[Reader-list] Aijaz Ahmad on Kashmir!

[Wali Arifi]

http://www.greaterkashmir.net/full_story.asp?Date=23_10_2009&ItemID=12&cat=9

 The test of Indian democracy is in Kashmir


*ACROSS THE TABLE*

*Eminent Marxist theorist, political commentator and a widely read
postcolonial scholar and author Aijaz Ahmad  talks about Kashmir,
Indo Pak relations, rise of Hindutva and many vital issues in an exclusive
interview with* *Greater Kashmir Correspondent Faheem Aslam.

**Your impressions about Kashmir?
* Well, this is my second visit to Kashmir where I remained confined to the
Kashmir University campus only. But each time I have come to Kashmir, I have
found a greater, should we say relaxation, lesser intrusive presence of the
security apparatus. Five years ago, coming into Srinagar airport was coming
to a garrison town. It is a sort of withdrawal of the security apparatus
that is visible. Now I don’t know what that means in practical terms, but
this is my impression. Second is a relaxed civic existence as compared to
the past. But all I am taking about is driving from the airport to the
campus.

*How do you see a solution emerging about Kashmir conflict given the
“strained” relations between India and Pakistan?
* Let me put it this way. One of the Chinese sages said that problems are of
three types. Ones that can be solved immediately; ones that cannot be solved
now, but can be solved in next generation, and the ones for which we cannot
foresee a solution. So you have to first ask what kind of problem you are
facing. So I think the Kashmir problem—because it is caught between two
competing nation states— it is best not to talk of final solution because
one is just not in sight. You can only talk of interim arrangement and
short-term solution. Within that frame, I think there have been three
different problems in Kashmir. One is between the Kashmiri people and the
Indian state. Second is between India and Pakistan which are fighting over
Kashmir as Kashmir is the only part of the sub-continent where the partition
did not give stable boundaries. So there is this conflict between these
states and their claims and counter claims. But the third problem which gets
submerged under these---but anytime these two problems become less will
emerge—is the nationality problem within Greater Kashmir. You are a
multi-national—multi-ethnic is the fashionable word I should use. You are
composite of four or five different nationalities. So autonomy of Kashmir
and how is it related to autonomy within Kashmir and is the issue you have
to resolve. And part of the problem is that the Kashmir problem gets reduced
to problem of Kashmiri Muslims, and that is ultimately what Pakistan has
come to realize.

*Can you elaborate?*
 I mean Pakistan is willing for a settlement if you give the Valley to them.
I have talked to very high officials in Pakistan government who would settle
for that. So Pakistan itself has a communal view of the Kashmir problem.
Give us the Muslims and you keep the non-Muslims! Now what is happened in
the first phase of the Afghan War from around 1980 to the withdrawal of
Soviet troops and thereafter Taliban, Pakistan used the conflict in
Afghanistan and dependence of US on Afghanistan to train lot of people for
foreign intervention in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and intervene in Kashmir in
a very massive way. And the Americans looked the other way because they
needed Pakistan there. During that period, what then happened is that the
nationality question of the Kashmiris, whish is essentially a secular
question, got overshadowed by a Jehadi ideology and a kind of a
Pakistan-Punjabi- hard Sunni Islam was sought to be superimposed over this
very softer Islam in Kashmir. And the nationality question became a
religious question. Now what has happened since 9/11 is that Pakistan is
being pressed to break with those Jehaidis or militants… So what now
actually remains and what has been the case over the last few years, is
really again a question of how the nationality question in Kashmir can be
settled properly. Your relationship with the Indian state. Secession is
simply not on the cards. Whether I am for independence or against it is
actually irrelevant. Neither regional nor international situation permits
it. And you cannot become independent unless that larger configuration
changes. You have to have a very different kind of a semblance.

*What kind of semblance?
* My view is that the Indian state has to do two things; one which gets
talked about, although never gets done, is that promise of maximum autonomy
for Kashmiris. But another thing that doesn’t get talked about and which
ruffles many feathers is that there has been so much violence in Kashmir and
Kashmiri people are so deeply wounded by it that, in my view, alienation is
not going to go by holding elections and doing this PDP vs NC. I hold a bold
and radical position that you have to have something like the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission in which you really know who did what to whom even
if that means getting personnel of Indian army into the docks and their
victims coming in front of them and saying so and so did this to me and my
family. That confrontation has to take place. A victim should be able to
stand up and get recognition of what got done to him. And find some kind of
justice. What has been lost cannot be restored. But truth has to be told on
the face. Alienation has to go and it can be reduced through free and fair
political processes, through extra economic investment, rebuilding of
Kashmiri civil institutions, jobs etc… That can reduce it. But beyond all
that is the pain in the heart which doesn’t go away by development. The
women were raped. Families whose brothers, daughters were killed. That pain
is enduring. And any decent civilized government should recognize that and
do something about it. And I think one step you can take is by establishing
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which everyone will have right to
come and confront the victimizer and will then be protected by the state so
that no one can go back and do it again.  Other is what they always talk
about, but they never do, and I don’t think these two nations are capable of
doing that, is really to soften the borders. You have to recognize that
there is no international border in Kashmir, there is only cease-fire line.
That ceasefire line has to go, firing has to go. And therefore economic
cultural unity of the people of Greater Kashmir has to be restored. You have
to rebuild economic cultural relations. There are various ways of doing it.
First you do culture and trade; then you issue identity cards with which you
should be able to cross the cease-fire line easily.

*How do you see the government of India and J&K handling the issue of human
rights violations in Kashmir?
* Look they are acting the way modern states function which is to deny it;
to push it under the carpet; deny it publicly in the media. Inside the
consultation rooms they know what exactly what has happened. But for all
practical purposes, in terms of public action, they push it under the
carpet. And hope that through these mechanisms of throwing money in terms of
development, holding elections, and resorting to system of clientilism—you
find clients in political party—you can solve the issue. What I am saying is
that that you just cannot do it because the scale of that has been so
massive…I haven’t even lived in Kashmir. Yet I met a Hindu DSP. We sat at
one corner. And he started talking and said what has happed to the Kashmiri
Muslim households. They won’t even talk to each other about the hurtful and
shameful things. After this kind of injury, do you think elections are going
to resolve the problem?

*Is Kashmir a Human Rights or a political issue because the discourse is
often taken to the former direction?*
 I am allergic to the term human rights. It is an American coinage.
Everybody has human rights. I think we have to get down to the grit of the
problem. You have to deal with the history and past and see what has been
done. Yes the problem may be connected to human rights, but there are people
whose rights have been violated in such a fundamental way. So if somebody’s
mother was killed, now telling him that we will give you scholarship is not
fair. His problem is that she was killed by the security personal. So
accounting of that is essential, and not in the human rights way, but in the
way like South Africa.

*There are an estimated seven lakh security personnel stationed in Kashmir.
The government claims that there are only a few hundred militants. How do
you see this disparity?*
 It still gives you the highest concentration of security personnel in any
area in the world, including Afghanistan. If the state itself says there are
a few hundred militants, then your question answers itself. Then the
security personnel must be here to control population. For few hundreds, you
don’t need an army; Army doesn’t find small group of militants. So seven
hundred thousand troops where there is hardly any fighting going on must be
for population control!

*Where do you see the role of pro-freedom groups in resolution of Kashmir
dispute?*
 You see there are several kinds of groups involved. Under the slogan of
freedom, some people are bargaining for greater role in Kashmiri politics
for themselves. You become a much bigger leader if Delhi recognizes that you
are a leader. This is also the government’s tool. You know it interests me
to see what freedom means to people. I think for lot of people it means
freedom from the oppression of the Indian state…There are groups who clearly
say azadi means independent state of Kashmir. There are others who leave
that very ambiguous. There are some who would never commit themselves to the
straightforward idea. Then there are tendencies which under freedom are
actually wanting to secede from India and accede to Pakistan. My sense is
that in Kashmir, as in most countries in modern word, electoral arena, no
matter how corrupt it is, is an arena in which different power groups
contest to show large representation they have in the population. I think
you have to participate in that arena. I think Mr Geelani asks for an Indian
passport even though he does not consider himself to be the part of India.
But in order to travel he has to have a passport. I think that is perfectly
OK. The Indian government says you are an Indian citizen, so let it be true
to its word, likewise they can go on talking about Azadi, but election time
they have to contest in that arena, and show strong they are.

*How do you evaluate the role of Indian media in reflecting the Kashmir
conflict?*
 Look, the print medium brings in editors, sits down with them and tell them
that a newspaper is a business. The task is to make money. That is what I
am, I am a businessman. News is there to decorate the advertisement. One is
that. You have to keep the business community very happy otherwise you lose
advertisements. Likewise TV.  The second issue is the mindset. And there I
want to say it to you that there is no struggle in mainland India or in
Kashmir that media has ever reported. You know documented cases of hundreds,
in some years thousands of rapes of women, do they report it? No they don’t!
And if they report it, they report it as the law and order situation. They
have the viewpoint of the Indian upper-class, the Indian liberal state and
the Indian national security state. This is the framework within which they
report anything.

*How do you view the “rise” of India in economic global scenario?*
 I think first I want to put in perspective the scale of this “rise” of
India. If you apply UNDP standards of poverty—that is to say two dollars a
day—over 70 percent of Indians fall below the poverty line. Then to talk of
becoming great power is fantasy. What has happened is that India economy has
been able to register growth rate of seven to eight percent, but that has
created in India a large and prosperous middle class which is very euphoric.
They have access to commodities, houses that their parents would never
image, that is very gung-ho. And media just follows that. China India
tensions I believe are largely Indian media and Indian rightwing creation.
You know, even the Indian government is not interested in that. Recently
Indian newspapers said Chinese soldiers had crossed over to the Indian
boundaries. The Indian foreign secretary threatened to register defamation
cases against those correspondents. The problem from Chinese side is that of
the boundary claims of Arunachal Pradesh, but this you can’t resolve. You
can say we can keep talking. Let’s cooperate on everything. We will not
budge, they will not budge, but we can normalize. What has happened in India
is that post liberalization from 1989 onwards, there has been an enormous
shift of identification with the United States. And there is the notion that
your strategic interests are tied up with United States. The United States
wants to use and build India against China.

*India claims Kashmir to be its “Atoot Ang”. Where do you place this view
and has there been any change in it?*
 I know no state in the world which will not describe the territory which it
considers its own territory as its attot ang. Pakistan knew that Bangladesh
would go, they would not let it go without war. India has not shifted from
attog ang. At the same time because Kashmir is not an international
boundary, nobody recognize it like that, India has to recognize Kashmir as a
dispute. The very fact that they keep negotiating with Pakistan shows that
it is a dispute between India and Pakistan. And India and Pakistan have to
work out how to resolve this dispute, but India will not let go off its
attot ang, so talk about how to normalize it. So it is in that context
Vajapayee-Musharraf talked about softening the boundaries.

*Do you mean Kashmir closer to resolution during the time of Musharraf?
* You see it is not about Nawaz Sharief or Musharraf. There are two
different factors. One  is the American that formally things remain as they
are, but they have to soften the borders. So that is both sides feeling US
pressure. Pakistan is a weaker country it has to accede to US pressures in a
different way than India. The other is Pakistan’s attitude. You know not
now, but during earlier period, there is a realist wing which says that
Pakistan territorial claim on Kashmir has been terrible for Pakistan. That
you train these Jehaids for Kashmir but they are blowing Pakistan. Then
there is this liberal wing which says that Kashmir needs to be resolved.
Then there is in Army and intelligence agencies which say it is just the
matter of time that sooner or later the Americans will have to leave
Afghanistan. And once that happens, we can again go to Kashmir. So it is not
about Musharraf. That time what happened was that this liberal wing had
become dominant and Musharraf was a more liberal officer who didn’t like
Jehaids. And because he was Chief of Army, he would get the army to agree to
things that this poor Zaradri, whose only mission is to make money, won’t be
able to do.

*How do you see the “rise” of Hindutva forces in India and their growing
influence on Indian politics?
* I have written a lot on it. Look one way of talking about it is that RSS
was established in 1920. It grew but grew very very slowly until the
partition… It was after the emergency and after the decade of Nehruvian
state that they gained importance in India and in a sense, they began to
fill the vacuum left open by the collapse of the Congress after the
Emergency. Then again they didn’t go very far, but they kept growing. Two or
three things happened. One is that Congress itself started playing games on
the issue of communalism. Indira Gandhi played Hindu card in Jammu. Indira
Gandhi palyed Brindavale card against the Akalis and Punjabis. Her son,
Rajiv Gandhi opened the locks of Babri Majid. So there was a sort of soft
Hindutva against hard Hindutva circulating in different parts of India… I
think Hindutva has made inroads in north Indian middle class. There are only
two political forces in India. There are communists on Left and Hindutva
forces on right… I think Hindutva is speading in Bureaucracy regardless of
the electoral logic, partly because they come from same classes, and partly
because half the big state of India are being ruled by them. And when they
formed the government, the biggest plank of the BJP was to put RSS men in
positions of power, wherever government appointments took place, and to
funnel lot of state funds to RSS fronts.

*What is the status of Muslims in India especially after they are hunted in
wake of Mumbai attacks?*
 Well there is some truth to that perception. Considerable sections of the
state agencies, like police forces, have been communalized. But I was so
impressed at the time of the Mumbai attacks. Within four hours, the Home
Minister gave a press conference and said no Indian is involved in this,
this is a foreign attack. And he made sure that the TV repeated that
statement. Why? How do you know? They asked top security forces if Indians
are involved, they said no. In order to protect the Muslims of India, you
have to go and say and no Indian is involved. So you know there is both a
sort of communilzation of the security forces, and the same time, at some of
the highest level, there is a great pre-occupation with engagement…At some
level what is happening to the Gujarat victims is the same. But now I think
the High And Supreme Courts are getting more and more closer to Narender
Modi on Gujarat. So there is also a sense that if in India a certain kind of
Jehadism is growing among some sections of Muslims, it is because of
Gujarat, so if you give justice to Gujarat, you can control it.

*A year back, Arundhati Roy made a comment “India needs Azadi from Kashmir
as much as Kashmir needs Azadi from India”. How do you react to that?*
 I think the writing of that article by Arundhati is a very courageous act.
It is very important because she is now an international figure and it is
not simply that it appears in an Indian journal. But at the same time, she
has the tendency toward sensationalism. On the formulation, my position is
actually the opposite. That, the test of Indian democracy/secularism is in
Kashmir. If India becomes free of Kashmir, India will be much more communal,
much less democratic. It is by proving to the world, and to Indians, that a
Muslim Majority state in Indian can live with the same rights, with same
sense of security, that the rest of India does.