit organisations are not the ‘exclusive’ representatives of the entire peoples living in the Valley, or the wider State. They are not the ‘custodians’ or ‘inheritors’ of everything deemed ‘Kashmiri‘. They have always been a minority in the Valley of Kashmir whatever ‘their‘ ahistorical claims that the Valley Kashmiri population was forcibly converted to Islam. Some Hindu Pandit organisations make this claim whilst maintaining contradictorily that the ‘peaceful’ ‘Islam’ of the Valley was syncretic with ‘their‘ ‘peaceful’ form of ‘Brahmanism’, to somehow present ethnic ‘Kashmiris’ as more peaceful then neighbouring ‘Jammuwal’ peoples. And yet the Sufism, Buddhism and Hinduism of the western Himalaya came from areas outside the Valley, and characterised a vast region that didnt look to the Valley of Kashmir as its centre of gravity. In most instances, the Valley of Kashmir was peripheral to these historical events, and a direct recipient of evolving cultural norms.

Thus the ‘interest groups’ and ‘lobbies’ who argue vociferously that Kashmir means the Valley of Kashmir, and that this particular region of some 2500 square miles (at its largest breadth) belongs to a disproportionately small population of indigenous Hindu Pandits (two hundred – four hundred thousand people) are peddling disinformation when they maintain this position to the exclusion of all the other inhabitants (more than 16 million people) of an incredibly diverse ethnic and cultural region of some 85000 square miles. They are using origin-myths that have been flatly rejected by historians, political scientists and cultural anthropologists in particular, and experts in general, who have studied ethno-nationalistic claims and have concluded such claims to be propagandistic in nature.

The ‘Kashmir’ label internationally has always meant the divided State of Jammu and Kashmir since the very beginning of the hostilities between India and Pakistan. The Kashmir Conflict is a territorial conflict between two countries excluding the natives of the region. A simple perusal of maps, encyclopaedia posts, newspaper articles throughout this timeline and even before, would expose the farce of those who want to somehow re-write history to further their own skewed political narratives.

Examples of how the word ‘Kashmir’ is used internationally

1) “Definition of ‘Kashmir’: A region on the northern border of India and north-eastern Pakistan. Formerly a state of India, it has been disputed between India and Pakistan since partition in 1947, with sporadic outbreaks of fighting. The north-western part is controlled by Pakistan, most of it forming the state of Azad Kashmir, while the remainder is incorporated into the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.” OXFORD DICTIONARY.

2) Definition of Kashmiris; World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples; Profile of Kashmiris; ‘Kashmiris’ are the people living in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, in the extreme north-west of India. Two-thirds of this territory is currently administered as the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and has an estimated population of 9 million. The remainder of the region is controlled and administered by Pakistan.

The constitutional position of Kashmir is made complex by the fact that both India and Pakistan challenge the legality of the other’s title to territory, with an effective partition of Kashmir along the cease-fire line as agreed in 1949, with some modification as a consequence of the India-Pakistan war of 1971. That part of the territory which lies within India also includes the region of Ladakh. The land and people of Jammu and Kashmir, a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural region, are known today for the viciousness of the conflict that raged there from the 1980s.

While the case for a political settlement needs to be pursued, there is also a pressing need for India to recognize and deal with the genuine grievances of the Kashmiri people, living in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. This territory has some of the most diverse peoples from India, with a mix of religions, languages and cultures. The Muslim majority population lives in the Kashmir valley, while the plains of Jammu are dominated by Hindus, who make up the largest minority in the state of Jammu and Kashmir while being in a majority in Jammu. The third largest group are Buddhist Ladhakis, who live in the region of Ladakh.”

3) Random Books on Kashmir;

(i) Kashmir: The Case for Freedom, 21 Sep 2011 by Arundhati Roy; (ii) Kashmir; The History and Legacy of the Indian Subcontinent’s Most Disputed Territory, 23 Dec 2017 by Charles River; (iii) Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War, 27 Apr 2010 by Victoria Schofield; (iv) Kashmir: Exposing the Myth behind the Narrative, 7 Jul 2017 by Khalid Bashir Ahmad; (v) Kashmir’s Contested Pasts: Narratives, Sacred Geographies, and the Historical Imagination, 1 Mar 2018; (vi) Languages Of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, And The Making Of Kashmir by Chitralekha Zutshi

The books cited above demonstrate how the term Kashmir is deployed in academic circles.

Thus, those who argue that (1), ‘the term Kashmir only applies to Kashmir Valley‘ and (2), ‘Kashmiris are only ethnic Kashmiris‘ are engaged in deliberate disinformation and propaganda. We can say this conclusively because both India and Pakistan claim the entire State of Jammu & Kashmir in their publications, speeches and official pronouncements; they use the territorial shorthand ‘Kashmir’ to mean the entirety of the territory. This is a historical norm that goes back to the days of British colonialism. To then separate true ‘Kashmiris’ from false ones is perverse not least because the actual “Kashmiris” separated between Indian and Pakistani ‘checkpoints’ are not the ‘Kashmiris’ of the Vale, but Pahari-‘Kashmiris’ from a particular cultural sphere in both Jammu and Kashmir Provinces.

The conflict in Kashmir, explained

Why Kashmir remains one of the most militarized regions in the world. Become a Video Lab member! http://bit.ly/video-lab The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the longest running conflicts. Ever since Britain left India in 1947 and hastily drew borders demarcating a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan, Kashmir, located right between the two, has been fervently claimed by both nations.

This post was written in response to requests from members of the British-Pahari community with roots in ‘Azad’ Jammu & Kashmir and Indian-administered-Kashmir about the words ‘Kashmir‘ and ‘Kashmiris‘ within the context of conflict. These budding university students have asked me to clarify what is meant by the word ‘Kashmir’ because of the constant barrage of online comments that seek to deny them their roots to the territoriality of ‘Kashmir’. They are confused about their “origins” to a piece of territory disputed between India and Pakistan whilst belonging to a particular cultural sphere that they would like to celebrate in the UK. This is understandable not least because their parents were similarly born in the UK, who mostly self-affirm as Pakistanis, and have become alienated from the history and politics of ‘Jammu & Kashmir‘, a region that India claims in its entirety. British-Pakistanis have similarly contributed their own voices to the disinformation on Jammu & Kashmir.

In challenging the deliberate disinformation on Kashmir, some of which appears to be organised and coming from the direction of paid propogandists, I am not offering solutions to the Conflict. Only the people of Jammu & Kashmir can decide its future. I am merely stating the facts for what they are, exposing social media propaganda for its dishonesty, whilst interest groups deny the actual stakeholders of Kashmir State their stake by conflating a conflict over territory with deliberately misleading ethnic arguments.  

Illustrated Maps

*The borders of the Princely State in the north of the country had not been consolidated or agreed between the British Indian Empire and China, which accounts for ambiguous nature of the actual territorial size of ‘Kashmir’ and the Indian Government’s ongoing dispute with China.
*
The Historical Kashmir Region was much larger than the Kashmir Province, it had expanded and contracted throughout its timeline and at one point included the Pothohar Uplands and the Hazara Hills in Khyber Pakhtunkwa. It included, for the greater part of its history, the AJK region, and many areas of Indian Jammu.

For a more detailed understanding of origin myths and territorial claims concerning Kashmir please click on the following link:

Whose “Kashmir” is it? Conflict & Territorial Claims; the abuse of “myths”

Why do some people say “Israelis” are converted “Jews” separate from biblical “Jews”! Myths of origin and competing territorial claims; contested identities

 

SHARE
Previous articleWhat’s in a name? A brief look into place-names of the Pahar
Next articleReconciliation for divided Jammu & Kashmir; working towards peace

Blogger at Portmir Foundation; liberal by values, opposed to tribalism in all its guises; love languages and cultures – want to study as many as I can; proficient in some; opposed to social and political injustice wherever it rears its ugly head even from within my own British-Pahari community (a little unsure about the juxtaposition. The term ‘Pahari’ can mean different things to different people – stay posted. Grandparents from the Himalayan mountains of Jammu, presently split between India and Pakistan – get the impression no one cares about the people stuck between the LOC – currently researching the ‘Pahari-cultural-heritage’ outside political and territorial paradigms and the narratives of the political ‘mainstream’. Ultimately, hoping to create a space for members of the British-Pahari community to discover their own wonderful heritage. I believe – ‘life’ is a work in progress so nothing is fixed even our thoughts! If you’re from the region, feel free to contact me – always prepared to widen my intellectual horizons and stand corrected – don’t insult me though. Be grown up and tell me why you think I’m wrong. If you make sense, I’ll change my views.

My opinions are not necessarily those of the Portmir Foundation; the Foundation does not do censorship; if you disagree with any us, and you’re from our background, write your own opinion piece and we’ll publish it. You can contact us at info@portmir.org.uk.