Why do I call Indian rule in Kashmir a colonial occupation? This is not because of (il)legalities of accession or some UN resolution that UN itself has forgotten. The crucial factor for me are the people. Many Kashmiris sense/experience/suffer Indian rule as occupation and the Indian state behaves like a coloniser and an occupier (militarisation, dehumanisation, divide and rule, economic control, etc). Therefore, it is the experience of the people and the behaviour of the state that I privilege over the narratives of the state or international law. I cannot not use the same principle when i look at the experience of the Baloch, Uighurs or Tibetans and the behaviour of Pakistan or China in their lands. The fundamental point here is that the focus of legitimacy has to shift from state to the people
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:04:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015