[Reader-list] Azadi: The Only Way Report from a Turbulent Few Hours in Delhi
SJabbar
sonia.jabbar at gmail.com
Fri Oct 22 16:37:19 IST 2010
Dear Shuddha,
I've read with interest your report on the meeting at the LTG and am amazed
that you have aligned yourself with and have so wholeheartedly endorsed the
reactionary politics of SAS Geelani. Whatever he may have said for the
benefit of audiences in New Delhi he has always advocated Kashmir's
accession to Pakistan based on the 2-nation theory. He has made this
unambiguously clear in his book on the Kashmir issue: 'Nava-e-Hurriyat'. He
has reiterated this position as late as Sept 25 in an interview to Seema
Mustafa of News X where he clearly states the independence option is not
viable. He has never described the Kashmiri movement as a political struggle
but a jihad and had in 1992 even written to the Afghan Mujahideen to save
Kashmir from 'Hindu India.'
And what of the votaries of independence and their assassination by the
Hizb, the armed wing of the Jamat e-Isami of which Geelani was a member
until his expulsion in 2003? What is SAS Geelani's position on that? If he
has ever condemned it I should be grateful if someone were to send me a
reference.
That a man who has all his life scorned the notion of an independent Kashmir
should now detail the character and complexion of such a state including its
attitude to the sale and consumption of alcohol is truly funny, that he
should quote Gandhi, even funnier (he was one of the first to castigate
Yasin Malik's Gandhian methods of fasting as 'un-Islamic'.) That he should
call for the return of the Pandits without once condemning their killings or
the killings of Communists and National Conference workers in Kashmir is
like Advani speaking about the prosperity of Muslims in Gujarat.
You say Syed Ali Shah says "explicitly" he is not against dialogue, but you
don't stop to question the placing of preconditions to a dialogue. Geelani
has scorned talks with Delhi for years. He has abused those who have talked
to N Delhi as traitors. The HM has assassinated those who dared to talk to
N Delhi, whether it was Moulvi Farooq, Qazi Nissar, and even its own senior
commanders like Abdul Majid Dar (they didn't even spare his wife Dr.
Shameema who was shot at and grievously injured several years after her
husband's murder.)
Who places preconditions and then says let's have unconditional talks? What
would you say if New Delhi were to say, we will only speak to SASG if he
stops describing Kashmir as disputed territory or for that matter we will
not speak to Hurriyat (M) and JKLF until they give up their stand on
independent Kashmir? All of us would think New Delhi as being supremely
unreasonable to expect a negotiation to begin by insisting the other party
give up its core premise.
And what is Geelani's FIRST precondition? That India accept that J&K is
disputed territory. For India to accept that (esp. On SASG's goading) would
mean, in diplomatese, to forgo its position on the Simla Agreement and all
other agreements reached with Pakistan post 1972 and return to 1948 and the
'dispute' that was framed in the UN Resolutions, meaning, tossing the ball
back into the UN and set itself up to arbitration from the international
community. Why should it do that when both parties to the dispute agreed to
settle the issue bilaterally? SAS Geelani knows that well enough and is
content having tossed his 5 points into the arena and say, well I never said
I wouldn't talk.
Best
sj
On 22/10/10 3:51 AM, "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> (Apologies for Cross Posting on Kafila.org)
Dear Friends,
I was present and
> speaking a few hours ago at a meeting titled
Azadi: The Only Way¹ on the
> situation in Jammu and Kashmir,
organized by the Committee for the Release
> of Political Prisoners at
the Little Theatre Group in Delhi yesterday (21st
> October). I was not
present from the beginning of the meeting as I was
> traveling from
another city, but can vouch for what occurred from around
> 4:30 pm
till the time that the meeting wound up, well after 8:00 pm in the
>
evening.
The meeting took place in the packed to capacity auditorium of the
>
Little Theatre Group on Copernicus Marg at the heart of New Delhi.
Several
> speakers, including the poet Varavara Rao, Prof. Mihir
Bhattacharya, Sugata
> Bhadra, Gursharan Singh, G.N.Saibaba, Professor
Sheikh Showkat Hussain of
> Srinagar University, the journalist Najeeb
Mubaraki, a repesentative of the
> Naga Peoples Movement for Human
Rights and Justice, the writer Arundhati Roy
> and myself spoke at the
meeting. (I may be missing out some names, for which
> I apologize, but
I was not present for a part of the meeting, at the very
> beginning)
The climax of the meeting was a very substantive and significant
>
speech by Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Hurriyat Conference (G), which
spelt
> out the vision of liberation (Azaadi) and Justice that Syed Ali
Shah Geelani
> held out before the assembled public, of which I will
write in detail later
> in this text.
The artist known as Inder Salim¹ originally from Kashmir,
> currently
living in Delhi, made an intervention by inviting the assembled
>
people to take (with him) the stance of a masked stone pelter for a
brief,
> silent moment. Students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University
sang a song,
> Tu Zinda Hai to Zindagi Ki Jeet Mein Yakeen Kar¹
invoking the delights of
> life and liberation. In conclusion, the
meeting adopted a resolution, which
> was read, on behalf of the
Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners,
> by Mihir Bhattacharya.
The atmosphere, for the several hours that I was
> present, was
absolutely electric. The vast majority of the audience was warm
> and
appreciative of all the speakers. They were patient and respectful
>
and despite grave provocation from a section that identified
themselves as
> Indian patriots¹ and partisans of the Kashmir as
indivisible part of
> India¹ position - that repeatedly tried to
interrupt the meeting and heckle
> speakers, and on one occasion even
tried to throw an object at the dias
> did not stoop to be provoked
by these pathetic attempts at disruption of a
> peaceful gathering.
No provocative, secterian or hateful slogans were raised
> by the
majority of the people present. The only provocative posturing that I
>
witnessed was undertaken by the self-declared Indian patriots, who
were not
> stopped from having their say, but were requested simply not
to disrupt the
> proceedings.
When their behaviour crossed the limits of public decency, they
> were
escorted out of the premises by representatives of the Delhi Police.
>
The Delhi Police, to their credit, did not act against the majority
of the
> audience, simply because the majority of the audience
conducted themselves
> in a completely civil and democratic manner.
There was no attempt made at
> intimidation of any kind. Professor SAR
Geelani, who was conducting the
> proceedings on behalf of the
organizers Committee for the Release of
> Political Prisoners
(CRPP) , repeatedly asked the people obstructing the
> speakers to
conduct themselves in a cultured and dignified manner. His pleas
> were
disregarded by the section of the crowd that let its Indian
>
patriotism¹ get the better of its civilisation. When things got a
little
> too hot on occasion, the majority of the audience present
simply drowned the
> rude remarks and indignant posturing of the small
minority of self styled
> Indian patriots and champions of the Kashmir
as indivisible part of India¹
> position in wave after wave of
cheerful but firm hand clapping.
While
> there as enthusiastic cheering and sloganeering from the
majority of the
> young men and women assembled at the gathering, there
was no attempt while I
> was present to give the slogans a religious or
secterian colour. When Syed
> Ali Shah Geelani said that the people of
India and Kashmir are tied together
> by the bonds of insaaniyat
(humanity), when he quoted Gandhi, or spoke of
> the necessity of
conducting a non-violent struggle that was devoid of
> hatred, or even
when he said that he wished to see India rise as a great
> power in the
world, but as a power that felt no need to oppress others, he
> was
wholeheartedly and sincerely applauded, by the majority of people
>
present in the auditorium, regardless of whether or not they were
>
Kashmiri.
Yesterday¹s meeting needs to be seen in the context of a momentum
> of
different events, which have included public meetings at Jantar
Mantar,
> meetings in the Jawaharlal Nehru Universtiy and Delhi
University, film
> screenings and talks, independently organized
exhibitions on the history of
> Jammu and Kashmir in educational
institutions, photographic exhibitions on
> the situation in Kashmir
today that have taken place recently at the India
> Habitat Centre,
while Kashmir has reeled under the brutality of the
> occupation that
has resulted in a hundred and eleven deaths of unarmed or
> stone
pelting people, including children and teenagers. The momentum of
>
this process, which recognizes the urgency of the situation in
Kashmir,
> needs to be taken to its logical conclusion, until the world
and the
> international community sits up and takes notice of the true
nature of the
> hold of the Indian state on Kashmir and its people.We
need many more such
> meetings and gatherings in Delhi, and indeed in
every large city in
> India.
It must be maintained so that even a Barack Hussein Obama, scheduled
>
to visit New Delhi in November, is compelled to recognize the fact
that the
> conduct of the Indian state in Kashmir, based as it is on
brutal violence
> and intimidation, based as it is on a disregard of
every norm of the conduct
> of civilized governance is unacceptable to
the world. You simply cannot
> claim to be the world¹s largest
democracy and preside over the deaths of
> 70,000 people in twenty
years. You cannot claim to be judged as a democracy
> and have laws
like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. You cannot claim to
> be a
democracy and have your police and paramilitaries beat children to
>
death openly on the streets, or rape and kill young women with
impunity. A
> state that does so is an oppressive, immoral, occupying
power, and needs to
> be resisted by every right thinking person in the
world. The Indian state¹s
> record in Kashmir over the past several
decades is not only an oppression
> visited on the people of Kashmir,
it is an insult to the United Nations, to
> the world community, and to
every principle of justice, fairness and
> democracy. It is an insult
to all the peace loving and freedom loving
> citizens of India that do
not wish to see oppression carried out in their
> name.
This is the message that needs to go out, and is going out, not only
>
from the streets of Sringar, Baramulla and Kupwara, but also from
>
gatherings, such as yesterdays, from the heart of Delhi, the capital
of
> India. We, who are the friends of liberty and justice in India,
need to
> stand besides our Kashmiri brothers and sisters and say to
the world that we
> do not accept the lies put out by the Indian state
and its apologists on
> Kashmir. That is the true significance and
import of the process in which
> yesterday¹s meeting plays an important
part. This process will not stop
> until the world takes notice. The
United Nations, and the broad democratic
> currents as well as the
political leaderships of Europe, the Americas, and
> of every
significant power in the world needs to know that hundreds of
> people,
young and old, intellectuals, writers, activists, lawyers, teachers
>
and others, Indians and Kashmiris can stand united, in Delhi, at the
heart
> of the Indian Republic¹s capital, in refusing to accept the
continued
> occupation of Jammu and Kashmir, by India and by Pakistan.
That they believe
> that it is only the people of Jammu and Kashmir who
must decide for
> themselves their own future destiny, peacefully, in a
climate free of
> coercion and intimidation.
As Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Sheikh Showkat
> Hussain said, all that
they are asking for is the right to self
> determination, promised by
India, before the Untied Nations, to be freely
> enacted through a
plebiscite, in conditions of peace and liberty, without
> the presence
of armed force, for the inhabitants of every part of the
> undivided
state of Jammu and Kashmir regardless of whether the results of
>
that plebiscite are in favour of India, Pakistan or an independent,
united,
> Jammu and Kashmir that can live in peace with all its
neighbours in South
> Asia.
There was a great diversity of statements and styles present in
>
abundant splendour at yesterday¹s meeting. There was no way by which
the
> meeting could be reduced or simplified a single monotonous
statement. Yes,
> all the panelists, spoke unambiguously about the
necessity for ending the
> military occupation by the Indian state in
Kashmir. This does not mean that
> their statements and sentiments were
a manufactured and processed
> uniformity. The people on the panel may
have significant political and
> philosophical differences amongst
themselves, they may even think
> differently about what Azaadi¹ might
mean, but this was a sign, not of the
> weakness, but of the strength
and vitality of yesterday¹s
> gathering.
Azaadi¹ if and when it comes, will not be the parting gift of an
>
exhausted colonial power, it will be the harvest of the fruits of the
>
imaginations and intelligences of millions of people, of their
debates and
> their conversations.
What was extremely heart warming was the fact that each
> speaker spoke
of the fact that the voices of the people of Kashmir are no
> longer
alone and isolated, that there is a chorus of voices in different
>
parts of South Asia that echo and endorese their desire for
liberation from
> a brutal militarized occupation. From my notes of the
time that I was there,
> I recall that the writer Arundhati Roy, while
endorsing the demand of Azaadi
> for Kashmir, reminded the audience of
the need for the people of Kashmir not
> to be selective about justice
and injustice, that they must find methods to
> forge webs of
solidarity with all the suffering and oppressed peoples of
> India. She
was heckled and rudely interrupted by a small group of Indian
>
nationalists in the audience, who repeatedly raised the situation of
>
Kashmiri Pandits, Arundhati Roy, when she was able to resume
speaking,
> spoke unambiguously about the fact that she considered the
situation of
> Kashmiri Pandits to be a tragedy. She was echoed in this
sentiment later by
> Syed Ali Shah Geelani who said that he personally
stands guarantee for the
> safety and security of all minorities,
Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists, Christians
> and others in a future free
Kashmir. He implored the Pandits to return to
> Kashmir, and said, that
they are an integral part of Kashmiri society. He
> spoke of the need
for ensuring that a free Kashmir was a just Kashmir, and
> that justice
meant that the freedom, safety and security of all minorities,
> of
their property, their places of worship, their freedom of conscience
be
> given the utmost importance. He reminded the assembled people that
>
throughout these turbulent months, the people of Kashmir have
continued to
> be hospitable to Hindu pilgrims, have set up
Langars¹ (Kitchens) for them,
> and have cared for them when they have
fallen sick, despite being at the
> receiving end of the violence of
the Indian state.
I spoke briefly, about
> the fact that I was proud that so many of us
had gathered in my city, Delhi,
> putting aside the abstraction of our
politically determined, state given
> construct of citizenship, and
standing, here, now, on the grounds of a
> concrete human solidarity
with the people of Kashmir. I spoke of the fact
> that there are
significant voices, even in the mainstream media who have
> been
compelled to recognize the urgency of the situation in Kashmir, by
>
the sheer determination of the youth of Kashmir to get the news of
what is
> happening in Kashmir out to the world. I spoke of the role
played by
> facebook sites like Aalaw¹ and blogs, and the fact that
the people of India
> and the world can no longer be kept in the dark
by a pliant media, as
> happened in 1989-90. I spoke of the ways in
which the viral circulation of
> leaked videos of the humiliation of
Kashmiri youth on facebook pages and
> online fora have successfully
shown us what the reality of Kashmir is today.
> I urged media
professionals in the mainstream media to introspect and
> reflect on
the role that they may be compelled, against their own
> professional
ehtics, to play in the pyschological and propaganda war that
> the
Indian state is currently conducting. I spoke of my sense of shame
and
> remorse at the evasive and dissimulating role played by sections
of the
> mainstream media in India while reporting (or not reporting)
atrocities that
> make even the images from Abu Gharaib pale in
comparison.
I am ashamed to
> say, that despite my respectful plea to the media to
play a responsible role
> in their reportage of Kashmir related
matters, major channels like Times Now
> and NDTV once again let the
truth down in their reports on the days events.
> NDTV saw it fit to
simply report
an incident of shoe throwing at SAS
> Geelani¹. A shoe (or some other
indeterminate object) was indeed thrown, but
> not at Geelani. It
landed on a bottle of water in front of another speaker,
> while he was
speaking. So let¹s at least set that record straight. Arnab
> Goswami
of Times Now, while conducting what he likes to call a debate; on
>
the programme called News Hour¹ (neither News, nor just an Hour)
>
repeatedly uttered hysterical untruths, such as the presumption that
No
> State permits the advocacy of secession and self determination¹
and that a
> meeting such as the one I participated in yesterday, were
it to take place,
> say, in the United States, would immediately lead
to all speakers present
> (including, presumably, myself) in being
imprisoned on charges of sedition.
> I have to inform my readers here,
that on both counts, Arnab Goswami is
> wrong. Seriously wrong. Either
he is a misinformed idiot. Or he knows that
> he is wrong, and is lying
to his public through his teeth. We can choose to
> be generous about
how he would interpret his motives, and assume he is
> simply a fool.
Goswami, consequently demanded to know why we were not
> immediately
imprisoned under section 124 of the Indian penal code. Arnab
> Goswami
needs to be reminded, that in United States law, the provisions of
>
the Sedition Act are applicable only in times when the country is in
a
> declared state of war. And therefore his analogy does not apply, as
I am not
> aware that the Indian republic is currently in a declared
state of war, as
> per international law, (unless Arnab Goswami has
lost his marbles to the
> extent that he confuses the shadow boxing
that he does on television with a
> war declared by a state under
international law). That, furthermore, the
> provisions of the US
Sedition Law have been declared substantially void by
> the US Supreme
Court ruling in the Brandenberg vs. Ohio (1969) judgement,
> and of
course, by the US Supreme court guaranteeing the primacy of free
>
speech, including seditious¹ speech, including the burning of the
United
> States flag, under the provisions of the first amendment to
the US
> constitution.
There have been repeated attempts made to pass a law that would
> make
flag burning¹ an offence under US Law. Fortunately, (for liberty and
>
free speech) as of now, these attempts have not come to pass, and
>
currently, under US Law it is perfectly legal to advocate self-
>
determination and secwssion, if done peacefully, even to the extent
of
> burning or destroying or descerating symbols of state authority
like the
> national flag. Furthermore several constiutions, such as the
constitutions
> of Canada, Ethipopia, Austria and France, implicitly or
explicitly, provide
> for a legal expression of right to self
determination, provided it is
> exercised in a peaceful and democratic
manner, as part of the freedom of
> expression principle.
But the point that needs to be made is larger than
> whether or not
Arnab Goswami is a fool and a charlatan. Yesterday¹s meeting
> was a
historic opportunity for his channel, and indeed for all of the
>
Indian mainstream media, to report and take cognizance of the fact
that
> there is a significant section of Indian public opinion that is
actually in
> favour of Azaadi¹ in Kashmir. I am not suggesting that
this section
> constitutes an overwhelming majority at present (that
might change) but,
> that it does exist, and that it presents, cogent,
precise arguments, that
> cannot be dismissed, (as is being done by
Times Now and its ilk) by invoking
> the spectre of terrorism¹. There
is hardly any terrorism¹ in Kashmir today
> (if we don¹t count the
Indian state and its terror) . The 111 people who
> have died in the
past months, have not died at the hands of non-state
> insurgents, they
have died, unarmed, facing the bullets of the Indian state.
> The
movement for Azaadi in Kashmir has left the culture of the gun and
the
> grenade behind. It fights today without weapons, armed only with
courage. If
> there is a terrorist in Kashmir today, he wears the
uniform of the forces of
> the Indian state, and carries the weapons
supplied by the arsenal of the
> Indian state. To discount the voices
that rise in dissent against this
> reality as terrorist sympathizers¹
as Arnab Goswami has done on his channel
> is to insult reality.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani spoke of the bonds of insaaniyat
> that tie the
peoples of Kashmir and India yesterday. I heard him say this. I
> was
barely five feet away from him. I heard him speak of his regard and
>
respect for the minorities in Jammu and Kashmir. I do not agree with
much
> of what Geelani Saheb represents politically, or ideologically,
but I have
> no hesitation in saying that what he said yesterday, was
surprising for its
> gentleness, for its consideration, for its
moderation, even for its
> liberality and open heartedness. This should
have been big news. That Syed
> Ali Shah Geelani said that he wants to
see a strong and resurgent India. I
> heard him say this. And was this
reported by anyone? NO. Was it reported
> that he was cheered when he
said this ? NO. Was it reported that no one had
> any thing angry to
say against the struggling peoples of India? NO. Was it
> reported
that SAS Geelani expilicity said that he is NOT against dialogue,
>
provided that the five point formula put forward by him (none of
whose
> provisions 1. acceptance of the disputed nature of the
territory of Jammu
> and Kashmir, 2. repeal of AFSPA and other black
laws, 3. release of
> political detenues and prisoners, 4. withdrawal
of the disproportionate
> presence of the armed forces and 5.
punishment to those gulty of taking life
> in the past few months
require the government of India to think outside¹
> the framework of
the Indian Constitution) are accepted as the basis of the
> dialogue? NO.
Don¹t you think that it makes BIG news that the tallest
> separatist
leader in Jammu and Kashmir actually, in a moderate voice, spells
>
out, in Delhi, the fundamental basis of a considered dialogue with
the
> Indian state, while offering it a chance to do so on bases that
are
> absolutely reasonable and sound, and honourable to all concerned?
Do you not
> think that a responsible media organization would consider
this a scoop, a
> major news stor? But that is not what happened.
Instead, Times Now, (and I
> am waiting for the morning newspapers to
see how far this muck has spread)
> chose to focus on the deliberately
staged disruption of a handful of agent
> provocateurs, our familiar
posse of self styled patriotic champions of the
> continued occupation
of Kashmir, who posed for the camera, hyperventilated,
> and occupied,
perhaps no more than five percent of the attention of several
> patient
hours. If you saw the news reports on Times Now¹s NEWSHOUR¹
>
programme, you would have thought that all of what happened was their
>
presence as a protest¹ against the meeting. As someone who was
present
> through much of this, I am totally, utterly aghast that a lie
of such
> magnificient proportions could be dished out with such ease.
I am aghast
> that Aditya Raj Kaul who was one of the panel invited by
Arnab Goswami to
> the Times Now Newshour show could lie with a
straight face by saying that
> there was no attempt made to disrupt¹
the meeting by those who were there
> to represent his point of view.
Someday, I hope that all of these people, the
> Arnab Goswamis of the
world, find reason to repent for continuing to keep
> the people of
India and Kashmir in the dark. They had better think hard,
> because
the day when they will have cause to repent, is not far. Azaadi will
>
come to Kashmir, and with it, a glimmer of Azaadi will be the share
of
> those people in India who stood by their Kashmiri friends, in
their darkest
> hour.Going by what I witnessed yesterday, there will be
many such people, so
> Arnab Goswami and his ilk had better start
practicing how to say sorry,
> several hundred times a
> day.
best,
Shuddha
---------------------------------------------
Shudd
> habrata Sengupta
_________________________________________
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/>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list