[Reader-list] Kashmiri scessionist movement has pan Islamic roots

[Inder Salim]

Dear Lalit
I have written it earlier also
but i repeat, not for you also but many KP brothers who are fond of
speaking  about exodus as and when there is any opportunity.

well, recently i met a KP friend who was quite upset with Aditya Raj
Kaul who remained mum during a TV discussion ( some Times channel ) on
exodus of KPs from valley in 90. It was some Sikh representative,
Mr.Jagat Singh ( perhaps ) who said that KPs left the valley on their
own. which was music to Bilal Lone, the other conversant in the room.
May be Mr. Aditya Raj Koul ji can clarify it in detail. The discussion
was about the recent threat to Sikh community by some elements who
wanted  them  leave the valley. I see little TV myself...so dont know
the exact thing...

On the other hand, i maintain the fact that KPs had to leave the
valley in 1990 because there was a genuine threat to life and dignity,
given the fact that many innocent KPs were killed. Jagmohan indeed
provided curfew relaxation to those who wanted to leave, but he is not
the core player of KP exodus. However, the contradiction remain that
GOI was knowing it all from word go, and remained silent spectators to
worsening situation... it is still mystery to me... ( in other words i
see GOI as a direct cause of KP exodus, not only historically but in
1990 as well )

It is the same Aditya who said Geelani hoon  hia hia, atJantar Mantar
recently, ( Down with Geelaii dog )  which i found utterly
unparliamentary since i have never heard SAS Geelani saying such
things openly to KPs ( this i am saying after i have deep problems
with his only religious political card for Kashmir conflict )  It is
the same SAS Geelani who is refusing indian Home Minister to meet. I
wrote earlier also that Chidambaram would go to Kashmir and knock his
door for a meeting for peace...Where does RIK people stand,
politically...

But Geelani sahib is not the only one who represents Kashmir conflict
at the core. there are others, and there are people in general who
represent themselves now... see how SAS Geelani's call for hartal was
rejected recently..... it is not easy for GOI to cut a deal with
Huriyat even... so where do KPs hard core anti KM politics stand....

Well, KPs right now facing cultural identity crises at the moment...
They are rapidly realizing that there will no Kashmiiri seapking boy
or girl after one or two decades down the line. If there will be
anybody able to recite Lad Ded or Krishan joo razdan, it will be KM
from valley...

so what use to unfurl Tricolour in front of people protesting about
the recent killings at Jantar Mantar.
The best thing KPs can do is to reconnect themselves with KM's in the
valley and restore cultural links... the situation is quite different
from 1990, things can change if KP love their language, heritage,
music, poetry... sorry not this Nationalism.. which is of no use in
deeper sense.... believe me...

that is the only real thing i feel, if KP begin with anything positive.....
that way they can dream to return back, even...

seemingly the conflict is between Govt of India and the people of
kashmir, so KP ought to give time to the most vital thing... the real
kashmir is also about its ancient echos, not Hindu religous identity
alone...  that too will be political.. but we need guts


I know you will point out the fact that KPs too are kashmirs.
but i want to know how, not only in the present, but after2 or three decades...

with love
is




On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Lalit Ambardar
<lalitambardar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> My apologies.There is a minor correction in the subject line ,hence this repeated mail.
>
> Rgds all
>
> LA
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> The issue of ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits at the hands of Kashmiri jihadis is usually ignored.But now,the hesitation to admit  'pan Islamic fervour' being the sole inspiration for the on going Kashmiri scessionist movement seems to be fading away. As the discourse on Kashmir takes a new course, the 'ambuiguity' is being replaced by 'positions'.Here is how VIr Sanghvi takes his position:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
>
> New Delhi, September 18, 2010
>                                               Our secularism will withstand any opposition
> I don’t know about you but I feel a deep weariness and a mounting frustration when I see the position of Kashmiri separatists described again and again in the media and in the foreign press in particular.
> By now, most Indians know the separatist position by heart: the accession of Kashmir in 1947 was dubious, for many years Kashmiri elections were rigged, Kashmir is a Muslim majority state in Hindu India, the army subjects the Valley to a reign of terror etc.
> Integral to this position is a caricature of how Indians feel about Kashmir. We are, apparently, a Hindu-majority State that is determined to hang on by force to Kashmir.
> Over the last few years, this frequently articulated position has begun to annoy me not just because it’s untrue but because it describes an India that I do not recognise and ascribe views to Indians that I know we do not hold.
> In my experience, the attitude of Indians towards Kashmir is not guided by Hindu chauvinism or Indian imperialism. In fact, the overwhelming emotion when it comes to our understanding of Kashmir is one of bewilderment. The vast majority of Indians are bewildered by the Kashmir problem and the demands of Kashmiri militants. Why do the Kashmiris hate us so much? And what is it that they actually want?
> There is one part of the separatist position that we understand. We recognise that it must be hell to live with a constant military presence in a state where citizens are subject to random police checks and where curfew is a regular occurrence. Most of us are intensely embarrassed by the stories of human rights abuses — some of which must surely be true.
> But equally, most of us would argue that the military presence is a response to a violent insurrection against the Indian State. Till 1989, Kashmir did not have such a strong military presence. The army went in only after the violence increased, after key leaders were assassinated, after kidnappings became a regular occurrence, and after jihadis thronged to Kashmir from across the border.
> Violence begets violence. If you declare war on the Indian State, the State is not going to roll over and let you tickle its stomach. It is obliged to fight back and to assert both its authority and the rule of law.
> Most Indians would love to see the army withdrawn from Kashmir. Indian soldiers have no particular desire to risk their lives in Kashmir. But each time we talk of reducing the army presence or of amending the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), the violence actually seems to increase. There is no evidence that a reduction in the military presence will be greeted by a similar reduction in the level of militant violence.
> Besides, even if the army were withdrawn and there was no state violence in Kashmir, would the separatists change their stance? Would they say that they now accepted Indian sovereignty? I don’t think so. The army presence is unfortunate. But it is not the core issue.
> From our perspective, the secessionist sentiment in Kashmir is bewildering because (except for the army presence) the average Kashmiri has the same deal as every other Indian except perhaps that the Indian State spends more money on him. Per capita expenditure on each Kashmiri is vastly greater than Delhi’s per capita expenditure on, say, the average Bihari.
> Further, Kashmiris have the same democratic rights as other Indians. Even if you accept that elections were rigged in the past, that has not been true for several years. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP)-government was legitimately elected and so is the current National Conference regime. Moreover, Kashmiris have many rights (through Article 370) that Indians who reside in other parts of the country do not have.
> We accept that because of the circumstances of Kashmir’s accession, there may have been separatist sentiment in the years following 1947. Certainly, we have faced secessionist movements in many parts of India — Tamil Nadu, Nagaland, Punjab, etc — but in every case we have managed to fulfil the aspirations of the people and quell the separatist sentiment. But what is it about Kashmir that despite our best efforts, this generation of Kashmiris, born many years after 1947, continues to demand secession?
> More mystifying for us is that we don’t know what the Kashmiris want. Who in his right mind would want union with today’s troubled Pakistan? Who wouldn’t prefer India’s success story to the Pakistani saga of national collapse?
> Nor does Pakistan have any record of treating its non-Punjabi minorities well. Bangladesh seceded after the Pakistani army launched a genocide. The Baluchs were massacred by the same army. And PoK is hardly a shining advertisement for the virtues of Pakistani citizenship.
> Some Kashmiris say they want independence from both India and Pakistan. But it is staggeringly obvious that an independent state of Kashmir, with no industry to speak of, would last for 15 minutes without subsidies from India or Pakistan. Worse still, such a state would probably be run according to strict Shariat law, denying rights to women and offering safe haven to the world’s jihadis. You would have to be very naive to believe that America or any great power would support the creation of such a state.
> So, why then are Kashmiris destroying their future in a mad and pointless insurrection? I don’t think most Indians know the answer but we suspect that it might have to do with religion. In today’s secular India, religion is no longer a crucial determinant of political behaviour. We find the notion of a state founded only on religious identity old-fashioned and bizarre.
> But clearly, religion matters more to the separatists than anything else. The state has three parts, all of which get the same deal from the Centre. But it is only in the Valley, which is nearly all Muslim (after the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits) that secession finds many takers. This single-minded pursuit of an Islamic future sets Kashmiri separatists apart from Indian Muslims who have accepted a secular polity and feel no kinship with their Kashmiri brethren’s political demands.
> But because Kashmiri secessionism flows from an Islamist ideology, it poses special problems for India. I suspect that many of us are now so fed up that we would be relieved to be rid of the Valley but for our fears for the future of Indian secularism. At some level, we wonder if this would not be a second Partition and we are afraid of what Kashmir’s secession would mean for India’s thriving Muslim minority.
> Ironically, it is this sentiment based on nothing more than a desire to protect Indian secularism that allows the separatists to tell the world that India is full of chauvinist Hindus who send their armies to attack Kashmiri Muslims. It is an old lie. It is a variation of the same untruth that the Muslim League spread in the run-up to Partition. Indian secularism survived that lie. And no matter how much the Kashmiri separatists may misrepresent our position now, both India and its secularism will triumph again.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _________________________________________
> 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