Does India have a state called Kashmir ? If I am not seriously mistaken,the name of the state is Jammu and Kashmir that comprises of three distinct zones---Ladakh ( Buddhist-majority), Jammu ( Hindu-majority) and Kashmir valley ( Muslim-majority).I don't see similar uprising in Ladakh and Jammu.Ain't those two regions part of the state,known as J&K ? Shouldn't the point of view of those people,living in that two regions be heard ? Why must anyone force the choice of one segment of the state's population upon others ? Should we assume that the people of Ladakh and Jammu are not KASHMIRIS ?
KJD On 10/5/07, Sanjib Baruah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There is a provocative new documentary film on Kashmir. The following > review in Outlook magazine may be of interest to Assamnet. > > > http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20071004&fname=ananya&sid=1&pn=1 > > October 12 2007.. > > Azadi: Theirs And Ours > > By the logic of the Indian state, India is free and Kashmir is a part of > India, ergo, Kashmir too, must be free. But Sanjay Kaks documentary > provides visual attestation for something diametrically opposed to this > logic: the reality of occupation. > > Sanjay Kaks new documentary Jashn-e-Azadi ("How we celebrate freedom") is > aimed primarily at an Indian audience. This two-part film, 138 min long, > explores what Kak calls the "sentiment", namely "azadi" (literally > "freedom") driving the conflict in the India controlled part of Kashmir > for the past 18 years. This sentiment is inchoate: it does not have a > unified movement, a symbol, a flag, a map, a slogan, a leader or any one > party associated with it. Sometimes it means full territorial > independence, and sometimes it means other things. Yet it is real, with a > reality that neither outright repression nor fitful persuasion from India > has managed to dissipate for almost two decades. Howsoever unclear its > political shape, Kashmiris know the emotional charge of azadi, its ability > to keep alive in every Kashmiri heart a sense of struggle, of dissent, of > hope. It is for Indians who do not know about this sentiment, or do not > know how to react to it, that Kak has made his difficult, powerful film. > And it is with Indian audiences that Kak has already had, and is likely to > continue having, the most heated debate. > > Between 1989 and 2007, nearly 100,000 people--soldiers and civilians, > armed militants and unarmed citizens, Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris--lost > their lives to the violence in Kashmir. 700,000 Indian military and > paramilitary troops are stationed there, the largest such armed presence > in what is supposedly peace time, anywhere in the world. Both residents of > and visitors to Kashmir in recent years already know what Kaks film brings > home to the viewer: how thoroughly militarized the Valley is, > criss-crossed by barbed wire, littered with bunkers and sand-bags, dotted > with men in uniform carrying guns, its roads bearing an unending stream of > armoured vehicles up and down a landscape that used to be called, echoing > the words of the Mughal Emperor Jehangir, Paradise on earth. Other places > so mangled by a security apparatus as to make it impossible for life to > proceed normally immediately come to mind: occupied Palestine, occupied > Iraq. > > Locals, especially young men, must produce identification at all the > check-posts that punctuate the land, or during sudden and frequent > operations described by the dreaded words "crackdown" and "cordon and > search". Kaks camera shows us that even the most ordinary attempt to cross > the city of Srinagar, or travel from one village to another is fraught > with these security checks, as though the entire Valley were a gigantic > airport terminal and every man were a threat to every other. As soldiers > insultingly frisk folks for walking about in their own places, the > expressions in their eyes--anger, fear, resignation, frustration, > irritation, or just plain embarrassment--say it all. In one scene men are > lined up, and some of them get their clothes pulled and their faces > slapped while they are being searched. Somewhere beneath all these daily > humiliations burns the unnamed sentiment: azadi. > > One reason that there is no Indian tolerance for this word in the context > of Kashmir is that the desire for "freedom" immediately implies that its > opposite is the case: Kashmir is not free. By the logic of the Indian > state, India is free and Kashmir is a part of India, ergo, Kashmir too, > must be free. But Kaks images provide visual attestation for something > diametrically opposed to this logic: the reality of occupation. Kashmir is > occupied by Indian troops, somewhat like Palestine is by Israeli troops, > and Iraq is by American and coalition troops. But wait, objects the Indian > viewer. > Palestinians are Muslims and Israelis are Jews; Iraqis are Iraqis and > Americans are Americans--how are their dynamics comparable to the > situation in Kashmir? Indians and Kashmiris are all Indian; Muslims and > non-Muslims in Kashmir (or anywhere in India) are all Indian. Neither the > criterion of nationality nor the criterion of religion is applicable to > explain what it is that puts Indian troops and Kashmiri citizens on either > side of a line of hostility. How can we speak of an "occupation" when > there are no enemies, no foreigners and no outsiders in the picture at > all? And if occupation makes no sense, then how can azadi make any sense? > > Kak explained to an audience at a recent screening of his film in Boston > (23/09) that he could only begin to approach the subject of his film, > azadi, after he had made it past three barriers to understanding that > stand in the way of an Indian mind trying to grasp what is going on in > Kashmir. The first of these is secularism. Since India is a secular > country, most Indians do not even begin to see how unrest in any part of > the country could be explained using religion--that too what is, in the > larger picture, a minority religion--as a valid ground for the political > self-definition and self-determination of a community. The Valley of > Kashmir is 95% Muslim. Does this mean that Kashmiris get to have their own > nation? For most Indians, the answer is simply: No. Kashmiri Muslims are > no more entitled to a separate nation than were the Sikhs who supported > the idea of Khalistan in the 1980s. Such claims replay, for Indians, the > worst memories of Partition in 1947, and bring back the ghost of Jinnahs > two-nation theory to haunt Indias secular polity and to threaten it from > within. > The second barrier to understanding, related to the struggle over > secularism, is the flight of the Pandits, Kashmirs erstwhile 4% Hindu > minority community, following violent incidents in 1990. 160,000 Pandits > fled the Valley in that years exodus, leaving behind homes, lands and jobs > they have yet to recover. Today the Pandits live, if not in Indian and > foreign cities, then in refugee settlements that have become > semi-permanent, most notably in Jammu and Delhi. For Indians, even if they > do little or nothing to rehabilitate Pandits into the Indian mainstream, > the persecution of the Pandits at the hands of their fellow-Kashmiris, > following the fault-lines of religious difference and the > minority-majority divide, is a deeply alienating feature of Kashmirs > conflict. Kashmirs Muslim leadership has consistently expressed regret for > what happened to the Pandits in the first phase of the struggle for azadi, > but it has not, on the other hand, made any serious effort to bring back > the exiled Hindus either. In failing to ensure the safety of the Pandits, > Kashmir has lost a vital connection with the Indian state--and, > potentially, a source of legitimacy for its claim to an exceptional status > as a sovereign entity. > > The third major obstruction to India taking a sympathetic view of Kashmir > is the problem of trans-national jihad. Throughout the 1990s, Kashmirs > indigenous movements for azadi have received varying degrees of support, > in the form of funds, arms, fighting men, and ideological solidarity, not > only from the government of Pakistan, but also from Islamist forces all > across Central Asia and the Middle East. The reality of Pakistani support, > and the presence of foreign fighters, from an Indian perspective, damages > the claim for azadi beyond repair. > > Kashmiri exceptionalism in fact has an old history. > Yet even if we do not want to go as far back as pre-modern and colonial > times, then at the very least right from 1947, Kashmir has never really > broken away completely like the parts of British India that became > Pakistan, nor has it assimilated properly, like the other elements that > formed the Indian republic. The status of Kashmir has always been > uncertain, in free India. But with the involvement of pan-Asian or global > Islamist players, starting with Pakistan but by no means limited to it, > the past gives way to the present. > India no longer deals with Kashmir as though it were still the place that > was ruled by a Hindu king until 1947 and never fully came on board the > Indian nation in the subsequent 50 years. It now looks upon Kashmir as the > Indian end of the burning swath of Islamist insurgency that engulfs most > of the region. In quelling azadi the Indian state sees itself as engaged > in putting out the much larger fires of jihad that have breached the walls > of the nation and entered into its most inflammable--because > Muslim-majority--section. > Secularism, the Pandits and jihad are all very real impediments to India > actually being able to see what is equally real, namely, the Kashmiri > longing for azadi. Kak explained to his viewers that to be able to portray > azadi from the inside, he had to get through and past these barriers, to > the place where Kashmiris inhabit their peculiar and tragic combination of > resistance and vulnerability, their dream of a separate identity and their > confrontation with an overwhelmingly powerful adversary. Their misery is > palpable but they have yet to find a politics adequate to transform > dissatisradise. Here the sadhus in saffron robes arrive, on their way to > the holy shrine at Amarnath, on their annual pilgrimage, invoking, in the > same breath, the Hindu god Shiva and the Indian flag, the "tiranga" > ("tri-colour"). You cannot take away what is ours, say these people. Ah, > but you cannot keep what was never yours, either. India for Indians; > Kashmir for Kashmiris: this is the fugitive logic that the filmmaker is > seeking to make explicit. > > Kak has set himself a nearly impossible task. He must take Indians with > him, on his difficult journey, past their prejudices, past their > suspicions, past their very real fears, into the nightmarish world of > Kashmiri citizens, torn apart between the militants and the military, > stuck with the after-effects of bombings, mine-blasts, crackdowns, > arrests, encounter killings and disappearances that have gone on for > nearly two decades without pause. > I became interested in Kashmir at the same time, for the same reason, that > Kak began his investigations: the trial of S.A.R. Geelani, accused and > later acquitted in the December 13, 2001 Parliament Attack case. In 2005 I > wrote a couple of articles about Geelani, a Kashmiri professor of Arabic > and Persian Literature at Delhi University, for this and other Indian > publications. These earned me denouncements as anti-national, self-hating, > anti-Hindu, pro- Pakistani, crypto-Muslim, etc. One letter to the editor > even called me a terrorist! Kak has already had a taste of this reaction > since the release of Jashn-e-Azadi in March, and must expect more of it to > be coming his way in the next few months, as his film is shown widely in > India and abroad. In fact, he is sure to get more flak that I ever got, > given he is a Kashmiri Pandit. > Aggressively Hindu nationalist, right-wing Pandit groups find Kaks empathy > for Kashmiri Muslim positions infuriating, a "betrayal" that enrages them > much more than that of a merely (apparently) > Hindu--non-Pandit--sympathizer like myself. But like Israeli refuseniks, > there is reason to believe that now India too has its own nay-sayers, who > cannot condone the presence of the Indian armed forces in Kashmir or the > continued refusal of the Indian state to engage with Kashmiris on the > question of azadi. Kak himself makes the comparison to Palestine by > calling the azadi movement of the early 90s "Kashmirs Intifada". > What allows someone like me--born, raised and educated in India, secular, > committed to the longevity and flourishing of the Indian nation in every > sense--to get, as it were, the meaning, the reality, and the validity, of > Kashmirs agonized search for azadi? Why do I not want my army to take or > keep Kashmir by force, or my fellow-citizens to enjoy their annual > vacations as unthinking, insensitive tourists, winter or summer? Why do > abandoned Pandit homesteads affect me as much as charred Muslim houses, > and why do I think that neither will be rebuilt and re-inhabited, nor will > they be full of life as they once were, unless first and foremost, the > military bunkers are taken down? > > The answer comes from my own history, the history of India. > > If ever there was a people who ought to know what azadi is, and to value > it, it is Indians. 60 years ago India attained its own azadi, long sought, > hard fought, and bought at the price of a terrible, irreparable Partition. > My parents were born in pre-Independence India, and to them and those of > their generation, it is possible to recall a time before azadi. > Kaks film incorporates video footage from the early 1990s, taken from > sources he either cannot or will not reveal. In those images of Kashmiris > protesting en masse on the streets of Srinagar, funeral processions of > popular leaders, women lamenting the dead as martyrs in the path of azadi, > terrorist training camps, the statements of torture victims about to > breathe their last and BSF operations ending in the surrender of > militants, the seething passions of nationalism come right at you from the > screen, leaping from their context in Kashmir and connecting back to the > mass movements of Indias long struggle against British colonialism, from > 1857 to 1947. No Indian viewer, in those moments of collective and > euphoric protest against oppression, could fail to be moved, or to be > reminded of how it was that we came to have something close to every > Indian heart: our political freedom, our status as an independent nation, > in charge of our own destiny. The irony is that azadi is not something we > do not and cannot ever understand, but that it is something we know all > about, intimately, from our own history. What frightens us is not the > alien nature of the sentiment in every Kashmiri breast: what frightens is > its familiarity, its echo of our own desire for nationhood that found its > voice, albeit after great bloodshed, six decades ago. > > The British and French invented modern democracy at home, but colonized > the rest of the world. The Jews suffered the Holocaust, but Israel > brutalizes Palestine. India blazed the way for the decolonization of > dozens of Asian and African countries, and established itself as the > worlds largest democracy, yet it turns away from Kashmir and its quest for > freedom, and worse, goes all out to crush the will of the Kashmiri people. > Indians with a conscience--and perhaps Kaks film will help sensitize and > educate many more, especially the young--ought not stand for this > desecration of the very ground upon which our nationality rests. After > all, we learnt two words together--"azadi" and "swaraj", freedom and > self-rule--and on these foundations was our nation built. > > We are a people who barely two generations ago not only fought for our own > freedom--our leaders, Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, and so many others, taught > the whole of the colonized world how to speak the language of self-respect > and sovereignty. We of all people should strive for a time when it will > become possible for a Kashmiri to offer a visitor a cup of tea without > rancour or irony, as a simple uncomplicated expression of the hospitality > that comes naturally to those who belong to this culture. We should join > the Kashmiris in their search for a city animated by commerce and > conversation, not haunted by the ghosts of the dead and the fled. We > should support them, whether they be Muslims or Hindus, in turning their > grief, so visible in Kaks courageous work of witnessing, into a genuine > "jashn", a celebration, of a freedom that has been too long in the coming. > Anything less would make us lesser Indians. > > > ________________________ > > > > Ananya Vajpeyi is a Fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New > Delhi (2005-2008) > > > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org >
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
