What first comes to your mind when you hear the word Kashmir? For me, it is 'Bush the Second'. Or more precisely, it is a cartoon featured in The New York Times right after the first time the Second Bush was elected. It was times when it was commonly discussed that Bush knows nothing about foreign policy. But, he was elected as the President anyway. In the cartoon Bush and his mentor Chaney stand together. Bush the Second asks: Do India and Pakistan fight over a (cashmere) sweater? Chaney, trying to stay calm responds: "Kashmir is a region, sir." By the way, I would like to put a quick note:  Did you know that Chaney's heart does not beat anymore? His blood circulated with the help of a machine. Just like a vampire movie! I wonder if his image is reflected on the mirror. Anyway, today's topic is Kashmir. Or more precisely, the unrest in Kashmir going on for three months up to today and 109 people killed during the protests. I guess this time something weird goes on in Kashmir. A featuring story in the New York Times this week underlined that taking a look at the region might be useful. To me, it is also useful to derive lessons for Turkey out of the region. Let us see why.

Yes, as Cheney told the President Bush, Kashmir is a region Kashmir Valley is in India's territories, bordering Pakistan. Approximately 4 million people live in the region. 95 percent of the population is Muslims and the rest is Hindus. Alongside the separatist parties in the region seeking to be under Pakistan's rule live non-separatist parties. And the separatist parties are not genuinely radical Islamists. At least all of them are not. And the turnout rate in the 2008 December elections boycotted by the separatist bloc is around 60 percent. I guess we can derive some points out of it.

Last week a delegation of Indian parliament, a delegation representing all political parties, went to the region to carry out negotiations. The negotiations are held with the participation of all parties in the Kashmir-Jammu, of course. Even some people from the Freedom Front who boycotted the elections participated in the negotiations. Unlike the past, Indian government did not blame Pakistan for the unrest. It appears that they are seeking an answer to the riots at the domestic state of affairs. It appears that there exists an issue of mismanagement, or they do not have leaders as populist as those in Turkey.

Then, why did the protests emerge following the calm climate since the elections in December 2008?  As informed people explain, the protests occurred as the high hopes promised by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who came to power with the 2008 elections and formed the government, turned into a total fiasco yet over 18 months. Omar Abdullah, born in 1970, got the majority of the votes with highly concrete promises about reforming the relations with India, reducing the number of troops, making troops responsible for their actions and securing political autonomy for the region. He in fact is an Indian classic. He is the last representative of a family which engaged in politics and served as ministers for three generations. He has close relationships with Rahul Ghandhi. By the way, the ruling Congress Party of India is led by Sonja Ghandhi, who is even not an Indian.

Anyway, let us continue. Unrest has been going on continuously for the last three months. And it seems that deaths increase as security forces open fire. As of yesterday a total of 109 people were killed. And there are about 2000 people injured. I think Deputy President of Kashmir Chamber of Trade, telling his travel to the negotiation with the delegation of Indian parliament successfully summarizes the milieu: "I left home in the morning. But I could take the 10-km road only in about half of a day. I had to pass by an average of 20 military checkpoints. I told the officials that I am going to the governorate. They interrogated me at length and asked me why I was supposed to go there." What does this sound like? I first recalled the military checkpoints in West Gaza. Then I thought of the Southeastern Anatolia. They used to be anxious if someone from Ankara visited the cities.

Now, let us make three short conclusions which are relevant also for Turkey: First, in a region where military operations are carried out, forces' being responsible for their actions is a good deal. This is good for the happiness of the public. Second, it is bad to give big hopes and then fail to fulfill those. This applies for both the economy and the politics. In Kashmir, after eighteen months people were eventually fed up with waiting. Indian government is now trying to decide the right step to take. Third, Indian economy was affected by the crisis even less severely then Turkey. The crisis literally missed India. Unlike Turkey, India managed to seize the domestic market opportunity.

By the way, I somehow recalled the Kurdish conflict issue when I read the Kashmir story.

This commentary was published in Referans daily on 25.09.2010