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

[Junaid]

Dear Shuddha,

Thank you for your warm words, and also for bringing alive a previously
discussed set of issues that a posible freedom charter must address. As I
have always maintained I strongly agree with all the points you
have reiterated in your post.

Also, wherever I discussed these issues in Kashmir, I was met with a
positive response. It may not be a generalised phenomenon, but gives me a
lot of hope. No one in Kashmir lives under any illusion that they will have
their own army--what for? On many other issues listed in your post it
is quite possible to provoke debates and make progress. And I think the
Kashmiri society has in it elements that can support and sustain the
creation of a more hospitable, a more sensitive, and a more just society.

But when I say the military occupation leaves no time to ponder over these
questions, I also mean space. Occupation has shrunk public space in Kashmir.
The frenetic constancy and the extremely disruptive nature of this regime
makes it very very difficult for people--even intellectuals--to sustain such
debates. Yet, I agree, that Kashmiris have to find ways to do this. Despite
the crushing architecture of occupation Kashmiris must find cracks and
crevices where these issues can be articulated and made an organic part of
their resistance.

I, however, believe that many of us who live outside Kashmir, or are
relatively freer, need to have a pragmatic approach toward the resistance.
Most of us may be well-intentioned but when it comes to lending actual
solidarity to the Kashmiris we begin to ask them to first achieve the Ideal
before any support could be extended. We trenchantly criticise a Kashmiri
protestor for not simultaneously raising the issues we have been talking
about while he is battling soldiers attacking his home.  At many times, it
reduces to asking Kashmiris to resist within a prescribed norm of
decency. We feel no actual sympathy for the bearded protestor for perhaps he
represents to us everything we abhor.

And then there are those of us, who have extremely stringent standards of
what constitutes a legitimate, justified resistance--where abberations in
the resistance are turned into its dominant feature, while the structurally
violent nature of the occupation becomes aberations that can be improved.
(For Kashmir, it means making its resistance absolutely contextless, while
Indian actions get overcontextualised).

We must find a way in which we can help raise issues of actual liberation
while not compromising the struggle against occupation. Otherwise,
we inadvertently, become complicit in the occupation itself.

But, yes, I do reaffirm that the Kashmiri resistance needs to move ten steps
if it wants its well-wishers to move one.
Junaid



On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>wrote:

>  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
>
>
>