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

[Aditya Raj Baul]

My question is: when will you make Rahul PM?

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, SJabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/>
>
>
>