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

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Pawan (and all)

I also went through now a fair bit of the site you told; although I must
concede here that I have not read anything from the sites about which you
told me yesterday; I will defnitely try to go through them and complete that
by possibly this week, or may be till next, as it's quite a lot of
information. Infact, I have not even completed reading from the sites you
told me through this series. Please bear with me, I shall go through them as
fast as I can.

Now coming back to some of the issues we had talked about yesterday, so much
also for what I have read, here is what I wish to say.

Kashmir or for that matter, Jammu, are not the servants of Indian government
and the Indian nation state. Just because Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil
Nadu etc. are states of the Indian republic, does not mean that the Indian
govt. can completely disregard the people of these states. What is more,
just because the Indian Govt gets taxes from these states, does not mean
that Indian Govt. can do whatever it likes.

The states are a part of India, because the people of those states feel that
they are Indians. Make no mistake about it. When you go to Maharashtra, they
are definitely Marathis, but they also feel that they are Indians. And hence
Maharasthra is a part of India, Raj Thackeray's agitation notwithstanding.
However, that does not give a right to the Indian Govt to follow any policy
in Maharashtra, regardless of the consent of the people.

Kashmir is in a slightly different league. Since Indian independence,
Kashmir has never expressed belief in being Indians. The person they
supported was Sheikh Abdullah, and as time passed, their support grew in
him. After his death, they tried to see what would happen. And this is where
I think they are feeling let down.

Ironically, there are two important sections of the Kashmiri society who are
feeling let down by each other as well as the Indian Govt. The Kashmiri
Pandits feel they have been tortured and brutalized by the Kashmiri Muslims,
and also left to fend for themselves, by the Indian Govt., which abandoned
them in the name of secularism. I think there is merit in the argument, that
when the state was supposed to protect their lives, it didn't try to do so.
And hence Kashmiri Pandits had to go away from their land.

But the reasoning that Kashmir gets grant from the Indian Govt, and hence
must be subservient to it is totally bakwaas. In that case, Bihar also gets
a lot of grant from the Indian Govt. Does that mean that Bihari people
should totally disregard their dignity, and act as servants of the Indian
Govt, which today is following economic policies of the WTO and the IMF,
backed by US. (Never mind that the same system has led to an economic
disaster across the globe, and now we are asked to follow it, so that we can
also destroy ourselves.Great going by the three.)

People first want dignity, and justice. That is why the poor like democracy.
That was snatched away from the Kashmiris. Having said that, when they did
protest, they did not have the right to drive away the Kashmiri Pandits by
violent methods, based upon voices of Shabbir Shah and Yasin Malik. And if
those separatist leaders had driven them away, it becomes their
responsibility morally to try first to bring the Pandits back to Kashmir. I
must state here that the Indian Govt and even Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's govt,
had tried to do so, but failed; the reason being the demand of Panun
Kashmir.

As I see the map of Panun, I feel that the Valley would be a Union
Territory. I oppose it for two reasons: one, since the Pandits feel that
Valley Muslims can't be trusted and the Muslims are in a majority, they have
asked for a UT, since every election would depend on the Muslims more and
less on the Pandits. This is wrong because every good society functions on
trust; the day trust is lost you will see violence breaking out in some form
or the other among the communities of the society. I think either both
Pandits and Muslims must begin to trust each other now, (it is tough mind
you, after the bloodshed of 1989), but I think both must forgive and forget
and try to build bridges now.

Two, the Pandits say that Muslims haven't tried to welcome them, because
they don't believe in secularism and nationalism. First of all, nationalism
is something I don't know what to do with. India is one of the most
nationalist countries in the world, according to a survey I read about 3-4
years ago, and yet, nationalism is not right. For, in the name of
nationalism, people have been asked to give away their land without
compensation for SEZ's and dams. In the name of nationalism, people have
been asked to lose their relatives in aircraft hijacks. In the name of
nationalism, Muslims have been raped and murdered in Gujarat as well (it's
Hindu nationalism, as they call it). And it's this nationalism which has
threatened to completely overlook all ethnic, religious, gender-based and
other diversities in India, which form an important landmark in Indian
culture.

Now, secularism. I agree they were not secular then certainly. The
propaganda was communal. But as Gandhi himself said, give a chance even to a
criminal to reform himself. I don't feel all Kashmiri Muslims are criminals,
and they deserved to be given a chance to be trusted. They did get blown
away in emotions, and it's still an emotional issue. But then why not get
that trust back. If people from UP and Bihar can go and live in the Valley
(on rent of course) and sell vegetables, why can't Kashmiri Pandits go back
to their land? This mistrust will lead us nowhere.

Last point. Yesterday, there was this issue of Bangladesh immigration and
Christian conversion raised by you in your private chat with me. I make it
clear, that any conversion based on fraud, force or allurement is wrong, not
only in the Constitution, but also morally; for no religion asks people to
convert based on these kind of things. Infact, as Gandhi himself said, if
people feel some other religion is better than theirs, rather than
converting to it, they should follow the practices of that religion. That is
enough. Infact, I am proud to say that a Hindu can actually read namaz 5
times a day, and not do idol worship, because idol worship is not central to
Hinduism (even athiesm and agnostics are accepted), and still be a Hindu. A
Muslim can't however do idol worship, as it's against Islam (which I believe
was to integrate the Arab tribes).

And as for illegal immigration, it is wrong. It is wrong for Bangladesh
morally that their citizens have to come to this country to earn livelihood
in an illegal manner. This means in their own country, they don't have any
program to help their citizens get employment locally without having to
cross the border, and even live off in places like Jaipur and Mumbai. It's
wrong for India because politicians use these immigrants to get vote always
for themselves, without doing anything for them. Moreover, it destroys the
demography of India, and affects it to a degree where outsiders have been
affecting vote patterns.

However, I am not completely convinced by the last argument; the reason
being that there are immigrants who are living in their constituency for
more than 5 to 10 years, and these people have a concern in seeing that the
constituency develops and they themselves develop. And it may be so that
they are being forced only to vote for particular parties during elections,
or it may not be so.

I think, there is no harm in allowing them to come for work. And after a
certain time period, they should have legal rights to vote as Indian
citizens, subject to the fact that they would not vote in Bangladesh
elections then, or their citizenship will be taken away from them. There is
one other question as well.Since Bangladeshis are Muslims, it's believed
this is being done to ensure Congress and other such parties will always
win.

I personally am confused as to what I would do. I know that illegal
immigration is against laws, and I agree that BJP and others do have a
point. But I also understand that the immigrants are not living in a very
good condition, and also the allegation that terrorists are coming through
the Bangla border, though widespread in terms of perception, has not been
something which can be widely substantiated through proofs, although there
are some people coming through that border who are terrorists or anti
nationals.

So, I really don't know what is the solution from here. If they are allowed
to work, what about the locals? The locals too have a right. But if that is
the case, why should Biharis be allowed to work in Maharashtra, and not
Bangladeshis in India, is beyond me. Just because they are two different
nations, doesn't mean we are human beings, and Bangladeshis are not. And
they come here to be economially better off.

Should they be given voting rights? If yes, then it's legal to get them
crossing the border. And the BJP can certainly see it will not win anywhere
in the border states on the east. Are there chances they are using funds to
spread terror. That's something intelligence agencies can tell us about. And
we can go in for action based on those inputs. Should we deport them back,
even if they have lived here for even upto 30 years, and have their wives
and children here?

I really don't know what to suggest here. And I must admit this. I can
accept arguments from both sides, for both have some amount of validity. But
for me, a solution doesn't seem to come in my mind as of now.

Regards

Rakesh