[Reader-list] Azadi: The Only Way Report from a Turbulent Few Hours in Delhi
SJabbar
sonia.jabbar at gmail.com
Tue Oct 26 16:10:32 IST 2010
Oh whenever you want, dear boy, since you believe in making history.
Atilla D. Hun
On 26/10/10 4:01 PM, "Aditya Raj Baul" <adityarajbaul at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/>
>
>
>
_____________________
> ____________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To
> unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive:
> <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list