[Reader-list] protests against Gaza Siege - ideological arrogance

[Pawan Durani]

*No*, it is not a Hindu Homeland that we are seeking. We fully identify with
tbe secular-democratic-pluralism of our country, so how can we ask for a
Hindu homeland ? We are seeking a homeland for displaced Kashmiris who have
faced suppression for centuries, who have been driven out by tyrants
repeatedly in the course of history of monarchies and fiefdoms in the valley
and who have been subjected to genocide of unparalleled magnitude in a free
and democratic India. These people happen mostly to be Hindus. These were
the people who staked themselves at the altar of secularism in Kashmir. They
reaped the bitter fruits of being nationalists and secular. They are now
unwelcome in their own land of which they are the original inhabitants. They
will not be able to live in security, safety and dignity in the altered
milieu in the valley which has now become completely Islamized and which has
no place for other communities. If they are allowed to disperse and
disintegrate it will be a total negation of the secular democratic ideals of
India. Any attempt to deny them their rightful share in their place of
habitation will have far reaching consequences for the rest of the country
and will unleash uncontrollable forces of religious bigotry elsewhere in
other States and may lead to exodus of minorities from there. So these
displaced Kashmiris from the valley are seeking an honourable settlement in
the valley and will welcome all those who contribute to the tenets of
secularism, democracy and equality before law. We are not seeking a division
of Kashmir into Muslim Kashmir and Hindu Kashmir because an Islamic Kashmir
is already a fait accompli. What we are asking is our rightful share from it
to convert it into a secular democratic homeland with full accession to
India and without fetters of Article 370.


On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Pawan (and all)
>
> I have gone through the website, though I must admit not as fully as I
> wanted to for lack of time. But there are certain observations I would like
> to make here, after having gone through the website.
>
> First of all, there have been allegations of discrimination being made
> against the Jammu and the Ladakh region, in terms of development. There must
> be substantial truths in this I agree. There is also an element of Kashmir
> appeasement involved in it, for when the delimitation process was being
> conducted in 2001, the then Central Government (ironically, the NDA Govt.
> headed by the BJP, the most Right-wing party in India) refused to allow this
> process to be conducted in J & K. If this process would have been conducted,
> Jammu would have had more seats in Assembly elections 2002 and 2008, than
> Kashmir had. What's more, this policy was continued with by the UPA Govt.
> Therefore, on this issue, I don't know, who is the bigger appeaser, the NDA
> (headed by the BJP) or the UPA (headed by the Congress). Moreover, this
> practice was completely wrong, as it's against the basic tenets of
> democratic systems and practices introduced and followed by the Election
> Commission in India, regarding fair demarcation of constituencies.
>
> Having said that, the most interesting thing is that Kashmiri Pandits have
> been asking for development of Jammu. If I am not wrong, since they are
> Kashmiri Pandits, they must have been living in Kashmir Valley and not
> Jammu. By all means, the discrimination against Jammu must be portrayed. But
> I cannot understand how can the Kashmiri Pandits, or anybody speaking for
> them, say that the discrimination against Jammu is discrimination against
> the Pandits? This is beyond my understanding. I have no objections with
> Pandits fighting for Jammu's rights, and I can support it. But is it a
> discrimination against them, even before 1989, when they were living in the
> Valley? And if they feel more for Jammu than for the Valley, I don't think
> Kashmiri Muslims would have had any trust in them when they were thinking of
> azadi. That however does not mean that those Muslims had any right to go
> about doing rapes and abettin violence. They should and must be punished for
> that.
>
> Secondly, just having proper food and clothing doesn't mean people will
> live peacefully. Today, Gujarat riot victims would also be living peacefully
> probably in some places, but does that mean they don't want the abetters of
> violence to be punished? Wrong. If the Kashmiri Pandits, those for whom the
> situation has improved since 1989 so much so that they are economically and
> even politically well off, are asking for justice, can't the Kashmiri
> Muslims ask for justice regarding the 1987 elections, and also for the human
> right violations being committed on them. I agree that the armed forces are
> living in a region of high insecurity, but does that mean they have the
> right to carry out fake encounters and rapes of women, in the name of
> protecting India's borders? Mind you, they have the right to self-defence.
>
> Thirdly, the demand for Panun Homeland, is somewhat similar to the demand
> made by the RSS that the entire state should be partitioned into three
> regions, namely, Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. But there can be many objections
> raised on the basis of this.
>
> First of all, I would like to know whether this designated Homeland is only
> for Pandits. Can't other Hindu communities live in this place? Can't people
> from other religions, be it Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists live in
> this homeland? Is it the idea that this homeland will be exclusively for
> Pandits only? If that is the case, then I think it's the worst precedent
> which can be set up in this very country. Already, we are having the problem
> between Maharashtra and UP-Bihar based people, and this will lead to further
> tensions.
>
> Let me be clear on this account. People have to migrate to other places,
> and even live there, as they want to take up some occupation. Moreover, a
> territory in India has never been formed on the basis of a religious,
> community-based or a secretarian identity. Even the Valley has not been
> formed a state of its own, simply because of this. Hence, the asking of such
> a kind of homeland, is a threat to the idea on which the Constitution of
> India is based.
>
> Secondly, from a nationalist perspective. Since the Kashmiri Pandits are
> calling themselves as patriots, but their rhetoric or arguments have been
> based on what I think are nationalist perspective, they do deserve an answer
> from this point as well. The formation of a separate homeland for them, will
> certainly trigger off a demand for the partition of the state into three
> regions. Doing so, will mean that Kashmir is actually a separate entity.
> This will indirectly mean that India has accepted Jinnah's proposition that
> Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations. And if that is the case, then
> there is no use of the Indian Nation declaring Kashmir to be an integral
> part of India. We may as well gift it to Pakistan.
>
> The Indian nation formed the state to show to Pakistan and the world, that
> the three regions, inspite of their diversity, can co-exist together. The
> elections to the State Assembly of 2008 have also been used to show the
> same. Ironically, the Pandits, who call themselves the sons of India and
> true Indians, have now decided to take up a cause which is actually RSS
> supported, but which could very well create this divide.
>
> By the way, I have not formed all this conclusion of nationalist
> perspective by myself. It is something government officials and defence
> officials have spoken about in private, or one should say, anonymously to
> media time and again. And this is why even under the NDA government, though
> RSS supported the tri-partite state to be formed, BJP didn't even ask its
> allies for it, although I don't think anybody would have opposed it
> actually. They never even mentioned it during 2002 elections of Jammu and
> Kashmir. For those who think they can't speak their ideological voice during
> coalition rule, better refer to Modi mania during 2002 Gujarat elections.
>
> There are many issues raised in the website. And I think I will require a
> time for 2-3 days to answer all those. But I think I have put forth my views
> properly. I will just add a few more things I wish would happen in that
> state:
>
> a) First of all, delimitation must be carried out in the state. If Jammu
> deserves more seats (which it seems based on 2001 census), then it should be
> given more seats.
>
> b) If Pandits have not been rehabilitated, efforts must be made to done so.
> But Pandits must also realize that demands should be justified based on
> rational grounds. At the moment, the demand for a homeland is not even
> justified based on nationalist grounds.
>
> c) I don't understand their logic for making it a union territory. Is it to
> ensure that since Muslims are in a majority in the state, and the Pandits
> fear them, so a union territory can ensure Pandit's influence and not the
> Muslims'?
>
> d) Any violence, unleashed by either the Kashmiri Muslims (during 1989,
> which led to displacement of Pandits), unleashed by the security forces (in
> the form of human right violations and daily security checks), or by the
> foreign terrorists (Pakistanis, Afghanis, Saudi Arabis or what not as
> portrayed by both Pandits and the Indian security establishment) is totally
> wrong. All those responsible for it, whatever may be their ideology and
> justification for causing violence, must be punished and made an example of,
> so that nobody practices violence.
>
> I must say that the Jammu agitation on Amarnath, and the Kashmir agitation
> in response to it, have provided a shining example in one sense. After a
> long time, both regions experienced peaceful and non-violent agitations. I
> don't have problem with people agitating against the establishment, for that
> is what India is and it will be, but it should be non-violent. Of course,
> stray incidents of violence did take place, but one can take heart out of
> it. Full marks to people of both regions for having followed that course.
> And hope they continue to do so, and we all can learn from it.
>
> I promise to answer back on some other issues as well after fully reading
> it. Hope to get your response.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>