[Reader-list] Azadi: The Only Way ­ Report from a Turbulent Few Hours in Delhi

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Sonia,

I agree with you on some points. I agree that the South Asian disease  
of 'let us forget the past' is not something that I respect.

I think that those who were responsible for the secterian killings of  
the 89-90 period and after in Kashmir should be held accountable for  
their actions, regardless of whether they were acting on the presumed  
orders of the then/now Islamist SAS Geelani or the secularist Yasin  
Malik or of the state. I have no hesitation in saying this because I  
hold that the same process should be applied  for those officers and  
politicians who orchestrated violence and mass killings on behalf of  
the Indian state in Kashmir. I have no objection at all, if Jagmohan,  
N.N Vohra, senior Army, paramilitary and intelligence officers who  
were in command in J&K, Farouq Abdullah, Mufti Muhammad Syed, SAS  
Geelani, Syed Salahuddin and Yasin Malik were all to be summoned to  
be examined by an independent non-partisan international tribunal to  
account for their actions and decisions in the larger interests of  
truth, justice, and possibly, a measure of reconciliation. Were a  
process able to account for the guilt of all these gentlemen and  
their underlings, and every prime minister and home minister of the  
Republic of India, and every governor and chief minister of the state  
of Jammu and Kashmir, and their counterparts in the Islamic Republic  
of Pakistan, none would be more pleased than I. This could be done on  
the model of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa,  
or even, if I am not mistaken on the lines of similar processes in  
Northern Ireland.

You are still missing the point when you misunderstand what I am  
saying when I say that I am willing to endorse SAS Geelani's apparent  
'change of heart'. I am not endorsing anything, I am recognizing  
something. And I am not unhappy in making that recognition. This does  
not require me to 'endow SAS Geelani or anyone else with my trust or  
my consent. Let us say, for arguments sake, that I am no less cynical  
than you are about the intentions of a politician as polished in the  
art of realpolitik as SAS Geelani (he wasnt an MLA twice over, at  
least once, if I am not mistaken as part of a political formation,  
supported by the worthies of the then Janata Party which would then  
have included Shri L.K. Advani, for nothing).But then, my cynicism  
does not stop at him. It includes Yasin Malik and Sajjad Lone and the  
Mirwaiz and every single Indian politician who has tried to play in  
Kashmir's troubled waters. Let us assume, as I am willing to do, that  
they ALL have blood on their hands, and that at the same time that  
they have ALL been the victims of the circumstances that shaped them.

My question is, what do we do next. I think that this means that the  
people 'learn' to USE them, to compel them to come to a degree of  
moderation in action, and a greater, more imaginative radicalism in  
terms of conceptions. That is why, the current situation in Kashmir,  
where the 'Leaders' are being 'Led' by people is interesting to me. I  
find it POSITIVE that they have to do flip-flops so often, from  
Hartal-to-No Hartal- to Hartal again. This shows that they are NOT  
running the street. Things are unpredictable. The change in the  
'temperature' of SAS Geelani's statements may be as much due to the  
fact that he is no longer in a position to call all the shots.  
Therefore, he has less to lose by 'changing' his tenor.

There is a way in which the language of politics has changed, and it  
has changed because of the way in which people are communicating on  
all sorts of fora. Though they may, out of affection, still say that  
only Geelani will do the Tarjumani, the truth is, everyone is doing  
their own Tarjumani now. and that is the hardest nut for the  
Government of India to crack. As an anarchist, I find this situation,  
of the actual, concrete, refusal of 'representational forms of  
politics' . however ephemeral it might be at present, quite  
delightful. SO much so, that a 'theatre' of leadership continues, but  
actuality presumes a totally different language of politics.

I find this a fertile situation, one latent with possibilities, for  
everyone.

As for your other point, about how close we all were to the  
beginnings of the long road towards a solution with Musharraf's four  
point formula - I agree with you. But, then, it was the Government of  
India that scuttled that possibility. If the government of India had  
acted then, on what was on offer, perhaps things would not have come  
to the situation where they are at present. Too much has gone wrong  
since then. I am not a nationalist of any sort, and to me, ALL nation  
states, and all nation states in waiting,  are ultimately the actors  
of the tragedies of their own making and choosing,
So, basically, I am not for the moment saying and have never said  
that an independent Kashmir will be in any way a qualitative  
improvement (in terms of a state form) than an occupied Kashmir, but,  
It may at least lead to the withdrawal of the reality of a brutal  
occupation.

For me, whatever makes that possible, I am prepared to accept. There  
were, and remain many possibilities that span the spectrum from where  
the situation is at present to Indpendence or accession to Pakistan.  
But thinking about those possibilities require all Indians to stop  
thinking only out of the Indian nationalist box. You know very well,  
that many different kinds of arrangement could have been explored.  
including maximum autonomy under the aegis of a joint India-Pakistan  
guarantee, which is what I understand the Musharraf formula to have  
been, But the bottom line is, whatever is worked out has to be  
acceptable to the popular will, hence a plebiscite with many options  
on offer, and the freedom to campaign for the many options in an  
atomsphere free of coercion.

Realistically speaking, I do not think that the Government of India  
has the imagination any longer to try and think out of the box. If it  
can, that would be great. But, going by the ostrich like attitude of  
the Government in the face of the obvious alienation of the Kashmiri  
people, I very much doubt it. If they had that intelligence, they  
could have stopped the killings by the security forces a long time ago.

Therefore, the only remaining possibility for ending the occupation  
seems to me to be independence for Kashmir, in the short term, under  
the custodianship of the United Nations, like happened in Kosovo.Of  
course, I strongly assert that the political road to this must be  
through non-violent means, through mass political participation, of  
as many different sections of the population as possible. It will be  
painful, for many Indians to accept, but in the long term, and in the  
absence of any other imaginative solutions thought through by the  
Indian political elites (that chance has come, and sadly, gone) it  
will be in the best interests of the people of India. Of course, the  
challenge for the people of Kashmir would be to think through a  
vision of independence that does not have them switch slavery to  
Indian occupation to slavery to the Pakistani militarist elite. The  
challenge would be to come up with proposals for a demilitarized, non- 
aggressive Kashmir that can preserve its cultural and social openness  
and liberality, that can take back displaced minorities, and can  
offer them genuine, not token safety and security. That is the hard  
work that imaginative politics will have to undertake in Kashmir. And  
we should never stop expecting and demanding that from all our  
Kashmiri friends. I never, ever cease doing so.

  In the long term, this fact, an Independent Kashmir, could actually  
be the cornerstone of a broad South Asian Union (modelled on the EU)  
which could bring the different nationalities (there may be many by  
then) of South Asia under an arrangement of a free trade zone, a visa  
free zone, a customs and tarrifs union, a charter on shared  
ecological concerns, and comprehensive demilitarization. An  
independent Kashmir may be the first step in that direction. Of  
course this need not happen. Things could get worse if Kashmir  
separates. I am well aware and cognizant of that possibility. But, at  
least, once the dust and din settles, in our lifetime, there is a  
likelihood that once everyone has climbed off their nationalist high  
horses, things might be worked out, amicably and reasonably between  
all the stake holders of a future free association of South Asian  
States and Territories. That, I think is the only guarantee for peace  
in our region. I know for certain that an India and Pakistan that  
continue to hold on to their respective fragments of Jammu and  
Kashmir, and an India that enforces that occupation by military force  
cannot contribute to peace in the region.

That is why, I think that freedom for Kashmir, and also, incidentally  
for Tibet, is key to long term peace and stability in Asia, because  
both these developments would reduce the necessity of the big poweres  
of tomorrow - China and India and to a lesser extent - Pakistan from  
being aggressive nuclear powered rivals, and would perhaps, perhaps,  
open out the true possibility of what a worthwhile Asian Century  
really ought to be like. Otherwise, I am afraid that we will replay  
the disasters of the European history of the Twentieth Century, from  
the First World War onwards, on the soil of Twenty First Century Asia.


I hope i have made myself clear

best,


Shuddha







On 23-Oct-10, at 7:45 PM, SJabbar wrote:

> Sorry for cross-posting but I sent this message out in the morning  
> as a
> response to Shuddha¹s 2nd post but received an automated email  
> saying my
> post had to be reviewed by the moderator.  Since I haven¹t received a
> response (Monica??!) I assume it was not approved or got lost in  
> the vast
> belly of the Sarai computer!
> -------------------------------------
>
>
> Shuddha, let us take your arguments and apply them to the other  
> side.  Modi
> belongs to a political party that was in power and he was at the  
> helm when
> the 2002 Gujarat carnage took place.  He may not have explicitly  
> directed it
> but he certainly presided over the violence.  What Modi is like as  
> a person,
> whether he is gentle, cultured, cries at the funeral of his friends  
> or his
> rivals are of no concern to me  (It is well known that Goebbels was a
> cultured man and had a refined taste in music and the arts and of  
> course
> Jinnah ate ham sandwiches). What matters to me is that the man  
> presided over
> the worst kind of violence and has refused to, till date, condemn it
> unambiguously.  Instead he and his party continue to cite the economic
> progress of Muslims in Gujarat to counter it.  The subtext of this‹  
> and this
> is a South Asian disease‹ is let us forget the past, galtiyan dono  
> taraf se
> huin hain (³action-reaction²), and let us move on.  Whether it is the
> various political parties in India who have incited, controlled and  
> presided
> over the worst communal or sectarian violence from the 1930¹s to  
> the present
> day, or the Pakistani army role in the mass rapes of Bangladesh or  
> the Sri
> Lankan army¹s role against Tamil civilians, every political party  
> in these
> countries seem to be inflicted by the same disease.
> Having said that, I believe it is the role of civil society to be  
> vigilant,
> to be rigorous, to not succumb to the same logic.
>
> I know that you have been critical of fundamentalist politics in  
> this forum
> and others, whether it is Hindutva or Islamist and that is why it  
> surprised
> me to read your post on the LTG event.  You say ³You may be right  
> when you
> say that SAS Geelani may be saying one thing in Delhi and another in
> Srinagar.  I am not here to judge the sincerity, or lack of,  or  
> ambiguity,
> of these statements.²  Why are you not here to judge the sincerity  
> or lack
> thereof of these statements?  Surely, one is always judging political
> parties when they claim one or another thing?  How does one align  
> oneself
> politically if one goes simply by manifestos and not by actions?   
> Judging
> and evaluating is a constant process.  Mamta Bannerjee may have  
> been one
> thing as a member of the opposition but how will she be when she  
> comes to
> power?  One reads her statements, one watches carefully her actions
> following her statements.  If they don¹t gel, we believe her to be
> insincere.
>
> You write: ³I am amazed that this recognition is not getting the  
> space I
> think it deserves, simply as a NEWS story. ³ Do you remember Atal  
> Behari
> Vajpayee shed tears after the demolition of the Babri Masjid and  
> Advani
> described it as ³the saddest day of his life.² Should these  
> isolated moments
> and statements be highlighted and privileged as representing the 2  
> men¹s
> position on the Babri Masjid or should one judge them over a longer  
> period
> of time, weighing their statements and their actions?
>
> As for Mr. Geelani and evaluating his actions, do you believe a  
> responsible
> leader ought to lead from the front or give calls to his followers  
> to engage
> in actions that will cause injury or even death from the safety of  
> his home?
> Mr. Geelani is fully aware that in any part of this planet if you pelt
> stones at a man with a gun, there is a fair chance that the man  
> with the gun
> is going to retaliate.  When he was released from jail he made a fine
> statement calling for the end of the hartaal calendar, saying that  
> this was
> not the way forward, that these protests could not be sustained,  
> that life
> could not come to a standstill (btw, the Sopore fruit mandi, his
> constituency, continued to function through this entire period hartaal
> calendar or not).  These were wise words from a man who has been in  
> politics
> for years.  Wise words or the thinking of the ISI, I¹m not sure  
> because the
> words were echoed by Syed Salahuddin.  What follows is interesting:
> Salahuddin¹s effigy is burnt and a rumour is floated that Mr.  
> Geelani is
> selling out to Omar Abdullah.  Does Mr. Geelani stand by his  
> words?  Does he
> do what Gandhi does after Chauri Chaura?  No, of course not.  He  
> does a
> total U-turn and starts competing with Masrat Alam on the calendars,
> subjecting the people of the valley to more misery.  What do ordinary
> Kashmiris feel about the continuation of this absurd form of  
> protest where
> they and not the Government of India suffer?  You may find the  
> answer in the
> fact that there was not a single protest when Masrat Alam was  
> arrested.
>
> Again Mr. Geelani saying he Œpersonally¹ favours the accession to  
> Pakistan
> but will Œabide by¹ what the people of J&K want is neither here nor  
> there.
> What you see as a maturing position may be read as an opportunistic  
> one
> until such time as it is tested.  As I have already shown in my  
> last post
> Mr. Geelani, his political party and his ideology have since the  
> mid-90¹s
> shown no such respectful accommodation of the political views of  
> others.  In
> fact any divergence from this view has been silenced by the  
> bullet.  If this
> is someone¹s history‹ and as much as I should wish it otherwise--  
> it is
> very, very difficult for me to suspend my cynicism and turn  
> enthusiastic
> cartwheels on the basis of one speech to a select audience in New  
> Delhi.
>
> With reference to your point about borders:  The GoI acknowledges that
> Kashmir is an ³issue² between India and Pakistan.  As I have  
> mentioned in my
> first post, it objects to the word ³dispute² as it internationalizes
> Kashmir, ignores the Simla Agreement and takes it out of the domain of
> bilateral talks back to the UN.  If you want my personal opinion on  
> this
> (and I have argued on this list in the past), I agree with this  
> stand.  I
> see the UN as a forum where, sadly, world powers have always  
> manipulated
> nations and it certainly does not have the moral standing after  
> Iraq and
> Afghanistan to really mediate anywhere in the world.  India and  
> Pakistan
> need to, and can settle the issue taking into account the wishes of  
> all the
> people of J&K as it stood in 1947.  As I have argued in the past  
> and as
> Gen.Musharraf recently said on an NDTV interview that India and  
> Pakistan
> were very close to drafting an agreement based on his 4-point formula.
> Interestingly, various interpretations of this 4-point formula were  
> thrown
> up by all shades of political parties but there was a broad  
> consensus on
> this whether from the mainstream groups or the separatists.  The  
> only leader
> that rejected this was Mr. Geelani who insisted that the Kashmir  
> ³dispute²
> be solved on the UN Resolutions of 1948!
>
> As for borders themselves: what is Europe today but a borderless  
> continent?
> You critique the idea of the nation-state and yet you want to re- 
> invent the
> wheel by supporting yet another nation-state in independent  
> Kashmir.  Why,
> when a 21st c. solution in the 4-point formula, similar to the form  
> and
> content of the EU, could be in the making?
>
> Best wishes,
> Sonia
>
>
>
> On 22/10/10 8:10 PM, "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>  
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sonia, (don't worry Pawan, its a lot less than '3000 lines')
>>
>> I said - " 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."
>>
>> What part of this sentence seems to suggest that I am 'aligning'  
>> with SAS
>> Geelani. The 'I do not agree with much' does not seem to indicate  
>> alignment,
>> or endorsement to me. The rest of the statement is a statement of  
>> fact. Were
>> SAS Geelani to have said words that were inflammatory yesterday, I  
>> would not
>> have hesitated to said that he had. Allow me to elaborate by way  
>> of an example
>> - I have never been in agreement with the political philosophy of  
>> M.K.Gandhi,
>> but I never make the mistake of saying that my disagreement with  
>> Gandhi (my
>> refusal to endorse Gandhian ideology and what it means  
>> politically) amounts to
>> my failure to recognize Gandhi's gentleness, his consideration, his
>> moderation, his liberality and its open heartedness.
>>
>>  I have been strongly critical Islamist politics, including on  
>> this forum,
>> whenever I have considered it necessary to do so. That is one  
>> thing, and it is
>> where I would differ from SAS Geelani, explicitly, categorically,  
>> unless he
>> makes a statement, like the Mirwaiz did recently, abjuring an  
>> 'Islamist future
>> for Kashmir'. But to say that SAS Geelani has never expressed  
>> regret for the
>> violence that rocked even the pro-Azadi camp from within is  
>> specious. Kashmiri
>> polticians of all hues routinely issue condemnations of incidents of
>> terrorism, and targetted assasinations. Geelani, to my knowledge,  
>> has not been
>> any exception. Eyewitnesses speak of seeing him weeping at Abdul  
>> Ghani Lone's
>> funeral. I do not know, nor do I care, whether these tears were  
>> genuine. All I
>> am saying is that if the man has not said that he celebrates the  
>> assasins of
>> the elder Mirwaiz, or Abdul Ghani Lone, or the attacks on Dr.  
>> Shameema that
>> you mention, then, it is unfair to accuse him of 'Not Saying' the  
>> 'not
>> saying'. He condemns assasinations. He does not celebrate the  
>> assasin. This
>> means that he cannot be accused of being the source of the  
>> assasination,
>> unless other concrete evidence is brought to bear upon the case.
>>
>>  You may be right when you say that SAS Geelani may be saying one  
>> thing in
>> Delhi and another in Srinagar.  I am not here to judge the  
>> sincerity, or lack
>> of,  or ambiguity, of these statements. I think politically, the  
>> significant
>> thing is that whatever he may have said in the past, SAS Geelani,  
>> HAS to speak
>> a language today that is not secterian. He may have done so in the  
>> past. Let
>> us remember that he was an elected member of the J&K assembly for  
>> more than
>> one term in the past, and that means he had to swear fealty of  
>> some sort to
>> the Indian constitution. Judging by this, we should be able to  
>> evaluate his
>> 'Islamist' commitments in the light of his sometime loyalty to an  
>> apparently
>> secular constitution. If the sake of argument, we say that we  
>> should take
>> seriously what came 'after' as representing the 'maturing' of his  
>> position,
>> then, if his avowedly 'secterian' / Islamist / Pro-Pakistan phase  
>> came after
>> his phase as an MLA of the J&K assembly, then, so too has this  
>> 'current' phase
>> come 'after' his secterian posturing. I am not the one who needs  
>> to split
>> these hairs, but clearly, if some emphasis is bieng given to  
>> chronology as a
>> way of attributing the man's politics to the man's biography, then  
>> let's stay
>> consistent, and say, that if the current SAS Geelani is saying  
>> things that
>> don't seem to require the automatic assumption of an Isamic state  
>> (which is
>> what we would expect from the 'old' Geelani, then, we have every  
>> reason to
>> take it as seriously as when he made his decision to abandon  
>> 'mainstream'
>> electoral politics in Jammu and Kashmir for the hardline fringe.
>>
>> Indeed, I would go so far as to say that as far as we are  
>> concerned, we should
>> assume, and hold him, and his followers, responsible to the  
>> Œevolution¹ of
>> their statements, as they occur. If he goes back on the broad,  
>> liberal nature
>> of a vision for Azad kashmir (which, incidentally, among other  
>> things,
>> included the somewhat whimsical detail of a provision of  
>> compensation for
>> damages were a believing Muslim to damage a bottle of alchohl of a
>> non-believer), then, we should hold him responsible for that  
>> regression. He
>> made a speech that was refreshingly free of Islamist rhetoric  
>> yesterday, that
>> spoke in the broad terms of 'Insaaniyat' - Humanity. If Atal  
>> Behari Vajpayee
>> can be appreciated, as indeed he should have been, for speaking in  
>> terms of
>> 'Insaaniyat' when it came to thinking about the solution to the  
>> question of
>> Jammu and Kashmir, why could the mainstream media not pick up the  
>> fact that at
>> least in stated terms, SAS Geelani was making as major a move, by  
>> invoking
>> 'Insaaniyat' over secterian considerations, exactly as Vajpayee  
>> had done.
>> Recognizing this does not require us to align with, or endorse,  
>> either SAS
>> Geelani, or Atal Behari Vajpayee, it simply requires us to  
>> register a fact
>> that a major move is in process. That politics is being  
>> transformed, even as
>> we speak. I am amazed that this recognition is being painted as  
>> 'alignment, or
>> endorsement'. I am amazed that this recognition is not getting the  
>> space I
>> think it deserves, simply as a NEWS story. SAS Geelani says he  
>> wishes India to
>> be a strong country, a regional power, that he supports (in  
>> principle) a
>> future permanent place for India on the United Natons Security  
>> Council, once
>> Kashmir is liberated   - in other words, he is saying, let us go,  
>> and we will
>> stand with you, dont you think this is BIG news. That is what I  
>> was trying to
>> talk about. Trying to talk about does not make me a camp follower  
>> of SAS
>> Geelani or any other politician, in India, Kashmir, or elsewhere.
>>
>> My sense is, the movement for Azadi in Kashmir has gone beyond the  
>> persona of
>> SAS Geelani, and while he is universally respected for his  
>> integrity and
>> incorruptability, his word is by no means, Œlaw¹. He, and other  
>> leaders like
>> him, are being Œled¹ as much as they are Œleading¹ the people they  
>> claim to
>> represent. Part of this process means giving up the secterian  
>> rhetoric that
>> people in Kashmir genuinely feel alienated by. We should welcome this
>> development.
>>
>> Now, I come to the views that he holds regarding independence and  
>> merger with
>> Pakistan. He has said, including in his recent interview with  
>> Seema Mustafa
>> that he PERSONALLY prefers accession to Pakistan, but that he is  
>> willing to
>> abide by whatever the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide. I do not  
>> think that
>> the people of Jammu and Kashmir have a future with Pakistan.So, I  
>> disagree
>> with SAS Geelani's personal view. I strongly argue for a  
>> demilitarized,
>> independent, secular Jammu and Kashmir. That makes me someone who  
>> does not
>> endorse SAS Geelani's position. Let's look at thigns this way, had  
>> this been
>> 1935, I would probably have not been in agreement with M.K.  
>> Gandhi's vision of
>> what he thought the future of South Asia and India ought to be.  
>> But that does
>> not mean that I would dismiss Gandhi as irrelevant, or someone to  
>> be mocked
>> and reviled. I would engage with him politicially, as many  
>> currents in India
>> at that time did. They were not uncritical of Gandhi (from the  
>> left and the
>> right) but they knew that Gandhi's voice had a certain resonance.  
>> I think that
>> the attitude that people have towards SAS Geelani is not  
>> dissimilar. They may
>> not agree with him on many counts, and most Kashmiris that I know  
>> personally
>> would fit that description. But none would want to dismiss or  
>> demonize him.
>> Primarily because of his unwillingness to be an occasional pawn in  
>> the hands
>> of the occupation.
>>
>>  I have yet to come across an Indian politician who is willing to  
>> say, on the
>> record, that he PERSONALLY prefers that Jammu and Kashmir stay  
>> with India, but
>> will respect whatever the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide in a  
>> free and
>> fair plebiscite. If that were to be the case, then we would get  
>> much further
>> than where we are today in Kashmir. I have no quarrel with those  
>> who want
>> Kashmir to stay in India. Theirs is a point of view. It needs to  
>> be freely
>> heard, freely debated, and if is convincing to the people of Jammu  
>> and
>> Kashmir, best of luck to those who carry the day. What I am  
>> against is
>> maintaining Jammu and Kashmir as parts of the Indian Union by  
>> force. By
>> violence. By occupation.
>>
>> Finally, I come to the five points, and whether or not, sticking  
>> to the point
>> about Kashmir being disputed is an obstacle. Lets face facts.  
>> Kashmir is a
>> dispute. Every single map of the world that is not printed in  
>> India shows it,
>> visually, as a disputed territory. That is why the Government of  
>> India has to
>> put its silly ink stamp on atlases. That is why there is a United  
>> Nations
>> Observer group in Delhi, Islamabad and Srinagar. United Nations  
>> observers are
>> present, in the same way, in say Cyprus (another dispute) Israel /  
>> Palestine,
>> another dispute. What is the big deal in saying, yes, it is a  
>> dispute. Will
>> India disappear if the public secret is admitted to? As far as I  
>> am concerned
>> borders, and sovereignty, are less important than the lives of  
>> people. If
>> discussing a border, and what it means, can be a method to save  
>> lives, then
>> refusing to do so, is a crime. The Government of India can offer  
>> to 'discuss'
>> - sovereignty over those areas of the India-Tibet border that were  
>> taken by
>> force majeure by British Imperial power, but it will sacrifice the  
>> lives of
>> hundreds of thousands of people in order to keep the fetish of the  
>> Indian
>> Union's  soveriegnty and integrity alive in the case of Jammu and  
>> Kashmir.
>> This policy seems to me to be totally criminal and misguided.
>>
>> Borders are made by human beings, and can be changed by human  
>> beings. The
>> geographical expression of the Union of India is not divinely  
>> ordained.
>> Sensible people all over the world, understand that maps can  
>> change, and that
>> they do change. We hope that the map of China can someday be drawn  
>> in Chinese
>> school text books without engulfing Tibet. If that can be a  
>> reasonable desire,
>> and not be seen as an 'obstruction', why should a similar desire  
>> be seen as an
>> obstruction in the case of India and Jammu and Kashmir. Arnab Goswami
>> repeatedly used the word 'splittist' yestyerday to refer to all  
>> those who were
>> speaking at the meeting at the LTG yesterday. A word that is used  
>> by the
>> Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party whenever it  
>> refers to the
>> Dalai Lama and the movement for a free Tibet. Are we (our  
>> government, sections
>> of our media) aping the Chinese government and the behemoth of the  
>> Chinese
>> Communist Party in aligning and endorsing ourselves with the  
>> fetish of a man
>> made fiction of sovereignty. I should hope that we can do better  
>> than that.
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Shuddha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net