Indian Prime Minister Modi decided on a bold and risky move. With his decree, he abolished the autonomy of Kashmir and made it simply one of the states of India. More precisely, two states. Until now, Kashmir, divided between India, Pakistan and China, had considerable autonomy - he chose his leadership, Indian citizens could not move to Kashmir and could not buy houses and land there. The bulk of Indian Kashmir — a valley centered in Srinagar and a wonderful lake — remained Muslim, and from time to time unrest erupted in the area. Separatism had a strong influence on the minds. Kashmiris, who did not adhere to Islam, were mostly expelled from the valley and moved to the southern part of the state - to Jammu and its environs.
Modi and his party - national-religious, mostly Hindu - have long wanted to eliminate Kashmir autonomy, but did not dare to do so. In 2014, Modi promised to abolish the Kashmiri Constitution, claiming that it encourages separatism and Pakistan’s claims, but then this promise was put on hold. Now Modi suddenly decided to take this step. And since Modi has a majority in parliament, apparently his decision will be approved. Voting in parliament is a purely technical act, representatives of India say: consider that everything has already been decided and done.
The consequences are difficult to predict. Modi took several warning steps: he brought in troops, set up cordons, increased readiness was announced in the troops and air defense. Problems can arise both from the inside and from the outside. It is unclear how the inhabitants of Kashmir will react - a peaceful expression of discontent, a violent rebellion or quiet humility. It is unclear how neighboring Pakistan will react with diplomatic protests or military action.
Kashmiris rebelled several times against the power of Delhi, but the last significant riot - almost the civil war in Kashmir - died out more than 20 years ago. Since then, the separatists have been organizing attacks, killing their opponents and Indian soldiers, but they are not a big problem. This spring, the last noticeable skirmish occurred when the separatists fired on a convoy of government troops. The Delhi government blamed Pakistan, he denied. It came to skirmishes and air battles between Indian and Pakistani aircraft, but ended pretty quickly: the downed pilot was returned, and the parties returned to the status quo.
India and Pakistan have already fought three times for Kashmir, and each time the Indians defended their positions, causing substantial damage to Pakistan. What will happen now?
Pakistani authorities do not want war. Pakistan is in a difficult economic situation, there is no money in the treasury, and war costs money. But they can’t neglect Kashmir either: for too many years, the people of Pakistan have heard about the holy work of liberating Muslim Kashmir.
India, for its part, has grown significantly stronger. Big expenses allowed India to acquire the latest Russian (and not only) weapons. Modi managed to enlist the friendship of Trump, Putin and Netanyahu - the latter visited India and was perfectly received.
Kashmir youth does not remember the civil war that their fathers survived. How she will react is difficult to predict. In Kashmir, the Internet practically does not work, and telephone communications also turn on only from time to time. Therefore, there is a chance of success for Modi's daring initiative.
Its supporters say that autonomy was originally conceived as a temporary, intermittent measure. And now her time is up. These words have their own logic. In Western Europe there are practically no autonomies, although there are reasons for them. Brittany would be written out as autonomous, and other French provinces south of the Loire are more different from the north than, say, Ukraine from Russia. But there is no autonomy there. And the last big movement for autonomy was liquidated after 1945, as it compromised itself by collaborating with the Nazis.
Autonomy was a good idea universally accepted at the beginning of the 20th century. But little is left of it. The Aland Islands - this region of the Russian Empire, inhabited by the Swedes, moved to Finland against the will of the inhabitants and remained autonomous. At the other end of the world, Hong Kong remained autonomous, where serious turmoil is now underway. Autonomy is not in line with today's ideas about political nations and equality.
Such processes cannot automatically copy the experience of other countries: each has its own unique development path. But also not to take into account the experience of others would be wrong. If the union republics were abolished after 1945, the history of Eurasia could be different. Perhaps the time will come for the abolition of autonomy - in agreement with the local population. The process now underway in Kashmir will show us how ready society is for such changes.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.