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

Sun Jul 11 20:00:51 IST 2010

Rajen ji,

Anupam supports naxal violence is a indeed the inference i was expecting
from you. You support Abhinav Bharat, therefore i become a supporter of
Naxal violence. Condemning military violence in areas like Chattisgarh or
Manipur or Kashmir doesnt turn into a naxal supporter. How convenient it is
for you making such allegations while questioning others' faiths and
beliefs!! really

Anupam

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Rajendra Bhat Uppinangadi <
rajen786uppinangady at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _________________________________________
> 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/>