Introduction to Geopolitics

Khawateen Markaaz
, originally an organization
that carried out social work for Muslims in Kashmir, joined the 
Azaadi
Movement in
1990. This group wishes for an independent Kashmir and believes:
Kashmir is occupied by both India and Pakistan. We are Kashmiri women. We
are committed to independent Kashmir. We respect all religions. We are not
fundamentalists. People of all religions will live side by side. Kashmiri pandits
should come back here, this is their motherland.
(Women’s Initiative, 2002, p. 86)
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
M E S S Y   G E O P O L I T I C S
207

---

On the other hand, 
Dukhtaran-e-Milat
, begun in 1980, wishes that Kashmir become part
of Pakistan. The movement uses the terms Hindustan and 
jihad
and its leader says that
“if the men make a pact with Hindustan, women of 
Dukhtaran-e-Milat
will pick up the
gun even against our own men if need be” (Women’s Initiative, 2002, p. 87). Clearly,
the imperatives of nationalism are more important than submitting to traditional gender
roles here. Ironically, the motivation is far from progressive though, as men are to be
challenged only if they are seen to be nationalist appeasers.
Many women, the majority who are not themselves a part of militant activity, accept
the supporting role to men in their lives who join 
tanzeems
. In other words, structures
of patriarchy implicate women in the conflict through their subordinate relationship to
husbands. Two women from Bandipora express their acceptance of family members
taking part in militant activity: “I knew my husband was a militant. I knew that some
day he would be killed. I grieve, but I do not complain” (Chhachhi, 2002, p. 194).
Regarding her son, another woman said: “The child of a freedom fighter will be a
freedom fighter” (Chhachhi, 2002, p. 194).
The case study of Kashmir has emphasized the diversity of geopolitical agents within
a particular conflict and the intersection of a number of geopolitical structures. In our
framework we note that geopolitical agents have opportunities and constraints set by
geopolitical structures. If agents and structures are both multiple, then the choices made
by geopolitical agents and the identities that come to the fore will be complex or
“messy.” However, the “messiness” is a function of the many geopolitical structures
that interact to form particular geopolitical contexts. Moreover, geopolitical agents have,
well, agency, or the ability to make choices—such as the Kashmiri women who either
rejected the language of nationalism or adopted it. By emphasizing “messiness” in this
final chapter two things should stand out. First, no geopolitical conflict is simple—there
are divisions within the antagonists, or many different struggles (gender, race, religion,
etc.) are in play within what is often reported as a “one-issue” situation. Second, you
can understand the complexity by identifying the different structures that are operating,
and noting the way they intersect. As a result, an attempt can be made to identify and
understand the options (or lack of them) available to the different agents.
Messiness and structure
The “messiness” of geopolitics is a term aimed at emphasizing the intersection of gender,
generation, ethnicity, and religion with structures that are more commonly associated
with geopolitics, namely state-versus-state competition and national identity. However,
geographies of the global projection of power, inter-state conflict, and nationalism are
not to be ignored. At the time of writing, three stories in one edition of the