Are identity politics to blame for the outbreak of violence in Kashmir? This paper from the Crisis States Research Centre, based on research carried out in Srinagar, argues that this is not the case. It concludes that the outbreak of militancy has been caused by the failure of political institutions and organisations, and the violation of the social contract.
Since 1988, Kashmir has been wracked by brutal violence. Confrontation between militants and security forces has led to thousands of deaths, the imposition of draconian laws, and civil liberties violations. Although identity politics is generally blamed for the militancy, people in Srinagar blame a failure of belief in state and central government.
The social contract establishes procedures and institutions for regulating relationships between individuals and entities. Sometimes the social contract is violated, the expectations it generates are frustrated, and governments and political parties fail to neutralise discontent. If this happens, people can feel they are justified in resorting to violence.
In Kashmir, central government, state government, and political parties have failed to respect the social contract. Anger has been fuelled by two aspects of state politics. Firstly, the terms of Kashmir’s incorporation into the Indian Union have been violated by central government, often acting with the state government. Secondly, political groups other than those belonging to Kashmir’s dominant political party (the National Conference) have been unable to enter the democratic process. This has led dissatisfied political groups towards militancy.
Inhabitants of Srinagar were asked who was responsible for the violence: political parties, state government, central government, security forces, external powers, or separatist organisations. Respondents could cite more than one of these as responsible.
- Sixty-five per cent thought the state government was responsible, 54 per cent central government, and 55 per cent political parties. 28 per cent held separatist groups responsible; those living in areas of high conflict blamed them significantly more than those in areas of low conflict.
- Few respondents thought the conflict was caused by governments’ and parties’ failure to address identity issues.
- State government: Fourty-four per cent of respondents said it is corrupt, 41 per cent said it doesn’t address basic needs, and 7 per cent said it doesn’t address identity issues.
- Central government: Sixteen per cent of respondents said it is corrupt, 35 per cent said it doesn’t address basic needs, and 27 per cent said it doesn’t address identity issues.
- Political parties: Fifty-nine per cent of respondents said they are corrupt, 30 per cent said they don’t address basic needs, and 7 per cent said they don’t address identity issues.
- Nearly half of respondents felt all the groups involved have exploited the conflict for political and economic gains.
These findings have important implications for understanding political conflict.
- Causes of ethnic violence should be sought in violations of the social contract and in governments’ and parties’ failure to act democratically.
- Federalism, democracy and minority rights are the best tools to deprive potential separatists of incentives to demand their own state.
- This only works if the social contract’s principles are respected, and if the expectations this generates are not frustrated. Respect for the social contract’s basic rules is more important than formulas to resolve conflict and violence.
- If the social contract is not maintained, movements demanding statehood will inevitably develop. Many people will feel it is more profitable to employ ‘terrorism’ to gain self-determination, than try to access political spaces closed to them.
