This week there has been fury over Kashmir and Azadi. Arundhati Roy in a conference in Srinagar, called India a colonising power, and supported the demand for awarding self rule to Kashmir.
The statements of Arundhati Roy and S Geelani have evoked wrath. BJP has called for their arrest on charges of sedition. The Congress led government has treaded more cautiously; calibrating the response of the global village, that we are desperately trying to join and lead, to such an action. The acute anger has left blogs, e papers and televised discussion flooded with comments. More measured and intellectual opposition has come from “modern rational” columnists. In fairness to them all – Ms Roy’s essays on the subject has biased research at its core. She has oversimplified a complex problem. Made it too black. And this is not to be expected from some one of her stature. Crusaders for humanity can not at this stage afford this error of coming across as partial. Her readers admire her voice of fact based dissent but will be equally unforgiving of her opportunistic data collection and interpretation with a nihilistic foregone conclusion.
So where does the tale of Kashmir lead back to?
The story of human plight in Kashmir, just like the the story of life is not black and white. This is a complex tale of living. Of needs and suffering torn between nations and identities. This narrative should not be simplified. To either a tale of young men and women fighting for the freedom of their land from the oppression of armed excess. Or a foreign nation sponsoring revolution and terrorism in sweeping masterstrokes of covert foreign policy. Both would be true in bits and pieces. But neither can exclusively be the entire story. We as Indians shall be comfortable relating to the latter version, just like some hot blooded Pakistani youth would with the former.
I have a problem with the importance given to history as a tool for decision making.
This has come up a few times in the discussions in various blog. Since 1947 – until early 1990s the demand for Azadi in Kashmir has not really been heard. Bollywood movies from 70 and 80s abound in scenes where a beaming Rajesh Khanna woos Mumtaz against the tranquil backdrop of paradise on earth. Tourists have flocked to Srinagar, Gulmarg and Pahelgaon.
Yet this seeming order has gradually changed in the last two decades. There has been proof of over the border influences from Pakistan and even China. At the same time the noose of Indian army enjoying special powers has tightened around the life of the ordinary Kashmiri. Addressing both these factors is a challenge. Almost like a see – saw if you relax army presence the foreign influence gets out of hand. And if you tackle the border infiltration with an iron hand the outcry against greater army presence gets louder.
Another tool that we often use in our judgement is comparing one history against another: Even in the traditional narrative of the Indian freedom movement - the demand for self rule has not been throughout the 200 years that the British colonised India. What were patches of armed rebellion in 1857, evolved into demands for greater representation in policy making and then only in early 1900s and more definitively in 1942 did the demand for self rule emerge as a cohesive national demand. Even then the Indians were evoking an united nation from the ghosts of autonomous princely states that the English traders of East India company had found themselves in, in mid 18th century. Even historically from the Guptas and Mauryas in ancient India to the Mughals in Medieval India, the borders in the subcontinent have always been fluid . And this again brings us to the central questions - how far do we go back? Which parts of history do we cherry pick to rationalise or reject the demands of 2010? Probably none.
In more modern time: there has been comparisons of dissent elsewhere in the country. The now “solved” Punjab - Khalistan movement of the 80s seems to be a particular favourite. But not much is being said about Gorkhaland, Far eastern states like Manipur and Nagaland, or the issue of Maoist discontent . It is not wise to have an expectation for Kashmir to behave the Punjab way. Every revolution is unique in its evolution and therefore demands individual solution. However, in way of introspection we should probably revisit the few common strands that connect them. Does a Kashmiri or Manipuri or a villager in Dantewada have a life comparable to a Mumbaikar or a Delhiite? Where do we go wrong as a nation when we fail to establish and maintain equality for our citizens? Relevant though these issues are: this is for another day.
Misdirected national pride in India is as holy as Religion. Beyond criticism.
In India the average middle class city dweller is indoctrinated to sit comfortably in their world of subsidized comfort. Stand and weep with the national anthem. Salute the fluttering Tricolour. Clutch on to the land within our seemingly rigid borders. And observe a dry day on the birthday of the “father of the nation”. These are acquired reflexes that most never question. National pride is a faith – almost like religion. The concept of putting human life before nation is evolutionally “bad” for the survival of the herd. And inherently perceived to be selfish.
And this is exactly where the nation needs to mature. Evolve from faith into reasoning.
Humanity is absolute and should be prioritised over borders, flag and anthems.
In this revised view of life - nothing artificial: not even the notion of a nation or a constitution half rigid and rarely revised over the last half century, can be or should be held sacred over human life. But this is asking too much of the nation that is probably growing the fastest in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment