[Reader-list] see some meaning in Yasin Malik's choice

[Pawan Durani]

Dear Rakesh JI ,

Thank you for your response.

I would request you and others that for Gods sake [commies plz excuse ] stop
giving excuse of rigged election in 1987 as a reason for being rebel against
India.

Rakesh Ji , please name me a state in India where elections have/are not
being rigged ? Do we have a separatist movement in all those states ?

The prime reason,whether you accept it or not is that since Kashmir is a
muslim dominated Area, some section of muslims do not accept the idea of
living in a secular country,despite having a unique special status much to
discrimination of rest of India. It may take you ages to accept this
concept,but one day you will.

As a citizen of this country , we have right to express what is right
anywhere. Please do accept your approval or reservations about the future
union territory of Panun Kashmir. Unless we dont create a discussion, the
reality would take more time. referendums have not been done in
participation of Indian states. I do not recall it being done in creation of
Uttranchal or Jharkhand as well ,unless i have a poor knowledge.

Warm Regards

Pawan Durani




On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Pawan (and all)
>
> With respect to the points which you have raised, which deserve discussion
> across larger communities and certainly in the so-called 'peace process'
> which is being continued, I wish to say the following things here.
>
> Firstly, I have never stated that the fight and quest for justice must be
> stopped. The biggest mistake any one of us, can ever make, is suffering
> injustice without fighting to overcome it and get justice for ourselves.
> Therefore, your fight does deserve a mention, provided it is actually
> fighting for justice.
>
> Now, coming to the point you have raised regarding exodus of Pandits since
> the last 1000 years ago. It is certainly right that forced exodus in any
> kind of situations are not right, and if there is anything we can learn from
> history, it's that dignity is the most important requirement for any
> individual, and every person, even a living creature, has a right to life
> with dignity on this earth and this world. However, that dignity does not
> come from trampling over the rights of others, but instead comes from
> helping others to also live their lives with dignity, and also giving due
> recognition to their right.
>
> But from the kind of logic which has been used in support of the Kashmiri
> Pandits, I particularly have the notion that such logic has done more harm
> than good for the community. I have never said that justice should not be
> sought for at all. As I stated in my earlier post to this list, I said that
> while justice for all the incidents of the past must be sought, the Pandits,
> in a conciliatory measure, can waive away the death sentence, provided those
> who committed the violence during the 90's are willing to surrender, lay
> down arms, are willing to talk, are willing to fight cases against them, and
> most importantly, accept sentences imposed upon them as punishment if they
> are found to be guilty. I am not asking anybody to be an 'Angulimala' at
> all.
>
> The logic used by Aditya on the other hand, makes it seem that retributive
> justice is the way to go according to the Pandits themselves. Even in the
> name of justice being offered, in the form of punishments given through the
> law, it seems that the Pandits only want death sentence to be offered to
> them. From the documentaries I have seen and the way relatives of victims
> have behaved in public, it's a fact that the loss of a person brings so much
> grief to the family, that he/she is only concerned with getting justice, in
> order to get back the dignity to their life, which is what their need is.
> They are not much interested with the political games and policies being
> toyed around with in the name of the incidents, which led to the loss of
> their loved and dear ones, whether be it in riots or pressurizing Pakistan
> after the Mumbai attacks.
>
> The way things have been written, a sense of anger which should be directed
> at the Indian nation state for not giving proper justice, has been turned
> into an anger against a community, which has painted as 'the enemy' of the
> Indian nation state. Instead of realizing that being 'nationalistic' and
> following 'nationalistic ideals like secularism' has not helped in achieving
> your goals of justice, and thereby realizing that instead of nationalism,
> problems should be solved from a human angle as well (all politics and
> socialism and things like that come from the human angle, for they wouldn't
> exist without humans), you have gone on to give articles which give the
> perception that Kashmiri Muslims are pro-Pakistani, all separatists are
> Pakistan's chamchas, that their community is one of killers and so on. And
> then in the same breath, when the comment comes that the high voting
> percentages in the Valley are indicative of support to the Indian nation
> state, I don't know what to make of all this. After all, how can
> pro-Pakistani people suddenly turn their stand to support India when they
> all along have been fighting, in your words, for a terrorist movement (in
> the garb of 'azadi')?
>
> Yes, the fact is that police cases were not registered for the crimes
> committed. Yes, the Indian nation state didn't come to the rescue of the
> Pandits when they were suffering, so also along with those Muslims and
> people of other communities who were loyal to India. Yes, the Indian nation
> state didn't make a concerted effort to provide justice to all those who
> suffered. And more importantly, the Indian nation state hasn't tried to
> build bridges between the Pandits and the Kashmiri Muslims by providing them
> chances to interact with each other, and understand each other's positions.
>
> But then, history always has a context. And that context must be understood
> as well. Why did Muslims in the valley ask for an azadi at all, if they were
> so 'happy' with the Indian democracy? Because of the political games being
> played with the J & K Govt, by the central govt at Delhi, in the name of
> protecting 'national interests', we had to come up to such a situation in
> the first place, which culminated in the rigged elections of 1987-88. And
> yes, violence was wrong, but it happened because of such cases occuring
> repeatedly in the name of protecting 'Kashmir'.
>
> Let me ask all here a simple question. At the time of independence,
> Hydrebad, Junagadh and Jammu  & Kashmir were incorporated into India, after
> these three states didn't initially accept their inclusion into the Indian
> Union. If Junagadh could have a plebiscite to ascertain whether the people
> there wanted to go with Pakistan or with India, why can't Kashmir and Jammu
> also have the same? I am not sure about Hydrebad as well, but that argument
> does go along for there as well.
>
> Therefore, for you, it's a view that you were cheated by the Indian Union
> which forgot to see that you are nationalistic and secular. For me, they
> cheated you because they are cheaters any way. They use nationalism and
> secularism only to further their own ends, and to spread their own bigotry
> among the public. Wasn't secularism there anyway before it was introduced in
> the Indian preamble? And there have been more riots after this inclusion of
> the word 'secular' in the Indian preamble of the constitution, than were
> they before this word was included, since the inception of republic in
> India.
>
> Hence, I dont' say you shouldn't ask for justice. But it's my humble
> request, to at least see now the reason that being ardent followers of
> nationalism and secularism is not what gets you justice. And hence please
> realize that the Indian nation state has failed you (as it repeatedly does
> every day all of us, in some way or the other). And more importantly, taking
> that into mind, also realize that others are humans, as much as you are, and
> have some compassion among you.
>
> Not all Kashmiri Muslims are killers. Not all of them were terrorists or
> supported that agitation. May be not all of them want azadi. But what all of
> them do want, is the same as what all of you want, which is a right to life
> of dignity.
>
> Fight for your cause. Go ahead in that case. But please stop believing that
> nationalism is the solution to all your problems, or even the problem of
> Kashmir. It has never been, and will never be the solution to India's
> problems. It will only compound the problems of the past, and will further
> bring many more among us. And secondly, not all of them are enemies, so
> please start talking with them. Please interact with them. They did make
> mistakes in supporting those who killed you or just remained aloof at that
> time (which is a greater mistake), but times change, and one has to go ahead
> with life, and if one has to do so, why not be happy and live it?
>
> It's not simple as I have said it. But yes, while seeking justice, is it
> really impossible for Pandits to strat talking to Kashmiri Muslims? Is it
> impossible to believe that they are human beings first, as much as the
> Pandits, or any of us are? Is it impossible to believe that views and
> beliefs contrary to those held by majority can also exist in a society? Or
> is it impossible to accept the expression of those views in public?
>
> Or is it that for now on, Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits are the
> enemies of each other for once and for all times?
>
> Regarding Panun Kashmir, I would just say one thing. I have only heard
> Pandits make this claim. First of all, I believe that we outside Kashmir
> have no right to decide what is good for them and what is not. Hence, any
> choice of Panun Kashmir, or any 'azad' state, must be introduced only after
> seeking consent from the people there, either through referendum or
> plebiscite, or whatever you and others may wish to call. Just giving a macro
> based statement that many people support it is not going to work in a
> democratic polity like India.
>
> But yes, if Kashmir in an 'azad' state is going to resemble today's India
> or today's Pakistan, God forbid that any 'azadi' ever takes place.
> Otherwise, there would be creation of yet another disastrous nation state
> which would be totally disastrous for the people there.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>
>