Kashmir Against the Grain of Normalcy

Published

A CONVERSATION WITH HAFSA KANJWAL

This conversation between Shivangi Mariam Raj and Hafsa Kanjwal focuses on affects and mythologies deployed by India to condense Kashmir into a landscape of desire and a territory of control. Hafsa’s latest book Colonizing Kashmir: State-building under Indian Occupation allows their discussion to examine slow and invisibilized forms of violence embedded in infrastructures of assimilation as well as complex forms of statecrafting under successive client regimes that have contributed to strengthening India’s settler-colonial project in Kashmir today. They further reflect on the resistance practices of the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir, connecting these with the global landscape of postcolonial colonialism.

Kanjwal Funambulist 7
Soviet delegation out on a car procession with Prime Minister Bakshi and Head of State Karan Singh during their visit to Kashmir in December 1955. The Indian government and Kashmir’s client regimes invited international delegations to visit Kashmir in order to see the development that was happening under the Indian rule. This included press delegations from various countries, including Muslim-majority countries, that would write articles in favor of India’s rule in Kashmir for their domestic audiences. One visit by the Soviet delegation, which included the Soviet leaders Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev, in December 1955, was especially pivotal in securing Soviet vetoes in favor of India at the UN Security Council. / All images sourced via Public.Resource.Org/ Flickr

Shivangi Mariam Raj: The demand for Azadi (liberation) has routinely been pathologized across the ideological spectrum in India, with Kashmiris being labeled as “ill,” “impractical,” “sentimental,” “ungrateful,” “stubborn,” “deviant,” or “terror threats.” There is also the infantilizing trope deployed by the right and the left-liberal forces in equal measure, with the former claiming that Kashmiris are children who deserve to be punished, while the latter insists that Kashmiris are children who need to be loved and brought “back home.” I am also thinking about how the term “atoot ang” (integral part) combines anatomy with cartographic anxieties. Could you tell us how the project of the Indian nation-state has depended on such vocabularies to establish and sustain itself over the last seven decades?