Captain03
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,244
- Reaction score
- 0
Here are some indians that have opened their eyes:
MEDIA-INDIA: Columnists Support Kashmir's Secession
NEW DELHI, Sep 4 (IPS) - "Anti-national" is the charge hurled in India at the usual radical suspects who argue for the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people.
But the recent outcrop of media columnists asking Indians to, "think the unthinkable", "let Kashmir go" and "wed be better off", are respected mainstream editors of leading national dailies and top columnists. They include Vir Sanghvi of the mass-circulation the Hindustan Times, Jug Suraiya of the Times of India, popular columnist Swaminathan A. Aiyar and activist-writer Arundhati Roy.
Moreover, according to a recent public opinion survey, these writers are reflecting growing popular sentiment. A Times of India survey of young professionals conducted across nine cities revealed a sizeable 30 percent polled feeling that if the economic and human costs were so high, India should not hold on to the Kashmir, though 59 percent felt they should hold on at any cost.
Some two-thirds of those polled said No to the question whether the state of Jammu and Kashmir [or part of it] should be allowed to secede. Poll analysts explained that contradiction as indicating that, while thinking on Kashmir remains unclear, Kashmirs possible secession has, for the first time in years, become a matter of common debate."
What has produced this unsettling in the public perception of restored normalcy in the insurgency-wracked Himalayan valley? Kashmiris are back on streets in tumultuous numbers, defiantly chanting "We want freedom" and with equal intensity, "Long live Pakistan".
The crisis which began two months ago over the proposed transfer of 100 acres forest land in the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley to a Hindu religious Board based in Jammu has shattered the myth of Kashmiris being reconciled to integrating with India. A new twist is the communalisation of the intra-state Jammu- Kashmir divide posited as Hindu nationalists v/s Islamist separatists. It has buried faith in Kashmiriyat (or Kashmiriness), the cultural syncretism of the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists of Kashmir.
Indian administered Kashmir consists of three distinct regions: Hindu dominated Jammu, the Muslim majority Kashmir valley and Ladakh, which is largely Buddhist. Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas are administered by Pakistan.
Muslim Pakistan and largely-Hindu but constitutionally secular India have, ever since they were created by the 1947 partition of the subcontinent on religious grounds, been in dispute over the possession of Kashmir. Three wars fought over the issue have not succeeded in altering the fact that two-thirds of the territory is administered by India and one third by Pakistan.
Kashmir fatigue appears to be driving the new sentiment behind the emerging public debate. "It is not being driven by the recognition of the legitimacy of the Kashmiri peoples right to decide, but by a sense of exasperation at pampered and mollycoddled Kashmiris remaining anti-Indian, says leading Kashmir human rights campaigner Tapan Bose. "Shining India does not want to have the blot of coercively holding onto resentful and alienated Kashmiris, he added.
Sanghvis article on Aug. 16 succinctly strikes these several chords - "What does the Centre get in return for the special favours and billions of dollars spent?" Far from gratitude, there is active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par with us, lecturing India in human rights". "We have the world to conquer, and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world."
Swaminathan Aiyar and Jug Suraiya have a more liberal perspective. Aiyar acknowledges that "democracy (in Kashmir) has been a farce for almost six decades". There are uncomfortable parallels with colonial rule over British India and the quasi colonialism of Indias rule "over those who resent it" in Kashmir. Suraiya tweaks the argument of Kashmirs secession fatally wounding the idea of India as a pluralist polity and democratic society. "India can survive without Kashmir, if it has to; it cant survive without the idea of India, central to which is the idea of democratic dissent and the free association of people". This is being eroded in holding Kashmiris against their will.
Arundhati Roy, writing in the Guardian on Aug. 22, gives it a radical twist: "India needs azadi (freedom) from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India". Roy asserts, that "the non-violent peoples protest is nourished by peoples memory of years of repression". Drawing a wider frame, she warns that "Indian military occupation makes monsters of us and allows Hindu chauvinists to target and victimise Muslims in India by holding them hostage to the freedom struggle being waged in Kashmir.
Expressing surprise at such articles by people who (except Roy) have never campaigned for azadi, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, executive editor of the respected Kashmir Times newspaper said: "We have always campaigned for 'azadi'. This is just the wrong time. Nobody thinks about the repercussions of the disintegration of the state on communal lines (especially, Doda, Rajouri and Poonch). Whose azadi are they talking about? The need is to douse the fires and begin dialogue at different levels."
Among the flurry of reactive articles, representative of the national security line is strategic analyst K. Subrahmanyam writing in the Times of India on Aug. 22 is adamant against any redrawing of borders. Subrahmanyam, a known nationalist, warns that if Kashmiris are allowed to secede, there would be consequences that have to be anticipated.
During the partition of the subcontinent in 1947-48, such consequences were not foreseen and the result was a bloodbath resulting the death of a million people and ethnic cleansing involving 15 million, Subrahmanyam argues.
Appealing for greater responsibility and efforts to retrieve Kashmiriyat, eminent journalist Kuldip Nayar warned in the Deccan Herald on Aug. 29 that the independence of Kashmir would mean a takeover of the territory by the Taliban or terrorists. Political editor of The Hindu, Harish Khare, has on Aug. 28 cautioned against "over reacting to provocative slogans in Lal Chowk and said there is no need to be apologetic about our democratic values and practices". Kashmir society could still be "weaned away from violence, distrust and suspicion."
Sultan Shaheen, editor of the website New Age Islam, has decried the irresponsibility of public intellectuals arguing for letting Kashmir go. "What about the nationalist Muslims of Kashmir? It was the vision of secularism and pluralism that had brought them to India in the first place. Kashmir is important for common Indians because Kashmiriyat is a prototype for Hindustaniyat - a unique blend of unity in ideological diversity."
Independence Day for Kashmir-Swaminomics-SA Aiyar-Columnists-Opinion-The Times of India
On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. But Kashmiris staged a bandh demanding independence from India. A day
symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.
As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will. True, nation-building is a difficult and complex exercise, and initial resistance can give way to the integration of regional aspirations into a larger national identity the end of Tamil secessionism was a classical example of this.
I was once hopeful of Kashmir's integration, but after six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever. India seeks to integrate with Kashmir, not rule it colonially. Yet, the parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort.
Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when the maharaja of the state signed the instrument of accession. Alas, such legalisms become irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and princes, including the Mughals, acceded to the British Raj. The documents they signed became irrelevant when Indians launched an independence movement.
The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, the jewel in its crown, and would never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear we are in similar denial on Kashmir.
The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.
But while India claimed that the Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it did not accept Junagadh's accession to Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh, just as Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir. The difference was that Pakistan lacked the military means to intervene in Junagadh, while India was able to send troops into Srinagar. The Junagadh nawab fled to Pakistan, whereas the Kashmir maharaja sat tight. India's double standard on Junagadh and Kashmir was breathtaking.
Do you think the people of Junagadh would have integrated with Pakistan after six decades of genuine Pakistani effort? No? Then can you really be confident that Kashmiris will stop demanding azaadi and integrate with India?
The British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir, supported accession to India subject to ratification by a plebiscite. But his heart lay in independence for Kashmir, and he soon began manoeuvering towards that end. He was jailed by Nehru, who then declared Kashmir's accession was final and no longer required ratification by a plebiscite. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant, since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy.
Alas, democracy in Kashmir has been a farce for most of six decades. The rot began with Sheikh Abdullah in 1951: he rejected the nomination
papers of almost all opponents, and so won 73 of the 75 seats unopposed! Nehru was complicit in this sabotage of democracy.
Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first fair election held, and was won by the Sheikh. But he died after a few years, and rigging returned in the 1988 election. That sparked the separatist uprising which continues to gather strength today.
Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the Valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority. But the Raj also had long quiet periods between Gandhian agitations, which involved just a few lakhs of India's 500 million people. One lakh people joined the Quit India movement of 1942, but 25 lakh others joined the British Indian army to fight for the Empire's glory.
Blimps cited this as evidence that most Indians simply wanted jobs and a decent life. The Raj built the biggest railway and canal networks in the world. It said most Indians were satisfied with economic development, and that independence was demanded by a noisy minority. This is uncomfortably similar to the official Indian response to the Kashmiri demand for azaadi.
Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections 1977, 1983 and 2002 were perfectly fair.
India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi. And ruling over those who resent it so strongly for so long is quasi-colonialism, regardless of our intentions.
We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan.
India minus K-word-Subverse-Opinion-The Times of India
Is it time the K-word got out of India, and India out of the K-word? Even as Pakistanis in Pakistan celebrated the departure of their erstwhile
dictator, Pervez Musharraf, 'Pakistanis' in Kashmir agitated for the long overdue exit of an equally, if not more, oppressive dictator: India.
The Amarnath dispute and the alleged 'economic blockade' have sparked an unprecedented pro-Pakistani sentiment in the Valley, shown by the open display of the crescent flag and the massive anti-India rallies in Srinagar and Pampore. Separatism is no longer driven by fear of militant guns; today separatism is spearheaded by a far more serious threat: that of the popular will.
It would be facile to dismiss this groundswell of protest, which cuts across generational lines, as yet another ISI-sponsored stratagem. Kashmir, or at least Kashmir valley, is no longer a ventriloquists dummy speaking for its Pakistani masters; Kashmir seems to be speaking for itself. And what it is saying is unequivocal: India must let go of it.
Is it really, finally, time for India to relinquish Kashmir, and vice versa? Or, as Arundhati Roy has put it, for Kashmir to gain azadi from India, and for India to gain azadi from Kashmir?
Any suggestion that Kashmir should, if it so wants, be allowed to secede from the Indian Union is immediately deemed to be treasonable, and its proponents to be agents of Pakistans ISI, who wish to hive off not just Kashmir but to fragment and balkanise India by fomenting insurrection across the country.
It is also argued that Kashmir's secession would diminish India not just geographically but, much worse, it would diminish and fatally wound the very idea of India as a pluralist polity and a multicultural society. More than the possession of any part of its territory, the idea of India is the life-essence of the republic. India can survive without Kashmir, if it has to; it cant survive without the idea of India, central to which is the right of democratic dissent and the free association of people.
Is the idea of India big enough to accommodate the obverse right: the free disassociation of people, non-violent
secession from the republic? Secessionist attempts from Punjab to the north-east, and in some 180 Naxal 'liberated zones' (described by the prime minister as the 'biggest national threat') have been and continue to be combatted by force of arms and, equally importantly, force of political persuasion. But all these anti-state manifestations were, or are, based on violence, which the state can legitimately oppose with necessary counter-violence. What Kashmir is reportedly witnessing today is fundamentally different: a cry for freedom backed not by guns but by the power of dissent one of the foundation stones of the idea of India.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani, self-proclaimed leader of the separatist movement, is no M K Gandhi. But what if he and his followers were to adopt the strategies of non-cooperation and satyagraha which were used to gain independence, and were the prenatal influences which shaped the idea of India? Could the Indian state use physical force against such a peaceful mass movement if in fact it did arise, as some say it now has and still retain its moral idea of itself?
It could and inevitably will be argued that drawing a parallel between Gandhi's 'Quit India' movement and
contemporary Kashmir's 'Quit, India' upsurge is untenable and unconscionable: the British were an alien occupying force; Kashmir is an integral, constitutionally legitimised part of India. But after more than 60 years of concerted
effort military deployment, repeated elections, the giving of subsidies India has been unable effectively to
counter the demand for azadi.
Has the time then come to re-look and rethink the Kashmir issue? By letting Kashmir go peacefully would the idea of India be subverted? Or would it be enlarged and further endorsed? That is the real import of the so-called Kashmir question: it has become the question of the idea of India, and what that idea means to us.
MEDIA-INDIA: Columnists Support Kashmir's Secession
NEW DELHI, Sep 4 (IPS) - "Anti-national" is the charge hurled in India at the usual radical suspects who argue for the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people.
But the recent outcrop of media columnists asking Indians to, "think the unthinkable", "let Kashmir go" and "wed be better off", are respected mainstream editors of leading national dailies and top columnists. They include Vir Sanghvi of the mass-circulation the Hindustan Times, Jug Suraiya of the Times of India, popular columnist Swaminathan A. Aiyar and activist-writer Arundhati Roy.
Moreover, according to a recent public opinion survey, these writers are reflecting growing popular sentiment. A Times of India survey of young professionals conducted across nine cities revealed a sizeable 30 percent polled feeling that if the economic and human costs were so high, India should not hold on to the Kashmir, though 59 percent felt they should hold on at any cost.
Some two-thirds of those polled said No to the question whether the state of Jammu and Kashmir [or part of it] should be allowed to secede. Poll analysts explained that contradiction as indicating that, while thinking on Kashmir remains unclear, Kashmirs possible secession has, for the first time in years, become a matter of common debate."
What has produced this unsettling in the public perception of restored normalcy in the insurgency-wracked Himalayan valley? Kashmiris are back on streets in tumultuous numbers, defiantly chanting "We want freedom" and with equal intensity, "Long live Pakistan".
The crisis which began two months ago over the proposed transfer of 100 acres forest land in the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley to a Hindu religious Board based in Jammu has shattered the myth of Kashmiris being reconciled to integrating with India. A new twist is the communalisation of the intra-state Jammu- Kashmir divide posited as Hindu nationalists v/s Islamist separatists. It has buried faith in Kashmiriyat (or Kashmiriness), the cultural syncretism of the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists of Kashmir.
Indian administered Kashmir consists of three distinct regions: Hindu dominated Jammu, the Muslim majority Kashmir valley and Ladakh, which is largely Buddhist. Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas are administered by Pakistan.
Muslim Pakistan and largely-Hindu but constitutionally secular India have, ever since they were created by the 1947 partition of the subcontinent on religious grounds, been in dispute over the possession of Kashmir. Three wars fought over the issue have not succeeded in altering the fact that two-thirds of the territory is administered by India and one third by Pakistan.
Kashmir fatigue appears to be driving the new sentiment behind the emerging public debate. "It is not being driven by the recognition of the legitimacy of the Kashmiri peoples right to decide, but by a sense of exasperation at pampered and mollycoddled Kashmiris remaining anti-Indian, says leading Kashmir human rights campaigner Tapan Bose. "Shining India does not want to have the blot of coercively holding onto resentful and alienated Kashmiris, he added.
Sanghvis article on Aug. 16 succinctly strikes these several chords - "What does the Centre get in return for the special favours and billions of dollars spent?" Far from gratitude, there is active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par with us, lecturing India in human rights". "We have the world to conquer, and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world."
Swaminathan Aiyar and Jug Suraiya have a more liberal perspective. Aiyar acknowledges that "democracy (in Kashmir) has been a farce for almost six decades". There are uncomfortable parallels with colonial rule over British India and the quasi colonialism of Indias rule "over those who resent it" in Kashmir. Suraiya tweaks the argument of Kashmirs secession fatally wounding the idea of India as a pluralist polity and democratic society. "India can survive without Kashmir, if it has to; it cant survive without the idea of India, central to which is the idea of democratic dissent and the free association of people". This is being eroded in holding Kashmiris against their will.
Arundhati Roy, writing in the Guardian on Aug. 22, gives it a radical twist: "India needs azadi (freedom) from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India". Roy asserts, that "the non-violent peoples protest is nourished by peoples memory of years of repression". Drawing a wider frame, she warns that "Indian military occupation makes monsters of us and allows Hindu chauvinists to target and victimise Muslims in India by holding them hostage to the freedom struggle being waged in Kashmir.
Expressing surprise at such articles by people who (except Roy) have never campaigned for azadi, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, executive editor of the respected Kashmir Times newspaper said: "We have always campaigned for 'azadi'. This is just the wrong time. Nobody thinks about the repercussions of the disintegration of the state on communal lines (especially, Doda, Rajouri and Poonch). Whose azadi are they talking about? The need is to douse the fires and begin dialogue at different levels."
Among the flurry of reactive articles, representative of the national security line is strategic analyst K. Subrahmanyam writing in the Times of India on Aug. 22 is adamant against any redrawing of borders. Subrahmanyam, a known nationalist, warns that if Kashmiris are allowed to secede, there would be consequences that have to be anticipated.
During the partition of the subcontinent in 1947-48, such consequences were not foreseen and the result was a bloodbath resulting the death of a million people and ethnic cleansing involving 15 million, Subrahmanyam argues.
Appealing for greater responsibility and efforts to retrieve Kashmiriyat, eminent journalist Kuldip Nayar warned in the Deccan Herald on Aug. 29 that the independence of Kashmir would mean a takeover of the territory by the Taliban or terrorists. Political editor of The Hindu, Harish Khare, has on Aug. 28 cautioned against "over reacting to provocative slogans in Lal Chowk and said there is no need to be apologetic about our democratic values and practices". Kashmir society could still be "weaned away from violence, distrust and suspicion."
Sultan Shaheen, editor of the website New Age Islam, has decried the irresponsibility of public intellectuals arguing for letting Kashmir go. "What about the nationalist Muslims of Kashmir? It was the vision of secularism and pluralism that had brought them to India in the first place. Kashmir is important for common Indians because Kashmiriyat is a prototype for Hindustaniyat - a unique blend of unity in ideological diversity."
Independence Day for Kashmir-Swaminomics-SA Aiyar-Columnists-Opinion-The Times of India
On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. But Kashmiris staged a bandh demanding independence from India. A day
symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.
As a liberal, i dislike ruling people against their will. True, nation-building is a difficult and complex exercise, and initial resistance can give way to the integration of regional aspirations into a larger national identity the end of Tamil secessionism was a classical example of this.
I was once hopeful of Kashmir's integration, but after six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever. India seeks to integrate with Kashmir, not rule it colonially. Yet, the parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort.
Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when the maharaja of the state signed the instrument of accession. Alas, such legalisms become irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and princes, including the Mughals, acceded to the British Raj. The documents they signed became irrelevant when Indians launched an independence movement.
The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, the jewel in its crown, and would never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear we are in similar denial on Kashmir.
The politically correct story of the maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu maharaja acceded to India, and the Muslim nawab to Pakistan.
But while India claimed that the Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it did not accept Junagadh's accession to Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh, just as Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir. The difference was that Pakistan lacked the military means to intervene in Junagadh, while India was able to send troops into Srinagar. The Junagadh nawab fled to Pakistan, whereas the Kashmir maharaja sat tight. India's double standard on Junagadh and Kashmir was breathtaking.
Do you think the people of Junagadh would have integrated with Pakistan after six decades of genuine Pakistani effort? No? Then can you really be confident that Kashmiris will stop demanding azaadi and integrate with India?
The British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir, supported accession to India subject to ratification by a plebiscite. But his heart lay in independence for Kashmir, and he soon began manoeuvering towards that end. He was jailed by Nehru, who then declared Kashmir's accession was final and no longer required ratification by a plebiscite. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant, since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy.
Alas, democracy in Kashmir has been a farce for most of six decades. The rot began with Sheikh Abdullah in 1951: he rejected the nomination
papers of almost all opponents, and so won 73 of the 75 seats unopposed! Nehru was complicit in this sabotage of democracy.
Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first fair election held, and was won by the Sheikh. But he died after a few years, and rigging returned in the 1988 election. That sparked the separatist uprising which continues to gather strength today.
Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the Valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority. But the Raj also had long quiet periods between Gandhian agitations, which involved just a few lakhs of India's 500 million people. One lakh people joined the Quit India movement of 1942, but 25 lakh others joined the British Indian army to fight for the Empire's glory.
Blimps cited this as evidence that most Indians simply wanted jobs and a decent life. The Raj built the biggest railway and canal networks in the world. It said most Indians were satisfied with economic development, and that independence was demanded by a noisy minority. This is uncomfortably similar to the official Indian response to the Kashmiri demand for azaadi.
Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. Kashmir was among the poorest states during the Raj, but now has the lowest poverty rate in India. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections 1977, 1983 and 2002 were perfectly fair.
India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi. And ruling over those who resent it so strongly for so long is quasi-colonialism, regardless of our intentions.
We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give them three choices: independence, union with Pakistan, and union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh too. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan.
India minus K-word-Subverse-Opinion-The Times of India
Is it time the K-word got out of India, and India out of the K-word? Even as Pakistanis in Pakistan celebrated the departure of their erstwhile
dictator, Pervez Musharraf, 'Pakistanis' in Kashmir agitated for the long overdue exit of an equally, if not more, oppressive dictator: India.
The Amarnath dispute and the alleged 'economic blockade' have sparked an unprecedented pro-Pakistani sentiment in the Valley, shown by the open display of the crescent flag and the massive anti-India rallies in Srinagar and Pampore. Separatism is no longer driven by fear of militant guns; today separatism is spearheaded by a far more serious threat: that of the popular will.
It would be facile to dismiss this groundswell of protest, which cuts across generational lines, as yet another ISI-sponsored stratagem. Kashmir, or at least Kashmir valley, is no longer a ventriloquists dummy speaking for its Pakistani masters; Kashmir seems to be speaking for itself. And what it is saying is unequivocal: India must let go of it.
Is it really, finally, time for India to relinquish Kashmir, and vice versa? Or, as Arundhati Roy has put it, for Kashmir to gain azadi from India, and for India to gain azadi from Kashmir?
Any suggestion that Kashmir should, if it so wants, be allowed to secede from the Indian Union is immediately deemed to be treasonable, and its proponents to be agents of Pakistans ISI, who wish to hive off not just Kashmir but to fragment and balkanise India by fomenting insurrection across the country.
It is also argued that Kashmir's secession would diminish India not just geographically but, much worse, it would diminish and fatally wound the very idea of India as a pluralist polity and a multicultural society. More than the possession of any part of its territory, the idea of India is the life-essence of the republic. India can survive without Kashmir, if it has to; it cant survive without the idea of India, central to which is the right of democratic dissent and the free association of people.
Is the idea of India big enough to accommodate the obverse right: the free disassociation of people, non-violent
secession from the republic? Secessionist attempts from Punjab to the north-east, and in some 180 Naxal 'liberated zones' (described by the prime minister as the 'biggest national threat') have been and continue to be combatted by force of arms and, equally importantly, force of political persuasion. But all these anti-state manifestations were, or are, based on violence, which the state can legitimately oppose with necessary counter-violence. What Kashmir is reportedly witnessing today is fundamentally different: a cry for freedom backed not by guns but by the power of dissent one of the foundation stones of the idea of India.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani, self-proclaimed leader of the separatist movement, is no M K Gandhi. But what if he and his followers were to adopt the strategies of non-cooperation and satyagraha which were used to gain independence, and were the prenatal influences which shaped the idea of India? Could the Indian state use physical force against such a peaceful mass movement if in fact it did arise, as some say it now has and still retain its moral idea of itself?
It could and inevitably will be argued that drawing a parallel between Gandhi's 'Quit India' movement and
contemporary Kashmir's 'Quit, India' upsurge is untenable and unconscionable: the British were an alien occupying force; Kashmir is an integral, constitutionally legitimised part of India. But after more than 60 years of concerted
effort military deployment, repeated elections, the giving of subsidies India has been unable effectively to
counter the demand for azadi.
Has the time then come to re-look and rethink the Kashmir issue? By letting Kashmir go peacefully would the idea of India be subverted? Or would it be enlarged and further endorsed? That is the real import of the so-called Kashmir question: it has become the question of the idea of India, and what that idea means to us.
