I live in Kashmir, the world’s most militarized zone with a barrel of gun behind every 11 of us.

The Commented [a1]: one

genesis of this militarization is the partition of the subcontinent into two (later 3) countries, India and Commented [a2]: maybe cut this out. seems unnecessary
Pakistan. The partition took place on religious lines. Religion in this part of the world is very deeply
rooted in the collective or the public sphere. Pakistan decided to call itself an Islamic republic while as
India chose to be secular, the only difference however being that the idea of secularism had to be
tailored to suit the deeply religious society. Indian secularism therefore is not a separation of religion
and state but somehow, they were supposed to work together. Today after more than 70 years of the
partition, whether Pakistan ever had an Islamist government or not, but ‘secular’ India has a Hindu
nationalist party in power riding a brute majority in the parliament. On 5th of August this year this
government of the ‘world’s largest democracy’ stripped J&K of its autonomy without seeking the
consent of the local people (an emergency rule was already in place since almost a year). In fact, the
decision was taken only after detaining all the people who have a voice, rushing in additional troops,
placing a strict curfew throughout the state and putting in place a complete communication blackout –
in effect placing the natives under a brutal siege. This is seen as part of the larger plan of making serious
demographic changes particularly in the valley of Kashmir that has been resisting Indian rule since the
day its army set foot in the valley on 27th October 1947. Just 10 days after its armies landed in Kashmir a
massacre was carried out in Jammu region. Around 200,000 Muslims were killed, and millions of others
displaced, changing Jammu from a Muslim majority region to a Hindu majority region. Al Jazeera in a
2017 report called it “the forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute”. RSS, the mother
organization of the ruling BJP was actively involved in this pogram. Ironically or not, PM Modi is a life Commented [a3]: maybe cut thid
member of this organization that aims at creating a united subcontinent as what would essentially be a
Hindu state. Commented [a4]: very good introductory paragraph but i
want to know more about you.
Religion also creates solidarities and identities beyond the boundaries of the ‘state’. A Kashmiri Muslim
therefore sees things as a Kashmiri, as a Muslim and sometimes as both at the same time. Things Commented [a5]: maybe cut this
happening in the rest of the Muslim world are related to those happening at home. Kashmir then
becomes the continuum of a worldwide phenomenon. From rising Islamophobia on one hand to groups
like ISIS on the other, from Palestine and Yemen on one side of the continent to Rohingyas and the
Uyghurs on the other, the post-colonial world seems to be one that Muslims somehow cannot fit into.
To borrow Salman Sayed’s usage of the word, the Muslims find themselves in a diasporic condition. They
have a world that they – as Muslims – cannot make sense of, a world which is completely bereft of any
historical continuity for them. It is as if their history is dead. Commented [a6]: v. good. maybe elaborate more on how
this shaped you.
But where did it all go wrong? Two years of studying Political theory has given me questions, a lot of
them. Political theory as it is taught in Universities is almost entirely a European gift. Experiences that
shaped it as a subject are experiences of Europe, and of Europe in a context of time and space. Was it
then a good thing to do when this theory was copied elsewhere in the world giving no considerations to
its context of origin and consequent success? Modernity is characterized by inter alia secularism, secular
state system and hierarchizing religion into a sphere that, given the course of modernity, is bound to get
smaller and smaller till it practically expires. This understanding again came from the context that bore
modernity. Was it, therefore, right thing to expect people everywhere to understand religion and have
similar experience of it elsewhere in the world? State as we see it today is again a creation of the
workshop known as Europe and it was only after the brutal colonization ended did the newly
independent regions decide to shape themselves in the image of their colonial masters. This system
therefore inevitably included in some places bringing together of people who are completely different
from each other and in other places separation of people who had nothing that could separate them.
What made it worse was the permanent definitions of ‘native’ and the ‘alien’ that the state changed by
creating impermeable boundaries. Were there other forms of political organization that could have
been opted for at the time these regions got their independence? “Democracy” seems to have this
consensus of being the best form of government. Yet when the Islamists in Egypt got to power and gave
it its first ever democratically elected government it didn’t seem to go so well with the Western powers.
So much so that when the military coup happened after a blood bath at rabaa which has been called by
many as the worst massacre in Egypt’s modern history, the democracies of the world had no qualms in
accepting the dictator with open arms and condemning the democrats as violent extremists. Does it
suggest that sometimes democracies too are not acceptable? What other choices if not by the
consensus of the people do the Islamists have for coming to power? Or is their seeking of political power
essentially bad for the people? Who are we talking about when we say ‘people’ in the previous
questions? Can we explore other forms of accountabilities inherent in different paradigms other than
the western one if democracy is not (allowed to) solve the problems of people – the most basic being
absence of peace and stability? Can ‘religion’ be given a chance to shape that alternative paradigm?
Finally, the one question that is at the very basis of Political theory: what can possibly be the best form
of organizing and conducting our politics? Commented [a7]: this is v. good. maybe it shd be first
paragraph. tell them heads on what you want to establish
I do not assume the master’s degree in political theory to provide me with answers. I do not think it is an
adequate time to seek answers for all the questions that political theory is concerned with. Instead I feel
(assume, want and hope) it will give me the knowledge of where and more importantly how to find
these answers. I want to take this degree as a training course for my research and want it to help me,
along other things to choose from the plethora of questions that I come to LSE with, which are the most
important ones that I should search answers for.

Ten years down the line I see myself still in a university (I would prefer being a professor but I would still
love to be a student) chasing these answers and in the process raising some new ones and letting others
raise theirs on my answers so that these in some way improve the way we thin about doing politics
which may in some other ways improve the condition of my people.