Political events are seldom outcome of logic. They are mostly determined by the capability of domination and will of a nation to resist it. The logic is used by both to justify there action. Outcome of the clash basically depend upon how logically a side is capable of formulating its case. Parties are disproportionately placed in terms of power and resources of communication in case of Kashmir. The oppressors seldom bother to formulate their case logically. Most of the logic advanced in favour of subjugation is weak and self defeating. Yet the oppressors manage to continue there occupation and project themselves as victims. This is possible for them simply because those who represent us are bereft of skills of articulation and a customed to repeating same thing which they have memorized once for all times to come. This repetition of same old sermons made European Union delegation indifferent towards Hurriyat Leaders inspite of the fact that E. U is more pro active towards Kashmir and has recently appointed a special rapporteur to monitor the situation over here.
Coming to the logic of occupation it is most often repeated by the Indian Prime Minister that borders have become irrelevant in twenty first century. If we try to understand this argument in context of technological advancements made by Humans in the field of Information Technology the argument seems to be sound. Iron curtains of cold war era have become irrelevant. It is impossible now to keep people caged within borders conceal informations and hide oppression and Human Rights abuses. State as an instrument of cultural proselytization has also lost its relevance. QTVs, Peace TVs and PtVs are always there to erase the attempts of Indianisation. But one wonders when same Prime Minister says that no solution of Kashmir problem that envisages change of borders is acceptable to India. If borders have become irrelevant why then insistence on a solution without change of borders. It simply means that inspite of being irrelevant borders do have a meaning and it is this meaning of the borders that make Kashmiris to reject any solution that doest provide for change of borders.
Ever since insurgence started in Kashmir successive governments of state and New Delhi clame that things are moving towards normalization. It is pleaded that most of the people are interested in the issues of bread and butter, development and Peace. There are few miscreants who create trouble otherwise the situation is normal. If the situation is normal then there should be no reason for refusal of demilitarization. But once proposals of demilitarization are made both central as well as state government reject these. By doing so they simply expose the worth of their claims of normalization. There are some who believe that some incidents are engineered to project abnormalcy of the situation the way cultural events are organised to project normalcy.
India is one of the most heterogeneous countries of the world. It has almost all religions within its territory and its people speak hundreds of languages. Inspite of this heterogeneity India constitutes a notion because Hum Sab Aak Hain. As compared to India Kashmir is less heterogeneous. Eighty percent of its People profess Islam. Twenty percent profess Hinduism and Buddhism. There has been no history of animosity between different religious groups. Whatever happened in 1947 was in extensions of riots that occurred in Punjab. Even these riots remained confined to Muslims and Hindus of Jammu region. Kashmiris and Dogras had never a problem of conflict or clashes. What ever poison exists in Ladakh it is inducted from Delhi used as an antidote against unity among Kashmiris. Linguistically inspite of heterogeneity the issue of state language of Jammu and Kashmir has been settled for all times by the maharajas of Kashmir and Urdu remains the state language. Despite non existence of friction between different segments of Kashmir society Kashmir is projected as a complicated problem, an area with diverse ethnic, religious and Linguistic groups. Every group having different political aspiration. If India inspite of unparalled heterogeneity diversity, conflict and clash on the issues of religion and language can constitute political entity, why cant Kashmir emerge as one.
Another fallacious argument given in favor of status quo is that ‘if Kashmir secedes minorities living within it are likely to become insecure.’ The question is if minorities in Kashmir can’t go along with the majority why should Kashmiris feel secure within a Hindu majority Indian state.
Kashmiri Muslims follow sufistic Islam. They are different from Muslims of the rest of the sub-continent .this argument is often advanced by those who plead a case for status quo in Kashmir but in the same breath they argue that if Kashmir secedes from India, Muslims within India will become insecure. If Kashmiri Muslims are different, why should Indian Muslims face repercussions of their separation?
Coming to the logic of occupation it is most often repeated by the Indian Prime Minister that borders have become irrelevant in twenty first century. If we try to understand this argument in context of technological advancements made by Humans in the field of Information Technology the argument seems to be sound. Iron curtains of cold war era have become irrelevant. It is impossible now to keep people caged within borders conceal informations and hide oppression and Human Rights abuses. State as an instrument of cultural proselytization has also lost its relevance. QTVs, Peace TVs and PtVs are always there to erase the attempts of Indianisation. But one wonders when same Prime Minister says that no solution of Kashmir problem that envisages change of borders is acceptable to India. If borders have become irrelevant why then insistence on a solution without change of borders. It simply means that inspite of being irrelevant borders do have a meaning and it is this meaning of the borders that make Kashmiris to reject any solution that doest provide for change of borders.
Ever since insurgence started in Kashmir successive governments of state and New Delhi clame that things are moving towards normalization. It is pleaded that most of the people are interested in the issues of bread and butter, development and Peace. There are few miscreants who create trouble otherwise the situation is normal. If the situation is normal then there should be no reason for refusal of demilitarization. But once proposals of demilitarization are made both central as well as state government reject these. By doing so they simply expose the worth of their claims of normalization. There are some who believe that some incidents are engineered to project abnormalcy of the situation the way cultural events are organised to project normalcy.
India is one of the most heterogeneous countries of the world. It has almost all religions within its territory and its people speak hundreds of languages. Inspite of this heterogeneity India constitutes a notion because Hum Sab Aak Hain. As compared to India Kashmir is less heterogeneous. Eighty percent of its People profess Islam. Twenty percent profess Hinduism and Buddhism. There has been no history of animosity between different religious groups. Whatever happened in 1947 was in extensions of riots that occurred in Punjab. Even these riots remained confined to Muslims and Hindus of Jammu region. Kashmiris and Dogras had never a problem of conflict or clashes. What ever poison exists in Ladakh it is inducted from Delhi used as an antidote against unity among Kashmiris. Linguistically inspite of heterogeneity the issue of state language of Jammu and Kashmir has been settled for all times by the maharajas of Kashmir and Urdu remains the state language. Despite non existence of friction between different segments of Kashmir society Kashmir is projected as a complicated problem, an area with diverse ethnic, religious and Linguistic groups. Every group having different political aspiration. If India inspite of unparalled heterogeneity diversity, conflict and clash on the issues of religion and language can constitute political entity, why cant Kashmir emerge as one.
Another fallacious argument given in favor of status quo is that ‘if Kashmir secedes minorities living within it are likely to become insecure.’ The question is if minorities in Kashmir can’t go along with the majority why should Kashmiris feel secure within a Hindu majority Indian state.
Kashmiri Muslims follow sufistic Islam. They are different from Muslims of the rest of the sub-continent .this argument is often advanced by those who plead a case for status quo in Kashmir but in the same breath they argue that if Kashmir secedes from India, Muslims within India will become insecure. If Kashmiri Muslims are different, why should Indian Muslims face repercussions of their separation?
No comments:
Post a Comment