[Reader-list] Amaranth Yatra

[Rahul Asthana]

Hi Shuddha,
>Would it  
> not be better if we saw the reality of this anger against for
> the pattern  
> of the forcible acquisition of land by state agencies in
> Kashmir.
The key word here is "better".I would rather see things as they seem to me,for better or for worse.I am not an idealist.I do not want to see the world in a particular way.I am ready to be shocked by what I see and change my beliefs.
The clear statement has been made that the anger is against what some quarters are seeing as the forcible attempt by the govt to make a demographic change.At least thats what I read in the reports.So thats the way I want to take it.The key  word here is "demographic change".So, I do not find it beyond my comprehension to assume that if the land acquisition was for,say, opening a stud farm or growing roses,there would not have been  tens of thousands of people protesting against it.The acquisition of land is the means.Creating demographic imbalance is the end.So,I would think that even a "friendly" way of creating demographic imbalance would generate the same protest,wouldn't it?
You may want to believe,or rather,you may find it better to believe that the protests are against forcible acquisition of land by govt,or for ecological reasons.Or,you may believe that these causes are far greater than the actual reason behind the current protests.Thats your choice.I have no arguments against that.
Then you make the case that the actual notion of affecting demographic shift is not convincing.I agree with you.In fact I would say its ridiculous that such a small area of land allocated for pilgrims can cause a demographic shift.
You could be right. Maybe the protesters are  worried about the forcible acquisition and environment,and for some strange reason,maybe just to confuse the hell out of us are carrying out their struggle against some imaginary demographic shift.
Thanks
Rahul
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:

> From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Amaranth Yatra
> To: rahul_capri at yahoo.com
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 6:18 AM
> Dear Rahul,
> 
> Why is it naiive to believe that tens of thousands of
> protestors  
> would take to the streets for environmental reasons? Are
> you trying  
> to say that tens of thousands of protestors do not turn up
> on the  
> streets for environmental reasons? As far as I know, tens
> of  
> thousands of protestors routinely protested in the Narmada
> Valley for  
> environmental reasons, on several occasions, across several
> years.  
> Why should Kashmir be different?
> 
> Having said that, I would like to underscore that I am not
> for a  
> moment making a categorical statement, either way, about
> the  
> sincerity of the sudden display of 'ecological
> consciousness' by  
> elements within the Kashmiri separatist constiuency, or
> within any  
> other segment in the Kashmiri political spectrum today. I
> have no way  
> of gauging the sincerity of these entities when it comes to
>  
> environmental issues. No one has any means of gauging their
>  
> insincerity either. I am, in fact, not interested in
> sitting on  
> judgement on whether the protestors are 'sincere' 
> or not. I can see  
> why there should be protests. And if there are protests, I
> think they  
> ought not be dismissed on the basis of speculations about
> the  
> purported 'sincerity' of the protestors.
> 
> Furthermore, there is nothing that demonstrates to me that
> a  
> sentiment against a change in the demographic profile of a
> region is  
> identical to a sentiment against Hindu pilgrims. No one has
> said  
> anything either implcitly, or explicitly about pilgrims. I
> will come  
> to my take on the question of 'demographic shifts'
> later.
> 
> Pilgrims are transients. They do not settle and change the 
> 
> demographic profile of a place. The protests are against
> the transfer  
> of land. The transfer of land can legitimately raise the
> suspicion  
> that permanent structures will be build on that land, (why
> else argue  
> for a change in the status of the owner of the land). It is
> clear  
> that the permanence of these structures does not have any
> relation to  
> the duration or necessities of the traditional
> 'Pilgrimage Season' in  
> Amarnath. It may be remembered, that even at the height of
> the  
> Kashmir insurgency, when some groups had sought to attack
> the  
> Amarnath pilgrims, the Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest and
> most  
> significant armed Kashmiri secessionist outfit, issued
> statements  
> against any attempts to attack Amarnath pilgrims.
> 
> The Action Committee Against Land Transfer, the
> organization co  
> ordinating the Anti land Transfer movement in Kashmir has  
> categorically stated that it has nothing against pilgrims
> or the  
> pilgrimage to Amarnath.
> 
> None of this amounts, in my book, to an adequate amount of 
> 
> circumstantial evidence for 'sentiments' against
> pilgrims. Would it  
> not be better if we saw the reality of this anger against
> the pattern  
> of the forcible acquisition of land by state agencies in
> Kashmir.
> 
> Let me conclude by saying that I do not think that anything
> done on  
> 38.99 acres of land can amount to a demographic shift. And
> those who  
> (in Kashmir) , even within the Action Committee Against
> Land Transfer  
> are talking about a 'demographic shift' with
> reference to the  
> Amarnath issue are pursuing a red herring. There is a real
> issue of  
> the forcible acquisition of land by agencies of the state
> and the  
> armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir, that is much wider in
> terms of its  
> ramifications than the single issue of Amarnath alone.
> 
> I for one, do not think that the presence of Bangladeshi
> immigrants  
> in say, Assam, needs to be attacked because it represents
> the threat  
> of a demographic shift to some people. There are good
> reasons why in  
> some parts of India (in J&K under article 370 and under
> the Fifths  
> Schedule of the Constitution in certain notified tribal
> areas in  
> different parts of the country) non aborigionals or
> non-state  
> subjects (in the case of J&K) are barred from acquiring
> landed  
> property. These have to do with the histories of
> disposession and  
> land alienation in these areas.  But that does not mean
> that such  
> people (non aboriginals and non state subjects) cannot live
> in these  
> areas. To state that would be to confuse lived practices of
>  
> habitation with  the ownership of property, and to confuse
> the  
> category of the citizen with the reality of the denizen.
> 
> best
> 
> Shuddha
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
> The Sarai Programme at CSDS
> Raqs Media Collective
> shuddha at sarai.net
> www.sarai.net
> www.raqsmediacollective.net