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

[Inder Salim]

say after 20 years from now, both of you will cherish this little exchange...
i tell u from my own experience...
it is not ordinary that we talk, please continue

love both of u
is

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:22 PM, SJabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your concern.  You're very kind.
>
>
> On 27/10/10 2:36 PM, "Aditya Raj Baul" <adityarajbaul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Awwww.... poor girl. Would you like a candy?
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM,
>> SJabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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: 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/>



-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com