[Reader-list] Temples Of Mirpur

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Kshamendra

Since you have pointed out to my using the term 'IOK' as being against the
Constitution, let me answer that particular query.

The Indian Constitution is first 'Indian' and then 'Constitution'. The
Constitution can be a piece of document even you and I can form, but since
the people of India accepted it, it's an Indian constitution. Therefore in
other words, if Indians don't support the Constitution or don't accept it,
then it can't be the constitution of India. Therefore, the very survival of
the Constitution is dependent on its acceptability by the people. The
Constitution can't be a stagnant document according to which people are to
be judged; it's a document which is supposed to reflect the values, ethos
and beliefs of the people who accept it. And if these change, whether those
made the Constitution like it or not, the Constitution would have to change.
(depending on whether the earlier Constitution can satisfy today's changed
situations or not of course)

I have two basic contentions therefore against the points you are making.
The first fact goes with the Constitution itself. The Indian Constitution
guarantees the Right to Life for each and every citizen as per Article 21,
which means that each citizen has the right to a life of dignity. It's this
right under which movements for the Right to Food, Right to Employment
(leading to NREGA), and various movements have been conducted. And Kashmiris
demand dignity, whether it be the Pandits fighting for justice for what
happened in 1989, or be it those fighting for 'azadi' and certainly against
the atrocities and violations of human rights being perpetrated by the men
in uniform, most of which have remained under wraps.

Since Kashmiris have felt the pangs of injustice since long being forced
against them, they have resorted to militant movements in the past (violence
committed by which can't and shouldn't be justified by any means) and now
demonstrations ( where again violence is condemnable but grievances must be
looked into), which talk about freedom. What this freedom is, is for those
fighting out there to decide and look into. But since the movement seems to
be a fight against the Indian state, I feel that the Indian Constitution
itself states that the state should be the guaranteer of freedoms of
different kinds (as Fundamental Rights) and also the right to a dignified
life as per various articles enshrined in it.

Therefore, if the Indian state is not able to guarantee it, and if people
fail that the Constitution has not been implemented properly, I don't find
it anti-national or even anti-constitutional for the people to agitate and
demand a separate state, going by the very provisions of the Constitution
itself. The demands of the Kashmiris not being met is a failure of the
Indian state and not that of the Indian Constitution. And hence, such a
movement is not anti-national, though it is certainly anti-statist.

It's Indian state instead which has acted against the Indian Constitution
and dismissed the democratic and legitimate rights of the Kashmiris, and it
deserves the sternest of condemnations on this account. And this is utterly
disgusting considering that the stage to arrive at making the Constitution
was achieved after the sacrifices of so many lives, so many aspirations, so
many possiblities which could have been wonderful for those who fought in
the freedom movement, based by and large on ethical values and ideas.

And I feel that to find whether people of rest of India genuinely don't want
Kashmir to be out of the Indian state, as what you state, there has to be a
referendum to find the exact view, as to what the people feel about the
independence of Kashmir from the Indian state (whether they support it or
not). The Indian Parliament can't be trusted on this account because many
decisions taken in the Parliament have hardly a chord touching with the
demands of the public in most cases. (The nuclear deal is one example. There
was hardly any support for the deal across the country among the common
masses, and yet Manmohan Singh was ready to sacrifice his govt for it).

My second contention is the very basis of human rights and respect for each
other's freedoms and dignity, and this goes even beyond the Constitution.
This is something which one has to give to other human beings irrespective
of whether you belong to India or not. We all are human beings first. and
nation states were only created post 1500 AD at least, while humans have
been existing even before that. While the right of respect has been
condemned by many in the past, that does not mean that it doesn't exist. It
is there and every human being (and actually every living creature as well
as nature) deserves it. Of course, the problem of the agency enforcing it is
certainly the problem, but then it's the self-agency in my belief which has
to be the one looking after this.

Therefore, Kashmiris as human beings deserve dignity and India as a state
has failed to ensure that for the Kashmiris. Therefore, if they feel that
coming out of the Indian state, then they have a genuine right to do so, for
their freedoms have been toyed around with in their perception.

I even go beyond these two to present one simple argument: if Kashmiris
don't feel trustworthy of India, then they will never trust Indian state,
irrespective of all kinds of carrot and stick arragements the govt. wants to
follow. There will be no success in bringing Kashmiris to one's own side.
Then why is the govt not understanding the reality and doing what is
actually required (which may be independence or simply removal of AFSPA)? Is
it too afraid of the army and the Hindutva lobbies on this account? (and the
nationalist lobbies too)

Regards

Rakesh