Outcomes from MKMZ and Cages
When I began my work in Kashmir in 2009 it was with the vague idea to (someday) create one ‘balanced’ performance piece that would weave together narratives of victimhood, perpetration, and the grey zones in the region. A ‘balanced’ piece, I told myself, would not be biased toward any one party – be it Civil Society, Militants/Ex-militants, or the Armed Forces – hence my emphasis on the incorporation of voices from the grey zones, which would circumvent mainstream understandings of ‘victimhood’ and ‘perpetration’. However, the processes involved in Cages and MKMZ revealed the naivety of my initial approach and gave rise to a whole array of questions: as a non-Kashmiri creating work in Kashmir, how would I ensure ‘balance’ in my creative processes so that my own autoethnographic analyses could be interwoven with the contributions of my co-creators and spectators? How could I make sure that narratives were included that I would not otherwise encounter because of who I am and what I represent? Did ‘balance’ mean that there would be an equal number of voices from Civil Society, Militants/Ex-militants, and Armed Forces personnel, or would it be the inclusion of voices from the grey zones that would enable ‘balance’ to occur?
My first important insight was that simply including voices from the grey zones of ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ experiences was insufficient – in the eyes of my spectators and co-creators and in the larger scheme of the conflict itself – as a strategy that would accomplish ‘balance’. While I had initially conceptualised grey zones as being sites of intervention between Civil Society, Militants/Ex-militants, and the Armed Forces, the processes of Cages and MKMZ revealed sites of intervention between and within each of the larger identity groups. By ‘within’, I refer to narratives that are contained within the individual categories of Civil Society, Militants/Ex-militants, and Armed Forces that are less dominant – that is, the experiences that do not conform to the grand narratives that frame each of these groups’ positioning in Kashmir. For instance, when considering the grey zones between each of the three groups, we encounter the narratives of Kashmiri soldiers in the Indian Armed Forces and Kashmiri Ex-Armed Forces personnel, which occupy a space between the Armed Forces and Kashmiri Civil Society. In considering grey zones between Civil Society and Militants/Ex-militants, there emerge the narratives of Ex-militants who have returned to Civil Society and must deal with the grudges their communities hold against them. Furthermore, this grey zone also contains the voices of the wives/children of Ex-militants, especially the women who have come to Indian Administered/Occupied Kashmir from Azad Kashmir (also referred to as Pakistan Administered/Occupied Kashmir). Finally, when looking at the grey zone between Militants/Ex-militants and the Armed Forces, we need to consider the voices and narratives of the Ikhwanis, who are composed of Kashmiri Militants/Ex-militants and are now sponsored by/work with the Indian government’s Armed Forces. These grey zones between each of the three groups is then further complicated when considering the in-between spaces within each of the groups. For instance, when looking at grey zones within Civil Society in Kashmir, we encounter: the narratives of Kashmiri women; the experiences of Kashmiri Hindus/Pandits who live within and outside the Kashmir Valley; and the perspectives of Kashmiri civilians who maintain economic ties with the Armed Forces and Militants by supplying fighters with weapons, food, shelter, and information. Likewise, within the larger grouping of Militants/Ex-Militants, we encounter the grey zones that are occupied by incarcerated Militants/Ex-militants, by militants who have joined the militancy for reasons other than ideological goals (such as financial gain, for example), and by women’s roles in the militancy. Finally, within the Indian Armed Forces, we see grey zones emerge when we consider the perspectives of military cadets who will one day be posted to conflict zones such as Kashmir – soldiers who are in Kashmir not because of an ideological standpoint but for the financial security that the job affords – and the narratives surrounding soldiers who reach the point of killing themselves and their colleagues.
The feedback received to Cages and MKMZ also suggested that in a piece that seeks to be unbiased/less-biased/‘balanced’ in who it casts as ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’, dominant narratives must balance the lesser-known narratives from the grey zones. This need is especially highlighted when the theatre maker involved is from outside Kashmir, where the inclusion of dominant narratives seems to function as evidence that the outsider in question has done the requisite amount of ground work to understand the Kashmiri context – thus making it more likely that the lesser known voices will not be seen as the researcher performing a political agenda. In this vein, it emerged that the two dominant narratives from Civil Society that need to be present in any theatrical performance about Kashmir are those of civilians who have been victimised by the Armed Forces’ and Militants’ acts of violence and the narratives of activists who are engaged in non-violent protest. Within the larger category of Militants/Ex-Militants the dominant narratives that seem to be deemed necessary are those that involve active militants who are fighting or have been killed and those that are based on a commitment to their ideologies and narratives that simultaneously highlight the Militants/Ex-militants who are corrupt and/or have perpetrated acts of violence and injustice against Kashmiri civilians. And finally, when looking at the dominant narratives about the Armed Forces in Kashmir, any grey-zone approach (like a mention of fratricide) needs to be balanced by putting forward the narratives of soldiers who are driven by nationalistic sentiments and those who have committed human rights violations against civilians.
When I went to Kashmir in 2009 I had vague ideas in mind for this work; I considered ‘balance’ to be an unbiased performance that would weave together voices from the grey zones of ‘victimhood’ and ‘perpetration’. The reality though, as Cages and MKMZ revealed to me, is far more complex. Through these projects, I realised that balance is not simply about equalising the number of narratives that are shown from different sides or generally performing lesser-known voices. Rather, these are dimensions that need to be carefully calibrated to achieve a reduction/elimination of bias; the two most significant dimensions are:
- the inclusion of grey zone narratives both from within and from between different identity groupings
- the weaving together of dominant and less dominant narratives from different identity groupings
These ideas subsequently took me into IFF Kashmir with this question: How could I practically integrate my reframed understanding of ‘balance’? What aesthetic strategies could I use?
Previous: The building blocks