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

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Rakesh
 
Thank you for sharing your interpretations of what is the "State" and the 'basicality' of what you see in Kashmir and what you see the "State" (as interpreted by you) doing to and doing with India and it's people.
 
What you have quoted of me is incomplete. What I said was:
"The State is little else than the People. The ills of the State are the ills of it's People"
 
Did you see that? I have mentioned the 'ills' of the State.
 
Please register what was said in it's entirety. Quoting selectively is not done. Especially when it changes the full conveyance.
 
I do not know how to respond to your trite summation of the "State" and your explaining it away with "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" or your reducing it to only being recognised through it's "ills" (which are the "ills" of the people.)
 
All that might sound impressive in some 'academic' paper or 'journalistic' piece but does not count for much when taking a comprehensive view and making realistic solution-driven evaluations. I wonder how much you know of India and it's constantly changing (power) structures.
 
I also do not know how to respond to your shallow views on and understanding of Kashmir.
 
Let me therefore, once again, say to you:
 
"   Thank you Rakesh for sharing your interpretations of what is the "State" and the 'basicality' of what you see in Kashmir and what you see the "State" (as interpreted by you) doing to and doing with India and it's people."
 
Or, let me say that, compared to me, you are talking on a different plane altogether where I struggle to make sense of what you are saying. My shortcomings.
 
Or, let us say that I have expressed my viewpoint and you have expressed yours and leave it at that.
 
Kshmendra
 
--- On Sun, 7/11/10, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] against continued repression of the people of Kashmir
To: "Kshmendra Kaul" <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Pawan Durani" <pawan.durani at gmail.com>, "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Sunday, July 11, 2010, 4:42 PM


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