The disputed valley
It is difficult to envisage what it would feel like to live in Kasur, Sialkot or Muzaffarabad if Ferozepur, Jammu or Uri were just like other towns a short ride away. And in the prevailing narrative that people on each side of the border are adversaries per se the option that they see themselves as potential neighbours is not available.
Once on a long drive back from Azad Kashmir to Lahore I talked to a tablighi who hailed from east of Chishtian in Punjab. Born just after Partition, he said his greatest wish was to once actually meet the people in the town on the other side of the border, a place he could see his whole life but never visit. He imagined the inhabitants of the town on the other side just like the neighbours in his hometown — long lost twins, separated at birth.
Going further north this separation becomes a lot messier than in Punjab. One could see the lights of villages in India-held Kashmir from AJK at night, especially when load shedding took place on the Pakistani side and a whole mountain would become dark, while across the border the electricity supply remained intact. It was also intriguing to look over Haji Pir pass to the Indian side — the landscape obviously cared little that a heavily guarded border ran straight through it and farmers on both sides would tend their pastures till just before the ominous Line of Control.
While for the region of Kashmir — in whatever way you define it spatially — the conflict on the ground has subsided to infrequent skirmishes, in the minds of many people it persists. Depending on who you ask, the answer to what constitutes Kashmir, what its people actually want, how the present state came into being and what the future of the region will look like differs greatly. Few attempt to tackle the question of why it is so complicated today and what the odds are for a reasonable solution without becoming politically charged and being overtly pro-India or pro-Pakistan.
Christopher Snedden’s new title, Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, describes the region and its history going back to Mughal times
Christopher Snedden’s book on the recent history and politics of Azad Kashmir, The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir, is a scholarly work based on numerous archival sources otherwise not easily accessible. It draws a picture of how Azad Kashmir came into being and how it works in the current state apparatus of Pakistan, officially not even being part of it. He has now gone one step further and describes the region encompassing Kashmir in the widest possible sense, and its history dating back to Mughal times in his new title, Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris.
The book includes a detailed discussion of what the term Kashmir often encompasses and the geopolitical context of the area, followed by a chapter on the princely state from the mid-19th century until Partition, the dispute over the region just after Partition, and finally a depiction of modern Kashmir and how the dispute may be resolved today. As in his previous book Snedden uses a multitude of interesting sources and provides a very dense introduction into this complex topic, especially for readers who haven’t followed events in the region closely.
His description of how the British Empire used the local princes for their own interests and how internal struggles led to an already fragmented Kashmir before Partition is intriguing, as is his description of the immediate time after Partition, and how India and Pakistan played their blame game on the backs of the local population. “Soon after the Pukhtoons invasion of J&K [a topic Snedden describes in detail in his first book], New Dehli began to successfully employ a clever tactic to discredit local people opposing India in J&K. Indians began to use the term ‘raiders’ to incorrectly insinuate that all people fighting Indian forces in J&K were looters and plunderers from outside the state. This enabled New Dehli to seriously embarrass Pakistan, which, unable to defend itself from India’s accusations […] acquiesced surprisingly quickly in India’s ploy. This was possibly because India’s tactic also enabled both nations to sideline the people of J&K from all discussion about ‘their’ state’s status […].”