[Reader-list] Shopain ( kashmir ) Murder and Rape

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Inder ji

Let me specify my own views on the points you raised:

1) Firstly, you again have made a very strong allegation here, that the
Indian govt. and those who are against the notion of secession of Kashmir in
the Indian establishment, have manipulated the probe of the CBI in order to
ensure that justice never gets done. Unfortunately, sentimentalism can never
take the place of rationality.

And most importantly, while human beings can be sentimental, people should
take decisions based on rationality, while keeping sentiments in mind. If I
were to go along with Kashmir's sentiments that the report is doctored,
without any evidence or basis to claim that facts in the CBI report are
wrong, then I should accept this gem which Lal Krishna Advani gave to us at
the peak of the Rath Yatra and before the Babri Masjid demolition:

'It doesn't matter whether Ram Mandir existed or not. What matters is that
the people believe a Ram Mandir existed on the spot. (where Babri Masjid
exists).'

And at that time certainly, there would have been more no. of people
supporting Advani's stand. So does that mean the demolition should be
conducted?

2) I accept that India has broken the trust of the Kashmiri people at every
account. And when I say that, it refers to both the Kashmiri Muslims, as
well as the Kashmiri Hindus. However, the return of the Pandits today is
dependent on both the Indian Govts. at the state and the centre, as well as
the local populace and certainly, the Pandits themselves.

You have stated that you would like to welcome them. I am happy. Let others,
including Kashmiris, answer that question as  well.

3) The Indian govt has certainly not done anything to win trust. And may be
that's the reason Shopian report is suspected. But don't you think this
means that irrespective of whoever investigates the case, the outcome in the
minds of the local populace is decided: Rape has occurred and it has been
done by men of the armed forces. (Paramilitary or otherwise is not the point
I am bothered to discuss here).

In other words, any report which doesn't accuse them of rape is 'doctored'.
Will such biased judgements actually help? When you already have decided a
particular point of view, and have refused to budge from it, is there any
point in discussing on such a thing?

After all, one of my teachers clearly stated that for a discussion, not only
is it necessary to go with an open mind, but importantly, be ready to accept
the view of the others if the argument offered by them is rational and
correct, with respect to the facts. (Which in themselves should be
verified). When the section of Kashmiri Muslims protesting have already
decided the perpetrators of the crimes in their minds, is it any use even
trying to discuss the issue with them?

4) The blame for the Pandit mess has been imposed on the Indian state. I
feel that not only the Indian state, but also the people who went around
killing them are responsible. If in Gujarat riots, we can blame both the
Modi administration as well as those perpetrating the killings and rapes
(and those who condoned them); if in Orissa we can blame both the Naveen
Patnaik administration and the killers who unleashed violence on the
tribals; and if in Delhi pogrom in 1984, we can blame the Congress both at
the administration and at the cadre level for having allowed the pogrom to
take place, then Kashmiri Muslims, at least the section amongst them which
did unleash violence on the Pandits (and those who condoned or supported
them), can't escape blame for what they did: murder of innocents based on
perception.

5) Finally, there are many on this forum who have repeatedly stressed that
the Kashmiri Muslims who have independence from India in mind, are actually
seeking out a religious state. By your statement that since Pandits and
other minorities like Buddhists and Sikhs would be considered pro-India and
hence anti-Kashmir, and hence would not be accepted (or may not be
accepted), I think you have accepted that Kashmir will be a religious state.


In other words, now we can have the formation of a junior Pakistan state,
the only difference between Pakistan and Kashmir valley (junior Pakistan)
being a difference in their history and evolution of cultures. Is that a
cause of celebration and support? Or is it a matter of shame? Is that
justifiable?

After all, the idea all the time seems to be of a religious state, when the
arguments raised are about human rights, as if trying to hide what the real
foundations of the state would be. Is Islam in danger in Kashmir thanks to
India?

Rakesh