[Reader-list] Seditious articles on Kashmir criticised

[radhikarajen at vsnl.net]

Aarti,  

  we seem to have carried forward of the concept of freedom and rights too far without realising to be free, we have some responsibility also to the nation and society that has bestowed upon us the freedom and rights. in fact the rights have the other side of the coin, that is duties. Without duties to the society, exercising only rights is like license to behave as any individual wants, a license to tamper the rights of others in society, it is license to be irrelevant in a society which has given rights to individuals to be free.

 A Roy, after winning a booker prize and some dollars can not be exercising her rights without the responsibilty to the society in which she lives. If she declares herself as walking and talking republic then she has every right to say so, but her safety then, solely on her, not on the republic of India as she misbehaves in the society that she lives in

 A Geelani when he invokes his right of feee expression, and as activist of human rights, he has to be aware of all humans in society when he supports the terror in jamia nagar. When he stores the ground floor plan of parliament, he has to be aware that, he is neither an architect nor a civil engineer and his act can help his terrorist friends. A court may acquit him of the charges, but citizens look at him with certain apprehension, because what business he has not to inform of the terror activities that go on in his neighbourhood. ? Every citizen is police without uniform for the society, every police is citizen with uniform. When ghettos of muslims sheltor, defend the terror accused, the citizens of the nation feel sorry for ntire community and look with disdain.

----- Original Message -----
From: Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Seditious articles on Kashmir criticised
To: Nazneen Anand Shamsi <nazoshmasi at googlemail.com>, sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>

> Dear Nazneen,
> 
> 
> I have no quarrel with love for land at all. And read my post 
> again. I used
> a specific phrase, I said, 'territorial lust for land'. Can you 
> love land
> without possessing it? That is the question.
> 
> How exactly do you build a relationship with land with which you 
> have no
> personal history of settlement or usage? Now obviously this is 
> both an
> abstract and a concrete question. I have never been to Kashmir, 
> does this
> mean I cannot have any relationship to it? Of course not! The 
> question is
> what kind of relationship? When I was one year old my father went 
> on a
> voyage to Antarctica. One of my most favourite memories of 
> childhood is
> seeing the slides he brought back of the incredible snowscapes and ice
> sheets, and a rock which lay in a corner of our house for many years.
> Apparently it was part of a meteor which smashed into the earth 
> some million
> years ago.  Antarctica is part of no country. Its land is part of 
> the common
> heritage of humanity, for all to build relationships with. As far 
> as I am
> concerned this is the only productive, ethical and creative way to 
> think of
> land.
> 
> The trouble is being an Indian citizen gives me fictional 
> 'ownership' over
> the entire territory of India. As if I have some special 
> entitlement to the
> square miles that are part of the map. But which land, whose land 
> and whose
> love? Currently there are struggles going on in this country - in 
> singur, in
> nandigram, in niyamgiri, to name only three sites - where people 
> are asking
> this question. Communities it seems have no right to their own 
> land in the
> name of "development". And this is fine by your logic is it not? 
> Because the
> development of India means that everyone has an entitlement. All 
> land is the
> property of the state. When did this come to pass? Can we ask these
> questions? Or immediately "pills" must be taken to stamp out these 
> viruses?Maybe your love for India entitles you to such a claim, I 
> do not feel this
> entitlement. And in my opinion this sort of entitlement is where 
> violence is
> born. Can you see the quagmire we are in when we begin to collapse 
> lovefor/of land and territorial entitlement? They are not the same 
> thing.
> What does cheering for the Indian cricket team have to do with the 
> area per
> square miles of India? Believe me, I am not being facetious at 
> all. The only
> reason this sounds idiotic is because we take for granted the 
> logic of the
> modern nation state which consists of a sovereign entity for a 
> territorialunit, with a standing army to defend this territory. 
> This is the first
> lesson in every graduate political science lecture.  And you are 
> right, the
> nation state is a fragile concept. So maybe we need to ask 
> ourselves whether
> this is not causing more trouble than it is worth...
> 
> Regarding archives and fiction, this is a longer discussion and 
> tangentialto the point I was making. Of course we may discuss it 
> if you wish. But just
> to clarify what I was saying, I can claim the heritage of the 
> whole world as
> my own. There is an old humanist saying "the world is my home" and 
> i think
> there is something of tremendous value here. But there are several 
> ways in
> which history and heritage can be claimed. One way seems to be 
> logic of
> subsuming everything, all forms of life and love and affection 
> into the
> rubric of the nation and to stamp out violently any persons or 
> forms of life
> which fall out of this. I am afraid this is too violent and boring 
> for me.
> 
> regards
> Aarti
> 
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Nazneen Anand Shamsi <
> nazoshmasi at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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: <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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>