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

[Rajendra Bhat Uppinangadi]

Good response, Kshemendra ji,
it is rather at times amusing when the "muslims" tend to see that they are
not part of the state when it comes to responsible citizenship, but when it
is rights they seem to be the first to claim it, same as the false claims of
"intellectual" anmongst the citizens of this nation. Perhaps the poplous
nature of the "state' and the expectations of individuals of the
citizenship, when not met, the methods used to strategise and seek redressal
by being naxals, by being terrorists is another facet of democratic life
where dissent stoops to the level of violence and the forces which are meant
to be used to control such violence are attacked and the credibility is
sought to be destroyed by the traitors of democratic rule, be it naxalites,
or fanatics of any faith to bring in their kind of rule of faith.?
Anupam has been supportive of naxal violence and rakesh with his at times
treaties sermoning about the virtues of democracy but basically, what
surprises me most is all these citizens do not seem to have any
responsibility to the society they live in, the nation that is theirs, but
wish to be the modern day arundhatis or naipals.!
No doubt citizens choose their elected representatives, but they are getting
what they deserve, if some only are about rights of citizens, where
irresponsible judges retired from posts, who have been violators of all that
is judicial rule the role of being chairmen of commissions, if corrupt can
get away with media helping them out with titillation and sensation and
trps, democracy has been shaken at the very roots by the men and women in
media who seem to have an attitude that they are media, so above all laws.!
regards, rajen.

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>




-- 
Rajen.