Unrest In Kashmir

    A year after the death of Burhan Muzaffar Wani, Indian authorities are still trying to subdue the unrest in Kashmir. The death of this terrorist sparked multiple riots throughout the state and is the root cause of the disturbance that still exists. More and more of the valley’s youth has been actively participating in the ‘stone throwing’ that is said to be funded by Pakistan’s ISI through the Hurriyat. The Hurriyat is promoting its separatist views in its attempt to radicalise Kashmir’s youth, perpetually trying to convince them to fight for its ‘independence’.

    The problem is that the Kashmiri economy has not benefited the same way from growth as the rest of India has; youth unemployment remains extremely high, leading to immense dissatisfaction. The youth of Kashmir has, as a result, become more prone to influence of the Hurriyat.

    Kashmir remains unwilling to look up to the Indian Government, mostly because of the brutality of the actions of both the sides. In 2016, the underprepared Army used pellet guns on the Kashmiri protestors who attacked their bunkers, severely injuring and blinding many of them. The Hizbul Mujahideen militants, on the other hand, have been repeatedly attacking the army and torturing those who are apparently ‘aids and informers’ of the police.

    The situation continues to be going on a downward spiral. Initially, dialogue between the Indian Government and Kashmir was open, but now, this too has stalled as the Government has a robust and strongarmed approach towards the Kashmiri protestors.

    However, the use of force does not seem to be helping the conflict in Kashmir; in fact, it is only aggravating it. The problem of terrorism cannot be solved by alienating the people – yes, the terrorists can and should be strongarmed, but the people should not be isolated. The Government needs to find a way to bring Kashmir back into mainstream politics and economy. Local political parties like Omar Abdullah’s National Conference and Mehbooba Mufti should be actively involved in promoting the same while simultaneously battling the terrorists. This will be an undoubtedly long process, but it is the only way to solve the problems raging in Kashmir – the state that, after more than a year of riots and unrest, deserves peace.

Security Dilemma

The Security Dilemma is a serious problem that affects all states, whether they are aggressive or not. This means that there are multiple ways to solve this problem, but no one way is foolproof, and each one has its flaws. Opening up diplomatic communications through a trusted third party and creating an economic and trade union are probably the safest ways for countries to help decrease the severity of the Security Dilemma. This would be most easily done between two powers, and could lead to not only a safer future for both, but also mutual prosperity through trade.

This process would most likely begin with opening a diplomatic dialogue between two countries through a mutually trusted third party. This would allow safe communication, confidentiality and reliability. Next, both countries would agree to disarmament processes, mutual targets and verification, all while using the third party to keep the communication peaceful and mutually beneficial. Finally, the countries could, depending on their current membership, agree to work together in a common economic and trade union. This would further facilitate peaceful actions and could potentially create prosperity for the respective countries. It would also allow for the free movement of people, goods and services between the nations, creating a peaceful environment. Opposing states could work together to cooperate and compete in a global environment. The creation of trade unions has been very beneficial for the majority of its members in the past, as shown in unions such as the European Union and ASEAN. The reason this method would be effective is because not only does it promote better international communications between each nation-state, removing the ‘fence’ that conceals its neighbours, but also guarantees peace and protection to the nations that sign this agreement. This is important because with lack of communication, nation-states always end up fearing their neighbouring states, leading them to stock up on weapons, which can result in a huge arms race.

All this said, however, there are still some limitations to what this could achieve, similar to any possible ‘solution’ to this dilemma. The main drawback to this kind of solution is that both parties would have to be willing to work together toward a common goal. This can be a problem because some countries are militaristic in nature, due to their Government, and will not agree to disarmament or working together in a trade union. These countries, however, are relatively lesser in number, and the benefits of this system far outweigh the negatives.