I/II. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/clicklit/date/20101027
Don’t pity us, Arundhati – not yetAnshul Chaturvedi<http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/clicklit/page/authorProfile?page=authorProfile> 27 October 2010, 06:37 AM IST Insofar as putting thoughts into words go, I guess I’m not really qualified to take up an issue with Arundhati Roy; she’s a globally acknowledged, indeed, acclaimed writer, while I am no more than an inconsequential rarely-read salaried cog in the gigantic wheels of the print media. Having said that, I am very clear that I don’t want my share of the accumulated pity that she thinks the nation collectively merits. So, here’s my inadequate submission: Arundhati has said that she “spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state.” I disagree with the effortless branding of Kashmir as “one of the most brutal military occupations in the world” – it is not pleasant, today, I am sure, but from 1948 to say, at least 1988, a period of well over four decades, Kashmir was a part of what we consider India – merged, integrated, acceded, depends on whom you ask – and for those four decades it was not part of India on the strength of a “brutal military occupation”. Unlike German soldiers marching into Poland or Chinese troops invading Tibet, India did not have to “invade” Kashmir and then hold it from Day One by administering martial law or its equivalent. I don’t mean to sound cheesy, but for years and years Bollywood didn’t churn out those scenes of a beautiful, peaceful, idyllic Kashmir on the strength of shooting crews backed by hundreds of ‘brutal soldiers’ trying to create a pretence of normal, peaceful life. That’s just how it *was*. Someone worked to change it. The question is – who? Punjab, too, faced a decade of insurgency, something which we forget all too easily today. But it wasn’t ‘occupied’ prior to that, it isn’t ‘occupied’ today. Kashmir has faced more than a decade of insurgency, agreed, but to portray it as if everyone in Kashmir for all time has been subject to “one of the most brutal military occupations” does no justice to the intellect which Arundhati obviously possesses – more so in the context of the fact that the other friendly democratic states that border Kashmir, namely Pakistan and China, have no noticeable tradition of tender loving care extended by their respective militaries to people who question whether they belong to those states. Having lived and worked in J&K for many years, as an editor, I have carried stories about remote hilly villages where terrorists surrounded hamlets of Gujjars and slit the throats of two dozen villagers to indicate the price of ‘cooperation’ extended to security forces patrolling the hills. When Bill Clinton came to India, we saw the carnage of 36 Sikhs in Chatttisinghpora – something which Arundhati’s comrade in arms, Syed Ali Shah Geeelani, incredibly enough, still reiterates was ‘done by India to defame Kashmiris’. There is no dearth of such instances – I quote only a couple to remind us all that Kashmir’s brutal occupation is not quite as much of an innocent-lambs-being-led-to-slaughter scenario as Ms Roy perhaps sees it as. When Arundhati says that she speaks for justice “for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland”, it is too ridiculous to even merit comment, given that she wants that justice to come while she shares a dias with Geelani. They were ‘driven out of their homeland’, Arundhati, by the brutal military occupiers of Kashmir, or by someone else? Driven out by *whom*? Why leave it to delightful ambiguities here? I do not know if Kashmiri Pandits give any weightage to her speaking ostensibly on their behalf. And the statistical chances of Pandits returning to Kashmir if the brutal military occupation ends tomorrow are slimmer than of Arundhati joining the BJP. Arundhati seeks justice, too, “for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore.” This is slick if you are writing a column for a foreign audience, the way Aussie ‘experts’ wrote on the caste composition of the Indian cricket team during the Bhajji-Symonds spat, but, hello, “Dalit soldiers” killed in Kashmir die in situations different from upper caste soldiers or Sikh soldiers or Muslim soldiers – or local, Kashmiri Muslim policemen? Don’t insult our intelligence, and the Army’s basic DNA, with this line of argument. You wish to be the defender of the rights of those oppressed in Kashmir, of the Pandits, and of the “Dalit soldiers” from among the troops who die there day in and day out? Sorry, this is just not real, it’s just not genuine, even if it is possibly good homework for global awards coming your way as defender of the rights of all oppressed sections in this part of the world. Arundhati’s also looking for justice “for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state”, but I have little comment to offer on this because, frankly, it is a little too esoteric for me to understand the point. I understand that India is in selective ways and selective zones a police state of sorts, but how insensitive policing in interior Bihar is attributable to Kashmir’s status – and how Azadi will address that – must have a subtle connect which my everyday, non literary mind has singularly failed to grasp. But then, we are all not blessed with equal talents. Anyway, this is not one of Ms Roy’s essays, so I daren’t type away endlessly. I’ll conclude. You say, Arundhati, “pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice, while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free.” I say, you are jumping the gun. Neither have you been silenced at any point for speaking your mind – distasteful as it may be to many when it veers towards applauding anyone willing to kill an Indian soldier, be it a Naxal in Chattisgarh or a terrorist in Kashmir – nor does the nation need to be pitied. Yet. Writers and dissidents *are* silenced, in friendlier and I suppose less ‘brutal’ societies such as Pakistan, China, Myanmar, but the very fact that you can issue statements and notes challenging the same to be done here is, perhaps, the strongest negation of those statements. Yes, many murderers, scamsters and rapists still roam free, and no, we aren't proud of that in the least, but no, you *haven’t* been jailed for asking for justice. And I don’t see that happening. Truth be told, I think you don’t see it happening either. So while one gives all credit to your intellectual prowess, I don’t think this overdose of pity for the nation is quite deserved. It's a lot of hyperbole. As part of ‘the nation’, even if just one-billionth, I respectfully wish to return my proportion of pity offered by you, Ms Roy. Please accept it. And while you’re at it, pass it on to Mr Geelani; I daresay he needs it more. <http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/clicklit/date/20101027>II. II. http://www.viewpointonline.net/no-azadi-for-arundhatis.html No Azadi for Arundhatis?<http://www.viewpointonline.net/no-azadi-for-arundhatis.html> by J. Sri Raman *More likely given her line of thinking, she was talking of the emotional non-integration of Kashmir with the rest of the nation. Maybe, the observation was her way of underlining the Kashmiri people's alienation, which she blames on the behavior of India's security services in the State as "an occupation force"* * * *Two subjects are almost never out of the news in India : Kashmrir and Arundhati Roy. They make a deadly combination when hitting the headlines together, as they have been doing for the past several days. The frenzied reaction to a recent reiteration by the writer-activist of her ideas on the most intractable of India-Pakistan issues shows the strength of the powerful forces arrayed in the country against South Asian peace. Arundhati raised a storm with her reported observations on October 24 at a seminar in Srinagar, capital of India-administered State of Jammu and Kashmir, on ‘Whither Kashmir: freedom or enslavement?', organized by the Coalition of Civil Societies (CCS). Repeating her arguments for 'azadi' (freedom) for Kashmir, she was quoted as saying, "Kashmir has never been an integral part of India ." She may have been alluding to the fact that creation of the State was a consequence of the Instrument of Accession signed by a ruler of Kashmir who did not really represent it. She may have had in mind Article 370 of India's Constitution, which confers a special status on Jammu and Kashmir - a provision which has elicited opposition only from the far right with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as its political front (though the governments led by the party in New Delhi never attempted to alter the statutory scheme in this regard). Or, more likely given her line of thinking, she was talking of the emotional non-integration of Kashmir with the rest of the nation. Maybe, the observation was her way of underlining the Kashmiri people's alienation, which she blames on the behavior of India 's security services in the State as "an occupation force". Now, it can be no liberal's case that Arundhati is above all criticism. Her statements can be subjected to a serious critique on certain counts. The 'azadi' she has upheld, it can be pointed out, means different things to different people - to her and to some others who shared the dais with her on that day, perhaps - and needs, therefore, to be defined. Attention can be drawn to the unmentioned facts in her summary of Kashmir's post-1947 history - to the preservation of communal peace in the Valley during the Partition, to the Pakistan-backed invasion of Kashmir by Pushtoon tribesmen, and to popular and non-royal leader Sheikh Abdullah's post-Independence advocacy of India as the preferable option for Kashmir . Deserving of dispassionate examination is the claim that the plight of uprooted Kashmiri Pandits gets inadequate attention from activists like Arundhati. Many of those feign indignation about Arundhati sharing the stage with "fundamentalist" Syed Ali Shah Geelani and thus betraying her feminism or cause of gender justice. They would carry greater conviction if thy were also not allies and admirers of Shiv Sena fuhrer Bal Thackeray who calls Congress party leaders "hijras" (eunuchs) for following "a woman" like Sonia Gandhi. Still, the company, into which her campaigns throw her sometimes, can be a point of criticism. Not so reasoned and restrained, however, was the response to her remarks. No sooner had the first headline on the seminar appeared on the television screen than all hell broke loose. It was as though a long-awaited opportunity had come the way of those listening to all the recent talk of a political dialogue in Kashmir with increasing indignation. They were seething with 'patriotic' rage as the media published and broadcast stories of anti-people atrocities in Kashmir by the armed forces, without observing self-censorship strictly in national interest. They could get it all off their chest now, with Arundhati challenging the unofficial fiat against freedom of speech on subjects relating to 'national sovereignty'. "Sedition," they screamed. "Arrest her", they ordered the government. TV channels called to their studios commentators of impeccably jingoistic credentials, and they condemned her in a chorus. She had preached "secession" and must pay for this under the law, said the media-appointed mock jury (including journalists, of whom their profession must be profoundly ashamed). They didn't seem to bother about the countless instances, where the law has not been allowed to take its course against perpetrators of large-scale crimes like communal riots and pogroms. This is not the first time Arundhati has voiced such views. She articulated them, for example, in a magazine article in August 2008. She argued: " India needs azadi from Kashmir just as much as - if not more than - Kashmir needs azadi from India ....The Indian military occupation of Kashmir makes monsters of us all." Returning from Kashmir where a revolt was raging, she did no give the readers a rhapsodical account. Reported she: "Everywhere there were Pakistani flags, everywhere the cry, Pakistan se rishta kya? La ilaha illa llah. What is our bond with Pakistan ? There is no god but Allah. Azadi ka matlab kya? La ilaha illallah. What does Freedom mean? There is no god but Allah. For somebody like myself, who is not Muslim, that interpretation of freedom is hard , if not impossible , to understand." She agonized over other chants as well. "The slogan that cut through me like a knife and clean broke my heart was this one: Nanga bhookha Hindustan, jaan se pyaara Pakistan (Naked, starving India, More precious than life itself is Pakistan)....it was painful to listen to people who have suffered so much themselves mock others who suffer in different ways, but no less intensely, under the same oppressor. In that slogan I saw the seeds of how easily victims can become perpetrators." The self-proclaimed "nationalists" have no use for such nuances. Her remarks then did cause a ripple, but it was nothing comparable to the wrath she has now incurred. The intolerance, which India is being taught to see as a sign of its status as a regional "superpower", has registered a noticeable increase over two years. In August 2008, too, appeared a newspaper article advocating 'azadi' for Kashmir . Titled "Think the Unthinkable," the article by then Hindustan Times editor-in-chief Vir Singhvi did not call for "azadi" directly. Singhvi asked for a referendum in Kashmir, almost assuming that the Kashmiris would vote for leaving India . In that case, he argued, "surely we will be better off being rid of this constant, painful strain on our resources, our lives, and our honor as a nation?" If he did not draw the flak Arundhati did, the reason was obvious. His argument could appeal to the ultra-nationalists as well, up to a point. But can India advance significantly towards a Kashmir solution, if we must wait indefinitely for its endorsement by political forces with fundamental stakes in perpetuating the problem?* * * *J. Sri Raman is a freelance journalist and a peace activist, based in Chennai, India. He writes regularly for US web journal Truthout. He also contributes to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Chicago, US and the Japanese newspaper Chugoku Shimbun, Hiroshima. He likes to think of himself as an India-Pakistan journalist. He contributes a fortnightly column to the Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan. He also writes for the Tribune, Chandigarh, The Hindu, Chennai and The Hindustan Times, Delhi, India. He is also author of the book Flashpoint published by Common Courage Press, USA. He is the convener of the Journalists Against Nuclear Weapons and the Movement Against Nuclear Weapons, Chennai. He is a member of the National Coordination Committee of India’s Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace.* -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
