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

[Aditya Raj Baul]

My name is Aditya Raj Baul. Just because I'm not famous like you, you
can allege that my real name is something else. This is offensive, to
say the least.

Your pre-condition for dialogue with me proves my charge. If my "real"
identity matters to thsi conversation, as you claim it does, then it
means your response would depend on who I am. You would say one thing
if I were Praveen Swami, another if I were Dileep Padgaonkar, a third
if I were the India editor of The India, Australia, something
completely different if I were Masarat Alam, something more nuanced if
I were Yasin Malik, something more aggressive if I were SAS Geelani.

You accuse me of not being Aditya Raj Baul. Yet it is you who's afraid
of being Sonia Jabbar.

For all you know, may be I'm you.

I asked you:

"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?"

I would be happy to clarify my question, if only you'd ask me what
about it you don't understand. But all you want to do is be
condescending, suspicious and irritable.

Thanks but not thanks,
Aditya Raj Baul


On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, SJabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/>
>
>
>