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: I feel it's incorrect to believe that Arundhati Roy
or Barkha Dutt or folks like us can magically come up with a solution [for
Kashmir]. It has to be some [a] combination of declaring the LOC an
international border, giving the current Kashmiris proper rights and representation,
a roadmap for demilitarization, a roadmap for minority rights, strengthening
our border protection, etc. Specifics needs much deeper and sincere engagement
with the valley. But now this is all academic talk. After August, the chances
of this happening are zero. People like me are ready to join the militancy. Not
me as in me, but people with our kind of background.
Other One: Well, when you say Kashmiris I’m sure you’re
referring only to the Sunnis because the Shias and others don’t have much
problem – I saw that first hand two years ago. Now I would be also curious to
know what rights and representations the Kashmiris in India didn’t have between
1947 and the late eighties that anyone anywhere else in India had. All
political parties in Kashmir were run by Kashmiris and I don’t take the crap
that elections were rigged and hence they had to take to militancy. Elections
have been rigged in Bengal all along till recently. First of all, it was never militarized.
Even to get into talks, there has to be a status quo and few things like
“azaadi” and sympathy towards terrorists and Pakistan have to be kept aside. So
both sides have to come to some compromise that never happened, I see. See,
these things are easy said than done. And you have very strong points, so do I,
and both have logic and reasoning. Another problem is that my side and your
side both are adamant and arrogant, claiming superiority in ideology and
humanism. I see some very silly arguments coming up from both sides.
By the way, going by your logic of joining militancy, don’t
you think the Hindus of Bangladesh and the Pandits should have all taken to
militancy by now because their persecutions and human rights violation have
been much more than the Sunnis of Indian Kashmir? See, this logic also doesn’t
hold good. Many more people have been deprived of many things but they never
took to militancy. Same goes for the Maoists – nothing can justify their
militancy, or for that matter [that of] the Lankan Tamils.
Any One: Incorrect to assume that I'm only talking about
rights and representation of Sunni Kashmiris. Everyone has rights. The idea of
a democracy is not majority rule, which is what our politicians have made us
believe, but a voice for everyone, no matter how feeble. If we carve out a
Kashmir solution while ignoring the Shias and Pandits we will just sow the
seeds of a new problem. Anyway, like I said, this debate is completely
academic, because for the foreseeable future Kashmir is lost to India as a
result of the August actions. As far as why Hindus didn't become militant in
Bangladesh, I don't know. These are hard questions. Regarding militancy, where
it does exist, one must try and understand the reasons behind it. Understanding
terrorism isn’t the same as condoning it. For a while now anyone who tries to
do the former is branded as someone who is doing the latter, and gets called
terrorist sympathizer and anti-national. That in my view is an intentional
political strategy that ultimately damages the country.
Other One: To me, if I see from little above, taking a
holistic view, both sides seem to be agenda driven without any side trying to
understanding the other. Whenever it comes to [the] persecuted Hindus, the
response is, either “I can’t say” or “Let’s not bring that here”, or “Let’s move
on, that’s past, why rake history”. And to me that aggravates the chasm between
the two sides. To me both sides have serious biases and both sides think they
are doing the right thing from their perspective. Like I always failed to
understand why there’s no sympathy for the second largest persecuted religious
community in the world, that’s the Hindus of East Pakistan, from the people who
seem to be so much concerned about Palestine and Kashmir, whereas the numbers
of the latter are lower in some order of magnitude than that of the former.
There’s absolutely nothing significant available in the internet about the
conditions of the Shias in POK. No one seems to be bothered about them but all
are so concerned about the Sunnis of Indian Kashmir. There’s a bias in many
other things which again increases the gaps between the two sides. So unless
both sides reconcile, and stop taking moral high ground over the other, things
will not stop.
I and you may be a skewed representative of the two sides –
I said skewed because very few from your side seem to be as sensible and well-read
and well opinionated like you and I can say the same for my side too. I feel so
strongly about something without bias and you for something else. I can’t agree
that I’m communal and you’re of course not anti-national. But still, see, how
much “difference of opinion” exists on some very fundamental things between us.
At least I listen to you and you hear me without me calling you anti national
and you calling me communal. But that’s not the case for all from my and your
sides. I perhaps can’t make you understand what makes me sad and what makes me
feel helpless about certain reactions I see about certain things. I’m sure you
too feel why I don’t think like you. So, you know that the thing we are dealing
with is not simple and unless everyone behaves like us, there’s absolutely no hope.
Next time BJP will lose, Congress will again carry out the same mistakes that
will again bring back a more ferocious BJP after few terms and this will go on.
Any One: Wondering why if Ahmadis could access a process to
gain citizenship why couldn't the Hindus from Bangladesh access the same
process?
Other One: As I always maintain, Hindus of Bangladesh can’t
be compared with anyone else. They are technically Indian citizens who were
denied their basic right – they were not allowed to enter India – and that
resulted in them being the second largest victim of persecution after the Jews.
As I told, if I’m the citizen then they too are, and I could have been also one
of them who couldn’t enter India, or rather not allowed to enter India. The partition
made it mandatory for India to accept all willing non-Muslim people from both
East and West Pakistan – everyone from West Pakistan was allowed to enter and
only a part from East Bengal was. So the Hindus of Bangladesh can’t be mixed
with anyone else. And no question of asylum for them – they are Indian citizens
who were deprived of their rights. And then, they are much more persecuted than
anyone else in India. Ahmadi, Baloch etc., etc. – no one faced such genocide
killing 2.5 million.
Part VI
Part VI
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment