[Reader-list] Seditious articles on Kashmir criticised
Shuddhabrata Sengupta
shuddha at sarai.net
Sat Sep 20 01:39:18 IST 2008
Dear Radhika,
I respectfully beg to disagree with you. I think that people like A
Roy (and there are many like her, in this country, and in every
country in the world) who choose to say what they do, not because
they are being 'irresponsible' but because they are being
'responsible' to the society that they live in by saying the kind of
things that allow us to reflect on what our societies are turning
into, and the manner in which the states that govern us operate.
I respect such people no matter where they live. I respect for
instance, Akbar Ganji, who has been repeatedly persecuted in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, for what are considered to be his 'anti
national' views in Iran, because he has courageously highlighted the
gross and abusive character of the state apparatus that runs the
Islamic Republic.
see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Ganji
I respect Israeli dissidents like Mordechai Vanunu (who acted as a
whistleblower about Israel's nuclear arsenal, and faced long and
harsh imprisonment) and the 19 year old Isreali dissident soldier Avi
Bieber who refused to participate in his governments violence against
the people of occupied Palestine.
see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4631141.stm
I respect the thousands of ordinary American men, women, pensioners,
soldiers, veterans, schoolteachers, priests and intellectuals who
have risked been called 'terrorist sympathizers' in the United States
for speaking against the 'war on terror' in the United States of
America.
I respect the courageous Russian Journalist Anna Politovskaya who was
killed for the way in which she stood up to the criminal Putin regime.
see - http://www.slate.com/id/2151209/
I respect the Chinese dissidents who have extended solidarity to
their Tibetan brothers and sisters. (whom I and Sonia Jabbar have
written about on this list)
All these people, in each of these countries have been called
'seditionists', 'intellectual terrorists', 'psycho-warriors',
'traitors', 'troublmakers', 'spies' and worse. None of these people
are heroes, none of them set out to be heroes, I would guess that
each one of them would have hated, or hates, the label of 'martyr'.
They do not see themselves as extraordinary in any way. They are just
standing up for the common decency that becomes necessary when states
turn into monsters. Many of us on this list, by participating in the
discussions that we do participate in, do no different. We are not
being special. We are just being responsible to ourselves, our
consciences, our friends, our attachments and our convictions. This
means being responsible to the society in which we live. To be
silent, or to be complicit in a repressive state, would be to forget
and ignore our 'duties' and our 'responsibilities'. So, I would urge
you to reconsider your loose and somewhat cavalier usage of terms
such as 'responsibility', 'rights' and 'duties'.
There is another thing in your post that caught my attention.
You say -
"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."
I find this statement surprising, and actually, (I regret to say it)
irresponsible. Where has Geelani supported the 'terror in Jamia
Nagar'? Where have you come across such a statement? There is a
report in today's DNA that makes a reference to S.A.R Geelani in a
report on the shootout in Jamia Nagar.
"Few Takers for Police Version on Delhi Shootout"
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1191619
It says -
"SAR Geelani, the Delhi University lecturer who was acquitted in the
Deceember 2001 parliament attack, demanded a judicial probe into the
shootout and said: "People have been harassed in the area for a long
time. It is not something new. Whenever something happens, this area
is the first target being a Muslim one." "
Where, in this statement, which is echoed by many other residents of
the area, (which the newspaper duly reports) do you read. support
for 'terrorists' ? Or are we to assume that according to you
protesting against the harrassment of your neighbours is now to be
understood as 'support for terrorism'?
I read everything you write with great care, because, although I
disagree with you on most things, I do see that you write from
conviction. I am surprised that you should say something so
unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable, Surely, you, with your claims to
journalistic ethics, need not stoop so low.
Never, in the past seven years, has there ever been any mention of
Geelani ( I am assuming you are referring to Mr. S.A.R. Geelani,
since you are referring indirectly to the so called 'Parliament
Attack' case) having possession of the ' floor plan of parliament'.
It does not figure in even the wildest fantasies of the police and
the prosecution case with regard to '13 December'. And I say this
because I have studied the court records and the charge sheets with
some care. So either you are privy to something that not even the
special cell of the Delhi police knew nothing about, or, you are
fantasizing.
If that is the case, perhaps you might consider offering this list a
graceful apology,
warm regards,
Shuddha
When the state apparatus becomes a bloated monster of the kind
>
> 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/>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>
Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net
More information about the reader-list
mailing list