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

Tue Oct 26 18:10:46 IST 2010

Sigh... Now how does one begin to answer this diatribe.  Tell you what: you
win, dude.  OK?  Khush raho.

On 26/10/10 4:32 PM, "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/>

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

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