[Reader-list] 'Why object to Islamic rule in Kashmir' - The Geelani interview

[inder salim]

I beleive, on Kashmir this little  lucid and accurate text piece by
Shuddha is not for our dear friend Mr. Kshmendra only, but for all of
us... to look into the present politics and pain there,....

finally some reasoining is emerging from the 'sagar manthan' churning
of words on this list.
i wish, those who quickly laspe into communal outbursts, see this kind
of talking, not as 'craft'  but something that comes straight out of
heart.

love
is

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Shuddhabrata Sengupta
<shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> Dear Kshmendra,
>
> Thank you for your posting on highlighting Syed Ali Shah Geelani's
> opinions. There is nothing new in what Geelani has said, and his
> position is quite well known, both within Kashmir, as well as amongst
> those who have a long-standing interest in the matter. I am
> responding to this question not because I have a personal axe to
> grind pro or anti S.A.S Geelani, but because the question you raise
> implicitly has important shades, and I would like not to let go of
> their significance. I will turn to them briefly at the end of this
> posting.
>
> Let me begin by saying that I agree with you on the completely
> nonsensical nature of S.A.S Geelani's half baked views on the subject
> of the future governance of Kashmir. There is, as you rightly point
> out, no single accepted interpretation of what exactly constitutes
> Islamic jurisprudence and statecraft , so it is clear that when he
> talks of using that as a guide with which to govern (nizam) Kashmir
> he is clearly intent on imposing his own narrow, secterian view,
> which would be anathema even to the majority of Muslims in Kashmir.
>
>  When anyone, let alone someone like S.A.S Geelani (who should know
> better, because he claims to be a scholar of Islam) talks about
> Islamic  Socio-Economic conditions, or Islamic Culture (which one,
> the one of Andalusia, Java, the Levant, Shi'a Iran, Bektashi
> European, Turkish Ottoman, or Hejazi, or Peasant Bengali), or about
> the Sunnah as a guide to governance and everyday living (on which
> there is no consensus within Islam)  he is  clearly talking utter
> nonsense (such guidance does not exist in any clear form and would
> have to be invented)  and it should be absolutely clear to everyone
> that as a possible future ruler he would be the worst disaster to
> have befallen the unhappy people of Kashmir. Just as every modern
> Muslim Fundamentalist Ruler has been a disaster for every single
> people whom they have had the misfortune to rule.
>
> I have to say that he reminds me a lot of a man venerated by many in
> the 'pantheon' of the Indian struggle for Indendence. Subhash Chandra
> Bose - charismatic, doctrinaire, reportedly honest, willing to sup
> with fascists and nazis, authoritarian and fascinated by authority,
> and with a vain, arrogant yet thuggish streak that would have made
> him a disaster as a possible ruler of Independent India (and dare I
> say,even more of a disaster for Kashmir), This part of the world was
> spared much misfortune by that airplane that never quite made it over
> the straits of Formosa after the second world war. (His brother,
> Sarat Bose however, was in my opinion one of the most interesting and
> creative political actors of his generation). So, India was spared
> Subhash Bose by an air mishap, and S.A.S Geelani's advancing age may
> also deliver him from Kashmir, and yet allow Kashmir to remember him
> with some hazy residual fondness for his reported honesty, personal
> civility and straightforwardness.
>
> Having said all this, I am surprised that you say that the opinions
> expressed on the Reader List that are not in accordance with the
> standard Indian state's position on Kashmir are 'muted' when it comes
> to S.A.S Geelani. I think they occupy a fairly wide spectrum, some
> are indifferent, some are muted, some are possibly in agreement, some
> are in mild disagreement, some are in total disagreement (like mine).
> This spectrum,  to me, is a sign of the health of what you call the
> 'pro-separatist' and what I would characterize the 'pro-withdrawal of
> India from Kashmir' position(s) on the Reader List. Difference, even
> robust difference, is always healthy.
>
> I think the 'pro continued Indian occupation of Kashmir' position on
> this list, in comparison, is far more monotonous. It does not seem to
> have much by way of internal debate or differentiation, or, if it
> does, (with some exceptions, mainly reservations expressed
> occasionally in a minor key by you) it does not appear, at least not
> on this list.
>
> (This list - The Reader List - by the way is a list that is hosted on
> the Sarai website, among other lists. It is not THE Sarai list, it is
> not the SARAI list. And the opinions expressed on this list are not
> the opinions of Sarai, even when they are expressed by people who
> work at Sarai. Sarai does not have an opinion. It cannot, because it
> is neither a person, nor a party, nor an interest group. And Sarai
> hosts many different kinds of curiosities, as researchers, as fellows
> as practitioners, not all of whom have the same opinion on Kashmir,
> or any thing for that matter)
>
> Sorry for that clarificatory digression. But now back to your
> question. Is the so called 'pro-'Azadi' ' camp in Kashmir, elsewhere,
> or on this list, 'mute' about S.A.S Geelani?
>
> Let me begin addressing this question first of all by asking a
> counter-question. Why is it necessary for us to be 'vocal' about
> Geelani at all? As far as I am concerned, he is just another
> politician, perhaps respected by some people in the valley because he
> is seen (by some again, not all) as not having ever been on the
> payroll of the Indian state.  (Many others in the so called
> 'separatist' leadership have at one time or another been seen as
> (rightly or wrongly) or have been believed to be compromised by their
> tacit acceptance of  covert 'favours' by the Indian state. But to me,
> this question of 'is Geelani corrupt or not ?' is actually
> irrelevant. Sometimes the most dangerous politics is exercised by
> those who adorn themselves with the charisma of incorruptability and
> the glow of an inability to be flexible. So this alone is not a
> criterion by which I judge what SAS Geelani represents in Kashmir.
>
> For me, the opinions of this octegenarian politician (and sometime
> member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir - which proves
> that even S.A.S Geelani has been different things at different times)
> is of less consequence than the logic of what impels the people of
> Kashmir to reject the Indian state. Today, more than ever before in
> Kashmir, the people are ahead of their leaders. The initiative is
> really in their hands, and the Indian state is terribly confused
> because there is little that it can achieve even by playing games of
> intrigue within and between the factions of the Hurriyat Conference,
> because frankly, neither the Hurriyet Leadership, nor the Militants,
> nor the ISI, nor the mainstream political parties, are running the
> show. The show is running, despite, not because of them.
>
> The logic of how the show runs, how the people of Kashmir enact their
> refusal of the Indian state has to do with the stranglehold that the
> Indian state has exercised over aspect of life in Kashmir, and its
> absolute refusal to let people live in peace. Only today, we have
> read a report in the Indian Express that speaks of the repressive
> apparatus of the state attacking ambulances and ambulance crews. And
> we have read earlier of police and CRPF using violence in the
> casualty wards of hospitals, intimidating doctors and nurses as they
> tend to the wounded. I have been in Kashmir, I have seen an Army unit
> burn a village, I have seen the fear in a father's face as he spoke
> to me, thinking that as an 'indian', i could have some influence in
> helping get his teenage daughter back from the clutches of an army
> patrol who were holding her hostage. If I were a villager who lived
> in that village, why would you expect me to feel anything but hatred
> and fear for the state that does these things. That is why, my
> standing by the movement against the Indian occupation has more to do
> with standing by these people rather than anything to do with the
> ephemerality of a so called 'leadership'. Let us not forget, that
> S.A.S Geelani's claim to 'leadership' is far from being uncontested.
> He had to leave his own party, the Jamaat e Islam, because no one
> took him seriously, and the 'Tehreek -e-Hurriyat' which has been his
> refuge in recent days is a far more heterodox and complex formation
> than he is actually comfortable with. S.A,S Geelani routinely listens
> only to those who say yes to him, and the fact that the crowd that
> did not take his 'claim to leadership' at the rally after which he
> had to apologize is a pointer of the fact that in front of
> constituencies other than his own, his authority is not that high,
> even though there may be a grudging respect for his moral standing.
>
> At the same time, in the maelstorm that is Kashmir, there must be
> several, brutalized, humiliated, scorned, who would think -  "Why
> should I not turn to a man who speaks a clear and forthright anger
> against these violences. Why would I not take his idiom seriously.
> Why, when I have nothing left to cling to, should I not reach out and
> hold on to the surety of an iron clad faith that he holds out to me."
> and that perhaps explains S.A.S Geelani's desparate constituency. His
> appeal, however much of it exists, and it exists, not for a single
> reason, or even in a simple way, (I know for instance, that people
> weep for him and curse him at the same time). It is an index of how
> far the people of Kashmir have been pushed to the wall.
>
> I understand this, and yet I think that this is a profound tragedy.
> S.A.S Geelani, once a minor, unpopular politician in the Jamaat e
> Islami, a sometime MLA for a party with two seats that were scrounged
> and won in fraudulent elections, a party that no one really cared for
> in Kashmir, is what he is today, thanks to the Indian state.
>
> Through the fifties, sixities, seventies, eighties it suffocated
> every other form of opposition. It engineered the imprisonment of
> every dissident voice, toppled governments at will, and capriciously
> arranged for the rise and fall of this or that figure and then
> arranged for the execution of Maqbool Butt, the exile of Amanullah
> Khan, the targetted assasinations of figures like Dr. Guru, Hriday
> Nath Wanchoo, the elder Mirwaiz, Abdul Ghani Lone  and many others
> who were of much greater stature than S.A.S Geelani in the eyes of
> the people of Kashmir and who could have, at times like this,
> provided some of  the ethical and intellectual anchors, even some of
> the personal succor that the movement  needs today.
>
> Who was left? Who was transformed from a virtual non-entity to the
> man in shining incorruptible armour - S.A.S Geelani. He suited the
> Indian state best. He could be demonized, he could be portrayed as a
> bigot, which he is. He held out for a corrupt military dictatorship
> in Pakistan. His malignant ideas about what kind of Kashmir he wants
> can be ridiculed, and so, by extension, the movement as a whole could
> be tarred by having him identified as the leader, as the qaid.
>
> Something similar happenned in Iran. The Shah of Iran completely
> destroyed every form of opposition, other than the clerics of Qom. A
> surprised Khomeini, who could at least go into exile in Iraq and
> France, while the non-Islamist or moderate Muslim opposition found
> itself shot with bullets in the back of the neck, found the moral
> leadership of the Iranian revolution gifted to him by the fleeing
> Shah of Iran. The Indian state, by using money, guns and intrigue,
> has left Geelani (the apparently incorruptible, honest and
> straightforward, but reactionary, proto-fascist Geelani) holding
> himself out as the pretender to the throne of the leadership of the
> movement for Azadi in Kashmir. It is not the people of Kashmir as
> much as Iovernment of India that has crowned Geelani by demonizing
> him. The people of Kashmir, in their bitteness, have sometimes looked
> up to the man that the Government of India loathes most of all. This
> may not be as accurate an index of their esteem for that man as it is
> a mark of their hatred for that government. It is for the same reason
> that Bose became wildly  popular (even in areas where he had no base)
> in the bitter forties of the last century in India, when the British
> Raj was on its last and in some ways most desperate legs in India.
>
> Ask the successive home ministers, prime ministers and intelligence
> officers of India why they brought Kashmir to this state that Geelani
> can appear sometimes as if he could be a saviour to the same people
> that he also infuriates with his obstinacy, his retrograde statements
> and reactionary outlook on life.
>
> As for what I think of him and what he represents. And I can speak
> only for myself here. I have always been clear.
>
> At the risk of repetition, let me quote from two postings -
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Re: [Reader-list] Gun Salutes for August 15
>        Date:   16 August 2008 5:11:19 PM GMT+05:30
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> [I posted this because it was Geelani who raised the ridiculous bogey
> of the 'demographic shift' in Kashmir, even as he (correctly, in my
> view) pointed out that the anger about the alienation of land in
> Kashmir has to do with the arbitrary  occupation of acres and acres
> of land by the Armed Forces of India.]
>
>
> Re: [Reader-list] Gun Salutes for August 15
>        Date:   21 August 2008 3:45:48 AM GMT+05:30
>
> 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.
>
> ---------------------------
>
>  Let me now come to whether the fact that S A S Geelani makes
> himself out to be a man of religion, or whether the fact that the
> Mirwaiz speaks from a pulpit and is a religious figure of some
> consequence in Kashmir should make any different to our assessment of
> these individuals. Personally, no. I am not religious myself, but I
> do believe that several of the most creative political thinkers and
> activists of our times have been motivated by their religious
> convictions, and have spoken politically in a religious idiom. These
> include the Liberation Theologian and Nicaraguan Revolutionary
> Ernesto Cardenal, Tenzing Gyaltso -  the fourteenth Dalai Lama,
> Martin Luther King Jr., Swami Sahajanand Saraswati (A Dandin Sannyasi
> and Bihar Peasant leader and sometime member of the Communist Party)
> and Rahul Sankrityayan (Ordained Buddhist monk and maverick
> Communist), For me, a staunch non-believer, the secular-religious
> divide is not as important as the humanist-non-humanist divide. For
> me, as i have stated above, the key test is, does the person
> concerned hold out his views and ideology as sacred and beyond
> question, if he does, regardless of whether he or she is devout or an
> atheist, they are bad news.
>
> Finally, a cause may be just, even if it is saddled by an
> incompetent, or disagreeable protagonist. Similarly, a cause may be
> unjust, even though it may be represented by agreeable and
> intelligent people. I believe that the cause of Azadi for Kashmir is
> just, even though I find some of its protagonists incompetent and
> disagreeable (I feel that S.A.S Geelani may be honest, but as a
> political protagonist he is both incompetent and disagreeable) . I
> believe that the cause of having India hold on to Kashmir is unjust
> even as I may find some of its proponents agreeable at a personal
> level. I am sure you understand what I mean.
>
> regards
>
> Shuddha
>
>
> On 26-Aug-08, at 6:06 PM, Kshmendra Kaul wrote:
>
>> If, any deserving to be taken seriously voice were to say that
>> 'India should be declared as a Hindu country', there would be many
>> a million voices (including mine) that would stridently condemn
>> such a statement, that would be gravitated to campaign for and
>> garner widespread public opinion against such a statement.
>>
>> We would find some of the most brilliantly argued, impressively
>> articulate, eloquent and even 'wordy' dismissals of such a
>> statement in SARAI itself.
>>
>> On SARAI we have quite a few brilliantly argumentatitive,
>> impressively articulate, eloquent and often wordy opinions
>> expressed in favour of the 'separatists' of Kashmir. Surprisingly,
>> they are rather muted in their comments about Geelani's position.
>> Demure almost in their referring to him in-passing and generally
>> conveying the impression that the Geelani (and his support base)
>> position is not of any real significance and of not much
>> consequence in the "separatist movement". That tells me (at least),
>> how much these people are in touch with the 'realities' of Kashmir
>> or the "separatist movement".
>>
>>
>
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>



-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com