Guest post by MRIDU RAI
Rahul Pandita has written a misleading piece—in the tone of high dudgeon and ethical outrage no less—in the ‘essays’ section of the 3 September 2011 issue of Open magazine titled “The Autumn of Hypocrisy”. I think it is a piece that, nevertheless, requires some examination mostly because it makes several assertions in ways that queer any possibility of debate around the important question of what a literary festival held in Kashmir today might mean. Whether or not it was the author’s intention to do so, its effect is also to discredit, off-hand, several literary and artistic voices whose greatest sin would appear to be to have disagreed with the kind of literary festival in Kashmir Rahul Pandita and his fellow organizers had in mind. Of course, it is also troubling to hear from Mr. Pandita on this question since he is both an aggrieved party, deprived of his right to express himself at the festival, and also, as the credit at the bottom of his piece elaborates, a former “member of the advisory committee for the Harud literary festival”. I wonder if this conflict of interest bothers anyone other than me.
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of Rahul Pandita’s essay is the seamless weaving together of very different strands of opposition expressed to the holding of the festival. It is dishonest, to say the least, to suggest that there was a unity among “all those who opposed the fest”. It is only disingenuousness that will find anything in common between the reactions on the Facebook page “Boycott the Harud festival”, those deliberately circulating false rumours about Rushdie’s participation to construe the event in religiously hostile terms, the refusal of several invited writers to participate in the festival, and the “open letter on the ‘Harud’ festival” that was circulated via Kafila. In this cavalier lumping together, everyone gets tarred by the same brush and becomes jointly the object of opprobrium: everyone disagreeing with the holding of the festival becomes equally dogs-in-the-manger, opponents of genuine freedom of speech, religious retrogrades, violence-mongers, and jealously protective seigneurs of personal fiefs. In his rather distasteful opening paragraph, Mr. Pandita would have us balk in horror at a picture he draws entirely from his own imagination of all of these varied “sinister” elements celebrating collectively with glee the “defeat” of what we are to view as a uniquely high-minded effort to bring the liberating breezes of open literary and artistic expression to Kashmir. Not only is this an ethically dubious way to counter opposition but also it is based on inaccuracy and is, therefore, a singularly unhelpful way to take the debate forward if that is Mr. Pandita’s intention.
In direct reference to the open letter in Kafila, Mr. Pandita tells us that his and his co-organizers’ festival was “sabotaged”. That is entirely off the mark. Sabotage suggests secrecy, underhandedness and a sly undermining. But the letter in Kafila was an open letter on full public view. People were free to sign or not sign on. The organizers of the festival were free to engage or not in a debate around the issues the letter raised. The choice of canceling the festival was that of the organizers. Where is the underhandedness in all this? Where is the sabotage? And how did the substance of that letter deny the freedom of speech and expression to anyone? In fact, the open letter itself was an exercise in political dissent that enacted the provisions of freedom of speech and expression, as they are defined anywhere in the world of democracies.
Mr. Pandita writes about himself: “I didn’t care how this festival was being described. I was going to be there to talk about everything”. And there we have it: the eternally, deliberately uncomprehending Indian liberal. He assumes that his freedoms are those of everyone, that his perspectives are “everything”, that they are universally held, that what he defines as “everything” is how everyone else also defines it and that if he can “talk about everything”, well, how can anyone question the good intentions of this festival? But wait; there is another basis for the unique legitimacy of his voice that Mr. Pandita will have us note. He is “a writer who is from Kashmir”. It would have been helpful to hear what he means by being “from” Kashmir. In asking this question, I do not by any means wish to speak unsympathetically about his stated position of being “a Kashmiri in exile”. But I do wish to ask him to distinguish himself from the Kashmiris who are in Kashmir and who might have to bear the repercussions of participating in the sort of “free” exchange of ideas the Harud festival envisaged, who might have to pay for their participation long after the festival has folded its tents and decamped. Does he not remember that in Kashmir users of even social sites like Facebook were arrested and harassed for expressing dissent through cyberspace? Does he not remember that political protestors in last summer’s demonstrations were successfully hounded and arrested by security personnel who relied on videotapes to identify and pick up dissidents? Is he “from” Kashmir in that sense of participating equally in the unanticipated outcomes of the event he would sponsor?
That Mr. Pandita can afford not to “care” about characterizations, nuances or the significances of descriptive terms, does not mean that everyone can be equally care-free—careless even—about the implications of the festival in a valley where even symbolic acts have direct consequences for those who live there at the mercy of an occupying power. Almost every act is symbolism with political meaning in Kashmir and I propose that only those either hopelessly naive or deliberately blinding themselves would deny this. Whether we talk about the holding of elections, or flag marches by the army, or the state’s sequestered celebrations of August 15th, or even the militarily enabled jingoistic pilgrimages to Amarnath—all these regularly become part of the symbolic performance of “normalcy”. Would Mr. Pandita deny that? If perchance he would not, what leads him to believe that the sort of festival he and his colleagues were planning would somehow remain uniquely immune—no matter what their own intentions—from the same sort of appropriation for the symbolic mimicry of “normalcy” that has become routine in Kashmir?
If the concern of the organizers of the festival is with the otherwise laudable goal of giving a platform to the “many Kashmiris who are keen to tell their stories”; if the wish is to “hear them out”, then why don’t they contemplate alternative means? Why not consider channelizing their resources into other ways of achieving the same ends but without the politically neutering implications of their particular kind of literary intervention? Why not use their influence to prevail on publishing houses to print these stories? Would that not be a more long-lasting contribution? And would it not also be a way for these stories to reach a much wider audience than any festival could? Why not organize seminars and conferences in other parts of the subcontinent to, in fact, give a hearing to these voices? Fly these amazing new creative voices in to the many other venues already available on the subcontinent and give these “young Kashmiris [many, many opportunities] to interact with prominent writers and artists” as apparently the organizers wish to have happen.
Yes, absolutely, do provide audiences that any group of writers and artists deserves but why not do it in ways that will not compromise their political stances? Because you see I cannot agree that Kashmir is divided in two in the way Mr. Pandita would have us believe: those who wish for literary expression (the good guys but also the victims) and those others (evil, politically Machiavellian manipulators) who value the “cause” above everything else, including individual freedoms, artistic celebration etc. It is a noxious thing to suggest that it is so. I cannot believe that all those who opposed the festival—while first indicating their wish for it and to participate in it—only did so because they felt “forced to take sides” or because they were “silenced in the name of the ’cause'”. What patronizing contempt Mr. Pandita displays in those phrases! What denial of agency! And, most damagingly, what a gross oversimplification this is of people’s complex and undoubtedly personally harrowing sorting of priorities, concerns, affiliations, and adherences—yes, surely, sometimes conflicting—to principles they hold as dear as Mr. Pandita does his.
Rahul Pandita’s plaint is about an “Autumn of Hypocrisy”. For some of us the concern is about not unwittingly endorsing what would be hypocrisy in any season.
(Mridu Rai teaches south Asian history at Trinity College, Dublin. She is also the author of several articles on Kashmir’s history and of the book Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights and the History of Kashmir.)
From Kafila archives:
- An Open Letter on the ‘Harud’ Literary Festival
- A Response from the Harud Literary Festival
- Harud Literature Festival ‘Postponed’
- ‘Can Someone be a Brahmin and not be Acting as a Brahmin?’
- The Present of the Absent State
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
“And there we have it: the eternally, deliberately uncomprehending Indian liberal. He assumes that his freedoms are those of everyone,” – says the wise one ensconced in Yale, New Haven. How much more gyaan will safely perched people in phoren places give to people in this hard land? This activity has become something of a cottage industry. These same kind of “phoren” walas do not think twice when their airfare is paid by Indian organizers for events in India. So much for caring and sharing. Rahul bhai, whether I support you or not, you do have a stake, because you fight it out here. And cheers to that.
LikeLike
Ummm…yes, well not at Yale, as you might have discovered had you read the brief bio at the end of the piece.
But let’s entertain your vacuous objection to my piece for a short while, especially since I suspect there are probably many others like yours out there. So, Mr. Mukherjee what makes me such a “phoren wala” compared to, let’s say, you? Is it that I breathe the air of India for fewer days in the year than you?
More pertinently, I will have you know that my research on Jammu and Kashmir was done IN Jammu and Kashmir. When was the last time you were there?
As for who pays for my trips to India, that frankly is none of your business. Still, I will have you know that you are completely off the mark. I work, my deluded friend, very hard for every cent I have ever earned as a research grant. So far, I have not had to apply for free monies from anywhere.
Okay, that’s pretty much all I have to say to you and your kind of baseless and distasteful commentary.
LikeLike
Yale sounds more sinful, somehow. New Haven stinks of iniquity.
Such a pity that Ms. Rai shifted and left us charging at an open door! Most disconcerting.
LikeLike
I was upset about Harud Lit festival canceling. But i see validity in the points u make…
LikeLike
It would have been helpful to hear what he means by being “from” Kashmir. In asking this question, I do not by any means wish to speak unsympathetically about his stated position of being “a Kashmiri in exile”.
Classic leftie lie! Deny that we were ethnically cleansed from the valley OR blame Jagmoham for that. Anyway weren’t you the source of that nasty piece of Al Jazeera propaganda about Kashmiri Pandits questioning whether our shoah/el-nakbah every really happened?
LikeLike
eeek! Vikrum Kaul neither are you a Holocaust-surviving Jew nor an ethnically-cleansed Palestinian, but just a too-long-living-comfortably-and-lavishly-on-the-hard-labor-of-Muslim-Kashmiri-peasantry-Brahmin-who-is-now-discombobulated-and-sore-at-the-thought-of-Muslims-throwing-this-centuries-old-yoke-off. So don’t Shoah or Nakbah anyone here! Your stake in Kashmir is 2.5 percent.
LikeLike
This is not about left and right, this is about a petition and its unforeseen consequences. Which part of the note by Mridu Rai was leftist and incurs Mr. Vikrum Kaul’s strictures is difficult to ascertain. There is nothing left nor right about ethnic cleansing, assuming that it was ethnic cleansing. Yes, about Jagmohan, there is a political orientation; nobody will deny that Jagmohan was a handmaiden of the right, but since Mr. Kaul apparently dismisses his role, the leftist or rightist nature of his intervention does not come into the picture.
And if the author of this note was indeed the person interviewed by Al Jazeera (which is apparently what the volatile Mr. Kaul is trying to convey between splutters of outrage), what of it? What bearing does that have on the matter on hand?
“Sikandar ne haraya tha Porus ko,
To main kya karoon?”
What is the connection, Mr. Kaul? And what is your point?
LikeLike
the part which questions the right of Kashmiri Pandits to talk about Kashmir, since you know we we live in ‘self designated exile’ in the splendid squalor of Jammu!
LikeLike
I can only read your misreading as a deliberate attempt to misdirect attention from the real issues at stake here.
LikeLike
Mridu,
I apologise for being a little belligerent the other day. I have no intention of ‘misdirecting’ attention from any issue, since I’m really not invested in either of the debate to be honest. It is more of a tempest in the teacup.
The part I take exception to however, you questioning right of a Kashmiri Pandit to talk about Kashmir since he doesnt live in the valley anymore. Mr.Pandita was raised in Srinagar , is it not enough to take him for his word that he is from Kashmir?
Furthermore you go on to add:
” I do not by any means wish to speak unsympathetically about his stated position of being “a Kashmiri in exile”. ”
But in a way you do just that, question the very claim of our forced departure. It is quite like Americans and their tendency to mouth off disclaimers of “no offence”, when they are just about to do that…
LikeLike
Vikrum,
As I cannot repeat myself each time someone raises this misinterpretation of my words, please allow me to quote what I have already written in reply to a similar question by someone below.
I say: “I have not anywhere in my piece denied Mr. Pandita his right to speak either in Kashmir or anywhere else about anything he might wish to speak about. What I have questioned is his suggestion that the freedom he enjoys to speak about, as he put it, “everything [he] felt strongly about” is universal in Kashmir; the implicit claim that he does not enjoy—as do I and other Indians like me—privileges that are denied most Kashmiris in the valley is what I contest.”
LikeLike
I hope it is clear that in the above comment I was addressing Mr. Kaul, not Bonobashi [who I refuse to believe is a hermit since he has acted more like a preux chevalier, for which many thanks].
LikeLike
the Indian elite balked of an opportunity to turn the suffering of Kashmir into yet another cash cow! how bitter is their lament! this was a golden opportunity to get their hands on some serious cash AND serve their country, and now some spoilsport Kashmiris and their supporters have actually dared to question their right to do so! incredulity! fury! tantrums! malice! such fun to watch,keep it going…… just let me get the popcorn
LikeLike
By this logic, all events however beneficial to the locals should be put on hold until a few ‘intellectuals’ (mostly non resident) declare that the event cannot be used by the state for propaganda. Why not work with the lit fest forum and use it constructively to make your point about the situation in Kashmir? This was supposed to be the inaugural event, you could have let it mature over the years and then taken a call on its benefits. Or if it was not to your liking just ignored the event. By taking the stance that you have, it queers the pitch for future literary forums and events.
LikeLike
Ajay,
How precisely did these “intellectuals” you speak about prevent the festival from going ahead? Did the open letter say anything about not holding it? Or about boycott?
On your last point, since I usually prefer to think of glasses as half-full, why do you assume the concerns raised in the open letter have queered the pitch for any/all future literary events? Why not learn from what did not work this time around? Why should this event or rather its not taking place not serve as a cautionary tale?
LikeLike
@vikram you look to be doing here false propagand regarding the lit fest. It were people like you who always are always in the search of chances to present kashmiris in bad colours.
LikeLike
The author does a fair job of critiquing another writer and his article, but at no point in the article does the author ever reveal her stance on the festival (and her reasons)…so even this article from Mridu Rai is about taking sides…nothing substantive to be learnt from one intellectual berating another…
LikeLike
Brilliantly put Mridu. Thanks.
LikeLike
Just another “phoren walah,” I thought I’d say a word or two to support Mridu, but Boy, O Boy, she doing a fine job on her own. Bravo!
LikeLike
mridu: lovely reponse. my comments to this article by pandita were posted on facebook and on chapati mystery’s site where i read them, where i did say that:
[mr pandita’s piece was]…a rather convenient recasting of the event as a free speech forum whose intent and objective was to liberate the repressed voices of the people of kashmir. i somehow can’t buy this idealized if not clearly obfuscatory perspective. of course i do not condone those who have been threatening violence against participants, or posting hideously stupid and vile messages on the internet. however, i would argue, these are not the voices that called for the boycott, nor the intent of those who supported the call. to refuse to collaborate with forces of occupation and repression is one of the first acts of free speech and independent choice that a people can make. and it is a choice that they make even at the cost of their own silence. this writer clearly does not realize this. he does not seem to see that they may allow you to sing your songs freedom inside the prison but you will still be in the prison, and worse, you will only be entertainment for those who have imprisoned you. the platforms that are available to those who called for the boycott are also available to every kashmiri in kashmir and outside, including this writer, who hypocritically fails to point out that he already has a platform in this very magazine he writes for. grandstanding, rather condescendingly, for the imagined ‘repressed’ students of kashmir who are unable to voice their opinions elsewhere, we are to believe that the lit fest was their only chance. hogwash. it was possibly their worst chance because it would have meant a capitulation to power, a surrender to a narrative that is not theirs, nor meant for them.
LikeLike
Asim,
Thanks. That is very well put indeed: “they may allow you to sing your songs freedom inside the prison but you will still be in the prison, and worse, you will only be entertainment for those who have imprisoned you.”
And your singing will be evidence of how wonderfully happy prison-life is.
Oh, yes, you’re absolutely right: Mr. Pandita does rather interestingly suggest–if only by omitting to mention his own privileged position where his many opportunities to speak are concerned–that he is going to do an immeasurably difficult thing when he will overcome his many imaginary hurdles, the obstacles created for him by the “twitter messiahs”, to ‘tell that last story’. Well, good for him. I certainly wish him good fortune doing that.
LikeLike
Instead of commenting on the points raised by Miss Rai making personal attacks sounds very cheap. You are doing a great work Miss Rai don’t get disheartened,keep it up.Not necessary to reply all the baseless noxious propaganda.It is better if Mr. Pandita responds to this piece.
LikeLike
Thanks, Latif. No worries: this sort of personal “keechad-hurling” or, as we “phoren walis” probably should say, “mud-slinging”, is like that thing…you know…duck, water, duck’s back?
LikeLike
Mridu a couple of questions, as I read through the post?
A) Can you question the right of a Kashmiri to write about Kashmir since he doesn’t stay anymore IN kashmir? You write
“He is “a writer who is from Kashmir”. It would have been helpful to hear what he means by being “from” Kashmir. In asking this question, I do not by any means wish to speak unsympathetically about his stated position of being “a Kashmiri in exile”. But I do wish to ask him to distinguish himself from the Kashmiris who are in Kashmir and who might have to bear the repercussions of participating in the sort of “free” exchange of ideas the Harud festival envisaged, who might have to pay for their participation long after the festival has folded its tents and decamped”
By all means the first three signatories to the open letter you referred to, where not living IN kashmir? So on what basis where they able to access the “free” exchange would be?
Others, including you, Mr. Navlakha, and Mr Kak have no been in Kashmir during the time since insurgency started. What you know is what you heard or read? Which may/may not be true? I hope you agree with that fact. That being the basis of the argument that a person no IN kashmir can’t understand what Kashmir wants, doesn’t quite explain the stand your letter took.
B) You mentioned that you didn’t wish to speak unsympathetically, but you were quite what you didn’t want to be. I did not leave my house. I was forced to. You see the difference. Whoever I may wish to go back to my home, I can’t. My home has been burnt and my land encroached. Should you or any-one have the right to stop me from telling me my story? Rahul may have chosen to tell any story. Of Kashmiri Pandits, or mass graves, or the killings of the last summer. But utterly, he definitely has the right to have a stand on the issue, which neccessarily can’t be your stand or of any of the signatories to the letter?
C) Then you go over to a moral lesson on “How to Do it Right”
“Why not consider channelizing their resources into other ways of achieving the same ends but without the politically neutering implications of their particular kind of literary intervention? Why not use their influence to prevail on publishing houses to print these stories? Would that not be a more long-lasting contribution? And would it not also be a way for these stories to reach a much wider audience than any festival could? Why not organize seminars and conferences in other parts of the subcontinent to, in fact, give a hearing to these voices? ”
While these seem to be a good idea, what is wrong in doing what other might want to. I haven’t seen any of the above or you coming over or talking for a particular section of the JK society, be it problems of KPs or other migrants from Jammu region, or the migrants from PoK. I don’t criticize you for taking that stand because it is an ideological difference which you and I may have.
While I am ready to demand from the government the wrongs done last summer, the truth behind the mass graves, and the most pertinent question of not a single conviction in the murder/exodus of KPs? You and many other signatories to that letter often chose to ignore the last part. Which to me is perfectly alright, because to each is own!
D) Coming to Harud. Do all literary fests deal with all issues? I am sure, given your experience, you would know the answer is NO! Often literary fests only touch upon issues, dwell, and let people with ideas to debate. I believe, Harud would have done the same.
E) You say that the “campaign against Harud” had nothing to do with its cancellation? Do you deny the threats on facebook and twitter to the organizers? Do you deny that there was a hate group? And having read/written about Kashmir for sometime know, even you know that views can take extreme path there. Nothing is black and white there. While I do accept that your letter may have been in good spirit. But not all those groups, hate messages where in good spirit!
LikeLike
Rahul B,
A) Please refer to my response below to “Despondent” where I have already clarified what my meaning is. And it is not to deny any such right to any Kashmiri or anyone else.
As for whether either of the two gentlemen you mention or I have been to Kashmir since the beginning of the insurgency, on what basis do you conclude that—speaking for the moment for myself—I have not? As a matter of fact, not as justification of myself but to clear your rather odd misapprehension, of my six stays in Kashmir, five have been after the start of the insurgency, and 4 have been extended stays there. My first extended stay was in 1995. Since the insurgency is still ongoing, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Navlakha and Mr. Kak have also been in Kashmir since it’s inception. Of course, I should not presume to speak on their behalf. I don’t even know Mr. Navlakha but I’m pretty certain his work involved his living in the valley for extended periods of time—until, that is, the state decided to curtail his citizen’s right of freedom of movement in his country.
B) Oh, please don’t level such distasteful and entirely baseless charges of my being unsympathetic to the plight of Kashmiri Pandits who have experienced the loss of home and hearth in the last twenty or so years. I have said nothing on the subject, and only brought up the question of Pandits in exile because Mr. Pandita brought it up, rather gratuitously I might add, in his piece. And, again, I am not denying anyone any right to say anything about anything anywhere. All I said was that Mr. Pandita’s freedoms were not universally enjoyed.
C) I didn’t realize anyone would interpret my offering of alternative means to address the concerns stated in Mr. Pandita’s piece about providing avenues for literary expression to Kashmiris, as a “moral lesson”. It was intended as no such thing.
You accuse me of not “talking for” various segments of Kashmiri society. And later – in your point [D] you maintain—quite correctly—that not all events and I presume this extends to all persons “deal with all issues”. Well, which is it?
In any case, I would not presume to “talk for” any section of the state’s population. And, no, so far my research has not extended to examining the current context of Kashmiri Pandit existences—but then my research so far has not extended beyond the 1947 history of anyone in the state. The more pertinent question you might have discussed is whether I have, in fact, ever said anything demeaning or offensive about any section of the state’s population, including its Kashmiri Pandit members. The answer to that is categorically “no”. And rather than make vague accusations about my having been unsympathetic about the plight of Kashmiri Pandits, you really ought to write more responsibly with proof for your contentions.
And finally to your point [E), as I believe I have already addressed the only remotely pertinent point you raise in [D]. Just to clarify quickly on the latter, I did not suggest that any event can or even should imagine it can “deal with all issues”. It was not me, but Mr. Pandita who even thought of a personally defined “everything”. To return to [E], why should you ask me confirm or deny threats issued on FB? Why should you even doubt—unless you are being malicious– that I would condemn in the strongest terms possible the issuing of death threats under any circumstances. Since you seem to require clear spelling out, let me help you: I absolutely, unequivocally, condemn any death threats that were issued on FB to any potential participants in the now canceled Harud Literary Festival. I have nowhere nor ever condoned such threats to anyone. I hope that is absolutely clear.
LikeLike
Kashmir today, is the cauldron of ‘converging’ interests of self appointed Kashmir experts who claim to be liberals but have no qualms in embracing ‘proponents of ‘azadi- bara- e-Islam'(freedom for Islam) in Kashmir; of Kashmiri Islamists-the collaborators of Pak’s anti India Kashmir jihad (“Ham Jashn-e-Kabul mana chukay, ab aao chalo Kashmir chalain” /We have celebrated our victory in Kabul, Let’s go to Kashmir/
http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/07/death-of-a-quintessential-jihadi.html)
Prior to 1989-90,Islamists’ rhetoric was only limited to post Friday congregations in the precincts of mosques where they would routinely ‘remember’ that Kashmir was an unfinished agenda of the religion based two nation theory driven partition of India. Most of the so called Kashmir experts started dabbling in Kashmir concurrently with the launch of Kashmir jihad in nineties, that is evident in their narrative though selectively, of the cycle of ‘death & destruction’ that followed in Kashmir. It doesn’t dent their conscious that Kashmir Hindu Pandits rendered a minority over centuries of persecution ever since the advent of militant Islam in middle ages were subjected to a premeditated ethnic cleansing as first part of the sinister design to establish a single faith order in Kashmir. The claim of liberalism becomes hollow in refusing to acknowledge the visible Islamisation of Kashmiri society in the valley (“Kashmir without a soul” /Dawn /Oct.23, 2009/ Kuldip Nayar/ http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/kashmir-without-a-soul-309 )
Romanticising the miseries of Kashmiris brought about by the jihad is what the cotemporary literature emanating from Kashmir is all about. It is more of propaganda then literature. And for the propaganda industry to survive it is imperative that Kashmir cauldron remains on boil. That is why ‘normalcy’ irks them & overwhelming electoral response inspite of jihadists’ ban or record tourist footfalls or terror-incident free Amaranth pilgrimage are rejected as peoples aspiration to return to their normal lives that two decades old jihad deprives them of. Agreed, complete normalcy will be seen restored in Kashmir only once those responsible for having founded gun culture in the valley at the behest of their Pakistani masters & those responsible for brutal ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits are tried for crimes against humanity & Kashmiri Hindu Pandits have secured their legitimate stakes back in the land of their origin. But this certainly is not what the ‘literati’ or the ‘agent provocateurs’ have in mind.
Desperation in ‘literary’ & ‘artistic’ voices becomes shriller in the backdrop of various fund sponsoring fronts getting exposed –is it a coincidence?
LikeLike
Thanks Lalit, Seccularisation of Kashmiri unrest is a huge task undertaken by the self proclaimed liberals .
LikeLike
Since Lalit Ambardar’s diatribe says nothing about my piece, I can only assume it was sent to the wrong address. Therefore, I will pass on the tempting–not really–opportunity to respond.
LikeLike
On the question of Kashmir, all of us, including you, a leading historian on your subject and I, a moron software engineer, are double dealers and I do not see much of a weight in your holier-than- this-autumn attitude at the end of your article. In some other place, and at some other time, you would have argued that the writers should be opposed by writing and constructive criticism alone, but Rushdie become untouchable in Kashmir – so might be Naipaul I reckon. Special circumstances in Kashmir that we need to bear in mind? Yeah, that’s one of the arguments in favour of AFSPA – the same pattern, the same logic is used as a double edged sword – it only depends on who is using it.
You would demand all events related to art, literature and music (ok I added the last two, but it would be the same I guess) should take place only when an absolute normally returns to the valley, but then would use your intellectual clout to whack away any such symbolic gesture even if it happens after a few months of relative peace in the valley. Not even a moron in a hurry like me will believe that all is well in the valley, but to demand an absolute peace as a priori condition for any literary event is to deny people a space to assemble, discuss and debate with a greater community of writers and artists. Not every day they get to see to writer from Yale (or Dublin for that matter)
As an aside, going by the same logic of having an absolute normally as a priori condition, India and Pakistan should call of all diplomatic talks because it would symbolize that all is well between the two? Will that be desirable?
You can always find words or sentences that would reveal some dark sinister design to you and then you could cling on to it to your heart’s content to justify your stand, but I think the greater question is whether you really think that normalcy in the valley can be restored and that Indian state can still win over the hearts and minds of people and the state can be run democratically, or you believe that Indian state has already lost its democratic battle and either the status quo, which undemocratic, oppressive and brutal or the azadi is the only way? I am not sure but I guess the later is your belief, but even in that case, does it not make sense for writer of Kashmir to participate in a discussion and debate with the wider audience, if only to tell their stories?
When Gilani and Co can declare in Delhi amid police protection that azadi is the only way, why Pandita cannot assume that he can talk about everything that he thinks is relevant for Kashmir. His everything may not encompass all that you believe to constitute everything, but surely that could have been articulated that in the event itself?
LikeLike
Dear Despondent,
If you wish to call yourself a “double-dealer” on “the question of Kashmir”, please feel free to do so; I am perfectly willing to take your word on it. I, on the other hand, deny the charge. Your evidence to incriminate me in the charge is based on nothing but speculation about what I might or might not have argued.
As things stand, I have not made any of the arguments you predict—on no knowledge of my views—I would make in your hypothetical scenario. I don’t know what you mean by my making “Rushdie…untouchable in Kashmir…[or] Naipaul”. I have not brought up the correctness or incorrectness of an invitation to either Rushdie or Naipaul to participate in any literary event in the valley. I have only stated what I believe the organizers themselves of the now cancelled event have stated, viz. that Rushdie had not been invited. You have pulled Naipaul into the picture for reasons best known to you. I could not possibly comment on that.
Yes, Kashmiris do have “special circumstances” bearing down on their lives. The regularly unchecked and uncorrected misuse of draconian laws such as the AFSPA is certainly one of those “special circumstances”. Whether or not you choose to think these “special circumstances” worthy of “bear[ing] in mind” is not for me to say. To me they are vitally important when it comes to assessing and weighing any argument that will suggest things are “normal” in Kashmir and that free thought and expression have free rein there. To a “double-dealer” such as you have confessed yourself to be, there may a double-edged sword involved to be used variously depending on who wields it. But I, for one, am unequivocal in stating that the freedoms of Kashmiris have been, at the very least, severely compromised. They are put under restraints such as I never have to face as a middle-class, urban, educated Indian whose familial home is in Delhi.
In your next paragraph, you indulge once again in speculating on what I might or might not do with some alleged “intellectual clout” you credit me with possessing “after a few months of relative peace in the valley”. Even I don’t know what I might or might not do that far ahead in the future, let alone whether I might even be around to do or not do it. So for you to claim so confidently any ability to predict my behaviour is—well—ludicrous.
And where have I asked for “an absolute peace as [an] a priori condition for” anything. But what I will dispute is your apparent suggestion that while there might not be “absolute normally” [sic] in Kashmir, something close to it exists so that all participation by Kashmiris in any expression of their views, political or cultural, can be self-evidently guaranteed protection from harassment, imprisonment, torture, disappearance or death. The evidence from just the past three and a half years alone proves this is not true and I have tried in my piece to point to some of that evidence. I am sure anyone—not a self-admitted double-dealer of course—could draw up a longer list than I have in less time than you can say “I am a moron in a hurry” (though I do wish you wouldn’t be so self-deprecatory; it’s embarrassing to witness).
The sense in your analogy to diplomatic talks between India and Pakistan escapes me entirely, so I’ll not comment on it. Nor do I see any sense in your reference to Gilani and the equivalence you draw between his right to free expression in Delhi and Pandita’s in Kashmir. I have not anywhere in my piece denied Mr. Pandita his right to speak either in Kashmir or anywhere else about anything he might wish to speak about. What I have questioned is his suggestion that the freedom he enjoys to speak about, as he put it, “everything [he] felt strongly about” is universal in Kashmir; the implicit claim that he does not enjoy—as do I and other Indians like me—privileges that are denied most Kashmiris in the valley is what I contest.
You say you “think the greater question is whether [I] really think that normalcy in the valley can be restored and that Indian state can still win over the hearts and minds of people and the state can be run democratically, or [whether I] believe that Indian state has already lost its democratic battle and either the status quo, which undemocratic, oppressive and brutal or the azadi is the only way?”.
To this rather long question your answer is—once again—speculation about what my answer might be. I am tempted to leave you to your speculations with one bit of unsolicited advice, viz. not to build theories about my views on so little concrete evidence of what they are.
However, I feel it is important—if only for myself—to state some part of my position on your “question”. I have no way of knowing what the Indian state will or will not do in Kashmir; I can only hope that it will do the right thing and that is to ensure that normalcy is restored in the valley in the only way it can be, which is by respecting the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for me to say what those wishes are; but certainly for the Indian state to ascertain them with ethical courage and honesty, no matter what the consequences might be for its own future there.
LikeLike
The loss is of Kashmiri people, read this
http://www.kashmirdispatch.com/prose/02095615-harud-season-of-despondency-and-loss-kashmir.htm
Harud: Season of despondency and loss By Dr Nyla Ali Khan
LikeLike
Your article in its indignation fails to explain to us the following issues:
1. How can a petition be signed by 200 hundred people without organisation, co-ordination and when a draft is agreed upon, some element of individual agency being surrendered to a broader representative view (by this I mean down the very mechanics, the nuts and bolts, of word selection)? (especially, the ranking from writer/filmmaker to student/investment banker to unemployed).
2. If Kashmir is so abnormal that a gathering of writers cannot take place, doesn’t that justify the State of Exception of its legal regime, the AFSPA, the PSA and the suspension of Fundamental Rights?
3. Your invective certainly doesn’t address the concern of other writers who believe one clique is attempting to suppress a diverse range of opinion. What if a mad person stumbles in and praises India- that is has prevented Kashmir from becoming Afghanisthan (but a different sort of hell)? One also needs to point out that since your position is that rights are supreme over expression, you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those who want Salman Rushdie dead. You may not agree with the company you have chosen but this is where the gains have fallen.
LikeLike
Dear W.T.F.
(1) Seriously? An open letter on the internet — in this day and age when FB users and “twitter messiahs” abound — requires sophisticated organization, does it? Seriously? I mean as of today I can read a whole bunch of US state department cables that tell of Uncle Sam’s misdeeds–yes, Uncle Sam whose institutions of secrecy include the CIA– without even needing a password. Information flies, I thought, in our 21st century. These are not exactly the days of the anti-Ilbert Bill agitation, are they?
As the open letter you are talking about clearly mentions, there were 14 original signatories–I imagine they drafted the letter, communicating with each other through probably no means more sophisticated than email or Mr. Bell’s gift to humanity, the telephone (I have no idea because I was not part of the drafting “cabal”) which was then opened to endorsement by any one who agreed with its perspective (I was one of the later signatories, myself, and believe me there was no gun put to my head nor was a carrier pigeon with signet ring seals involved). Somehow, I see no reason to imagine a super-organization, with off-shore accounts and perhaps a few missiles tucked under the table at work here.
And, no, I don’t think there was any ranking involved–perhaps Shivam Vij, who was ‘managing’ (evil ring leader of this orchestrated conspiracy, perhaps?) will confirm. I do not suspect him of instituting the varnashramadharma through that list of signatories.
(2) Let me return your second question with my own back to you. Kashmir is normal is it? Which is why it is the most militarized territory in the world, perhaps.
(3) Perhaps you could point out where I have used invective in my response? Actually, don’t bother because I know I not done so anywhere. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word instead.
Next, what “clique” are you talking about? And how has it managed to suppress any other voices. That is a question I have also asked to someone above here. If you are referring to the open letter and its signatories–most of whom must be like me, people who have no clue who most of the other signatories are–then I must ask you where the open letter says anything that prevents anyone from expressing themselves in any way they want?
Finally, you make the following statement in what sounds like a rather feverish state of mind:
“One also needs to point out that since your position is that rights are supreme over expression, you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those who want Salman Rushdie dead.”
That is just so distasteful it reflects poorly on you, not anyone else. It is also an entirely bizarre piece of reasoning (feverish state notwithstanding): how are “rights” a separate category from “expression”? In any case, if you are speaking of the right to “freedom of expression”, my views in favour of it is plainly stated in my “response”. Perhaps, once the febrile state has subsided a little, you could re-read, or even just read, the relevant passage.
LikeLike
P.S.: To the original 14 signatories: Could you return my soul and individual agency to me? I sort of need them. They were only on loan, you know!
LikeLike
Mridu Rai is right, the eternal uncomprehending “innocence” of the Indian liberals is their strongest weapon – behind that “innocence” a barely concealed cunning that seeks now to discredit those questioning their right to take over the discourse on Kashmir –
“phoren” (such a cute formulation! those adorable innocent Indians and their lapses into the vernacular!) or domestic is not an issue, given that the most talented Indian artist of modern times was hounded out of India by Hindu nationalists – domicile and even nationality do not confer any kind of “right to speak” still less validation –
what these establishment shills fail to realize is that the truth speaks loud and clear, and not all the well-funded and protected literary festivals can outshine a single word of truth spoken under desperate dangers by the Kashmiris who risk jail, torture and death for speaking out – the words of the prophets are indeed written on the walls of Kashmir, on facebook and on the youtube videos the indian state and its lackeys keep trying to suppress –
also, there is the small matter of literary talent, woefully lacking in all I’ve seen and read by the defenders and promoters of the “literary” festival – talent too prefers the truth and can be found instead in the outpouring of Kashmiri voices, music and art and will not be turned to serve Indian interests
LikeLike
Take it as a testament of my respect, and not of my blind zeal to be critical, that I wish the people who asked such necessary questions did not choose to (sometimes), and ultimately are not able to (for the majority), actually make something intellectually and politically special of this event. Instead we are engaged happily in blog rants and comment wars – where, thanks to net restrictions such as you identify, many Kashmiri people might not even have access to them.
Nothing in the world is ever immune from politicization, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere. If we decided not to act or speak or hold events until we could do so without symbolic (and yes, political) meanings accruing to those actions, then we would have to wait an awful long time. I think – personally – forever!
It seems to me that your point about the people of Kashmir not being free to speak without repercussions, and your asking Rahul Pandita to “distinguish himself from the Kashmiris who are in Kashmir and who might have to bear the repercussions of participating in the sort of “free” exchange of ideas the Harud festival envisaged, who might have to pay for their participation long after the festival has folded its tents and decamped” etc etc – seem as willing to be complicit with state ideals, not with a false sense of ‘normalcy’ but certainly with the stifled, speechless status quo of Kashmir. Why, of all things in this article, is the fact that people “might have to pay for their participation” taken so unquestioningly, with so little anger? This is the axiom which really demands all of our angry energies, not poor Rahul Pandita’s little foibles.
LikeLike
JK,
You say: “Nothing in the world is ever immune from politicization”. I couldn’t agree more. The point I was making was precisely that we need to recognize that, not act as though it were not true. You will recall that I was making that point in reference to Mr. Pandita’s claim that he “didn’t care how this festival was being described.”
“Poor Rahul Pandita’s little foibles” in fact do not concern or interest me very much. It is how “Poor Rahul Pandita’s” piece does indeed demonstrate so little anger about the fact that people in Kashmir “might have to pay for their participation” that concerns me. Let alone the absence of outrage about this negation of the ordinary liberties available to most Indians, “Poor Rahul Pandita”, using his own free position as a guide, does not even acknowledge such denial exists.
I’m not sure how you have decided that I have been unquestioning about the denial to most Kashmiris of the right to speak freely without repercussions. I must contend that that is an entirely incorrect reading of my piece. After all, I raise that point; “Poor Rahul Pandita” does not.
LikeLike
Oops – “that I wish” ought to be “that I lament”! Bad editing and no sense as a consequence. My apologies :D
LikeLike
I appreciate your honesty in admitting that it is not the famous Kashmiryat but the army that makes Amarnath Yatra possible. So had it not been ‘jingoistic’ by the army, I am sure your separatist friends would have tried every dirty trick to stop the holy yatra
I don’t think a self appointed Kashmir expert sitting in US has any right to question a Kashmiri Pandit on whether he can call himself a Kashmiri or not. That too because of your belief that all Pandits hounded out from their homes by Islamic terrorist have lost the right to speak on Kashmir
People like you are nothing but scavengers who thrive in the feeds of Kashmiri Militants and pro-Pakistani elements
LikeLike
Everyone is exposed in this article. Must read , please publish the entire article, so that more kashmiri voice is heard
.All those who claim to be my representatives think of my Kashmir as a prostitute-Basharat Ali.
http://www.countercurrents.org/ali020911.htm
They Brought Harud To My Voice
By Basharat Ali
02 September, 2011
Countercurrents.org
LikeLike
I am glad the proposed festival is generating an engaging debate even through its cancellation, If you ignore the pathetic outpouring of personal venom against individuals which has sadly become a routine.
LikeLike
This thread is closed.
LikeLike