[Reader-list] Seditious articles on Kashmir criticised

[Nazneen Anand Shamsi]

Dear Aarti,

Please explain how many years constitute a civilization? For that matter,
please elucidate the relationship between temporal continuity and a concept,
if any? Why should 'pride in being Indian' exclude love for land? As far as
history books are concerned, I would ask, who is to decide which fiction of
the archives is valid? Nation state  is a fragile concept, and whats wrong
in subduing those who make it more vulnerable? To not to do so is I think
not allow one to take a pill if one is afflicted by a minor virus and hope
that the body will cope on its own...it is ridiculous isn't it?

Regards

Nazo

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> > The signatories assert that "Kashmir is an inalienable element of India's
> > civilisational identity and symbolises the fundamental principles on
> which
> > the modern Indian state has been built." Terming national will as a
> > critical
> > component of state power, they felt that "devious adversaries" have
> > resorted
> > to psychological warfare in order to break the national will.
>
>
> What is India's 'civilizational identity'? Does 60 years constitute a
> 'civilization'? The point is, that to even raise this question is
> "sedition". As if those who ask this question are somehow naive deluded
> juvile people. Does 'pride in being Indian', whatever that is, have to be
> coupled with a territorial lust for land? I don't think so. Our
> imaginations
> and affections surely encompass more than the nation. And in fact they do,
> that is my point. Read any history book taught in school. We are so willing
> so claim 2,000 years of history as 'Indian history', but that history
> becomes 'Indian history' only 60 years ago. The march of history does not
> cut some straight and true swath from Ashoka to Nehru, as if 2,000 years of
> history is the long unfolding of the story of the 'Indian nation'. Why is
> this so scary to concieve is what I don't understand.
>
> Nations are not god-given entities. They are historically produced units of
> social organisation. Which is not to say they are of no value or that they
> have never played a progressive role. Or that we must have no investment in
> them. But its alright to question and query the nation. There is nothing
> divine about it. Its not 'immoral'. People who are asking these questions
> are not 'bad people', 'enemies of India'.
> People who are asking today questions about Kashmir's future and its
> relationship with India are asking us to think deeply and hard about how
> India defines her/its identity. This is a good question, it would help us
> all to spend some time on it. It is possible to think creatively at this
> moment about the very many ways in which Kashmir can relate to India. There
> has been some discussion of those ways on this list itself. Various kinds
> of
> autonomy arrangements, of porous borders, many things can be thought
> through. But to deign all such conversations as "seditious" is no way to go
> anywhere.
>
> best
> A
> _________________________________________
> 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/>
>