[Reader-list] Gun Salutes for August 15

[S. Jabbar]

> 
> Dear Shuddha,
> 
> Thanks for the long, thoughtful, and impassioned reply, which I enjoyed
> reading. Sorry, I am hard-pressed for time and will be so for the next month
> as I am away from Delhi.  But I¹ve tried to respond as best I could.  I am in
> agreement with much of what you have said but found myself tripping over some
> of what you advocate 3/4 of the way down. I have responded and look forward to
> your response.  I have to say, I enjoy engaging with you on Kashmir.  I do not
> have fixed views but really views that have been forged out of experience.
> I¹m always open to an intelligent critique of those.
> 
> Best regards
> sj
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 agree with you and I wasn¹t at all suggesting that there were others who
>> joined in.  Even if they had a studio full of Kashmiris still doesn¹t make
>> for all of Kashmir.
>> 
>> 
>> 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. 
>> 
>> Ditto.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> Agree
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Agree
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> How do you see this Œletting go of Kashmir¹? I¹m curious.
>> 
>> I have never advocated or believed Kashmir should be held by force.  It is
>> shameful that a nation that prides itself on having won its independence by
>> means of a non-violent struggle should have had to resort to brute power to
>> hold down a region.  It is all the more galling that it has had 60 years in
>> which to convince the people of Kashmir of the benefits of being part of the
>> Indian union and failed time and time again.  If you look at Kashmir
>> post-1947 there have been innumerable agreements signed between the Govt of
>> India and the representatives of the people of J&K and each one of them has
>> worked for a period and then failed.  The 2002 elections brought considerable
>> hope to New Delhi, but 8 years later we seem to have come full circle.
>> Whenever I ask why it is that we (India & Pakistan) seem to be treading water
>> on Kashmir, Kashmiri friends point to the root cause which has been left
>> unaddressed.  The root cause in this widely held view is the promise of a
>> plebiscite or the right to self-determination.  This is a long discussion.
>> 
>> I have no problem, in principle, to say the Kashmiris or anybody else should
>> get Azadi from India and vice-versa, but I¹d have to stop and think about
>> what that means in real terms: What this means for the people of the Valley,
>> Jammu, Ladakh, India and Pakistan; what is my definition of Azadi and how do
>> I propose to practically resolve my ideas given the long and complex history
>> of the region.
>> 
>> 
>> The UN Resolutions speak of a plebiscite to either Pakistan or India.  It did
>> not, in 1948, anticipate the demand for an Independent Kashmir.  It is not
>> simply the Indian state that rejects the Resolutions but also advocates of an
>> independent Kashmir. Pakistan has repeatedly said it would not countenance
>> the creation of an independent Kashmir, and curiously, neither have
>> successive leaders of Pakistan Administered Kashmir.  So how do you
>> practically deal with this situation?  Do we press the UN to revoke, annul
>> and expunge the Resolutions of 1948? No Kashmiri has ever raised this
>> seriously because they know that Pakistan would not allow it.
>> 
>> The state of J&K is extremely complex.  Jammu & Ladakh want closer
>> integration with India.  Some would argue that Muslim areas of Jammu share
>> the Kashmiri sentiment , but though I could be wrong, that has not been my
>> experience.  The Valley itself is divided into the Œpro-Azadi¹ and
>> Œpro-India¹ lots.  The latter, smaller in number, are largely businessmen who
>> have interests in other parts of India and politicians and workers of
>> mainstream political parties.  Besides these, there are border areas like
>> Gurez, Keran, Karnah and to some extent Uri where the people have been
>> largely insulated from separatist political activity of the Valley because of
>> the large presence of the Indian Army and their dependency on them.
>> 
>> Among those wanting ŒAzadi¹ or secession from India, Kashmiris themselves put
>> the divide as 60% for independence and 40% for accession with Pakistan.  How
>> is this to be resolved? After the revolution? I don¹t think so.
>> 
>> I don¹t think another Partition will bring about lasting peace to the
>> sub-continent.  Speaking of which, in 1947, the people of India were not
>> given the right to vote either for or against Partition.  Gandhi proposed and
>> Jinnah had opposed the idea of a plebiscite in 1944. The 1946 election was
>> interpreted as a vote for Partition, but of the 350 million population of
>> India only 10% were eligible to vote in the first place as there was no
>> universal franchise. So, the verdict of 35 million people divided into
>> separate electorates was taken as the will of the people. And what did it
>> tell us when, of the 95 million Muslims in undivided India, 4o million
>> continued to live in India after the creation of Pakistan?
>> 
>> The fruits of 1947 are in front of us.  I believe, like you, that replacing
>> one nation-state by another is hardly the solution. For many years now,
>> friends in Pakistan and I have been discussing the idea of a South Asian
>> Union which loosens the idea of sovereignty, strengthens people, encourages
>> movement across borders, makes irrelevant armies that are presently engaged
>> in fighting each other.  I wonder whether it is possible to take this
>> conversation into that direction, into bringing together rather than
>> sundering?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>