Introduction to Geopolitics

party, in an attempt to make peace across national and religious lines.
Another major Indian party, the Indian National Congress, emphasized security
issues, especially the threat of terrorism, in its political campaign. The party’s website
juxtaposed the metageography of terrorist networks with a notion of a harmonious multi-
national state: “Indian National Congress will forcefully resist all attempts at using the
issue of cross-border terrorism to polarise our society on religious and communal lines”
(Sankalp, 2003). Defense of state boundaries was used by the party to make a claim for
broad national support.
The conflict in Kashmir extended beyond the immediate region. The tension between
Hindus and Muslims was focused upon geographic locations religiously significant to
both groups. In 2002, 53 Hindus were killed in a terrorist attack on a train that was
returning them from a religious voyage to Ayodhya. They had started to plan the erec-
tion of a Hindu temple at this site, which is of importance to both Muslims and Hindus
(Lineback, 2002, p. 1). The bloodiest example of this type of conflict in India occurred
in Mumbai (Bombay). Here riots broke out after Hindus destroyed a Muslim temple
that they believed to be built upon the birthplace of their god, Rama. Eight hundred
people died during these riots (Lineback, 2002, p. 1). Conflicts throughout India continue
to occur. It is primarily a Hindu country but has the second highest number of Muslims
(136 million, 14 percent of the population) after Indonesia (Lineback, 2002). The nature
of these conflicts illustrates the reflexive consideration of religion; in other words, reli-
gious loyalties are entwined with nationalist struggles. Religious identity reinforces
conflict over the structure of the nation-state, and simultaneously religious organizations
and beliefs are reinforced within a context of nationalist struggle (Stump, 2005).
I N T R O D U C T I O N   T O   G E O P O L I T I C S
204

---

The official position of Pakistan takes a different approach to the conflict by trying
to make a moral argument of national self-determination. On the official website of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, amongst nine topics (including “Government,” “Country
Profile,” “Economy”) is the topic “Kashmir.” In the “FAQs” portion on Kashmir, the
Pakistani government states through the very first answer that Kashmir is different from
other territorial disputes in that
the territory involved is a whole country. . . . Here the matter is not one of
placing a few hundred square miles on one side or the other of an international
frontier and thus settling a boundary conflict. It is a matter of the disposition
of a country through the same process by which the two contestants, the Indian
Union and Pakistan themselves emerged as independent states—the process of
establishing sovereignties on the basis of popular consent.
(Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 2004)
Furthermore the website continues to explain that neither the Maharaja’s signature on
the Instrument of Accession nor the support of Sheik Abdullah and the National
Conference legitimize the accession to India. This is based on the argument that these
acts were not done with the consent of the Kashmiri people. The government of
Pakistan’s argument resorts to the ideology of nationalism, that the will of a nation
demands a state.
The conflict is not just about one state versus another, or even a singular nationalist
claim, though. Religious identity, ethnicity, age, and gender are all important structures
that combine in different ways. People in the Muslim community have experienced
severe treatment from the ever-present Indian security forces. “What unites disparate
ideologies and programmes as well as ordinary people is a common enemy—the security
forces” (Women’s Initiative, 2002, p. 90). Due to mistreatment, a feeling of favoritism
of the Indian government toward Hindus, and unfair elections, militant groups (known
as