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

[SJabbar]

Aditya Raj Baul,
What exactly is your question?
Sincerely,
Sonia Gandhi


On 26/10/10 2:04 PM, "Aditya Raj Baul" <adityarajbaul at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like it how Sonia Jabbar wants to hold Kashmir hostage to history -
to the
> histories of India and Pakistan, to the history of what Geelani
has or has not
> done, has or has not said. She does not think history
is irrelevant to today's
> people who want azadi today in today's
context - sorry, she says, India has
> signed the Simla agreement, and
Geelani is a fanatic. Thank you. Fair enough,
> I suppose. But will she
apply the same rigours of historical understanding to
> the Indian state
and its actions in Kashmir? Please?

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at
> 9:53 AM, SJabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Shuddha,
>
> I think
> our differences have narrowed considerably as you continue to
> clarify your
> position.  Reading between your lines, you seem to think that I
> have a
> problem with your engaging with Mr. Geelani or that the problem was
> your
> sharing a stage with him. I do not not.  In politics there are no
> pariahs.
>  If someone represents a constituency-- no matter how marginal--
> that is
> part of the social fabric you cannot ignore it.  It may surprise you
> and
>  many on this list to know that Mr. Geelani and I have known each other
>
> since 1997 and have extremely frank and cordial relations. My problem was>
> with the language of your report of the meeting where your enthusiasm
>
> (“tallest separatist leader,” he is “NOT against dialogue,” “all that they
>
> are asking for is the Right to self-determination”) masked a political
>
> reality that was far more complex and brutal.  However, you have since
>
> clarified that you do not endorse Mr. Geelani’s  politics and you concede
>
> that he may well have been playing to audiences in Delhi,  bringing us more
>
> or less on the same page except that past experience has made me less likely
>
> to share your belief that someone like Mr. Geelani can be “USED” or that you
>
> can  “compel them to come to a degree of moderation in action, and a
>
> greater, more imaginative radicalism in terms of conceptions.”
>
> I am glad
> you agree that people and groups, state and non-state actors who
> have
> committed crimes must stand trial and justice must be done, whether it
> is
> SAS Geelani, Yasin Malik, Syed Salahuddin or various army generals who
> have
> presided over rights abuses while they served in J&K. I have in this
> forum
> written of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission modeled on the South
> African
> experience that should follow the final settlement on J&K.
>
> I am also glad
> that you agree with my point of the futility of creating a
> new nation-state
> in the form of an independent Kashmir ( “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 you
> seem to believe that it is necessary because “ It may
> at least lead to the
> withdrawal of the reality of a brutal occupation.” By
> this I assume your
> vision of regime change means replacing one democratic
> republic with another
> democratic republic and not an Islamic republic or a
> military state.  In
> which case “the reality of a brutal occupation” must
> mean the withdrawal of
> hundreds of thousands of uniformed men in J&K.  But
> do you really need to
> create a new nation-state in order to demilitarize
> Kashmir?
>
> From 1947 to
> 1989 India’s military presence was restricted to the borders
> and to the few
> garrisons of Srinagar, Baramulla, Leh, Udhampur and Poonch.
> Between 1989-
> 1992 India was being seriously challenged on the military
> front by thousands
> of Kashmiri militants and Islamist mujahideen.  The troop
> surge only
> happened only around 1992-93 and the Indian military was only
> able to
> control the situation around 1995. In 1996 the situation was such
> that it
> was the first time in 6 years it was possible to hold elections and
> yet then
> as in 2002 there were hundreds of assassinations of political
> candidates and
> ordinary workers of political parties (the right to
> self-determination is
> never extended to this group).
>
> Anyway, my point is that 500,000 or 700,000
> troops were not there as a
> permanent fixture since 1947 and the ‘most
> militarized place in the world’
> was not always so.  It is both desirable and
> possible to withdraw troops and
> it should be done in a phased manner.
>  Though I have been vocal in
> advocating this since 2001, sadly, I believe it
> will be linked to the final
> settlement and will not happen before because of
> the many sleeper cells of
> militants that get activated the moment there is
> peace or at least as they
> say ‘normalcy’— as we have seen in last week’s
> encounter between troops and
> the JeM in Srinagar.  BTW Srinagar district was
> one of the districts being
> examined for the revocation of the Disturbed
> Areas Act.  This encounter will
> make it extremely difficult for the state
> government to do so.
>
>
>  I am glad you agree with me that the 4-point
> formula can be a solution to
> the vexed Kashmir issue, however your reading
> of what went wrong and putting
> the onus of the failure of implementation
> squarely on New Delhi’s shoulder
> is wrong.  Yes, there were delays on New
> Delhi’s side, but those were not
> remarkable considering a political
> consensus had to be built within the
> country (I think it was in 2008 during
> the Amarnath Yatra that I explained
> the entire process at length in this
> forum).  Very simply what happened was
> that the Lawyer’s Movement in
> Pakistan overtook the Kashmir process and once
> Mushrraf was ousted and
> Benazir was assassinated the country plunged into
> political turmoil and the
> Zaradari government was too weak to break from
> Pakistan’s traditional stand
> of the UN Resolutions.  Both Gen Kayani and the
> ISI were not comfortable
> with Musharraf’s radical departure from tradition.
> Both believe Pakistan’s
> best interests are served by keeping the Kashmir pot
> boiling, maintaining
> India as ‘enemy no 1’, encouraging extremism in
> Afghanistan to maintain
> ‘strategic depth,’ and to scuttle any influence
> India may wield in
> Afghanistan.  So, as much as I and many others would like
> to see the 4-point
> formula being at least discussed, under the present
> Pakistani dispensation
> it is highly unlikely.
>
> When you advocate a plebiscite and you believe that
> the azadi movement must
> be peaceful then you must also accommodate the
> possibility of a partitioned
> J&K, where large sections of Jammu and all of
> Ladakh would not vote for
> Pakistan (and under what UN Resolution would the
> option of independence be
> granted since NO UN Resolution holds that option
> and no Kashmiri to date has
> appealed to the UN to pass a resolution to
> include the option?) And how
> would you persuade Pakistan to allow a
> plebiscite in areas under their
> control?  And what is your opinion of the
> vast region of Gilgit-Baltistan
> that by Pakistani law has been severed from
> the state of Jammu & Kashmir and
> where its citizens have NO fundamental
> rights as its constitutional status
> has not as yet been determined?
>
> I am
> asking these questions not to score points but for us to locate what is
>
> moral or desirable within what is real and possible not just for Kashmiris
>
> who are but a small part of the state, but of all the people of Jammu &
>
> Kashmir.
>
> Best,
> Sonia
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> 
> _________________________________________
> 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/>
___________________________
> ______________
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/>