8/11/2019 Root of Kashmir Conflict

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/root-of-kashmir-conflict 1/2

It is commonly accepted as an article of faith that  Kashmir is the root cause of all problems between

India and Pakistan. I disagree with this premise, and wish to demonstrate that the 'Kashmir issue' is

itself the result  of a deeper root cause, which is a clash of two worldviews:  pluralism versus

exclusivism.

(It must be clarified that neither pluralism nor eclusivism is the same as secularism, because

secularism denies the legitimacy of religion, seeing it at best as eotic culture, and at worst, as ascourge. !n the other hand, pluralism and eclusivism both recogni"e and celebrate religion, but in

entirely different ways.#

$ost people fail to recogni"e that this clash between pluralism and eclusivism does indeed eist. %his

eposes an intellectual failing and lack of preparation in getting to the root cause of the India&Pakistan

conflict. %his has repressed the real problem, pushing it into the intellectual basement of the global

subconscious, and turning it into the shadow side of humanity.

ny genuine attempt to address geopolitical problems must look deeper than eamining merely the

symptoms of conflict. %his essay calls for a paradigm shift in the understanding of the root cause,without which attempts to resolve the 'Kashmir issue' shall fail, or at best bring temporary relief. It

concludes by defining the 'hard uestion' that must be tackled by the world community.

Religion and Conflict

ll religions have two dimensions: theological beliefs that pertain to one's relationship with a )upreme

*eality of whatever kind+ and sociological beliefs that pertain to dealings with human society. !ften,

people compare only the theologies, finding common ground across many diverse religions, and

declare them all be the 'same' or 'euivalent'. ence, they naively conclude that the present global

problems are not about religion.

owever, one must pay special attention to the second dimension of religions, namely, the social

theories mandated by different religions. It is here where the root of much conflict is to be located.

-hristianity's onerous social demands became the subect of intense fighting after /011 -.2., leading to

the *eformation of -hristianity. 3oth sides && orthodoy and the reformers && agreed that the social

space should allow critical thinking, independent inuiry, and separation of church and state. %his

clipped the wings of -hristianity from its control over the public space. -onseuently, contemporary

4estern religion is largely a private affair and focuses less on control over society.

4hile -hristianity does remain very active socially today, and has strong positions on abortion,

euthanasia, and many other ethical matters, it is not the final legal authority to resolve sociological

disputes. It has a position on these, but this is only 'a' position and does not automatically become 'the'

position in 4estern society.

%he situation in Islam is entirely different. comparable *eformation has never been accomplished

successfully, and those who have tried such amendments have been killed as heretics. ence, in many

ways, the sociological dictates of orthodo Islam today are comparable to those of pre&*eformation

-hristianity. 5or instance, during the $iddle ges, -atholic bishops had fatwa&like powers to give

8/11/2019 Root of Kashmir Conflict

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/root-of-kashmir-conflict 2/2

death sentences. %hey had police powers, and controlled the definition and enforcement of public law.

(%he greatest gift that the 4est could give to $uslims is guidance in bringing about such a

*eformation, as that watershed event was the beginning of the rise of the 4est. %he only losers would

be the Islamic clergy.#

5urthermore, sociological mandates of a religion are also of two kinds: internal ones, such as the varna

system, marriage customs, gender relations, and so forth, that only impact the internal society within aparticular religion+ and external ones, such as the reuirement to proselyti"e or to kill or ill&treat

outsiders, that impact those who are outsiders to a given faith.

In my view the theological and internal, sociological, aspects of a religion are not  the primary causes of

global conflict. *ather, the eternal, sociological, aspects of religion are the direct causes of global

conflict.

It logically follows that it is the business of the world at large to interpret, uestion, and challenge those

aspects of a religion that take a position concerning outsiders. If I am the subect of some other

religion's doctrine, and such a doctrine states how I am to be treated, what is to be done to me, what Imay or may not do freely, then, even though I am not a member of that religion, it does become my

business to probe these doctrines and even to demand a change. !n the other hand, if a religion minds

its own business, and has little to say pertaining to me as an outsider, then I should respect its right to

be left alone.