Nehru said in various occasions:
I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.
... as soon as law and order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.
We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide —— And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.
As for Roy herself, this is what she said when she knew she could face arrest:
Source: Revolution in South Asia, Indian Vanguard.
I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir. This morning’s papers say that I may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings on Kashmir.
I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I, as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice. I 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.
Yesterday I travelled to Shopian, the apple-town in South Kashmir which had remained closed for 47 days last year in protest against the brutal rape and murder of Asiya and Nilofer, the young women whose bodies were found in a shallow stream near their homes and whose murderers have still not been brought to justice.
I met Shakeel, who is Nilofer’s husband and Asiya’s brother. We sat in a circle of people crazed with grief and anger who had lost hope that they would ever get ‘insaf’ — justice — from India, and now believed that Azadi — freedom — was their only hope. I met young stone pelters who had been shot through their eyes. I travelled with a young man who told me how three of his friends, teenagers in Anantnag district, had been taken into custody and had their finger-nails pulled out as punishment for throwing stones.
In the papers some have accused me of giving ‘hate-speeches,’ of wanting India to break up. On the contrary, what I say comes from love and pride. It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned or have their finger-nails pulled out in order to force them to say they are Indians. It comes from wanting to live in a society that is striving to be a just one. 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.
Source: Revolution in South Asia, Indian Vanguard.
Interesting sites on the Maoist uprising in India (and neighbors)
I was actually searching for something else when I spotted the news about Roy. In fact I was looking for this interview with Koteswar Rao, which I read first in Spanish at La Haine and found most interesting.
In the process I stumbled upon the following pro-Maoist sites which offer some information, otherwise missing in the mainstream media:
The first one looks more "classically militant", while the second one looks more ample and has maybe a greater focus on Nepal. I may include them to my blogroll list.
The Kashmir issue is built on the unacceptable premise that Hindus and Muslims are two nations. And the creation of Pakistan was a result of that ideology coupled with weakness of a fledgling idea called India and its leaders' inexperience in handling the situation of that magnitude ( We didn't have an Abraham Lincoln).
ReplyDeleteWith this background, Nehru's words were circumspect under those conditions considering his limited influence in fashioning an inclusive Indian identity.
Arundhati Roy is unfortunately undereducated in history. But I do appreciate her support to victims of communal riots who haven't seen justice and think she should spend her energy more into that by taking up proactive roles. Somehow, I feel she gives a token support to all these causes. I do think as a well-known mainstream person her support to Maoists is necessary so that fight between the state and them is waged in a more civilized way.
Anyway, I believe the Indian government was reluctant to file a case against her and forced to so after they were reprimanded by a court based on a citizen petition. I hope she would be persecuted severely and we'll win a Nobel prize as a result. It only adds to our total number of Nobel winners. Nobody would bother to check the reasons behind each Nobel. Or the outlook of the nation might be changed after sometime.
She won't get any Nobel Prize, worry not. It is evident these days that this dubious honor is only given to those that the Empire favors and she is obviously in the other side.
ReplyDeleteI support the right of every people to decide their destiny democratically, and that includes Kashmir, of course. This regardless that I also think that religions should play no role in what defines a nation (but self-determination, democracy, comes first).
It's a pity if she doesn't win a Nobel after the state persecutes her. Anyway, I don't think the government of India has any inclination to punish her.
ReplyDeleteIn Indian subcontinent, the religion always determined the self-determination.
Obviously when someone is being persecuted for an opinion, as Roy is, we are before a willing state persecution. Whatever you think, I am quite sure that the Indian government was already after her. Her coverage of the other side of the Maoist guerrilla for instance must have placed her in the target of the government overall, regardless of whatever this or that politicians thinks/says.
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot speak in favor of self-determination without the threat of jail, then you are not in a democracy.
"In Indian subcontinent, the religion always determined the self-determination".
I do not think so. I would not say that the Tamil struggle in Sri Lanka was motivated by religion but by ethnic conflict. I also think that Assamite rebels are not motivated by religion either. Religion is ideology and not genuine culture nor history, much less language, hence it cannot alone define a nation.
Kashmir would be a nation on language and history alone, though surely one can argue about the exact borders that correspond, but always respecting the will of the People.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSrilankan issue is mainly because instead of becoming part of Indian union it's a country with two languages. That will always remain an issue. The country should always have hundreds of language with none becoming the face of the nation.
ReplyDeleteYou are totally ignorant about the Assamese issue.
Kashmir cannot be a nation based on a language unless all such nations come into existence out of Indian nation. Anyway, that is your view and not of Kashmiri Muslims who are mostly interested in Urdu(actually the language of Indian Muslims ...and thus pan-Indian).
To begin with, I do not think India is a nation properly speaking but a state made up of many nations, more or less willingly. India has no history of political unity and is ethnically (=nationally) fragmented in many pieces (many recognized but not all). India has not a single language. India is like Europe, just that, largely by chance, more advanced in the supra-national or continental integration process.
ReplyDeleteI do not oppose supra-national unions, not at all, but always based on the will of the partners. You can't build solidly on imposition and certainly not only on imposition.
"That will always remain an issue".
It would not if Sri Lanka would be split, as seems natural.
"You are totally ignorant about the Assamese issue".
Maybe but I'm quite sure that Buddhism is not the issue there.
"Kashmir cannot be a nation based on a language unless all such nations come into existence out of Indian nation. Anyway, that is your view and not of Kashmiri Muslims who are mostly interested in Urdu(actually the language of Indian Muslims ...and thus pan-Indian)".
AFAIK, Kashmiris speak primarily Kashmiri. Urdu-Hindi is surely a second language to all or most of them.
I do know that the issue is being manipulated along religious lines but, regardless, Kashmiris have, like anybody else, the right to self-determination, to self-rule, to democracy and to human rights.
Kashmiris have, like anybody else, the right to self-determination, to self-rule, to democracy and to human rights.
ReplyDeleteAgreed if they come up with a proper definition for their identity.
They have the right, without any IFs.
ReplyDeleteIf India (and Pakistan, which occupies parts of the country) recognize the right of Kashmir to self-determination, then Kashmiris will have to decide in which direction(s) they want to self-determine. But that is their decision in any case.
By the moment what they are offered is nothing but war and repression.
No, at present the only definition of identity is 'Muslim'. And it is secular India's right to deny their right.
ReplyDeleteBy the moment what they are offered is nothing but war and repression.
Where this is coming from? They have democracy as good or as bad as any other region in India.
I suppose since the root of the conflict is religious identity the government of India should deny any post-hoc identity.
ReplyDeleteMoreover Kashmiris have state autonomy which no other Indian state enjoys. This dumb favour was the result of India's initial weakness in accepting the two nation theory(which anyway failed with secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan thus the secular government of India proving that the two nation theory is incorrect).
ReplyDeleteI think Indian government should remove the state autonomy of Kashmir too. Only all other states demand for that then it should be uniformly applied.
As I understand it the root of the problem is that Kashmir was never allowed to choose its destiny. Religion is just a circumstance.
ReplyDeleteAs for democracy, there is no democracy without the right of self-determination: there is an occupant army (India's, two if you include the Pakistani occupied part) and there is no right for them to decide their present or future. They are trapped in dynamics that are not self-determined.
And when even arguing for the right of self-determination is not allowed, you cannot speak of democracy.
Even in the Basque Country is not that bad probably. Here at least some people can argue for self-determination and not go to jail. Another thing is effectively exercising it, what is forbidden by imposition of the occupants, in our case Spain and France.
Like in Kashmir or so many other oppressed nations, Basques have the right and arguably the duty to defend themselves against this outsider interference on our national affairs. The means of defense can vary (nonviolence may be an option at times at least) but in any case, such imposition cannot be left unanswered. Only lackeys bow in such way.
Basque has right to self-determination as it's part of a nation with couple of languages( similar is the case with Sri Lanka). But if Basque were to become a part of a country called Europe then they lose that right.
ReplyDeleteYou never lose the right: it's a basic principle of democracy. Anything else is nothing but imperialism and jacobinism.
ReplyDeleteBesides the Basque Country is already part of Europe, it's something dictated by geography.
Fundamental rights cannot be lost or forfeit. It's like saying that someone could lose his/her freedom because they signed a contract that makes them slaves or were branded as such without their consent. The fact is that the contract or procedure is invalid because it violates fundamental principles of Humanity, specially the right to freedom, dignity and self-rule.
This has nothing to do with individual rights. We are talking about how much importance we should give for identities developed by isolated Homo Sapiens when we do know that such are group identities are meaningless. Losing our tribal identity and becoming global citizen is our ultimate destiny as Homo Sapiens. Macro countries without any proper identity definition are the best way to achieve it as people tend to lose any attachment to such an identity over time or don't see the necessity to become emotional for it. But initially we need to suppress group or national identities based on language and other markers which are unwanted legacy of isolation. And before that we need suppress the dangerous identities based on religion.
ReplyDeleteI don't see substantial differences between individual and collective rights, if individuals have the right to life, so do communities (and hence genocide is considered a crime against humankind), if individuals have the right to freedom, so do communities (hence the right of self-rule or self-determination), etc. Communities are nothing but individuals when grouped.
ReplyDelete"... we need to suppress group or national identities"...
Here you speak like a true dictator. Who are you (singular or plural, "we") to decide what others have to do? Who are you to curtail their freedoms, their identities, their languages?
You speak here like a petty megalomaniac Hitler with no respect for his human brothers and sisters.
Your philosophical ideas about the paths that humankind has taken or should take are irrelevant, specially since you decide that they are a reason to suppress others identity, freedom, language.
Who are you to decide anything of that. Or who are India or Pakistan to dare such abuse of power?
Peoples must be free to decide (hopefully reasonably and orderly, but always freely) what they want to do with their present and future. How they want to organize themselves. Nobody outside them is legitimate to replace them: that's raping a whole nation! It's abominable.
We - are the people well versed with the human migrations out of Africa giving rise to multiple identities.
ReplyDeleteHere you speak like a true dictator.
Maybe that's how you want to perceive tone of my comment. I assumed my sentence, "Losing our tribal identity and becoming global citizen is our ultimate destiny as Homo Sapiens." would be complete opposite to that of Hitler.
No, I don't recognize any collective identity unless it meant Homo Sapiens. Attack on one collective identity is based on another collective identity. Say, Jew versus Nazi. We know neither of these identities are meaningful.
Frankly speaking, I don't think you have any ground to argue here. I'm already on a high moral ground.
Maybe the comparison with Hitler is unwarranted in the sense you say but my point was and is that, same as Hitler, you seem to believe authorized by such grandiose preconceptions of "historical destiny" to command others on their own destiny.
ReplyDeleteIn this, the authoritarian attitude is the same, even if the theoretical frame may be different.
Theory is not the issue: praxis is.
Also I'm by now too used to read/hear imperialist nationalists hiding behind alleged cosmopolitanism and even internationalism in order to deny smaller nations their rights.
I can accept no such pretext: internationalism can only be built on real nations, on the will of the various peoples and not on some grandiose megalomaniac theory that disregards them and starts unnecessary conflicts with such allegedly "humanist" pretext. What you say is no better than pretexting "democracy" for the invasion of Iraq.
"I'm already on a high moral ground".
No, you are not because you are being all the time anti-democratic and authoritarian.
You accuse me with all the epithets I can hardly fathom. I'm sure they are all absurd analogies if we go case by case.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how imperial collective identity is anyway different from national collective identity. We should only give respect to individual rights.
And as we have seen in the case of Kashmir your identity marker hardly applies (Hindu Kashmiris have been driven out of the valley and none of them support Kashmiri independence). So, your general statement about upholding the rights of "every people" has very limited scope to begin with because your general case of identity markers for a nation doesn't apply every movement.
How invasion of Iraq is relevant in the present case? I don't see it becoming part of the USA.
The point is there can't be generalized solution for every region. Basque and Tamil region in Sri Lanka belong to different category compared to Kashmir. By my definition only India is the true macro country. Probably, Europe and Africa if they become united can claim that status along with India. All other countries have either one dominant linguistic or ethnic identities.
ReplyDelete"I wonder how imperial collective identity is anyway different from national collective identity"...
ReplyDeleteIt is different because it wants to impose its identity on others, that's why it is imperialist.
"We should only give respect to individual rights".
As I said before, they are no really different from collective rights. If I cannot speak my language at public facilities, that is an attack against my individual rights, if I cannot decide my destiny together with my neighbors because some other people far away decide otherwise, that is an attack against democracy.
Democracy, by the way is not just individual rights, it has a clear collective dimension to it.
"How invasion of Iraq is relevant in the present case?"
You are claiming the "high moral ground" the same that Bush and camarilla did: by excusing your imperialist aggression under "universalist" babble such as "democracy" (in your case even more vague Jacobin ideology).
This is clearly the low moral ground in fact: one thing is to sympathize and support this or that local faction and another thing is attacking them. Democracy can only grow from the people's will: it cannot be imposed. Similarly Humanism can only grow within the local societies and cannot be imposed.
It is critical to understand and respect that each society, each community, each nation, has its own autonomous dynamics which must be respected.
"The point is there can't be generalized solution for every region. Basque and Tamil region in Sri Lanka belong to different category compared to Kashmir".
ReplyDeleteOf course, each case is different but the principle of self-rule, self-determination, democracy... must be respected in all cases.
"By my definition only India is the true macro country. Probably, Europe and Africa if they become united can claim that status along with India. All other countries have either one dominant linguistic or ethnic identities".
I consider India to be a federal state of many nations. "Macro-country" is not relevant to me because I consider nations from the ethnic viewpoint and not the political one, which is only derived from the caprices of history.
Like Europe, India shares a generic historico-cultural heritage that overshadows national (ethnic) peculiarities (and both are Asian/Eurasian subcontinents incidentally). They are pretty much comparable in this aspect. I'm not sure if Africa can compare so well but in any case we are talking here of supra-national entities, with all the consistence and legitimacy you may want but without the moral right to impose themselves on their component parts on every issue and specially against the will of the natives.
This is a risk that any "continental" polities should avoid as much as possible. We must always acknowledge that it is the parts which make the whole and not the other way around. We cannot dictate from any arbitrary center, be it New Delhi, Brussels or the UN how a distinct ethnic and territorial community (nation) must rule its own.
We must favor and respect local/national democracy because only from this communitarian grassroots foundation the larger whole is built.
To put an example, I am strongly Europeist but I would never accept impositions from EU on how Basques must organize our own affairs. If there are conflicts between the continental confederacy and the national entities, then discussion and consensus building are the way ahead. And if the difference reach critical points, then divorce, separation, is the only way to go.
It is different because it wants to impose its identity on others, that's why it is imperialist.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you call Serbs in different parts of Yugoslavia trying to create a greater Serbia by merging those parts with Serbia?
by excusing your imperialist aggression under "universalist" babble such as "democracy" (in your case even more vague Jacobin ideology).
Do you mean they claimed they are attacking Iraq to restore democracy there?
The case of Serbo-Croatia (they all speak the same language, dialects do not follow pseudo-ethnic nor political boundaries) is quite special as it has been manipulated with religious motivations and ethnic cleansing, genocide, reached unprecedented levels since WWII.
ReplyDeleteI can say that this kind of genocidal nationalism, regardless of their lack of qualifications, is unacceptable in any case: the rights of a nation do not justify ethnic cleansing: ius solis is important and any self-respecting nation must respect also its own minorities.
IMO Yugoslavia was a good solution (except for Albanians and probably Hungarians, who demand their own autonomy) but the religious inclinations, manipulated by German-Russian political meddling, divided the natural Serbo-Croat unity. The ethnic cleansing and even the claim of a distinct Serbian nation delegitimized whatever was valid in the Serbian claim. We must remember that Serbians were the senior partner in all this, so their responsibility is always greater and opting for Grand-Serbianism, specially in the genocidal manner it was implemented could not be accepted.
Otherwise I support the concept of Serbo-Croatia (capital Sarajevo) as a national entity because there's no real ethnic divide between Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, the same that there is not between Hindi and Urdu speakers or between Muslim, Sikh and Hindu Punjabis.
But in the end what is a nation and how it is articulated must be defined by the people itself: that's part of the self-determination process, which cannot be simplistically attributed to a mere vote.
I sometimes try to transplant the concepts from the Yugoslavian War to my own reality. One can wonder what would happen if Spain would successfully mobilize, in the event of open war, the descendants of immigrants in their favor. It's hard to consider, because here the loyalties do not follow any rigid ethnic-communitarian line and people of Basque and Spanish (or other) ancestry mix quite freely, primary identity being largely a matter of choice. But that happened in Yugoslavia too and then the disaster came with little warning.
It's a most difficult case because it includes all the oddities in any theory of ethnic nations you can consider. I follow the modern idea of nation as an ethnic community which is open to assimilate people of diverse origins without losing its identity (immigrants must assimilate... flexibly and respecting their peculiarities as much as possible).
Yugoslavia is like if you would split Germany between Catholics and Protestants (not even room for atheists?). It's a total nonsense and Yugoslavians themselves will bear testimony to what I say, at least the most reasonable ones. I am just opposed to the partition of Yugoslavia except for the case of Kosovo and maybe Slovenia, Macedonia and the Hungarian area in North Vojvodina. But if division was unavoidable, then autonomy for Krajina (without ethnic cleansing) and Sandjak (Bosniak area in Serbia) and Bosnia would have to become a little Yugoslavia, as it is impossible to split it (even less before the genocide) with the three pseudo-ethnicities living together as citizens of a multi-pseudo-ethnic unity.
But Serbians fucked even this common sense plan B with their pseudo-ethnic genocidal imperialism.
"Do you mean they claimed they are attacking Iraq to restore democracy there?"
ReplyDeleteSure. That has been the justification of the invasion all the time, along with other lesser arguments such as protecting the Kurds (and another US-invented "ethnicity": Shias) or the non-existent WMD. They claim that Saddam was a fascist tyrant (arguable) and that justifies the invasion. They do not invade, say, Thailand or Saudi Arabia for similar reasons but they pretexted that for Iraq indeed.
And for that reason they also forbid anyone suspected of Baathist loyalties from running in the elections. Democracy? Ha!
The case of Serbo-Croatia (they all speak the same language, dialects do not follow pseudo-ethnic nor political boundaries) is quite special as it has been manipulated with religious motivations and ethnic cleansing, genocide, reached unprecedented levels since WWII.
ReplyDeleteI can say that this kind of genocidal nationalism, regardless of their lack of qualifications, is unacceptable in any case: the rights of a nation do not justify ethnic cleansing: ius solis is important and any self-respecting nation must respect also its own minorities.
So was the case with the creation of Pakistan but where as Serbs failed, the section of Indian Muslims won and became a legitimate country (even in your eyes...and you have made that statement in my blog before) of their own. The Kashmir question is the legacy of that idea. And that is the reason one needs to be careful while applying the right of self-determination to 'collective identity'. I'm again asserting 'collective identity' is not legitimate so we(the people yearn for faceless Homo Sapiens beginnings) need to decide how much freedom or under what circumstances we can give self-determination rights to collective identities. Mind you, Kashmir Hindus have been already cleansed from the valley and they are generally opposed to the separatist ideas. But Hindus in India didn't get a Hindu state but a secular state (with many drawbacks but secular nevertheless).
along with other lesser arguments such as protecting the Kurds (and another US-invented "ethnicity": Shias) or the non-existent WMD.
ReplyDeleteWrong. You wanted to oppose my humanist argument thus twisted Iraq war situation. First of all, the invasion was based on WMD and got the approval of UN. Therefore, the primary reason was elimination of WMD. If the humanist idea of democracy carried so much of a weight then they would have made that as the primary reason and they would have never gone wrong as it's the case with WMD. But it's a different matter altogether that such noble primary goal would have never passed in the UN. But after the invasion they tried to give it a respectful twist by talking about 'democracy'.
However, you made the democracy argument as the primary just to put down my arguments.
And for that reason they also forbid anyone suspected of Baathist loyalties from running in the elections. Democracy? Ha!
The problem with you is you cannot see the practical differences and get back to your generic vacuous high-pedestal statements (self-determination and democracy) whenever it suits you. You don't understand the concept of the relativity of wrong. Indeed it's deplorable that Baathists are not allowed. But consider the case, Baathists don't allow anyone else and everyone else don't allow only Baathists. First of all, it may sound that everyone else is more democratic but not absolute democrats. However, if you consider additional nuance in the definition Baathist democracy, you may argue that by disallowing Baathists everyone else uphold the definition of democracy as many of know. I'm sure eventually even Baathists might be allowed participate in the elections.
My another comment got deleted. Please check if it went to your blogger's 'spam' folder. If yes, please restore it. I guess I added a link therefore it got deleted.
ReplyDelete"even in your eyes..."
ReplyDeleteSorry what is a "legitimate state"? Ideally for me it is the ethnos, the nation organized politically on its own will. In this sense Pakistan cannot be because it has several nations inside, so it's a super-state, like India or Nigeria (or so many others).
I am no enthusiast of Pakistan and I favor its partition in ethnic units: Balochs want it, Pashtuns want it and surely Sindhis also want it. As for the Kalash, they should be granted their own independent micro-state, because they really need to live with self-rule, like everybody else.
I think that the best solution to Kashmir is independence, including the Pakistani-annexed districts.
But that is not important: what is important is what do Kashmiris think. And if you'd have the upper moral ground you would not be jailing people for defending that right with speech: that is a clear sign of lack of the upper moral ground.
As for the ethnic cleansing: I understand that nobody was ever forced to emigrate other than by their own fear of the religious partition.
ReplyDeleteBut I have always thought that dividing Punjab, and specially Bengal was a bad idea, proper of fanatics. I would have been against partition and I am against partition and, for all those reasons, I moderately support the entrance of Turkey and other Muslim (more secularist than most European states) states in EU (but after self-determination is granted to Kurdistan and they move out from Cyprus, where ethnic cleansing has also happened and they acknowledge the Armenian genocide).
Pakistan and Turkey are in some aspects like Israel: artificial creations by fanatic violence of fascist style. That has to change (and for that maybe best is to promote revolution in Saudi Arabia and Egypt first of all).
But still Kashmiris, like Kurds or whoever else, have their right to self-rule and nobody can contest that with legitimacy.
Also, it's clear that Pakistan is a time-bomb against India, and carefully designed as such by the former colonial master, and that's why the USA and China love it so much.
ReplyDeleteHowever I think that it will be eventually divided along ethnic lines. There's persistent rumor that the USA has such a plan (probably in the event of hostile government taking power in Islamabad) but I'd say it's something that favors India the most - because it would suppress the major nemesis of your federal state.
A friendly independent Kashmir would be an asset to India, IMO.
"However, you made the democracy argument as the primary just to put down my arguments".
ReplyDeleteWhat? Democracy is important but cannot be used as pretext for imperialist invasion: much better to support pro-democracy and pro-rights activists, peaceful or not.
As I said, why do they invade Iraq and restore the tyrant of Kuwait? Why don't they invade Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Egypt?
200 years ago, Napoleon was also seen by many as a defender of progress, rationalism and human rights. But when he invaded Spain (and other countries) he was fought against by the people ironically defending democracy (1812 Spanish Constitution still remains as the most advanced Spain had ever) but restoring in the end absolutist monarchs (fascist tyrants).
Why? Because invaders are always perceived as alien and they perceive the invaded people as alien, so conflict ensues soon.
Also the very ideals spread by the empire, clash with the actual policies implemented. So Germans for instance were angry that France had annexed so many German lands and in the end the old foes: the tyrants of Prusia and Austria became more desirable than the new "friend", the illustrated and post-revolutionary tyrant of France. Liberal Germans ended up fighting for Prussia and Austria and Liberal Spaniards ended up fighting for tyrant Ferdinand VII (and then against him again).
But the bottom line is that peoples must have democracy... and they must build it from inside (it cannot successfully be imposed - I know of no such case).
"You don't understand the concept of the relativity of wrong".
Not sure what it has to do with us: science and ethics are distinct.
As for Baathists, it is quite clear to me, that whatever their wrongs (half of half what has been claimed) they were able to promote secularism, a stable respectful society where everyone was treated more or less equally and where the sectarian hatred and fanatic Islamo-fascism that now dominate Iraqi politics had no room to exist. They made Iraq an advanced and respected country at the level of Turkey and today many many people in Iraq misses the good old days of Saddam, even many who were opposed to him.
Now Iraq is nothing: a battlefield for Saudis, Iranians, Israelis and of course US occupants and Chinese businessmen. People fear everything: going to the street, no wearing a veil, selling underwear... and Islamist terror, essentially of the Shia branch, dominates the country.
It is not just that the outstanding members of the former single party are forbidden from running: it is that nobody SUSPECT of sympathy with them, nobody who actually defends a secularist Iraq is allowed to play at all. Hence Iraq is now, barring the US occupation, an extension of the worst of Iranian fascism, with the police essentially dominated by Shia fanatic militants who kill and rape at will.
The case or Iraq is really what one should never do if one really loves democracy. At least Saddam was illustrated, "western": today militias are totally reactionary and inhuman, devoted to religious terror: the worst scenario for illustration, for social progress.
Obviously the USA was never interested in democracy but in saving Israel's arse and establishing a series of military bases in the Persian Gulf. It even may be secretly allied with Iran (and Israel too).
As for the ethnic cleansing: I understand that nobody was ever forced to emigrate other than by their own fear of the religious partition.
ReplyDeleteIs this some sort of joke? I certainly didn't expect this line of thought for all your idiosyncrasies.
But that is not important: what is important is what do Kashmiris think.
One more pointless general statement. It matters whether you think based on religion or not. I'm sure it's a non-issue for Basques and Spaniards as both are Catholics.
And if you'd have the upper moral ground you would not be jailing people for defending that right with speech: that is a clear sign of lack of the upper moral ground.
I have already said,I hope Indian government persecutes Arundhari Roy and we'll win a Nobel prize. I don't think till now she has been jailed. And for that matter, I don't agree jailing her unless she directly incites violence against the state.
Sorry what is a "legitimate state"?
You did mention that Pakistan was created with the will of the people.
A friendly independent Kashmir would be an asset to India, IMO.
Kashmir is not an occupied place. It's part of India just any other regions in India. How it's different from any other regions of India? If Kashmir's 'collective identity' has to become independent, it has to convince all other such independent identities within India to become separate.
PS: I'm still waiting for my other comment that I posted but got deleted.
"My another comment got deleted. Please check if it went to your blogger's 'spam' folder".
ReplyDeleteYes, damn spam filter! It has not yet filtered a single case of real spam. If I could deactivate it, I would.
What? Democracy is important but cannot be used as pretext for imperialist invasion: much better to support pro-democracy and pro-rights activists, peaceful or not.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, why do they invade Iraq and restore the tyrant of Kuwait? Why don't they invade Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Egypt?
Either you don't understand or you don't want to understand.
The point was they never went war with Iraq with humanist angle of democracy. It's this angle you used to belittle my argument.
Not sure what it has to do with us: science and ethics are distinct.
You say this and go on arguing,
As for Baathists, it is quite clear to me, that whatever their wrongs (half of half what has been claimed) they were able to promote secularism, a stable respectful society where everyone was treated more or less equally and where the sectarian hatred and fanatic Islamo-fascism that now dominate Iraqi politics had no room to exist.
I'm sure you think you are consistent in your thoughts.
"Is this some sort of joke? I certainly didn't expect this line of thought for all your idiosyncrasies".
ReplyDeleteWell, I do not know well all the details of the partition, which I consider in any case a wrong (as it was done along religious lines, which are trivial because religion is not any valid identitarian tag but a matter of private opinion).
Whatever the case, you are diverting the matter towards the partition of some 60-plus years ago and not the case of Kashmir now.
And you are diverting the matter from the central issue of freedom of speech and the right of self-determination of pepoples to one of the India-Pakistan conflict.
"But that is not important: what is important is what do Kashmiris think.
One more pointless general statement".
Pointless? It's the whole point! What Kashmiris want, that is the right thing to do.
"I'm sure it's a non-issue for Basques and Spaniards as both are Catholics".
Both are essentially agnostic and secular. Catholics are dying out: they are a relic from the past. There's nothing like a fundamentalist fascist dictatorship to get rid of religion once for all, believe me. Iran comes next.
"You did mention that Pakistan was created with the will of the people".
Did I? Guess it can be a valid argument but I'm surprised I used that idea. I am in general opposed to Pakistan because of the religious backbone of the state, the same I'd be opposed to a Caliphate or a Holy Roman Empire or I am opposed to Israel, Saudia or the Iranian fascism.
"Kashmir is not an occupied place".
It is.
"It's part of India just any other regions in India. How it's different from any other regions of India?"
"Regions"? Nations you must mean!
Tamil Nadu does not want to seggregate from India, right? Kashmir does. That's the difference!
"If Kashmir's 'collective identity' has to become independent, it has to convince all other such independent identities within India to become separate".
No: that's imperialism! You are imposing the will of non-Kasmiris on Kashmiris the same that Spain imposes the will of non-Basques on Basques.
And actually that attitude only leaves room for armed struggle: because, if your rights are denied, you have two choices: surrender and submit or fight-fight-fight until you eventually win.
Some surrender but invariably not all. It's a recipe for an extended war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case, you are diverting the matter towards the partition of some 60-plus years ago and not the case of Kashmir now.
ReplyDeleteNot really. I'm giving you the root reason for the problem. I wonder how can you even accuse me of diversion since you have mentioned Nehru's 60 years old words. I agree your use of Nehru's 60 years old words (Mr. Roy's article) and you live with my invocation of the root cause which may be 60 years old. I know there is no change in the mindset. If Tamil Nadu doesn't want to be separate then it is because it doesn't see Hindus and Muslims as two separate nations.
The idea of linguistic nations were never there in India. None of our regions were part of any single kingdom based on linguistic identity (though India was part of a single kingdom during Mauryas, North India under Harsha, South India under Vijayanagara...of course, also under foreign rulers like Mughals and the British). It was the will of Indians after independence that they created all the states based on common linguistic identity. Now you are talking as if nation based on a common linguistic identity should be the ultimate destiny in any region when such an idea was not even there among Indians. It's a very divisive idea considering relative strengths of various linguistic groups. Also, considering that modern linguistic countries like the USA, Brazil etc... have a complete different beginning as nation states with a single language. There is China with completely different story. Macro country like India gives a better idea for the ultimate destiny of Homo Sapiens.
If some groups in India begin to think their linguistically homogeneous states need to become countries that would be irony considering that the initial idea of India, envisaged that linguistic states would develop better and thus strengthen India(though Nehru probably wasn't a great enthusiast of this idea). It would be a tragedy of "Indians" who meant well while creating those linguistic states.
And everybody knows that linguistic idea isn't there in Kashmir too(I'm sure there are hypocrites who would sing that tune). It was Islam and it's Islam. No religious identity should be accepted as legitimate one and should be denied of any 'collective rights'.
Spain has only few languages. It's not India. India's equivalent is Europe and not Spain. You can compare Spain to Kashmir with its Ladakhi, Pahadi 'nations'.
"The idea of linguistic nations were never there in India".
ReplyDeleteAre you telling me that people in India is not identified by linguistic identities? That terms and concepts like Tamil or Bengali do not exist? Please!
You confuse nation (ethnicity) with polity (state). Linguistic groups have always been called nations, even if small and primitive. Only recently because of the concept of nation-state, has the term nation migrated towards a fusion with the concept of state. But originally they are not the same thing and, as you say, often states do not respect ethnic borders.
And you keep confusing the religious issue with the otherwise distinct ethnic identity of Kashmiris.
And in all this time you still have not provided a single argument why could Kashmiris be deprived from their right to self-rule and self-determination other than pan-Indian imperialism.
And I quoted Nerhu because Roy herself quoted him in her defense. She said that would she be put to trial, Nerhu would have to be judged as well (posthumously).
People is being tortured and oppressed in Kashmir, people is being put to trial for a crime of opinion... all in the name of India, a wrong concept of India, I understand, one that ignores the rights of its constituent parts.
Are you telling me that people in India is not identified by linguistic identities? That terms and concepts like Tamil or Bengali do not exist? Please!
ReplyDeleteHave you read my complete exposition of that point?
You confuse nation (ethnicity) with polity (state). Linguistic groups have always been called nations, even if small and primitive.
Then let them remain ethnicity and not a state. You want to turn all those identities into polity. Nobody in India denies your right to speak your language. Some Indian thinkers also argued that if Kashmiri Muslims develop Kashmiri identity based on their language then there wouldn't be any problem. But I'm sure you can't even fathom that.
And in all this time you still have not provided a single argument why could Kashmiris be deprived from their right to self-rule and self-determination other than pan-Indian imperialism.
From the beginning I am arguing with a single point that Kashmiris should be denied of self-determination because the root cause is religion. When it comes anything within the subcontinent then there is not 'Indian' imperialism. When you say Kashmiri, for an Indian like me I'm just Kannadiga. You can't understand that. If a Karnataka occupies Kashmir then it's Kannada imperialism. If India occupies Basque then it's Indian imperialism. You can't understand these points because you cannot understand the noble idea of macro state.
People is being tortured and oppressed in Kashmir, people is being put to trial for a crime of opinion... all in the name of India, a wrong concept of India, I understand, one that ignores the rights of its constituent parts.
If innocents are being harassed then in the idea of India there are provisions to prosecute the state machinery. Even for culprits of secessionist violence there are human rights in the idea of India. You can accuse the government of India not implementing them fully but cannot accuse it for denying those rights in the constitution itself.
If Ms. Roy fights for their constitutional rights without bringing in her uninformed and naive ideas about politics then I don't have any issues with her.
"Then let them remain ethnicity and not a state. You want to turn all those identities into polity".
ReplyDeleteI understand that they are natural political units. That's why we speak of nations at all.
"From the beginning I am arguing with a single point that Kashmiris should be denied of self-determination because the root cause is religion".
Whatever the case you are resorting to violence (denying self-determination) and therefore cultivating the problem and not the solution.
You are nobody to tell Kashmiris what to do with their lives or their country. You are an imperialist.
You confuse nation (ethnicity) with polity (state).
ReplyDeleteand
I understand that they (ethnicities) are natural political units.
I can't expect consistency in your thoughts. Can I? I'm not the one confused here.
You are nobody to tell Kashmiris what to do with their lives or their country. You are an imperialist.
Here we go again. If the 'you' is 'me' then I tell you for a Kashmiri I'm a Kannadiga and not an Indian.
Whatever the case you are resorting to violence (denying self-determination) and therefore cultivating the problem and not the solution.
Hoping that 'whatever' has an impli cit acknowledgment of unjust Kashmiri self-determination claim, I would say, it's a vicious cycle. It was violence initiated by Kashmiri fanatics that has given rise to retaliatory violence from the state. Since human rights are not really upheld in almost all parts of India ( that includes the state machinery and population belonging to the same linguistic profile), I've a very dim view of the whole situation. I don't think it's problem of Indian imperialism but just that people are not sensitized and big chunk of them still barbaric.
Yes, state highhandedness has only aggravated the problem but many people in India have a misguided love for their army because of guilty feeling for a dying soldier. It's in this background I was hoping that people like Ms. Roy would act as protectors of Indian constitution and rid the people of their guilt and view the whole situation in a practical way. Unfortunately, tragically for India this is not happening. And India is a beautiful idea.
Let's see: actual polities are not always born from popular will, but from the caprices of history. Only some of the most recently born polities have a consistent ethnic basis (Estonia for instance - though there are also some older exceptions, like Cambodia).
ReplyDeletePolities are born most often from institutional violence (war, conquest, arbitrary partitions between warlords, artificially designed post-colonial states...) These are seldom, if ever, homogeneous nations. Instead their borders typically include several nations or even divide them by half.
However also typically these states have a core nation which is favored by the political power in order to absorb or displace the others. This is imperialist nationalism, for example Spain (core nation: Castile), Russia (core nation: Russians), UK (core nation English), China (core nation Han), etc. All these imperialist nations have in the past or do in the present oppress other nations within their borders, what is obviously unfair for these. The level of unfairness may vary somewhat but it's always bad and undemocratic that your people is being ruled by a foreign people, that their laws and not your own laws are the ones that are valid, that you cannot govern your own affairs freely or even at all.
The case of India is peculiar in many aspects. In spite of being a post-colonial entity, it was not fragmented like Africa but allowed to remain mostly united with its colonial borders (with the Pakistani exception essentially but also Sri Lanka, Burma...). It also has a peculiar supra-national identity, which I compare to that of Europe, built on commonality of history and traditions above the language divides.
But it is clear that it is not any single nation: it is a union of nations. This is ok (in fact it is desirable from my viewpoint) but only as long as the constituent nations are recognized as such and their self-rule is guaranteed. You cannot impose such union: you have to continuously negotiate the parts into wanting to be part of it. And you have to respect if a part wants to secede.
All this is nothing but democracy.
(continues)
...
ReplyDeleteSo when I say that not all nations are constituted as states, that states are often different from nations, I am stating the obvious. And when I state that nations are natural polities I am stating an ideal, an abstraction, a democratic goal. I think that it is nations and not states which are entitled to the right of self-rule and self-determination. These they can yield to a greater confederation but never in its essentials, only as an always provisional agreement.
"If the 'you' is 'me' then I tell you for a Kashmiri I'm a Kannadiga and not an Indian".
Fair enough. In any case you are not a Kashmiri and hence you have no say in Kashmiri affairs (other than opinion, as I have too).
"Hoping that 'whatever' has an impli cit acknowledgment of unjust Kashmiri self-determination claim"...
It implies that I'm not willing to accept your manipulation of the terms of Kashmiri rights. These belong to Kashmiris and your reasoning about what is behind all is trivial. It may be interesting for a historical analysis but has no relevance for the matter of fundamental rights that I am arguing is the core of the issue. With the same pretext you can reject Chechen self-rule, Uyghur self-rule and Palestinian self-rule, as all these nations are primarily Muslim. I do not acknowledge that ideological trap. Peoples have the right to self-determination and trying to curtail it can only cause lengthy wars, which almost unavoidably end in self-determination (but in some cases may end in brutal genocide).
"Since human rights are not really upheld in almost all parts of India"...
I'd be seriously worried about that, sincerely. Because only human rights can guarantee popular satisfaction and ultimately cohesion of the union.
"And India is a beautiful idea".
From the distance I agree with this statement. But as all beautiful ideas it must be built on freedom and rights (liberties and social justice), not on imposition.
With the same pretext you can reject Chechen self-rule, Uyghur self-rule and Palestinian self-rule, as all these nations are primarily Muslim. I do not acknowledge that ideological trap.
ReplyDeleteProbably, this is the only valid argument that you have made till now. But even this is again based on your misinterpretation of my idea of India.
You have to understand the identities based on religion will always pose threat to India. It has nothing to do with 'collective identity'. Russia isn't equivalent to India, China with its single language obligation isn't equivalent to India. Palestine is a red-herring in the whole debate here as I believe it was a cruel joke on them that some people with 2000 years old claim of a land could get a nation of their own.
In the end, I believe you are not able to understand the definition of a macro nation as you are so much involved in linguistic polity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand well what you call "macro-nation": it is a regional union of diverse nations. It is not a nation on its own right: all its legitimacy relies on the will of the smaller parts that make it up. It could never survive general desertion by most of its members.
ReplyDeleteA very similar case can be that of Yugoslavia: once the parts began to be really upset with the whole and decided to break apart, Yugoslavia was done. Same for the USSR, when Russia decided to move out, the USSR collapsed.
We may see something similar in the EU, which is not that advanced in integration but is roughly the same. If EU members start deserting the union the union collapses.
However you want to create a "France" (centralized, Jacobin) out of an "EU" (decentralized, multiethnic). And well, I do not like at all the French model: it is the mother of all national conflicts in Europe and probably in many other places.
The parts have always the right to move out. I would say this separation should be orderly, democratic and in good mood. Every divorce should be that way: friendly.
What you are trying to do is to impose marriage slavery, so the weaker partner cannot get a fair divorce. That's clearly an intolerable abuse and can only cause a spiral of trouble.
And I do not think that the identity of Kashmir is based only on religion. The same I do not think that the Chechen or Palestinian issues are based on religion either, even if they are being manipulated by religious factions.
However you want to create a "France" (centralized, Jacobin)
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning you are putting these words into me. A very despicable attempt. From the beginning you have called me by names. And none of them stand the close scrutiny. Frankly, I don't understand centralized, single ethnic and single language country. I'm opposed to all of these. And India doesn't stand for any of these. Of all the states, Jammu and Kashmir even less dependent on the central government.
However, I believe since French basically a non-French language (I believe French by and large were basically Celtic, Basque and Germanic peoples) I agree with their single language identity. I suppose it's like English in India. I don't mind English becoming the sole language of Indians. This of course nobody would force and have to become a reality because of economic reasons. I guess no ego is hurt that way.
In any case you are not a Kashmiri and hence you have no say in Kashmiri affairs
I do as long as they mock my identity as a Kannadiga and further dilute the idea of India for reasons as low as religion. Pathetically, you repeat Chechenya and Palestine even after I made myself clear how they differ. And sing the old tune Kashmir is not a religious case. When Pakistan has happened no Muslim majority is never non-religious. That's too much of a co-incidence.
What you are trying to do is to impose marriage slavery, so the weaker partner cannot get a fair divorce. That's clearly an intolerable abuse and can only cause a spiral of trouble.
Shall we refrain from absurd analogies?
"I do as long as they mock my identity as a Kannadiga"...
ReplyDeleteFirst time ever I heard that Kashmiris waste their time meddling in the affairs of Kerala.
"you repeat Chechenya and Palestine even after I made myself clear how they differ".
They are not substantially different. In all cases there is a religious issue criss-crossing the ethnic and political conflict, so they are valid comparisons (of course, every case is somewhat different but that is trivial when we attempt to make universally valid categories).
"When Pakistan has happened no Muslim majority is never non-religious".
I understand that the issue of Pakistan and the issue of Kashmir are different (related but distinct). Kashmir is, with or without Pakistan.
"Shall we refrain from absurd analogies? "
The analogy is not absurd at all: we are talking about the free association of people, either in marriage or in political union. If it's not free, it is slavery.
As the song of my youth went: "when people get associated, they gather with whom they want... but in this society we are partners by force of many kinds of pigs"...
It's all about freedom, man. Freedom of speech (Roy, etc.) and freedom of decision in your life (Kashmir, etc.) Either you are with freedom or you are against it.
>>When Pakistan has happened no Muslim majority is never non-religious
ReplyDeleteShould be read as:
When Pakistan has happened any Muslim majority is never non-religious.
Freudian slip or plain bad English. I think the latter considering the gamut of examples in these arguments.
They are not substantially different.
and
I understand that the issue of Pakistan and the issue of Kashmir are different
If Chechnya and Palestine aren't different then Pakistan and Kashmir too. You have to apply the same yardsticks everywhere.
Now surely you think I don't understand subtle but significant differences in your arguments.
No because IMO Pakistan is not a nation but something else (let's say a "caliphate": a supra-ethnic theocratic polity). So Pakistan is not comparable with Kashmir, Palestine or Chechnya. Balochistan is comparable, for instance, but never Pakistan, which is an unusual (to say the least) political construct.
ReplyDeleteIf the conflict between India and Pakistan would be one between India and Balochistan, I'd always take the side of Balochistan, because it is a nation that deserves sovereignty and self-rule. But Pakistan is not such thing: it is a religious-political entity, like the Vatican or Saudi Arabia or Israel - it deserves no respect. At least not for me.
And it is intrinsically unstable for that very reason and because it is a plurinational state, which does not always respects its components. That's the main reason why Balochis, like Bengalis in the Past, want to break apart: because the multinational state does not respect them nor their self-rule.
The issue for me is never religion: religion is just a private matter, like food preferences.