The Jahajis’ social contract and the Jammu and Kashmir conflict

I have dealt with various dimensions of the Jammu and Kashmir conflict elsewhere, here my goal is to draw attention of the readers to historical developments far away from the Indian subcontinent, as the developments there are instructive for the conflict. I argue that the historical development in the Caribbean islands thousands of miles away hold lessons for the current leaders of Jammu and Kashmir to address the conflict peacefully, while fighting for rights and justice.

In the mid-19th century hundreds of Indians, mostly from U.P. and Bihar, were taken to Caribbean islands as indentured laborers. Known as jahaji (as they were transported through ship or jahaj in Hindi), these gullible people were promised great things before transported to the islands. Their long and arduous journey and life aftermath belied those promises. Their months long journey had no privacy, they were not given proper meals, some of them died on board and some of them jumped from the ship to inevitable death, and even some produced offspring while confined to open spaces in the ship. Depicted well in recent documentaries on these laborers and their harsh life in foreign lands, the stories of the jahajis bring forth the struggle for survival, and despite hardship how these people adapted and thrived.

But more interesting, and which is perhaps less researched, is that these Indians despite their religious differences shared the same destiny and enjoyed and suffered together. The jahajis included both Hindus and Muslims, and they had an unwritten understanding or social contract that they would live together despite all the travails.

They seldom fought against each other, but they fought together against their colonial exploiters. There are stories in which they protected each other against the colonial exploitation, and even protected women, irrespective of religious identities, against sexual exploitation by the colonial masters at the risk of their lives. As I interacted here in Florida with many of the descendants of these jahajis, who later migrated to the United States and Canada, that spirit of communal harmony persisted those days and even persists today. Hindus and Muslims lived and live together and share happiness and sorrow by taking part in each other’s festivities. There are instances even when male members belonging to one religion died because of exploitation or killed by the colonial exploiters, their vulnerable family members were taken care of by people from the other religion. And that communal harmony survived since the 19th century.

The story of the jahajis is certainly instructive for Jammu and Kashmir conflict. The violence in Jammu and Kashmir became severe when it took a radical religious turn. The conflict persisted since the last seven decades, but became violent in the last three decades as it enmeshed more deeply into the discourse of two nation – Hindus and Muslims – as if they are born enemies, or as if their coexistence is something anathema to peace and harmony. That was the narrative promoted by hardline religious elements, termed as spoilers in conflict resolution literature, and when these elements were supported by Pakistani state machinery actively, the problem became nastier, leading to massive exodus of minorities from the valley. The turn of the political conflict into an identity conflict or religious identity conflict proved dangerous. The region of Jammu and Kashmir became a pawn in the larger radical religious matrix, which further pushed the conflict into a dead end of violence, killing, and darkness.

Hence, when the leaders from the valley emphasize that India must talk to Pakistan to address the conflict, one should not have dispute on this had they also, in the same vein, like the jahajis in the Caribbean talk about the minorities within the valley and the whole of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is true that the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir are minorities in the larger Indian context, but they are majority community within Jammu and Kashmir. How do the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir fare when the issue of exploitation of minorities within the valley comes to picture? It is perfectly alright when they articulate about their marginalization, but they seldom articulate the concerns of minority communities within their society, or the minorities who have fled persecution in Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir or from Pakistan.

They have not, at least I have not come across in my research, raised the exploitation of minorities within Pakistani side of Kashmir with the Pakistani establishment or during their engagement with Pakistani leaders in India. Keeping this picture in mind, the argument of Kashmiri leaders that in an independent Kashmir the minorities will be taken care of, and India does not need to worry about the minorities in Kashmir, falls flat on its face as their current action speak louder than their proclamations.

My goal here is not to vilify any leader or group or religion. My goal is to explore pathways for peaceful resolution of the conflict. But a peace process that ignores or undermines the realities will not succeed. While the leaders from the valley have genuine concerns which need to be addressed, their concerns must not be viewed as my group-your group or my religion-your religion prisms as it will defeat the very purpose of conflict resolution and the goal of realizing a peaceful Jammu and Kashmir. Did not B. R. Ambedkar counter the two-nation theory, and articulated that “Isn’t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people? Nobody can deny that there are many modes, manners, rites and customs which are common to both. Nobody can deny that there are rites, customs and usages based on religion which do divide Hindus and Musalmans. The question is, which of these should be emphasized…If the Hindus and Musalmans agree to emphasize the things that bind them and forget those that separate them, there is no reason why in course of time they should not grow into a nation…”

This vision of communal peace as envisioned by Ambedkar must dawn on the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir. It was the same vision that inspired the jahajis in the Caribbean islands. It is up to the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, and also up to the leaders of India and Pakistan, whether they want to be guided by a vision of inclusive of peace, in which all religions and groups live and thrive peacefully, or a vision of exclusive peace in which one group survives and prospers at the cost of the other group. In this direction, the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir need to do soul searching.

(This blog was published earlier in Times of India blogs: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/the-jahajis-social-contract-and-the-jammu-and-kashmir-conflict/)

Resolving Conflicts Gandhian Way

The Gandhian conflict resolution wheel has three major spokes: conflict is a reality of life, hence unavoidable; if conflict is unavoidable then it must be experienced and addressed through nonviolence; and the reality of conflict must be mediated through the nonviolent means towards conflict transcendence. The pragmatic politician in Gandhi recognized conflict as a feature of human life. He would adopt an ontological view of the conflict – that conflict and life are inseparable. Such an approach implies that there are conflicts at multiple levels and everywhere – within individuals, families, larger groups, societies, states, and the world. Gandhian conflict lexicon hence would not neglect any of these conflicts and make use of this Gandhian logic to explain a conflict – when there is no harmony in what we think, say, and do, then there is a conflict. He would apply this logic to all conflicts, even though its operationality would vary from conflict to conflict, and from level to level. The othering, greed, hatred, selfishness, immorality, and their various avatars give rise to violent conflicts, and unless their origin is understood and addressed, such conflicts remain protracted.

If conflict is an inevitable reality of life, then the question is how to address it? Broadly, there are two means – violent and nonviolent. Gandhi would call the former immoral or evil, and the other moral, as it is based on moral force or soul force. He did not claim he discovered this principle or was the first one to apply this principle. He acknowledged that this principle is ‘as old as the hills,’ and he would credit those who discovered this principle as ‘greater geniuses than Newton’ simply owing to the logic that despite knowing the methods of violence and use of arms, they realized the futility of violence and engaged in nonviolent methods. The means of nonviolence, for Gandhi, emerges from an unwavering conviction. He displayed this conviction while in action in South Africa and India. When one of his colleagues argued that there was not a single instance in history when a freedom struggle was organized through nonviolence, Gandhi replied there are yet many pages to be written in the book of history. This Gandhian conviction permeated the followers of Gandhi during the freedom struggle. Nonviolence is the only means for conflict resolution and if this method fails, Gandhi would argue, the fault is not in the principle, but in the practitioner.

How is this Gandhian framework relevant to South Asia? How can his thoughts be fruitfully used without undermining the cultural values of the groups and communities in South Asia? There are myriad possible pathways, some of which are perhaps yet undiscovered as they would need human ingenuity, but they would need, for implementation, bold political leadership, and vision. Dialogues, summits, talks, meetings of foreign secretaries, attending ceremonies have values in this direction, but they would not be useful unless they originate from the very ontology of nonviolent belonging. Towards conflict resolution, Gandhi would probably point out at the failures of the past summits and agreements and appeal the leaders to introspect and reflect on the past policies, and then act creatively. The policymakers need to understand, appreciate, and implement this Gandhian way. It is an arduous task; it needs courage, conviction and persistence. As the past seven decades have shown, the words and deeds, colored by the othering, have failed to bring the desired result, peace. But, did not Gandhi say, it needs more courage to be nonviolent and work for peace than to fight and kill?

Elsewhere, in the context of South Asia, I focused on various types of engagements to promote belonging and emphasized that psychological engagement is the fulcrum of these engagements. There are elements that are common to both Hindu and Muslim cultural systems which could be cultivated to promote belonging. This is not to suggest that there are no differences between the two cultures, but to suggest there are elements of commonalities that need recognition. It is necessary to connect filaments of both the cultures. It is necessary to think out of the box and engage the common people in this peace project. Gandhi pinned his hopes on students as carriers of peace and wrote on August 18, 1947, just after a few days of partition, “Students are the makers of the future. They cannot be partitioned.” On another occasion, he called the youth “to shed your indifference, inertia and sloth and throw yourselves into constructive work with all your heart and soul.”

In the 21st century globalized world where the ideas of a borderless world are popular, India and Pakistan need to move forward and gear their state machineries for peace and belonging. It needs a Gandhian emphasis that violence has not resolved the India-Pakistan conflict. It is not that there are not attempts to build peace, but either they were symbolic and lacked political will and vision. There are spoilers with stakes in the continuation of the conflict, as the conflict keeps the political, intelligence and war machinery greased with resources, and legitimizes their existence and othering projects. But the othering cannot thrive infinitely, and even if it goes on, history stands witness, it will not address the conflict, rather it will protract the conflict, and exact further psychological, cultural, political and economic costs. The learnings from the past need to be accelerated and the leaders, business houses, opinion makers, civil society and nongovernmental organizations must come forward in a framework of engagement and belonging. Of course, a movement of people for belonging, Gandhi would argue, is important. This will be a gradual process, but it must be done in the right earnest. That will be in salience with the Gandhian vision of a nonviolent conflict resolution, in which othering becomes history and belonging becomes the future, and present becoming the field of nonviolent praxis.

The article was earlier publisher in the Times of India blogs on September 23, 2020: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/resolving-conflicts-gandhian-way/