Part III
The two sides of a
cause, or a narrative, or an ideology are like the two sides of the same coin,
which has no value without either of them. But still one thinks it’s superior
to the other and the other dismisses it as though its existence is
inconsequential. But one thing that comes about, seen holistically, is that
both the sides are adamant, arrogant and insensitive to each other. The
reality is that, one exists because of the other and if one hadn’t been there
perhaps the other wouldn’t be there too. There’s a “Bhakt”, only because
there’s also a “Sickular”. There’s a “Sold Media” because there’s also a
“Modia”. And in the melee, the coin seems meaningless.
To give an example,
let’s go through a conversation between “Any One” and “Other One”, who
represent the two sides. They both are friends and come from similar
backgrounds. But still they are on the two sides and here goes their
conversation, about the recent CAA, Citizenship Amendment Act.
Any One: OK [Referring
to the fact that the militarization of Kashmir started with the Pandit exodus
in the late eighties]. But it goes back to my fundamental problem with
addressing one historical injustice by committing new ones. With Kashmir, I
think the recent moves will be seen by history as having created another
Palestine. I think there's plenty of awareness about the plight of the Pandits.
May be, it wasn't talked about in the 90s, but that's all I hear these days. I
have a Pandit aunt who lives in Kolkata. Maybe that's why I was aware even
through the 90s. Competitive injustice will kill us all.
Other One: Well, as for Kashmir, I visited with my patents
and family just two years back, just to get a firsthand experience, in the
middle of another crackdown where internet was stopped. My driver for the
entire stay was a Shia and he has absolutely no problem with India. He is not anti-India
and he hates Pakistan and holds the Sunnis for their plight. So you have all
the minorities – Buddhist in Ladakh, Pandits, Shias – all have a totally
different perspective than the Sunnis. But you always hear the Sunni narrative
– what about the rest of the minorities? I have problem with any narrative
which becomes one sided and I see that most for Kashmir, as if it’s only all
Sunni. So, what’s the solution? Can the Pandits ever be rehabilitated to
Kashmir? And if not, then would you be fine with that? What I don’t get
anywhere is any alternative solution that would keep Pakistan at bay and also
restore the rights of the Pandits and the Shias.
Any One: The average guy will not know about the historical
injustice. Just like the Kashmiri kids don't know about the Pandit exodus.
Their personal reality is what will define their attitude towards the state.
Other One: So what do you think should be the right
solution?
Any One: I think it's OK to say “I’m not sure”. Definitely
for me. And the state should also be humble enough to say that. Involving the
stakeholders is critical. They killed that possibility in Kashmir. And they may
have killed in Assam too. The autocracy we are living in doesn't understand
these things. What consultations did they hold with Kashmiris before deciding
their fate? What did they discuss with the Assamese? The arrogance shocks me.
Perhaps it’s no coincidence that it's 100 years since the Rowlatt Act and the
worst of the colonial oppression. Echoes of an inglorious past.
Other One: Assam is too early to say what they did and how
much they consulted the local people – I don’t have any information about that.
But yes I can “assume” they must have done more. Now for Kashmir, not only
they, but successive governments have been talking for thirty years. And I
would really like to hear from anyone what’s the solution there. Few things are
nonnegotiable I believe you admit. (1) They have to stop all persecution of non-Sunnis,
have to rehabilitate [the] Pandits in letter and spirit, stop marginalizing the
Shias and the Buddhists. (2) They have to stop terrorism in all ways – I think
you also know terrorism can’t thrive without local support. (3) They have to
stop aligning with Pakistan. Do you disagree to these main tenets? It applies
not only to Kashmir but also to the rest of India. I always hear criticism but
no one has ever given a solution. If anyone is saying Kashmir must be allowed
to be independent, then you know how stupid that would be. (1) That would mean
succeeding Kashmir to Pakistan, and (2) That will be a bad precedence for all
other states all of which could then ask for secession. So now, let people
suggest what the possibilities are. I’ve been studying this at least for the
last 10 years and have just heard barbs and idealistic rhetoric but not a
single person who claim to be sympathetic to the Kashmiri cause has given any
solution – including Arundhati Roy, Barkha Dutt and so many western media.
Well, the comparison with Rowland act is not technically
very correct. British India was predominantly nonviolent and Kashmir is not.
Not even the NE, but the latter has become predominantly nonviolent and I am
hopeful something will be soon worked out there. But without stopping terrorism
in Kashmir, I don’t see how things will change. I have one more major problem
with Kashmir. And I see this elsewhere too. There’s a sympathy for the Sunnis worldwide
but there’s no sympathy for other sects of Muslims. No Kashmir sympathizer ever
talks about POK. I believe you know how their demographics have been ruthlessly
altered by Pakistan. But even after 70 years, the demographics of Indian
Kashmir hasn’t changed at all for the Muslims, though the Hindus have been
totally kicked out. Still, I didn’t find anything significant about POK in the
internet. The same Article 370 has been violated both by Pakistan and China in
their parts of Kashmir but hell broke loose when India wanted to end that. What
do you have to say about this total silence about the Kashmiris of POK? I have
problem with such one sided narrative. If you see, I have come to realize, the
both sides of a cause actually are equally one sided – the government at one
side and ones who oppose at the other side. Neither side ever takes a holistic
view and I feel both sides are equally guilty of not solving any problem, just because
of this one sidedness.
And finally I’m also amused at this stand that whenever
something wrong happens to the Hindus, people want to forget that totally. Like
this case of the Hindus of East Pakistan – they are the second most persecuted
religions community in the world after the Jews. Then the Pandits – they are
again one of the very few religious communities who have been 100% evicted from
their homeland. In both cases people are ready to forget such huge colossal
wrongs and want to move ahead. So then the other side can also say, “Anyway,
you want to forget. This Kashmir thing will also be forgotten after 50-60 years.”
Are you fine with this? Of course not, and no one can be fine with this. So my
original question comes: What’s the solution which doesn’t ask for forgetting
anything?
Now related to this is my even a larger problem – people always
side with the first aggressor and accuse the retaliator because the retaliation
is always 100 times more than the first aggression. Everyone accuses US for the
nuclear attack on Japan but they totally forget what instigated that. For the
Palestine cause too, it’s very clear who’s the first aggressor and if you do a “what
if” analysis of what could have happened if the first aggression didn’t happen,
then you can realize how different everything would have been. No one thinks
this, that if the Ottoman Empire had sided with the Allied forces in both the World
Wars, perhaps there won’t be any Palestine problem today. So most of the plight
in the Middle East is created by that, and how can you totally ignore that,
like ignoring Japan’s responsibility in bringing such loses to its own people?
I’m always in for healthy debates which enlighten me more
than anything as I believe in seeing both sides with equal importance.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment