[Reader-list] Fw: Visit to Pandit migrant camps in Jammu 2002- A personal account

[Inder Salim]

Dear Gowhar

"Indians resisted the universal, preferring situation-specific
solutions, in comparison to a Western... ".  A.K. Ramanujan ( from the
essay  about Juggard in Deccan Herald )

I dont how much one should read into the universal, but we normally
cherish the word and its capacity to embrace common concerns of human
beings all over the world. But factually we fail to implement it
sincerely. Recent protest at Jantar Mantar on innocent killings in
kashmir was  one occasion to bring KP's closer to KMs but not so, may
be the victim hood card is closer to the chest. The pattern is
operating in the valley even.

 For KP brothers it was the unfurling of Tri colour  at Jantar Mantar
in front of KM brothers which looked less nationalistic and more as a
( kavaj ) protective  plate to play mischief.

How unaesthetic the naked phallus can be when it plays its
penetrative gaze in its own arena, one should have been at Jantar
Mantar to see how  KM brothers were so defensive and giving slogans, "
you are our brothers ". against the men holding Tri Colour.

A man like Gandhi would have been ashamed to see all this. That is why
he stayed away from Delhi independance day, and went to Calcutta
instead to bring the two ( HIndus and Muslims ) closer. One of the
Muslims tired to strangle him, but he ignored , and even told him to
forget.

with love
is

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Gowhar
>
> Thank you for your response. Plain talk is best. There are sentiments much more important than mine or your personal sentiments.
>
> 1. On Pandits leaving/migration/exodus/internally displaced/rendered-refugees etc:
>
> Yes there are different views on this. The unkindest one being that it was a conspiracy by Jagmohan so that thereafter the Muslims can be massacered. That view, I think, comes out of lack of knowledge or an attempt at shielding the Muslims of Kashmir from being accused of failure to accept collective societal responsibility under the now often used term of “Kashmiriyat”.
>
> I agree with you that it must have been ‘really scary’. Not only because of the targeted killings, which were not of some Pandits alone. Some Muslims too were executed for their perceived ‘Indianness’. The Pandits of course carried by default the ‘Indian’ tag.
>
> The ‘acts of deliberate humiliation against individual Pandits’ would not have been any new experience for the Pandits, as anyone living in Kashmir prior to the displacement would testify to. The jeers, taunts, bullying directed at the “Bhatt’a” (Kashmiri Pandit) was something the Pandits had through the years evolved into accepting and had got on with their lives in Kashmir. The Muslims also had in earlier periods of history been similarly subjected to a disrespectful and discriminatory attitude by the Pandits. But actual violence was unknown. That changed.
>
> Apart from the targeted killing of some Pandits an environment got created, through other acts, that must have built up such a ‘scare’ that became unbearable and forced upon the Pandits the decision to leave. This was through the contents of Handbills that were circulated, Posters, Announcements in Newspapers, Marking of Pandit houses and the resounding echoing of simultaneous declarations over the loudspeakers of mosques. If all that were not enough, there were the hushedly whispered advices from Muslim friends and neighbours (much of it given in sincerity, I am sure) telling the Pandits that it was better if they leave for at least a few days until the situation improved.
>
> You did not explain it but perhaps that was the background which has led you to say “I think it was best for Pandits to have left at that time”.
>
> I think it is a matter of subjective interpretation whether the  becoming ‘radical’ of the ‘tone the resistance movement’ was consequent to ‘the state became more and more repressive’ or it was the other way round in 1988-89-90. A fruitless argument.
>
> It is only fair to mention that not all Pandits faced all of the abovementioned pressures in whichever locality they lived in. Once Paranoia, (in that situation a justifiable one) gets triggered and picks up a critical mass, it knows no boundaries.
>
> 2. On Pandits “at no cost should …. have severed political and social ties with Kashmir and stopped engaging with the discourse in Kashmir ”:
>
> It is an appreciable wishing, but I do not see how it could practically be otherwise.
>
> The Pandits have had no ‘political’ role to play in Kashmir at the level of the masses. The known Pandit ‘political personalities’ came to prominence only because of their personal equations in political parties.
>
> The engagement by Pandits in ‘discourse’ used to be limited to ‘Coffee House discussions’ and “Vaa’na penji pyeth” (shop gatherings). Yes now there is lot of ‘discourse’ by Pandits. It is ‘off-shore’ and is one of berating the “Aazadi Movement” and it’s “Islamic character” which Pandits understandably see as the only reason for their displacement.
>
> The Pandits though have not severed their ‘social ties’ with Kashmir or with Kashmiri Muslims; All reports of interactions between the two, whether in Kashmir or out, testify to that. Whenever the situation in Kashmir has been short of ‘threatening’, Pandits have visited in droves.
>
> You have yourself commented “Individually many people retain personal contacts and feel the sentiment.”
>
>
> 3. On nomenclatures:
>
> It was a casual query of no great significance (other than for Kashmiri Pandits) and your use of the term ‘migrant’, as you kindly explained was for a specific audience who would recognize who/what that term signified.
>
> 4. On KPs and KMs meet each other exercise:
>
> I was not clear enough. I meant to ask about such meetings being planned under the aegis of ICRD.
>
> Otherwise, there is substantial interaction taking place between them in cyberspace, on cultural commonalities and political positions, very civilized too.
>
> There are such initiatives by various other individuals and groups with presence and presentations being made in Kashmir , most of them informal and in a very private manner.
>
> Just today I was reading in ‘Conveyor’ about the conference on 26th June ‘Perspectives on Exodus: Past, Present and Future’ organized by Anamika Mujoo Girottee and Sadaf Munshi of ‘Yakjah Reconciliation and Development Network’
>
> 5. On return of Kashmiri Pandits to Kashmir :
>
> I agree with your evaluation of the hinderances to such a ‘return’ and that “possible return of Pandits is hostage to the resolution of Kashmir problem in a civilized manner”.
>
> It might be the stated position of every political group that they want “the Pandits to return” but that is really expecting too much when personalities like SAS Geelani and Asiya Andrabi command the political space and influence that they do in Kashmir . Those are only the blatant ones.
>
> You would also know that many amongst the Kashmiri Pandits are of the firm opinion that ‘return’ of KPs will serve only as political fodder for those who want to project the “Aazadi Movement” as being a ‘secular’ one. Not without merit do they ask why the KPs should facilitate that convoluted representation of the facts.
>
> 6. On hope that “Pandits engage with Kashmir from a moral and principled perspective”:
>
> It is a very subjective judgment about who is engaging with or engaged in Kashmir “from a moral and principled perspective” and who in “a jingoistic and demonizing manner”. If the intents are not accusatory but are directed towards sincerity in looking for reconciliation then such subjective judgments are best avoided, including those around the Jantar Mantar meet.
>
> The question, many KPs ask is “Why should KPs ‘engage’ with KMs at all when KMs have made no effort to ‘engage’ with KPs after hounding us out of Kashmir?”
>
> A variant on that is “Don’t talk to us about ‘Kashmiriyat’. It was the “peace’ of the lambs with the wolves”
>
> This resentment gets heightened when they encounter the “Jagmohan Reason” given as an explanation for their displacement out of Kashmir .
>
> You will understand why ‘moral’ and ‘principled’and ‘jingoistic’ and ‘demonising’ are very subjective judgments.
>
> 7. On SAS Geelani being a ‘deranged’ person:
>
> I think you are being unfair. SAS Geelani is an ‘honest’ person, as is Asiya Andrabi. Honest about the Islamic character of the ‘movement’ and what it expects of Non-Muslims.
>
> At least SAS Geelani has maintained a principled ideologically political position ever since 1947 which has nothing to do with, what you called, and can at best be a description of some periods from the last couple of decades, of “a society in which naked dance of brutality and violence takes place on a daily basis".
>
> 8. On Indian State “becoming more and more communal” in Kashmir :
>
> It is a convienient and perhaps strategically useful identity to ascribe to the “ Indian State ”. I wonder though how accurate it is especially when the “State” includes the Governing and ‘Security’ dispensations in J&K which also have Muslims in them in large numbers.
>
> If the ‘separatist’ movement in Kashmir is one of ‘Muslims Only’, as it is, any action by the State against the ‘movement’ will be action against ‘Muslims Only’.
>
> I do not want to dwell on this since, ‘communal’ or not, I find it totally unacceptable that the ‘State’ should indulge in use of force in the manner it has and worse still be involved in ‘fake encounters’
>
> 9. On the Jantar Mantar meet:
>
> Again, I will refrain from dwelling on this because any comment could be misconstrued as lack of sensitivity towards the loss of lives and the pain and suffering of the people.
>
> Unfortunately, in my opinion, the core purpose got diverted to the politics of ‘separatism’; diverted, unless that was the purpose.
>
> This I know that the manner in which the build-up to the Jantar Mantar meet was widely advertised and commented upon on social networking sites had already vitiated the atmosphere for it. Unfortunate.
>
> 10. On Pandits having “succumbed to the Hindu right wing in great numbers”:
>
> This should not be surprising when (to repeat) the very displacement of the Pandits from Kashmir was seen taking place because of the Islamic character of the ‘separatist’ movement that hounded them out.
>
> Also, there must be some zero-sum game at play that this succumbing by the Pandits has it’s mirroring in the Kashmiri Muslims having succumbed to Islamic right wing in great numbers. We do know which ‘succumbing’ took place first.
>
> I will not go into the gulf between the professed ‘interpretation’ of Islam and the actual practice.
>
>
> Gowhar, thanks for this opportunity to converse with you, prompted by your sharing your Report.
>
> Take care
>
> Kshmendra
>
> --- On Thu, 8/12/10, gowhar fazli <gowharfazili at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: gowhar fazli <gowharfazili at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fw: Visit to Pandit migrant camps in Jammu 2002- A personal account
> To: "reader-list at sarai.net" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 6:29 PM
>
>
>
>
> A point by point response to Kshmendra’s queries:  I am engaging in plain talk
> at times and  I hope it does not hurt your sentiments because that it not the
> intension.  I would have ideally desired to take more time on this but for my
> other engagements.  I hope this is somewhat useful.
>
> K: Would you agree that they were/are not migrants but were forced by
> circumstances to seek refuge? Wouldn’t 'refugees' or 'internally displaced' be a
> better term? What do you think?
>
> G: I think there are differing views on how and why Pandits left.  Personally I
> feel the atmosphere would have been really scary. It was for us too. Though
> there were some targeted killings and acts of deliberate humiliation against
> individual Pandits, it is the larger fear in a more diffused form that would
> have threatened the community at large.  The tone the resistance movement in
> Kashmir started adopting as the time went by and as the state became more and
> more repressive, became radical.  I think it was best for Pandits to have left
> at that time, but at no cost should they have severed political and social ties
> with Kashmir and stopped engaging with the discourse in Kashmir.
>
>
> I am not an expert on nomenclature of people who are displaced nor did I want to
> derive any political mileage out of calling them ‘migrants’.  The reason why I
> may have preferred to use the word ‘migrant’ was not to get into a similar
> debate on nomenclature with Kashmiri Muslims who use this word and thus lose the
> affect I was trying to communicate in political jargon.  This report was
> presented before an open public audience in Srinagar.
>
> K: Do you think this exercise can be duplicated with this time around the
> Kashmiri Pandits visiting Kashmir and similar arrangements for them to meet at
> least some of those who have similarly suffered intense miseries and more? Is
> there any such existing mechanism?
>
> G: Though no permanent mechanism exists, I can put you across to friends who can
> and will help you, including some who were part of the earlier initiative.  If
> you are really serious you, should use a reasonably neutral or credible base to
> make such a sensitive move.  Even just as a thought, it is appreciable.
>
> K: Your 2002 report concludes with the comment "a tremendous and deep felt
> desire to restore the broken relationships and the way of life that has been
> lost." Do you think that sentiment still exists? Can the gulf of 'broken
> relationships' be bridged, by word and action and some sort of a 'return'? If
> yes; How?
>
> G:  I was referring to the energy we felt in the gathering of over hundred
> people who turned up in Porkhu and the number of families and individuals we met
> outside the camp.
>
>
> There is no discourse regarding this in the public sphere at the moment. People
> have obvious pressing concerns regarding their survival in the ongoing violence
> and repression.
>
> Individually many people retain personal contacts and feel the sentiment.
> Politically no group opposes return of Pandits and all have a stated position of
> wanting the Pandits to return.  Personally I think possible return of Pandits is
> hostage to the resolution of Kashmir problem in a civilized manner.  Redemption
> of all Kashmirs is in seeking such a solution.  The more bloodshed there is, and
> the longer it takes, the harder it will get.  I think in the meanwhile if more
> and more Pandits engage with Kashmir from a moral and principled perspective
> rather than a jingoistic and demonizing manner like it happened near Jantar
> Mantar,  Kashmiri Muslims are actually large hearted, accommodative and
> gregarious… and you know it.
>
> K: Connectedly, why do you think it is seen necessary by the Kashmiri Pandits
> still residing in Kashmir to go and weep in front of SAS Geelani and beg for
> protection?
>
> G: It shouldn’t be necessary and it is shocking.  But a society in which naked
> dance of brutality and violence takes place on a daily basis will throw up some
> deranged people, don’t you think.  You should not expect otherwise.
>
>
> K: Connectedly, why was there no hue and cry by the much vaunted Civil Society
> of Kashmir when Kashmiri Pandits were told that they have to be part of the
> Tehreek?
>
> G:Were they!  By whom?  What exactly did they mean?  It is possible people would
> have expected Pandits to have acted as a buffer between the Indian state which
> was becoming more and more communal as the people engaged in a political
> struggle, especially when it unleashed violence on the masses and not expect
> Pandits to be aloof and thus tacitly support the Indian state.
>
> K: Connectedly, if the overwhelming sentiment amongst Kashmiri Muslims (who
> desire separation from India) is towards an Independent Kashmir why does SAS
> (Kashmir should be with Pakistan) Geelani get the kind of space he does without
> receiving strong condemnation?
>
> The state gives him space and locks up or discredits the moderates.  Secondly,
> more the oppression more radical the population will become.  Many people hate
> Geelani personally, but their respect for him is increasing because of his
> constant unflinching stand.  Various moderates were pulled into secret or open
> talks by the state and then discredited by exposing the secret talks or because
> the Indian sate did not budge an inch and thus the moderates were seen to have
> brought humiliation upon the people who believe their stand is just.
>
> In response to the reponse to the earlier post:
>
> With respect to the post about Kashmiri Pandits having lost their Kashmiriat by
> an ordinary Muslim participant, it was to demonstrate how the Pandit performance
> at Jantar Mantar was received by the people, for its sheer insensitivity in
> terms timing and not the politics they might otherwise uphold.  Attacking the
> people who are seeking separatism while brandishing a National flag and
> counterpoising Pandit suffering to undermine the loss suffered, even while the
> blood is still dripping off the bodies in Kashmir, was grossly insensitive.  It
> is like you turn up on my child’s funeral and try to disrupt it because you too
> have suffered loss some twenty years before.
>
> As for the suffering in exile it is very sad, but Kashmiri’s in Kashmir are not
> exactly home and safe.
>
> I agree that there is a set of people seeking Azadi for Islam but it does not
> constitute a majority. And even among those who apparently say they stand for
> Islam, for a great many, their interpretation of Islam itself means
> accommodation of and justice for all.
>
> At the moment people more sure of what they do not want, rather than what
> exactly they want.  Pandits could have been a great help in shaping and steering
> this discourse (like some of them did as the fall of the Maharaja precipitated,
> Bhushan Bazaz to mention just one) had they not ideologically succumbed to the
> Hindu right wing in great numbers.
> Best,
> Gowhar
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> To: "reader-list at sarai.net" <reader-list at sarai.net>; gowhar fazli
> <gowharfazili at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 4:05:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Fw: Visit to Pandit migrant camps in Jammu 2002- A
> personal account
>
>
> Dear Gowhar
>
> I understand.
>
> No easy answers.
>
> Take care
>
> Kshmendra
>
> --- On Thu, 8/12/10, gowhar fazli <gowharfazili at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >From: gowhar fazli <gowharfazili at yahoo.com>
> >Subject: [Reader-list] Fw: Visit to Pandit migrant camps in Jammu 2002- A
> >personal account
> >To: "reader-list at sarai.net" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> >Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 3:54 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Very pertinent questions on both my posts requiring serious reflection Kshmendra
> >
> >and I would not make light of them by replying a hurry.  I must confess that I
> >am personally struggling with ambivalences often between mutually  exclusive and
> >
> >contradictory concerns and may not have clear answers for everything. However i
>
> >promise I will try.  Thanks for reading the whole thing.
> >
> >In the meanwhile others who may have energy to engage may go ahead.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> >To: "reader-list at sarai.net" <reader-list at sarai.net>; gowhar fazli
> ><gowharfazili at yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 3:25:24 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Visit to Pandit migrant camps in Jammu 2002- A
> >personal account
> >
> >
> >Dear Gowhar
> >
> >Thank you for sharing this.
> >
> >Would you agree that they were/are not migrants but were forced by circumstances
> >
> >to seek refuge? Wouldnt 'refugees' or 'internally displaced' be a better term?
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Do you think this exercise can be duplicated with this time around the Kashmiri
>
> >Pandits visiting Kashmir and similar arrangements for them to meet at least some
> >
> >of those who have similarly suffered intense miseries and more? Is there any
> >such existing mechanism?
> >
> >Your 2002 report conclude with  the comment "a tremendous and deep felt desire
> >to restore the  broken relationships and the way of life that has been lost." Do
> >
> >you think that sentiment still exists? Can the gulf of 'broken relationships' be
> >
> >bridged, by word and action and some sort of a 'return'? If yes; How?
> >
> >Connectedly, why do you think it is seen neccessary by the Kashmiri Pandits
> >still residing in Kashmir to go and weep in front of SAS Geelani and beg for
> >protection?
> >
> >Connectedly, why was there no hue and cry by the much vaunted Civil Society of
> >Kashmir when Kashmiri Pandits were told that they have to be part of the
> >Tehreek?
> >
> >Connectedly, if the overwhelming sentiment amongst Kashmiri Muslims (who desire
>
> >separation from India) is towards an Independent Kashmir why does SAS (Kashmir
> >should be with Pakistan) Geelani get the kind of space he does without receiving
> >
> >strong condemnation?
> >
> >Kshmendra
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>


--

http://indersalim.livejournal.com