Kashmir,Azadi and Arundhati Roy
UPDATE from SAJA Forum, articles, news and comments here
UPDATE: Arundhati’s brutally frank piece where she asks this question:
The unimaginable sums of public money that are needed to keep the military occupation of Kashmir going is money that ought by right to be spent on schools and hospitals and food for an impoverished, malnutritioned population in India. What kind of government can possibly believe that it has the right to spend it on more weapons, more concertina wire and more prisons in Kashmir?
“India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India.”
Another UPDATE from Kashmir Affairs group on facebook – the video (not for the faint-hearted) below shows how Kashmiri ‘Islamic terrorists’ are being fought by the paramilitary forces.:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-elc3s14_Og]
Arundhati Roy is a rare, independent voice in the mainstream shrill. Her statement on Kashmir is a unique sentiment of nailing the problem when all others are busy singing to the tunes of jingoism, communalism, terrorism and of course the Pakistani ‘hand’. This report is a little sample:
SRINAGAR: Activist and author Arundhati Roy, who was present at the massive Monday rally, said that the people of Kashmir have made themselves abundantly clear.
“And if no one is listening then it is because they don’t want to hear. Because this is a referendum. People don’t need anyone to represent them; they are representing themselves. As somebody who has followed people’s movements and who has been in rallies and at the heart or the edge of things, I don’t think you can dispute what you see here,” she told TOI .
Roy also said that “since the 1930s, there have been debates and disputes about who has the right to represent the Kashmiri people, whether it was Hari Singh or Sheikh Abdullah or someone else. And the debate continues till today whether it is the Hurriyat or some other party.”
Then she added, “But I think today the people have represented themselves.”
Roy concluded with words, “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India.”
http://www.kashmir-information.com/
Overlooked and Ignored- Kashmiri Hindus
by Roopa Bakshi
Kash_Hindus-_camp_Gita_Bhavan.jpg (66817 bytes) Kasmiri_hindus-USCR-Hiram_A_Ruiz.jpg (14499 bytes)
350,000 Kashmiri Hindus have been displaced from their homes as a result of terrorism in Kashmir. They live in camps in Jammu and Delhi. – AP Photos, Ajit Kumar
Kashmir was once an idyllic state. Hindus, the original inhabitants of this lost paradise, have a 5000 year history in the area, documented by local and visiting historians. The Muslim presence became significant only in the fourteenth century , largely due to forced conversions by the invading Muslim armies, who eventually stayed on to rule, and also because a mass exodus of Hindus, fleeing this persecution, left few (Hindus) in the area. There was another face of Islam that entered Kashmir – the Sufis who were also fleeing persecution in Iran, Iraq and other areas of central Asia. The Sufis brought with them a gentle message of ‘live and let live’ in stark contrast to the persecution of Hindus by the earlier waves of Muslim invasions – waves that destroyed their places of worship, killed them or forced them into converting to Islam. However, it was the gentler side of Islam that survived and prevailed over the years in Kashmir – until recently.
The last six hundred years saw the evolution of a tradition of peaceful co-existence and religious tolerance and friendship that transcended faith. The Sufis invited the remaining Hindus, now in a minority, to use their place of worship known as ‘Ziarat’, for many temples had been destroyed. This practice of a common place of worship – a concept that may sound Utopian to many – became the norm. Over the years Kashmir became an example for the rest of the world – an example for all the right ideals of secularism. However, the partition of India in 1947 changed it all.
Robert Marquand, writing on the Kashmir conflict says, “… like some epic custody battle between two selfish and unyielding parents, little concern has been paid by Pakistan and India to the stability and integrity of the Kashmiri “child” …Today, rooftops are being rebuilt on a row of burned-out houses in the swanky Hindu part of old town Srinagar. This neighborhood was torched in 1992 during a Muslim insurgency that drove 250,000 Hindus out of Kashmir, about 98 percent of them. But the new sound of pounding hammers does not tell a sweet story of return and renewal. The Hindus, a crucial part of this paradisiacal Himalayan valley, are not coming back. At least not now. Moderate Kashmiris say what has been destroyed is something called “kashmiriat” – an invisible but palpable understanding that Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and others would live together peaceably.”
Today, almost 55 years after the partition, the culture of secularism has been eroded and replaced by culture of fundamentalism. The Sufi places of worship lie disused and new mosques, built with money from Muslim countries, have taken over. The sermons delivered in these mosques, delivered by clerics not from Kashmir, speak not the language of love and compassion, but of hate.There has been yet another wave of Hindu exodus – more violent than the earlier ones – one that has uprooted them from their homes and homeland. More than 350,000 Kashmiri Hindus were compelled to leave Kashmir. The Kashmir Overseas Association (KOA) has described the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits as “ethnic cleansing of an indigenous minority. The Kashmiri Pandits are a peace-loving minority population that for decades played by the rules set by the Muslim majority of the state. For no fault of their own, other than their religion, the population was targeted for barbarous acts and driven out of the valley. This is ethnic cleansing whether or not one chooses to use that term.” Their property was destroyed or taken over by the militant Islamic groups, and thousands were brutally killed. Most of these 350,000 have remained a part of this ever-increasing statistic. They live in torn, ragged tents or one-room tenements constructed for them in Delhi and Jammu. They survive on meagre rations and hope that one day they may be able to return home. The Kashmiri Sikhs and moderate Kashmiri Muslims have also fled the wrath of fundamentalism and terrorism. About 1500 Muslim families and 1800 Sikh families have been the targets of Islamic militancy as well. It is estimated that there are still around 10,000 Hindus who have chosen to stay behind in Kashmir.
Kashmiri Hindus, or Kashmiri Pandits as they are generally known, have had the highest literacy rate among all groups in India. Their liberal, broad-minded and secular views made them good teachers. And their small numbers and polite and passive temperament also makes them easy to ignore and to be overlooked. It is not that they are not missed by their Muslim friends and colleagues back in Kashmir. As Qudsia Shah, former president of the women’s college in Srinagar stated to Marquand, “The exodus of Hindus is not good for Kashmir. We Muslims are the losers…Academic standards have dropped, to say the least.” The new ethos is that of Islamic fundamentalist education, veiled little schoolgirls, and women in purdah – in a land that was once happy and at peace. A new gun-culture has replaced the culture of harmony that once epitomised ‘the rich, artistic, syncretic culture’ of the valley. “The real tragedy is that the music, dance, literary tradition, the rich syncretic culture of Kashmir, have been destroyed or forgotten.”- Amitabh Mattoo, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. Dr. Mattoo is hopeful though of the future, “You can’t forever silence a centuries-old tradition in 10 years,” he says. “Kashmiriat will come back, though it might take some time.”
Wanchoo, a businessman who chose to stay back in Kashmir, told Sonia Jabbar in an interview, that “‘We will never leave Kashmir, and we don’t believe in a separate homeland. This is our homeland and we wish to live in peace here. As for the killings, well it’s a problem faced by all Kashmiris, not just the Hindus. Everyday you read that 8-10 people have been killed and they’re usually Muslims. But the militants must realize that they only get discredited when they kill the minorities.” His wife, also in an interview with Sonia Jabbar of Asia Times, related an experience which made her smile with delight and hope. ”At a wedding recently a whole lot of us had gathered after a long, long time – Muslim women as well as Sikh and Pandit women – and we really had fun, singing and dancing late into the night just as we used to before the militancy started. As I was turning in to sleep I heard the Muslim women whispering among themselves in the kitchen. ‘After so long,’ they said, ‘after so many years all of us have come together. It’s true, isn’t it, that a garden is most beautiful when there is a profusion of many kinds of flowers.”
Yet, the hands that tend this garden have overlooked and ignored ‘ the original flora’ of the garden – the Kashmiri Pandits. They are seldom included in any debate or discussion on problems or solutions to Kashmir. Their passivity and gentleness makes it so easy to do so.
I as a kashmiri Pundit and living in Kashmir certainly share some of the concerns of Kali about the Kashmiri Pundits who left kashmir in early nineties. But after looking at some of the links Kali has posted suggest her association with panun kashmir.
I would want to take this opportunity to say that Kashmiri Pundits living in kashmir totally disassociate themselves with Panun kashmir which they think is spreading communal hatred and have been spearheading attacks on Mosques and muslims in Jammu. We kashmiri pundits have nothing to do with them. These are the people who have sold their properties in kashmir and have no intentions to return to valley and are creating problems for common kashmiris Hindus by flaring communal tention. They dont represent common kashmiri pundit,
We kashmiri pundits have nothing to do with them. These are the people who have sold their properties in kashmir and have no intentions to return to valley and are creating problems for common kashmiris Hindus by flaring communal tention.
Mwahahahaah!!!!! Kashmiris have every intention to return to their lands once they can live there in peace . They are not people to die out easily. I can smell a fake from miles–did’not you know I have a sixth sense?
“spearheading attacks on Mosques and muslims in Jammu.”
You really know to speak a load of crap don’t you? You might fool everyone Mahmoud but believe we recognize our people from miles and you certainly ain’t one.
Ciao
One last thing– this site represses facts and prints opinions of Muslims no matter if they happen to be pretending to be Pandits with the name of Sunil: FACT.They will never be able to erase the Hindu and Buddhist roots of the valley, Pandits have a 3000 year attachment to the valley–they want their lands back and with enough dedicated individuals all over the world to help them, they will one day obtain their lands. Belonging to one organization or another is irrelevant: all Pandits have right on their side, were expelled by Muslim fanatics and want to live in their ancestral lands it is their RIGHT–nothing more, nothing less–
Anway I have already explained all I need to and they have selectively printed the facts I presented, not the entire unabridged version.
No more to say because it involves arguing with fakes like Sunil.
So have no desire to take part in this discussion. Muslims taking the name of Pandits like Sunil can say all that they want now.
Kali
Among all the visitors who leave a comment, you are the one with a fake name and a fake email id. I have told you time and again that you have said enough but like all hysterical polemicists you are repeating yourself ad nauseum. Have mercy on yourself and also the readers and this site that has not been created for communal discords and hate-mongering. You spread the poison through your vicious comments and people had to respond.
thanks and just leave us alone in peace…..
Kali You can’t muzzle our voice. We subscribe to the views of pundits like Sanjay Kak. Here is the link what he thinks about kashmir. And don’t forget to watch Jashan-e-azadi and see what your sixth sense tells you.
http://socialistworker.org/2008/09/08/anatomy-of-the-crisis
http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=10_9_2008&ItemID=57&cat=1
This is what they do when cameras are around. Imagine what did to these kids in custody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gbWI8QHitA&feature=related
The Azadi We Need
Prompted by the Arundhati Roy article, Umair Ahmed Muhajir in his critique dismisses the “Azadi” call in Kashmir since he sees it as an attempt to carve out another “Nation State” out of the existing Indian “Nation State”.
http://www.outlookindia.com/fullprint.asp?choice=1&fodname=20080904&fname=umair&sid=1
The Azadi We Need
The azadi demanded by the Kashmiri movement, and used by Roy as a rallying cry, is not the answer. The freedom we need is azadi from the mindset that thinks of peoples and communities only in terms of nation-states; and equally, an azadi that demands that the Indian state honour its promise, to itself and to us.
UMAIR AHMED MUHAJIR
Towards the end of her impassioned piece calling for azadi for Kashmir, Arundhati Roy pauses to reflect on what might follow azadi in Kashmir, wondering what an independent Kashmir might mean, including what the independence demanded by the state’s Muslim majority might mean for the state’s religious or other minorities. She does well not to linger, because the thought experiment illustrates precisely what is most problematic about “national movements”, namely that they are unable to think the political except through the prism of nation-states.
National movements, that is to say, see themselves as nation-states-in-waiting, and do not see any political horizon beyond that of the nation-state. So was it with the Indian national movement, and its inability to think the difference that might have been capacious enough to house the country’s Muslim-majority regions; so it definitely was with the Muslim League and its two-nation theory, even more wedded to the siren song of European-style nationalism transplanted to a colonial setting; and so it is with the “copycat” nationalisms that have followed, be it Kashmir, or Punjab, or Nagaland. The failure to imagine a nation-state different from the traditional European model, the shoe-horning of Indian communitarian identities, into models conceived with the likes of Germany and England in mind, paved the way for the catastrophes of partition. The “belated” nationalisms of the post-partition sub-continent demonstrate the truth of Marx’s depressing observation, namely that we learn from history that we do not learn from history.
The point is worth making given Roy’s trenchant critiques of the Indian state (in the context of Kashmir, but not only of Kashmir; her essay on the Indian state and dams, The Greater Common Good, is astonishingly powerful). That is, much of Roy’s critique — of the Indian state’s indifference, its callousness, its inhumanity, its cruelty — is (or certainly ought to be) animated not by her target’s Indianness, but by the fact that it is a nation-state, and as such, does what nation-states do: in the final analysis, sacrifice humanity in the service of a larger political project. The distinction is an important one, because nothing in the Kashmiri independence movement suggests that it will throw up anything different; indeed given that the movement aims at a traditional nation-state just like all the others, I submit that it cannot yield a different result. Minority rights? Justice for different communities, and between genders? The outcomes will be better than they are now, we are told by the movement, not because the aims are different from those of the existing Indian state, but because the movement will simply do a better job.
I am skeptical, and not because of the identity (religious or otherwise) of those who comprise the Kashmiri independence movement; I am skeptical because the aim of that movement is congenitally incapable of producing a result that is “better” in some cosmic sense — at most the identities of those disadvantaged will shift, as new disfavoured minorities, new “outsiders”, new “insiders”, and new identity policemen are created. Roy is too sophisticated not to see this, but doesn’t bother to delve into it, pretending that this is merely a question of the Kashmiri separatists not having spelled out their agenda in greater detail as yet.It is not: over half a century ago, Hannah Arendt wrote (in The Origins of Totalitarianism) of the masses of refugees and victims that seemed to accompany the birth of every new nation-state, and nothing has changed, not in the age of South Ossetia, Kosovo, Rwanda, ad nauseum.
Certainly, those of us from the sub-continent should be especially wary of political projects that promise us clean solutions to intractable political problems: we live with the legacies of the bloodbaths of the 1940s, not to mention innumerable later, “lesser” massacres. By all accounts, the leaders of the new nation-states of India and Pakistan were caught by surprise by the scale of the violence in 1947; they had evidently internalized the logic of colonialism, pursuant to which communitarian difference presents a political “problem” that may be solved by means of creative cartography and judicious population transfers. Conceptual neatness is one of the hallmarks of the colonial mindset (thinking of Cyril Radcliffe, who could doubt it?). Unfortunately, reality is anything but, and the sub-continent’s leaders — and, even more importantly, its people — should have learned long ago that partitions are not the solution to people’s inability to live together; rather, the mindset that vests its faith in drawing easily-policed borders is a mindset that demands enemies. It is a mindset that, in the final analysis, demands that facts on the ground correspond to the political project of the nation-state (and not the other way around). A nation-state for Muslims thus becomes a state virtually free of non-Muslims; a sub-national state where Hindu pride is honoured above all else becomes a state where non-Hindus must know their place.
Why would one ever hope for anything different from a nation-state for Kashmiris, as far as those who don’t fit the bill are concerned? Certainly the region is not short of candidates for stigmatisation (some of this is because India is fantastically diverse; some of it is because nation-states are rather gifted at manufacturing “problematic” identities): Buddhists; Shiites; Gujjars; perhaps even Sunni Muslims who will be deemed insufficiently supportive of the independence movement (the last is hardly far-fetched, as even a casual glance at the history of Algeria or the Khalistan movement, or Kashmir itself during the 1990s, makes clear). Indeed, several hundred thousand Kashmiri Pandits have already been driven off, and it is hard not to see in them a harbinger of more to come.
The above might seem like an odd place from which to maintain a defense of India vis-à-vis Kashmir. It is, on the contrary, a natural vantage point: the idea of an independent Kashmir for Kashmiris must be resisted precisely because, as the experience of the once-colonised has amply illustrated, nation-states are appallingly inhuman. Equally, however, they are not all inhuman in precisely the same way; nor are they all equally inhuman, by which I simply mean that they are not all equally incapable of accommodating human difference, whether communitarian or otherwise. The Germany of 2008 is manifestly not the Germany of 1938; but nor does the Germany of 2008 accommodate ethnic minorities as comfortably as the United States does.
None of this relieves any state of moral responsibility for the horrors it perpetrates; but in order to agitate against horrors, one must first understand what they are.And within the range of nation-states on offer — all of them problematic, all of them complicit in cruelty — it is apparent to me that those premised on explicit notions of religion, language, ethnicity, blood in some sense, are more problematic, more complicit, than those with far more modest litmus tests. The contemporary United States, Brazil, South Africa, and, yes, India, are among the latter group of nation-states; Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Pakistan, and, based on the logic of the movements, the would-be nation-states of Kashmir or Khalistan, are not. Theoretically, one does not need to be other than “wholly Bengali”, “wholly Tamil”, or “wholly Muslim” in order to be utterly Indian; one cannot say the same of Pakistan and its Hindus citizens, and the religious colour of the Kashmiri movement means it is almost inconceivable that this won’t be true of an independent Kashmir as well (even leaving aside the obvious ethnic dimension).
Indeed, even if one were to take the likes of Yasin Malik at their word, they promise no more than Jawaharlal Nehru did, that is to say a secular state where all who live in Kashmir, of whatever ethnicity or religious persuasion, will be equal in the eyes of the state; why and how could such a project — essentially the same Nehruvian show on a smaller stage — yield a better result? On the contrary, all the signs are that an independent Kashmir would be more like Pakistan than India: not because both are Muslim majority (that is irrelevant to the point I am making), but because both movements are explicitly predicated on a favoured community that is less than everyone who lives within the state’s borders.
Why does any of this matter? Because nation-states where “second-class” citizenship is implicit — think the United States prior to de-segregation; I assume Roy would include India; but really one could argue some are always more equal than others in all nation-states — can be called out on their failures. Such nation-states are guilty of hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is not the worst sin; indeed hypocrisy, by opening up a gap between theory and practice, between promise and reality, makes it possible to hold a mirror up to the state, to try and compel it to honour its own promise to itself; and enables us to argue that the nation-state is only imperfectly itself until it takes a good long look in that mirror.
In short, the point is that while the Jim Crow South is unforgiveable, the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” moment are possible in a USA where actual practice made a mockery of the nation-state’s constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the laws; they would not be possible in the face of apartheid South Africa, which could not be reformed, simply destroyed. It is far more difficult, perhaps insurmountably so, to call the nation-state to task where it has promised and can promise nothing different than what it offers (one can rebel and try and dismantle the state, but one can’t make it see the problem): beyond a point, a “Pakistan for Pakistanis”, that is to say for Pakistanis of all religious persuasions, would make no sense, and would undermine the national idea (substitute “ethnicities” for “religious communities” and the idea of Pakistan becomes more flexible; it should come as no surprise that the movement for ethnic justice, greater federalism, and rights for smaller provinces, has far more legs in Pakistan than any movement for the rights of religious minorities; ethnicity illustrates the potential flexibility, but also the limits, of the idea of Pakistan; and even with respect to ethnicity, the difference of even a Bengali Muslim identity that was deemed “too Hindu” could not be accommodated within the state).
A “Kashmir for Kashmiris” is far closer to the idea of Pakistan than to the Nehru’s India, and perhaps closest of all to Bangladesh, seeking to compress both 1947 and 1971 in one secessionist moment. Roy would do well to remember the “Biharis” stranded in refugee camps in Bangladesh since 1971, Muslim but not Bangladeshi enough; and she herself mentions the 1971 genocide of Bengalis by the Pakistani army, who were not Muslim enough. The promise of the Kashmiri movement combines both of these nightmares.
None of this is about the decency or lack thereof of Mirwaiz Farooq, or Yasin Malik, or anyone else. The question isn’t whether these are or are not upstanding politicians who genuinely believe that Kashmir belongs to all Kashmiris, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or Sikh, or not; the more important question concerns the logic of what they let loose in the world (more accurately, the logic that they and would-be nationalists of all stripes have attempted to replicate for decades). The azadi demanded by the Kashmiri movement, and used by Roy as a rallying cry, is not the answer to that question; the freedom we need is azadi from the mindset that thinks of peoples and communities only in terms of nation-states; and equally, an azadi that demands that the Indian state honour its promise, to itself and to us.
The nation-state as political Alpha and Omega was problematic in its European birthplaces to begin with; to continue to cling to it as the last best hope of ethnic or religious minorities in milieus like India’s (or Africa’s, or the Balkans’; pick your poison), in the wake of the man-made disasters that have befallen us over the last century, is nothing short of bankrupt.
(Umair Ahmed Muhajir is based in New York City. When not blogging at qalandari.blogspot.com or contributing to naachgaana.com, he makes a living as a lawyer.)
Consequent to this very competently and forcefully argued out position of Umair Ahmed Muhajir, I have been asking a set of questions which I think are of extreme importance for anyone who is interested in Kashmir.
I have also analysed Umair Ahmed Mujajir’s article and in doing so laid down a structure (hopefully without misrepresenting what Umair said/meant) that would lead to the asking of those questions in connection with the “Kashmir Azadi”.
THE QUESTIONS
1. When “Azadi” is spoken about in connection with Kashmir, what is the geography of that “Kashmir”?
2. The ‘contours of the movement’ and ‘elements of Azadi‘ in Indian Controlled Kashmir are fairly well know even if not well understood. If the “geography” of the Kashmir “Azadi” covers the ‘erstwhile Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir as it stood Pre-1947-Partition’ then what are the ‘contours of the movement’ and the ‘elements of Azadi’ in Pakistan Controlled Kashmir? What are the synergies between the two? When and How will the two merge?
3. If the Kashmir “Azadi” does not cover Pakistan Controlled Kashmir, Why not?
4. Will the Kashmir “Azadi” lead to a “New Country”?
5. How will this New Nation State be better than the Indian Nation State as far as Indian Controlled Kashmir is concerned? What will make it better?
6. What will the Constitution (briefly) of this New Country be?
7. On what specific points will the Constitution of this New Country be different from the Constitution of India? In what specific aspects will the Constitution of this New Country be better than the Constitution of India?
THE ANALYSIS OF UMAIR AHMED MUHAJIR’s ARTICLE
There are many people in whom one can see a confluence of what are two basically contradictory positions. They are dismissive of the “Nation State” and “Nationalism” and at the same time are supportive of the Kashmir “Azadi”.
There is an inherent hypocrisy in this because all that they are doing is seeking to reject Indian Nationalism and favouring Kashmir Nationalism even as they elsewhere constantly proclaim that they are ‘against’ Nationalism and ‘against’ the concept of Nation States.
In his very competently written piece, UAM dismisses the “Azadi” call in Kashmir since he sees it as an attempt to carve out another “Nation State” out of the existing Indian “Nation State”.
UAM’s repugnance is for a Nation State of any hue. His dismissal of Kashmir “Azadi” (and of Arundhati Roy’s “rallying cry” in its support) is based on questioning what, in the the name of “Azadi,” is being sought to be “let loose on the world” and questioning “the logic that they and would-be nationalists of all stripes have attempted to replicate for decades”.
In UAM’s view, all of this Kashmir “Azadi” movement(s), if successful, would only lead to yet another “Nation State” and so he finds no merit in it. The “Azadi” that UAM is looking for is described by him as “the freedom we need is azadi from the mindset that thinks of peoples and communities only in terms of nation-states”.
On a personal note – in UAM’s favoured recognition of “Azadi” I too subscribe to the expansiveness of attitude that one should not think of “peoples and communities” ONLY in terms of Nation States. I say that to and for myself, as one who subscribes to and fervently argues in support of Nation States since I see them as (currently at least) the only credible practically functional system for organized societies. Without any qualification, I completely share UAM’s desire for “an azadi that demands that the Indian state honour its promise, to itself and to us.”
UAM does not contest Arundhati Roy’s “critique — of the Indian state’s indifference, its callousness, its inhumanity, its cruelty” since UAM recognizes that India as a Nation State “does what nation-states do: in the final analysis, sacrifice humanity in the service of a larger political project.”
At the same time UAM says with confidence that “nothing in the Kashmiri independence movement suggests that it will throw up anything different; indeed given that the movement aims at a traditional nation-state just like all the others, I submit that it cannot yield a different result.”
Giving examples of “Minority rights? Justice for different communities, and between genders?” UAM does not see any difference in the aims of the (Azadi) ‘movement’ and those of the “existing Indian state”.
UAM rather sarcastically tells Arundhati Roy that she did “well not to linger” over her “thought experiment” where she wondered “what the independence demanded by the state’s Muslim majority might mean for the state’s religious or other minorities”. UAM suggests that “”””identities of those disadvantaged will shift, as new disfavoured minorities, new “outsiders”, new “insiders”, and new identity policemen””””””
UAM finds disingenuous any sidelining of such concerns with any excuse that it was “merely a question of the Kashmiri separatists not having spelled out their agenda in greater detail as yet”. UAM asks “Why would one ever hope for anything different from a nation-state for Kashmiris, as far as those who don’t fit the bill are concerned?”
Even as UAM sees little hope for Kashmir “Azadi” not resulting in “refugees” and “victims”, he argues against the Kashmir “Azadi” by saying “people — should have learned long ago that partitions are not the solution to people’s inability to live together; rather, the mindset that vests its faith in drawing easily-policed borders is a mindset that demands enemies. ……..A nation-state for Muslims thus becomes a state virtually free of non-Muslims; a sub-national state where Hindu pride is honoured above all else becomes a state where non-Hindus must know their place.”
UAM does not place any trust in the “outcomes” from the Kashmir “Azadi” being any better than the situations in the “existing Indian state” just on the the basis of “being told by the movement” that the “movement will simply do a better job.” Sounding skeptical about the “secular” drumbeats of the “likes of Yasin Malik” he sees them, even if accepted, as being no different from the “Nehruvian show on a smaller stage” and sees no reason for believing that they would “yield a better result”
UAM reckons that a “Kashmir for Kashmiris” is in fact further away from Nehru’s India and more like the idea of Pakistan and Bangladesh. He fears that “The promise of the Kashmiri movement combines both of these nightmares.” (The killings, displacements and creation of disadvantaged groups).
I just could not put my finger on it. UAM makes an intriguing statement that both the Kashmir and Pakistan movements are “explicitly predicated on a favoured community that is less than everyone who lives within the state’s borders.” This has many possible interpretations but UAM makes it clear that “Muslim majority” is not what he is talking about.
UAM sees “second class citizenship” implicit in the Kashmir “Azadi” and sees that as hypocritical when compared to (taken from his Blog and is not included in the Outlook article) “nation-states where “second-class” citizenship is explicit, where it is part of the very logic of the state.”
UAM brings about a fascinating distinction between Nation States where some are better than the others although he considers them all accountable in the “moral responsibility for the horrors it perpetrates” and “all of them problematic, all of them complicit in cruelty”
UAM finds more complicit and more problematic the group of Nation States like “Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Pakistan, and, based on the logic of the movements, the would-be nation-states of Kashmir or Khalistan” since they are “premised on explicit notions of religion, language, ethnicity”
Against them he finds better the group of Nation States like “the contemporary United States, Brazil, South Africa, and, yes, India”. As UAM puts it “Theoretically, one does not need to be other than “wholly Bengali”, “wholly Tamil”, or “wholly Muslim” in order to be utterly Indian; one cannot say the same of Pakistan and its Hindus citizens, and the religious colour of the Kashmiri movement means it is almost inconceivable that this won’t be true of an independent Kashmir as well (even leaving aside the obvious ethnic dimension).”
http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=21_9_2008&ItemID=40&cat=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr23JagzkAw
Hi,
Here’s the other side of the argument. Feel free to stop by and post your thoughts and comments.
Best,
Rudra
http://medhajournal.com/content/view/514/
Rudra,
You have made a good case but unfortunately on false premise, What actually you mean by saying,
“(who roamed freely in the valley long before the Moslems arrived)?”
Are you saying Muslims in kashmir came from outside, Well if you mean that then i would humbly suggests you to do some research before making sweeping statements. Some Muslims may have come from out side and preached the faith, but the hindu masses converted to Islam under the influence of these travelers.
I dont want to get into any kind of discussion with you what is better for kashmirs or what about the Kashmiri pundits. of course they are a part of kashmir, I tend to let you win all the argument but kashmiri (Muslims) see this what you call “terrorism” as their freedom struggle like Indians see their freedom struggle against Britisth.
http://greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=20_11_2008&ItemID=2&cat=12
See how even this blog became a discussion about everything except the Kashmiris.No matter whether Kashmir goes to Pakistan or remains with India,the lot of Kashmiris will remain the same.they are just pawns bcause of their geographical location.They might be with ‘Hindu’ India(actually India is multi ethnic and muli religious) or might go to ‘Islamic’ Pakistan but their interests will always take a back seat.And forget about Kasmiri independence.The moment India lets it go it will be gobbled up by Pakistan and then shared as “small tukdey” with China.
Only way forward is to let Pakistan have their Punjabised POK and India to have what it has and India should do away with that destructice clause(article 360) and let Kashmir regain its Kashmiriyat that was muli polar.This turning it into a mainly muslim state has hampered its integration with India.
There should be justice in all pieces (tukdey)… whether those pieces (tukdas) are held / administered by the Govt. of India., or the Govt. of Pakistan. Period. Indian Army’s behavior (which is documented) has alienated the Kashmiri hearts and minds. 60 years of physical possession was period long enough to have accomplished winning the battle of the hearts and minds. With every Gujarat 2002, Kashmir inches away. If 90% Hindu Gujarat can integrate with India., 90% Kashmir MUST also integrate with India… provided the rules of the game that are applied (and justified) in Gujarat… are applied to J&K too. How many Muslim IAS officers are posted in Gujarat ? How many policemen ? Compare it with J&K. Almost all “crucial” postings are held by non-muslims… and on top of it.. there is the fine secular humane Indian Army (700,000 strong). Soldiers /Judges / Bureaucrats do not fall from the sky. They come from society. We are seeing Lt. Gen. Purohit’s true character peel off.. from the relevations ! We are seeing the true color of Saints and Sadhvis… the true colours of Lt. Gen’s… the true colours of self-appointed Sankaracharyas.. and Doctors… !
Fact of the matter is., that India is pre-dominantly a Hindu Country (and by Hindu.. it may have its divisions.. but it is united on one thing.. it is something that is NOT muslim). Fine… Great.. History is presenting India with an opportunity to choose from 2 options.
Choose the idea of a progressive India or RSS. It cant have both. The path of RSS will lead to destruction and turn India into Afghanistan. Unfortunately Congress… Sonia… Rahul… do not have the stature to tutor the nation.. to explain to the nation.. win their hearts and minds to the ARGUMENT… that RSS is worst than AIDS for the Hindu Religion… and for the Hindu Society. Savarkar’s Hindutva will destroy Hinduism… though it will provide some thrill and excitement in the short-term.
There is a history of the Mongols.. and their destruction. Hate destroys its practitioner in the long term.
RSS presents an intellectual challenge to the IDEA of India. Sonia/Rahul must take this bull by its horns…and save India.. There is a price to that risk. Electoral Defeat… Let the Congress lose 10 elections in a row… but never compromise on the ideals. If Congress fields BJP-rejects… and accepts Vaghelas.. (Soft Hindutva).. and shies away from the IDEA of India.. makes compromises on the way… it will pave the way for BJP/RSS to power… and once in power… these RSS ; this RSS/Police/Army combination (Safforn in Uniform) ; these Sadhus.. .these self-appointed Sankaracharyas… will destroy India… and turn it into a rubble.
Congress Party has to sacrifice for the IDEA of India., and take the hate-bank politics of RSS/BJP by its horns. There are no soft options.
Save India or Save RSS. The choice is for India to make.
Dastgir sahib we Hindus are not a monolithic entity and as such the danger of our going the Afghan way are a bit remote,no matter what your convictions.Aap to RSS ki nafrat ke chashme se hi dekhte hain sab kuch……aap ko kis ne keh diya ki hum sab RSS ko fiollow karte hain?
Baki Congress ki reality bhi kuch aur hi hai….they have the longest history of using the Muslims as nothing more than a vote bank and then keeping them in a corner lest they see the truth if they develop and prosper.Kiya kya Congress ne Muslims ke liye?
Hate destroys its practitioner in the long term.
And this line you wrote might be a good thing to remember going ahead.I do not see much love in your comments.
THE TRAP – CHAKKI KE DO PAA`T !
On a civilisational / community level, there is a “love” and “peace” of the weak, which does not hold water. The fire of evil spreads quick like the forest-fire – the plant of love is feeble and needs constant nurturing (over decades and generations). This is the ETERNAL fight for the good versus the evil (that resides in man).
RSS is India’s greatest enemy. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mrs. Sarojini Naidu.. represented the finest and eclectic traditions of Hinduism. Narendra Modi and Sadhvi Pragya represent the uglier side… but UGLINESS and CHEAP-STUFF sells quick… attracts quick attention. Like vulgar literature, it sells quick and sells hot. In the short term, it may provide some THRILL… but in the long term… it is making young Hindu boys into killers and rapists. The same principle (yard-stick) applies to the Mullah.. or the Bishop.
Preach your religion.. praise your religion.. but DO NOT preach hatred for the other… cuz then.. you arouse the evil in man. A cult of “mob-violence” is built. Nazis of Germany / RSS / Savarkar / Sadhvi / Modi / Togadia / VHP / etc. etc. represent the tradition to build groups… and unleash mob-violence in society against “THE OTHER”. They cannot survive for one-day without hatred for the other. Inki Gaadi NAFRAT ke FUEL par chalti hai.
Congress (Soft Hindutva) is the lesser evil. Indian Muslims (15% of the total population – but in terms of jobs – loans – army – RAW – Medical – Engineering – IIT – IIM etc. where do they stand… it is clear to all those who have read 400 pages of the Sachar Report. I was foolish enough to read the whole of that Report – and tried to assimilate those facts/statistics). It shows a real picture. There is the eternal excuse : “But where are qualified muslims… “.. OK.. this is a bunch of illiterates.. so be it.. What is their percentage in Class IV jobs… what is the percentage of loans provided to the unemployed Muslim auto-rickshaw-wallas ? The discrimination is glaring and the silence is deafening.
A society to be healthy and thriving must be “all inclusive”. Muslims must NOT get any special favours done unto them.. cuz they pray differently… but where they are qualified… their religion (way of prayer) must not be a factor to their dis-advantage… whether it be in opportunities of education.. jobs.. loans.. allotment of paatas… and most importantly… SECURITY of LIFE, HONOR and PROPERTY. Rich muslims pay taxes fear-fully cuz the wrath of the Govt. falls rather hardly on Muslims ! In the Abolition of Zamindari Act 1952… the hard-hand fell on Muslim Zamindars.. who became poor over-night. Today I see my Hindu friends holding 400 acres of land ! A way was found out.. “The Hindu Undivided Family Act’.. so 500.. 400.. 300 acres were held by families.
A society can survive without religion… but not without justice. This principle is universal for a healthy society.. and applies to India (however layered it may be)… and to Pakistan and to Bangladesh and others.
The danger of RSS is not coming to the front page of TIME… Newsweek.. Reuters… Der Speigel… Washington Post.. and NYT… because like a coward who beats his wife within his home.. or hut… RSS is doing its dirty work within the confines of India.. so no one outside is literally bothered. It is taken as bad-tameezi.. domestic violence.. but its ugly face must be exposed. It is the job of scholars.. academicians.. to devote their whole lives… and document the ugly and the dirty work done by RSS which is the largest terrorist organisation in the world.
Nazi Party also represented an ideology… there were people who loved that ideology… but where did it take Germany to ? India can pull on with its poverty.. illiteracy.. disease.. and with all its layers of deprivation… BUT there must be PEACE ON THE GROUND (de-facto peace…). Constitution of India is being challenged by the RSS… who are hiding swords and trishuls in safforn silk. A gun covered by safforn silk is still a weapon… and a threat to society.
Dirty work produces dirty results. If they do it in Afghanistan., it produces an Afghanistan. If they do it in India., it will produce the same results. The Hindus have shown great wisdom… great restraint… but the BRAIN-WASHING of RSS.. .thru the media.. movies.. literature.. songs.. political leaders (the biggest or atleast the 2nd biggest political party in the country).. it is devastating the hindu mind. Just imagine.. how would a 16 year old take it. What is taught in the 100,000 schools run by the RSS. What is in those books ? Have anyone taken the care to read those books.. Has anyone cared to hear.. and document the dirty talk tnat emanates from those lectures ?
Anyone propogating hatred must be removed from society. I am civil enough.. but freedom of speech of 100 people must be curtailed for 100 crores to sleep peacefully. Of whatever community.. whatever name.
RSS ka deep (earlier the symbol of Janasangh) India / Bharat ko jalaa dega. RSS is turning Hindu boys into “mobs”… instigating them to enjoy the thrill… chase muslim girls.. (burka-wali ka peecha karo.. said a prominent BJP Leader in a public meeting).. rape.. murder.. steal their belongings.. their utensils.. their TV sets.. kill them and occupy their property.. where will this all lead to ? 50 years from now… it would lead to a community of criminals… it will change the sociological make-up.. the DNA genome of Hindus… and then the destruction begins.. slowly..
Have you read Ibn Khaldoun’s “Preface” or Introduction (which has survived history ! It is a marvellous treatise… and applies to all.. Hindus.. Muslims.. etc. Hindus must stand and ask RSS… where was RSS when 25 lakh poor Hindus were suffering the wrath of River Kosi in Bihar ? Where is RSS when a poor Hindu girl is to be married ? Where is RSS when a poor Hindu is sick ? Where is RSS when a poor Hindu suffers some calamity ??? Why does RSS appear only to make hate-speeches… and turn ordinary Hindu boys into rapists and crime ? Hindu society must sit down and intro-spect… the DEEMAK that RSS is injecting… to destroy Hinduism. Hinduism has survived 700 years of Muslim Rule.. (and yet remained a majority)… Hinduism has survived 200 yrs of British (Christian) rule.. and yet remained a majority.. but Hinduism cannot survive 1 century of Hindutva Dosage. It will crumble. Hate takes a society to a high-pitch.. and after that.. the down-slide begins. I want Hinduism to regain its eclectic flavour.. snatch Hinduism from the Hindutva goons.. who are (and who will) destroy it.. thru their barbarianism..
As for Indian Muslims they are between 2 stones (Soft Hindutva practiced by congress of Sardar Patel.. Vaghela.. … versus.. Hard Hindutva represented by Modi.. Togadia.. Singhal.. Sadhvi.. That is the reason.. they support Congress.. inspite of knowing the WHOLE truth.. Saanp aur Bich`choo ke beech.. w`oh Bich`choo ko prefer kartey hain.. because it is the lesser evil.
India is blessed with a “diversity”.. that took thousands of years to make. Unfortunately, at the hand of barbarians.. it may get smashed into smithereens in a very short period.
It takes a tree 25 years to grow to full height. The axe of hatred brings it down in 25 minutes.
Jai Hind
I was searching for Blogs about pal grants for college and found this site. I am interested in your content and appreciate sites like this.
We are Pakistanis, Pakistan is ours
wow! its intresting over here, i am a kashmiri pandit,1st i want to answer SUNIL hello sir can you please tell me yout gotra??2nd may be you are agree but i am not,because i know,my grandpa told me after 1989 we were treated like dogs or animals(but not all kashmiri muslim,but the people who were politically apointed)…well i dun want to add on more to this,i dun want to make this topic by telling all the realities…….and mr DATAGIR lz i want to mind you,that you are no one to tell the impression of 80crore hindu or 18crore indian muslim…just i say please stop plaing dirty political game in kashmir…waki apne ap theek ho jayega(and i want to tell you not only my family but a muslim family migrated to central india with us because they want to grow)and we are happy,you people are who to tell us that what we want??why you producing a fire between hindu and muslim???
listen my friends…how many of you know that wular and dal lake of kashmir shrinking?leh is turning into a black desert slowly?
so please i request you all stop talking like non sence and pay attention to other issues,and people i request you plz try to be human being 1st ok.
and answer me a ques if any1 can
CAN ANY1 ONE TELL WHAT WILL HAPEN AFTER DEATH RATHER THAN RELIGIOUS CHAPTER??
Javed Choudry Column (28th july 09)
Sher Akhir Sher Hai
http://www.pkcolumns.com/2009/07/28/sher-akhir-sher-hai-by-javaid-choudry/
Hulk bata, come back to valley, we can discuss this stuff back home on wullar bank or boulevard road, , I miss you guys. Mara wali gare,
Kashmir ki azadi tak sakon nahi hoga.
My book Kashmir:Fractured Nativity(Closed options,open possibilities) has just beenpublished by VDM(Germany).Whatever I have missed in the book ,I feel increasingly inclind to put it now in fiction.
My argument is Kashmir has history of invasions, no other place has been invaded and ruled by non natives,as in case of kashmir.it is not a war for religion or Pakistan`s unfinished agenda of partition.It is a product of invasional history and as an essential product of the Cold war.The demise of the Cold war brought it on faultlines,which further fragmented it.Nativity is beyond religion and closer to culture.Fractured nativity is no freedom.Reinventing nativity would make kashmiri society a healthy society.(For the time being this much).
I agree with Javed Choudry
Kashmir needs azadi from Pakistan like Baluchistan as both territories are acquired deceitfully after ‘Pakistan’ came into being on the bases of ‘Islam’. How long can Pakistanis live in the shadow of their delusional psyche and kill innocent Indians (Hindus, as they are their target to be precise – hint* follow Zaid Hamid) for the sake of their own insecurities. Senseless and ignorant society it is!
As for Madam Roy, you got to shut your gobbledygook or are you waiting for someone close to you getting killed in some terror attack and then only you will come to your senses about your beloved ‘Pakistan’? Madam Roy, write some better books, we haven’t read anything good from you after ‘God of small things’. Maybe your mind got corrupted!
My wounded scars have not yet healed,
In exile, everyday,
my heart bleed…
I too have a voice, you need ears to listen
I too have emotions;
you need a heart to feel it…
I too am a human being, I too have a life,
With eyes open,
you can see my strife..
my politicians don’t want the truth to come out,
They don’t want me to stand by truth,
and shout..
they don’t like bitter truth’s taste,
for them,
my truth is just a waste..
20 years of exiled imprisonment & still Under locks,
my truth has been blocked,
my truth has been locked..
truth strangulated, justice denied,
oh! this is so unfair,
my choked truth is Gasping for air,but my India doesn’t care..
Manish Zijoo