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

[Pawan Durani]

Junaid ,

The problem is that many Muslims to not want to be a part of democracy
and neither a part of  a religious group which is termed a minority.

The concept of Jihad in Kashmir started with razing temples to ground
, killing of Hindus in Kashmir and it extends to state administration
as well which does not have a single Kashmiri Hindu in the council of
Ministers.

Both set of muslims in Kashmir , so called moderates or extremists ,
are doing the same job either overtly or covertly.

With 20 years gone and not a single conviction against any of the
killer of Kashmiri Hindus who were killed in thousands ........do you
call it as a liberation struggle.

Dear friend , you are doing it covertly as well with a good mix of
well written english .......coz u re a co-Muslim for them.

And for both -----Jihad is well defined in the holy text .....

Pawan

The so called liberation struggle in Kashmir is nothing but

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Junaid<justjunaid at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/>