The Kashmir Opportunity

Kashmir is back on top of the news cycle, thanks to the Indian government's decision to revoke  articles 370 and 35 of Indian constitution.  And predictably, the world media has responded with rounds of criticism, focusing on Indian government's right to take such a decision in what is considered a disputed area, and especially their right to do it by Presidential decree and not a public mandate.  The criticism is further focused on the fear that the BJP government, which has Hindu ideological foundation, may have taken this decision in a Muslim dominated area to ethnically cleanse the area of muslims.  While it is understandable that the decision isn't popular amongst all critics, it reflects a sense of paranoia and betrays a lack of understanding of the role of government in the lives of Indians.

Let's take the first issue:  Indian government's right and the method of bringing about change.  The central dogma here is that given the autonomy of Kashmir enshrined in the constitution, this kind of change could only be brought about through ballot.  While the legality of this process will be determined over time, it is clear that this decision was long overdue, and to stand on the dogma is to continue to ignore the issue.  The cancer was there for everybody to see, so it was important to excise it by any means.

Over the last seventy years, private and government investment in states all over India has lead to a general transformation of the country.  Kashmir has not been a beneficiary of this transformation, and one can partly blame this on the said articles which prevented private Indians and Indian companies from owning property in Kashmir.  Lacking such investment, Kashmir is stuck in the bygone era with no industry other than agriculture and tourism.  Unemployment level, especially among youth, is higher than in other state in India and over 10% of the population lives below poverty line.

The political leadership of Kashmir had the opportunity to do something about this, but Kashmiri politicians, lacking vision and weighed down by historical baggage, failed to bring about any change that would attract investment in the state and alleviate the misery of the people.

Unemployment and backward looking politics of the state gave rise to significant discontentment among the youth who became easy targets to the divisive propaganda from parties who wish to control Kashmir, resulting in a low level insurgency that has continued for over 30 years with no end in sight.  India, having fought four wars on the Kashmir border, has been forced to maintain a large contingent of army to defend its borders resulting in Kashmir becoming a significant drain on Indian exchequer.

That the two articles were an obstacle to peace has been clear to all political parties in India, however, the past Indian governments led by Congress or NDA, were so reliant on the muslim vote for staying in power that they could not take decisive action on this issue for the fear of losing muslim vote.  BJP government has such a large following among the non-muslim voters that it isn't beholden to muslim vote and could take the bold step of revoking the two articles of the constitution that were the major obstacle to investment.

Would a change by ballot have been better? Surely, but the failure of local politicians to take care of local needs has forced the hand of central government and in this one cannot fault them.  To hang on to the dogma that everything in a democracy should be done by ballot would have meant condemning Kashmir to yet another 70 years of misery.

The second criticism arises out of fear, rational or irrational, that the government of PM Modi is inherently anti-muslims and the decision was taken to ethnically cleanse Kashmir of muslims. While there is no proof that this is indeed the intent of the government, what matters is that Kashmir was the one Indian state which practiced laws discriminating against other Indians. If the constitution provides for equal rights to all citizens, one cannot have special rights to specific states. With the change in Kashmir, now every citizen of India has the same rights in Kashmir as in every other Indian states, and as have been enjoyed by Kashmiris in the rest of India.

Will the demographic of Kashmir change?  Most likely it will.  Paranoid people would likely say that the change will be a sudden influx of Hindus, but I don't believe so. People flock where there is economic opportunity, witness Bengaluru or Chennai's population growth in recent years, and unless Srinagar suddenly becomes a hot bed of technology or some other industry, one is unlikely to see Indians flocking there.  Could there be forced settlement of Hindus in Kashmir?  Could be, but such a movement will generate tremendous ill will and will result in instability and apprehension among the new settlers.  Not a recipe for long term success.  Lacking evidence, it is premature to assume that the current government has a policy of ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, but both Indian and Western media can and should maintain vigilance against such policies so that if such a thing does happen, it is immediately brought to world attention.

Kashmir will indeed change, albeit gradually, as trust is established and entrepreneurs see value in making investments in Kashmir to take advantage of the business opportunities. In some ways this change is needed for Kashmir to flourish, so that new ideas can be brought into the region, fresh ways of looking at things can be introduced.  Kashmiris should take advantage of this and make their state an attractive place for investment.  I hope that smarter heads in Kashmir will prevail and vales of Srinagar and Jammu will become the next Silicon Valley of India. 

While western media has focused on the political side of the issue, the one aspect that has been largely is the economic benefit of this change to Kashmiris.  So long as the Kashmiris could not sell the land to non-Kashmiri Indians, property values remained depressed.  If a family wanted to liquidate the property and have cash available to them, the price their property fetched in Kashmir was a fraction of the price to be fetched in other parts of India.  Now that Kashmiri property is open to non-Kashmiri Indians, property values are likely to soar and Kashmiris interested in securing funds, would be able to do this with ease. All in all, the change can be a significant positive for Kashmiris as it can be for the rest of India.

It has been a few days since the decision to revoke article 370 and 35 were announced.  While there are critics of the decision, the need to address the long standing issues of Kashmir was long overdue.  While one may quibble about the methods and decisions, the current decision has opened the possibility to generate a forward movement.  Whether this ends up being a positive for the entire Indian people or not remains to be seen, but Kashmir and its people have a new opportunity.  It is now up to them to leverage the opportunity and start reaping benefits of it.