India – IPDGC Smart Power

The Kashmir Standstill and Conflicting Identity Narratives

April 12, 2021May 10, 2021Global Communication, India15 Comments

By Kayla Malcy, MA International Affairs, 2022

The conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has existed since partition in 1947. Kashmir has precipitated 2 of the 3 Indo-Pakistani wars and a slew of militant groups and attacks on both sides of the line of control. Alongside the physical violence of the Kashmir conflict, there has been a clear formation of national narratives to suit each country’s objectives. If India and Pakistan plan to move towards sustained peace, they will have to reconcile their opposing identity narratives and repair their relationships with the Kashmiri people.

The conflict explained

The partition of British India placed Kashmir in a nearly impossible position. While the Maharaja of Kashmir, part of the Hindu minority ruling a Muslim majority, wished for independence, both India and Pakistan wanted Kashmir within their own borders. The Maharaja agreed to join the Indian state in exchange for protection from Pakistani forces, instigating the first Indo-Pakistani war as well as the cascade of conflicts that followed. The current line of control divides the Kashmiri territory into Indian administered Kashmir and Pakistan administered Kashmir.

Rising tensions

With talks coming to a standstill in 2016, Kashmir has seen a marked increase in violent conflict. Attacks by militant groups against the Indian military were seen in both 2017 and 2018. Indian security forces clashed with both militants and demonstrators. An attack on an Indian Army convoy by the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad, associated with the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), killed 40 soldiers in February of 2019 reigniting the prolonged conflict between India and Pakistan.

In August 2019, India moved thousands of troops into Kashmir. The Indian government then revoked Article 370, which gave Jammu and Kashmir its partial autonomy and statehood, and 35A, which provided residents privileges such as land ownership. Cellular and landline services were shut down to all of Kashmir and India imposed the longest ever internet shut down in a democracy.

Pakistani National Identity Narratives

Pakistan’s founding identity as a safe haven for Muslims reinforces the sentiment that Kashmir, with a population roughly 60% Muslim, belongs with it. Arguments over the meaning of Pakistan’s name also contribute to its identity. In Pakistan’s official language of Urdu, ‘Pak’ means pure. ‘Pak’ then combined with ‘-stan’ forms the meaning of ‘the land abounding in the pure’ or as it is often translated, ‘the land of the pure’. An alternate reading of Pakistan’s name is as an acronym for the four northern states of former British India: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Sindh. In both cases, the retention of Kashmiri territory is critical to the Pakistani national identity.

A large facet of both the Pakistani and Indian identity narratives is opposition to the enemy. For Pakistan, riling up anti-Indian sentiment can distract from other political issues. In their view, India is a tyrant abusing the Muslim Kashmiris, which Pakistan, as a Muslim country, has the duty to protect. Additionally, the idea that India has never fully accepted partition and is simply waiting to take Pakistan back is thrown out to heighten Pakistani feelings of defensiveness.

Indian National Identity Narratives

India’s population is majority Hindu and while the Indian constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the governing party, the BJP, is Hindu nationalist at its core. These ideals and the construction of Muslims as ‘the other’ puts Indian national identity in direct opposition to Pakistani national identity. India takes enormous pride in being world’s largest democracy. This narrative of democratic idealism has often shielded India from criticism among western powers. Another aspect of Indian identity is self-reliance which can be traced back to Gandhi. Even today PM Modi’s platform contains five pillars of self-reliance.

Just as Pakistani politicians use anti-Indian sentiment, Indian politicians use the same tactic of riling up anti-Pakistan sentiment in order to distract from other political issues. In fact, 2019 Pew Research surveys show that 76% of Indian’s see Pakistan as a threat; only 7% do not view Pakistan as a threat. Claims of Pakistani sponsored violence in Kashmir never fail to anger the populace of India and redirect attention from other issues. India sees itself as the rightful heir to Kashmir due to the Hindu Maharaja’s decision to join India. India focuses in on this claim in their attempts to delegitimize Pakistani claims to Kashmir.

Battle of the Narratives

These conflicting identity narratives play out in Kashmir, especially the religious ones. Pakistani claims that India’s recent actions are proof of India targeting Muslim populations in Kashmir and stripping them of their rights. India claims that Pakistan is a hotbed for Islamic terrorism and is directly responsible for militant attacks against Indian security forces in Kashmir. Calling out the other’s actions in this way only serves to increase blame and widen the gap in dialogue.

The weight of both narratives changed with the 2019 events and the release of the 2019 UNHCR report on Kashmir, which concerned abuses by security forces on both sides of the line of control. With the repeal of Article 370 and subsequent shutdown of internet services and Kashmir lock down, India has lost some of the legitimacy its democratic narrative carried before. Revoking Article 35A has also caused concerns that the BJP is attempting to change the religious demographics of Kashmir by opening up property ownership to the non-Kashmiri Hindu majority in India. These actions coupled with recent announcement of India’s democratic backsliding further solidified the Pakistani narrative of an unjust India with no respect for Muslims as an occupational force, not a rightful ruler.

While opinions within Kashmir remain divided as to whom Kashmir belongs, if anyone at all, movements to reinstate Article 370 and, alternatively, to separate from India continue in Kashmir. The Indian and Pakistani focus on messaging to the opposing government has long sidelined the Kashmiri people leaving their voices unheard. If any progress is to be made both India and Pakistan will need to address, at a minimum, the aspects of their identity narratives based on the fear of the other.

For a detailed analysis by the author on the subject, Click Here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Main photo: Authorities clash with demonstrators, provided by Kashmir Global

From “Regional Bully” to “Benign Hegemon”

April 5, 2021May 6, 2021Asia, India18 Comments

By Saiansha Panangipalli, MA Global Communication, 2021

Projecting India as an Alternative to China

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, an association of the U.S., India, Australia and Japan, is committed to a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Given that China concerns itself with geography and economic growth, its next-door neighbor and aspiring regional superpower, India can potentially be projected as an alternative to China. However, India has some way to go before its economic standing can match that of China. Further, to be a true alternative to China, India needs to position itself as less of a “regional bully” and more of a “benign hegemon” and reembrace the democratic values of freedom of expression and religion that it has traditionally stood for.

The U.S.-based Freedom House downgraded India’s status from “Free” to “Partly Free” in its annual report. Further, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended Congress to mark India as a “Country of Particular Concern.” To project India as an alternative to China, the U.S. can tap into Indian master narratives and engage with Indian publics to renew India’s commitment to freedom of expression and religious harmony.

Indian Master Narratives

India has three key narratives that shape Indian public opinion: Mahatma Gandhi, the Partition of India in 1947, and the Hindutva ideology.

Mahatma Gandhi’s approach of non-violent civil disobedience in opposing British rule is a staple of Indian textbooks. It is difficult to talk about inter-religious harmony, unity among diversity, abolition of caste-system – narratives that form the master narrative about the modern history of India – without talking about Gandhi’s role in advocating for these tenets.

The Partition of India in 1947 is one of the bloodiest and most traumatic events in Indian history. Once the British decided to grant British India independence, it advocated the “Two Nations” theory: one nation for the Hindus and one for the Muslims. This proposition led to rising anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiments, changing borders and steadily increasing cross-border movements, in turn resulting in the displacement and deaths of millions. The trauma and resentment from this event continues to spur and cause Hindu-Muslim communal tensions today.

Finally, Hindutva – or “Hinduness” – is the dominant form of Hindu nationalism. One of the most significant ways the Hindutva ideology has impacted contemporary politics is by supporting the building of Hindu monuments and reclaiming important sites. The Hindutva ideology entered into the mainstream with the landslide electoral success of the current Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Any critique against Hindu/Hindutva rhetoric is labeled by its proponents as “sickular” (secular), unpatriotic and anti-nationalist. Individuals who question Mr. Modi may even be called traitors and be arrested for sedition.

It is these master narratives – causing the Hindu-Muslim communal tensions and repression of freedom of expression – that the U.S. must counter to project India as a “benign” alternative to China.

Freedom of Expression – Redefining What Is “Anti-Indian”

In 2020, India ranked #140 in the World Press Freedom Index because of the growing repression of journalists and media critiquing Mr. Modi. These journalists and their critiques are labeled as “anti-national.” The U.S. can disrupt the analogy by arguing that dissent or critique of Mr. Modi is not “anti-national” or unpatriotic. Rather, it is the suppression of dissent or critique that is anti-Indian, since colonizers used the same tool to suppress demands for independence and self-determination that are intrinsic to India’s identity.

Further, the U.S. can emphasize that freedom of expression and independence of the media make both the U.S. and India vibrant democracies that celebrate “unity in diversity.” Suppression of freedom of expression and media, however, weakens India’s democracy, eroding the unity in diversity that Mahatma Gandhi advocated.

Lastly, the U.S. can specify that it is possible to challenge critiques of Mr. Modi through the ideals that Mahatma Gandhi advocated – civil discourse and non-violence – rather than through the tool of the colonizers: repression and silencing.

Hindu vs Muslim – Decompressing History and Redefining the “Us” vs “Them”

The U.S. can ease communal tensions by “decompressing” Hindu nationalist narratives by outlining history beyond the traumatic Partition of India. It can argue that India’s history stretches beyond the two-centuries-long struggle for independence and colonial rule, and includes nearly two centuries of Mughal rule that made India one of the most prosperous lands of that time. The “us” vs “them” is not about Hindus vs Muslims – rather, it is about anyone who would challenge the unity in India’s diversity.

The colonizers propagated the “Two Nations” theory that led to the Partition of India. They introduced separate electorates for Muslims and Hindus, which Mahatma Gandhi opposed as he believed it would lead to inter-religious disharmony. The fear of being seen as succumbing to British rule caused Indian madrasas to reject introduction of rationalist subjects in their curricula – dividing Hindu-Muslim communities on the basis of education. Lastly, the colonizers used the “divide and rule” policy to prevent Hindus and Muslims from joining forces against the British.

Thus, the U.S. can emphasize that neither Hindus nor Muslims are the out-group. Rather, it was the British in the past and anyone who impedes Hindu-Muslim unity today that is the out-group and the “anti-Indian.” Hindu-Muslim brotherhood existed before colonialism and was only challenged by outside forces who did not have India’s best interests at heart. Hindu-Muslim brotherhood – referenced in a popular Hindi couplet – is what makes India such a vibrant democracy.

Deploying Counter-Narratives

The U.S. can deploy these narrative contestations by engaging with civil society – NGO’s, think tanks, women’s rights organizations, LGBT groups, legal experts and academicians – by organizing speaker series, educational exchanges and policy collaborations with the aim to persuade the Indian judiciary to take a stronger and more independent role in protecting the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and independence of media.

The counter-narratives may not sway Hindu or Muslim extremists, but can be dispersed to educate and sensitize students and populations at risk of radicalization. The U.S. can again engage the civil society through lectures and exchanges to facilitate inter-religious partnerships in developing and disseminating textbooks, modernizing education in madrasas, and preventing radicalization as a tool to answer and solve systemic and practical problems.

For an in-depth analysis by the author on the subject, click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

How Anti-Americanism in Pakistan can be mitigated through Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy

April 28, 2018January 11, 2019Asia, India, public diplomacyLeave a Comment

US-Pakistan

Image Source: “U.S. – Pakistan Relationship.” Chappatte Globe Cartoon, Chappatte in International Herald Tribune, 30 May 2012, www.chappatte.com/en/images/u-s-pakistan-relationship/.

Pakistan is the 7^thlargest country in the world in terms of its population and a country that holds a negative view of the United States. The United States and Pakistan have been strategic allies on multiple occasions; however, the increasing distrust between the two countries due to conflict of national interests in the war on terror in Afghanistan has caused tensions in their pre-existing complex relationship.

The U.S. was among the first of nations to ally with Pakistan after its independence in 1947. The United States provided economic and social assistance to the newly independent country and still maintains vital military relations. In return, Pakistan proved to be a valuable strategic ally of the United States in the cold war against the Soviet Union and helped the U.S. in driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. Pakistan continues to hold a strategic position in the United States’ interests in the Central and South Asia region. However, unlike prior to 1980s where the relationship was based on mutual benefits and good will, the post 9/11 basis of partnership has been mainly transactional between the U.S. and Pakistani military, which is given aid by the U.S. to support its efforts in Afghanistan. This transactional relationship stemmed from a trust deficit caused by the both countries’ conflict of narratives as a result of their history regarding their national interests and motives in the region.

The growing perception of “Anti-Americanism” in Pakistan is primarily due to the U.S. security strategy concerns in Afghanistan and Pakistan that Pakistan feels undermine Pakistan’s efforts to fight terrorism, leaving the country feeling underappreciated by the U.S. This contributes to fostering a negative image of the United States in Pakistan. In current circumstances, with Pakistan being a strategic ally, the U.S. can use diplomacy in conjunction with public diplomacy to turn the tide in a relationship with Pakistan.

Currently, there is a decline in Pakistani public support of American cooperation with its military and for U.S. assistance and humanitarian aid in areas where extremist leaders operate. Also, there is less inclination towards the U.S. to continue providing intelligence and logistical support for Pakistani troops fighting extremism. Pakistanis feel that the U.S. doesn’t take Pakistan’s national interests into account and doesn’t give it sufficient credit for its contributions to the war in Afghanistan.

The U.S. led drone strikes are a major contributor to this sentiment. According to Pakistan, drone strikes targeting extremist leaders result in more collateral damage of civilians and are mostly carried out without the consent of the Pakistani government that threatens country’s sovereignty. Regardless of how the U.S. views drone strikes in North Waziristan area and how effective they are in targeting extremists, the collateral damage in form of civilian causalities and social structure raises questions about the outcomes of drone war on Pakistani soil. The unified objection of the unauthorized U.S. led drone strikes from the Pakistani government and the Pakistani military further fuels the Pakistani narrative that the U.S. only cares about pursuing its own objectives even at the cost of threatening country’s sovereignty.

To mitigate this major issue, the U.S. needs to work with the Pakistani government and its military on a new bilateral drone strikes strategy that considers both countries security concerns in mind so the major point of tension between them is resolved – the public diplomacy alone will not solve the problem. Despite of the U.S. and Pakistan history of distrust, consensus on drone strikes strategy may have a positive effect on their relationship. Once a consensus is reached, the U.S. can work with the Pakistani government to gain public support by communicating the drone attacks in a way that is transparent to the Pakistani public. The U.S. can also work with the Pakistani government to prevent civilian casualties or find/invest in alternatives to drone attacks such as Aware Girls to combat extremists, which instills a positive sense of perception in Pakistani public that the U.S. is not showing negligence in addressing their concerns. So far all the public diplomacy efforts made by the U.S. in Pakistan through bridging cultural gaps with programs like Fulbright Scholar Program and funding literacy education for underprivileged children or providing social and economic development opportunities to the private sector have been ineffective due to focus on the drone strikes. Mutual agreement of the countries on the use of drone strikes will pave the way for the better reception of the U.S. public diplomacy efforts in Pakistani public.

Over the years the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan has been complex and ridden with distrust due to conflict of narratives regarding history and their roles in addressing security concerns in the region. The U.S. engagement in Pakistan is mostly highlighted in relations to the military, so every shift in that relationship affects the perception of the U.S. in Pakistani public. To counter the negative image building, the U.S. can use public diplomacy to mitigate Anti-Americanism caused by the U.S. foreign policies by reaching consensus on drone strikes with the Pakistani government and highlighting its role in social and economic development in Pakistan, thus signaling the desire for improving relationship to the Pakistani public.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not necessarily express the views of either The Institute of Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or The George Washington University.