[Reader-list] Self determination in Kashmir-reply to Vishal

[Gargi Sen]

Dear Rahul, the R of ARKP,
I hope your post below is able to rest Khemendra's mind (I am getting so
very fond of that man) and explain exactly why I clubbed you into the the
mob. It is simply because you share an inability to imagine.

Just listen carefully to your own arguments

    This is my
    response to Vishal and it has my argument as to why
    the nation may resort to censorship in some cases-to
    be specific,why it would censor something that
    promotes self determination in Kashmir.


Just for your information - the nation/ state/ nation state/ whatever did
not censor Jashn-e-azadi. A group of  disgruntled Kashmiri Pundits did. Now
since when did this bunch of KPs become the 'nation' whatever that may be?
And how come YOU choose the side of one KP against the other? After all the
director himself is a KP.

For your information a nation, even this great one, does not 'censor'. This
one makes it mandatory  a pre-censorship of films only. The only art form
requiring pre-censoring is a film (exception Gujarat that requires the
scripts of plays being performed to be censored.) You can write a book,
create poetry, paint and publicly display, but you can not do so with film.
Many of us believe that the government¹s policies are discriminatory if not
downright unethical. No one has the right to censor ­ and I am not talking
about regulations. Now on personal, political and ethical grounds many
independent filmmakers will not apply for censorship for their film. And
that is a stated, collectivised political position. And this community still
does it, knowing jolly well the consequences.
Also, getting a censor certificate does not mean that the film will not run
into controversy, be stopped, or banned. Perzania is the latest in this
list. Of course there are many stopped by the lunatic fringe. However, what
is often missed by filmmakers themselves also is how the Œcontrolled market¹
being peddled by the money bags as Œfree market¹ also effectively blocks the
film¹s run. 
And try selling this argument of yours to Ashok Pundit and the ARKP who
quite successfully screen another film on KPs migration from valley. A tear
jerker called And the World Remained Silent (or something similar.) No state
or no nation has stepped in to stop that one.
This discussion can go on forever. But only when you have your arguments
properly constructed.
AND incidentally, I am a woman. AND I hope you can get over your
squeamishness about Œladies¹ to engage with me


    Now,many people think that A united and independent
    Kashmir for all Kashmiris is the only just solution to
    this 60 year old dispute.

Right, and I am one of those. AND a woman to boot.
 

    This is a very  appreciable sentiment, but I dont
    think that is gonna happen.

Why not Rahul? History provides information to the contrary. You and I would
not be citizens of a so-called free nation if such things were not Œgonna¹
happen. And remember my gender.

    Nations dont work on such canonical moral
    principles.For getting anywhere near to the solution
    of Kashmir, it is very necessary to get to grip with
    realities.Neither India nor Pakistan will benefit from
    an independent Kashmir. Neither will Kashmir itself.As
    for UN,the resolutions are not mandatory and UN
    reiterates a policy of non interference and
    bilateralism.Neither can any side (India \pak)bomb the
    other party to come to a solution. Nor can any country
    bleed the other to a point of submission by terrorism
    etc.

I agree. But what about the Kashmiri people? The Kashmiris themselves? Don¹t
they have ANY stake in these geo-political stakes? Should they care? Should
the people of India have cared when in 1947 it was inconvenient for the
INDIAN govt to give up their Œjewel in the crown?¹ Or even in more recent
history should it have mattered to the people of erstwhile East Pakistan how
inconvenient it was for the government based in west Pakistan that had
over-ruled a democratically chosen leader who happened to be from East
Pakistan, imprisoned him and initiated the marshal law in East Pakistan, how
terribly, terribly inconvenient it was for West Pakistan to face an united
forced, united by language (of a kind at least)? Should they have cared? Or
should the people of Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh or even Uttaranchal (although I
really prefer Uttarakhand) have cared how their insisting on a state of
their own have made their mother states to face huge revenue loss?

    Lets examine India`s stakes in Kashmir.For India
    a) it will have a bad effect on insurgencies in the
    North East,
    b)Ladakh is a strategic location wrt China, and India
    would not be comfortable with that going in a
    different country.
    c) Distrust of Pakistan( or its dictators) to not to
    try to usurp any further territory.
    d) Majority of Indians do not regard Kashmir as a
    disputed territory and if any party is perceived to go
    soft on Kashmir, it would have a very difficult time
    to get elected again.
    So , from India`s view point,plesbicite just aint
    gonna happen at the cost of whatever armtwisting it
    may have to do or it may have to tolerate.

Do you have any support to bolster these arguments? Especially the last?
Many of us even on this list believe Kashmir is occupied by the Indian
military. And incidentally I am a woman.

    I dont know much about Pakistani politics but there is
    the one water treaty,for them to have reservations in
    wanting an independent Kashmir. I dont know what
    interest or logic Pakistan has in supporting those
    Islamist terrorist organisations,though, or whether
    there is an internal political spin to it.

Now that¹s interesting. The water treaty that India has with Pakistan. Have
you ever wondered why despite 3 wars (and these were wars where armies and
the airforce bombarded each other and NOT the new definition of war wherein
you pulverise a nation to dust, slap an embargo on it for 11 years, take out
all its military strength, cry Œweapons-of-mass-destruction¹ and begin
bombing again AGAINST the opinion of the entire world this time. India
Pakistan at least fought some kind of a skirmish closer in meaning to the
term Œwar¹ ), have you wondered why despite such military provocations and
aggression, the water treaty is left sacro-sanct? AND why does you great
government NOT have even the courtesy of language while writing water
treaties with Bangladesh? And you can forget looking for anything like a
treaty with Nepal. After all the economic power of this powerful state
ensures that you can walk into Nepal even without a visa.

    Coming to Kashmir itself, it is a landlocked region
    with scant resources. If it does become a sovereign
    state,it will also have problems with its non uniform
    demographics. There would always be some sort of
    strife in it.A referendum of 60-40 in the favour of an
    option would only guarantee the continuation of some
    kind of trouble in the region.

Landlocked. Scant resources. Non-uniform demography. Now that¹s interesting
Rahul. So all nations described by these definitions should immediately
begin to secede to their neighbour? Right? Open your school geography book
Rahul and look at the map of the world. And please make a list of all the
nations that must immediately cease to be as they are landlocked, with scant
resources and with non-uniform demography. And remember you are now arguing
with a woman.

    So, referendum, as far as I can see,is almost
    impossible pragmatically.India, unilaterally, would
    not allow it to happen,without consideration for
    Pakistan or Kashmiri`s interests.
    Not to say that all the people dont have a stake in
    the solution of the problem.Most of all the Kashmiris.
    Then Pakistan and India(gas pipeline and defense
    expenditure). A solution is a win win option for
    everybody.Concerned parties should be realistic and
    pragmatic,instead of just keeping on with their
    idealism;because its a matter of life and death for
    many people.

Right, now we talk pragmatism. After dishing out useless, non-substantiated
arguments now you tell me to be pragmatic. But Rahul dear, the word Romance
is equivocally opposed to the word Pragmatic. And worlds get changed by
romantics, not pragmatics. Don¹t believe me? Read you school books of
history.

    And,above all , all concerned parties should drop this
    holier-than-thou charade of self determination, and
    come to a sensible solution which is acceptable to
    everyone,and everyone will have to budge from their
    stated positions.

Who are the concerned parties? The ARKP?  The film Jashn-e-azadi? Who
exactly Rahul? 

    By the way,I am not batting for anyone.As much as I
    know myself,which is not much anyway,If I had been a
    Pakistani\Kashmiri\Icelandic\Hindu\Muslim\Rastafarian\Lennonist(Imagine
    theres no country)\Leninist\charsi etc.. my opinion
    would have been the same.
    regards
    Rahul

And that truly is the very unfortunate part of your mind. Despite serious
shifts in geography, philosophy and the state of mind, your mind is fixated,
ossified, focused, uni-directional. You don¹t know but you must send a LONG
post about position that you can neither defend nor justify.

That¹s why Rahul dear you¹re the R in my list of ARKP. Get?

Now remember I have been reminding you of my gender through out? That is
just so that you can answer these powerful words from a sender-of-post Sveta
who I know only through her post

³ In a way lists are fairly revelatory of implicit acceptances... & are
private mail abuses to women list subscribers not a clear sign of how
recklessly these implicits can be performed without any check or restraint,
and very assured that there will be no consequence to it³

I do want to believe that that is not so. That there will be consequences.
On no other space on this world perhaps but for certain on this virtual
space. So Rahul dear do me a favour. Look up my namesake Gargi spelled
G-A-R-G-I (or read one of the Sarai Readers) about who she was and how she
argued. She was finally shut up by the sage Yagyavalka, cornered by her
arguments, because of her gender.

Now today, with perhaps one hundreth of the intellectual and informational
base of the original Gargi (BUT with access to toilet cleaners, chinese
lawyers and the wikipedia) I challenge you Rahul to argue, with reason and
logic without squeamishness of gender and at least construct something of
value. Not just opinions and hot air. And if you can¹t argue with me, a
woman, allow me to remind you of a North-Indian/ western South Asian, deeply
patriarchal insult: wear bangles and sit at home. (I hate this saying. I am
simply reminding you of it.)

Gargi


    
____________________________________________________________________________
________
    Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you
all the tools to get online.
    http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
    _________________________________________
    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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>