Ethnic Conflicts

Nedanstående innehåll är skapat av Mimers Brunns besökare. Kommentera arbete

The introduction
I have chosen to work with the Kashmir conflict. It is not a conflict which is named as an ethnic conflict but when you look closer to it you can see many reasons why it should be called it. I chose to look closer to it mostly because earlier this semester we studied the cold war with Carin in International relations and that was when I started to look in to the conflict, but not with an ethnic perspective. Therefore I felt like I wanted to get to the bottom with the issue and look deeper on the “real” problem. Not that I am going to have enough material or knowledge to solve the conflict and make total peace in the area. It is impossible for me to create world peace with an essay but my vision is to open as many eyes as possible. Before I started this essay I realized the importance of the issue. This opened my eyes for future vocational trainings.

India vs. Pakistan
To understand the dispute about the area Kashmir you have to understand the history behind it. Actually the conflict is not about Kashmir, it is about India and Pakistan. In the following part you will understand why.
India and Pakistan are both formal countries under Great Britain’s colonial power. In 1858 Pakistan became a crown colony to the British India and kept on being one until 1947 when the British people decided to leave the countries. They left the area divided into many different, so called, sovereign states, small local states, which all had their own leader, maharaja . During this time two majority religions ruled in the area, Hinduism and Islam. When the British left, the big area divided itself into two countries, a Muslim and a Hindu part, Pakistan and India. After that Pakistan where divided into West- and East Pakistan but East Pakistan became Bangladesh after a bloody civil war, and that is their present name. But that is another story.
When the area where divided it still contained different states so it was decided that the leader in every state got to choose whether he wanted to be a part of Hindu-India or Muslim-Pakistan, and he had to consider the geographic point of view, so he did not decide to belong to Pakistan when the state where located in the east part of India. The problem was that the majority in India were (and still is) Hindus and Pakistan were (and still is) Muslims, so if you were a Muslim in a Hindu-ruled state you did not feel satisfied. But of course there were minorities with either Muslims or Hindus and here is where our first conflict raises. It could be so that even though the majority in the state belonged to one religion the maharaja could belong to another. So if you were Hindu with a Hindu maharaja you obviously had an advantage.
But the area Kashmir was an exception. For some reason the maharaja in Kashmir could not decide if he wanted to be a part of India or Pakistan so he wanted to wait with the decision. I have not found any explanation to why the maharaja wanted to wait but he was a Hindu while 80 % of the people were Muslims. I think he was afraid to make the “wrong” decision. By signing an agreement with India and Pakistan he kept his and his areas neutrality.
So far both India and Pakistan agrees but after this the version of the truth are very much unlike each other.



In this part you will notice that I do not give any references and that is because the information is uncertain. I found the information on http://www.mimersbrunn.se/arbeten/318.asp but the person refers to sources which I am not able to see whether they are true or not. Though I choose to use this source because I have got support from some of the main arguments at http://www.ne.se (search: Kashmir) and I know that it is a reliable source.

India’s version
India claims that Pakistan did not have the energy to wait for maharaja’s decision about which country he wanted to belong to. So therefore the Pakistanis invaded Kashmir with their troops. There is no answer what they wanted to achieve with the invasion, you have to be satisfied with speculations. But one of the reasons could be that they wanted to force the maharaja to sign a contract so Kashmir became a part of Pakistan. Another reason could be tha they wanted to frighten the maharaja so that he did not dare to do anything else but sign a contract with Pakistan. But violence has rarely solved and will not solve any problems. If the achievement was to frighten the maharaja they succeed but not to their benefit. The maharaja got scared and fled to India where the former prime minister helped him. After that the maharaja signed a contract with India and where now officially a part of India. Pakistan refused to accept this decision and kept their troops in Kashmir. India appealed to the UN for help to remove the troops from Kashmir and the UN also wanted to have a referendum in Kashmir to see which side the people supported. According to India they accepted the proposition but Pakistan refused, probably out of fear that the people would vote against them.
Of course Pakistan has another version of what happened and their version makes India to scapegoat.

Pakistan’s version
Pakistan claims that the people have wanted to be a part of them all the time but when the maharaja doubted Indian troops attempted to Kashmir to pressure him. The Pakistan troops came to Kashmir to keep an eye on the Indians. Pakistan also claims that India frightened the maharaja and tricked him to sign the contract. This deal would only last until a referendum had been held in Kashmir but India has never since given any insinuation that it should be held. According to Pakistan they have not done that out of fear that the people would vote against them and that Kashmir would be a part of Pakistan.

Kashmir
Still, I have not understood the importance by having the Kashmir as a part of ones property.
Kashmir is located in the northernmost part of India and borders to Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. It is surrounded by high mountains and says be a paradise
“The place is more beautiful than the heaven and is the benefactor of supreme bliss and happiness. It seems to me that I am taking a bath in the lake of nectar here.” (http://koausa.org/Crown/history.html)
There is no doubt that Kashmir is a beautiful place but could it be that two countries are battling of one area because it is beautiful? No, I do not think so. It has too be something else behind. But what?

Seen out of an international relation perspective I would like to call this conflict a goal-conflict or a type 4 conflict because it concerns the division of powers within a territorial area. Two countries are fighting over one territory, they both want to rule the area.
The conflict is geopolitical when it is about borders and division of an area and it is also a political conflict when it in the end comes down to power.

India is a Hindu country, or the majority is Hindus. Hinduism is polytheism, i.e. they believe in more than one god. Pakistan on the other hand is monotheism, they believe in one god and one god only. Try to get along and have such separated values is almost impossible. If you also have trouble accepting other people who are different from yourself it is getting even more impossible. For us Swedes this may be hard to understand but we have to remember that our country has a law that allow us to practice whatever religion we want, and we have been able to do that in many years. We also have to remember that Sweden is not a country whom is led by a government based on religion.
Ethnicity in this conflict is built on religion where the common history keeps the group together and also the common belief. In the end it is all about power. This is two countries which are ruled by its religion, nobody wants to loose and both consider themselves as winners.
If you compare these religion many people consider the Muslims as a quite violent people, you often get to read articles in the papers about Muslims being instigators of rebellion. The Hindus are much regarded as a friendly people. So the risk is that many believe that India and the Hindus are the one who should win this battle because “Hindus are friendly” and the Muslims keep getting the stamp that they are the one who wants to battle, who wants to have bloody fights. Well, the truth is that this conflict is very infected and serious because both of the countries have nuclear weapons which make the situation extra serious .

Conclusions and solutions
Based on the information I have found and the picture it has given me I consider Great Britain as the biggest villain of the piece. If anyone is to blame it is them. Not because they had Pakistan and India as their colonies but they left the countries to their fates. I mean, now you got two brand new independent countries, which has been in a sort of captivity for almost 90 years, divided into several sovereign states and expect them to get along when they besides that has to completely different view of the world and religious thoughts. I think that Great Britain should have took their responsibility and helped the countries with the separation from the states, in that way there would have been a fair division and it would have been easier for both parts to accept it. It is easy to say afterwards what should have been done and not but Great Britain also said when India appealed for help to solve the dispute that they wanted to be kept neutral and they thought that the countries should settle in an amicable spirit. Something that clearly did not work out. Now it is too late for the British to step in and solve anything but it is important that a third part steps up and helps to solve this conflict.
I am astonished by the way no one has ever tried to get a concrete reason why Pakistan wants Kashmir so bad and the same with India, no one has ever asked them why the want Kashmir for whatever it takes. And I have looked up a lot of different information, from articles at Kashmir-online to documents on the UN:s webpage. I agree with the argument that you cannot solve a conflict only by finding out the reason why they have such concern to the area but you will be taking a big step forward in the progress of solving it.
I think both of the countries are acting in some kind of desperation, nobody wants to be the weakest part, both of them wants to show to each other that they have the power. This is were religion has an enormous influence because one side (Pakistan) is ruled by a monotheistic thinking and the other side (India) is ruled by a polytheistic thinking. During the colonial time the Muslims lived in a predominantly minority and after the separation from India they might have felt that they could receive power but when somebody else came along and claimed that “their” people belonged to India (80 % of the people in Kashmir is Muslims) they got angry and decided to not take anything from anyone.
One alternative could be to declare Kashmir as an independent state without any interference from either Pakistan or India. Though the problem is that independence could have devastating consequences in sort of civil war, who should lead the country Kashmir? At the same time I do not think that India and Pakistan will accept Kashmir as an independent state considering the current circumstances.
The referendum I spoke about earlier has never been taking place. The UN should demand a referendum so the majority can decide whether they want to belong to India or Pakistan. The problem is that Pakistan has occupied parts of Kashmir and the fears of the Pakistani troops are huge. So if you are voting against Pakistani benefit you might vote with your life.
It is clearly that cooperation between the countries is not an option so a negotiation between them will not happen but a mediation of a third part (state) according to the rules in 1907 years Haag-convention . A third part, which should be neutral, steps in and gives propositions of solutions of the conflict. The problem is that the affected countries have to agree to the propositions and if they speaks for someone else benefit than its own there is a tiny chance that you will agree with it.
I also think that it is time for the international court in Haag to react, which is the only sensible solution I can find. The international court in Haag is one of the UNs main authorities with 15 international judges. The judges represent different states, one judge is one state, which makes it possible for all of the members in the UN to sit in the court. The general assembly and ...