[Reader-list] against continued repression of the people of Kashmir

[Rakesh Iyer]

Kshamendra

I have one point to make. You said that a state is nothing but its' people.
How I wish that were to be true! But it is not.

The Indian state is not necessarily the Indian people. And this is not just
essayed in one instance. It is seen in numerous instances. In general, a
state is just an entity which has the only authority to conduct violence
(legitimately) in order to protect the life of its citizens, and that is as
per theory. In reality, the state is seen to be only protecting itself and
not necessarily those who have given up their idea of violence in order to
seek protection.

The Indian state consists of the legislature, executive and the judiciary as
well as the agencies which can implement the will of the state such as the
police, the army, the CRPF and so on.

For example, what is seen in Kashmir is basically this. The Indian state is
hardly bothered about Kashmiris, and instead what we see is the idea that
Indian state should shed blood in Kashmir, if need be, to protect itself
from breaking. Never mind that when the Indian state claims that Kashmir is
a part of India, Kashmiris should also be Indian citizens and thus their
legitimate grievances must be looked at. If Indian state were to consist of
Indian people, would Kashmiris have been asking for azadi after 63 years of
Indian Independence?

It is the Indian state which decides what is terrorism and what is not. And
the media has perfectly colluded with it. The end result is this. Any attack
carried out by Ajmal Amir Kasab or his compatriots among the Maoists is an
act of terrorism. But any riot or pogrom organized by the members of
political parties/social organizations, be it 1984, 1989, 1992-93 or 2002
are not acts of terrorism. Why does no one in this state: be it the
legislature, the judiciary or the executive state that these riots are also
acts of terrorism?

The Indian state decides that people have to be displaced from their homes
for the 'larger good of the country' and 'national interest'. Why is it so
that only the Indian state has the right to decide what is development? We
have chosen the govt., but not necessarily the state, for the state we were
born to is our destiny, whether we like it or not. Did God give the right to
the state to decide what is development for us? How come the state has
appropriated the right to decide what is good for me and what is not,
without even discussing with me?

If the Indian state were really comparable with the Indian people, India
would not have been suffering from the twin scourges of Naxalism and
terrorism (in its comprehensive sense). Instead, the Indian state just
consists of elites who won't be displaced irrespective of any elections, and
will keep deciding on agendas only to destroy the lives of the poor for
their own benefit. In return, the poor are only expected to get hapy at the
crumbs thrown at them by the state, while remaining quiet and making
'sacrifices in the cause of national interest', as Nehru said to those who
lost their lands for the Hirakud Dam.

The Indian state is not, was not and if it goes on like this, will never be
equal to the Indian people. It is just an Indian version of the British
Empire.

Rakesh