[Reader-list] On JKLF and Indian Airforce Personnel

[Pawan Durani]

As of now I am in an imposed Exile . An exile imposed by those who welcomed
the Jihadis.

On 9/14/07, Partha Dasgupta <parthaekka at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pawan,
>
> Interesting.
>
> You say that the 'people of Kashmir welcome him with...'
>
> Are you not counting yourself as a 'person of Kashmir'? And if you are,
> why do you have any 'individual pain'
>
> More importantly, what does this have to do with Junaid's post which talks
> about the construction of the armed struggle?
>
> Rgds, Partha
> .........................
>
>  On 9/14/07, Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And I can understand when a killer [ Bitta karate ] of 40 kashmiri
> > pandits
> > come out of jail, people in Kashmir welcome him with garlands and
> > distribute
> > sweet.
> >
> > Where does that imply bearing the individual pain collectively go ?
> >
> > All in the name of Supreme.
> >
> > Pawan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14 Sep 2007 08:15:33 -0000, junaid < justjunaid at rediffmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The Indian state has entered the bodies of Pawan Duranis and Aditya
> > Kauls
> > > imperceptibly. When Mr. Durani or Mr. Kaul speaks, it is the voice of
> > state,
> > > as the sole provider of values, which comes out. The State says "My
> > violence
> > > is my right, and my right alone, but anyone who challenges this right,
> > that
> > > is my sovereignty, she/he/they should be deemed criminal, fit only to
> > be
> > > eliminated through the laws that I make."
> > >
> > > So Mr. Durani, who has unconsciously become the spokesman of the
> > state,
> > > and regurgitates its litanies, would be confounded if someone
> > punctures his
> > > seemingly coherent discourse by refusing to accept the legitimacy of
> > the
> > > state. He will label anti-national and unpatriotic people who don't
> > accept
> > > the state's "natural" logic.
> > >
> > > When Kashmiris started an armed struggle against Indian state, its
> > main
> > > actors, the militants were not separate from, what are mistakenly
> > called,
> > > civilians. No one is innocent in Kashmir, militants, "civilians",
> > Indian
> > > troops or officials, Pandits. They have positions on political issues.
> > >
> > > When a Kashmiri is killed by Indian troops, instead of seeking justice
> > > from Indian state, people come together to forge a solidarity, they
> > bear
> > > individual pain collectively. Take the example of Pathribal killings
> > when
> > > the police fired on Kashmiris protesting fake killings of five
> > Kashmiris,
> > > and seven more died. Why would Kashmiris allow such a thing to happen
> > to
> > > themselves?
> > >
> > > The responsibility for the acts of militants, or armed Kashmiris, was
> > > shared equally by the Kashmiri society. It was quite evident in the
> > way
> > > Kashmiris liberally funded the movement (many people gave away part of
> > their
> > > salaries, month after month, and from the returns from their trade),
> > > participated in popular protests on the call from militants, gave
> > shelter
> > > and food to militants, protested in thousands in funerals for
> > militants, and
> > > suffered individual and collective brutalities at the hands of Indian
> > army.
> > > Militants were seen as the soldiers of the Kashmiri nation, their
> > freedom
> > > fighters, not brigands or criminals.
> > >
> > > Kashmiris never participated in funerals for killed Indian soldiers.
> > Like
> > > the way people in India mourned the death of Indian soldiers.
> > Kashmiris have
> > > always seen Indian forces as occupation troops. Occupation: unlawful,
> > > illegitimate control of territories whose residents don't endorse or
> > > authorize that control. And by popularly and violently opposing Indian
> > rule
> > > in Kashmir, expressed in the slogans and motifs of the movement, a
> > vast
> > > majority of Kashmiris declared their position.
> > >
> > > Now the incident referred to here: The Indian airmen, armed or
> > unarmed,
> > > were part of the Indian state's most visible and brutal aspect, the
> > Indian
> > > defense. Logically, in war the enemy's soldiers, armed or unarmed, are
> > > legitimate targets. That is what they became. If Yasin Malik is
> > hanged, then
> > > those thousands of Indian soldiers who killed thousands of militants
> > should
> > > be hanged too. If he is forced to say sorry to India, then Indian
> > soldiers
> > > should say sorry to Kashmir.
> > >
> > > Kashmir's freedom movement is not a series of individual crimes. As
> > Indian
> > > states atrocities and brutalities are not acts of individual crimes by
> >
> > > soldiers. They are political acts. In Kashmir they are seen as such.
> > >
> > > Personally I am against wars; but at the same time, I am against the
> > > appropriation of the right to violence by the state; and I especially
> > > despise this appropriation in occupied territories.
> > >
> > > Junaid
> > > _________________________________________
> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Partha Dasgupta (9811047132)
> http://www.jaxtr.com/parthaekka