JAVIER GHAHREMAN

India-Pakistan conflict, Kashmir in relation to Constructivism

and Post-colonialism theory

Introduction

Rivalry between India and Pakistan has been a major cause of concern in

regard to peace in the two states from 1947. There are different theories that explain the

approach towards peaceful resolution of such conflicts. Initially, the post-colonial theories

took center stage, but the development of constructivism has made the peace making

process easy. Pakistan, being a small state as compared to India, has a weak institutional

base and has been ruled by the military. India, on the other hand, has the largest

geographical area in the whole of South Asia and borders seven states in the region. India

has been able to hold its firm political stand due to its secular approach and the post-

colonialism, which emphasizes on political rather than the social and economic ties among

nations. The constructivism theory, therefore, acts to motivate all actors towards profitable

and constructive relations that are practically peaceful conflict resolution methods. Hence,

constructivism theory presents the best approach to India-Pakistan conflict on Kashmir.

It is through the analysis and adoption of different norms and cultures that

the theory of constructivism is derived. Different actors emblaze other people’s cultures

and religion that in turn, prove their identity. Consequently, trade as well as political ties

can be realized. This has been the most successful way towards peace and the states’

stability. In a survey about the Kashmir dispute, done by two dailies, “The Times of India”

and “The News” in 2010, 70% of Pakistanis had the desire for friendly relations, while

60% of the Indians were just hopeful of peaceful resolutions. The Pakistan’s army, which

is the main actor in the state’s politics, holds on the perception of continued Indian threat.
Similarly, the Hindu fundamentalist parties base their political agenda on sentiments that

echo ant-Muslim and anti-Pakistan ideologies. These perceptions are enhanced by the

post-colonialists, but in contrast to the ideologies of the constructivism.

The creation of international communities as a result of constructive ideas

has further helped in easing the tensions and dilemma. The Kashmir dispute was the major

reason for the outbreak of the four wars, that is, the 1948, 1965, and 1999 wars. The

dispute has been an issue of concern to the United Nations, while the nuclear arms have

led to the regional arms race between the two states. However, some security communities

were proposed, which compared to the Association for Southern Asian Nations and the

European Union (Heartfield 2013). These communities, among others, help us to ascertain

that that constructivism theory is the best way to the realization of a peaceful coexistence.

The overview of the constructivism theory

The theory was first developed by Nicholas Onuf in order to describe the

socially constructed characteristics of the international relations. Richard K. Ashley,

Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie further strengthened the idea. In the international

relations, constructivism is an aspect of building social, political, and economic relations

between nations based on historical evidences or Knowledge, rather than inevitable

consequences of world’s politics (In Bagnoli 2013). Constructivism primarily

demonstrates the core aspects of international relations and how they contradict the

assumptions of Neorealism as well as Neoliberalism. Different states are given their form

of interaction by ongoing processes of social practices. Alexander Wendt was once quoted

saying that “the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas,

but not material forces, and the interests of purposive actors are constructed by these

shared ideas, not that they are given by nature” (Wakefield 2015).
 Constructivism became one of the main theories to foster international

relations since 1980s and 1990s. During this period, Neorealism was dominating the

course of interactions among nations. Neorealist were casual structuralists who viewed that

the international politics are expressed by the international system itself. The international

system lacks the overarching authority, but it comprises of units or states which are equally

ranked. The states are formally sovereign in their own territories (In Wolf 2014).

Neorealism, therefore, does not perceive whether two or more states have bilateral

relations, recognize each other’s sovereignty, have political and economic ties, or are

revolutionists.

Through constructivism, the variables of interest to both the statesmen,

elites and scholars are not important. Such variables include; the military might, trade

relations, domestic preference, or international institutions (Wakefield 2015). This is

because the variables are usually objective facts in the political and social world, with

specific social meaning. The meaningful approach of constructivism is based on the

history, ideas, beliefs, and norms which the political elites must understand in order to

monitor the state’s progress. Constructivists must emphasize on such issues of belief and

identity, thus, the theory is referred to as ideational theory. The state’s behavior is,

therefore, determined by the perception on whether the states are self-interested or rational

actors (Kapur 2010).

The theory is also keen on the role of the social norms within the

international politics. Constructivists distinguish the logic of consequences and the logic of

appropriateness. In the logic of consequences, the actions are chosen rationally to emblaze

the interests of a state. On the other hand, the logic of appropriateness emphasize on the

social norms. For example, the sovereignty of the states has created a predisposition that

precedes any cost-benefit ideology that any state can undertake (Fosnot 2013). The theory
motivates the role of the non-state actors more than other approaches. The role of the

NGOs or transnational corporations in altering the state beliefs has been noted in issues of

land mines and the international trade. They effectively influence the norms through

lobbying or persuasion in their own rights (Tomić & Shuy 2010).

Links between Constructivism theories and India-Pakistan conflict on

Kashmir

The constructivism theory is practically applicable to the India-Pakistan

conflicts about the Kashmir. The South Asia appears to associate the Hobbesian image in

the international relations to the components of many realist analysis and theories. The

security dilemma, nuclear stability or instability, the arms race, the military power, as well

as the persistent conflicts limit the cooperation and foreign policy approaches in ending the

India-Pakistan conflict. The South Asian analysts adopt the classical and structural

theoretical framework in a bid to explain the two states relations. The move is, however,

undermined by the post-positivists who have been dominating the field. Constructivism

highlights the need for ideas, constitutive rules and norms, identity, cultural history, and

their effect on the states relations. This is the only way Pakistan can survive the influence

of the much larger India. Pakistan fears the Hindu domination and the chances of

legitimizing the Pakistan state. Similarly, India has a restless mood to keep the Muslim-

majority area of Kashmir within its mandate (Chandra 2012).

In the application of the theory to the conflict, the two states can convert

peace into a super-ordinate goal in the form of an offer (Telò 2011). The great economic

integration of the SAARC as in the European Union model can also be applicable. A trade

relation can positively create a cooperative relationship, hence, a long-term friendship. In

2012, for example, India was granted the “Most Favored Nation” award and several trade

agreements were signed. Pakistan can also connect India into its oil rich area of the
Caspian basin. The peace gas pipeline, Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI), can also be another peace

booster. Therefore, India and Pakistan can agree on a “give and take” approach (Orjinta

2010). Through this, India can retain the Jammu and Ladakh areas, while Pakistan takes

the Northern parts of Gilgit and Baltistan, and share the Kashmir valley. In addition, the

multi-track diplomacy can make Kashmir easily negotiable.

The Kashmir conflict Identities

The principal identities in the India-Pakistan conflict are the Kashmiri and

the Indians. However, at the beginning, the two identities played a vital role in the partition

of the British Raj, which led to the creation of India and Pakistan in 1947. Pakistan was a

Muslim state while India was a socialist republic with Hindu as the majority (India and

Pakistan n.d). The Muslims under the leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, feared that

their rights would be limited in India. India, on the other hand, under Nehru, believed in

secularism as a free play for all religions.

The Kashmiris claimed for autonomy based on its history and culture and

thus, poses a challenge to the Hindus. They perceive the denial of the autonomy as a threat

to the existence of their culture. There is large Muslim majority area in the West, and

predominantly Buddhist area of Ladakh in the South. The Indians are secular people who

accept everyone. They have been bound by the values of pluralism by living in a

democratic system, which has been promoted by Nehru and Gandhi. They permitted

religious freedom and prevented the religion from interference of the task force on the

nation building. The Congress party was, and still is a secular party of India and was

founded by the forefathers, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru (Kashmir n.d). These,

among other leaders, presented the interests of the Indians to the British. However,

conflicts arose in the Kashmir region, expelling the Hindu minority from the state, a move

that left the Indians with the urge to retaliate.

 The India-Pakistan conflict and the role of the constructivism actors

There are about four major actors in the conflict. These actors included the

governments of India and that of Pakistan, the Kashmiris as well as the militant groups

operating in Kashmir. The Indian government holds that both Jammu and Kashmir are part

of India, hence a crisis in the domestic affairs of the state. It argues that any discussion

pertaining the position of Kashmir can only be done under the Indian Constitution, that is,

the Shimla agreements. Pakistan argues that the decision should be left upon the people of

Kashmir. The accession to the Indian state should be through a plebiscite (Hehir 2012).

The Kashmiris, who comprises of the Sunni Muslims, the Brahmins, the

Buddhists, and the Shia Muslims, are other major actors. They have a state government

which has passed two resolutions from its assembly, focusing on acquiring more state

powers (Nasr n.d.). The Union government has, however, rejected the proposals. On the

other hand, the militant groups that operate in Kashmir are the indigenous militants, such

as the Hizbul Mujahideen, the Pakistanis which is a Jehad, and the mercenary group,

comprising of mainly the Afghans (Paul & Hogg n.d.). All these forces fight for the

liberalization of Kashmir, though there are a lot of ideological differences between them.

Brief overview of Post-colonialism theory

The literature material in post-colonial theory comes from Britain’s former

colonies in Indian, Africa and Caribbean. Many pre-colonial writers focus on common

themes such as emigration, struggle for independent, childhood and national identity. Post-

colonial deal with literature materials produced in countries that were once, or are now,

colonies of other countries. Citizens from colonizing countries may also write literature

materials that takes colonizers or the colonized people as the subject matter. Post-colonial

theory is based around the concept of otherness and resistance. Postcolonial theory has
proved to be an influential theory in cross-cultural studies. However, with time many

scholars have realized that although it offers a new inspiring perspective, it is not enough

to several phenomena in cross-cultural studies (Khan 2012). The theories of orientalism

and post -colonialism deals with politics and other ideologies. Political criticisms form

their both strength and weakness.

Post-colonial theory is entirely built on resistance concept. At some extent, the

issue of opposition has also being included in this theory. Opposition is seen as a barrier to

colonial activities. As well, resistance concept carries with it ideals about human liberty,

freedom, identity and individuality which concept may not have been held in a similar

manner, in the culture’s view of human kind. Post colonialism also deals with cultural

belonging and conflicts of identity (Childs 2014). The main part of traditional and culture

was destroyed by colonial powers from foreign states. In Indian, people used to preserve

their cultures and traditions in an organized manner but with the coming of colonizers

everything changed. Indian’s started adopting the colonizers culture and lost their well-

preserved culture (King 2013). Under this theory, it is explained that as generations were

exposed to colonial ruler’s culture, they had more or less adopted their western culture and

traditions. These countries were faced with a challenge of coming up with an individual

way of proceeding to call their own.

Links between post- colonialism theory to India-Pakistan conflict about

Kashmir

The Indian-Pakistan conflict is useful example when discussing the disjuncture

between the goals of the disputants and the international community while engaging in an

analysis of conflict management and peacekeeping. UN, mediators, negotiators and even

Pakistan and India themselves have tried severally to solve the peace challenges of this

specific dispute. The conflict between India and Pakistan is viewed as a conflict that
undermines the integral role of Kashmir and Kashmir residents. Most of India Pakistan

mediators are the former colonizers. Sometimes the mediators may be perceived as post

colonialist and therefore, their efforts to end this conflict may be viewed as post or

neocolonialism. India and Pakistan have experienced three wars, numerous violent

conflicts and several crises that created war between them. To reduce the violence and to

give the two states a chance reconciles, various conflict management systems were applied

and the two states allowed discussing and resolving their problems (Sabo, 2012). The

three wars fought between the two states should be examined critically and a unique

opportunity for insight into conflict management in sighted. After India was divided into

two separate states, there arose a disagreement over Kashmir territory. The severity of the

war led UN to act as a broker for peace. UN acted as both as a mediator as well as

peacekeeping body between Pakistan and India.

Conclusion

Constructivism theory has proved as one of the major theories that are appropriate

in understanding the India-Pakistan Conflict on Kashmir. It has led to understanding the

avoidance of conceptualization of identity as one of many variables or multivariate

explanation of the conflict. The insights of constructivist analysis have been drawn and

produced direct platform for analyzing the Indian-Pakistan conflict. The arguments

presented above suggest that the role of identity in shaping the interests, understandings,

conflict, preferences and dynamics between Pakistan and India is at the central to

understanding the enduring nature of the conflict.

India and Pakistan have decided to solve their conflicts without involving the

United Nations and Third Party negotiators. It is seen as a domestic political suicide for

either India or Pakistan to compromise on their position as the larger part of their identities
is based on differentiation from their rival. Domestic consequences were ignored in

conflict management of international affairs. Rationalist and materialist explanations,

which take social structures and identities for granted, inhibit our understanding of the

conflict and international relations’ in general, which has been demonstrated in throughout

this paper. Post colonialism theory has no firm ground to the origin and propagation of the

conflict over the years. In this respect, the conflict has emanated as result of the two

conflicting states understanding their experience and the importance of Kashmir due to

their shared cultural and personal identity.

 Bibliography

Chandra, K. (2012). Constructivist theories of ethnic politics. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Childs, P., & Williams, P. (2014). Introduction to Post-Colonial Theory.

Routledge.

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Heartfield, J. (2013). The European Union and the End of Politics. Lanham: John

Hunt Publishing.

Hehir, J. (2012, August 17). Inward Bound: Foreign Policy in a Time of Austerity.

Commonweal.

In Bagnoli, C. (2013). Constructivism in ethics. New York : Cambridge University

Press.

In Wolf, S. O. (2014). The merits of regional cooperation: The case of South Asia.

Cham Springer.

India and Pakistan: Kashmir and Melting Glaciers. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5,

2016, from http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/kashmir-glacier.htm

Kapur, S. P. (2010). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and

conflict in South Asia. Singapore: NUS Press.

Kashmir: The Clash of Identities | Beyond Intractability. (n.d.). Retrieved January

5, 2016, from http://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/navlakha-kashmir

Khan, N. A. (2012). The parchment of Kashmir: History, society, and polity. New

York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

 King, R. (2013). Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and" The

Mystic East". Routledge.

Nasr, V. (n.d.). National identities and the India–Pakistan conflict. The India–

Pakistan Conflict An Enduring Rivalry, 178-201.

Orjinta, I. A. (2010). Social Constructivism in International Relations and the

Gender Dimension: International relations and gender made simple. München: Grin.

Paul, T., & Hogg, W. (n.d.). South Asia's embedded conflict: Understanding the

India–Pakistan rivalry. The India–Pakistan Conflict An Enduring Rivalry, 251-266.

Sabo, O. (2012). Disjunctures and diaspora in Kiran Desai’s The Inheritance of

Loss. The Journal of Commonwealth Literature, 0021989412450697.

Telò, M. (2011). International relations: A European perspective. Farnham,

England: Ashgate.

Tomić, O. M., & Shuy, R. W. (2010). The Relation of Theoretical and Applied

Linguistics. Boston, MA: Springer US.

Wakefield, J. (2015). Giovanni Gentile and the state of contemporary

constructivism: A study of actual idealist moral theory. Andrews UK Limited.