[Reader-list] Kashmir Session at WSF

[Zainab Bawa]

Dear Shuddha and everyone,

I was very interested that while writing about WSF, you, Shuddha, mentioned 
about the Kashmir session which you had attended where Yasin Malik, Pervez 
Hoodbhoy, Karamat Ali and others were present. I also attended the session 
but came in half way, by which time Yasin had almost finished speaking. I 
sat right through to the end of the session.

While the session was in motion, a man was constantly “interrupting”, 
desperately wanting to say something. He seemed to several important 
comments and questions, but he was constantly silenced and made to sit down. 
At one point, he was severely shouted down and overall, he became as much 
the focus of attention as Yasin and others sitting on the stage were.

After all the speakers had finished speaking, a question-answer session 
ensued. There were too many people who were eager to speak and ask 
questions. Many were boiling from within and dying to ask their most wanted 
questions.

Again, the same chap from the audience rose up to speak. He was getting 
agitated and impatient because he was just not being given a chance to 
speak. When he got up to speak, he was made to sit down again. On several 
occasions, like the classic “mischief monger, let’s-avoid-him” syndrome, he 
was insulted and made to sit down. I am sure that the more he was silenced, 
the more he wanted to speak out. At one point, two ladies sitting behind me 
said loudly, “Let him speak! If he does not get a chance to speak at WSF, 
where else will he speak?” They made this statement twice, till ultimately, 
the man was given his opportunity to speak. He asked Yasin as to how someone 
who had killed several people could go the Gandhian way, when Gandhi himself 
had fought non-violently for India’s independence. Yasin responded to the 
question by saying that the British had supported Gandhi, but we Kashmiris 
are not even being given our space to speak out our aspirations by the 
Central Government. The man had many more questions to ask, but he was not 
allowed to continue.

Similarly, at the beginning of the question-answer session, a Kashmiri 
Pandit lady spoke up, saying not a single lady was represented on the panel. 
I personally know this lady and she vented out some of her prejudices and 
anger against Muslims. Later, when she moved out of the pandal, she was 
shouted down by some woman activist for raising communal questions and 
making communal comments.

One of the things which I have felt during sessions on “Kashmir” and 
sensitive issues pertaining to an emotionally charged topics like 
nationalism, Indo-Pak relations and communalism, is that there are always 
people in the audience who are seething from within and people having very 
strong nationalistic sentiments about India and that “Kashmir should remain 
a part of India” is their very strong conviction. Each one of them has their 
own very good and logical reasons for holding on to their convictions. The 
point is, are we ever going to enter a dialogue if we are constantly going 
to silence such people, insult them and shout them down to sit quiet? I am 
beginning to realize that there are umpteenth number of people today in 
India, who have their own biases and prejudices and strong belief (however 
right or wrong these may be!) against and towards people of ‘other 
communities’. For every one, there is always an other! The point is, for how 
long are we going exclude ‘such people’?

Neither of us is holier than thou. At times, it is really an imperative to 
exclude such people, but I think there is never going to be a resolution to 
various conflicts if we are always going to exclude them! The walls will 
just continue to grow longer and stronger. And, I definitely don’t want this 
because then, we are furthering the very ideology that we claim to be 
against.

How do you include ‘them’ then? This is a tough question and there is no 
one-size-fits-all answer. I am trying, and experimenting, and most often, I 
can only go by my gut, gauging the sincerity of the ‘other’ person.

Similarly, there are questions about representation. When we put people up 
on a panel to speak on a certain issue, by what markers or standards have we 
decided that they are the ones who represent the issue the best? Again, I 
have no answer for this question, but it is very important that I 
continuously ask myself this question, particularly, when I am asked to 
speak for a group.

I am personally quite decided against the conventional seminar/panel style 
discussion. It is furthering the schooled mentality of “here is an expert 
who knows best and we, the audience, will be educated by him/her.” In the 
case of an ultra-sensitive issue like Kashmir (which is what it has come to 
be), I am boycotting these seminars and panels because:
A.	Not everyone has a chance to speak
B.	We want to shut off people who we don’t want to listen to (irrespective 
of whichever side we may belong to!)
C.	There is no follow-up after the initial information giving and with the 
amount of inflamed passions that are aroused, different sides go back bitter 
and angry, with their biases reconfirmed and reinforced

I remember when Gujarat riots were going on, I had, in this very e-group, 
asked a question, “What can we do?” I realize that the answer lies in being 
able to reflect on the processes which we want to employ in order to move 
forward. We do not always need hard-core projects and ‘action’, but, a 
constant journey of asking critical questions to ourselves and to others. I 
personally need to look for ways and means which are based on inclusion and 
listening, ways and means where silences are meaningful and not awkward and 
uncomfortable …

- Zainab Bawa

_________________________________________________________________
Easiest Money Transfer to India . Send Money To 6000 Indian Towns. 
http://go.msnserver.com/IN/42198.asp Easiest Way To Send Money Home!