[Reader-list] 2-Amarnath Accord - What A.G.Noorani did not tell you !

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Pawan Durani, dear all,

I am grateful,  Mr.Durani,  for your post in response to my reply,  
and I am equally happy to conduct this discussion under any heading,  
be it,  'What A.G.Noorani Did Not Tell You' or 'What Pawan Durani  
Does Not Want Us to Talk About'.

You underestimate my patience in terms of taking this issue through  
to its logical conclusion. I may add, that I have no pre-determined  
agenda insofar as the end of any discussion is concerned. I believe  
in letting a discussion proceed on the terms of a reasonable exchange  
of ideas and information, not on name-calling as a means to stone- 
wall a discussion and to terrorize its participants, or its audience  
or readership, into submission. I invite you to try and do the same  
for a change.

Unfortunately for you, Mr.Durani,  the issue is not about whether or  
not someone is 'buying' the land in Baltal. The SASB is not 'buying'  
the land. Its intent is to acquire the land through a state enforced  
fiat, on state enforced terms, at state enforced prices. You cannot  
call that 'buying'.  You can buy the land if someone is willing to  
sell it, if there is a perfect equality in terms between the two  
parties involved in the transaction, and if their desires (to buy and  
sell) intersect and are co-eval.

If people are unwilling to 'sell' then, the land cannot be 'bought'.  
In any case, here, the legal 'owner' of some of the land, happens to  
be an agency of the State Government, and the legal owners of the  
land in question happen to be several other private parties. The 800  
kanals in question are a mix of Foret land, State Government owned  
land, and private property.  (As Sonia Jabbar has pointed out  
before). If all the legal owners of the land are prepared to sell the  
land to the SASB, or to any other party, there cannot be any  
objection. Not even from me. That would be a straightforward and  
transparent transaction that is governed by the laws of how things  
(especially land) are bought and sold.

And then your argument that the SASB's intention to get land is  
equivalent to the case of any citizen of Jammu or Ladakh buying land  
anywhere in J&K would have some basis. I am afraid, in the absence of  
sellers, or their consent, there cannot be a buyer, and certainly the  
SASB is not a 'buyer'. Since no 'purchase' of land is either  
occurring, or contemplated, your argument falls flat on its face.

I might add, that It is the same issue that rears its head wherever  
else land acquisition by force or fraud comes up. In Singur, the  
Government of West Bengal, did not 'buy' the land from the people who  
owned the land, before passing it on the Tata Group. It 'acquired' it  
under the cover of a Land Acquisition Act enacted through the  
violence of colonial oppression in 1894. (The same act, incidentally,  
is used, by the Indian armed forces to 'acquire' land, including  
orchards and fields, in J&K),  Today, the West Bengal Government it  
is being compelled to rethink its previously unwavering posture on  
the matter of land acquisition. I am sure that in J&K, the patently  
undemocratic act of 'acquisition' of land for the SASB is bound to  
backfire in time on the authorities responsible for this decision. It  
has already cost them a great deal, it will cost them more in future.

I am very well aware of who lives in Baltal. Baltal was a small  
impermanent settlement generally used for transhumance by nomadic  
shepherds following the banks of the Sindh nullah or the Romashi  
rivulet on their way to Dras and beyond from the Kashmir valley  
through the Zoji-La Pass that has grown into a small settlement. It  
was traditionally never used for the Amarnath Pilgrimage and came  
into prominence only when the possibility of helicopter services from  
the area to the Amarnath site became feasible. Today, it comes to  
life during the 'pilgrimage' season, when many of the local nomadic  
Gujjars, and other more sedentary Kashmiris, generally Muslim by  
faith, act as guides and pilgrims to the Hindu pilgrims who use the  
'new' Baltal route. They are joined by Tibetan refugee and Ladakhi  
seasonal wool and trinket traders, who do brisk business, and  
volunteers or 'sevadars' from the plains who assist the pilgrims.

See - No sign of land row in Baltal by Shujaat Bukhari, in the Hindu  
of August 12, 2008, for more details about Baltal.
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/08/12/stories/2008081254781100.htm
(The Hindu's reports on Kashmir, especially those by Praveen Swami,  
are items that Mr. Durani and his friends particuarly relish offering  
to this list. So, I am sure that he would take this report with  
utmost seriousness)

The trek from Baltal climbs steeply from Domail, (2 kms from the  
Baltal base camp) and the area is especially prone to storms and  
landslides, which is why there has always been an insistence on  
keeping the number of pilgrims low along this route. The 'overall'  
figure for pilgrims on the 'Baltal route' recommended by the Nitish  
Sengupta committee nowhere exceeds 700 pilgrims per day. This is what  
the committee recommended on the basis of what it thought was the  
possible infrastructure load that the area could accommodate, and  
keeping in mind reasons of health and safety of the pilgrims. Nitish  
Sengupta has now emerged as a voice in support of the SASB's current  
position of claims on the land, (though he continues to maintain that  
the number of pilgrims, and the duration of the pilgrimage need to be  
curtailed) but the one-man committee report presented by him is  
explicit in terms of the number of pilgrims that the Baltal region  
can take.

Incidentally,  the head priest of Dashnami Akhara Mahant Deependra  
Giri the traditional custodian of the 'Cchari Mubarak' (the holy  
mace) and who initiates the ritual processes that inaugurate the  
annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath Shrine, is also of the express view  
that the Baltal route should be avoided as it has no scriptural  
sanction whatsoever.

Here is a report quoting the Mahant on his conclusion of the  
pilgrimage this year.

Mahant: Reduce Yatra Period, Avoid Baltal
Kashmir Observer, August 19, 2008
http://www.kashmirobserver.com/index.php? 
option=com_content&view=article&id=886:mahant-reduce-yatra-period- 
avoid-baltal&catid=50:localnews&Itemid=81

I quote from this report -
"Mahant, who resigned from the SASB over the issue of extending the  
duration of the yatra, had urged pilgrims not to visit the cave  
before the 'Vyas Purnima' and prefer the traditional 46-km Pahalgam  
route to the shortest 12-km Baltal route for religious reasons."

Clearly, Pawan Durani will tell us that the statements made in public  
fora by Kashmiri Pandits based in the valley and the Mahant of the  
Dashnami Akhara cannot be trusted, but we must take whatever he says  
on face value. Durani says that people like Sanjay Tickoo are  
'hostage to the terrorists'. Now he will probably say that Mahant  
Deependra Giri is also a 'hostage to terrorists' . A statement of  
this nature is serious, and unless Tickoo corroborates what Durani  
says, must be treated as a malicious attempt at putting words by  
Durani into Tickoo's mouth. I could just as easily say that Durani  
and the entire Panun Kashmir-Roots in Kashmir archipelago are  
'hostages to state terror' but I do not believe that arguments can be  
made, won, or lost by such utterly pointless exchanges. We must argue  
on the basis of publicly verifiable statements. And insofar as  
publicly verifiable statements are concerned, I am afraid that Durani  
& Co.s insistence that they speak on behalf of all Hindus in the  
Kashmir valley, or all Hindus in Jammu & Kashmir, or even all Hindus  
in India does not hold. It gives us a sense only of their exaggerated  
sense of their importance and their arrogance.

Again, we cannot pretend, like Durani, that the right to acquire land  
is equal to the right to movement, Article 370 restricts transactions  
in land, not movement. The right to equality operates in situations  
when the same end is sought by two parties. If two parties seek  
movement, the right to equality would mean that both have the equal  
right to move. If two parties seek to purchase land then the right to  
equality would mean that both parties have the equal right to  
purchase land. You cannot counterpose the conditions attendant to the  
right to purchase land as an objection to to the conditions that  
apply to the right of movement, and then invoke the right to equality  
as a plea in favour of a decision one way or another. The right to  
equality applies when the conditions are such that the two entities s  
can be seen as capable of brought under considerations in terms of  
identity (I mean identity here in a logical sense, as in saying that  
an apple from Himachal Pradesh and an apple from Kashmir are both  
identically, apples, and must be considered as comparable units of  
the same class). To do otherwise is to offer an argument that  
confuses its apples for its oranges.  And then says, why are apples  
not being considered equal to oranges.

Finally, I find it interesting that Pawan Durani should use the term  
'trespassing'. There is considerable literature on how traditional  
commons, became sequesterd and segregated through arbitrary  
invocation of 'trespassing', and how the word trespass was used to  
effect enclosures upon hitherto existing commons. The violence of the  
early history of Capitalism throughout the world, is full of usages  
of the word 'trespass'.

  If the people of Kashmir had said to the Amarnath pilgrims - "this  
land is 'ours' you cannot pass through it, and if you do, we shall  
consider you to be 'trespassers'...' or something to that effect, I  
would have been spoken as much against such a declaration, as I do  
today against the SASB and its partisans. In fact, the people of  
Kashmir, including those who have agitated against the land transfer,  
have reiterated time and again that they seek to maintain the highest  
standards of hospitality towards who pass through Kashmir on their  
way to Amarnath. It is only the protagonists of the SASB, such as our  
own Pawan Durani, who have no compunction in insulting that  
generosity by invoking the language of trespass.

And no, I do not believe that the restrictions that limit movement on  
the night of 25th or the 26th of January are moral. I hold them to be  
deeply immoral. And I also do not believe that there should be  
borders, or barbed wire fences along borders. I guess that makes me a  
trespasser. But it makes me a trespasser who has the wherewithal to  
buttress my words and my beliefs with a sustainable argument. Like  
many of those who invoke the law of trespass against the passage of  
common people, Pawan Durani has no ethical, or reasoned argument, all  
he has behind him is the brutal and immoral might of the Indian state.

I might be basing my arguments on the basis of reports on what Pawan  
Durani characterizes as "Anti-Nationalist and Islamist" newspapers  
such as Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir. (Incidentally, They are  
neither "Anti Nationalist", nor do I see in them any consistently  
"Islamist" traces. They are not "anti-nationalist" because they are  
clearly sympathetic to one or the other variety of Kashmiri  
Nationalism. I am no doubt, an anti-nationalist, because I believe  
that all forms of nationalism, including Kashmiri nationalism, are  
ultimately detrimental to human beings, but it would be unfair to  
confuse me with the sources I am quoting) But whatever be the case,  
the instances I am quoting involve quotes from Kashmiri Pandit  and  
non-Muslim individuals who cannot on any grounds be considered   
either "Anit-Nationalist", or "Islamist" (They have not said they are  
either, and we cannot accuse people of holding political positions  
that they have themselves refrained from upholding). The statements  
that they have made, and which I have quoted, can be either  
disproven, which would be the case if it were shown that these people  
did not say these things, or they can be verified. They cannot be  
considered unacceptable merely because the newspaper that reported  
them is not of the same Ideological persuasion as Pawan Durani.

In my last posting, I had offered the possibility of considering  
Pawan Durani either as a fool or as a charlatan, based on a my  
assessment of his demonstrated ability to hold a sustained argument.  
This meant, that in my opinion, he either did not have the  
intelligence to hold on to a sustained argument by reasonable means  
(hence, fool), or cared not to, and was intent on misleading us with  
his malafide postings (hence, charlatan). This reasoning was entirely  
based on the form and substance of his argument. I would like to  
known on what basis Mr.Durani has the impertinence to call me a 'neo- 
convert'. What dose he think I have 'converted' and that too, newly,  
to? How can he even think he knows what transpires in my conscience,  
or what he calls my 'heart' especially when, not a single argument  
offered by me is based on any question of faith, emotion or sentiment.

I have revised my opinion about Pawan Durani, he is clearly not a  
fool. He is using what Tapas Ray has referred to in his recent post  
as -  'human tragedies' - for all that they are worth in order to  
buttress a morally, ethically, rationally weak position, with enough  
skill not to warrant being mistaken for a fool. That leaves only one  
possibility.

regards

Shuddha

> Dear Shuddha,
> It is very obvious of what way you want the discussion to end up.  
> Let me
> just share with readers some example.
>
> 1. Instead of replying to my post , Mr Shuddha changes the subject to
> :Noorani Reads the fine print on Amarnath Accord", while as the  
> original
> subject line was "What A.G.Noorani did not tell you".This is the first
> impression to understand of how fair Shuddha would have been to  
> understand
> my write up, and Shuddha lived upto his reputation for  
> that ....perfectly.
>
> 2.When I say that every state subject has an equal right to every  
> inch of
> land , that does not mean to buy a piece of land in Srinagar a  
> Ladakhi would
> have to go to Assembly to get an order passed. Mr Shuddhas  
> understanding of
> the sentence is very poor and childish.
>
> 3.Shuddha is not aware of who lives in Baltal ? His understanding  
> of the
> area is based on his passionate reading of anti nationalist and  
> Islamist
> newspaper like Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir. Incidentally rising
> Kashmir was inaugurated by Noorani himself. What a coincidence.
>
> 4.Shuddha again ignores the report of chief Wildlife warden on  
> allotment of
> land and like a "parrot" repeats the Hurriyat language. And if this  
> is how
> Shuddha loves to debate without even acknowledging the report of  
> those who
> are in-charge of ecology and wildlife in the Baltal area , I wonder  
> no one
> would be able to satisfy his brain,which seems to be locked for any
> reasoning.
>
> 5. What Nitish Sen Gupta had wanted on priority is that on high  
> grounds the
> number of pilgrims should be restricted to 20000.
>
> 6. Shuddha quotes that KPSS or Sanjay Tikoo wanted his  
> participation. What
> Shuddha does not share that Sanjay Tikoo, who happens to be a close  
> friend,
> is no less a hostage to the separatists. He has to tow their line.  
> I would
> not discuss this issue in detail as this may cause harm to my already
> scared community members in Kashmir. Issue like this needs a  
> broader vision
> which morons like Shuddha and Gautam Navlakha can not understand.
>
> 7. When I was discussing the fundamental right , I wrote " The  
> right to
> Equality " which Shuddha very cunningly altered to "Fundamental  
> right to
> Movement" ... It was so clever of him to change the whole context  
> and to
> ignore the expected discussion of how the 100 crore citizens of  
> India are
> being denied the right to be equal as against the state subjects of  
> J&K
> state. And let me remind to Mr Shuddha that neither is whole of J&K  
> a tribal
> place nor a forest.
>
> 8. Shuddha gives a very childish and immature rhetoric statement  
> that the
> Amarnath accord violate the fundamental right to movement  
> guaranteed under
> Article 19 (A) of the Indian Constitution. Does that mean
> that trespassing is no word to exist. Does that mean that I can  
> stroll on
> India gate lawns on night between 25th and 26th January. Does that  
> mean I
> can stand right next to barbed wire fence on the border? Does that  
> mean I
> can ride my bicycle on the runway of an airport. Shuddha has no  
> understand
> of where the violation applies and where not ?
>
> 9.Mr Shuddha may call me a fool or a charlatan. It does not matter  
> to me . I
> know where his heart lies and what the Neo convert believes in.
>
> Pawan Durani
> _________________________________________
> 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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>