[Reader-list] Kashmir (To Rahul Asthana)

[junaid]

Dear Rahul,

I appreciate that you have brought out a very important argument; albeit one which is generally the last resort for those defeated on the ethical grounds. You imply that ultimately, however immoral, Indian state will continue to occupy Kashmir with force: a typical 'realistic' political statement to make. However, what one misses in arguing this way is that a country's (military) power is not free from vicissitudes of the time and society in which it exists.      

Frantz Fanon spoke of how oppression not only brutalizes the oppressed but also the soul of the oppressor. Increasingly the national elite begin to use military compulsions as a ruse to shy away from most important needs of the country's citizens. The democratic values of debate are pushed aside as way is paved for military and economic elite to make decisions in backrooms.

 I remember Shakespeare's words, which are worth quoting at length: "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervour, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am the Ceaser?"  

Let me tell you something. I personally feel Indian constitution, whatever people might say, is a great document. It has amazing possibilities for people who want to be part of India; it binds them together. The worst enemies of this constitution are the Hindu nationalists. They see it as a big obstacle to their vision of a Hindu state. The values they profess: a masculine, militarized state, not only alienates India's huge minorities and those living in its margins. Thus it is poisoning India’s body-politic, creating conditions for a violent implosion. What is happening in Kashmir, in the North-East, to tribals, to Dalits and Muslims is intimately linked to this process. 

I believe that India has beaten Kashmiris into a nation. In 1989 when popular insurgency began it was very amorphous and not very well thought out. But 18 years of struggle have made Kashmiris reflect hard on their sense of self. I hear many people now who talk of a long drawn out struggle. They think it was naïve to believe that freedom was very much near. They understand the lessons of war well enough. One time fervent India supporters, including my grandfather, have changed their position completely. They tell their younger generation to get ready. They tell them stories of this struggle. They talk of sacrifices. 

        On the other hand, in India so many people, who thought it was a Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and nothing else, do not speak in that language any more. You have become open to the idea of independence, once an anathema for you! Notice the direction of the wind. 
	The world doesn't remain static. The God of Chance, the biggest of them all, laughs at those who speak of status quo. Who thought Soviet Union would splinter? Or Yugoslavia? Who had thought US will get out of Vietnam? In fact so many people in Britain thought Pax Britannica was forever. That India was theirs forever. But the God of Chance and Indians were thinking otherwise.
	I agree with you that many Kashmiris are dying, too many of them. But I hear people speak that they have no choice really: When Indians were fighting for their freedom did they stop when Jallianwala Bagh happened, or when Bhagat Singh and his associated were hanged, or thousands of Indians were put behind bars? If Indian State was in fact a real democracy Kashmiris would not have to die. Their democratic rights would be respected, without resort to violence. 

Keep well,
Junaid 
*****************************************************
Rahul Asthana wrote:

Hi Junaid,
The points about landlockedness and size etc are to be
taken as part of the whole picture.I agree that taking
each point in isolation you will find examples that
will contradict my points.
The biggest point is that India can unilaterally
maintain the status quo.Lets just argue about that.
If you  want to know my opinion,I would want such a
solution in which there is no police state;no army
occupation.I do not care if Kashmir stays with India
or not.I did not want to bring my values into this
debate because they do not matter in the long run.
But if your argument is on the lines of "Hum honge
kaamyaab ek din"..no matter how many people die,then
there is nothing to argue.
A very sincere all the best to you.
regards
Rahul

--- junaid <justjunaid at rediffmail.com> wrote:

>  Â I wonder how the mainstream Indian discourse on
> Kashmir has been internalized, so much that
> independence for Kashmir as a non-possibility is
> seen as natural and obvious. What is it that makes
> even the Indian Kashmir-sympathizers take
> anything-short-of-independence as axiomatic? Why
> can't anyone here make a reasonable, educated
> argument about why this should be the case? 
> 
> Do not speak of size, for Kashmir (valley) is
> definitely larger than many countries in the world.
> If you speak of its land-lockedness, then I can
> count you a number of European and Asian countries
> that are small and land-locked. If you speak of
> three Asian bullies—India, Pakistan and
> China—surrounding it, then I must say international
> treaties, bilateral non-aggression pacts, and
> Kashmir's neutrality will be Kashmir's best defense.
> Aren't so many small countries surviving, and
> actually doing well, with really no defense in
> place, but just goodwill and international norms? If
> you say, lack of economic self-reliance, then I will
> just point to the great natural and human resources
> in Kashmir. 
> 
> And if it is a unique case, then let it be a unique
> country in the world. Weak, Poor, and Defenceless.
> But a country whose people are the masters of their
> fate.  
> 
> If you are still stuck up on "anything-short-of..."
> argument then I must tell you Kashmiris really don’t
> give a damn. They fight for freedom, and they will
> surely learn how to handle it. Before British left
> Indian subcontinent, they used to make a similar
> argument. The Indian visionaries made the counter
> argument that you can't learn to love freedom and
> democracy unless you taste it. Although Indians have
> not come up to the expectations, and its
> elite--Brahmanical as well as corporate--have
> cozened and defrauded the lower castes and the poor,
> yet India is not doing that badly. Since Kashmir is
> not beset with so many contradictions like
> post-independence India, I guess it will outdo India
> in preserving freedom. 
> 
> Kashmir is too beautiful to stay occupied.