[Reader-list] Why Kashmir has no case for self-determination

[Rahul Asthana]

Hi Junaid,
There is a difference between a colonized body of land and a constituent state of a democracy.

What do you think makes Kashmir more of a nation than say,Tamil Nadu?If I am getting it right, you are defining Kashmir nation through "a sense of solidarity based on principle of justice and freedom".Is that correct?

Also, in your opinion,is India the only occupying nation in Kashmir or do 
you give Pakistan that distinction as well?

Thanks
Rahul

--- On Sun, 7/19/09, Junaid <justjunaid at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Junaid <justjunaid at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Why Kashmir has no case for self-determination
> To: reader-list at sarai.net
> Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 12:44 AM
> Kashmir is a case of a nation
> fighting for its liberation. National
> liberation struggles work on the democratic principle of
> self-determination. This principle of self-determination
> does not
> emerge from the charter of the UN or any other
> multinational document.
> But on the contrary what is enshrined in the UN Charter
> emerged from
> an ethical realisation that self-determination is the
> foundational
> principle to achieve justice-which in turn is the bed rock
> for peace.
> 
> Two world wars later this principle was widely accepted.
> And it proved
> to be a shot in the arm for the decolonization movement,
> which
> resulted in the victory for the anti-colonial struggles in
> the Indian
> subcontinent and in other places. (On the betrayal of
> anti-colonial
> struggle though, I might add quickly what Faiz said "Yeh
> woh seher to
> nahin jis ki aarizu lekar.." or what Mehjoor spoke when he
> lamented
> the "Freedom, you knocked only on a few doors...").
> 
> Anti-colonial strugglers had been arguing for the same for
> ever, but
> colonizers almost ended up annihilating each other before
> realising
> colonialism couldn't continue. It took a lot of struggle
> and sacrifice
> from the colonised people to make it happen. Colonisers
> tried every
> trick up their sleeve to defer the eventuality.
> 
> It is not important if Kashmir has "a case for"
> self-determination or
> not. There is no court that can decide that. At least it is
> not
> important for Kashmiris to know if "Indian nationalists"
> think they
> have a case. It would be naive to believe that Indian
> nationalists for
> whom "the idea of India" is like a religious faith--and in
> fact is a
> religious faith--would come around and change their opinion
> on it--
> least through discussion. What is important is that
> Kashmiris think
> that they have the case, and a need for freedom and
> independence. It
> is clear that over the last 80 years of struggle--first
> against Dogra
> rulers and then against the Indian rule--the case in the
> eyes of
> Kashmiris has grown stronger than ever.
> 
> National liberation struggles start like pebbles rolling
> down the
> hill, and end up like avalanches. More and more people,
> young people,
> even small kids, (more strongly than generations before
> them) feel
> that being Kashmiri has a meaning to them. More and more
> they
> understand this idea of being Kashmiri as running counter
> to any
> individual or group affliation with the idea of India. The
> idea of
> India is understood as something that stops them from
> being
> Kashmiri--a condition which is utterly unacceptable to
> them. The idea
> of independence has grown exponentially since Sheikh
> Abdullah's Naya
> Kashmir document. The desire for independence when it
> couples itself
> with the need for it, is unstoppable.
> 
> Nationalism in Kashmir acts more like a national solidarity
> based on
> principles of justice and freedom, instead of feeding on
> the notions
> of "a glorious past" or the chauvinist idea of "the chosen
> people".
> Within the current global discourse of "Islam", however,
> Kashmiris too
> get a bad name for being Muslims, which in the long-run
> does not have
> drastic consequences though. It will wane. Islamophobia
> cannot hold.
> There are more than 1.5 billion Muslims all over the world
> which
> otherwise the world have to contend with as enemies.
> Anti-Hindu
> sentiment in some sections of Kashmiris is not only a
> result of the
> past experiences of the Dogra rule but also of how the
> Indian
> occupation and the neo-Hinduism get entwined. For
> Kashmiris, 80 years
> of struggle against an overtly Hindu Dogra rule, and then
> the transfer
> of rule to an increasingly Hindu India, makes the
> imperial-territorial
> discourse of neo-Hinduism a symbolic foe. There are no
> doctrinal
> issues in the sense where Hindus and Muslims can't sit and
> live
> together. In Kashmir, and in India, they have. No one in
> Srinagar
> would say they want to put Islam's green flag on the red
> fort.
> 
> This is the nationalism of the Fourth World. A world which
> is utterly
> betrayed by the promises of the Third World--which by
> mimicking the
> First World, in rhetoric and substance looks and behaves
> like former
> colonial countries.
> 
> And Kashmiris don't expect that "Azadi" will be given on a
> platter. It
> will be taken through everyday anti-occupation struggle by
> Kashmiris.
> It will take time. Kashmiris have suffered much but there
> is very
> little fatigue. As the struggle intensifies, so will
> oppression. But
> that will be the undoing og the occupation. India will
> leave Kashmir
> because there is no other way. I only hope it doesn't
> happen at the
> end of a catastrophe that engufls the entire subcontinent.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>