[Reader-list] A Just Peace in Kashmir? Reflections on

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Junaid,

Thank you for an excellent and thoughtful post ! A sea change from  
the usual rhetorical grandstanding on Kashmir that we have become  
accustomed to on this list. It is the articulation of expressions  
like this in public fora that I think can help lay the foundations of  
a better tomorrow for Kashmir, and for all of South Asia.

You say - "It can sound funny when people ask "Would gay people have  
their rights in an independent Kashmir?" or "Would minorities be not  
only protected but have equal rights as the majorities?," when the  
people these questions are asked of don't even know if *they* have a  
right to life (with dignity) in Kashmir, when the rigorously grinding  
everyday life under the military occupation doesn't even allow its  
people a chance to ponder upon their situation. Yet, at some stage or  
the other, if solidarities are to be built, if new alliances are to  
be created, if the Azadi in the real sense has to be achieved, these  
questions have to find some answers in Kashmir's resistance struggle."

I both agree with you and differ with you on this formulation. I  
agree that "if new alliances are to be created, if the Azadi in the  
real sense has to be achieved, these questions have to find some  
answers in Kashmir's resistance struggle." But I do not think that  
these questions can be put off till a hypothetical 'some stage' in  
the struggle. I do not think these questions are more important than  
the goal of ending the occupation, but I do not think they are less  
important either. And I also do not believe that there is any  
contradiction in holding on to both desires (to end the occupation  
and to voice these concerns), simultaneously.

I believe that these questions have an urgency, and that they  
actually in some ways subtly determine the destiny of the struggle  
for peace and freedom, in a real and substantive sense. Time and time  
again, movements that have thought of themselves as 'liberatory' or  
'emancipatory' have fallen into the trap of creating a hierarchy of "  
lesser and greater" goals. Many Communists believed that freedom was  
a luxury that would have to wait till the goal of Justice was  
achieved, and this ensured that they were able to achieve neither  
freedom, nor justice, wherever they came to power. Zionists believed  
that the question of creating a relationship with the people of  
Palestine was a lesser priority to the immediate (and very real)  
suffering of Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere, and as a result,  
they created a state which is in effect a huge prison camp (both for  
themselves, and for their 'other'). Indian nationalists subordinated  
the question of thinking about society and culture to the 'goal' of  
political independence, and when they did, the came up with  
remarkably un-imaginative and repressive ideas, and the result is  
plain for all of us to see.

I believe that it is absolutely vital, that especially when people  
are facing, as you say, the 'rigorous grind of everyday life' under  
an occupation, that intellectuals and activists, and ordinary people  
are brought face to face with the consequences of not paying  
attention to basic and fundamental questions. The 'strategic  
pragmatism' that many political activists seek to impose as a code of  
silence, in the end, becomes the foundation of future oppression. I  
also do not believe that these questions 'take care of themselves'  
due to the innate character or a people, or the broad, inclusive  
nature of their inherited traditions. Character and tradition are  
fragile, easily twisted. The cultivation of liberty is a daily,  
quotidian, modest, but vital task, and cannot be left to the  
abstraction of a people's character. Every assumption of innocence on  
behalf of the oppressed, is a sure condition of its opposite, when  
the oppressed find the chance to be oppressors.

I totally agree with you however, when you say - "Perhaps the best  
way to rebuild bridges is to unconditionally accept and acknowledge  
each other's pain and sufferring. That Pandits accept and acknowledge  
the Kashmir's need to be independent, and Muslims accept the right of  
Pandit's to live with dignity, security and as full members of our  
nation (even if they don't support or participate in Kashmir's  
freedom struggle).

Along with other minorities Kashmiri Pandits have the first right to  
ask of Kashmiri resistance to become sensitive to and acknowledge  
their needs of security and dignity. If the future independent  
Kashmir has to move in pursuit of the goals that we have laid out  
then the time to intervene is now!"

Yes, the time to intervene is now!

I would reiterate that the cogent expression of a 'Freedom Charter'  
for Kashmir would be a great step forward. We have discussed this  
(though not on public fora) some months before, but in the light of  
Professor Shapiro's text, it might be worthwhile to recall the  
substantive points of that discussion for the benefit of the Reader  
List. I hope you will permit me to take the liberty of posting  
salient points from an earlier round of correspondence.

It would be excellent if a publicly circulated charter for a Kashmir  
that is truly 'Azaad' were to state that :

1. it would be a state that would provide equal rights to the members  
of all kinds of minorities, (ethnic, religious, social, sexual and  
other),

2. that it would harbour peaceful intentions towards all neighbouring  
peoples (in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tibet,  Central Asia and  
China) and that it would declare Kashmir as a demilitarized zone and  
as a sanctuary of peace

3.  that it would take the bold step of doing away with the obscenity  
of a standing army

4. that it would welcome all displaced Kashmiris (including, not only  
the Kashmiri Pandits, but also those who were forced to migrate to  
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)  and that it calls for an open dialogue  
with responsible and peace-loving representatives of all displaced  
kashmiri communities

5. that it would set up a 'truth and reconciliation' commission to  
help account for and address the years of violence in Kashmir

5. that it would treat with respect, pride  and affection the unique  
cultural heritage and history of the Kashmir valley, and the  
contributions made by Buddists, Hindus, Muslims and others to this  
heritage down the centuries,

6. and that it would take a special care to safeguard the unique  
biological and natural heritage of the mountains, rivers, forests,  
lakes and meadows of Kashmir for the sake of all humanity

If a document that spelt out these points clearly, while outlining  
the moves that can be made towards a free plebiscite under  
international auspices were to be clearly spelt out today, it can  
make a real and fundamental difference to the destiny of the movement  
in Kashmir. The old preconditions for a plebisicte that were  
articulated by the UN are no longer relevant to the situation. The  
terms of reference have to expand a choice beyond the choice between  
accession to either India or Pakistan, and BOTH Indian and Pakistani  
military personnel should be confined to barracks, or better still,  
asked to vacate the territories occupied by them in the disputed state.

Such a document could say that the continuing occupation of Kashmir,  
especially by the Indian armed forces and state paramilitary and  
police forces, and the continued existence of laws such as the AFSPA  
and the lack of responsible international mediation is a stumbling  
block in the realization of these demands, and that these conditions  
be transformed, the occupation be lifeted, so that a free,  
demilitarized and peaceful Kashmir (with no armies) can come into being.

I think that the important point is not whether or not this is a  
'pragmatic' and 'achievable' set of goals, but that it sets the  
standards and the criteria by which 'prgamatic' moves may be judged  
and evaluated. If people (be they in Kashmir, or in India, or in  
Pakistan) object to the goals of such a charter, they will only  
reveal their true character.

For all you know, all the reactionaries in India, Pakistan and  
Kashmir may be together on this, and all others (cutting across  
'national' and 'identitarian' lines) may be arrayed against them.

best,

Shuddha

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net