Ethnic Conflict In India

India has been described as a ‘vast mosaic of tribes, clans, castes, sects and communities, each with its own identity.’ (Beteille, 2015:76) and this is certainly true. With 780 languages and a complex colonial history, integrating diverse communities is no simple task. However, the Indian state has tried to tackle diversity through employing a secular constitution, whereby all religions are recognised equally, a policy of linguistic federalism and, an overall federal structure. Despite this, some communities aspire to a regional homeland which, has caused years of violent ethnic conflict and preoccupation for the central Indian government. This essay will seek to unpick a case of longstanding ethnic conflict in India, that in Kashmir. When

Adeney (2013: 127) argues that India is an ethnofederation and uses this to explain the success of federalism in promoting diversity, arguing that conflict arises when groups are intermixed and that they hold more fault for conflict. However, this is challenged by arguments that the Indian state alone is to blame for the persistence of ethnic conflict. Taking the long-standing conflict in Kashmir as the primary example, their culturally distinctive identity is historic. It is worth noting here that the Indian state was not cause the conflict in Kashmir, that was certainly the fault of the partition, however, the following decades of instability and violence are primarily due to the Indian’s states centralizing policies, poor governance in Kashmir, heavy handling and the erosion of promised autonomy. Within Kashmir are many different organisations, with some vying for greater autonomy (that was promised and withdrawn with article 370) to secession demands, to union with

Kashmir fits the pattern of separatism, it can be argued, as civilians seek to pursue their goals through conventional methods of politics, like for example, a peaceful protest resulting in thousands injured or killed like in 2008 and 2010. It seems that whenever they are repressed or denied is where separatism is then pursued. Saideman asks: “what does it take to get into and stay in power?” (2005:207) and states that there are three things which matter in shaping a group’s aspirations towards either independence or union. They are: ‘the group’s relationship with their mother country; the destiny of the group’s relationship with the mother country and the relative situation of the group as a whole in the alternative futures.’ (Saideman, 2005: 205). Clearly, this would impact the pervasiveness of ethnic conflict, as the activities and condition of groups in Kashmir matter for Pakistan’s politics. India, thus, has some ability in influencing those on the ground and whom they border. Their domestic policies affect three different sets of actors: India itself, Pakistan and Kashmir. If the Kashmiri’s who are two thirds Muslim, are seen to be being denied political rights as well as economic and social development, as is arguably the case in Kashmir, then their status becomes more