[Reader-list] Gun Salutes for August 15

Sat Aug 16 17:11:19 IST 2008

Dear Sonia,

Having spelt out what I agree with you on, in my previous post, let  
me, in all fairness, come to what I disagree with you on. Actually,  
disagreement, is not necessarily what I have in mind, what I mean is  
where I see things differently from you. I hope that in the course of  
reading this exchange, our young friend Aditya Raj Kaul will  
recognize that it is possible for people to see things differently,  
and even to disagree, without having to search for new ways of  
insulting each other.

You said,

I read with some surprise your taking issue with my use of the phrase,
> baying for blood¹ and your accompanying list of slogans used  
> during the
> protests.  It is incomplete and I could add a few more but I really  
> don¹t
> want to vitiate and already horrible situation.  I¹m sure you  
> remember 1989
> and the slogan Jai Sri Ram.¹  Advani had used a similar argument when
> challenged.  He said something like, what is communal or  
> provocative about
> taking God¹s name?  What, indeed, except when there is a thousand  
> strong mob
> screaming God¹s name and marching towards Muslim localities as they  
> did in
> 92 and 93.  I would describe that as baying for blood.

The difference between Advani's justification of the Jai Shri Ram  
slogan in 1989 and what I am trying to point in relation to the  
events of the past few days in the Kashmir valley lies in the fact  
that the protestors on the roads and highways of Kashmir were not  
'screaming God's name and marching towards (any particular  
community's) localities.' Had the march been to Jammu, or Amarnath,  
not Muzaffarabad, and had they been seeking a deliberate  
confrontation with the crowds rallying to the SASS slogans, or the  
pilgrims to Amarnath, then you would have been absolutely right. As  
it happens this did not occur. And as I have pointed out before, a  
record number of pilgrims travelled safely to Amarnath this year, in  
the yatra which has just concluded.In this case, the protestors in  
Kashmir were marching not with aggressive intent towards another  
community, but towards the LOC, demanding that the borders be opened.  
I think there is a world of a difference in these two trajectories. I  
think this does suggest that we could recognize that the articulation  
of anger in Kashmir today is more mature than it was even in '89.  
This is all the more evident when we realize that every single person  
in any role of leadership of consequence in the Kashmir valley has  
called for peaceful protest, and for the maintenance of communal  
harmony.

> I can¹t help hearing the ringing similarity between infrastructure of
> oppression¹ and the chilling phrase we used to hear pre-1992,  
> disputed
> structure,¹ symbol of Hindu oppression.¹  Do you remember  
> Naipaul¹s defence
> of Hindutva and why the tearing down of the Babri Masjid was but  
> natural for
> a people who had been oppressed by Muslim rulers for 500 years?   
> The point
> I¹m trying to make is that once you give a group a carte blanche to  
> do as
> they please, to destroy what they consider symbols of oppression,  
> you have
> very little ground to stand on when others whom you may not agree with
> politically do the same.  That is why laws exist and ought to be  
> followed.
>

Again, there is a difference, I think you will agree, between an  
attack on a 16th century mosque, and the disarming of a CRPF bunker.  
The mosque, can for the sake of an argument,(though I do not buy that  
argument) be seen by those who wanted to raze it to the ground as a  
'sign' of perceived communitarian oppression. The bunker, is much  
more than a 'sign', it is the actual locus of oppression. It is a  
place that bullets are fired from. Again, had there been attacks on  
temples, or even on the homes left behind by the Pandits, or the  
schools and colleges that still bear names and signs of Pandit or  
Dogra presence, your argument would have had credence. From the  
reports that we have received, this did not happen. Signs and symbols  
were not touched, what was sought to be dismantled, was the  
'infrastructure' of oppression itself, and this was done without a  
single policeman or CRPF person losing their life. As we all know,  
there are enough loose weapons and explosives in the valley. And it  
is not as if CRPF personnel or policemen have not been made targets  
before. They are sitting targets. Again, I would point out to you,  
two policemen have lost their lives in Jammu, no policeman, CRPF  
personnel, or jawan has lost their lives in the past few days in  
Kashmir. I hope that this continues to be the case.

During the 'quit India' movement in 1942, there was a significant  
disruption caused to the 'infrastructure' of the colonial state.  
Police pickets, radio towers and wireless transmission systems, for  
instance were disabled, and care was taken to see that lives were not  
lost. The people who participated in these attacks did not see what  
they were doing as 'violent', indeed, some, if not the majority of  
them, were passionate advocates of 'non-violence'.

For years, the insurgency in Kashmir has been attacked on the grounds  
that it was only the handwork of a handful of murderous 'terrorists'  
with no popular base. Now that the 'people' are out on the streets,  
not just in thousands, but in tens of thousands, and they are not  
wielding AK-47s, or assasinating anyone, they are being criticized as  
being present in threateningly large numbers. This seems disingenous  
to me, you can't malign a movement when the people are not on the  
streets on the grounds that it is not popular, and then, when the  
people turn up, criticize them for being so many.

Further, I do not agree that laws ought to be followed because they  
exist. We must, in each case, ask, which law, to what purpose, and  
wielded by whom, against whom, for whom. In this case, there is a  
contradiction between the law that guarantees the right to free  
assembly, and the law that prohibits assembly. It could be argued  
that the people of Kashmir are following the spirit of the first law  
in order to violate the letter of the second law. And, we all know  
that patently bad laws exist in Kashmir. Laws such as the Armed  
Forces Special Powers Act. I think it is ethically wrong to obey such  
a law. The question to be asking then, is not, why are the people of  
Kashmir not following the law, but, why are soldiers in the Indian  
armed forces obeying an ethically wrong law.

>
> Re. the 100 acres of land & its distribution: this fact came to  
> light only
> about 10 days ago when the land records were pulled out and  
> examined and was
> not the spark that lit the agitation in Kashmir, sadly.  What did  
> was the
> canard that the SASB acquiring 100 acres was the first step towards  
> Hindus
> settling in the valley by a government that was intent on demographic
> change. Communal? Maybe, maybe not. Xenophobic,yes. Justified, not
> justified: I don¹t care. It¹s just plain silly and tragic to have  
> such a
> brouhaha with people being killed about something that¹s a bare- 
> faced lie!
>

I agree, the question of demographic change with regard to the  
transfer of the Amarnath land is a red herring, and a bare faced lie,  
and smacks of xenophobia. 100 acres do not, and cannot lead to a  
demographic change. And everyone must counsel people in Kashmir to  
abandon this train of thought.  When Kashmiri leaders, for whatever  
reason, talk about 'demographic' threats, they sound exactly as  
foolish and xenophobic as the chauvinist Indian, especialy Hindu  
Right politicians do when they fulminate against 'demographic change'  
that will occur because of Bangladeshi immigration. The protest in  
Kashmir has enough justification, in terms of an anger against the  
alienation of land and against the violence of the state, not to have  
to get bogged down in the chimera of confronting demographic change.

I thank you again for this exchange, as I believe that it has led us  
all in the direction of expressing our thoughts without getting  
caught in the trap of abuse, and recrimination, which some people on  
the list seem unfortunately to have become habituated to.

regards,

Shuddha

Shuddhabrata Sengupta