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

Mon Sep 17 10:37:59 IST 2007

Dear Shuddhaa , S of SAP.

1. And the World remained Silent has a censor certificate .

2. Please correct your statement ....it is not Indian occupied Kashmir , But
Indian Kashmir . Few words here and there makes a difference.

3. Walking into Nepal does not have anything to do with Indias economic
power. Had it been the case Burma was a much poorer neighboring country.

4. ARKP is a party to Kashmir issue , being the aborgonies of the land where
our history goes back to 5000 years +.

For , Shudhaaa , a person who jumps at every instenve whenever yasin maliks
name is taken , ARKP is a problem......

Is that what is much similar to Stockholm Syndrome ?

Pawan Durani

On 9/17/07, Gargi Sen <sen.gargi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 controlled
> market¹
> being peddled by the money bags as free 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 ladies¹ 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 gonna¹
> 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 jewel 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 weapons-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 war¹ ), 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/>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>