[Reader-list] Azadi: The Only Way Report from a Turbulent Few Hours in Delhi
SJabbar
sonia.jabbar at gmail.com
Tue Oct 26 16:22:59 IST 2010
Sorry, didn't mean to be. Was just poking mild fun at your assumed name.
I'd be very happy to have a serious conversation with you any time, but it
would be nice if I knew whom I was addressing. I'm really not interested in
scoring debating points and this is what has been happening in this forum
particularly with people with false identities.
Sincerely,
Sonia
On 26/10/10 4:15 PM, "Aditya Raj Baul" <adityarajbaul at gmail.com> wrote:
> You can be as contemptuous as you want. Doesn't take away from your
> hypocrisy
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM, SJabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 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/>
>
>
>
_____________________
> ____________________
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