[Reader-list] Gun Salutes for August 15

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Sonia,

Thank your for your considered reply. I am in agreement with much of  
what you have said. And I am taking this opportunity to reply to both  
your posts.

First let me address the matter of what Aditya Raj Kaul reported  
occurred in the NDTV studios during the recording and broadcast of  
the last episode of 'We the People'. I take your word in his defence  
that someone you identify as an elderly Kashmiri in the audience,  
'cried Inshallah' when Mr. Khajuria, the Jammu BJP leader said that  
the protests in Kashmir were aimed at bringing 'Nizam-E-Mustafa' into  
being. It is clear that he (the Jammu BJP leader) was referring,  
among other things, to the All Party Hurriyet Conference leader Syed  
Ali Shah Geelani's recent speech, where he asserted his desire to  
merge Kashmir with Pakistan, and went on to express his desire for  
the promulgation of what he called  'Nizam e Mustafa'. Geelani's  
remarks, even his plea for recognition as 'the leader of the  
movement' was by no means met with unanimous approval by the crowd  
that had assembled to listen to him and others. In fact, as we know  
by now, he was forced to render an apology soon after. To be fair, he  
did say that the lives and properties of all minorities would be  
protected in a future Kashmir ruled by the dispensation represented  
by what he called 'nizam-e-mustafa', but frankly, I do not care as to  
whether he did so, or not. I do not seek assurances for the  
protection of life and liberty in the pronouncements of political  
leaders and when they make such pronouncements, i think we must treat  
them with a necessary degree of healthy scepticism. If we do so when  
we listen to L.K.Advani, there should be no reason not to do so when  
we listen to Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

As per your report only one elderly gentleman from amongst the  
several assembled Kashmiri muslims in the NDTV studio that evening  
'cried Inshallah' in the wake of the invocation of the phrase 'Nizam- 
E-Mustafa' by Mr. Khajuria of the Jammu BJP. Just as the assembled  
gathering of Kashmiri Muslims in Srinagar who listened to Ali Shah  
Geelani, respectfully, but not without letting their strong  
disagreement be known, does not translate into automatic endorsement  
of some of his (S.A.S Geelani's) senile fantasies, so too, the mere  
presence of Kashmiri muslims in the NDTV studio does not translate  
into an automatic endorsement, let alone echoing, of what it turns  
out, was the lone voice of another elderly gentleman.

One elderly gentleman (Ali Shah Geelani) said 'Nizam e Mustafa' (and  
maybe some people echoed this slogan, maybe they did not, and I am  
not even going into whether they know what they meant when they  
echoed it, if they did) , another elderly gentleman (Mr. Khajuria)  
relayed it, and another elderly gentleman in the NDTV studio said  
'inshallah' .

And a young gentleman by the name of Aditya Raj Kaul transformed this  
episode into the following - "The Kashmiri Muslims present screamed  
Inshallah". One Kashmiri muslim gentleman becomes 'the Kashmiri  
Muslims' (without qualification or exception) and an utterance that  
was not very clearly audible, becomes a scream. I think you will  
appreciate the disingenousness of Aditya Raj Kaul's statement. I hope  
you will join me in condemning this practice of making blanket  
generalizations about any community, on the basis of a reading of the  
actions of any one person. I point this out only to underscore that  
it shows us the way in which the spin doctoring of Kashmir is often  
done, whether with regard to the valley, or to the microcosm of a  
television studio. And so suddenly, everything else that was said and  
heard gets forgotten, and we end up only discussing whether or not  
someone assented to the phrase - "nizam-e-mustafa". And so, by  
association, any discussion on Kashmir is held hostage to our  
different views about Nizam-E-Mustafa, Pakistan and Islamist  
politics. We are compelled, by this tactic, to forget that there are  
many other kinds of voices in Kashmir, some of which are in radical  
disagreement, some of which are ambivalent, and some of which are  
indifferent to these tropes. One way of being respectful towards a  
people is to insist that they represent a lively complexity, that  
they are not the android subjects of some dystopia who have been  
rendered completely incapable of thinking and saying more than one  
thing. That if they are Kashmiri Muslims, they can only think and  
feel about nizam e mustafa and that if they are Kashmiri pandits,  
they can only sing the same monotonous tune of Indian nationalism  
again and again. I am not at all implying that these are your views,  
but I do hope that you will join me in insisting that we resist these  
efforts at violent and obfuscatory simplification. I hope that  
everyone on this list will refrain from these low blows in the  
future. The debates on this list do not need these slightly lame  
tactics. While we are at it, let us recognize the fact that Mr.  
Khajuria and Mr. Ali Shah Geelani seemed equally interested in  
talking about Nizam-E-Mustafat at at time when the real issues facing  
the people of Jammu and Kashmir are to do with state repression,  
economic blockades, perceived and real disciminations, etc. That is  
an interesting co-incidence in itself. The BJP (and its minons) and  
at least some of the factions that attempt to run the deep state  
within the state in India must be terribly glad that Ali Shah Geelani  
gave them such a marvellous gift, the possibility of an immediate  
division of forces and opinions within the current Kashmiri  
opposition in the valley. I hope that this gift is proven (by the  
people of Kashmir) to be a cheque that bounces when all the concerned  
parties seek to encash it.

Now I come to more important questions that you have raised in your  
follow up postings on this thread.

I am in agreement with you that the restraint and maturity being  
shown by the people of Kashmir who are protesting is exemplary, and  
needs to be recognized for what it is. Terrorists and the secret- 
police are mirror images of each other, and nothing scares either  
more than the happy sight of a peaceful and passionate assembly of  
human beings who are fashioning for themselves the terms of their own  
liberty, without the burden of arms, secrecy, intrigue and the stench  
of blood. So far, the Terrorists and their colleagues and partners in  
the secret-police apparatus of the nation-states that hold Kashmir in  
thrall are on the defensive, and the people of Kashmir seem to have  
the upper hand. Lets hope that it stays this way.

I am totally in agreement with the fact that this phase of non- 
violent protest indicates that the people of Kashmir have (re) 
discovered (at least for now) their own strength, that they are  
unwilling to be dictated to by any votaries of the cult of terrorism  
and that they are also just as unwilling to be dictated to by  any  
self appointed 'leaders' , whosoever they may be.  (As I have pointed  
out, Ali Shah Geelani had to apologize for his attempt at dictating  
the agenda and direction of this struggle, as if it were his personal  
fief, and he was compelled to do this because the people who are  
turning out on the streets of Kashmir seem at present to be unwilling  
to be taken for a ride yet again by any one who attempts to broker  
their desires for liberation from the occupation). At least at  
present, the people of Kashmir are ahead of those who claim to be  
their leaders, way ahead. Their so called 'leaders' must take comfort  
in hoping that they are not left too far behind as they attempt  
(confusedly) to follow the people.

You are right. The reports that are available do seem to suggest that  
the CRPF and J&K Police and the Armed Forces have matched the non- 
violence of the protestors by not killing more people than they  
already have. This is welcome. At all costs, I hope that everyone  
concerned will act in a way that avoids and mitigates against  
violence, the threat of violence and the loss of life.I hope this  
brings some sobriety to bear on the arrogance of all those who hold  
the shaky reins of power in Kashmir, and in Delhi. The eyes of the  
world are upon Kashmir, and if the people of Kashmir do not waver  
from their current course of protesting peacefully, in large numbers,  
democratically, they will have held out an example to oppressed  
peoples and their struggles, elsewhere in the subcontinent.

Let me state here that the question of an agreement, or disagreement,  
with the substantive political content of the struggle for what is  
being called 'Azaadi' in Kashmir, as it is played out by all the  
actors on the stage, is one thing, and a categorical demand for the  
withdrawal of the Indian government's militarized occupation of the  
Kashmir valley is another thing. And one need not be seen as  
subordinate to the other. I have very strong disagreements with some  
of the ways in which 'Azaadi' is conceived of by a number of the  
articulate political actors in the Kashmir valley. I disagree  
fundamentally with the view that replacing one nation state structure  
with another constitutes 'liberation' in any way. But that  
disagreement is not with Kashmiris in particular, it extends to my  
disagreements with all those, including in india, whether on the  
left, right or centre, who continue to believe that the nation-state,  
and national liberation has anything of value to hold out to humanity  
in the wake of the debris of the twentieth century. But whatever my  
agreements or disagreements may be, I see no reason not to demand  
that even those I disagree with not be made subject to the violence  
of a militarized occupation undertaken by the state that I pay taxes  
to. I do not wish to be complicit in that occupation. I think many  
more people in India are coming around to this view. Their numbers  
will only increase, because Indians, like people all over the world,  
are not stupid. More and more people are realizing and will come to  
realize that for the faintest possibility of peace, equity and  
prosperity to take hold in South Asia, India must let go of Kashmir.  
Only then will there be lasting peace on the subcontinent, only then  
can the tremendous and tragic drain that is the arms race be put an  
end to. Only then will we (in India, Pakistan and Kashmir)  see the  
rudiments of real liberty and freedom from fear and terror. for As  
Arundhati Roy said yesterday in Kashmir, 'India needs freedom from  
Kashmir, as much as Kashmir needs freedom from India'.

All that someone like me, and those of us who share this conversation  
on this list, and elsewhere, can do, by way of solidarity is to  
continue to listen to the voices that are coming from Kashmir, to  
continue to speak to them, to be passionate in our advocacy for the  
end of the occupation and equally passionate if we feel that the  
Kashmiri visions of freedom are shackled by their own unwillingness  
to be reflective of the existing and potential weaknesses that riddle  
those visions.

I disagree with anyone who calls for 'Nizam-E-Mustafa' because I  
disagree with the idea or imagination of any 'Nizam' or regime that  
finds it necessary to protect itself from question by adorning the  
mantle of unquestionable sanctity. The word 'Mustafa' means 'Chosen'  
in Arabic. And the idea of a 'NIzam-E-Mustafa' meaning, the 'state of  
the chosen'  has an uncanny resemblance to the idea of the return of  
the 'chosen people' to their state, which is the foundational myth,  
if you like of Zionism. I know that Syed Ali Shah Geelani would  
probably be horrified to think that his vision of 'Azaadi' has a  
striking parallel of the founding myth of the State of Israel.(and it  
is actually the founding myth of all hitherto oppressed people who  
are led to believe that once they achieve a statehood congruent with  
their idea of who they are, all will be well - this is the general  
condition of all secular, radical, liberal or conservative notions of  
nationalism, of which, Zionism and the idea of the  'Nizam e Mustafa'  
are perhaps the clearest exemplars.)

The perception of a 'State' as the 'Manifest Destiny' of a people  
chosen by God or History, or both, contains within it the seed of a  
terrible tragedy, of yesterday's victims transforming themselves into  
tomorrows tormentors. Of the Pakistani army conducting mass murder in  
what was once East Pakistan, and thus destroying once and for all,  
the delusion of a brotherhood forged on the basis of Islam alone. No  
one could imagine that those who laid the foundations of the Jewish  
state of Israel in the wake of the holocaust would be laying the  
foundations of a detention facility for Palestinians. No one could  
imagine that those who led the oppressed people of India into her  
'tryst with destiny' in 1947, so radiant in the first flush of what  
they called freedom, would turn Kashmir or the North East or much of  
Central India into death camps. We, especially those of us who stand  
by Kashmiris today, against Indian and Pakistani occupation, must  
imagine the possibility  that an 'Azaad' Kashmir, whether it is  
independent, or a part of Pakistan, may also be a similar bitter  
harvest. Nothing can be more lethal than the assumption that victims  
are innocent per se. We must recognize clearly, especially if we  
invest in the idea of 'Azaadi' that those who speak of freedom in  
Kashmir today, may turn out to be oppressors tomorrow. It is because  
of this, that I disagree with any attempt to cloak the idea of the  
state (even, and especially if it claims to speak for and on behalf  
of the oppressed) with any sanctity. As long as the state as a form  
of organising and administering human society remains, we must be  
vigilant, I believe, to ensure that those who lead the state are not  
able to adorn themselves with the concealing cloak of sanctity of any  
kind. The sanctity and glamour of the yesterday's state of being  
oppressed is a weapon in the arsenal of tomorrow's oppressor. This  
applies, without any qualification to the present and future destiny  
of Kashmir, and the people of Kashmir must be vigilant against all  
those who act in the name of the sacred, and most of all, in their  
name, in the name of the people of Kashmir.

Sanctity can be of different kinds, I disagree with the sanctity of  
the Indian constitution as an arbiter of the matters of day to day  
life, as much as I disagree with the sanctity of tradition, of the  
idea of progress, of the Quran, Gita, Bible, or the programme of any  
political party that declares itself to be the engine of history, or  
any other scripture or sanction or text that is framed as revelation,  
beyond and above question. This does not mean that I think that these  
texts, traditions, ideas and programmes, be they the Constitution of  
India, or the scriptures and sources that I mentioned, are devoid of  
anything that may be useful or even inspiring, just that I think that  
when we fetishize them as the ultimate and unquestionable arbiters of  
our lives we immediately transform them from being the keys to  
liberation that they might on occasion be, into becoming the padlocks  
of prisons.

My objection in these matters is not framed in terms of whether the  
'nizam' represents itself as 'secular' or 'confessional', Rather, my  
objection, rests simply on its arrogation by it (to itself) of a  
status of being beyond question. The idea of the nation is a human  
construct and like all human constructs, must face relentless  
criticism when it is found wanting. India, Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir.  
and even, dare I say, the idea of a Secular or a Hindu, or Islamic  
state, are,  in the end, entities brought into being through the  
deeds and misdeeds of human actors. When the frameworks or  
definitional boundaries of these entitites cease to be generative or  
hospitable to human concerns, then, like all other human constructs,  
they must be made open to debate, to questioning, and if necessary,  
be discarded. That I think, is the beginning of Azaadi. I hope that  
these strange, exhilarating and deeply worrying days in Kashmir  
inspire us all to think about what 'Azaadi' can really mean. That  
will be the greatest gift that the people of Kashmir will have given  
to those of us who live this side of the Pir Panjal mountains and the  
Banihal tunnel.

best,

Shuddha




Dear Shuddha,

Finally got a chance to sit down and read your last mail to me and I  
think
again you have misunderstood.  I¹m sorry. Evidently it is not just  
you who
has misread my posts so it must be me at fault! I will try again so here
goes:

1. Pl see my first email on the subject where the Œbaying for blood¹  
phrase
was used in the context of the police/CRPF having to face a mob,  
100,000 +
strong.  I condemned the firing upon unarmed protestors but  
conjectured how
it must feel to confront a mob that size that is coming with aggressive
intent towards one.  In my second mail, in response to your taking issue
with my use of the phrase I compared your reasoning and justification  
of mob
violence with Advani¹s.  I am not equating the event of the march to  
the LoC
and Advani¹s wrath yatra or the Œ92 & Œ93 violence.  Do you see the
difference?

2. Of course there is a difference between the attack on a 16th c.  
mosque
and a bunker!!  I¹m truly appalled that you of all people think you  
need to
point this out to someone who cut her teeth on the politics of Babri  
Masjid.
I was hardly equating the two.  You¹d need to feel some sympathy or
agreement with the mosque being perceived as a sign of oppression,  
and no,
let me categorically state that I don¹t and that I am fully aware of the
bunker being the potential locus where bullets are likely to be fired  
from.
I was merely trying to point out, and I quote: Œ...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.¹  It¹s got  
nothing to
do with whether I find justification or not in that perception.  That  
is why
I also used the examples of Sabina¹s house and the ransacking of Moulvi
Abbas Ansari¹s house.

Events have moved on since we had our last exchange.  The Hurriyat  
leaders
realized the potential danger in what I call violent assembly and you  
call
non-violent assembly.  They called for restraint because they knew  
that not
doing so would mean escalation of tempers and violence and death.  
(This was
what I was trying to point out in my earlier mails.)

In every single gathering since then the Kashmiris have been  
disciplined and
have won my admiration and I¹m sure the admiration of many around the  
world.
100,000 people gathered in Pampore and protested peacefully.  I must  
point
out that not a single bullet was fired by the CRPF or the police,  
because
despite similar numbers the mood was very different from the one that  
was
present on the march to the LoC.

There is a new feeling of great excitement within the people of Kashmir.
They can see for themselves what it means to be part of non-violent
movement, to form human chains around the police so that they would  
be safe
from the people, to protest peacefully.  They have demonstrated to  
the world
that the power of the people in a non-violent movement is far greater  
than
the firepower of the militants.  I hope that it is something that  
they will
hold on to because it is more valuable than anything that has  
happened in
the last two decades.

Having said that, I still don¹t agree with the politics.  I don¹t see  
how
this issue will be resolved since every single issue of J&K has been  
thrown
up in the churning: land & pilgrimage (the easiest to deal with),  
regional
imbalance and resentment on both sides, the Hindu-Muslim divide (all too
depressing) nationalism-sub-nationalisms, India-Pakistan... I think the
clock has been turned back and irreparable damage has been done to  
relations
between the people of Kashmir and Jammu.  And with the BJP taking  
this on as
a national issue I can only hope it¹s not the beginning of another Babri
Masjid.

With warmest regards,
Sonia.




On 20-Aug-08, at 6:59 PM, S. Jabbar wrote:

> Dear Shuddha,
>
> Though I virulently disagree with young Aditya Raj Kaul's politics  
> I have to
> say in his defence that he wasn't lying about the 'Inshallah!'
> There was an elderly man, I don't know who he was, who had earlier  
> quite
> correctly thanked the BJP for doing what the militants had been  
> unable to do
> thus far, vitiated the atmosphere to the degree that every Kashmiri  
> loathed
> the idea of India.  It was he who cried, Inshallah!
>
> Something strange happens with the lapel mikes in the NDTV studio.  
> Every
> mike is not on all the time.  I've had that happen to me before  
> where I
> thought I had been able to hit back at Ravishankar Prasad but when  
> I saw the
> program later, no such thing happened. It wasn't in the editing  
> because all
> that he was saying was being heard perfectly, so it's not that they  
> just cut
> those bits out.  I think the mikes are controlled by the producers  
> who let
> some of the cacophony in, not all.
>
> Best
> sj
>
>
>

Shuddhabrata Sengupta