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

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Pawan (and all)

First of all, thanks for this article as it explains the thinking and the
mindsets of the Pandits, and this is important to know for the understanding
of the Kashmir dispute and possible solutions to it.

Let me respond to some of the points which are pointed out in it.

As the article itself points out, Kashmiri Pandits have lost faith in all
parties across the state and at the Centre, for having totally neglected
them or even betrayed them. This is understandable, for nobody came to their
rescue during 1989, when violence was allowed to take place without any
measures taken to control it(this is something I don't know about, I am
presuming here that no measures were taken; if some measures were indeed
taken, I would be glad if anybody could post about them here, and as to
whether they were properly implemented or not).

Then how come Pandits believe that a homeland which would be a Union
Territory, would be something which would be trustworthy enough to live in.
If the Pandits can't trust Congres, BJP, PDP, National Conference (this is
evident from the article itself) and others, how can they trust the Central
Govt, which would involve at least one of these parties? And even if a UT
were formed, and same situation arises, what would the Pandits then do?
After all, when Rajasthan Govt could not do anything about the law and order
situation when Gujjars were on streets, what will a UT do to stop such a
kind of agitation? Infact, violence against the agitators may turn out to be
counter productive, both from electoral point of view, and also, from the
political and ideological point of view in Kashmir.

The reason I am raising this question is because the UT demand seems to be
raised as Pandits have lost faith in the Valley Muslims and even political
parties.

The trust factor is certainly one which is missing. The Pandits have seen a
betrayal of their trust by the Indian Govt, for a long time. Having said
that, I don't understand how can they trust the same government then under a
UT? And of course, I didn't get the answer to one query which I was asking
earlier as well, why a UT and not a democracy??

The probable reason I have received is that since the majority people are
Muslims and hence separatists, or want to break away from India, hence
making a democracy will ensure that parties which rule Kashmir, have
antipathy towards the Pandits (who are nationalists and hence pro-India
people) and will only try to further secede from India. To which my answer
would be this.

As I mentioned earlier, any state should be a part of India when it's
citizens feel the need to do so, based on whatever reason they may have. If
we unnecessarily keep any state as a part of India without it's consent, the
only way to do is military rule, which will only further make those people
our enemies. The end result is violence. Look at the LTTE. It may be created
by RAW, but it managed to get foothold in Srilanka, because Tamils never
felt they got proper rights there, and infact were tortured by the Sinhalese
majority. If Sri lanka would have granted autonomy to Tamils, and made their
state principle as equality, then no violence would have occurred. Instead
for the last 30 years they have been suffering. And they continue to suffer.
And this includes both Tamils and Sinhalese, basically, the entire Sri
lanka.

It's against democratic rights to force authoritarian control over the
state. And hence, if Kashmiris don't wish to be a part of India, howsoever
much I may or may not like, howsoever much people may or may not like, it's
our duty to see that we don't force ourselves upon them. This is something
which my own religion makes me feel. (Hinduism, according to me, is not
based upon Rama or Krishna idols. It's based upon dharma, or duty).

Having said that, I have one poser for the Kashmiri Muslims as well. The
state they wish to form, what will it's character be? Will it have space for
secular traditions, or will it be simply be Islamic, with all those not
following Islam being persecuted? Will Kashmiri Pandits be invited to be a
part of such a state, or will they be thrown out? Will this mean that they
will try to follow the spirit of Kashmiriyat, or will they try to only serve
the cause of violence, and end up trying to be a pure Islamic republic, like
Pakistan, and destroying themselves and others in the process? Will the
nature of state of Kashmir be same as that of Pakistan and India, in the
sense of autocracy which they follow while unleashing violence on innocents?
Or will be there space for dissent in a proper way?

If these questions are not answered, there is no meaning of a separate
Kashmir state. It will be simply a clone of India or Pakistan kind of
nationalism. And this will lead only to further disasters across the
subcontinent region and the entire world.

My view on this is very fuzzy I am not sure this will work or not, but I do
speak it out.

Let the views of the people be respected. Let there be a referendum in the
Valley. Let the people decide what they wish to do. At the same time, let it
be clear that Pandits will return back to their homeland, and the Valley
Muslims must understand this is a legitimate exercise. If the Pandits feel
they are Indians but would still like to survive in the Valley, let there be
an exercise to ensure they can live as Indian citizens even in an
independent state. May be they can't be allowed to vote, but let them have
some rights as citizens. Infact, it's shameful that Muslims couldn't get the
Pandits to back them, and vice versa, which has in some sense given communal
color to both demands of azadi and Indian sovereignty in the region. And the
Valley must ensure that they take care of these people as well, because
after all, what happens in Kashmir has repercussion not only on Kashmiris
but also on the entire region and the world.

I know my suggestions will be probably viewed as stupid. And some may say,
well it has never happened in the world. For them, I would just say that
it's not necessary that something should have happened in the past before
for it to be done again. Einstein has proved it. Gandhi has proved it. Many
have proved it. And it will be proved again and again, both in good and bad
sense. Mind you, I am not very clear myself. And what I said, is only one of
the possibly million alternatives which may have been thought about.

For the suggestion on UT, it's not only Pandits who live in that area, but
also the Valley Muslims. Since one community has asked for UT status to be
delivered, let there be a referendum on the same issue, and if a substantial
part agrees, make that a UT. Just as the dadagiri of the Valley Muslims to
drive out Pandits is not acceptable, the forcible conversion of a part of a
state into a UT can't be acceptable. I am sorry, sir, but this can't be
right.

Because two wrongs never make a right.

Regards

Rakesh