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

[Tapas Ray [Gmail]]

ARB,

It is true that in a conversation, what one participant says is
influenced by what s/he knows about the other's identity, but that is
not necessarily disingenuous. Don't we - unconsciously most of the
time but sometimes also consciously - interprete what others say in
light of what we know about their identities? Naturally, our responses
are also influenced by that knowledge. So, in a situation where A
knows who/what B is but B doesn't know who/what A is, the conversation
is hobbled by a kind of power imbalance - the last thing one needs in
rational discourse.

My two-bit.

Tapas


On 26 October 2010 16:32, Aditya Raj Baul <adityarajbaul at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/>
>>
>>
>>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>