Language is often taken as a primary differentiating factor between people as it functions as a vehicle of cultural expression, thus becoming one of the primary markers of identity. In the history of nationalism, language has always enjoyed a privileged position. Not only had the German Romantics such as Herder and Fichte held language as the fundamental characteristic of a nation, but modernist scholars such as Anderson, too, have given language a central place in their respective assessments of nationalism. In Anderson's analysis, ‘languages of power’ enable an imagined community to become real. However, are all nationalisms glotto‐centric? If not, why not? This article takes the case of Kashmiri nationalism, or the Tehreek, to demonstrate that language and nationalism are not necessarily codependent. The paper will first explain why Kashmiri never came to become a language of power in the region and how the disadvantaged position of the Kashmiri language precludes/d it from having any significant role in Kashmiri nationalism. Second, the paper argues that the multilingualism of Kashmiris has turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the Tehreek and allowed Kashmiri nationalism to assert its civic character.

中文翻译：

---

克什米尔民族主义中没有“克什米尔人”的地方*

语言通常被视为人与人之间的主要区别因素，因为语言是文化表达的载体，因此成为身份的主要标志之一。在民族主义的历史上，语言一直享有特权。不仅像赫德和费希特这样的德国浪漫主义者将语言视为一个国家的基本特征，而且像安德森这样的现代主义学者也将语言放在了他们各自对民族主义的评价中的中心位置。在安德森（Anderson）的分析中，“权力的语言”使一个想象中的社区成为现实。但是，所有民族主义是否都以地道为中心？如果没有，为什么不呢？本文以克什米尔民族主义或Tehreek为例，以证明语言和民族主义不一定是相互依存的。本文首先将解释为什么克什米尔人从未成为该地区的权力语言，以及克什米尔语的不利地位如何阻止/使它在克什米尔人民族主义中没有任何重要作用。其次，该论文认为，克什米尔人的多种语言事实已成为特里克人的变相祝福，并允许克什米尔人的民族主义维护其公民性。