[Reader-list] Killing Kashmiris by Comparison

Fri Sep 5 16:32:08 IST 2008

Pro Kashmiri pan Islamist sentiment is quite explicit in Junaid’s desperate attempt to demonise all that is India. One wonders if he is willing to extend his argument against Pakistan & other declared Muslim nations too. And what about Kashmiri nation itself, that he tries to project? Definitely, overwhelming Muslim majority in the Valley cannot be a basis for Kashmir to claim a separate entity. After all the advent of Islam in Kashmir can be traced to medieval period only & it is only because of the gradual & often aggressive Islamisation since then that today  Muslims form  a majority. But should that deprive the aboriginal Hindu Pandits who were reduced to a miniscule minority but who continued to inhabit the length & breadth of Kashmir & not in ghettos,  till their ethnic cleansing in nineties, of their choice. Therefore, it is inappropriate to generalise the issue in terms of ‘Kashmiri nation” which is nothing but a notion of a Kashmiri Muslim nation.

Propensity to attach the ‘empire’ tag to India is clearly a reaction that emanates from the concept of Ummah, so intrinsic to pan Islamism.

Secularism in India does not survive because it is mentioned in the constitution of India- it is because of the ‘sarva dharma sambahav’ concept of the Hindu thought. What is wrong in preserving the Hindu heritage in India? And ‘Bharat Mata’ is same as is meant by ‘madre watan’ or ‘father land’ or ‘mother land’.
The comment on Amarnath reflects the same rhetoric that was so unscrupulously used by both the extremists as well as the main stream politicians recently to misguide & mobilise the credulous masses in the name of Islam. I don’t understand the allergy against Abdullahs. Wasn’t it NC that first raised a hue & cry over Amarnath? Let us not forget most of those who are spearheading the separatist movement in Kashmir today have at one time or the other been part of the main stream politics.

Well you can’t be suddenly selective about  Barkha Dutt & NDTV now just because she choose  to describe the ‘forced  exodus of Hindu Pandits’ as ‘the most brutal form of human rights violation’ in some of her writings recently. Let us not forget it is the Indian media that has helped the Kashmiri pan Islamists some of whom deserver to be charged for ‘brutalities against humanity’ to acquire political legitimacy.
And about amassing of people in the name of religion is no big thing. Louis Khan’s massive public demonstrations did not convert America in to a ‘nation of Islam’. 
LA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:29:48 -0700> From: ishwarsridharan at yahoo.com> To: justjunaid at gmail.com; reader-list at sarai.net> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Killing Kashmiris by Comparison> > While I agree with a considerable number of your points, I believe that you're reading too much into symbolisms. > > While you see Nehru standing on top of the Mughal's Red Fort and unfurling the flag with Ashoka's _chakra_ as a continuation of the Mauryan empire, I see it as a symbolic act of synthesis of the two cultures. > > Where you see Gandhi's _charka_ being replaced by Ashoka's circle as a signal that plans to take you back to the Hindu ages. I see it as an issue of representation. Gandhi's faction wasn't the only one that fought the struggle for independence, and putting his symbol would epitomise his faction as the only one that contributed to independence of the then fledgling nation. _Dharam Chakra_ , a widely regarded symbol of justice by Hindus and Buddhists was adopted because justice is more universal. One could've place Hammurabi's code of laws, but that's too far removed, geographically.> > While reading, and sometimes inventing symbolisms can be quite entertaining and creative, one should also admit that there are other, more plausible explanations for these symbolisms.> > > Coming to "people having a say on the formation of the union", while it's a noble thought,it's constrained by practical limitations. What's the winning percentage in a plebiscite? 50%? 66.6%? 90%? 99.99% ? Does this mean that the remaining 10% should give up their ancestral lands and move to a different nation because they didn't want to be part of the nation?> > > > Coming to the third point, the one on indian nation being a secular masquerade for a hindu empire, I believe you are, in one fell sweep, brushing aside geogrpahy under the carpet. All the "sacred" places under the umbrella of hinduism fall under the geographical boundaries on india. While increasing number of pilgrims to Haji Ali, Mecca, Lahore will not be attributed to increasing religiosity of the people because they're geographically separated, increasing number of pilgrims to vaishno devi, assam and rameshwaram will constitue hindu nationalism, without taking into account the fact that this is the only geography where "holy" sites of this religion might be found.> > > > Ishwar> > > Just another resurrected Neozoic Archosaur comics.> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojosaurus/sets/72157600257724083/> > > > ----- Original Message ----> From: Junaid <justjunaid at gmail.com>> To: reader-list at sarai.net> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2008 11:47:47 AM> Subject: [Reader-list] Killing Kashmiris by ComparisonWhil> > The debate "Nationalism vs. Separatism" on NDTV last week looked promising> in the beginning, because for once the host, Barkha Dutt, keeping aside her> usual national-security mindset, began by asking some pertinent questions,> and the academic voices in the panel set the tenor of the debate right.> Given, however, NDTV's habit of pulling together a big crowd of relevant and> irrelevant speakers, the debate lost track and sank into a pointless and an> all-too-familiar noise. This noise, let it be said, works perfectly well for> Indian establishment because it gives them a chance to say, "Look, we give> 'em an opportunity to speak; what a great democracy we are!", and yet> Kashmiris, as inarticulate as they are, come off sounding tired and tedious;> their voices lost in the din.> > > > Sunil Khilnani, who is a US-based academic, put the question right where it> must. The trouble is with the idea of India itself, in the way it seeks to> run roughshod over different identities and affiliations with its singular,> homogenous Indian identity. The point, in fact, goes even further, one which> Khilnani did not (could not get a chance to) speak about. The real problem> is the twin construction of India and of Hinduism as organic> wholes—territorial consolidation of one, and the 'semiticization' of the> other—with the former acting as the sacred space where the latter, the> sacred community, must act itself out. That there was nothing called "India"> or "Hinduism" before the Brahmanical elite and their British colonial> masters drew from each other, entirely in self-interest, to engineer these> territorial and cultural monoliths, has not been in much popular discussion.> Both concepts are so naturalized and consecrated in public consciousness> that questioning them is tantamount to blasphemy. In its present shape India> is actually an empire which is masquerading as a modern state. The Indian> rhetoric of "secular nationalism" has acted as a liberal cover in> international fora for a swelling Hindu *imperium*, which was territorially> achieved in 1947; Indian elite has gratefully allowed the use, and> continuous manufacture, of a Hindu civilizational self-identity to justify> the empire.> > > > Khilnani spoke only a little about the idea of India; he did not stretch his> argument to reflect on how the Hindu consciousness underlines the idea of> Indian nationalism; yet even the preliminary remark that there are a number> of nationalisms jostling for recognition within the territorial space of the> Indian state is appreciable. It, at least, gave a lie to the binary of the> show's name: "Nationalism" vs. "Separatism". To give due recognition to> Kashmiri nationalism has been unthinkable in India, so they call it by other> names: separatism, terrorism, extremism, and* pro-Pakistanism*. In an> earlier show, on the same TV channel, Swapan Dasgupta, a rightwing columnist> for The Pioneer, in fact, criticized the host of the show for allegedly> affording a *moral*-equivalence to "Kashmiri separatists" on par the "Jammu> nationalists" (the host was in no way doing that). No one asked Dasgupta as> to why Indian nationalism should be a touchstone of morality. But this> becomes easier to explain once we realize how Indian nationalism has become> akin to a religious faith and India a god worthy of worship.> > > > It is important here to reflect briefly upon the original issue of the> *Amarnath> Yatra* to illustrate the point about *Indian nationalism as a religious> faith in the service of the Hindu empire*. Let me not speak of how India's> political elite goaded, duped, threatened, and forced the peoples of> different regions of British India and the princely states to merge with> India; it was the same process through which Kashmir was *annexed*. Let me> not speak, too, of how *most* people of the subcontinent that were called> "We, the People of India" had virtually no say in the formation of what was> called the "Union". Let me just say that Nehru inherited an empire from the> British, and he wanted to consolidate his spoils by making it look like a> state. Not for nothing did he stand atop the Red Fort (a symbol of the> Mughal empire), on August 16, 1947, with a flag that no longer had Gandhi's> *Charkha*, but Ashoka's *Chakra* (a symbol of the Mauryan empire)—an act to> declare continuity with past empires of the subcontinent. Nehru was touted> as a secular democrat, but one can find plenty of evidence to show how he> gave in to the inexorable march of the Hindu nationalists, many of whom> decked his own cabinet. The *rebuilding* of the Somnath temple, to assuage> the feelings of the Hindu nation "*for until then they would not think that> the real freedom had come" *(the words of Vallabhbhai Patel), was just a> starter.> > > > Hindu nationalism, which ran amok over, what Ashis Nandy has called "the> little cultures of Hinduism", actually came in handy in the drive to turn> the empire into a state. Hindu pilgrimages were boosted to this end; new> places to worship were found and given nationalistic appeal. Issues like> Ram's birthplace, and in recent times 'Hanuman's bridge to Lanka' (the> Sethusamudaram) were made national issues to rally a fictitious nation> around fictitious symbols. In short, a sacred geography for Hindus was> outlined where it did not exist. India became synonymous with *Bharat Mata*,> the territorial Hindu deity to be worshipped through *deshbhakhti*. Kashmir,> which is called "the secular crown of India" without any hint of shame or> irony, was actually imagined as "the crown of *Bharat Mata*", and only so> because the crown of the bejeweled image of Bharat Mata, often juxtaposed> against the map of India, was where Kashmir was. Kashmir in the same vein> also became the *atoot ang* (an unbreakable body-part) of the> anthropomorphic goddess Mother India.> > > > The Amarnath issue stems from here. By bringing in millions of Hindus from> across India, facilitating their travel, increasing the number of pilgrimage> months, and trying to create permanent bases for them, the state seeks to> firmly place Kashmir within the Hindu imagination, as another point on the> sacred map of *Bharat Mata*. By doing so, Kashmir ceases to be the land of> Kashmiris, but becomes an abode of *Baba Bole Nath*. The consolidation of> this vision, along with parallel efforts to invent ancient Kashmiri links to> India (read the debates on the Institute of Kashmir Studies), in effect> seeks to integrate Kashmir with India in its Hindu sense. What else can> explain the comical demand of Jammu Hindus that their lost honour could be> regained only if Kashmiri land is given to them (perhaps the entire Kashmir> should be given to them in lieu of their lost Dogra honour!), and what else> can explain the whole of India, the state *and* the nation, rallying behind> Jammu Hindus?> > > > Despite the spin Indian strategists gave the recent protests that they are> an issue between Jammuites and Kashmiris (remember the monstrous lie about> discrimination), or however much space the Indian media gives protests in> Jammu as compared to the mammoth pro-Independence rallies in Kashmir, the> fact of the matter remains, it is India, in its true Hindu colours, that is> strutting in front of the powerless Kashmiri nation. I, for one, was not a> wee bit surprised to see the saffron Hindu flags getting replaced by Indian> flags in Hindu protests in Jammu, and chants of "*Bam Bam Bole*" and "*Bharat> Mata ki Jai*" being raised together. I am not surprised to see Muslim> Kashmiris getting killed by the dozen in protest marches or massive military> clampdowns on peaceful rallies, or bullet injuries sustained by thousands of> Kashmiris—many in India (like Tavleen Singh) wonder why the government isn't> actually pushing Kashmiris, sans Kashmir, into Pakistan. Marches in Jammu,> by comparison, look like a party, what with soldiers standing around for> photo-ops. No one has been killed in Jammu city in any kind of police> action, even though many protestors went on a rampage, and attacked, injured> and forced out many Muslims of the region. Despite the easy protests in> Jammu, the government looked desperate to talk to the Amarnath Sangharsh> Samiti, and scrambled a committee comprising a Kashmiri Pandit and a few> Jammu Hindu bureaucrats. The "talks", which looked like a family affair,> ended with government respectfully and expectedly giving Kashmiri land to> the Amarnath Shrine Board for exclusive use for three months each year (for> the only months the land could be used anyway). The government, shamelessly,> put out advertisements suggesting it consulted political parties and the> civil society of Kashmir before stealing their land; one wonders when,> during its brutal clampdowns and large-scale arrests, did government find> time to consult Kashmiris? Or, is Farooq Abdullah again the sole spokesman> of Kashmiris?> > > > This brings us back to the NDTV debate and the very intriguing answer that> an ex-military person (one of those irrelevant speakers on the debate on> nationalism) gave to a question from the audience as to why the army kills> so many Kashmiris. His answer: Kashmiris get killed because they happen to> be at *the scene of action*. How can you argue with such a reply? One might> say that perhaps Kashmiris get killed because the action happens on them,> that their bodies *are* the scenes of action. His answer, in any case,> derailed the debate, an attempt which Mani Aiyar of the Indian National> Congress was also making by trying to take the argument away from Kashmir> toward the "North-east" (I put Northeast in apostrophes because this> description links it cartographically to India, when I think the region is> closer to southeast Asia). Aiyar's insistence on talking about> *other*places is not different from all those noises with which> Kashmiris are> silenced by drawing contrasts to violence in other places: "so many get> killed in Bihar", "so many rapes happen in Delhi", what are you Kashmiris> whining about? (It is a separate matter that nationalist Indians> inadvertently, thus, equate their state with criminals of Bihar and rapists> of Delhi).Though issues in Nagaland, Manipur, etc. are similar to Kashmir,> in the sense that they too emerge from the rather predatory "idea of India",> but Aiyar was using it to suggest, rather bald-facedly, that there are other> people demanding independence, what are you Kashmiris whining about. Let us> call it, for the sake of a better phrase, killing (occupying) Kashmiris by> comparison.> > > > It is also time we put to rest the phrase "Autonomy". Kashmiris don't want> autonomy. Even National Conference, its original votary, does not look> enthusiastic about the word any longer after its much-fêted proposal was> consigned to the dustbin in Delhi without even a discussion. The point is> Kashmir *had* autonomy; that is where India started with Kashmir. When the> NC says they want to go back to the pre-1953 status, it automatically means> that Kashmiris were there once. For all these years India has slowly gnawed> it into shreds. Going back to that political status will mean trusting India> over something of which it has proved totally untrustworthy. Who wants to> give India another try for another 62 years? Perhaps, the NC?> > > > Aiyar, at his noisy best, kept saying *ad nauseam*, that the Kashmiri> "separatists" should participate in elections to prove their representative> character, forgetting in the process an entire ignominious history of rigged> elections in Kashmir. Those "mainstream" parties that India sees as> representing Kashmiris cannot, by their own admission,bring so many> Kashmiris out on the streets as pro-Independence leaders have in Kashmir> over the last many years. And this is despite the presence of 700 thousand> Indian soldiers to muzzle Kashmiris. If one sixth of the Kashmiri nation is> out on the streets on a given day demanding Independence, one can imagine> the level of support and endorsement the "separatists" command. How many> people joined the Quit India marches at the height of India's independence> struggle? A lakh? Two? India says Kashmiris are confused; that they don't> know what they want. India describes the *need* for Kashmir's freedom as an> *aspiration*, a Kashmiri desire. Kashmiris, however, are talking to them as> straight as possible. When a million Kashmiri voices rose together in August> 2008, they told India something quite uncomplicated: leave.> > > > **> _________________________________________> 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/>> _________________________________________> 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/>
_________________________________________________________________
Search for videos of Bollywood, Hollywood, Mollywood and every other wood, only on Live.com 
http://www.live.com/?scope=video&form=MICOAL