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

[Aditya Raj Baul]

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/>
>
>
>